Before Obama speaks this evening I want to make a few things particularly clear:
1) Libya is not Rwanda. I was around when Rwanda happened. Rwanda was a clear ethnic conflict. It was not about government it was about two groups of people who were made to hate each other. It was about ordinary people doing un-ordinarily evil things to people they did not know and who had done nothing to them.
2) Obama's own military brass got on TV on Sunday and admitted that Libya posed absolutely no threat to the United States. Without this condition a US president cannot just up and put the military into the middle of a civil war without prior congressional approval. Even Ronald Regan was bright enough to declare that Libya was a threat to the US before he dropped bombs on Ghaddafi's kids.
3) Libya is in the middle of a civil war. Regardless of who you think is right, this is a civil war. It can be ended at any time by those trying to overthrow the government giving up and putting down their arms. I'm not saying that they should, I'm simply stating the facts here. Civil wars are violent bloody things and they are the internal matter of a sovereign state and unless there is verifiable evidence that a war crime is happening such as targeted ethnic cleansing, mass rape, etc. the UN, including the so called Security Council has no standing to interfere.
4) Declarations by the head of state in Libya to "show no mercy" is not evidence of ethnic cleansing anymore than someone saying I'll kill my boss" is indicative that a crime will actually happen.
5) Even IF the no fly zone was somehow legal, the bombing of ground troops is not "no fly zone" but it is in fact a bona fide act of war against the state of Libya and therefore requires the approval of Congress. Furthermore, bombing ground troops and the like is so NOT a part of a no-fly zone that is clearly outside the illegal UN mandate.
6) The UN decision making process does not pre-empt the US Constitution. One cannot make the case that if the UN says it's OK that it's OK under the Constitution.
7) The speed at which the conflict is concluded has no bearing on its legality.
Just want the readership to keep these points in mind when Obama starts talking this evening.
(17 years of informed commentary)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The End of Topeka
To my dismay I sat and read Bob Herbert's column entitled "Separate and Unequal" And I was forced to ask: How long are Negroes, who James Baldwin declared, only exist in America, going to keep on with the "Black kids need to sit next to white kids in order to learn" thing?
Bob is clear about his bias, stating:
That's nice that he has such an opinion, but it is just that. Such a position has diddly squat to do with the potential educational achievement of negroes. And I want the reader to know that I am using "negro" on purpose.
You see if you read Bob Herbert's piece you will note that he does not deal with one very obvious question: If integration is so necessary for educational achievement, then why are white students in America doing so well academically with nary a negro in sight?
Ahh the answer soon shows up in the form of "oh this is about economics". Having affluent people around is what is needed for negro children to do better. Really.
Firstly lets address the whole "who's sitting next to who" question. You know what country has students who kick the tail out of the Affluent White Population(tm) that negroes are enamored with? China. How many white people are in China? How many of them are sitting in classes with Chinese students? I'd hazard to say very few if any at all.
You know another country who's students kick affluent white tail in education? India. How many white people are there in India? I could go on but seriously knowing full well that there are races of people who in the total absence of Affluent White People(tm) are somehow able to graduate engineers, doctors, etc. ought to make a laughing stock of any person who still seriously proposes that the fix for negro education is proximity to "affluent white people".
You know what else ought to make this line of thinking untenable? The huge number of negroes who graduate from HBCU's. Let me tell you that HBCU's are the most separated (segregation is a legal issue) places in America. on most HBCU's there are less white people on campus (if any) than there are black people on HWCUs. Seriously. Check it out. Still those students graduate and find employment and start companies just like their white counterparts. How is this even possible if it is the case that negro achievement is determined by proximity to Affluent White People(tm)?
So this brings me to why I'm using the term "negro" here. Negroes, that American invention as Baldwin pointed out, have this one trait that is mostly absent from other black people, particularly those who are in majority or all black surroundings: They need white folks. Negroes need white folk like Oreos need creme filling. Negroes simply cannot imagine their lives with the absence of the All Mighty White Person (tm). Negroes think that if white people are not involved there is a problem. For negroes white people represent the pinnacle of everything right with the world and whipping boy for anything that goes wrong. Negroes do not take responsibility for self and do for self. They complain when the All Mighty White Man(tm) doesn't give them a part of the All Mighty White World(tm). When the All Mighty White Man(tm) says that he doesn't like black women, negroes tweet about it. They lament and complain and vent in wrathful anger. They can do this for days. Negroes spend an awful lot of time and energy wondering why white people don't like them. Negroes will also complain if negroes act too much like the All Mighty White Man(tm) 'cause that's All Mighty White Man(tm) blasphemy. You wanna know when you're dealing with a negro, see how they deal with non-negroes. Negroes are quick to put non-negroes "in their place" when non-negroes do not show proper adoration of the All Mighty White Man(tm). You want to know when you're dealing with a negro, open a business, do something original. Negroes will pay you no mind. They will offer lip service but no business until or unless you get props from or support of the All Mighty White Man(tm). Then Negroes will talk about how they knew you back when and then negroes will come looking for a hook up. If your business fails, negroes will be talking about what you did wrong and how negroes are bad at business, but those same negroes won't have much to say while you were actually IN business that would help a non-negro stay in business.
I could go on and on about how negroes act but that would be beside the point. The point is that the race or economic background of the students in a school means nothing at all. The determining factors in the success of students are the involvement of parents (which includes feeding their kids, getting them into bed at a decent hour, etc.), the expectations of the schools and the quality of the teachers and the teaching tools. Nothing else matters. There are kids in Africa walking barefoot for miles to go to a one room school. They do that after morning chores which can include things like going to fetch water. They do homework by candlelight. Candle. Light. And negroes here are talking about how to get close to Affluent White People (tm).
Negroes; I tell you.
Bob is clear about his bias, stating:
I favor integration for integration’s sake. This society should be far more integrated in almost every way than it is now.
That's nice that he has such an opinion, but it is just that. Such a position has diddly squat to do with the potential educational achievement of negroes. And I want the reader to know that I am using "negro" on purpose.
You see if you read Bob Herbert's piece you will note that he does not deal with one very obvious question: If integration is so necessary for educational achievement, then why are white students in America doing so well academically with nary a negro in sight?
Ahh the answer soon shows up in the form of "oh this is about economics". Having affluent people around is what is needed for negro children to do better. Really.
Firstly lets address the whole "who's sitting next to who" question. You know what country has students who kick the tail out of the Affluent White Population(tm) that negroes are enamored with? China. How many white people are in China? How many of them are sitting in classes with Chinese students? I'd hazard to say very few if any at all.
