Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Poetry From a Smart Phone

I have a whole lotta talented friends. One just released a book and another a new CD:

Ngoma's latest release Poems from a Smart Phone is another "spusical" experience, to borrow a term from a fellow poet. Ngoma is a multi talented old school poet who regularly moves audiences with his baritone voice and Yiḏaki (that's Didgeridoo to the unitiated). Every performance is an eclectic mixture of electric violin, singing and conscious spoken word and this CD is no different. Sometimes the music plays the major part of the track and sometimes it's only Ngoma speaking with himself as backup. There is something here for everyone.

As with most CD's I get there are tracks that I enjoy the most and in my opinion the best tracks are Conversations with a Bumblebee on Earth Day, Jesus Wept, Ghosts of Harlem and Tip To The Pretty Young Waitress Behind the Bar.

Bumblebee starts us off with the Yidaki which sets our mind in a proper state as Ngoma weaves a discussion of religion with the defilement of earth by those who proclaim to love God and His creation. This is followed by Jesus Wept, where Ngoma brings us a Negro Spriitual that hangs a haunting background to another critique of religious people who have a problem following their own beliefs. If you like this track you should try to run into Ngoma or contact him for his track "They Are Falling All Around Me", from his CD “Ngoma's Take Out”. Worth it. Trust me. And if that tickles you, you go get “Reflections” and download "On The Day the Pope Died". If that sounds controversial well, it is and it's
how Ngoma rolls and I like it. And besides, how many poets you know that can do three part harmony behind their own material?

Ghosts of Harlem is easily my favorite of favorites because I'm partial to just about any track with piano in it. Even more partial when I hear Jazz chords. Ngoma did this on Garageband and it's a nice piece. The poem's good too. HA! Really though, Ngoma discusses the numerous changes that Harlem is undergoing while he verbally walks around the neighborhood in his memory.

The last track on my favorite list, Tip, would probably irk some people, Ngoma dishes out some sage advice to a hypothetical young lady at a bar on how to protect herself from those men who would violate her. It's unpopular in some circles to even suggest that kind of talk, but Ngoma doesn't victim blame just handing out advice born of experience. Musically it's a complete difference from Ghosts but that underscores the wide taste in music that Ngoma has.

These are my favorites but there is something here for everyone who's into spoken word.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

"Not One of Those Fat Auntie Types"

From an article on Chinese men marrying African women:

In my neighborhood is a Chinese engineer who returned from Angola, and his wife is a black girl. However, she's one of those very pretty high-end black girls. She's very slender and not one of those fat auntie types. Her skin also isn't the kind of oily/greasy black but rather black-brownish and more brown. They have two children, about five or six years old, twin boys.

What the hell is a "very pretty high-end black girl"?

The Atlantic

Is It Really Lil Wayne's Fault?

Of late I've been seeing a number of Facebook posts of Dr. Boyce Watkins discussing his increasing despair over Lil Wayne's antics. The last one I read was in regards to the BET Awards (I've never watched one) and a hypothetical 10 year old who watches that instead of reading a book and goes on to a life of criminality and out of wedlock pregnancies. High drama indeed.

My problem with this is that nowhere in the linked pieces I saw did the good Dr. point out the primary responsibility of parents. It is the same decision that the majority of the Supreme Court came to when they ruled that California could not ban the sale of violent video games. It is not the place of government or the television or the record label to parent your children.

My first thought when I read these pieces was why would a parent allow their child to listen to Lil Wayne in the first place? Let us be clear here neither Lil Wayne or any other artist or record label exec came to your house and popped Wayne in the iPod. They didn't tune in BET, VH1 or MTV. They didn't put a gun to your head and make you put the radio on Hot 97 or Hot whateverinyourtown. Just like did no white man or klan member roll up in your hood and drop bottles on the street or spray graffiti on the walls.

