Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Powernomics

A few months ago I suggested that the readers watch Dr. Claude Anderson's videos on Powernomics. One of the major points on a video discussing The Black Consumer below:


He discusses how other ethnic groups consolidate control of their communities and provide the first employment for members of their communities. Today the LA Times has an article that discusses the changes in South Central LA that underscore the message of Claude Anderson and by extension Marcus Garvey. The first point of the piece is that black unemployment is worse in South Central LA now than when it was in 1992. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who is paying attention. But deeper into the article we see the issues that Dr. Anderson has pointed out repeatedly:
Now South Los Angeles is 30% African American, according to U.S. Census data, and black-owned businesses that once had a stronghold in the area have declined steadily.
So first we have the demographic shift of black populations out of South Central which took with it the entrepreneurial class.
Meanwhile, Latinos attracted by affordable housing have settled in the area and now make up about 64% of the population. Latino-owned businesses have cropped up along the main corridors. Mexican grocery stores are thriving. Immigrants flock to money-wiring outlets to send funds to relatives in Mexico and Central America. Spanish has become the language most commonly heard in the streets of South Los Angeles.
Anderson has repeatedly told us what "Hispanic" groups would do when they are able. Mind you this isn't a condemnation of that group. Rather it is a condemnation of black folks for not doing what they ought to be doing. Continuing:
Latino immigrants, he said, tend to form tight-knit job networks. "What employers learn to do, if they find workers they're content with, they ask those workers to bring any relatives or friends and become more dependent on them."
Garvey said a long time ago that the black man should not *expect* other people to provide employment for them. Rather they should create employment for themselves. Who can argue with that? That is exactly what other groups are doing. What are black folks doing? Arguing for "multi-culturalism" and anything other than black economic independence. If such an attitude continues I fully expect such findings like the one in South Central to persist. Martin Delany, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey and Claude Anderson all understood the sequential equation: +i;s;e;p;m.. (e), economics, before the (p) political. (e) economics informs and empowers the (p) political.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Ex-President of Liberia Aided War Crimes, Court Rules

Shocking. Just shocking news.
THE HAGUE — Charles G. Taylor, the former president of Liberia and once a powerful warlord, was convicted by an international tribunal on Thursday of 11 counts of planning, aiding and abetting war crimes committed in Sierra Leone during that country’s civil war in the 1990s.
I want you, the dear reader, to understand exactly what this says. Taylor is convicted of "planning", "aiding and abetting" war crimes in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Another. Country. Do you understand how this can apply to a LOT of other countries? This is not a defense of Taylor. What this whole thing means is that if a country "plans", "aides and abets" some other "rebel" group in any other country. The leader of that third party country can be held legally responsible for anything that the "rebels" do even if it cannot be shown that the third party country actually commanded such actions. What do you think the odds are of certain Europeans countries being held to the same standard?

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Allegations of rape at West Point, Annapolis