You know another country who's students kick affluent white tail in education? India. How many white people are there in India? I could go on but seriously knowing full well that there are races of people who in the total absence of Affluent White People(tm) are somehow able to graduate engineers, doctors, etc. ought to make a laughing stock of any person who still seriously proposes that the fix for negro education is proximity to "affluent white people".
You know what else ought to make this line of thinking untenable? The huge number of negroes who graduate from HBCU's. Let me tell you that HBCU's are the most separated (segregation is a legal issue) places in America. on most HBCU's there are less white people on campus (if any) than there are black people on HWCUs. Seriously. Check it out. Still those students graduate and find employment and start companies just like their white counterparts. How is this even possible if it is the case that negro achievement is determined by proximity to Affluent White People(tm)?
So this brings me to why I'm using the term "negro" here. Negroes, that American invention as Baldwin pointed out, have this one trait that is mostly absent from other black people, particularly those who are in majority or all black surroundings: They need white folks. Negroes need white folk like Oreos need creme filling. Negroes simply cannot imagine their lives with the absence of the All Mighty White Person (tm). Negroes think that if white people are not involved there is a problem. For negroes white people represent the pinnacle of everything right with the world and whipping boy for anything that goes wrong. Negroes do not take responsibility for self and do for self. They complain when the All Mighty White Man(tm) doesn't give them a part of the All Mighty White World(tm). When the All Mighty White Man(tm) says that he doesn't like black women, negroes tweet about it. They lament and complain and vent in wrathful anger. They can do this for days. Negroes spend an awful lot of time and energy wondering why white people don't like them. Negroes will also complain if negroes act too much like the All Mighty White Man(tm) 'cause that's All Mighty White Man(tm) blasphemy. You wanna know when you're dealing with a negro, see how they deal with non-negroes. Negroes are quick to put non-negroes "in their place" when non-negroes do not show proper adoration of the All Mighty White Man(tm). You want to know when you're dealing with a negro, open a business, do something original. Negroes will pay you no mind. They will offer lip service but no business until or unless you get props from or support of the All Mighty White Man(tm). Then Negroes will talk about how they knew you back when and then negroes will come looking for a hook up. If your business fails, negroes will be talking about what you did wrong and how negroes are bad at business, but those same negroes won't have much to say while you were actually IN business that would help a non-negro stay in business.
I could go on and on about how negroes act but that would be beside the point. The point is that the race or economic background of the students in a school means nothing at all. The determining factors in the success of students are the involvement of parents (which includes feeding their kids, getting them into bed at a decent hour, etc.), the expectations of the schools and the quality of the teachers and the teaching tools. Nothing else matters. There are kids in Africa walking barefoot for miles to go to a one room school. They do that after morning chores which can include things like going to fetch water. They do homework by candlelight. Candle. Light. And negroes here are talking about how to get close to Affluent White People (tm).
Negroes; I tell you.
When Man Takes Sides: The logical perspective on A Theological Perspective.
This morning I saw a piece on my FB wall linking to a piece entitled: "When God Takes Sides: A Theological Perspective of the Gang Rape in Cleveland, TX"
which immediately caught my attention because anytime someone claims to know what God is doing or thinking at any given moment I find it quite amusing. Unfortunately given the heaviness of the subject I kept reading. It is clear that the author has much sympathy for the victim here, which he should have, but in his zeal to be, shall I say, non-sexist, he wades into very deep water and drowns in his own lack of clarity. Let me explain.
First let me say at the outset that since I am not a Christian or a follower of any of the "big three" religions which have their origins in the nile valley civilization (Abraham gets no credit from me), I won't be critiquing this piece based on my religious differences with this individual. He is entitled to his belief system. Since that belief system informs his logic it is only proper to base the critique on the theological pool which he draws from. Let us start here:
Lets just name names, OK. The fellow in reference here is Quanell X. He is a Muslim. I do find it particularly...ummm...interesting that this Christian author would point out this Muslim man. Don't you? Quanell X's position has been that he feels that the black males in this situation are being unfairly maligned and misjudged by the news media that he feels regularly portrays black males as animals who are out of control. Whether one agrees that such a judgement is appropriate in this case is besides the point. Quanell does in fact have a point. I will remind the audience that it was Quanell X who brought to light the video a recent beating of an unarmed black male by police officers in Texas. Admittedly I do not know the full extent of Quanell's statements in regarding this Cleveland situation, but to write as if he does not have a larger point that is credible is intellectually dishonest. In any case, that is not a theological argument so it's not really relevant.
Continuing:
I'm sniffling over here. That is such a sweet statement. Awww. Under Christian theology the above holds no water whatsoever. Under Christian theology every human being on the planet is in need of "fixing" because every human being on the planet is born into sin. It is the Christian theological position that humanity is inherently flawed. That sinful state requires "fixing" and the "fix" is Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent re-animation (resurrection). Humans get "fixed" by believing in this "son of God" intercession.
Furthermore, Jesus' actions and statements aside, Christian theology binds the behavior of humans to a set of rules, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments. Some people are under the impression that somehow the commandments no longer apply because Jesus "took care of all that." Others think that because Jesus said that the highest of the commandments is to love your neighbor somehow negates the rest of the commandmens. Sorry. Not the case. In Exodus 20 there are well spelled out "don't do this..." rules that all Christians are bound by. One of them is fornication. For the uninitiated, fornication is sexual intercourse prior to marriage. If this young girl's posts on FB are correct, and anyone who works in the school system knows full well that they are likely truthful, then this girl is clearly in violation of the fornication rule. And had she been alive in Moses' day would have been stoned to death.
As a matter of fact, if we go strictly by the religious codes laid out in scripture, this 11 YO was technically a whore. I know we're not comfortable seeing it that way, but her actions, in the biblical sense was that of a whore. She was a sexually mature female (as in physically) who made herself sexually available to men she was not married to. Personally I don't go along with such conventions, but if you're going to pull the "What God thinks" card, then these are the kinds of things you're going to have to deal with which you may or may not be very comfortable with. Of course that is why a number of so called Christians have a habit of picking and choosing what they like from the Bible in order to make it fit whatever they are doing or thinking at the moment.
This brings me to a point that I have been mulling for quite some time, We are all familiar with the story of the woman caught in adultery from John 8:
You'll note that at no point in this passage did Jesus declare that the woman had not sinned. Go ahead and read it again. The story ends with Jesus telling the woman to "go and sin no more." So even though the men who had accused her were themselves sinners, their own actions did not negate the sin that the woman had committed. Jesus' position was that the men could not mete out punishment (what is referred to as judgment) on her because they themselves were guilty.
