The FBI Treated Occupy Like a Terrorist Group

In reference to the Newtown kilings I wrote, in defense of the second amendment, including the rights of citizens to own "assault weapons", that I do not trust the government. I pointed out that if one needed any more proof that the citizenry should not simply "trust" the government with the exclusive ownership and use of firearms, one should look no further than the various "occupy" protests (I won't even get into what happens outside the US).

As if to bolster my argument, the universe dropped this gem right in my lap last night:

the 112 heavily redacted pages reveal that the FBI approached the Occupy Wall Street protests as "criminal activity" -- which is not terribly surprising -- and investigated the groups as perpetrators of "domestic terrorism" -- which is fairly unsettling. More specifically, the Feds enlisted its own as well as local terrorism task forces in nine different cities across the country to investigate Occupy. In Memphis, the group was lumped together with Anonymous and the Aryan Nation in discussing the threat of "domestic terrorism." White supremacists and 99 Percenters aren't really two groups that we think about hand-in-hand but whatever.

Occupy as "domestic terrorists"?

And what power has the president given himself in regards to "terrorists"?

Indefinite detention you say?

Are we getting the picture now?

Counterfeit medicine from Asia threatens lives in Africa

International health experts are warning of a mounting health crisis in parts of Africa because of an influx of counterfeit medicine from Asia that is playing havoc with the treatment of diseases such as malaria. Porous borders in Africa coupled with indifferent oversight in China are combining to turn the continent and its pressing health problems into a free-for-all for maverick manufacturers, some of whom are producing pills with no active ingredients at all.

When you depend on other people to make things for you....

The NRA Press Conference

Yesterday the NRA had a press conference where it stated it's position on the calls for further gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown killings. The presenter was rudely interrupted by Code Pink (apparently uninhibited free speech is OK only when it is people who say what one agrees with) who could have had their own press conference and said whatever they wanted. Anyway, blaming the NRA for murders is like blaming Ford Motor Co. for vehicular homicide or Heineken for drunk driving accident. But this is America where someone other than the perp is always responsible. It is always a bad sign in an argument when insults and name calling becomes a substitute for actual facts and the like. There were no shortage of this after the NRA conference as Bloomberg got into the act along with the expected "liberal" outlets. The Times with it's "NRA Crawls From Its Hidey Hole" was really below it's supposed standard for editorials but not unexpected. Every news broadcast I saw on the subject neglected to discuss what the NRA's actual position was further than "armed police at every school". So in the interest of fairness and actually wishing to see a solution let's actually examine what was actually said by the NRA (opinions as to what the membership believes in terms of race and the like are not on the table).

Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. 1 And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk. How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses -- even sports stadiums -- are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family -- our children -- we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

I'll wait for anyone to offer a valid rebut to this position. It is a totally factual statement. If "guns" are the problem then ban them all. I would agree with that if you could actually 100% guarantee that nobody anywhere and at anytime could get one. Can you do that? No? right then. So you recognize that some crazy or criminal person can and will get a gun (or guns) then the statement above cannot be disputed. Let's move on.

The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters -- people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment? How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame -- from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave -- while provoking others to try to make their mark? 2 A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

Again, a totally factual statement. Nobody can dispute this statement either. I've seen commentary regarding how the mentally ill are currently treated. I think it's beyond the scope of this piece even though it is a valid issue that should be addressed. However this is the NRA not the NIH. The next thing the NRA goes into is about video games and movies:

And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it? 3 Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes -- every minute of every day of every month of every year.

I'm not with the analysis that watching violence makes one violence. Yes there is definitely proof that immediately after observing or participating in adrenaline pumping activities that males are more aggressive for some time after and will engage in more risky behavior. There is no dispute in that. I will certainly attest to that in my own life. However; there is no evidence that normal males are "suckered" into acts of criminal violence by playing games. I mean really...you can get shot multiple times and keep going like nothing happened? Really? I'm supposed to believe that? I get to "respawn" after being killed? Really? I can survive a RPG blast and run around shooting people? Really? Look, no rational male thinks that these games or movies are real. We know the fight scenes are choreographed and real fights do not work out like they do in Kung-Fu flicks and the like. There are only a small handful of people that "mistake" that for reality. The NRA pointed them out in the beginning.

To the point of those killers who used games such as Call of Duty to "hone their skills". Believe me, they had already decided to do the killing. Whether Call of Duty was available or not would not have made a difference. Do you really believe that killers actually sit down and say "well I can't practice on my X-Box so I'm going to call the whole thing off"?

Didn't think so.

So if anything, the NRA gets the gas face for the whole movies and video game theory it tried to walk out. Oddly none of the news reports I saw even addressed that fallacy.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?

I made a similar argument not so long ago. It's the same argument I make in regards to rape prevention. Would you rather be a statistic or have a loved one become a statistic while claiming "he shouldn't have done it" or would you rather create a situation where he "cannot" even if he wanted to? I always suggest the latter. But some people apparently would rather leave themselves defenseless against an assailant rather than have an increased ability to protect themselves.

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.

Exactly what happened.

A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your 5 living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?

Cannot even argue with this. Anyone who has had someone enter their home with ill intent has gone for a weapon (assuming they weren't immobilized in fear). And the NRA is absolutely right. We will defend our homes, with guns if available, but will not do the same in a place with our most "valuable" assets: Children? Yes. It is definitely a stupid double standard.

But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?

Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?

I made the same argument. I asked the same question. Not a single one of the newscasters, Bloomberg or Christie, even addressed this question. The NY Times attempted to address it:

In the 62 mass-murder cases over 30 years examined recently by the magazine Mother Jones, not one was stopped by an armed civilian. We have known for many years that a sheriff’s deputy was at Columbine High School in 1999 and fired at one of the two killers while 11 of their 13 victims were still alive. He missed four times.

People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis. That requires a willful ignorance about the facts. Police officers know that firing a weapon is a huge risk; that’s why they avoid doing it. In August, New York City police officers opened fire on a gunman outside the Empire State Building. They killed him and wounded nine bystanders.

You'll note that Mother Jones completely neglected to discuss the Pearl Miss shooting where the gunman was stopped by an assistant principle who retrieved his gun from his vehicle and confronted the gunman. Think if that person did not have to go to his vehicle in the parking lot.

Also there are obvious questions to ask about the Mother Jones research. For example in the 62 mass murder cases over 30 years how many armed civilians were in the immediate vicinity of the event? Obviously an unarmed civilian population is incapable of using a gun to stop a would be mass shooter. So that argument is dead on it's face without further investigation. As to Mr. Lanza, let us think on the hypothetical that the administrators were all armed or there was a contingent of armed personnel on that campus. Adam Lanza broke into the building by breaking the glass. Let us assume that there would have been a set of security cameras that would have alerted someone to Lanza being at the door and armed. NO sooner had Lanza made his entry then he would have been confronted by at least one armed person. Lanza is likely dead at this point. All children alive.

Say Lanza gains entry and no armed person is on the scene. The person who noticed the break in could/would have tripped an alarm that warned all persons to lock doors, etc. Then armed personnel confront Lanza, Perhaps one or two of them are shot. But Lanza is stopped. No children are killed. The NYT tries to equate the Newtown situation with the recent shooting in midtown Manhattan. Two completely different situations. But of course the entire point of the comparison is to raise fear and doubt in an already fearful and doubtful population. Anyway, back to the NRA:

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one -- regardless of personal political prejudice -- has the right to impose that sacrifice.

Bulls eye. Just read that paragraph again. Let that sink in. Because ultimately that is what all the "gun control" talk is about now.

I remember that non-fiction movie "Lean On Me" where Morgan Freeman plays the no nonsense principle who walked the halls with his baseball bat. Oh how far we've fallen.

I won't get into the NRA's specific proposal in regards to volunteer and non-volunteers to guard schools. That is a matter of budget and policy beyond the abilities of the NRA. But what I think needs to be done by the public at large is to stop with the emotional, from the gut reactions to these things. Stop with the dumb politics. Until or unless every single gun in existence is destroyed, there will be someone with one.

Mexico has some of the toughest gun laws in this hemisphere. It has a huge murder problem. Guns are smuggled in via the US (so we are told). So clearly "law" is not the solution.

The oft carted out "western Europe has far less gun crime than the US" argument is nice on it's surface. It is not until you realize that western Europe has almost always had lower gun violence than America and western Europe has less violence period and that has been the case PRIOR to the current gun laws they have undercuts that argument.