No, the people directly responsible are the parents (or increasingly in the black community: Parent). I'll give an example. I was at my mother's house and a woman pulled up in her Ford Expedition with some really foul material blasting from the speakers. Now never mind that she was damaging her child's hearing. Never mind that. It was clear that this parent thought it was OK for her child to absorb this kind of language as normal discourse. That is a problem. You can find idiots on YouTube showing their very young children dropping it like it's hot. You can find videos of mother's (and unfortunately it's usually mothers)sons throwing money at her while she dances for him (or for the camera). It is clear that some parents simply do not understand the implications of what they are doing.

Does this mean that every child who grows up in a "good" home is going to turn out right? Absolutely not. Does it mean that every child that grows up in a bad environment is going to turn out bad? No. Human variation and pure chance will always provide exceptions. But the correlations are known.

Lil Wayne is a problem for parents who fail to inform their children about what is out there in the world. Lil Wayne is a problem for parents who do not understand that it is their responsibility to filter what and who has access to their minds. If you hand your child a media player and do not control or monitor what is on it, you have failed as a parent.* If you put a TV in your kid's bedroom with full access to cable TV that is your failure as a parent. Hand your kid a laptop with unrestricted internet access? Yup another fail. Your child's access to unregulated media should *only* come as they have shown responsibility and an ability to understand what they are hearing and seeing. Not before.

So long as there are parents who do not understand their role as parents, guardians and gatekeepers of the minds of their children, you will continue to have children who grow up into irresponsible adults. Should Lil Wayne be talking about killing bitches. No. Does he have a right to do so? Absolutely. Do I have the right to not purchase, listen to, or allow his material in my house, car, iPod or child's iPod, laptop, etc? Absolutely. Should I exercise that right? Absolutely.

*Just about every internet router has a firewall program built in which you can program to block direct access to any website you wish. Furthermore the Mac OS (and Windows I'm sure) has a parental control option to block access to websites at the OS level as well as restrict when the web is accessible and which particular programs may be used at any given time. The iPod has a parental control function as well that will restrict access to "explicit" music (as tagged by the iTunes store). You should be enabling these things if you have given your child access to the internet. If you do not know how find someone who does.

Friday, June 24, 2011

There's Always The Negroes

This week my mind was assaulted by situations that so reminded me of who is at the bottom of the shit pole of society here in the US. First we have this young man who was harassed and eventually arrested after boarding a plane with saggy pajamas that were apparently showing his boxers. Personally I don't like the whole wearing pajamas out in public and I don't approve of saggy pants. But that is not the point here. When the original report was posted it said:

On Wednesday, San Francisco police got a call about 9 a.m. that someone was exposing himself outside a US Airways gate, Sgt. Michael Rodriguez said.
An airline employee spotted Marman before he boarded Flight 488, bound for Albuquerque, and complained that Marman's pants "were below his buttocks but above the knees, and that much of his boxer shorts were exposed," Rodriguez said.
The employee asked Marman to pull up his pants before he boarded the plane, but he refused, Rodriguez said. Marman allegedly repeated his refusal after taking his seat on the plane.
"At that point he was asked to leave the plane," Rodriguez said. "It took 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane, and he was arrested for trespassing." Marman allegedly resisted officers as he was being led away.

The problem was that the report is entirely wrong. When we get the actual video we find that this fellow told the employee that he would "take care of it" when he got to his seat. Which, in the video we cannot confirm, but it is clear that he did in fact cooperate. If the employee did not want to wait for him to board the plane before hitching up his pants then she ought not to have let him board.


Where is Marman "resisting"? He made his case clearly. He paid for his ticket. He wasn't bothering anyone, nor did he pose a risk of any kind to the plane. How is asserting your right to not be harassed "resisting"? Also, Am I the only person disturbed by the fact that they decided ask him the silly ass question of whether he has a boarding pass? How do they suppose he got on the plane? How do they suppose he got past TSA? They know he has a boarding pass and ticket, there was no need to even go there. But the problem here is not ONLY that they harassed this black man, it was that this same airline let this guy:

Ba-Us Airways Jp 0503662837
On the plane with no questions asked even though multiple passengers raised objections. Why is that? Why is it considered OK by the "authorities" for a white male dressed as a female. with clothes that are "decent" on a beach, to board a plane? but brother man with his sagging pants is worthy of arrest?

