Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges,..."Legitimate domestic violence"? Would these be the same women that had a fit when "that man" said "legitimate rape"? Oh sure is: http://jezebel.com/search/?display=all&sorting=date&q=Todd%20Akin&page=4 I could fill the page with the results of "Tods Akin" and "legitimate rape". You would think an organization that pillored a guy for putting the word "legitimate" before a felony would make sure to not put the word "legitimate" before any other crime. You'd think. But you know, when women up and beat on a man It just might not be a case of "legitimate" domestic violence. I mean he must have had it coming or deserved it.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
So reading JudgyBitch's blog entry in response to Jezebel I ran across this quote (which I missed when reading the original Jezebel piece):
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Yesterday I posted on the dumb Change.org petition to get Mattel to produce a black Barbie. Had to break down basic ethno-economics on the matter. Today via a comment on the site Stuff Black People Don't Like We have the following which should give black folks pause when they are deciding on medical care and other activities:
Now, let me tell you something really funny. I am an eye doctor. I am not allowed to put a sign up that says WHITES ONLY, thus every single African that comes to me has NO F'n CLUE that I am a Racist Pig Whiteass Cracker.As the boys on record say: For real for real. Now about those reports on racial disparities in healthcare......
When they come to me I raise my prices. My staff knows I do this, but since my entire staff is WHITE, they get a kick out of it. I charge Africans and Aztecs more to get back what they have stolen from me. I get a big kick out of it. I smile (they like a smiling White man) and I act like I care, even though if it was up to me every single one would be deported back to their sewer countries.
Why do the Negroes and Mayans come to me? I once asked a Wetback who worked with me when I worked at someone else's office, why. He said: They want a White Doctor. They don't want an Hispanic doc. They think Whites are better.
And, Boy, we are. (I am assuming you are a boy, boy)
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
In what was the richest country in the world (I believe China has taken over this spot, but unoffialy). A town justifies throwing out food from a closed supermarket.
The Marshal of Richmond County, Steve Smith, says the food wasn't theirs to give away, so they had to trash it. "We don't have authority to take possession of the property; we just have to make sure that it's handled, disposed of by law," Smith, said. SunTrust Bank in Atlanta owns the property and they're sending the merchandise to the landfill after evicting the Chois, the owners of the grocery store.I've said that banks are greedy but this right here is an example of just how lowdown and dispicable these banks are. So a charity did not pick up the goods. So what? The better option is to toss it in a landfill? This is how little those who have care about those who do not. I could understand if there were insurance and liability concerns. Let the bank sign a notarized waiver of all rights and responsibility for the food. Therefore just as when you put your trash to the curb, it is no longer your legal property. If someone takes what you put on the curb, you can't claim that it was stolen nor can the person who took it sue you for damages they may get by taking, using or injesting what they took. The city could have easily done crowd control, let people take what they wanted and then remove the rest. Perhaps removed goods that could spoil for reasons of public health. But to toss the food simply on a technicality was callous and cold.