Therefore, unlike what is proposed by Mr Pierce, God is on the side of those who take responsibility for their actions and seek to "sin no more". and that includes the males who engaged in the rape of this 11 year old. Therefore; by Christian theology if any of those males involved were to declare that they would "sin no more" they would find the sympathy of Jesus just as much as the woman who committed adultery would have been. They would have the same forgiveness as the thief on the cross. But nowhere in this fellow's piece do we find such a theological point. Nowhere. Go ahead and re-read it. The fact is, contrary to the author's statement that
Based on the words directly from Jesus's mouth, God is on the side of those who seek to "sin no more" and is NOT on the side of those who seek to condemn and punish for their own selfish ends because under Christian theology all have sinned and fallen short and therefore are in need of forgiveness. I suggest Mr. Nelson go and re-read his scripture before he posts on the subject again.
which immediately caught my attention because anytime someone claims to know what God is doing or thinking at any given moment I find it quite amusing. Unfortunately given the heaviness of the subject I kept reading. It is clear that the author has much sympathy for the victim here, which he should have, but in his zeal to be, shall I say, non-sexist, he wades into very deep water and drowns in his own lack of clarity. Let me explain.
First let me say at the outset that since I am not a Christian or a follower of any of the "big three" religions which have their origins in the nile valley civilization (Abraham gets no credit from me), I won't be critiquing this piece based on my religious differences with this individual. He is entitled to his belief system. Since that belief system informs his logic it is only proper to base the critique on the theological pool which he draws from. Let us start here:
one of them a well-known community leader, have started a media campaign whose primary agenda seems to be to discredit the victim. They have made statements to the press saying that she wears make-up, that she dresses provocatively, and that she talks about sex on her Facebook page.
Lets just name names, OK. The fellow in reference here is Quanell X. He is a Muslim. I do find it particularly...ummm...interesting that this Christian author would point out this Muslim man. Don't you? Quanell X's position has been that he feels that the black males in this situation are being unfairly maligned and misjudged by the news media that he feels regularly portrays black males as animals who are out of control. Whether one agrees that such a judgement is appropriate in this case is besides the point. Quanell does in fact have a point. I will remind the audience that it was Quanell X who brought to light the video a recent beating of an unarmed black male by police officers in Texas. Admittedly I do not know the full extent of Quanell's statements in regarding this Cleveland situation, but to write as if he does not have a larger point that is credible is intellectually dishonest. In any case, that is not a theological argument so it's not really relevant.
Continuing:
I believe that God is interested in the wholeness and the redemption of all people. When applied to this 11 year-old girl, I believe that her need for wholeness and redemption is not because she has done something that needs to be “fixed”. She is a surviving-victim; to assign blame to her is to victimize her all over again.
I'm sniffling over here. That is such a sweet statement. Awww. Under Christian theology the above holds no water whatsoever. Under Christian theology every human being on the planet is in need of "fixing" because every human being on the planet is born into sin. It is the Christian theological position that humanity is inherently flawed. That sinful state requires "fixing" and the "fix" is Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent re-animation (resurrection). Humans get "fixed" by believing in this "son of God" intercession.
Furthermore, Jesus' actions and statements aside, Christian theology binds the behavior of humans to a set of rules, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments. Some people are under the impression that somehow the commandments no longer apply because Jesus "took care of all that." Others think that because Jesus said that the highest of the commandments is to love your neighbor somehow negates the rest of the commandmens. Sorry. Not the case. In Exodus 20 there are well spelled out "don't do this..." rules that all Christians are bound by. One of them is fornication. For the uninitiated, fornication is sexual intercourse prior to marriage. If this young girl's posts on FB are correct, and anyone who works in the school system knows full well that they are likely truthful, then this girl is clearly in violation of the fornication rule. And had she been alive in Moses' day would have been stoned to death.
As a matter of fact, if we go strictly by the religious codes laid out in scripture, this 11 YO was technically a whore. I know we're not comfortable seeing it that way, but her actions, in the biblical sense was that of a whore. She was a sexually mature female (as in physically) who made herself sexually available to men she was not married to. Personally I don't go along with such conventions, but if you're going to pull the "What God thinks" card, then these are the kinds of things you're going to have to deal with which you may or may not be very comfortable with. Of course that is why a number of so called Christians have a habit of picking and choosing what they like from the Bible in order to make it fit whatever they are doing or thinking at the moment.
This brings me to a point that I have been mulling for quite some time, We are all familiar with the story of the woman caught in adultery from John 8:
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
You'll note that at no point in this passage did Jesus declare that the woman had not sinned. Go ahead and read it again. The story ends with Jesus telling the woman to "go and sin no more." So even though the men who had accused her were themselves sinners, their own actions did not negate the sin that the woman had committed. Jesus' position was that the men could not mete out punishment (what is referred to as judgment) on her because they themselves were guilty.
Therefore, unlike what is proposed by Mr Pierce, God is on the side of those who take responsibility for their actions and seek to "sin no more". and that includes the males who engaged in the rape of this 11 year old. Therefore; by Christian theology if any of those males involved were to declare that they would "sin no more" they would find the sympathy of Jesus just as much as the woman who committed adultery would have been. They would have the same forgiveness as the thief on the cross. But nowhere in this fellow's piece do we find such a theological point. Nowhere. Go ahead and re-read it. The fact is, contrary to the author's statement that
God chooses the victims of rape over the rapist(s).
Based on the words directly from Jesus's mouth, God is on the side of those who seek to "sin no more" and is NOT on the side of those who seek to condemn and punish for their own selfish ends because under Christian theology all have sinned and fallen short and therefore are in need of forgiveness. I suggest Mr. Nelson go and re-read his scripture before he posts on the subject again.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Un Charter
Many of the readers are in the US and know of my comments regarding the requirement of congressional approval and the war powers act. However; many people are not familiar with the UN charter and below are the relevant portions of the UN charter that I believe makes the current NATO involvement in Libya illegal:
My emphasis
Chapter VII contains the following:
My emphasis.
To recap. It is clear that this civil war in Libya is an internal matter as recognized by article 2 of the UN Charter. Furthermore it is clear that that the security council took sides in the Libyan civil war which is in clear violation of article 40 which requires impartiality to both parties.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
My emphasis
Chapter VII contains the following:
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
My emphasis.
To recap. It is clear that this civil war in Libya is an internal matter as recognized by article 2 of the UN Charter. Furthermore it is clear that that the security council took sides in the Libyan civil war which is in clear violation of article 40 which requires impartiality to both parties.
US, UK FR and UN Criminality
In what is as far as I know an unprecedented move by the UN, it has taken sides in a civil war. The UN charter does not give it the authority to interfere with the internal business of it's member states. It may do so only if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing, neither of which are happening or has been threatened to happen in Libya.