I have said this many times, and with increasing frequency, that is coming to a point in America where being a straight black male, is more problematic than being a homosexual (or at the very least cross dressing) male (or female). It seems clear to me that the "authorities" were more afraid of what the "gay lobby" would do if this person had been stopped and asked to dress "appropriately" than they were of fucking with black folk ('cause who knows, perhaps the black guy was gay and simply not a "flame").

Since the Rutgers' student threw himself off the George Washington Bridge last year, we have been inundated by advertising that "it gets better" Because so many gay youth are targeted for hate crimes and bullying (though bullying ex-representative Weiner over his sex life is apparently OK). Even the president who wastes no political ammo coming to bat for black folks stepped to the microphone for the It Gets Better campaign.

You know what though, When you look at the reported "hate crime" statistics* you find the following: In 2010 there were 930 reported incidents of hate crimes against homosexual males and females. In the same year there were 2,876 incidences of hate crimes against black persons. As a matter of fact the statistics for offenses and victims of hate crimes is consistently 3x worse for black people than for homosexuals. How the HELL do we get a It Gets Better campaign for people who are nowhere nearly as victimized by bias than black folk? Anti-Black crime overshadows EVERY category of hate crime category. It is clear that in this society it is OK to mess with Negroes. Do understand that this is not just in the realm of private business. The government is very much involved in this.

In NYC, there is a program in which a Taxi cab can put a sticker on their vehicle which indicates to the NYPD that they are allowed to stop the vehicle to check on the well being of the cabbie. This program was started after many a good cabbie have been robbed and killed by passengers. We understand that society would want to protect the cab drivers who are simply out to make an honest living But the NYPD in it's usual habit of abrogating the constitutional rights of black folk, stopping them on the street my the hundreds of thousands to stop and frisk them because they committed some "other" category of suspicious activities, have expanded their crimes against black citizens.

“The other officers were shining lights in the car,” Mr. Battle said. “They told me to get out of the car.”...The officers requested identification and told him he was going to be frisked, and he raised his arms. But the officers went beyond patting him down.
“They went into my pockets,” he said. “They went into my shoulder bag.”
When he asked them what was going on, Mr. Battle said, “they told me they were able to do this because of a decal on the back of the cab, that this sticker gives them permission to search me.”

Total and utter bullshit claim made by the officers. No sticker on any car does away with a citizen's 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. And exactly what makes this particular search "reasonable"? He fit's the description? I know that one very well.

It is clear here that Negroes are a class of people who it is still OK to abuse at will with nary a peep from those in authority or those so called "Civil Rights leadership" who are far more concerned with protecting Obama than representing the needs of the people. If Obama can put up a video talkin' about how It Gets Better, he ought to be able to stand up and declare, without hesitation that shooting or tazering handcuffed citizens is unacceptable and will be subject to the full force of the Justice (sic) Department. But when you have a class of people who aggressively push their agenda against a class of people who are content to fawn over a black president and family, then don't expect the harassment to stop 'cause after everyone gets theirs there will always be Negroes to mess with.

*I personally do not agree with the concept of hate crime for anything other than statistical analysis. I do not believe the state ought to be punishing people over WHAT they thought when they thought of committing a crime. We ought to only punish behavior. In a free country the freedom of speech necessitates the protection of the thoughts that produce said speech. you can think about killing your boss all day every day. You can talk about killing your boss all day, every day. You cannot actually attempt to carry out that thought.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The White House Libya Explanation Falls Short

And so yesterday the Obama administration put forth it's "best" argument to date as to why the US war on Libya (under the cover of NATO) is both legal and constitutional:

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes...

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians...

