The Purpose of Foreign Trade

foreign trade and economic development have been used to concentrate economic power in the hands of dominant nations. What is really going on is covered up with do-good verbiage and formal models. In reality, trade and development are ways to colonize countries that think they are independent.

I believe brother Nkrumah called this "Neo-colonialism".

from Counterpunch

Kinds of Slaves

‘Chains are for the slave who has just become a slave, who has… just been brought across the Atlantic,’ Boubacar said. ‘But the multigenerational slave, the slave descending from many generations, he is a slave even in his own head. ‘And he is totally submissive. He is ready to sacrifice himself, even for his master.

From the Daily Mail

"Misspoke?"

It was reported that Mitt Romney offended Palestinians when he made yet another "Anglo-Saxon values" type of speech in Israel. Stating:

As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,"...

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence."

Ahh the "hand of providence" otherwise known as The White Man's Burden. Not that I expect much different from a Republican, but that isn't really a story. Why? Because it is actually the opinion of those in power in Israel.

Meanwhile on Sunday, Israeli daily Maariv published an interview with Interior Minister Eli Yishai, in which he stated that most of the "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man."

So if this is the actual opinion of those in Israel and it is on the record then what has Saeb Erekat Been reading that had him make the following statement:

"It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people," Erekat added. "He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority."

There are a couple of possibilities. Number one is that he simply does not know of the statement. If he doesn't I would find that pretty shocking. It's not every day that government ministers go on record with some White Man's burden commentary.

Surely those in charge of intelligence gathering in Palestine keep an eye out for such statements. The second possibility is that Saeb Erekat may consider himself "white". In which case he identifies the same way as the Israeli's as it pertains to the African migrants, the presence of whom was the subject of the linked quote. It would explain why he apparently missed the not too long ago statement made by an Israeli government minister.

Constitution-Fil-A

I've sat in amazement as I've watched people, particularly those on the left, talk about Chik Fil-A's founder's position on marriage and the subsequent threats that have been directed at potential franchisees of said business. And while there has been much outrage over the position of Chik-Fil-A's founder, there has been far less commentary devoted to the reactions of certain mayors in regards to the threats they have posed to US democracy.

This isn't the first time this year that so called 'pro gay rights" folks have completely dropped the Civil Rights ball in their quest for so called "equality". Earlier this year Manny Pacquiao expressed his religion based position on homosexuality by quoting a verse in the Bible that generally states that such persons should be stoned. Not that I personally agree with such a position but it's supposed to be "America" where two things are supposedly sacrosanct: speech and religion. The owners of The Grove in LA said that due to Pacquiao's comments he would be banned from the LA mall. While many people went on and on about Manny's statement, nobody, not a single person from the "gay rights" crowd or the so called "equal protection" crowd expressed alarm over a place of public accommodation blatantly violating the law and in particular the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, the one people like to beat over your head when there are threats of racial discrimination.

See; as is usual around these parts of late, the Civil Rights of certain people, usually those of an unpopular opinion or religion (often one and the same) are up for grabs when they apparently conflict with the morals (or lack thereof) of another more popular group. Let us be clear on the law: no place of public accommodation may prevent a member of the public access based on their race, religion, color, creed or sexual orientation. Period. What the Grove did was no different at all than the public threats and actions of Bull Conner. Yes, I said it and it's a fact. And that is bad company to be keeping. Unless Manny Pacquiao had made a threat to the public such as threatening to stone or otherwise harm anyone he saw in The Grove that he considered homosexual or was disturbing the peace, or any other immediate and present danger to the public at large or patrons of The Grove then The Grove has no legal basis to deny him access. Enter Chik-Fil-A. Anyone who has been paying attention (apparently that would be few of us) knows that Chik-Fil-A was founded by what we would call conservative Christians. The stores are not open on Sundays in order to observe the Protestant/Catholic Sabbath. In light of this to be surprised about the founder's position on marriage amounts to a whole lot of wishful thinking on the part of those so disposed. But in reality the position of the founder is of little relevance because the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, protects his right to his position as well as his right to open up any legal enterprise that meets all municipal codes and adheres to the rules laid out by the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it pertains to public accommodation

Apparently this little legal issue was forgotten by certain elected officials who oddly took some sort of oath to uphold the constitutions of both their state's and the country's. Shocking I know. Just like with The Grove, these persons completely lost sight of their obligations under the law and threatened local franchisees with denied permits to do business based on the religious based opinion of the franchise founder. Imagine that? Would you like to have your employment based upon your association with someone who you are connected to in some weak way who has an opinion that your potential employer doesn't agree with? Are we going there now?