The UN has always made statements in regards to its disapproval of actions taken by parties in a conflict. The UN has always sent peacekeepers or other troops to protect civilians but it has never actually taken sides in a conflict and armed either side or taken military action on behalf of one party or the other. We should note that "civilians" are people who are NOT engaged in conflict but who are trapped in a conflict zone. Anyone in Libya who has taken up arms against the government of Libya, regardless of whether one thinks it is a legitimate government or not, is NOT an innocent civilian by any definition. Therefore; we need to ask, since when did the UN become a tool for certain countries to determine the course of events in other countries? Or for those of us who have been paying attention, what has changed in the world where the UN is not blatantly a tool of imperial powers? There is a difference between being a disinterested party and a neutral party. No one is saying that the UN should be the former, but it MUST be the latter. Now let me get at the US.
If anything shows that the Nobel Peace prize is now a joke of an award, at least as it is purported to uphold the principle of "peace", It is the recent actions of president Obama. Obama has just upped the Bush antics and in my opinion has fallen square into impeachment territory. When it was clear that Ghaddafi was not just going to sit and be tossed out on his duff as others around him had, Obama went on national TV and said that Ghaddafi "must go now". I don't know about you, but the last I checked there were 50 states and a few territories none of which include the state of Libya. So exactly what standing does Obama (or any head of state) have to say whether Ghaddafi has to go or stay? It would seem that decision is in the sole providence of the people of Libya and for them to work out. It is clear that our imperial black president has gotten comfortable with his position.
A Clear Act Of War
Let us be clear here, a "no fly zone" is an act of war. Bombing anything in libya is an act of war. Bombing a building where the head of state of Libya may be is a brazen act of war. Therefore I need to ask where was the congressional authorization for this? The War Power's act does not apply here at all. Libya posed and still does not pose any immediate or long term threat to the United States. Libya has, in fact, been a "partner" in the ongoing so called "war on terror". Therefore; by any legal standards this is a blatant war of aggression against the state of Libya given sanction by the so called "United Nations". Let me repeat for those having a difficulty understanding this:
This is a blatant war of aggression, without required congressional approval, against the sovereign state of Libya, which poses and has posed no threat to the United States of America or any of her so called "allies". All of this is being done with full knowledge of and backing of the so called "United Nations" which itself is in violation of it's own mandate.
Since Libya hasn't been a threat to the US on a state level. Since libya has been a "partner" against Al-Qaeda, the bombing cannot even fall under the "war against terror" laws such as the AMUF(most of which are unconstitutional). There is no excuse for this blatant trespass of international law to which the US is beholden to.
And let us not be fooled by this "coalition" bullshit either. This is the work of England (can we say Pan-Am), the French and the US. Of the bombs that fell on Libya in the past two days 122 were of US origins and 22 were of UK origins (as reported this morning on GMA on ABC 7 NY).
In stark contrast is the response to Bahrain which has been killing opposition protestors none of whom to my knowledge had actually taken up arms against the government and therefore are in fact legal civilians. There are no "no fly zones". There are no US..sorry, "coalition" planes firing on government forces. As a matter of fact our "ally" the monarchy of Saudi Arabia who've been in power longer than Ghaddafi has wet dreams about, has sent troops into that country to help that government put down the protests.
On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, in which she showed that having a woman at the helm can result in the same shit coverage and shit questions as the men, had some military official on who said that the situation in Bahrain was "different" because they are an "ally" and have been "cooperative" in the War on Terror (tm). Really? I told y'all already that Mubarak was "our boy in the Middle East" which is why the administration went through all manner of back channel means to make the transition "orderly". Ghaddafi is apparently not a "wholly owned subsidiary of the United States" and therefore not an "ally" and therefore the rules are different.
I will not even begin to discuss the ongoing open air jail that is Gaza.
I Thought We Had No Money
The next thing this brings up is the various "austerity" budgets that the US, UK and France have pushed on it's citizens. Among the excuses for these drastic cuts to public services and welfare has been that "there is no money." If there "is no money" then there "is no money" for another war. If there is in fact money to be spent, then given that Libya poses no military threat to any of the so called "coalition forces". then that money be spent on the public. It is clear then that the heads of state for the US, UK and FR do not have their citizens welfare in mind.
That Obama could stand up on national TV after the governor of Wisconsin, under the guidance of the Koch brothers, gutted the public unions ability to bargain collectively after creating a fake budget crisis, and not say that Scott Walker needs to go now. Or to even speak forcibly on the subject of blatant union busting makes it crystal clear to those of us not high on "dumb dust" that there is a serious problem of priorities in the White House. The White House is not the only place where there are problems either.
10 Dowling Street clearly has a problem. Apparently it is preferable to treble the cost of tuition for "austerity" rather than not engage in a war of aggression against a state that poses no threat to the UK. It is also very clear that the UN has morphed into something entirely different than its mandate. It's "lesser" members ought to consider that if the so called "security council" can decide who they can remove from power, then they too can be targeted.
Either way the world is now watching an illegal war sanctioned by the UN. And they keep saying Alex Jones is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
The UN has always made statements in regards to its disapproval of actions taken by parties in a conflict. The UN has always sent peacekeepers or other troops to protect civilians but it has never actually taken sides in a conflict and armed either side or taken military action on behalf of one party or the other. We should note that "civilians" are people who are NOT engaged in conflict but who are trapped in a conflict zone. Anyone in Libya who has taken up arms against the government of Libya, regardless of whether one thinks it is a legitimate government or not, is NOT an innocent civilian by any definition. Therefore; we need to ask, since when did the UN become a tool for certain countries to determine the course of events in other countries? Or for those of us who have been paying attention, what has changed in the world where the UN is not blatantly a tool of imperial powers? There is a difference between being a disinterested party and a neutral party. No one is saying that the UN should be the former, but it MUST be the latter. Now let me get at the US.
If anything shows that the Nobel Peace prize is now a joke of an award, at least as it is purported to uphold the principle of "peace", It is the recent actions of president Obama. Obama has just upped the Bush antics and in my opinion has fallen square into impeachment territory. When it was clear that Ghaddafi was not just going to sit and be tossed out on his duff as others around him had, Obama went on national TV and said that Ghaddafi "must go now". I don't know about you, but the last I checked there were 50 states and a few territories none of which include the state of Libya. So exactly what standing does Obama (or any head of state) have to say whether Ghaddafi has to go or stay? It would seem that decision is in the sole providence of the people of Libya and for them to work out. It is clear that our imperial black president has gotten comfortable with his position.