If one does not like guns that's OK. Just say so and move along. Name calling and false arguments are totally unnecessary. Media outlets are fast losing credence with the public because facts are far easier to find with studies and the like easily accessible over the internet. I don't care for the Nanny State BS that the left is creating anymore than I like the wild free-for all that the right has been pushing. Being against the NRA or "The Right" does not make one's argument any more factual.

Alternet and the Handwringing Liberals

Alternet has this piece up, for pageviews I'm sure, about the 9 Horrible Gun Laws Backed by the Right Wing Because obviously one must be a "Right winger" to agree with any of the items they list. Lets look at this list:

1. Guns on Campus

Dubbed the “Campus Personal Protection Act,” this model legislation would allow handguns to be carried on campus. The ALEC bill would also “limit” regulations that the governing boards of colleges imposed on the carrying of guns on campus.

This is basically an extension of the idea that a private law abiding citizen should be able to carry a weapon anywhere he or she is legally entitled to be. I don't have a problem with that. But it is part and parcel of the "right to carry". Either you have it or you don't. I do believe that folks who wish to run up into a school and shoot at students will think hard about the possibility that they will be killed in the process. That even though being armed does not in any way guarantee that you will not be killed. It does mean that you, along with all the other armed students/persons have a chance at stopping the would be killer should you have the chance.

It's the same reason I practice martial arts. If someone gets the drop on me I'm probably dead. However; should he or she fail to incapacitate me, I am very capable of ending the conflict quickly and if I so chose mortally.

But hey, If you want to cower in a corner or under a desk hoping that dude with the gun doesn't find you or the police get to campus and the building in time. PLease by all means, don't carry.

2. Immediate Firearm Purchases

Yeah I totally oppose this item. If you have no intent to use the gun for a crime, you can wait.

3. More ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

I agree with "Stand Your Ground" laws. Again, I see no reason why a law abiding citizen should be prosecuted for protecting him or herself from someone who is breaking the law and threatening their life. I actually don't even think there should be a need for such laws because it should be understood that one has the right to defend oneself to the point of mortally wounding an assailant.

With the rise of surveillance in America, it is now quite possible that in the near future just about every public altercation in America will be recorded and it can be found out who initiated a conflict without the he said she said and other forensics.

Don't let the use of Trayvon as a proper example of Stand Your Ground. Zimmerman was without reason to exit his vehicle while armed and run up on Trayvon who was legally at the location and committing no crime. Just because someone claims "stand your ground" doesn't mean it is "Stand Your Ground".

4. No Borders to Firearm Movement

This ALEC bill would, if passed, require states to recognize “concealed carry” permits or licenses from other states. This would mean that the state where guns are being carried in would have no recourse to go after people with guns if they have a permit and came from a state that allows “concealed carry” permits.

I agree with this one too. It makes no sense that you have to apply for a permit in each state you enter. No sense at all. Your driver's license isn't only for one state and your vehicle is a weapon. The technical term, at least in New Jersey is reciprocity. The state recognizes the "privilege" of driving as granted by any other state (or country)so long as you meet the requirements of being licensed and insured. Clearly it would be prohibitive for both citizens and the state to have to obtain special permits for each and every state one drove into. It's not like the specifics of how to drive changes when one crosses a state line.

So exactly how does one explain how the operation of a firearm or the background check to get one or the permit that one possess to carry change once one changes states?

From what I've read, these state laws have managed to save us from the menace of Hip Hop artists and basketball players who shoot themselves. Furthermore, last I checked all of these mass shooters lived in the state where they purchased/ obtained the gun used.

And to bring us back to the point. Law abiding citizens are not the problem and these laws only serve to make their lives more difficult.

I'm going to skip to number seven:

7. Guns for Emergencies This ALEC-backed legislation would prohibit states from confiscating firearms in the wake of a declared “state of emergency.” The group claims such a law would run afoul of the Second Amendment. It also calls for public employees who confiscate firearms to be found “guilty of the crime of larceny of a firearm or ammunition,” if such a law were on the books.

I am TOTALLY against the state being able to disarm the citizens upon declaring a "state of emergency". I simply do not trust the state enough to be cool with that. If you are so clueless as to not understand why I would suggest you look back on the Occupy protests. Regardless of your position on them the violence was one way and sometime brutal. You trust the state if you want to. The founding fathers put in the second amendment specifically because they did not trust government. The British went and proved them right on that one.

See some of the ideas aren't actually bad and some are actually in line with the better founding principles of the country. No need to simply say everything one disagrees with is "right wing claptrap". Sometimes people have not only a different perspective than you do, but also a different set of fears.

The NY Times on it's Errors in Reporting

One of the various reasons I have left Twitter and Facebook:

“In the Twitter age, the pressure is worse than ever to be fast — it’s become more difficult,” he said. “Some of the pressure is coming from readers. If they see a headline on a Web site, they start looking for a complete and fully reported story from us, and they protest if they don’t find it.”

NY Times I will probably write more about my vacancy of Twitter and Facebook over on my other blog but this one point is one of the things that maddened me about Twitter. People are free to say all kinds of flat out wrong things in a public setting with no repercussions at all. Worse they can flat out deny factual information with little more than snark because "it's my stream and I post what I want". Twitter can be useful...I get curated tweets on topics I'm interested in via FlipBoard minus the useless chatter thank you very much.

Sandy Hook Gun Violence: Sober Analysis

Amid all the tears and concern (and ratings boosts) that the Sandy Hook killing spree has unleashed on the public, I have seen very little in the way of cold hard analysis on the facts surrounding the case. I have a theory about that but I won't go into it here. What I will do is repeat what I've said many many times: This is not a "gun" issue. It is a person issue.

On the recent airing of This Week one of the commentators pointed out that the young man in this case went for the automatic weapons and not the hunting rifles. This, according to him, was proof that the issue is the gun. No one bothered to ask this fellow whether in the absence of said automatic weapons would the shooter have decided to settle on the hunting gun.

It's an obvious question, but was never asked. The reason is clear, there is a call from certain segments of the society to have a ban on assault weapons. I'm not going to go into whether that is a good or bad idea. What is important is that when folks are so focused on their pet concern, they fail to think through on the actual subject at hand.

I remind people that guns have not killed a single person. Not a one. Every person who has been shot has either had someone point a gun at them and pull the trigger, been hit by a stray bullet fired by a person. Shot themselves or dropped a gun they were handling or someone else was handling.

See the pattern emerging here? Guns are inanimate objects. They can do nothing without the person. Therefore the problem is not the gun but the person.

I've been reading Better Angels of Our Nature which makes it pretty clear that America, of all the "Western" countries is the most violent. Let's examine this piece from the BBC from back in 2001:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

A "deep" gun culture. one third of the population has arms and there was a gun crime rate so low there weren't statistics kept.

Few restrictions In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not. The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced. Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

Wait. The government sells weapons to the public? There are few restrictions on buying weapons? I thought the "problem" was availability. According to every talking head on TV for the past couple of days, the entire problem is the availability of guns. If this theory is so iron clad why does Switzerland have such a low violent crime rate?

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

[Note: Switzerland did pass a referendum requiring citizens to keep ammunition at "approved government facilities" after a successful push by "lefist" groups. The original plan was to strip all guns from citizens]

Ahhh... This takes us back to the entire reason for the original second amendment to the US Constitution. Gun ownership and use was largely an expected thing of men (and some women) at the time of the Constitution's creation. It's not as if gun violence was unknown to the founders. Gun violence, knife violence, etc. was well known and an accepted risk and danger of a free society. That was in addition to the fact that any citizen could up and form or join a militia for the purposes of defense (or for us black folks...lynch mobs). Therefore it is clear that the problem of "gun violence" in America is American culture. Better put and amply demonstrated in Better Angels of Our Nature (and elsewhere) the "cultures" in America. A recent study by Harvard professors Don Kates and Gary Mause shows the following:

Between 1998‐2004 (the lat‐ est figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R....

Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many devel‐ oped nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002....

“data on fire‐ arms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are high‐ est.”11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text: [T]here is no consistent significant positive association be‐ tween gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12

So let us dispense with the popular position that it is the guns and gun ownership that is the driver to gun violence. There is one point that is entirely true that needs to be admitted though. Guns do allow people who are too chicken shit to attack and kill someone with their bare hands the ability to kill with minimal risk to themselves. Suicide killers do not fall into that category. They know they will be caught and that they likely will be killed during or after their spree. Which brings me to the next point.

Another commentator in This Week pointed out that he owns a gun and has a conceal carry permit. We must understand that this recent shooter used a legally procured gun. This was not a case of an illegal gun (which Bloomberg will likely not mention). This underscores the fact that one does not know who will commit a crime. We do not know whether tomorrow, this individual on This Week will flip out because he caught his wife or girlfriend with another man and decide to shoot up her family. There is no knowing who will flip out or when. We only know that someone will flip out at some point in the future.