When I saw this article on the CNN website I just shook my head. It was perhaps one of the clearest examples of the "all kinds of wrong" ideas presented in the common conversation that dominates the discussion of rape. As I read the piece my mind went back to my January rebut of the Ebony.com piece "Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped". In it I said the following which encapsulates my position on "rape advice:
I don't know about Ms. Maxwell, but I would prefer to not deal with after the fact.
"After the fact" being, the doctor visits, the trial, the emotional scars, etc. This is my overarching concern here. It is not satisfactory to me to have to comfort a woman who has been raped when I have the opportunity to help her avoid the situation all together. To that end let's look at what I pointed out in my January piece and see how it relates to the events in Annapolis:
Marquet said she got sick over a holiday weekend and stayed behind on campus. Her roommate was out of town and she was alone in her room. It was then, Marquet, said, that an upperclassman she knew showed up at her door late one night to talk "girl troubles." "I kind of felt cool that an upperclassman wanted to be friends with me and was seeking my advice," Marquet recalls.
So she's sick. Some "upperclass" male that she "doesn't know well" decides to come over to talk about "girl troubles". Not to see how she is doing. Not to offer to get her medicine. Not to simply check to see if she's feeling OK but to talk girl troubles. OK. This is the point where you say "Thanks for checking on me. I'm tired so I'm going back to bed. Call me later." Anyway...
After a drink, Marquet said, he persuaded her to go to his room. Karley Marquet became "depressed and suicidal" after the alleged incident and dropped out of West Point. "I just remember getting more and more intoxicated and my judgment really started to become impaired. ... I remember him turning off the lights and me asking, 'What are you doing?' And then he proceeded to rape me." Marquet said she woke up disoriented, in physical pain, afraid to come forward.
Sick, she decides to drink up with dude she barely knows but "trusts" because his entire claim to being trustworthy is being what? an upperclassman? She's getting more and more intoxicated with a man she does not know well at all? Why? Why hadn't someone informed her that studies:
Informs us of a group of 1,882 men out of whom 120 self reported acts that met the legal definition of rape. For you math heads out there that means of the group only 6% of the men self reported legal rape. Furthermore the report showed that the majority, 80% of these men committed rapes on women who were "incapacitated" due to drug or alcohol use
Had this young woman been educated in the ways that the vast majority of rapists behave, she would not have allowed herself to become intoxicated by a man she barely knew. Had she had this little piece of information her chances of being raped would have dropped 80 percent. If knowledge is power, who's advice, given in January of 2012 would have been more helpful? Before I deal with the perpetrator in this account let me move to the second Annapolis case:
During one of he first weekends at the academy, Kendzior was invited to a party off campus. "I was like, 'OK, cool! College, finally! I can live the college life for one night." But Kendzior said she had way too much to drink, so when a fellow midshipman offered her a place to crash, she accepted. "I was like, 'OK, you know, it will be fine. I trust you. You're an upperclass," Kendzior remembers, "Because that's what they teach you, to trust your upperclass." But Kendzior says that didn't happen. She was raped. "At one point in the middle of the night, I did come to and he was on top of me," Kendzior said. "And I remember saying 'No,' but I just passed out again.
Again we have a young women 'trusting" males she knows nothing about other than "upperclassman". I am failing to understand what parent does not educate their daughter better than that for their own protection. Secondly, notice the alcohol again. Had this young woman not gotten "passed out" drunk she would have decreased her chance of being raped by 80 percent. Let's return to my January piece:
Let's pause here for a minute. If we go back to Ms. Maxwell's position that it is "offensive" and "ineffective" to advise women to not get drunk, how do we reconcile such a position with the above fact? It seems quite clear that advising women to not get drunk or otherwise incapacitated would possibly reduce the incident of rape by 80%.
I wonder if the young women in question would rather have been "insulted" by being told not to get passed out drunk around men they do not know and not have gone through "bouts of depression" and of course the specter of an STD. I don't know about you, but I would far prefer to be "insulted" and whole of body. There are folks who left this piece a long time ago because they are of the opinion that I am "blaming the victim" and letting the rapist off the hook. That is not the case. The behaviors of these males are exactly as I discussed back in January. Serial rapists, and I am certain that these guys are in fact serial rapists have a specific M.O. Like any other criminal, if you understand how they operate then you can present a less "appealing" target. And this is what it is about: Not being an appealing target. Let's go back to my January piece. I quoted Mz. Maxwell's position in regards on how to stop rape:
We need anti-rape campaigns that target young men and boys. Campaigns that teach them from a young age how to respect women, and ultimately themselves, and to never ever be rapists. In addition, we should implore our men and boys to call out their friends, relatives, and classmates for inappropriate behavior and create systems of accountability amongst them.
Let's take a look at these two cases. As is typical of serial rapists, the first perpetrator got the victim alone. This means that no matter how many "good men" there were on campus, not a single one would have been in a position to do anything to help her. Newsflash people: most of these criminals avoid situations that would bring them to the attention of other males. Why? These criminals understand that their behavior is deemed unacceptable by the vast majority of males. The criminal knows his or her behavior is wrong but they simply do not care. No amount of educational campaigns will change this. In the second case,once again, the perpetrator removed the young woman from the gathering so as to keep his actions from being witnessed by other males who we suppose would have intervened. Think about it, some girl at a party is falling out drunk. A guy offers to take her home/his place to "crash". Even if you think something is "wrong", what do you do? Ask the guy what he's doing? Exactly what "looks" wrong about a guy who seems concerned about a woman's well being offering her a place to "sleep it off"? I don't care how "good" the set of men are in this situation, they are unlikely to step in because there is no "probable cause" to do so. In light of that overwhelming evidence that "education" would have done squat for these women. That the presence of "good men" would have done squat for these women. What are we left with? Allowing the women to be victims because the criminal should have had better morals? If you like your women to be victims I suppose that's what you could go with. Me? I prefer to tell young women in these environments to not get passed out drunk at frat(like) parties. Don't get passed out drunk with upper clansmen who are visiting you while you are vulnerable (sick) and offering you alcohol. Establish a relationship with these men so you can get to know them before letting down you guards. Reducing your chances of being raped by 80% is worth it.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