We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

So the argument is, in a nutshell:

1 The UN said it was OK.
2 We're not fighting all that much and
3 We're only fueling other peoples planes now so leave us alone.

This has to be the weakest argument I've seen by any president. Even Bush at least made an argument, albeit false, that Saddam posed a risk to the US via WMDs. But the biggest problem here is the focus on the War Powers Act and not the constitution. We should even look at the legal grounds for the UN decision.

First the UN Charter. As I posted on March 21, 2011 the UN has no legal or Charter grounds for taking sides in a civil war (which is what is going on in Libya):

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 on paragraph 7. Under that paragraph it is not legal for the UN or any of it's member states, including the US, to interfere with the domestic issues of another member state.

I went on to cite the portion of the charter dealing with the Security Council:

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.

So the Security Council cannot take sides in a conflict that is brought to it's attention. Furthermore all parties must be allowed to comply with other peaceable means to a resolution of the conflict. This was not done.

On these bases the actions by the UN and the Security Council are illegal and therefore it cannot provide legal cover for the US (and any of the other parties involved in the violation of Libyan sovereignty) actions.

Moving on, lets look at the constitution. The constitution is very specific as to who has the power to declare war and who has the power to command the military once war is approved. Section 8:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A Letter of Marque is:

Letter of Marque
Archaic. A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure.

A Reprisal is:
Archaic. An act taken by a nation, short of war, to gain redress for an action taken against that nation. For example, seizing a ship in retaliation for a seized ship.

So it is clear that ONLY congress has the ability to declare war and, according to the text, is the only body that can ask any other nation (or private party) to act on it's behalf. By that reading the "NATO is doing the work" excuse looks very weak as I don't think that the NATO alliance means that Congress is giving blanket approval for anything NATO does per request by the executive. That is, however, a debatable point. What it not debatable is that only Congress can declare war.

Let's move on to the War Powers Act. I discussed this at length in the American Big Man series back in 2006:

SEC. 3.

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

SEC 8. (c)

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8.(d)

Nothing in this joint resolution--

is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

These are my italics. I understand 8(d)(2) to read that the War Powers Resolution does not grant any authority to the president that he would not have had in the absence of the resolution. So The President can only assume his commander in Chief rights where there is "imminent" danger.

So we've established that the executive can only assert War Powers privileges in the case of an imminent threat. So let's go back to the argument offered yesterday:

1)"The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes..."

Sorry, but the War Powers Act clearly states that if the military is so much as "commands" "coordinates", "participates" or "accompany" "the regular or irregular forces of ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR GOVERNMENT then the president is bound by War Powers' requirements of reporting and approval. And yes, NATO is made up of foreign forces.

2)"They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians..."

What part of "coordinates, participates or accompany" does the White House not understand? What part of "Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed as granting authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this resolution" does the executive not understand?

Furthermore that is the *current* status of events (if they are to be believed). The initial invasion of that country was an act of war against a sovereign nation. What part of Congress can only declare war does the executive not understand? Furthermore we've already demonstrated that neither the UN general body nor the Security Council has the legal grounds for it's involvement in Libya. In addition, it is clear from the reports coming out of Libya that this is not about protecting civilians. Protecting civilians means protecting them on both sides. Bombing Tripoli, for example, does not do that.

3) "We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”"

Again, What part of "coordinates, participates or accompany" does the executive not understand?

So it is clear that the three legs of the Obama administrations argument for the unconstitutional war in Libya are null and void by the clear language of the constitution, the War Powers Act and the UN Charter. There is no legal ground for that war's beginning nor for the US' current involvement. Congress must assert it's constitutional powers and either approve the war with a formal proclamation and fund it or it should put an end to the war.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Possible Staff meeting for LA GOP Advert

So I saw this GOP advert via a twitter post:
And I thought to myself: What kind of black person actually volunteers to do this type of work? So I thought about it and came up with a possible interview scenario:

Scene: A bunch of white folk in power suits at a table. there's a black guy in "cool" clothes interviewing potential actors who is the spokesperson

black guy: So yeah, I wanna thank you guys for answering our call for actors. This is such an important work we're doing here.