So we could have an assault weapons ban. Surely those who simply collect would have to go without even though most of them pose no threat to anyone. The criminals in gangs who want assault rifles will get them and use them. Suicide killers with enough patience will procure one regardless of legality and potential for punishment because they don't plan on sticking around.

Lastly allow me to ask one question that I haven't even heard asked: What if the administrators in that building were armed? How far could he have gotten if like the Swiss, every person in that building was qualified to shoot and owned a gun and had one concealed? Surely less lives would have been lost had one of the many teachers and administrators had a gun and had shot back (or at) the shooter. Why are "we" the public OK with being collectively helpless when one of those unstable people show up?

Man with knife injures 22 kids at school in China

In light of today's shooting in Connecticut and the expected "gun control talk"

A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes Friday, police said, the latest in a series of periodic rampage attacks at Chinese schools and kindergartens. The attack in the Henan province village of Chengping happened shortly before 8 a.m., said a police officer from Guangshan county, where the village is located. The attacker, 36-year-old villager Min Yingjun, is now in police custody, said the officer, who declined to give her name, as is customary among Chinese civil servants.

As I've said many, many times: it's not the gun it's the person.

Should Read "First [known] Biracial President"

Freedom Rider: Susan Rice and American Evil

In the latest Black Agenda Report we find a great comment that I'd like to share:

Walter Rodney was a Black intellectual and the author of a classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Born in Georgetown, Guyana, in 1942, he was the victim of a political assassination there in 1980....

But earlier in the book Rodney said something that turned out to be so incorrect that it is difficult to believe:

"Can the American state simply bring its armed forces to bear on the African continent without causing an explosion of the already developing anti-imperialist sentiments of the black people of this country? Can they get away with it by playing up racism and hoping to have the white sector of the population going with them? My feeling is that it is going to be extremely difficult, for it becomes more difficult as time goes on for the U.S. to manipulate. Cambodia and Laos were places that seemed rather far away and, as Lt. Calley said at one time, there weren't people there, only communists, things that you could kill. But now communists are assuming this human form and they are coming closer and closer to home. They have defeated imperialism in one area. When it crops up in Africa, I think the first major stumbling block will be the black population in this country. I don't care whether there are black congressmen, or whether there are black mayors, or whether they're supposed to be conservative or not. I really cannot see any black person in this country with any viability outside of a mental institution who could actually support the United States sending troops to intervene in Africa. And that is going to be a major contradiction. I know they won't come out and say that. And if there is some black mayor or congressman going into South Africa, I believe he would put his life in physical jeopardy from some other brothers around. I don't think it's a simple task at all for the U.S. to just go and jump into Africa."

This point is so dead on. In the past 4 years I have been utterly shocked and amazed by the change in attitudes from a number of persons I thought were on principle opposed to imperialism. No sooner had Obama got into office did these persons fall silent to actions that would have had them writing multivolume works. It was indeed disheartening. I won't even get into the folks who prior to Obama had nothing to say on anything remotely political who suddenly "found their voice" and weren't shy about expounding on the politics of the day as if they have decades of experience and study behind them.

But this fatally wrong belief about what black people will or will not do is something that many of us with an interest in the future of black folk need to keep in mind. Don't put anything off the table when it comes to people under a racist system. It has always been the case that those under oppression will spawn a majority population that will ape their oppressors in order to move up economically, socially and politically. It was the 2 "brothers" that put the bullets into Malcolm's body. No matter their issues with Malcolm they knew full well that he was acting in their general long term interest. But their short term personal wants overrode their sense of justice and decency. It's far easier to do and doesn't require doing anything illegal.

Anyway. Good point by Mark E. Smith

Ebony Looks to Its Past as It Moves Forward

I still miss Emerge though. I wasn't aware that the magazine had both a female CEO and Chair of the board. It explains much of the editorials I have seen on Ebony.com. I would be interested in the reader demographics.

We Cannot Make These Things Up

From the NY Times:

The lone Syrian rebel group with an explicit stamp of approval from Al Qaeda has become one of the uprising’s most effective fighting forces, posing a stark challenge to the United States and other countries that want to support the rebels but not Islamic extremists...Money flows to the group, the Nusra Front, from like-minded donors abroad. Its fighters, a small minority of the rebels, have the boldness and skill to storm fortified positions and lead other battalions to capture military bases and oil fields. As their successes mount, they gather more weapons and attract more fighters.

So the U.S. is effectively supporting a civil war in Syria in collaboration with Al-Qaeda whom we are told are "the enemy".

We just cannot make these things up.

What did I tell y'all about one of the goals of Al-Qaeda? A) To end the regimes they consider corrupt and B) To replace them with Sharia based governments. Remember Al-Qaeda is "not winning" and "not getting what it wants".

Black Male Life Expectancy

From Alternet

Black Men Die by 65 at Quadruple U.S Rate...

The benefit of education for African American males stops at 12 years, he said,...

About 40 percent of the least-educated African American males who make it to age 25 will die before they are 65, the study found, as will 22 percent of the most-educated. For all other groups, the chances of dying by age 65 are only 10 percent.

And an interesting side note:

African American women also present a puzzle when it comes to the link between obesity and education. For all other groups, higher education means lower chances of becoming obese, but “that is absolutely not true for black women,” Olshansky said

Reminds me of a comment made by someone I know that black women have it the worst. I had to resist the urge to point out that the data does not prove such a conclusion. Perhaps in certain areas they do but not all 'round. The chart at this location: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/2/350/T2.expansion.html Shows that for the disease categories listed, black men die at significantly higher rates than any other group, including black women regardless of educational level. Original article on Health Affairs: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/2/350.full?sid=6edcb07a-28d6-4859-8c99-d863306ebcf5

Weapons Sent to Libyan Rebels With U.S. Approval Fell Into Islamist Hands

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

As the baby in the Etrade commercials says: This would be my shocked face.

the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

Remember folks: the US and "allies" were to be providing humanitarian aide and protecting civilians not fomenting regime change.

From the NY Times

Growth in China’s Drone Program Called ‘Alarming’

Such is the title of a piece in the NY Times which contains the following:

Israel, Britain and the United States have pretty much had a corner on the global drone market, but the recent Chinese air show and a Pentagon report have exploded that notion.

“In a worrisome trend, China has ramped up research in recent years faster than any other country,” said the unclassified analysis published in July by the Defense Science Board. “It displayed its first unmanned system model at the Zhuhai air show five years ago, and now every major manufacturer for the Chinese military has a research center devoted to unmanned systems.”

The report, which said “the military significance of China’s move into unmanned systems is alarming,” suggested that China could “easily match or outpace U.S. spending on unmanned systems, rapidly close the technology gaps and become a formidable global competitor in unmanned systems.”

Question: Who is it that did not expect that nations, non-white nations, non-white nations who mass produce high technology for "white" nations, to not build drones?

Who is it that didn't think other nations after seeing the US and NATO float drones over countries with no regards to sovereignty and bombing any civilian male 16 years or older who happens to be in a location of "known" terrorists, thought that no one else would produce these things?

Are the people in these "white" nations still so stuck in their racist fantasies of docile people of color that they could not even fathom that their development and use of drones on people of color would not result in the same?

I have written a number of times about drones and the very real threat they pose to life on earth. Well not the drones but the lack of morals that allows their use.

Drones are a game changing technology in warfare. Unlike every other type of technological "advancement" in warfare such as the bow and arrow, spear, gun, missile, bomb, plane, long distance rifles, etc. there has always been some sort of risk to the soldier (intercontinental missiles possibly excepted). A nation had to put a soldier at risk whether he or she be in a plane, on the ground or on or under the sea. There was always some sort of risk entailed with warfare. Drone warfare changes this.

With drones you do not need "well trained" soldiers. You do not need professional soldiers. You could get a teenager who is adept at a game console to operate a drone (and I don't mean just the airplanes). All you need is a drone and a target. The only person at risk is the target as the killer is safely tucked away at his or her controller, which theoretically could be a laptop at their place of residence while the operator is in his or her pajamas.

Seriously.

Have you watched the movie "Surrogates"? There is a scene in there where drones (in the form of androids) are doing the killing while the "soldiers" are in a booth. This is a phase we will go through. Believe that.

Next is the self operating drone. This will be like the episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where the Enterprise encounters a planet in which the biological inhabitants have been killed off by automated learning war drones. The Terminator series also conceptually is plausible sans the liquid metal killers and time travel. The US military is already testing out self programmed drones. These drones would be able to be programmed with predefined targets and be "authorized" to execute when the target is found.