African-Americans have the highest levels of unemployment in America. Causally African-Americans have the lowest level of business ownership. Relatedly, Most African-American businesses hire no more than one person. Also relatedly, African-American businesses, in most markets generate 1% or less of the business profits in the markets they are in. Why is this? The answer is simple. Look at every ethnic conclave in a given city. Go to the Chinatowns of Manhattan and Queens. Go to the Hispanic sections of Paterson and Passaic. Go to the Italian and Russian neighborhoods of Howard and Brighton Beach. Go to the Jewish neighborhoods in Crown Heights and Williamsburg. What do you find there? You find the businesses owned and operated by the ethnic members of the communities. The businesses that cater specifically to the cultural needs of those communities. The foods. The clothes, The entertainment. The religious artifacts, etc. Who are they employing? People from the neighborhood and/or people who have recently immigrated into the neighborhood from "a foreign" (Jamaican slang for "overseas"). Generally speaking when you go into a heavily black neighborhood you do not find this. What you find are stores owned by various ethnic and racial groups. Retail outlets. Laundromats. "corner stores in the middle of the block" (Yes I know the author. Yes, buy his book.) "Supermarkets" with spoiled and near spoiled products. What businesses do the black people in these places usually own? The barbershop and the hair saloon. And the latter usually depends on "hair care" products purchased from some other ethnic group that I decline to name but everybody in the "hood" knows. Oh yes, then there's local drug trade. Possibly the greatest employer of black men without a college or HS education in America...up there with....prison. ahhh but this is not the WHYYY... Yes, to quote the Merovingian of Matrix fame. This is not the why. It would be easy to blame the interloping immigrants and other various non-whites for "invading" the hood and "making" black folks buy stuff from them. That would be easy. That's like Black Revolutionary Rhetoric 101. I'm way past that class. If you wanna roll with The Ghost(tm) You have to graduate to the post Bach program of Garveyism. Way back in the last century Garvey told black folks the world over that if they wanted respect and employment and nationhood that was not dependent upon the whims of other groups of people, you must do business with and for yourself. To that end Garvey launched the Black Star Line and the Black Star Factories. The Black Star Line and Factories were to employ "negroes" in various "negro" communities with the goal of making said communities self-sufficient. The BSL would have acted as a means of distributing black goods (crops, finished goods) around the globe, thereby connecting the Africans of various nations in commerce for their collective benefit. Every other group of ethnics that come to America understand this basic concept. Black folks STILL don't get it. Today's example from Change.org:
Petitioning MattelThe above is testament to the utter SAD state of economics among African-Americans. Mattel's apparent "oversight" is actually a business opportunity for African-Americans. Why the hell would black folks cede a market for African-American dolls to Mattel instead of creating and buying one of their own, created by their own, and employing black men and women to design, build, manage and distribute them? This is why I didn't spend time in this piece making disparaging remarks about so called "blood sucking Jews" and dumb stuff like that. If black folks are dumb enough to volunteer to hand other people their money and intellectual property, then why should I be mad at them for accepting it? I don't WANT Mattel to make a black Barbie. I want a collection of black folks to make an "Akua" doll. I want that doll to come in every shade of brown that African-Americans come in. I want the set to have the most "nappiest" headed doll to the Jamaican red, purple, green and whatever color extension that African-American women put in their heads ('cause I'm not here to judge what black women do with their hair. I just prefer how it comes out their head.). I want her wearing all kinds of outfits whether it be Zulu mudcloth, a wrapper, Hijab, Pum-pum shorts or whatever else we see black women wearing. I could go on and on because I see the huge, global picture. I don't have time or the inclination to do simpleton, dependency bullshit like ask Mattel to do things that black folks should be doing themselves. If you don't understand what I'm saying or disagree with it because it offends your "liberal sensibilities", I'm sure there is a white college or other institution dependent upon white philanthropy that will be quite willing to employ you to spread the status quo while thinking you're actually doing something "different".
Mattel: Offer party supplies featuring Barbies of Color
My African American daughter asked me for a Barbie party theme featuring a black Barbie for her birthday this year. I thought surely, with all of the dolls of color Barbie sells, that it would be no problem to find the party supplies with Barbies of color. Little did I know that not only would I find nothing featuring Barbies of color, but that the only line of party supplies Mattel offers features various huge, blown up images of a blonde haired blue-eyed Barbie on literally everything except for some very small images of a brown-skinned Barbie and a brunette (possibly meant to be Hispanic) Barbie on a tablecloth, and a set of a handful of hanging decorations. Even though it seems like a small thing, featuring the white Barbie so prominently on the banners, cups, napkins, plates, party favors, and invitations, while relegating the "ethnic" Barbies to near-invisible cameos sends a clear--and troubling--message to young girls. As parents of children of color, we're basically faced with the choice of either foregoing a Barbie theme altogether, or compensating for Mattel's lack of sensitivity through labor-intensive DIY solutions. Check out this blog of a mother who went so far as to print out labels of Black Barbies at home and stick them to party supplies: http://ebonylove10.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-have-black-barbie-party.html
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Over at my other blog I have a post called the Gender Bullshit Report. One of the things I point out there is the acceptance of female on male violence in the media, which is reflective of the mood in American society at large. I've often had people disagree with me on this (particularly when I was on FB and Twitter) but often those persons, sorry every time those persons failed to present actual evidence. The above video should serve as proof what what I said then (always with documentation) as truth. I would also implore those men who I know who are unwilling to believe what I've said in the past because it would put them on the "outs" to seriously watch this information (the data of which I have confirmed) and stop making false statements online and elsewhere about how "infrequent" certain things are.