Nods all around.

Black guy: So let me tell you that what we are going to do here is for the betterment of our country. We need real leadership so we can turn America around. I know you all want to do your part.

Nods all around

Black guy: Good! Good. now let me explain what we need you to do. Basically this is a video shoot. We gonna have a lady

*a loud "ehem" from one of the white folk.

Black guy: Right. we gonna have a ho in some skimpy clothes.

*a loud "ehem" from another one of the white folk

Black guy: Right, we gonna have a ho in some hoochie clothes, pole dancing and you all get to tote some guns and pick dollars from her ass while she shakes it in front of you.

*odd looks from most of the guys assembled*

Black guy: And every now and then you get to rap: "bitch better give me yo' cash"

*odd looks from most of the guys assembled. One speaks up

Actor: So you want us to act like we're gang members in a rap video, toting guns and essentially act a damn fool?

Black guy: Well you're not acting a fool, you're making a political point.

Actor: Uh-huh.. I see. and how much do we get paid for this?

Black guy: Well we'll pay you 200 bucks for the 1 min shoot.

Actor: The fuck? You gonna have me up in here for 200 bucks?

Black guy:*looks back at his colleagues who look nervous that they may not get anyone to sign up. A sly smile spreads across his face: Did I mention that ho is a white girl?

Actor: Where do I sign?

Can the Europeans Defend Themselves?

The NYT Room for debate (lacking Negroes as usual) asks the question "Can the Europeans Defend Themselves?"

The obvious question to anyone outside of Europe is "defend itself from who?" Who exactly outside Europe is threatening Europe? Is Libya threatening Europe or the other way around? What country outside of Europe is a military threat to Europe and actually is looking to exercise that military threat? China? Oh yes China is on the up, but China has a right to be on the up, after all it was Europe that invaded China and took Hong Kong. What do you think that "Great Wall" was built for? The Chinese were quite content to leave Europe alone. Today the US has warships in the pacific essentially flexing military might so far away from it's actual borders as to be on other people's border. So I'll ask again: Defend itself from who?

The Alchemists of Kush


This is the latest book by Minister Faust who's last book The Notebook of Doctor Brain was my intro to his literary prowess. This particular entry takes a very different literary turn in terms of tone and style. And I like it. Not that it reflects badly on Dr. Brain. This is simply a differently styled book which underscores the talent of the "good minister" as I like to call him. Without giving too much away, this is a book of two stories. Actually it's not. Well it is and it isn't. like the Kushite kingdom from which it draws from the book contains many layers of stories wrapped up in prose that is very poetic. As a matter of fact if the book hadn't been so long I would have thought it a long poem. This is a book that I would strongly suggest that parents of teenagers obtain and force to read. At gun point if necessary. No not really. My Mike Huckabee impression aside, I believe that many young people will benefit from a read of this book and are likely to relate to the characters.

It's been 3 weeks since I've finished the book and I'm still contemplating the scrolls. Pick up the book and you'll know what I'm speaking of. Trust me, I'm not the only one diggin' it.

Buy this book now: Amazon

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Obama Admits to Jobless Recovery

Well not directly..well yes directly but not in those words. From the Daily News:

"The challenge, though, is it only takes 100 workers to make what it used to take 1,000 workers to make in terms of the amount of steel," he said. "So that's why we're going to have to look at new industries and encourage entrepreneurs to invest in these new industries and make sure that our workers have the skills to train them.

So in essence he has admitted that it takes far less workers, an order of magnitude in this comment, to make the same stuff as before. Now add to that the amount of manufacturing that has left the United States and you get a real picture. Now add to that the fact that roughly 25% of the US population has at least a bachelors degree and that the numbers of jobs that require such expertise are far less than available workers. You start to see that relatively high unemployment will be the rule in the US so long as brains and brawn can be paid less elsewhere and mechanization and automation continue apace. Wait till the medical industry can use robots for nurses (as they are going full bore into creating in places like Japan), A whole segment of the work force will be decimated.