In what shouldn't even be a surprise, the Guardian is reporting that the British government has been hiding and destroying documentation on it's colonial empire:

Thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments, an official review has concluded...

The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman [sic] said to have been "roasted alive";...

many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".


Way too much material to quote here. Hit the title to go to the report.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Black Woman Cake?



Swedish "Feminists" protesting FGM (clitoral cutting and/or closing of the vaginal opening) by eating a black woman cake..starting from the genitalia. Artist is a black person who sees this as "protest art".

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Zimmerman's Likely Defense

So anyone who is not under a rock knows that Zimmerman is now in custody and charged with Murder 2 in the case of the killing of Trayvon Martin. What I'm going to do here is lay out my non-expert thinking as to what is likely to go down should this end up in trial and some of the pitfalls that I see in the Murder 2 charge vs. Manslaughter or some other "non-intent" non "frame of mind" charge.

I, like everyone else not in the prosecutors office, only have what has been leaked or given to the media to use to form my positions. There may be evidence that is in the possession of the prosecutor that I am not aware of that will make for a stronger case for murder 2. I offer this piece due to what happened in the Sean Bell case. In that case, I thought that the charges of murder 1 were not provable beyond a reasonable doubt. It took me a while to understand that, but it was certainly the case. The problem with the murder charges against the NYPD officers was that the police are assumed to not have malicious intent to kill anyone, but rather that anytime they shoot it is to protect themselves or others. When we looked at the testimony we saw that all the statements made by all the police in that incident kept saying how they felt threatened by Sean Bell who was "assaulting them" with his vehicle and "reaching for waistbands" and that they "heard shots".

I wrote then that I thought that the murder charges were a community set up. There was intense pressure to "get justice" and the prosecutor IMHO decided on a show trial with a charge they knew could not be proven, particularly to a judge who, in my opinion, was far more disposed to believing in the "good will" of the police than any jury taken from the local pool would have been. I will say outright that I believe that such a possibility exists here.

Let me first get the following out: Regardless of what was said by the special prosecutor, the only reason that Zimmerman has been taken into custody and charged e is due to the national backlash once the word got out that a coverup was afoot. We know that the DA had decided on the night of the shooting to take Zimmerman at his word over the concerns and recommendation of a professional homicide detective. Had there been no outcry, Zimmerman would be a free man.

I just had to get that off my chest.

So lets' look at Murder 2 under the Florida statutes:

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
[my emphasis]


Of interest is the portion that states:

perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life


Evincing a "depraved mind". This is the key here. The prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind". While the defense has no obligation at all to present any evidence that Zimmerman was not of depraved mind, they are expected to present evidence and argue against this particular point. Therefore it is important that we understand what a "depraved mind" is in legal terms.

If we look at the Florida Supreme Court in regards to Jury instructions (2008) we find the following for depraved mind:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.



Did Zimmerman express "ill will"? "Hatred"? "Spite" or "evil intent" on the night in question? That is going to be the first hurdle.

It is likely that the defense is going to point to three things to refute these items:

1) They are going to point to the recent rash of break-ins in the neighborhood. They are going to say that Zimmerman was motivated not by "hate" or "ill will" but a genuine concern for the well-being of his community and neighbors. They are going to point to reports that Zimmerman had come to the aid of a break-in victim and offered all manner of help to her.

2) Zimmerman's defense is going to point to the phone calls that Zimmerman made prior to this incident and say that it shows that Zimmerman was concerned and being vigilant. And if ANY of the persons he called about are non-black, they will highlight that to deflect the racial angle.