Ahhh gotta love it when White Supremacists like Zimmerman here tries to make a point about what they think are "facts". First thing is that the kid that shot the woman and her baby was and is a crook (to be nice) who was in fact out to cause harm and was in fact armed. Trayvon on the other hand was walking from the store with items he purchased and minding his own business. Zimmerman was following Trayvon first in his vehicle and then on foot. Zimmerman was armed (and dangerous). There is no comparison. Trust me when I say this: If you follow me in your car and I spot you and then you pop out your car and come at me: I will put you down. Period. Whether I tell you "tonight you're gonna die motherfucker" or anything else, won't even matter, Why? because by stalking me and menacing me is enough for me to defend myself. So all Robert Zimmerman did was expose his true identity. We see you. PS: Don't even get me started on the number of white people on Twitter and elsewhere throwing birds to a camera.
I was going to post on the topic...again. but decided that it would be better for the reader to go over what I've been saying since 2008: 1) On The California "Gay Marriage" Ruling
I think the constitutional issues coming out of this will be huge. Utah was admitted into the union on the basis of it banning polygamy. Seeing that the argument about 'state interest' has been shot down in two states, for maintaining marriage as between one man and one woman, I think the LDS church will soon be in a position to sue not only the state of Utah but the Federal Government over this issue. Since "family" is being defined in terms of who loves who and who can raise children (as opposed to producing them), there is no legal standing to ban polygamy.2) Prop 8 arguments
Oh and the comparisons to Dred Scott are entirely out of order. Dred Scott (and by extension Loving) was about the legal designation of blacks as less than human and therefore not even covered by the laws of the land. There is no argument being put forth that homosexual men and women are not human. Anti-Miscegenation laws were again based on white supremacist science that claimed that not only were blacks sub-human but because of that the offspring of such breeding would be sub-human as well.3) Follow up on Prop 8 Arguments (response to e-mail)
In my opinion the only equitable means of dealing with this issue that does not run afoul of religious liberties, is to have all levels of government get out of the marriage business. No city hall ceremonies. Marriage remains the social institution it is and would be performed by any religious or social group that the people involved wish to deal with. The states can do what they do when people form legal businesses. The submit an application to form a "domestic partnership" with as many or few people as they want. The state simply certifies the declaration of this domestic entity. That is all. Everybody has a domestic partnership regardless of what genders are involved or how many people are involved. This would legally help hospitals with privacy laws that prevent non-relatives from access to or making decisions for patients. Show your certificate and that's taken care of. I think the above is the best way to address the legal "equal protection" issue, without running into the sociology and cultural issue of what is and who should be recognized as "married".4) The Problem With The Latest Prop 8 Decision
The California constitution as enacted in 1849 is very clear as to what it considers "marriage". The word "marriage" appears exactly twice in the original California constitution:
Sec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.
Sec. 14. All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as to that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife's separate property....
Therefore for a justice to claim that prior to November of 2008 that any other marriage arrangement was legal or recognized under the California constitution is factually wrong.
Monday, March 25, 2013
This black gang member shoots a Mexican man in front of his son in retaliation for " for the death of one of their own by a Latino member of the 38th Street Gang." By the way.What is the name of this gang that this fellow is from? Pueblo Bishop Bloods His dumb ass is in a gang with a "latin" name and killing random Latinos. o_0 On another note, what the hall are 31 and 40 year old black men doing gangbanging?