Let us be clear here, a "no fly zone" is an act of war. Bombing anything in libya is an act of war. Bombing a building where the head of state of Libya may be is a brazen act of war. Therefore I need to ask where was the congressional authorization for this? The War Power's act does not apply here at all. Libya posed and still does not pose any immediate or long term threat to the United States. Libya has, in fact, been a "partner" in the ongoing so called "war on terror". Therefore; by any legal standards this is a blatant war of aggression against the state of Libya given sanction by the so called "United Nations". Let me repeat for those having a difficulty understanding this:
This is a blatant war of aggression, without required congressional approval, against the sovereign state of Libya, which poses and has posed no threat to the United States of America or any of her so called "allies". All of this is being done with full knowledge of and backing of the so called "United Nations" which itself is in violation of it's own mandate.
Since Libya hasn't been a threat to the US on a state level. Since libya has been a "partner" against Al-Qaeda, the bombing cannot even fall under the "war against terror" laws such as the AMUF(most of which are unconstitutional). There is no excuse for this blatant trespass of international law to which the US is beholden to.
And let us not be fooled by this "coalition" bullshit either. This is the work of England (can we say Pan-Am), the French and the US. Of the bombs that fell on Libya in the past two days 122 were of US origins and 22 were of UK origins (as reported this morning on GMA on ABC 7 NY).
In stark contrast is the response to Bahrain which has been killing opposition protestors none of whom to my knowledge had actually taken up arms against the government and therefore are in fact legal civilians. There are no "no fly zones". There are no US..sorry, "coalition" planes firing on government forces. As a matter of fact our "ally" the monarchy of Saudi Arabia who've been in power longer than Ghaddafi has wet dreams about, has sent troops into that country to help that government put down the protests.
On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, in which she showed that having a woman at the helm can result in the same shit coverage and shit questions as the men, had some military official on who said that the situation in Bahrain was "different" because they are an "ally" and have been "cooperative" in the War on Terror (tm). Really? I told y'all already that Mubarak was "our boy in the Middle East" which is why the administration went through all manner of back channel means to make the transition "orderly". Ghaddafi is apparently not a "wholly owned subsidiary of the United States" and therefore not an "ally" and therefore the rules are different.
I will not even begin to discuss the ongoing open air jail that is Gaza.
The next thing this brings up is the various "austerity" budgets that the US, UK and France have pushed on it's citizens. Among the excuses for these drastic cuts to public services and welfare has been that "there is no money." If there "is no money" then there "is no money" for another war. If there is in fact money to be spent, then given that Libya poses no military threat to any of the so called "coalition forces". then that money be spent on the public. It is clear then that the heads of state for the US, UK and FR do not have their citizens welfare in mind.
That Obama could stand up on national TV after the governor of Wisconsin, under the guidance of the Koch brothers, gutted the public unions ability to bargain collectively after creating a fake budget crisis, and not say that Scott Walker needs to go now. Or to even speak forcibly on the subject of blatant union busting makes it crystal clear to those of us not high on "dumb dust" that there is a serious problem of priorities in the White House. The White House is not the only place where there are problems either.
10 Dowling Street clearly has a problem. Apparently it is preferable to treble the cost of tuition for "austerity" rather than not engage in a war of aggression against a state that poses no threat to the UK. It is also very clear that the UN has morphed into something entirely different than its mandate. It's "lesser" members ought to consider that if the so called "security council" can decide who they can remove from power, then they too can be targeted.
Either way the world is now watching an illegal war sanctioned by the UN. And they keep saying Alex Jones is a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Of Fake Dissidents
From the Huffington postdiscussing the US Military's procurement of software to create fake online people:
Sure. And no radiation from Japan will reach America.
The technology would not be used in America, or by American owned companies--which include major social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. "We do not target U.S. audiences, and we do not conduct these activities on sites owned by U.S. companies," Speaks told the Washington Times.
Sure. And no radiation from Japan will reach America.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Story of the Elephant
This is a twist on the old "elephant" story.
One day a teacher in a city where no one had seen an elephant (work with me) decided to take his children to see one up close and in person. So they arrived at the location and the teacher told the students that they would have to put on goggles that blinded them and that they would enter a room and in that room would be an elephant. The kids were all excited as they donned their goggles. They were all a chatter about what they would feel, smell and hear.
They were ushered into the room where the elephant was lazily sitting on the floor. The children wandered around aimlessly at first as they tried to find the elephant. Soon one stumbled across something and shouted excitedly "over here!"
Soon the children were all around the elephant.
"Oooh it's so hard and long!" said one feeling on the tusks.
"Well it's got a long nose. I can feel the air moving in and out like my nose."
One child said, "it has small ears!" as he felt the head of elephant. He felt the nose and it wasn't long. there was a bit of doubt as he had heard the other kid say the nose was long. "Must be long to him" he thought to himself as he continued to feel up the elephant.
"Man this thing has big feet!" Exclaimed another child.
The kid who had felt the small ears said to himself: "What is wrong with those kids? The feet didn't seem particularly big to me. They are such over the top. Wait until we can remove these goggles and I'm gonna make fun of them for being so dramatic."
Finally the teacher announced that the time for inspection was over and all the kids would be lead to another room where they could draw the elephant based on what they had "observed". So off they went to the next room where crayons and paper awaited them.
They all drew their pictures and though each child drew differently they all had similar characteristics. Except one. The child who had felt a small nose, small ears and small feet had drawn something entirely different than his peers.
When he presented his drawing to the teacher he said, "Here. I've drawn the elephant."
"No you did not." Said the teacher.
"Yes I did." replied the boy " I drew exactly what I remember feeling."
"I'm sure you did." said the teacher. "But that is not an elephant."
"I don't get it." said the boy. "You said we were in the room with an elephant. You said to go and inspect the elephant and I did that. This is exactly what I felt."
"Well," said the teacher, "just because I said that there was an elephant in the room doesn't mean that there was one. Nor does it mean that the elephant was the only thing in the room. You assumed you were feeling an elephant because you were lead to believe it was an elephant. You ignored the very evidence presenting itself to you that it was not an elephant. Young man, that was a bull you were feeling on."
The boy was pretty annoyed to have been fooled like that but he had learned a valuable lesson that day: Don't let your belief in elephants lead you to talk a lot of bull.
One day a teacher in a city where no one had seen an elephant (work with me) decided to take his children to see one up close and in person. So they arrived at the location and the teacher told the students that they would have to put on goggles that blinded them and that they would enter a room and in that room would be an elephant. The kids were all excited as they donned their goggles. They were all a chatter about what they would feel, smell and hear.
They were ushered into the room where the elephant was lazily sitting on the floor. The children wandered around aimlessly at first as they tried to find the elephant. Soon one stumbled across something and shouted excitedly "over here!"
Soon the children were all around the elephant.
"Oooh it's so hard and long!" said one feeling on the tusks.
"Well it's got a long nose. I can feel the air moving in and out like my nose."