Now do you think that the programming capability to do this is limited to the United States, Britain and Israel?

Oh the UN is now concerned. Apparently the killings of civilians in Pakistan and elsewhere wasn't bother enough. NO, they are concerned because non-whites have the ability now.

Typical.

Warren Buffet Channels The Ghost

I remember back when Obama had floated the idea of lowering the employee tax in order to stimulate business. I got into a silly argument on twitter trying to explain how silly that was because businesses dont' hire or not hire based on taxes. Rather it is the case that businesses hire in response to demand. If they need more people to produce the product or service they will hire that next person to get that profit. It would be near impossible to stifle employment via sane tax policy.

The way I saw it, the entire reduction in employment (payroll) taxes was simply yet another give away to businesses who already have an array of tax regulations that benefit them greatly.

Here comes Warren Buffet saying the same thing:

SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.” Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

It's the same argument. What business is going to say "meh, I got all these orders I COULD be filling, customers I could be serving and making that money, but these taxes are just too high so I'm just gonna pass on all that money so I don't have to pay that extra 3 percent (or whatever it is)."

That's silly. You think all the part time hiring going on right now for the holiday season would NOT happen due to payroll taxes? You think all these retailers would pass on selling as much as possible by hiring as many people as necessary to maximize profit?

Clearly not.

Gaza

Let us be clear. Israel is about the last, if not THE last of the European settler states. It was founded by booting people out of their homes. People who still have keys to their homes or who have passed them down to their children.

Right now we have a president of the United States who is directly related to a man who was in the Kenyan Mau Mau resistance, who is defending a white settler state.

This president is in office in part because 95+ percent of African Americans, also victims of European settlers and their descendants who in some cases bombed their towns and "appropriated" their land for their own use without recompense.

Israel is backed by a country founded on the very same violence and dispossession of the native population and no one dares speak this truth in Congress, in the mainstream media or in loud tones for fear of being the target of the financial arm of the Israeli lobby.

This state is supported for one reason and one reason only: The security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

This entire episode with the backdrop of Iran exposes the Big Lie(tm) that the most dangerous country to the stability of the Middle East is Iran. Israel claims to fear an existential threat by a population segregated into less than 10% of the land mass that makes up the area. Iran exists, thousands of miles away and surrounded by American bases and yet and still only Iran is mentioned as a "threat".

Let us be clear. It has been and still is the fact that it is the Europeans who have been floating war ships and establishing bases in the region who are the "existential threats" in the region. It is their settler state on the banks of the Mediterranean that is the existential threat. Let us call this spade a spade. Everything else is politicking.

NLP and the Presidential Campaign

Back in 2008 I saw an article that pointed out that Obama was using NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) in his speeches. For this reason I make it a point to not listen to him speak but rather to read transcripts of his presentations.

Those who are familiar with NLP know that when mastered one can manipulate a lot of "lesser conscious" people easily and also be aware of when other people are trying to hide true intentions or are trying to suggest things to you on a sub-conscious level.

I'm sure a lot of people thought I was just nuts and being an Obama hater. Well the NY Times has revealed that the 2012 campaign in fact used "Behavioral science" experts.

Campaign volunteers who knocked on doors last week in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada did not merely remind people to vote and arrange for rides to the polls. Rather, they worked from a script, using subtle motivational techniques that research has shown can prompt people to take action.

“We used the scripts more as a guide,” said Sarah Weinstein, 18, a Columbia freshman who traveled with a group to Cleveland the weekend before the election. “The actual language we used was invested in the individual person.”

This is classic NLP. Note that in the article they point out that they have not and "cannot" disclose the specific techniques that have been deployed. There is a list of people who are disclosed as being "advisors" look up their work.

If you think that Team Obama is the only one's using such techniques to manipulate the behavior of the general public well I suppose you don't have any emergency supplies in your home either.

Garveyism and Employment

I saw the following at Techyville.com I cannot verify the story but it is in line with the published research in regards to "black sounding" names and employment prospects.

At the end of my little experiment, (which lasted a week), Bianca White had received nine phone calls—I received none. Bianca had received a total of seven emails, while I’d only received two, which again happen to have been the same emails Bianca received. Let me also point out that one of the emails that contacted Bianca for a job wanted her to relocate to a different state, all expenses paid, should she be willing to make that commitment. In the end, a total of twenty-four employers looked at Bianca’s resume while only ten looked at mines.

Is this a conspiracy, or what? I’m almost convinced that White Americans aren’t suffering from disparaging unemployment rates as their Black counterpart because all the jobs are being saved for other White people.

I'm going to paraphrase what Marcus Garvey said in regards to black employment in America:

When the white man needs employment what do you think he will do? He will hire his own first.

Let us be clear that the number ONE reason why African-American unemployment is so high is because we do not have businesses that employ our own first. By not having these businesses we are unable to give our youths the "first job" experiences and must depend on other folks to do that. WHo do you think they are going to hire when it's time to do "first job"? I can't even be mad at them because that is what they are supposed to do.

Unfortunately the most common response to this will be the most common response to this: "they" need to provide (put whatever you want here) for us.

I know folks will see that comment as "shades of Romney" but y'all don't understand: I don't want y'all having to be workers to be exploited and then kicked to the curb by a Romney. If you can't tell the difference then I can't help you.

Jose Mujica: The world's 'poorest' president

From the BBC. I appreciated one of the comments from the president in regards to materialism:

"I'm called 'the poorest president', but I don't feel poor. Poor people are those who only work to try to keep an expensive lifestyle, and always want more and more," he says. "This is a matter of freedom. If you don't have many possessions then you don't need to work all your life like a slave to sustain them, and therefore you have more time for yourself," he says.

Mau Mau Verdict Exposes Crimes of British Imperialism In Kenya

From the African Globe

Paulo Muoka Nzili, 85, described how he was stripped, chained and castrated, with large pliers normally used on cows, at Embakasi detention camp, near Nairobi. He said: “I felt completely destroyed and without hope. I have never had children of my own and never will have. I am unable to have sexual relations with my wife.”

Jane Muthoni Mara, 73, described how when she was 15, she was beaten and subjected to sexual abuse with a glass bottle containing scalding water inserted into her vagina at Gatithi detention camp. She had felt “completely and utterly violated”. The pain “has been bad ever since the beatings and has worsened as I have aged…. I do not understand why I was treated with such brutality for simply having provided food to the Mau Mau.”

No Work, No Pay. The New Economy is the Old Economy

The NY times has a great piece about the employment situation in NY since the storm.

Yesterday, or maybe Thursday I had a brief discussion about the jobs report and how "fishy" they are. I pointed out that the previous report had dropped unemployment by 3 points but the latest one had reported more jobs but had no effect or an increase in unemployment.

I had pointed out that people are taking jobs that don't pay well, are part time and are generally not the type you want to have when you are trying to improve the lot of the so called "middle class". This NYT piece underscores what I've been saying:

Low-wage workers, more likely to be paid hourly and work at the whim of their employers, have fared worse in the recovery than those at the top of the income scale — in New York City the bottom 20 percent lost $463 in annual income from 2010 to 2011, in contrast to a gain of almost $2,000 for the top quintile. And there are an increasing number of part-time and hourly workers, the type that safety net programs like unemployment are not designed to serve. Since 2009, when the recovery began, 86 percent of the jobs added nationally have been hourly. Over all, about 60 percent of the nation’s jobs are hourly. [My emphasis]

Women of the Klan

I good reading on women in the KKK:

Thanks to Kathleen M. Blee's superb scholarship in "Women of the Klan," I must now live with the fact that the Klan contained "all the better people": businessmen, physicians, judges, social workers--even Quakers, political reformers and (this is the truly discomforting part) feminists. In fact, during the 1920s, the period of Blee's research, the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan considered itself, with some justice, to be a major advocate of women's rights and interests--white, Protestant women's rights, that is.

Women of the Klan

While The "Debate" Went On...

While the latest in "Reality TV", AKA The Presidential Debates, were held last night, no one representing an actual ideological difference was present. Expected so, I watched Star Wars again. Sure the whole "we don't have bayonettes" anymore" may be a cute line, but the implication, "We bomb people remotely who we deem could be terrorists" hasn't seemed to pierced the consciousness of most of the viewership. Terrorists, being, in part, those US Citizens who are most pursuasive in their use of their alleged first amendment rights to speak out against a government which they have a grievance against. And oh, yes, their 16 year old sons.

Just in case.

But that's not the point of this post. I just wanted to point the reader to Michael Brenner's piece on the Debate Show(tm):

Yet there was complete agreement during the debate on the direness of the Iranian threat, and the commitment never to allow the mullahs to get close to having the potential for possessing a nuclear bomb – whatever the exaggerated differences on tactics.