Gabrourel was convicted after the state unsuccessfully tried him in 2011. Two other men, Gary “Big J-Killa” White, 47, and Jermaine “Lil’ J-Killa” Hardiman, 31, were also convicted in the slaying.I mean Gary White is damn near 50. 50! Why is ANYONE gang bangin' at damn near 50? Your life has to be all kinds of fail to wake up at damn near 50 years old on some "I'mma kill me a Mexican" tip. It's dumb enough to be a gangster as a teen. I can kind of sort of understand that. Young men not thinking about their future. Typical young man "I'mma become a big shot caller...yadda yadda yadda.. But damn! Near 50 and gang bangin? Look, if you're in the gang life..by the time you're damn near 50 you need to be in upper management handling the retirement fund, the "legit" front businesses and stuff like that. If you ain't doin' that. If your clique ain't got a retirement plan or legit front businesses for "old gangsters" to launder money and stuff like that, you should REALLY REALLY reconsider your affiliation.
The original piece here: http://www.phillymag.com/articles/white-philly/ I'll just say this: If you think that what was written there was 'hateful" let me assure you that whatever negative commentary or quotes contained in the piece is a far cry from what is being said by those with no filter. Farrrrrrrr cry.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
I remember when this story broke. Two things to say about this: 1) I recall during my time on Twitter the number of educated African-American women who were of the opinion that any time a woman says she has been raped that she is to be believed. If any of them are viewing this then they should now understand why I called them on it. How any African-American woman, fully cognizant of the history of lynching in America could open her mouth and say that a rape claim should be believed simply because it has been made is a betrayal of their own ancestors. Now should police take a rape claim seriously? Absolutely. But seriously and true are NOT the same thing. 2) What was with the African-American woman lawyer who after receiving the total net worth of Brian Banks' mother, abdicate her responsibility to vigorously defend her client? I know people who work in the justice [sic] system who say that such plea deals are common. Yes Brian faced an uphill battle for a fair trial. As an African-American woman not only should she know this but given her supposedly uniqueinsight she should have been in a position to know how to get around such biases. I wonder if this woman even bothered to reach out to Brian. I wonder if she refunded some of her "earnings" (I use the term loosely given she convinced her innocent client to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit) to Mr. Banks.
For those who don't know, France has a peculiar law. It is illegal to say "bad" things about Jewish people. It's framed as "anti-semitic speech" but since Arabs are apparently not covered it is clearly about "Jews". Apparently it is the case, like a lot of places in Europe, that the government(s) are of the opinion that the citizenry is so immature and childlike as to not be able to see "bad" speech for what it is and decide for themselves how to deal with it. And so it is illegal to sell Nazi material (because that magically prevents folks from becoming violent White Supremacists (as opposed to the more genteel and acceptable, sofa, governmental and university White Supremacists. To this end the French government has been coming after Twitter:
In January, a French court ruled that Twitter must hand over the details of people who had tweeted racist and anti-semitic remarks, and set up a system that would alert the police to any further such posts as they happen. Twitter has ignored that ruling, and now the Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF) is suing it for €38.5m (£32.8m) for its failure.The French government is of the opinion that a US based company must spend it's time providing the actual identities of persons who make "anti-semetic" remarks on Twitter to the police. This amounts to exporting French law to other countries.
Twitter refused, arguing it was based in the United States and thus protected by the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees. A Parisian circuit court ruled against the social network, giving it two weeks to comply or face a fine of up to €1,000 (£849) for every day it doesn't. The UEJF want considerably more than that, says its president, Jonathan Hayoun, because "is making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites".Even if US law didn't protect such speech it would not be relevant. Twitter is not a French entity. As far as I know Twitter's servers are accessed by french citizens. The actual burden here is on the French authorities to police it's citizenry not overseas entities. As to the charge of "accomplice", what happens if a media outlet reports on "anti-semetic" speech and provides quotes of said speech? Are they too "accomplices" because they have provided an outlet for such speech?