3) Zimmerman's defense is going to point to the actual 911 call and argue that Zimmerman was again concerned for the safety of the neighborhood when he saw Trayvon who may have "fit a description" of those who previously burglarized homeowners.
They will argue that in prior break ins, the perpetrators had brandished or acted as if they had weapons so Zimmerman was reasonable to believe that when Trayvon was "eyeballing Zimmerman" as he "walked towards him" with his hands in his pocket that Trayvon was armed (just like the other burglars) and therefore Zimmerman felt that he had the right, under Florida law to stop a felony he reasonably thought was in progress.

The Defense will likely argue that when Trayvon ran he was exhibiting the same behavior as the other burglars that had terrorized the community (and I fully expect the use of the word "terrorized" to be used) and that behavior added to Zimmerman's reasonable thought that Trayvon was in fact a criminal caught in the act of committing a felony.

This point is how they are likely going to attempt to explain Zimmerman's exit from the "safety" of his vehicle. He, based on recent events had reason to believe that a crime was occurring (because Zimmerman noted so called "erratic" behavior displayed by Trayvon). This is important because not only does Florida law provide for citizens to stop a felony from occurring, but they also do not have to wait until harm is done to interfere. Think of it like this: If you see a man on the street following a woman and he's acting "oddly" and you go over to him and ask him why he's following that woman, you have not committed a crime. If that man yells at you and then throws a punch at you, you can, in fact, claim self-defense and defense of others.

The Coon Comment

What could sink this defense is the "fucking coon" comment. The 911 tapes clearly has Zimmerman stating that "they" always get away. Then under his breath he says something that many, including the author, believe to be "fucking coon". I am not clear as to whether there will be an audio forensics (if that is the proper term) expert on the stand to testify as to what was actually said on the audio. At the very least, the audio strongly suggests either "goon" or "coon". We know that linguistically it is pretty easy to confuse a G and a C. The mouth formation necessary to make either sound is very similar. I fully expect the defense to lean heavily on the "goon" interpretation arguing that goon and 'thug' and "criminal" are easily associated words. I'm not sure of the mindset of the prosecution but if they are anywhere close to my mindset they will lean heavily on the "coon" interpretation. Such an interpretation, if believed by the jury would be in my opinion enough to meet a "hate", evil or "spiteful" burden.


The Point Of Contact


After dealing with why Zimmerman left his vehicle with his alleged reasonable suspicion the argument will move to the point of contact. This is the muddiest part of the waters. First and foremost because the victim is dead and therefore cannot speak on his own behalf. Secondly there is, as far as I know, only one person, who witnessed any of the actual conflict. His commentary to the media indicates that Trayvon was on top:

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.


Everyone else, as far as I can tell from the media reports, only heard the yelling and the gunshot. None of them actually took a look out of their windows or doors. Therefore at best, their calls can only serve as a means of creating or confirming a timeline of events. If this "John' is called to testify and repeats this story, the defense will say that this shows that Zimmerman was under attack and shot Trayvon to protect his life. They will no doubt show the enhanced video footage showing the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head and on his nose to show that it was a "life or death struggle".

This will go to the argument of "indifference to human life" and Zimmerman's "act of defense" may be believed by the jury/judge. Once they "establish" that Zimmerman was acting in defense of his community and a "reasonable" belief that Trayvon presented a danger to it (which is why he left his vehicle), they will add that even if one wanted to believe that Zimmerman should not have left his vehicle, that since he was confronted after he gave up catching Trayvon, that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself at the point of alleged "aggressive contact" initiated by Trayvon. I call this the "disjoint" argument, where they will attempt to disjoin the leaving the vehicle from the "fight" which they will unlikely describe as a "fight" but rather as an "ambush" or something to that effect (anything to make Zimmerman look to be the victim).

The kink in this argument would be the phone call from Trayvon's girlfriend. Her comments to the media indicate that Zimmerman initiated contact with Trayvon. The defense will certainly grill this young woman. They will say that she did not hear the entire conversation and that when she heard Zimmerman say "what are you doing here?" it was in response to Trayvon's "do you have a problem?" question at point of contact. The defense will likely get the jury/judge to believe that this young woman has a reason to distort the truth (it's her boyfriend, community pressure, etc.) and perhaps even lie. That she could not have possibly heard everything that happened and that any "scuffling" she heard does not prove that Zimmerman initiated aggressive contact with Trayvon. They will attempt to get her to admit that it is "possible" that the noises she heard were actually the result of Trayvon's actions.