Understandably. This is the view propagated by both the Bush and Obama administrations for a dozen years. It exercises complete dominion in the media, in the think tanks and among our political class generally. From the unanimity of opinion, one would never realize that it is based on suppositions of dubious validity....

The crucial assumption is that Iran is a criminal state. That judgment, however, is not based on any standard definition of international criminality. The only offense for which it has been judged guilty is a technical violation of its obligations as a
signatory of the NPT to inform the IAEA in a timely way of all its nuclear activities – in this case, civilian activities. (That since has been done). That’s it. The NPT stipulates no prohibition whatsoever on uranium enrichment to any level, activities that were considered an integral part of the civilian fuel cycle at the time the Treaty was drafted.

Of course nobody brought it up. I haven't seen a comment yet on this particular matter. I haven't even heard any commentary of late of the source of the conflict between Iran and the US (that whole Shah thing).

But I suppose since the Debate Show(tm) is entertainment and not an actual debate or anything intended to actually challenge fundamental policy, or, God forbid, inform the public, that such information doesn't fit the script.

Star Wars and Jar Jar Binks was a better way to spend my time.

Global Government

The idea of a global government is not new to me. It's a staple of Seventh Day Adventist "discussion" and is often mocked as a conspiracy theory by most of the population. Here's Kofi Annan on the subject

It was, by Annan's account, the ultimate moral dilemma; do loyalties lie with the UN and the rule of law, or with innocent civilians being slaughtered? He stands by his support for the Nato airstrikes, but warned at the time that unless the security council was restored as the sole source of legitimacy, the world would be "on a dangerous path to anarchy". [my emphasis]

I found that comment quite striking. The security council as the sole source of legitimacy? Of what? Oh, "The world". Oh. That sounds like a supreme world government to me. And hasn't that how it's been acting? The proper leader of Libya deposed and murdered, literally in the street, by NATO after being given "legitimacy" by the UN. Who is the security council? The former world colonizers, China and Russia. And China's on there because of two things: The Nukes and The Money. So much for "conspiracy".

Bashar al-Assad 'betrayed Col Gaddafi to save his Syrian regime'

French spies operating in Sirte, Gaddafi's last refuge, were able to set a trap for the Libyan dictator after obtaining his satellite telephone number from the Syrian government, they said...

With international attention switching from Libya to the mounting horrors in Syria, Mr Assad offered Paris the telephone number in exchange for an easing of French pressure on Damascus, according to Rami El Obeidi. "In exchange for this information, Assad had obtained a promise of a grace period from the French and less political pressure on the regime – which is what happened," Mr El Obeidi said.

What's that saying? What goes around comes around.

The Telegraph

Muslims in Bangladesh torch Buddhist temples over Facebook image

I've been waiting for folks who took to "explaining" the violence over the YouTube video to discuss this but I haven't seen any commentary. Here's the story:

AMRITSAR, India -- Hundreds of angry Muslims in southeast Bangladesh torched at least 10 Buddhist temples and dozens of homes Sunday after alleging that a Buddhist man insulted Islam on his Facebook page, authorities said.

Muslims, claiming that a Facebook page showed a burned copy of the Koran, headed to several Buddhist villages in the area.

Bangladesh's English-language Daily Star newspaper reported that the Buddhist who allegedly posted the offensive image on Facebook mistakenly tagged it on his Facebook profile and that his account was closed soon after violence erupted even as police escorted him and his mother to safety.

See, so not only can you not burn a Quran. You cannot post a picture of a burnt one in any context whatsoever.

I see.

Not only can you not post a picture of a burnt Quran, but you cannot tag a photo of a burnt Quran for any reason not approved by any and every Muslim who may stumble upon it.

I see.

And if you do such a thing, then regardless to your intent and regardless to whether you were the one who burnt the Quran random "sacred objects" of some other religion is "fair game" just because.

So for all those folks who bent themselves into all manner of positions to argue about Christian - Muslim 'misunderstandings" and the issues with "The West" should look at the fact that it really isn't about Islam and The West" it is about folks in Islam who think everybody has to do with they say, or else. Same threat I discussed before.

US elections 2012 How British companies pour cash into the American elections

I always tell folks that a lot of "entities" that cannot vote (or are even "citizens") have more influence than that of citizens. Here's another nice example:

More than one in five of Britain's largest corporations are channelling political donations to favoured candidates ahead of next month's elections in the US – though these sums may be only the tip of a new campaign-financing iceberg, according to leading politicians, judges and pro-transparency watchdogs....

Among the industries already well versed in bankrolling US politics are finance, pharmaceuticals, energy and defence. British multinationals such as HSBC, Barclays, Experian, Prudential, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, BP, Shell and BAE all have political action committees (PACs) that channel donations from employees to US politicians.< P />

Barcklays Arena anyone?

14 of the top 50 most active foreign-controlled PACs have parent groups listed in London, according to Washington group the Centre for Responsive Politics. This makes the UK the biggest hub for non-US multinationals seeking to exert influence at the US ballot box on 6 November. Despite this, some FTSE 100 groups continue to tell shareholders in annual reports and elsewhere that they do not make political donations. Companies are able to make such claims because PACs receive their funds from US employees – often led by the most senior American executives – and only dip into company coffers to cover administrative costs. Typically, the PACs are staffed by company lobbyists and distribute campaign contributions in line with the company's lobbying agenda.

Guardian UK

Hundreds of pastors back political candidates, defy tax rules

From Reuters

Baptist Pastor Mark Harris stood before his flock in North Carolina on Sunday and joined hundreds of other religious leaders in deliberately breaking the law in an election-year campaign that tests the role of churches in politics.

By publicly backing candidates for political office from the pulpit, Harris and nearly 1,500 other preachers at services across the United States were flouting a law they see as an incursion on freedom of religion and speech.

Under the U.S. tax code, non-profit organizations such as churches may express views on any issue, but they jeopardize their favorable tax-exempt status if they speak for or against any political candidate.

"Pulpit Freedom Sunday" has been staged annually since 2008 by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom. Its aim is to provoke a challenge from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in order to file a lawsuit and have its argument out in court... In that case, the agency took action against James Hammond, pastor of the Living Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, after he endorsed Republican Michele Bachmann for Congress. The move led to a challenge of the IRS' audit procedure for churches, which the agency lost, and since then there have been no publicly known examples of it taking action against churches.

I have often called for the IRS to stip the non-profit status of any non-profit, particularly organized religious bodies of their status. I do not quite understand how the IRS can lose such a court case. When I started my non-profit the wording could not be any clearer.

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

So exactly how is the IRS losing a court case with such a clear rule? I think there is politics going on. Each and every organization that sent a video of their leadership, acting in their capacity as leader of said non-profit (as opposed to as a private citizen outside of their duties under the non-profit) should have the organization lose it's status. So either the 2009 case was not a clear cut "Pulpit Freedom" event or there are people who are afraid of being the one to pull the tax-exempt plug from these organizations.

A Devastatingly Accurate Critique of Obama's UN Speech

I'd do my usual direct quotes but this piece by Esam Al-Amin thing is so brilliant that it deserves to be read in total. But in reference to the topic of the week, freedom of speech, I offer this portion:

Yet Muslims around the world wondered where were these protections of freedom of speech when several American Muslims were indicted and sentenced to as much as life in prison in the U.S. for exercising First Amendment activities, including an American Muslim pharmacist of Egyptian descent in Boston who was sentenced to seventeen years in 2012 for translating passages and uploading videos to the internet, and a cable operator of Pakistani descent who was sentenced to almost six years in 2004 for connecting his New York customers to Hezbollah’s satellite channel.

In many of these cases, government prosecutors speculated that the speech of the Muslim defendants was not protected because it could have led to violence even though no evidence was ever presented to support such a theory. Contrast that with the proven record of hate speech spewed by numerous American Islamophobes, many of whom were quoted extensively by anti-Muslim extremist Anders Breivik, who deliberately killed in cold blood 77 people in Norway in July 2011. In his 1500-page manifesto, Breivik cited many American anti-Muslim haters such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, Martin Kramer, and others. They apparently inspired him to commit the atrocious killings, though none were ever held, even morally, accountable, or subsequently condemned for their hateful inciting anti-Muslim speech.

Devastatingly true and note that The Ghost has been equally opposed to the prosecutions of Muslims on vacuous charges of "material aid" to terrorists via video and speech. Such charges are bullshit and a total disregard for the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Speaking Of Threats

To show just how much of a fraud the UN is, the Israeli Prime Minister stood up at The Podium(tm) with a picture of a bomb showing how close Iran is to developing a nuclear bomb.