"Twitter is playing the indifference card in not respecting the decision of 24 January," he added, when speaking to AFP. If the UEFJ wins its case, it plans to donate the money to the Shoah Memorial Fund. Twitter has said it will appeal the decision. It deleted many of the offensive tweets in January after the earlier court ruling, but has so far held back on using its country withheld content feature to pre-filter potentially offensive content, as it does with neo-Nazi posts in Germany.I think Twitter has made a huge mistake in deleting the offending tweets as well as providing filters in Germany for neo-nazi tweets. Twitter ought to simply block access to it's site from the IP ranges originating from those countries. Trust me, the world is FAR LARGER than France or Germany. Let the citizenship realize that the censorship laws they have are undemocratic and are costing them access to a world of information. Such a move would also be quite profitable for the web proxy business. This is the problem with accepting the small censorship. Now you cannot talk "ill" of the Jew. Soon you cannot talk ill of any religion. The men at Pycon and Play Haven have found out just how far the speech suppressors are willing to go.
Reflecting on my post last week where I highlighted the quote:
If you have no women working for you, you might find it hard to get women to work for you: Does a female engineer really want to go work for a company where she's the only woman in the office?I pointed out what a double standard that was as it regards race; That is, such an argument wouldn't be presented much less accepted in MSM. I also have pointed out how many tech companies that are going on about what they need to do to attract women may as well have "No Negro" signs on their management office (or even in general). Yesterday browsing Flipboard I came across a post in Gamespot about game developer Firaxis. What they do is not important. However the picture of what I assume to be the staff at Firaxis is telling: Now please follow me with today's "Spot the Negro". I spot 1 definite (extreme left) and one possible (extreme right). Now count the women:5. None Black. I suppose Firaxis has a problem hiring blacks because well, they don't have blacks working for them. o_O
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Hat tip to Cappuccino Soul
Becky Stone brings the voice of former slave Sarah Gudger to life from the Federal Writers Project Slave Narratives of 1937. Listen as she describes her personal experiences with her family, owners, slave speculators, the Civil War, thoughts on emancipation, and what life was like as a slave in Buncombe County.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
I was SOOOOO enraged when I read this that I had to leave my place of employment lest I do something to threaten said employment. I was going to write about it but A Voice For Men has done it already and I'm going to let their piece speak for me (at least for now). This is completely out of hand now. Completely.
What the now former engineer for Play Haven and his friend didn’t know; Was that the conference they were attending had copy and pasted their code of conduct from the Ada Initiative’s example code of conduct. This code of conduct forbids any sexual discussion. You heard that right, a public convention, with thousands of people, talking, socializing, etc. explicitly forbids any discussion about sex or sexual remarks amongst conference goers.Personally I think men should boycott next year's PyCon. Seriously.
Some back story here:
The Ada Initiative is a feminist organization aimed at removing male sexuality from tech spaces while allowing feminism approved flavors of female sexuality to remain. I really wish I was being hyperbolic here, but this an exact quote on that topic:
Take a look at Cyprus:
With anger growing, Cyprus’s president, Nicos Anastasiades, was set to propose a revised plan later Thursday to scrap a controversial tax on bank deposits. But if the government does not raise enough money through other means to satisfy creditors, that plan would need to be revised. And in a rare public mea culpa, the head of the euro zone finance ministers sought to defuse tensions by taking the blame for the proposal to levy a one-time tax on small accountholders as a condition of the bailout. The proposal was roundly rejected by the Cypriot Parliament on Tuesday.Imagine. You open an account with your bank. Your [relatively] meager savings stashed away earning a wee bit of interest. The bank had been using your deposits as leverage to make loans to people who should never have seen a cent. It speculated on whatever. It gets into trouble. What does the Big Fed people do? They decide that you should be charged a tax on your little savings. Why? Did YOU fuck up? Nope. You get taxed so the bank that used and leveraged YOUR money in bad (and possibly fraudulent) activities can stay in business. This is how greedy these people are.