The Closing Argument

The defenses closing argument to the jury would probably be something along the lines of: Zimmerman was concerned for his neighborhood after a rash of burglaries that involved African-American males. Zimmerman prior to this had called the police numerous times about suspicious people, but they often got away. On the fateful night Zimmerman happened upon a person who was acting in a suspicious manner, much like criminals usually do. Zimmerman called the police. Trayvon ran away, Zimmerman pursued, putting himself at risk for the protection of his community. He was confronted by Travon after losing sight of him and returning to his vehicle. Trayvon beat on Zimmerman who in self defense, shot Trayvon. It is a tragedy. A Trajedy that would not have happened if Trayvon had not beat on Zimmerman.

Understand that an "unbiased" jury is going to enter deliberations with the idea that Zimmerman is not a "murderer" in the way that we typically associate the word. He certainly will not "look" like a murderer when he is in court. The prosecution will no doubt try to enter into evidence about Zimmerman's past arrests and behavior. The defense will likely counter that while it may show Zimmerman to be zealous it does not make him "depraved".


The above summation is why I think a lesser charge of manslaughter should have been levied against Zimmerman. I think the depraved indifference borden is going to be a high bar to hurdle. As noted before, it is entirely possible that the prosecution has evidence that leads them to believe that they can meet the burden, but allegedly so did the prosecution of the Sean Bell shooting.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Strip Search

[Updated 1:58 PM]

Yesterday it was reported that the Supreme Court ruled that strip searches of people taken jail under any circumstances by police are constitutional. Despite much noise from a lot of people, the ruling made 100% sense. The problem is not whether strip searches are constitutional (they are) it is what we as a society have allowed the police to jail people for.

As the justices in the majority decision pointed out, strip searches are done for the protection of those who work with inmates and for the safety of other inmates. Unless you have worked in "corrections" you have no idea the kinds of people that enter the system and the violence that some of them are capable of. Throw in gang members and you'll be very happy to know that you are unlikely to be on the cutting end of a razor that was under someone's tongue or some other implement that was in someone's ass.

Trust.

Say for instance that a gang member is stopped for a bench warrant from a speeding ticket. Say that person is carrying a weapon on his body. Say that because the court ruled that he cannot be searched because the bench warrant was "petty" this gang member enters a holding facility and is not "thoroughly" searched and the weapon is not found. Say that upon entering the holding cell, he comes across YOU who were also held from a bench warrant. Say the gang member decides that YOU are today's meal and picks a fight with you and brandishes the weapon that was not found. Sucks to be you eh? Well at least you weren't searched.

Sucks to be you.

Hopefully this decision will move people to reconsider their support of legislation that allows for people to be arrested for civil offenses. It was the people who elected people, repeatedly, who made it legal to arrest people for past due speeding tickets. It is certain segments of society who wish to criminalize certain speech. It is a certain segment of society that has created "zero tolerance" rules for school children to the point where police are arresting minors for dumb shit. How did these people not think that these rules would eventually lead to such a thing as being stripped searched? You allow minor BS to lead to arrests, exactly what did they think would happen once the person was arrested? Did they not know the process of being processed?

Take the previous gang member example. If the police could not jail people for bench warrants arising from speeding tickets but rather could only cite you again or at worst impound the vehicle. Neither the gang member or you would have been in a holding cell in the first place. Life and limb spared.

Don't get mad at the Supreme Court for deciding that the people running a jail are generally in the best position to judge what actions are in the best safety interest of those that work under such circumstances. Get mad at yourself for allowing legislatures to write laws that jail people for petty nonsense. There are other means to get people who have committed "petty" things to be accountable without sending them to jails.

[update]

So while I was working out I thought about this some more. I considered that a lot of people, when they see particular laws being passed like to say "well if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." I'm sure the people that passed laws that made it OK to arrest and hold people in jail for minor civil offenses thought the same thing. I'm sure not a few of them are in a position where now they see how such "minor" inconveniences and minor nicks in the Constitution can end up having you bent over and spreading your cheeks because you had the gall to go over 65 MPH.