Unlike our previous post where we asked "And if we do?" the question has been asked already and the response has been clear from Israel: We will strike Iran.

It is the height of hypocrisy and a clear indictment of the UN as a tool of certain governments that the Secretary General felt it was proper to tell Ahmedinejad how he was supposed to speak, and yet, as far as I know, had nothing to say to Netanyahu in regards to threatening Iran with missiles.

How are we to take the UN seriously when it allows governments to stand up in broad day light and threaten other governments with strikes and sanctions in clear violation of the UN charter?

If the UN had any credibility at all it would state clearly that so long as the US has Iran surrounded with military bases, it will not condemn any actions short of war made by the Iranian regime. That so long as Iran is a signatory to the Anti-Proliferation Treaty, it can enrich whatever Uranium it has as it sees fit, so long as it is within the guidelines of the APT. The Secretary General, if he had balls of his own possession should tell the US that there is only 1 country in this dispute that has not invaded, occupied and installed puppet governments in the region.

Secondly, If Russia and China believe in their vetoes as much as they say they do, I say they should float a few military ships into the Straight of Hormuz and conduct "exercises" of their own. If military exercises within' striking distance of a nation is "not threatening" and fine by the UN, then the presence of Chinese and Russian ships doing the same should not bother anyone. Right?

The Blatant Threat

Yesterday during the yearly UN confab where leaders of various countries come to NY, tie up traffic, get the NYPD brass overtime and get up and make speeches that don't matter all that much in terms of actual war and peace, a few leaders made blatant threats against those persons who wish to live in a society where they can speak freely, even disrespectfully and not have to worry about the state locking them up, possibly torturing them or worse, being killed.

First we had the new President of Egypt Mohamed Morsi who said:

“Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone.”

I'll stop here for a moment to note that his position is not much different from many persons on the liberal left in the United States. In the United States, much to my strenuous disagreement, we have things called "hate crimes" and "hate speech" in which persons can be prosecuted not only for say a physical assault, but have extra time thrown at them for what they were thinking at the moment. I have repeatedly warned that such "thought prosecution" (which is what these really are) is entirely against the purpose and point of the First Amendment to the US Constitution but also the basis of criminal law, that is that one is punished for actions not thoughts or beliefs. On various university campuses people are fired, suspended and the like for engaging in "hate speech" which is usually covered under "harassment" laws.

In Europe Judaism and Jews are afforded state protection against things such as Holocaust denial. I've said repeatedly that these laws, even given WWII, are hypocritical and certainly do not serve the interests of the state since it merely pushes those things underground where they go unchallenged by the light of truth. Some European nations also have laws against any speech that "incites" racial or religious hatred and the like. Yes, people have gone to jail for saying things that the state has deemed 'too offensive". I suppose the entire concept of being responsible for one's own behaviors is lost on these folks.

Anyway, the point being here that the liberal left and the Muslim Brotherhood have much more in common than they think. Morsi continues:

We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us,” said Mr. Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.”

Let us deal with the "expectations". Morsi as well as others fail to understand the "expectations". The expectation is as follows: In your country you do what you want to do. In your religion you do what you want to do. You don't want to draw Mohammed? Don't do it. You don't want Mohammed satirized or critiqued? Fine. Don't do it. After all if you are in the religion you are obligated to follow the rules.

The flip side is that those who are outside the religion (or the country) are not subject to your rules. I can draw Mohammed if I feel like it. I can do Mohammed satire if I so chose. I can write a book about his life and opine on what I think of his behavior if I so chose. I can do that because I am not subject to the rules of a religion to which I am not a part. That said let us deal with the threat.

Now it is entirely acceptable for a person to declare that they will not tolerate x,y or z action. No one has to put up with any behavior they do not like. However; the choices that person has in not tolerating certain behaviors is quite limited.

There are two choices for those persons who are offended by someone's speech or actions:

1) They may physically attempt to stop the person from speaking or acting via physical means. 2) They may remove themselves from engaging in the person making the offensive speech (that includes not watching videos, reading newspapers, etc.) One may say that one could use "the law" but if we understand government and it's monopoly on authorized use of force; "the law" is simply an extension of option one.

Therefore the only obvious response to a statement of "We will not allow anyone to do this by word or action" is:

"Exactly what are you going to do about it?"

You have to understand that "we will not allow" is a declarative threat. Certainly if you say "I will not allow" something and then when someone does it, you do nothing, you really did not mean "will not". If on the other hand you mean to enforce this "we will not allow" statement, then one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to enforce such a statement. This means that violence is on the table.

Let us be clear then, Morsi stood in front of the world's nations as a leader of a country and a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood and issued a threat. Either you toe the line of our religion regardless to your own faith, non-faith, etc or else

This should not be taken lightly in the least bit. It is classic Jihadism. And do not allow yourself to be fooled by the commentary of apologetic type Muslims who will insist that Jihad only means inner spiritual warfare. Do not be fooled in the least bit. What Morsi said is classic physical man-to-man Jihad ideology. Submit to our rules, or else

And do not think that Morsi is simply one person. This man knows full well that he has high support, whether it be a majority or not is not known nor important, that he has enough support to issue such a blatant threat on an international stage as a representative of a legitimate government should bother a lot of people.

Not to be outdone the president of Yemen, Abed Rabbu Manour Hadi, threw his two cents into the argument saying:

“These behaviors find people who defend them under the justification of the freedom of expression,” he said. “These people overlook the fact that there should be limits for the freedom of expression, especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

Anyone with a knowledge of history of religion in Europe knows full well the stupidity of such a statement. People have been disemboweled, burned at the stake, impaled by stakes and left to bleed to death, dismembered, Had every bone in their bodies broken on water wheels, and tortured with all manner of devices for the "crime" of blasphemy and other "major crimes" like speaking ill of religious leaders, religious institutions and of course, royalty.

No one in their right mind would even give a first thought to returning to anything resembling that bullshit.

Not to be left out Asif A. Zardari, President of Pakistan said:

“Before I take up my speech, I want to express the strongest condemnation for acts of incitement of hate against the faith of billions of Muslims of the world and our beloved prophet, Muhammad,”

“The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” he said. The United Nations should take up the issue immediately, he added.

The Arab League put itself on the record with:

spiritual harm should be treated as a crime, even as he condemned the recent riots. “If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm,”

Ahh yes, the attempts of religious people with thin skins and poor impulse control to have the criticism, satire or other commentary on religion, but especially Islam, criminalized world wide.

Spiritual harm? Really? Criminalization of "psychological harm"? Where do they get these ideas from (aside from US liberals who seem to have the same opinion)? You get your feelings hurt (which is essentially what this "spiritual harm" is about) and someone ought to be arrested, tried and imprisoned? No one at the UN laughed out loud when that shit was said?

Seriously. Usually when Ahmedinejad gets up to make a speech various Western leaders rudely get up and leave because I take it they do not want to dignify his "rant" by sitting through it. I would think that people that understand just how stupid the statements made here should have gotten up and walked out because THAT nonsense is far more out of order than anything I've heard Ahmedinejad say. I realize that the reason that most of the "leaders" of places where supposed "freedom of speech" is practiced do not speak up (as of this writing) is because of fear. They have business relationships they are afraid will be threatened. They also have large minorities of Muslim populations in their countries that they are afraid of offending. They are afraid of being seen as "racist" or whatever (in their own countries at that). They have feelings of guilt from former colonial activities in these areas of the world (well earned IMO) and so they are afraid to speak up.

So long as the so called leadership of these few places where people do not have to fear mob violence for religious insult or state violence for the same, do not speak up forcefully, unapologetically and with the same "or else" message for those who kill and threaten their citizens, they will find their future generations less free than they are now. The warning signs are right in your face.

A Failure to Understand the Nature of the Beast

The NY Times discussing the Obama administration's issues with the Morsi government in Egypt

What makes Egypt’s uncertain course so vexing for the White House is that Mr. Obama, more than any other foreign leader, has sided again and again with the Arab street in Cairo, even when it meant going expressly against the wishes of traditional allies, including the Egyptian military, the Persian Gulf states and Israel.

As recently as June, Mr. Obama was calling on the Egyptian military to quickly hand over power to the democratically elected civilian government — a move that helped Mr. Morsi, whose movement has called for greater use of Islamic law, assume power. At the same time, the administration was chastising the military, which has for 30 years served as the bulwark of a crucial American strategic interest in the Middle East: the 1979 Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

For anti-American unrest to erupt in Egypt after all that could reflect a deeper divergence of a once-staunch ally from the United States.