NY Times reporting on the lack of "minorities" enrolling and graduating from teaching colleges has this little gem:
“In their first year as an engineer, they’ll earn more than a teacher will ever earn over a 30-year career,” said Rick Ginsberg, the dean of the School of Education at the University of Kansas.This from a "dean". Unless first year engineers are pulling in million dollar salaries AND teachers never make anything above the minimum wage, it is mathematically impossible for the quoted statement to be true. Mind you, I get the actual point, but I really hate exaggerations. It's just not necessary.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Continuing my watching of the increasing gender discourse in the technology field; here's Jezebel's latest on Etsy
If you have no women working for you, you might find it hard to get women to work for you: Does a female engineer really want to go work for a company where she's the only woman in the office?Once again highlighting the not so funny double standard in this coverage. Replace "female" and "women" and you get
If you have no Blacks working for you, you might find it hard to get Blacks to work for you: Does a Black engineer really want to go work for a company where she's the only Black in the office?Lest you think this is hyperbole, please do note that such "spot in the milk" situations are quite common both in education and the workplace. Certainly This Week with George is one such place (That round table has a thin stable of "the usual" black folks" and they are often not there. Women on the other hand appear just about every week. Of course I could answer the question with the same tripe I get about race: It shouldn't matter, we shouldn't be looking at gender[race] but the quality of the candidate and the work. Right? Right? Seriously though. It is not so funny to see the arguments that are being passed around in this gender argument that aren't even allowed to see light of day when the subject is race.
The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period.Yup.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Mr. Westlake had been granted immunity for his testimony, and he had been attacked for his role in the events of that night and for filming a now-infamous YouTube video in which he is heard laughing as another boy describes the girl as “deader than O.J.'s wife” and says, “she is so raped right now.”
Mr. Mays admitted to the girl that he took the picture that had already circulated among other students of her lying naked in the basement with what he told her was his own semen on her body, from what he stated was a consensual sex act.Right verdict. Young men need to understand: If she's passed out. She's off limits.
Friday, March 15, 2013
The self-labeled Progressive Movement that has arisen over the past decade is primarily one big propaganda campaign serving the political interests of the the Democratic Party’s richest one-percent who created it.Someone else has finally figured this out eh? From Counterpunch
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Boston School Committee, once synonymous with fierce resistance to racial integration, took a historic step Wednesday night and threw off the last remnants of a busing system first imposed in 1974 under a federal court desegregation order.This is a good thing.
Instead of busing children across town to achieve integration, the plan adopted by the committee is intended to allow more students to attend schools closer to home.
But numerous parents and activists complained during a hearing before the committee’s deliberations that the new system would leave some children — mostly black and Hispanic — in the lowest-performing schools.This is a bad thing but it's not solved by trying to stop the first thing. It is clear that the funding to schools via property taxes makes for underfunded schools. Obviously places with high property values will be able to spend more on their school systems (and likely have lower density of residents and therefore lower numbers of total students to service). Places with lower incomes and likely higher student density will have less money to spend on schools. The answer to this problem is clear as day. End the allotment of money via property taxes and replace it with a statewide education fund that distributes money based on student density first, need for improvement (physical and or staffing) second. That would immediately add needed funds for schools that need it and raise the floor for minimum accepted standards. Schools districts would and should be free to take donations or raise taxes (via referendum) to add more funds to their schools as they see fit. Yes it would still result in "unequal" schools. but "equality" is not going to happen ever. Wherever there is a difference in wealth there will be a difference in "amenities". Deal with it. The concern here is that bad schools are raised to higher standards and that is entirely possible to do.