One child said, "it has small ears!" as he felt the head of elephant. He felt the nose and it wasn't long. there was a bit of doubt as he had heard the other kid say the nose was long. "Must be long to him" he thought to himself as he continued to feel up the elephant.
"Man this thing has big feet!" Exclaimed another child.
The kid who had felt the small ears said to himself: "What is wrong with those kids? The feet didn't seem particularly big to me. They are such over the top. Wait until we can remove these goggles and I'm gonna make fun of them for being so dramatic."
Finally the teacher announced that the time for inspection was over and all the kids would be lead to another room where they could draw the elephant based on what they had "observed". So off they went to the next room where crayons and paper awaited them.
They all drew their pictures and though each child drew differently they all had similar characteristics. Except one. The child who had felt a small nose, small ears and small feet had drawn something entirely different than his peers.
When he presented his drawing to the teacher he said, "Here. I've drawn the elephant."
"No you did not." Said the teacher.
"Yes I did." replied the boy " I drew exactly what I remember feeling."
"I'm sure you did." said the teacher. "But that is not an elephant."
"I don't get it." said the boy. "You said we were in the room with an elephant. You said to go and inspect the elephant and I did that. This is exactly what I felt."
"Well," said the teacher, "just because I said that there was an elephant in the room doesn't mean that there was one. Nor does it mean that the elephant was the only thing in the room. You assumed you were feeling an elephant because you were lead to believe it was an elephant. You ignored the very evidence presenting itself to you that it was not an elephant. Young man, that was a bull you were feeling on."
The boy was pretty annoyed to have been fooled like that but he had learned a valuable lesson that day: Don't let your belief in elephants lead you to talk a lot of bull.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
For the Obama Apologists:
On Friday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denounced the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention as "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid," forcing President Obama to address those comments in a Press Conference and defend the treatment of Manning. Today, CNN reports, Crowley has "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case." In other words, he was forced to "resign" -- i.e., fired.
Denounce Farrakhan who hasn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anybody.
Denounce Rev. Wright as the "grumpy uncle" who hasn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anyone.
Fire Van Jones: Because some Republicans decided he was a "too black" "Communist" but hasn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anyone.
Fire Shirley Sherrod because some white Republican smeared her as a racist and God knows Obama can't have "black racists" in his administration. She hadn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anyone.
A recent book quotes Obama as saying:
His goal, he said, was to be as effective and empathetic a president as possible for all Americans. If he could accomplish that, it would advance racial progress for blacks more than anything else he could do.
Ye Olde "empathetic" black man. Don't get the white folk upset...the arguably most powerful man on the planet still thinks he has to make nice with white folk. Just think of how profound that is. With this kind of attitude it is entirely understandable that this guy would be fired for speaking words that easily could have come out of the mouth of Dr. King Jr.
Countdown to apologists in 3...2...1....
Monday, March 14, 2011
The NY Times Owes You Nothing
Last week we had the misfortune of learning of a rape of an 11 year old girl by multiple males some of whom were legal adults. I described the events as another perfect storm of pathologies, taking particular aim at the role played by the so called "men" in this situation that was eerily similar to a situation that happened in Chicago :
In this particular case the victim herself was not mentally disabled but rather legally unable to consent to sex (among other things). In the wake of the story being picked up by the NYT, a group, Color of Change along with a few gullible negroes and various so called feminists launched an internet tirade against the NY Times for "blaming the victim" for her rape and propping up a "rape culture". As is the usual case with people with an ideological axe to grind, be it racial or gender, the failure to do things such as research, read and think didn't stop any of them from trying to make an example of the NY Times. The last time I looked, upwards of 20,000 people signed the online petition. Clearly the dunce cap is large. Let's look at why these people are full of the proverbial shit.
Firstly, anyone who was paying attention to the story would have known that the original report on this incident came out of a relatively small paper out of Texas. It was then picked up by other outlets as far away as England and including the NY Times. In the Times and the UK's Daily Mail, we see that much of the articles were direct copies from the original Texas article, therefore even if there was a claim of blaming the victim, it would have to be directed at the original report which served as the meat of all the other "reports". It is not as if the NY Times sent a reporter to Texas to find out what happened and wrote an original piece based on that. The failure of both Alternet, Color of Change and others to even point that out is a failure of large proportions.
The second issue, the issue at hand, is that Color of Change, New Black Man, etc. have determined that reporting on the behavior of an 11 year old minor was not only irrelevant, but amounts to blaming the victim for her victimization. This faulty logic says that any reporting of all the circumstances of a situation amounts to blaming the victim, even if the victim's own behavior had a direct contribution to the situation at hand. Furthermore; this faulty logic assumes that those who do discuss the total circumstances of a particular case think it has any bearing on the legal issue at hand. It does not and we do not think so. In this case these issues of circumstances are entirely relevant to the social issue of what happened, even though, legally it does not.
Let me give an example of how the logic works. Say a person walks into an busy intersection with their headphones deafening them to oncoming traffic while they are looking intently at their cell phone reading or sending a text message. Say that they walked straight into the path of a vehicle traveling 15 MPH over the posted speed limit. Would anyone in their right mind come to the conclusion that the accident was the complete fault of the driver of the vehicle? No. It is clear that the pedestrian was not paying attention to what he was doing and therefore placed himself in danger of being struck by a vehicle. Legally though, because the driver of the vehicle was speeding, he will be held responsible for that. They may sue in civil court and it will likely be found that both parties were negligent. That the pedestrian was negligent does not erase the fact that the driver was also negligent or vice-versa. Such logic seems to be tossed out the window when the subject is a female though.
The major, pre-victimization point here is that an 11 year old girl was hanging out on the street unsupervised. The so called "feminists" would have you think that to ask the obvious question as to why an 11 year old child of any gender is simply hanging out on the side of the street, away from home, apparently going nowhere and doing nothing is a problem. Forget the rape that occurred. Would anyone be claiming "rape culture" if this young child had been grabbed off the street and killed? What if she had simply been kidnapped and held for ransom? What if she had been kidnapped and removed from the country? Would anyone seriously question a news report that contained the fact that a child was left on the street unsupervised, doing nothing, going nowhere and who got into a vehicle with people who were not relatives and without permission from the parents? I. didn't. think. so.
Lets face the facts that no sane parent, not even these so called "feminists" would ever teach their children to hang out on the side of the street doing nothing in a "notorious part of town". Nor would a single one of these so called feminists tell their 11 year old child to hop onto a car with a group of men, all at least 8 years older than them to just "hang out". This is not a case of an adult woman making a choice to do whatever she felt like, dressed however she felt like, to hop in the car with anyone she felt like to do whatever she felt like and being raped. In such a case where she was and who she chose to hang out with are completely her business. This does not apply with an 11 year old child whom adults are legally required to keep as safe as possible.