Well that's Obama's fault. Anyone who has any knowledge of history of the Muslim Brotherhood and "Jihadist" type Muslims knows full well that they will cooperate where necessary to get to their aims. So none of the "cooperation" at the time should be confusing. It is the same way that "Jihadist" Muslims in "free" Western countries take advantage of the liberal laws in those countries such as court rights, speech rights,association rights, etc. to further their own aims. Then when the host governments get a clue and try to step in, the 'Jihadist" in question then complains about the rights that are being violated.

There is a reason (for better or worse) why previous administrations were quite happy to deal with dictators in that part of the world. Here's my writeup from 2005's "Join the Ummah"

The modern ideology of Jihad was authored by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While imprisoned he wrote that the world is divided into two realms:

Dar Al-Islam- The abode of Islam. and Dar Al-Harb- The abode of war. He wrote that Muslims should not fight for a particular piece of land, but rather the whole Dar- Al -Islam, which we shall refer to as the Ummah. Dar Al Harb is any place that hampered the practice of Islam and/or failed to apply Sharia. Furthermore the abode of war should be combated even if one's own relatives, national group, capital and commerce are there.

Later another Egyptian, Muhammad Al-Farag, a leader in Jamaat al Jihad movement wrote in a tract entitled "The Neglected Obligation" that Jihad was the sixth pilar of Islam and that armed struggle was an imperative for all true muslims.

"There is no doubt that the first battlefield for Jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order."

Just something to keep in mind.

Andrew Levine Gets It

Even used a "fucking retard" quote like I did [well I misquoted and used "moron". Same thing.].

What Emanuel and Duncan and Obama want is what George Bush wanted: to despoil public education. Of course, this is not what they say. But it is hardly concern for kids, much less poor kids or for their families, that drives Bush-Obama efforts at reforming public education to ruin or that makes “market solutions” and privatization the order of the day. Only hapless Republicans and market theologians (to the extent there is a difference) could believe that. The Obamaites want to privatize public education, to the extent they can, for the same reason they want to privatize so much else: because there is a lot of money – local, state and federal – involved, and the corporate interests Obama and his basketball buddies work for want to get their hands on it.

How Stupid This Gets

*Beware!: Not Very Child Friendly Language ahead. Washington Post Poll:

Obama: 52% Romney: 33% Who would you like to be in command of a ship in trouble? Obama: 46% Romney: 43%

What. The. Fuck does having dinner have to do with running the fucking country? I don't want the president of the United States having dinner with me. I want the president of the United States to run shit and represent my interests. Fuck dinner! And to the second question. As far as I know Romney is the ONLY fucker in this race that has a fucking boat. There's even a picture out there

Why the FUCK would I prefer to have someone I don't even KNOW has a boat much less know how to sail or navigate one be in command of a ship in trouble? What the fuck kind of partisan bullshit is this? If I'm on a fucking troubled ship I want a mofo with boat experience to be commanding shit. That's not to smash on Obama. That's to smash on you partisan fuckers that know full well you wouldn't want anybody but the fucking CAPTAIN of a ship or somebody with, you know, SHIP EXPERIENCE commanding shit if the ship was in trouble What's wrong with you people?

No, Tell The IRS

So there's a petition going around to tell Cardinal Dolan to "Don't allow Romney endorsements in church bulletins"

In last Sunday's bulletin, a parish priest reprinted a letter from former Vatican ambassadors which concludes: "We urge our fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will, to join with us in this full-hearted effort to elect Governor Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States."

I won't be signing this because I think that if the folks behind this were serious they would instead be signing a petition to the IRS asking them to revoke the non-profit status of any Catholic church organization that distributed the endorsement. The non-profit status of any religious institution is on the condition that it does not engage in partisan politics. It cannot endorse any candidate though it may give out 'voter guides" that compare and contrast candidates. Let's get serious with these non-profit organizations that are knowingly and willingly breaking the law. Revoke their non-profit status and demand tax payment and penalties for any year they are found in violation.

Paul Ryan on Chicago teachers strike: ‘We stand with Rahm Emanuel’

Since I'm surrounded by folks who are enthralled by the concept of being a Democrat or Republican like they don't answer to the same bosses, I'll just let that headline sink in:

Paul Ryan on Chicago teachers strike: ‘We stand with Rahm Emanuel’

"Mayor Emanuel is right today in saying that this teacher's union strike is unnecessary and wrong," Ryan said in Portland, Ore., according to a pool report transcript. "We know that Rahm is not going to support our campaign, but on this issue and this day we stand with Mayor Rahm Emanuel."

I along with many open eyed and open eared folks (such as those at Black Agenda Report have been saying for years that the entire "school reform" is a corporate take over of the public school system. It is not being done for the benefit of the public, but for private companies who will/are seeking to profit off of education, directly or indirectly.

These corporate entities have their claws in both the Democratic and Republican parties and these entities are doing the will of these big boys. Just like with the auto industry the first thing they have to do is demonize the teachers as being lazy and incompetent. Never mind that the teachers have no say on the budgets, the locations, quality of material or student out-of-school life. These miracle workers who often deal with students from homes and environments that are anything but conducive to education are to be blamed for "school failure". No, don't look at things such as schools being funded by local property taxes therefore creating unequal funding. Lets not discuss the sky high unemployment rates in many of the communities that are "failing" (forget 8% try 16 - 20+ percent). Let's not talk underemployment, where parents need to work two or more shifts just to live. Oh no, the teachers are to blame.

That Rahm "fucking morons" Emmanuel sees eye to eye with Paul Ryan (his statements to the contrary clearly political rather than factual) is all the evidence that any clear minded person needs to know where the so called "pro-union" Democratic party stands.

But hey... Michelle Obama sure looked good in that dress.

Kinda..Sorta..No

Yes well this may be true, but Mike Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a problem trying to force his eating habits, or at least what he thinks should be your eating habits into the law. Liberals may want to think about that before making these images. Oh and Bloomberg has had the support of major NY liberals for a long time.

Hiring Slowed in August; Jobless Rate Fell to 8.1%

From the NY Times:

The economy added a total of 96,000 jobs in August, down from a revised figure of 141,000 in July and well below the 125,000 level economists had been expecting. The jobless rate fell to 8.1 percent, from 8.3 percent in July, but economists said that was a sign more unemployed workers were discouraged about the prospect of finding new jobs, rather than an indication new jobs were being created.

Not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention rather than gushing at Republican and Democratic convention speakers.

The Perfect Storm 2

So last weekend 37 people were shot. 9 died. Stop. Last weekend. 9 dead 37 shot. And folks are worried about Michelle Obama's head on a historical painting? Anyway, in 2010 I wrote a piece entitled A Perfect Storm of Pathologies about a rape that occurred in Chicago in which I noted one disturbing aspect of that crime:

That leads to my final issue. The mother of the male who was too impatient to get his rape on, who, like those "grown" men involved should have known better. Backed up her son's outrageous claim of the victim's consent. Clearly we have a failure on the part of the parent. If you are a parent and your son thinks that it's OK to engage in intercourse with someone who is unable to give consent, you have failed.

Turns out that this is not an isolated situation. In the recent report on the mass shootings in Chicago I saw the following:

Last year a Chicago mother was arrested after she allegedly drove her son and an accomplice to shoot a person they believed was a snitch.

From the original article:

Cicero Police Chief Bernard Harrison said the mother likely thought the person who allegedly told police about a drug-related incident was in Cicero when she drove her son and a friend to shoot the person. "But they ended up shooting someone else," Harrison said in an issued statement.

Again what we have here is not only a perfect storm of pathologies but a clear example of intergenerational socialization into criminal behavior. I'm going to leave it at that.

Michelle Obama + Bare Titty = Black Rage

Black folks are a sensitive bunch. While the history of black folks in the US can explain much of it some of it is plain, well, dumb. One thing that I do not like about black folks is that a segment of black folks think they are above critique. You can't say anything "negative" about black folks regardless of how factual it is without someone complaining about how we're "blaming the victim" or otherwise repeating racist material.

The other set of black folks that I find quite annoying are the ones who deem that anything they deem "offensive" must be so. furthermore, they are arbiters of what is and is not "racist". You cannot argue with them. You cannot point out that there are other more likely explanations for a given situation. If these folks declare something racist, then by God it is 'racist". And you who disagree must be racist yourself (if you're not black) or you are someone "lacking consciousness".

The latest exhibit is the now famous "Michelle Obama as Slave" magazine cover.