What was conspicuously absent from the threats agains Chik Fil-A was any charge of discriminatory practices in it's corporate HQ or at any one of it's local franchises. Not one of the talking bobble heads could point to any case where a homosexual, black, Hindu, Muslim or disabled person was discriminated against in any of the franchise locations. Not. A. One. Think about that. A store being threatened with denial of service by local governments for not discriminating against its customers. That's some bullshit. You may think that this is preposterous but it isn't. By threatening local franchisees with an illegal and unconstitutional denial of permits and the like based on some third party's opinion is exactly what is being proposed. That these mayors have to be reminded of this rather than they (except Bloomberg) didn't brush such idiocy aside from the beginning shows exactly what these people are about.

The way I see it, the mayors who proposed such nonsense should be out on their asses come the next election based on this single issue (and I'm not given to single issue voting). Why? Because it is clear that they do not understand what their primary job is and it is clear where their priorities lie. A head of government who is willing to break the law to punish a business with the resources to fight is definitely willing to break the law to punish the "little person" who does not have such resources. That should concern the citizenship. As for Chik-Fil-A the options are clear. If you the potential customer does not agree with the opinion of the founder then by all means avoid spending your money in that place. If you don't like that the corporate entity has donated to a cause you disagree with, by all means, Do not shop their. It is really that simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money with people or entities with whom they have a moral issue with. However a bright line is crossed when the government steps in to police the free speech and free exercise of religion and association of citizens. That should bother you far more than what the folks at Chik-fil-A are going on with.

Money Vs. conferences

Yesterday Negroes were esctatic that Obama made an executive order to "study" African-American education. I read the piece and noted that there were no, zero, zilch new monies directed at Black schools, school districts, teachers therein or anything of the sort.

Today the NY times reports that Obama signed a $70 million for the defense of the state of Israel.

No new money for African-americans. CITIZENS who are tax payers. But $70 million for Israel.

Who's the damn fool here?

So Mugabe Had it Right?

The NY Times on the results of the "land grabs" by Mugabe:

Before Zimbabwe’s government began the violent and chaotic seizure of white-owned farms in 2000, fewer than 2,000 farmers were growing tobacco, the country’s most lucrative crop, and most were white. Today, 60,000 farmers grow tobacco here, the vast majority of them black and many of them working small plots that were allotted to them in the land upheavals. Most had no tobacco farming experience yet managed to produce a hefty crop, rebounding from a low of 105 million pounds in 2008 to more than 330 million pounds this year.

The success of these small-scale farmers has led some experts to reassess the legacy of Zimbabwe’s forced land redistribution, even as they condemn its violence and destruction.

But amid that pain, tens of thousands of people got small farm plots under land reform, and in recent years many of these new farmers overcame early struggles to fare pretty well. With little choice but to work the land, the small-scale farmers have made a go of it, producing yields that do not match those of the white farmers whose land they were given, but are far from the disaster many anticipated, some analysts and scholars say.

So essentially, had the British lived up to their obligations to "compensate" white farmers so that the land resettlement could have gone peacefully there would have been a better outcome. However; because the British did not live up to their obligations and instead sought to demonize Mugabe, Mugabe lived up to his promises to *his* people and now after the forecasts of doom and gloom and all manner of "western" interference, the people are actually benefiting from the decision of one Robert Mugabe.

And mind you this is just Tobacco.

San Diego Reader Magazine Headline: “No One Likes Black Girls”

From the San Diego Reader

Do note that the picture they used is of a black child with clear European or other non-African ancestry. The purpose is not to nit pick at what "black" child is presented but you would think that if one is going to write a piece in which one discusses how people do not like black girls, one would put a black girl on the cover. Particularly one with "motherland" black hair that "naps up" into little beads when allowed to grow naturally.

For those who don't know of what I speak of, see below:

You will note the texture of the hair. I know some o' y'all haven't seen such a thing up close and personal.

[update] apparently the actual piece: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2012/jul/11/cover-afro-puffs/ Is about something ENTIRELY different. Fell for the click bait. [/update]

Independence? What Independence?

From the NY Times this morning.

On Wednesday, a Kenyan oil official told Reuters that the country was canceling an agreement to import up to 80,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran after Britain warned Kenya that it could run afoul of the sanctions.

Exactly how does a former exploitative colonizer (is there any other type) have the gall to tell it's former victim whom they can do business with and what "sanctions" they are going to impose if they do? That's pure bullshit.

Here I thought Kenya was an independent nation. An independent Kenya would have been able to tell Britain what cliff to jump off of and do business with whomever it pleased.