Due to these factors it is clear that in terms of the entire story, the actions of this child and perhaps the failure of the parents to adequately address their child's habit of acting out sexually is entirely relevant. You don't have to like it, but that is the case. Legally her actions are irrelevant to the prosecution of the males in question. Since having sex with a minor is illegal regardless of what she may have consented to even if there was no duress. Those males who coerced her into sexual activity and who invited their "friends" to engage in sexual activity with her are entirely responsible for any and every part they had in the situation. As do the persons who disseminated the videos produced during the gang rape. And no one I know, not even the NY Times is arguing otherwise. This is journalism and not legal proceedings.
The last charge leveled at the NY Times is that they somehow made the boys seem more sympathetic. Seriously.
Because describing the actions they engaged in is sympathetic. Saying that some are "star athletes" is sympathetic, rather than say an implied commentary on the sense of entitlement that some athletes have. Or perhaps saying that one boy was the son of a school board member. I'll be honest and say that I thought that made up for it and that I never thought "hey this fool definitely should have known better." Nope. I was very sympathetic for those jocks and sons of board members. You know what else endeared me to the boys. The fact that some of them have criminal records. Before I read that I was completely willing to say that they were just being set up and it was all the 11 year-old's fault. Oh and to top it all off, the calling the family of the girl and threatening them. Total sympathy there. Who wouldn't have warm fuzzy thoughts about the friends and family of rapists who threaten the family of the child they raped.
If you took anything in the above paragraph seriously. You have a problem. Anyway it is clear from objectively reading the articles and applying common sense that the NY Times owes nobody an apology. If anything, those attempting to slander the NY Times over this "issue" owe the NY Times.
why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled?
In this particular case the victim herself was not mentally disabled but rather legally unable to consent to sex (among other things). In the wake of the story being picked up by the NYT, a group, Color of Change along with a few gullible negroes and various so called feminists launched an internet tirade against the NY Times for "blaming the victim" for her rape and propping up a "rape culture". As is the usual case with people with an ideological axe to grind, be it racial or gender, the failure to do things such as research, read and think didn't stop any of them from trying to make an example of the NY Times. The last time I looked, upwards of 20,000 people signed the online petition. Clearly the dunce cap is large. Let's look at why these people are full of the proverbial shit.
Firstly, anyone who was paying attention to the story would have known that the original report on this incident came out of a relatively small paper out of Texas. It was then picked up by other outlets as far away as England and including the NY Times. In the Times and the UK's Daily Mail, we see that much of the articles were direct copies from the original Texas article, therefore even if there was a claim of blaming the victim, it would have to be directed at the original report which served as the meat of all the other "reports". It is not as if the NY Times sent a reporter to Texas to find out what happened and wrote an original piece based on that. The failure of both Alternet, Color of Change and others to even point that out is a failure of large proportions.
The second issue, the issue at hand, is that Color of Change, New Black Man, etc. have determined that reporting on the behavior of an 11 year old minor was not only irrelevant, but amounts to blaming the victim for her victimization. This faulty logic says that any reporting of all the circumstances of a situation amounts to blaming the victim, even if the victim's own behavior had a direct contribution to the situation at hand. Furthermore; this faulty logic assumes that those who do discuss the total circumstances of a particular case think it has any bearing on the legal issue at hand. It does not and we do not think so. In this case these issues of circumstances are entirely relevant to the social issue of what happened, even though, legally it does not.
Let me give an example of how the logic works. Say a person walks into an busy intersection with their headphones deafening them to oncoming traffic while they are looking intently at their cell phone reading or sending a text message. Say that they walked straight into the path of a vehicle traveling 15 MPH over the posted speed limit. Would anyone in their right mind come to the conclusion that the accident was the complete fault of the driver of the vehicle? No. It is clear that the pedestrian was not paying attention to what he was doing and therefore placed himself in danger of being struck by a vehicle. Legally though, because the driver of the vehicle was speeding, he will be held responsible for that. They may sue in civil court and it will likely be found that both parties were negligent. That the pedestrian was negligent does not erase the fact that the driver was also negligent or vice-versa. Such logic seems to be tossed out the window when the subject is a female though.
The major, pre-victimization point here is that an 11 year old girl was hanging out on the street unsupervised. The so called "feminists" would have you think that to ask the obvious question as to why an 11 year old child of any gender is simply hanging out on the side of the street, away from home, apparently going nowhere and doing nothing is a problem. Forget the rape that occurred. Would anyone be claiming "rape culture" if this young child had been grabbed off the street and killed? What if she had simply been kidnapped and held for ransom? What if she had been kidnapped and removed from the country? Would anyone seriously question a news report that contained the fact that a child was left on the street unsupervised, doing nothing, going nowhere and who got into a vehicle with people who were not relatives and without permission from the parents? I. didn't. think. so.
Lets face the facts that no sane parent, not even these so called "feminists" would ever teach their children to hang out on the side of the street doing nothing in a "notorious part of town". Nor would a single one of these so called feminists tell their 11 year old child to hop onto a car with a group of men, all at least 8 years older than them to just "hang out". This is not a case of an adult woman making a choice to do whatever she felt like, dressed however she felt like, to hop in the car with anyone she felt like to do whatever she felt like and being raped. In such a case where she was and who she chose to hang out with are completely her business. This does not apply with an 11 year old child whom adults are legally required to keep as safe as possible.
Due to these factors it is clear that in terms of the entire story, the actions of this child and perhaps the failure of the parents to adequately address their child's habit of acting out sexually is entirely relevant. You don't have to like it, but that is the case. Legally her actions are irrelevant to the prosecution of the males in question. Since having sex with a minor is illegal regardless of what she may have consented to even if there was no duress. Those males who coerced her into sexual activity and who invited their "friends" to engage in sexual activity with her are entirely responsible for any and every part they had in the situation. As do the persons who disseminated the videos produced during the gang rape. And no one I know, not even the NY Times is arguing otherwise. This is journalism and not legal proceedings.
The last charge leveled at the NY Times is that they somehow made the boys seem more sympathetic. Seriously.
Because describing the actions they engaged in is sympathetic. Saying that some are "star athletes" is sympathetic, rather than say an implied commentary on the sense of entitlement that some athletes have. Or perhaps saying that one boy was the son of a school board member. I'll be honest and say that I thought that made up for it and that I never thought "hey this fool definitely should have known better." Nope. I was very sympathetic for those jocks and sons of board members. You know what else endeared me to the boys. The fact that some of them have criminal records. Before I read that I was completely willing to say that they were just being set up and it was all the 11 year-old's fault. Oh and to top it all off, the calling the family of the girl and threatening them. Total sympathy there. Who wouldn't have warm fuzzy thoughts about the friends and family of rapists who threaten the family of the child they raped.