Mind you I'm not blaming Obama for this. He simply is saying what other presidents and other insiders have known for a long time.

Herman Cain: Are You Sure About That?

"Most of the ancestors that I can trace were born here in the United States of America. And then it goes back to slavery. And I'm sure my ancestors go all the way back to Africa,"

How do people state things like that? "Were born here in the United States of America. And then it goes back to slavery"? being born in America and slavery were two different eras? Then "I'm sure my ancestors go all the way back to Africa? The hell? What did he think the "slaves" were coming from? " I'm sure"? really? You wanna take another look just in case. I have *never* heard a knowledgeable black person say "they are sure" their ancestors go back to Africa. They are so "sure" that it merely stated as fact.

Monday, June 13, 2011

For Oscar

They let him out
say it was for good behavior
like back in the day
like batons on the heads
of Rodney King
thought you knew
keepin' niggas in line
is good behavior
the only thing explain
NYPD stop and frisk
violations of our rights
to remind us
of that shadow on the ground
cast by Dredd Scott
thought you knew
capturin' niggas be
good behavior
way back
like heads on sticks in Stono South Carolina
like strung up rebels
refusing names like
Secreting into cemeteries
to put marks of the motherland
on grave sites
though you knew
shootin niggas in the back be
good behavior
Burn an incense for them
And they'll let you know
less than a dog to them
that's why
I hear they
let him out
for good behavior
I thought you knew
Ayanna Jones
They knock down niggaz doors
with no knock warrants
with no regards
to our safety
there goes your babies brain
there goes your babies life
face down
on the hard concrete
I thought you knew
killin' niggas be
good behavior
Like back
when Emmet Till
got familiar with
Riffle butts and barbwires
back when juries let
killer crackers walk
not guilty
cause it's no crime
killin' niggas
face down
Hands behind back
tryin' to maintain dignity
thought you knew
Keepin' niggas in line is

NYPD Racial Profiling

Anyone familiar with me knows I often mention the blatant violation of the constitutional rights of black people by the NYPD under their stop and frisk program. Alternet has a good article discussing the practice. One thing that jumped out at me:

The organization’s officials report that on visits to the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Bronx pens, they usually see hundreds of detainees who were arrested the day or night before and there will only be one or two white faces in the midst of cell after cell of black and brown people. Out of 250 people arrested in Manhattan say on a Wednesday, conditions monitors will note that on the following Thursday they will see 248 or 250 people of color confined in those cells. Such a racial disparity -- not merely disproportionate but virtually exclusive -- is not an accident. It is a function of the policies and practices of the New York City Police Department.

Not an accident at all.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

About That Police State

Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as a S.W.A.T team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.

"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.

Why was a SWAT team sent to this fellow's home? Perhaps he was a terrorist? A serial murderer? Perhaps a hard core street drug dealer known to be heavily armed? No,

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.

Read that again. the US DOE issued a search warrant and sent a SWAT team over a loan default. Think about that for a minute. Why is the federal government sending a SWAT team to recover student loan money? This is nothing more than State terrorism against citizens. the govt. can already put liens on property and freeze assets. Why does it need to send SWAT to homes? And to show how pacified and confused the population is we see this fellow's response to the violation of his home:

"All I want is an apology for me and my kids and for them to get me a new door," Wright said.

That's it? Really?

News 10 KXTV for the full story.

Monday, June 06, 2011

Wise Words

Skilled analytical thinking should not be drowned out by mistaken, ideologically driven views that more is always better or less is always better.

Wise words said by Peter A. Diamond in regards to his blocked nomination to the FED. This position equally applies among those black academics and activists and those who consider themselves thinkers. Many of us repeat and defend ideologically driven positions that are not always based on actual analysis but that which we either find comfortable or was handed to us by those who we hold in high esteem.