Original:

When I first saw the picture I recognized Michelle Obama, but did not recognize that the portrait was taken from a specific slave portrait. When I saw on Twitter that it was supposedly a slave portrait I said to myself:

Oh the artist [who I did not know was not black at the time] must be making a point about how Michelle Obama being a descendant of slaves in America is now the wife of the most powerful man in the US. Clearly this is a commentary on how far African people in America have come.

Of course this rather obvious explanation was lost on a good number of so called "conscious Negroes". What did the "conscious Negroes" see? Well they saw Michelle Obama and a titty and went nuts. We know how Americans are when it comes to Titties: If it's not in porn, it needs to be covered. I suppose the conscious negroes would have been less mad had the artist further altered the original and covered up the titty.

Anyway, last night I finally read the explanation of the piece, as printed on the magazine cover. It was exactly what I thought it was. shocking!

Here’s a roughly translated description of the article “Michelle Tataranieta De Esclava, Dueña De América” (Michelle, Granddaughter Of A Slave. Lady Of America): “…(The phrase) Behind every great man there is a great woman describes the Obama marriage. In the shadow of the U.S. President is a person whose popularity ratings exceed those of Barack’s own. This person is none other than his wife Michelle.”

Now there is a time and a place for black folks to be up in arms. The Black Woman Cake was one such moment. Folks engaging in mock cannibalism of a "Black body" while the artist screams along with the gross "black face like" characteristics, while the white guests laugh and socialize was certainly wrong on many levels. But this piece here, in my opinion is actually very good art. It should only offend those who are or wish to forget about the real circumstances that Michelle Obama came to be who she is and where she is. It is an important piece of artwork and done with fidelity to the original and with taste.

Complaining Negroes need to have a seat.

Sometimes....

Sometimes you just read headlines and wonder "WTF?"

Legitimate Analysis

Analyzing the Aikin comment without the politics Legitimate: 1) According to law. 2) in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. Rape: 1) the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2) any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. Legitimate Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that in accordance with established law is deemed unlawful due to being compelled through physical force or duress.

In all the hoopla surrounding Akins commentary about "legitimate rape" I lost sight of my purpose as a writer concerned with fact, which is to be fair and look at all the angles before jumping to conclusions. In this politicized environment jumping to conclusions and public shows of outrage particularly when it concerns a group one does not care much if anything for, is easy to do. Knowing that most of the US population does not read much above high school level (if that) it is understandable how most of the population would have lost their mind at the idea of "legitimate rape". However; upon further examination the term is actually not offensive in the least bit.

The reason for this is because the term"legitimate" has been confused with "actual" or "real". The latter two terms used by those who attempt to distinguish between things such as "date rape" or "acquaintance rape", which is the most common form of rape and forcible "stranger jump out of the bush rape" which is in the statistical minority. Many, particularly those on the "right" have been attempting to use these qualifiers in order to make an attack on abortion. I'm not addressing this particular angle here. This piece is only in regards to the actual statement and the actual facts

So then having seen how the term "legitimate rape" can, in fact be used without any nefarious intent we have to ask the next question: if there is such a thing as "legitimate rape" then what exactly is an "illegitimate rape"? Taken from the above definition of legitimate we could assume that illegitimate rape would be a sexual act that falls outside the legal definition of rape. for example, in some states rape requires that a penis actually enter a vagina. In such a case anal intercourse may not be legally considered rape. Rather it would be considered sexual assault or Sodomy. Another example would be if in said state a person was a victim where a broom handle was inserted into their vagina. That may also be considered "Sodomy" or "sexual assault" but not a rape.

Therefore it is clear that one must be careful when discussing rape because persons, usually emotional about the subject, will be put off when one says "actual rape" meaning "by the book".

But that still presents a problem. If rape is definitively an "illegitimate" act, then how can we even define an "illegitimate rape"? My position would be that the proper phrase, given the definition of legitimate, would be an illegitimate *accusation* of rape. Note the difference. I'm asserting that a *claim* of rape may be found to be illegitimate (which happens more frequently than people believe). That is, someone may claim to be raped but the evidence shows that such a claim is illegitimate ie "not in accordance to law" because either the alleged victim lied about the encounter or the person he or she fingered did not actually commit the crime in question.

This brings me to another point. I have had many discussions with women who are of the opinion that any and every rape claim should be taken as truth. I could see those persons not living in America or unaware of American history to make such a mistake but I do not see how any person who lives in a country where a person is presumed innocent under the law, to take such a position. I also cannot fathom how black women (and men) could be of such an opinion given the history of false rape claims that have ended up with black men hanging from various trees and being parted with certain body parts.

With that little commentary out of the way let me move on to the other part of the Akins comment. Akins made the claim that " "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy".

Yet through all the hoopla surrounding the comment, I saw very little in the way of "fact checking". Yesterday while suffering through Bourne Legacy, I stumbled across the following piece on Google which stated:

A previous study found that five percent of rape incidents result in a pregnancy among women of reproductive age and estimated that rape causes more than 32,000 pregnancies in the United States every year.

So 95% of rape incidences do not result in pregnancy. So let's return to Akins comment along with the above definition of "legitimate rape":

5% of those persons subject any act of sexual intercourse that in accordance with established law is deemed unlawful due to being compelled through physical force or duress, have a pregnancy as a result.

Therefore Akin's comment in regards to the frequency of pregnancy via rape is actually correct. So where did he go wrong? The erroneous part of Akins statement was the whole "the woman's body can shut things down" in response to being raped. Certainly those 5% are certainly not going to want to be told that their so called "anti-rape" biological defense mechanism failed to kick in. And certainly no one should be telling any victim of rape such a thing. That is indeed offensive. However that does not change the fact that under stressful conditions the human female body will have problems conceiving and carrying to term, a child. There certainly is not an on/off switch as Akins claimed there was, but rather a set of responses that may be triggered after a rape (or any traumatic event). But let's not take my word for it. Let's look at the literature on the subject. Here's the NCBLI (National Center for Biotechnology Information ) on the subject: Stress reduces conception probabilities across the fertile window: evidence in support of relaxation

CONCLUSION(S): Stress significantly reduced the probability of conception each day during the fertile window, possibly exerting its effect through the sympathetic medullar pathway

Another article Stress and other environmental factors affecting fertility in men and women: overview says:

A close association between stress and eating disorders is frequently found in female patients presenting with anovulation and amenorrhea. This is not surprising since both conditions lead to a slow-down of the LHRH pulse generator and consequently, of gonadotropin secretion and gonadal function.

Another article from the journal Human Reproduction (subscription required) :Should fertilization treatment start with reducing stress? tells us:

There is substantial initial evidence that the psychological disposition of the parents-to-be influences their fertility and thus the outcome of fertilization techniques.

There is ample evidence that lower stress levels mean better female and male natural fertility, though there is as yet no conclusive experimental evidence that lower stress levels result in better fertility treatment outcome. However, first reducing stress may diminish the number of treatment cycles needed before pregnancy is obtained, may prepare the couple for an initial failure of treatment or even make the more invasive techniques unnecessary.

the follicular levels of glucocorticoid hormones, especially lower follicular cortisone and a higher cortisol/cortisone ratio have shown to have a significant effect on pregnancy rates in IVF.

The female reproductive tract contains catecholamine receptors (Moran, 1975); thus, catecholamines—which are related to stress, see Table I—may affect fertility, for example, by interfering with the transport of gametes through the Fallopian tube or by altering uterine blood flow (Schenker et al., 1992). A substantial number of studies found that anticipatory anxiety and high anticipatory cortisol levels prior to oocyte retrieval (OR) and embryo transfer (ET) result in lower pregnancy rates, as do depression, high active coping, high avoidance and high expression of emotion

I would humbly suggest that the act of being raped is stressful. I would suggest that the aftermath: worrying about life ending diseases, court dates that can go on for months, possibly facing the perpetrator, or not having the perp caught and at large, are all long term stressors that would qualify as things that could have an adverse effect on possible ovulation or carrying to term of a fertilized egg.

Given the report above that the vast majority of rape incidents do not result in pregnancy (32,000 is less than .01% of the total US population) it is clear that a variety of factors, known to many couples who have had a hard time conceiving, can and probably do act to prevent conception or the carrying to term of a human child.

So given this and far more information available, it is flat out wrong for certain "news" outlets to claim that Akins was presenting "junk science" nor were the claims of the "rarity" of pregnancy resulting from rape statistically incorrect. Akins may not have understood the science. But the science is not "junk".

So Akins actual faulty language was the suggestion that women somehow have an on/off switch that they can/do/must activate in order to prevent pregnancy. That is offensive and deserves to be pointed out as such. However; he rest of the statement, on it's face is actually accurate. However to see that we must take off our political blinders and our ideological glasses and turn off our "immediate outrage" switch.