If you took anything in the above paragraph seriously. You have a problem. Anyway it is clear from objectively reading the articles and applying common sense that the NY Times owes nobody an apology. If anything, those attempting to slander the NY Times over this "issue" owe the NY Times.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Another Perfect Storm
Back in August I wrote about the rape of a mentally challenged minor in Chicago describing the entire incident as a "perfect storm of pathologies" I wrote then:
Once again this issue has reared it's ugly head with the victim being an eleven year old girl.
Once again the perpetrators were a group of young males (I simply will not call any of them "men" a title they have clearly not earned) which consisted of person as young as 14 and as old as 27. I am left to ask the question once again:
To make matters worse some of the perpetrators (or those with connections to the perpetrators) have no shame and have been harassing the family of the eleven year old victim. The lawyer for three of the defendants said, and I'm not making this up:
Listen, I'm all for a vigorous defense but really sir? Sex with a minor is THE LEGAL DEFINITION of taken advantage of. Furthermore, that the males involved:
Is what? Right...kidnapping. Coercion. Really sir? The child was not "taken advantage of"? Sir, fuck you.
Mind you it is clear that the child victim here had issues much like the one in Chicago did. But legally and morally that is beside the point. That she talks about smoking and having sex is irrelevant. Unfortunately some of these guys are going to learn what "an offer you can't refuse" feels like.
Firstly we have the group of males involved. By the reports there were adult males of undetermined age and boys of various age. So the first thing we have to ask is why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled? If I were the 'hood type I would ask "where they do that at?"
This is similar to the situation that took place in Trenton NJ where another group of "grown" men raped a child who had been brought to them by another child and involved other minor males.
I'm not sure how widespread this particular phenomenon is but I find it particularly disturbing that male minors are being this influenced by "grown" men who have clear psychological issues.
Once again this issue has reared it's ugly head with the victim being an eleven year old girl.
Once again the perpetrators were a group of young males (I simply will not call any of them "men" a title they have clearly not earned) which consisted of person as young as 14 and as old as 27. I am left to ask the question once again:
why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled?
To make matters worse some of the perpetrators (or those with connections to the perpetrators) have no shame and have been harassing the family of the eleven year old victim. The lawyer for three of the defendants said, and I'm not making this up:
James D. Evans III, an attorney who represents three of the defendants, insists: "This is not a case of a child who was enslaved or taken advantage of."
Listen, I'm all for a vigorous defense but really sir? Sex with a minor is THE LEGAL DEFINITION of taken advantage of. Furthermore, that the males involved:
first went to the blue house, where she was ordered to disrobe. If she refused, the statement said, she was warned other girls would beat her up and she would never get a ride back home.
Is what? Right...kidnapping. Coercion. Really sir? The child was not "taken advantage of"? Sir, fuck you.
Mind you it is clear that the child victim here had issues much like the one in Chicago did. But legally and morally that is beside the point. That she talks about smoking and having sex is irrelevant. Unfortunately some of these guys are going to learn what "an offer you can't refuse" feels like.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Chief Alfred Sam
Alfred C. "Chief" Sam inspired hundreds of African American Oklahomans to follow him back to their "ancestral home," Africa. Expounding the virtues of Africa's Gold Coast with tales of diamonds lying on the ground after a rain, trees that produced bread, and sugar cane as large as stove pipes, Sam, who claimed to be an African chief, sold passage to Africa in large, camp-style meetings throughout Oklahoma in 1913. By purchasing twenty-five dollars worth of stock from Sam's Akim Trading Company, an African American could retain passage for the whole family to the Gold Coast of Africa. Sam claimed he had access to land that the group could colonize.
Oklahoma Historical Society
Thursday, March 03, 2011
At Least China is Being Honest
From the NY Times article China Adds New Limits on Foreigners
And people wonder why I do not have EasyPass. Understand that the govt. here is fully capable of (and probably already does employ these methods.
Separately, Beijing officials announced Wednesday that they intended to monitor the movements of millions of residents via information transmitted by their cellphones. One official was quoted on a government Web site as saying that the new program would provide “real-time information about a user’s activity.”
The project, which would make use of global positioning technology, aims to monitor all Beijing residents who use mobile phones — some 20 million people — to detect unusually large gatherings. One official said the primary use would be to detect and ease traffic and subway congestion. But Chinese media reports said government officials could use the data to detect and prevent protests
And people wonder why I do not have EasyPass. Understand that the govt. here is fully capable of (and probably already does employ these methods.
Who is "The Enemy"?
The NY Times is reporting that 22 new charges have been filed against PFC Bradly Manning in regards to the WikiLeaks issue. Of interest is the following:
Long ago when Bush II was in office I made a note that it was very dangerous to give the executive the power to decide who is and is not "an enemy" and that such a power was ripe for abuse. Anyone who reads the above quote ought to see why Assange has been particularly concerned with being extradited to Sweden.
As noted in the article "the enemy" is not defined. Is WikiLeaks "the enemy"? Furthermore is speech (including whistleblowing) restricted to only when "the enemy", whoever that may be, is unable to hear or read it? If so then the citizens of the US ought to be very concerned since just about anything we post online can be read by the enemy and therefore can be seen as "aiding the enemy".
Now I totally understand that this is standard military stuff. The problem though is that a private lawyer, Lynn Stewart was convicted by the US for supporting "an enemy" by means of a press release about her then client Abdel-Rahman.
I will re-iterate my position that Manning is a whistleblower and the mechanics by which he disclosed information will ought to be a moot point.
The new charges included “aiding the enemy”; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it was accessible to the enemy; multiple counts of theft of public records, transmitting defense information and computer fraud. If he is convicted, Private Manning could be sentenced to life in prison.
Long ago when Bush II was in office I made a note that it was very dangerous to give the executive the power to decide who is and is not "an enemy" and that such a power was ripe for abuse. Anyone who reads the above quote ought to see why Assange has been particularly concerned with being extradited to Sweden.
As noted in the article "the enemy" is not defined. Is WikiLeaks "the enemy"? Furthermore is speech (including whistleblowing) restricted to only when "the enemy", whoever that may be, is unable to hear or read it? If so then the citizens of the US ought to be very concerned since just about anything we post online can be read by the enemy and therefore can be seen as "aiding the enemy".
Now I totally understand that this is standard military stuff. The problem though is that a private lawyer, Lynn Stewart was convicted by the US for supporting "an enemy" by means of a press release about her then client Abdel-Rahman.
I will re-iterate my position that Manning is a whistleblower and the mechanics by which he disclosed information will ought to be a moot point.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)