So companies are falling over themselves to talk about how and what they are going to do to recruit and retain women workers. They are looking at places where they are lacking and requiring their managers to make plans. Sandberg even got time on 60 minutes to talk about this. I find it all VERY amusing. Why? Because no one has asked the question that has been on my mind: How many black employees do you have? Is it proportional to the national population? Is it proportional to the population in the locale in which your company operates? How many black folks are on the board of FB? What about the management? And I'm not even getting into splitting black men and women. What about Cisco? Here's a company publicly talking about what it hasn't been doing for women. Check out the executive team Where are the black folks. From what I see, Cisco doesn't have a women problem as much as it has black problem. There are 8 women on Cisco's team and not a SINGLE ONE is Black. Not a single one. Christopher Young may be African-America but I hold a pretty high bar for calling someone black and from his picture I'm not convinced. But let's assume he is. One person out of 63 executives (1.58%) are "black" in a country where 13% of the population is "black". So if the argument is entirely about "proportional representation" (which from what I've seen has been the entire argument for all these 'we gotta do something about the women" books and whatnot) then CISCO has a lot of problems and should be taken to task for it. When I go through my tech feeds on my iPad and I see plenty of articles about companies started or run by a group of white men (and I'm not in any way opposed to that). I see numerous articles about women run companies and I see accompanying photos with rows of white women (not opposed to that either). Some with rows of equal numbers of white women and white men. I have seen articles with accompanying photos of Asian men (and women) from various Asian cultures. I rarely and I mean rare like meat running red with blood, see black folks. Why is it suddenly so fashionable and permissible to go around talking about what companies aren't doing for women when many, if not most of these same companies may as well have a "Negroes not welcome here" sign on their front door? It's high time these so called journalists start asking the hard questions rather than pandering. Shoulda asked Sandberg how many black people, male or female, are on the exec track at Facebook. How many are management. Don't know the answer to these questions, then go here for 2007's lineup as well as Facebook's own page here Which only lists the top persons. Here's the SEC filing listing the Board. I'm guessing there are no negroes on the board
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
We live in an age of government overreach. We have made certain topics of speech criminal. We have decided that crimes with certain motivations (rather than simply a motive), thoughts to you and I, are worthy of extra prosecution because that thought makes some group happy. We have a president that has decided that the government can kill anybody over the age of 16 if they are deemed a terrorist by "someone with authority". An obvious expansion from a previous president who was of the opinion that Americans have not rights that the executive need respect (10 points for those who recognize the reference). Whistleblowers are in jail because the state has been embarrassed. The same state that want's to declare National Security in regards to widely known information and decided what defense a defendant may or may not claim in a criminal proceeding. All kinds of blatantly unconstitutional laws are proposed by folks who apparently don't even understand the job duties. Children are killed in a school by a kid who was clearly mentally disturbed and apparently it's "common sense" to restrict the rights of those persons who do not commit crimes. Because as we all know criminals are known for observing laws passed to make them more civilized. With all of this going on it was not surprising that NY Mayor Bloomberg proposed that sugary drinks over a certain size would be illegal to sell in some establishments in NYC. To me it was a clear cut case of governmental overreach. Who could seriously think that the government could actually legislate how much of a legally produced and sold product one could sell with the argument that people need to drink said product less? It was ridiculous on it's face. The entire argument by Bloomberg was thus: Sugary drinks directly contribute to obesity. Obesity is epidemic in the population causing x amount of deaths every year and costing the city and state y amount of dollars every year. Therefore the city has an obligation to protect the city from the epidemic of obesity by tackling the "epidemic" of 20 oz sodas. Of late the entire "safety" and "save lives" rationale has been trotted out for all manner of unconstitutional laws, the Patriot Act being a prime example. There is an obvious question to ask of Bloomberg's argument: Why not Alcohol? If the consumption of any product poses an immediate threat to the population it would be alcohol. Drunk drivers caused the deaths of 409 people in NY State for2008. In addition a number of crimes including rape, domestic violence, murder, assaults have alcohol as contributing factors. Lastly Liver Cirrhosis is often a result of alcohol use. Having established that alcohol poses a danger to the public why didn't the state decide to limit the amount of alcohol allowed to be served by establishments? Why not ban the sale of 6-packs of beer to one pack per customer and outlaw the sale of kegs altogether? I mean WHO needs to drink THAT much alcohol? As of now you should be saying to yourself that my suggestion is silly. That's exactly the point. You don't go limiting what responsible people may decide to purchase because 16 million people in the US are incapable of controlling their intake and subsequent behavior. And this is what this rule comes down to: Control. Does the government have the power to control how much food and drink you may consume? Yes, the rule was on "sales" but the intent of the law was at consumption, not sales. No it does not have that power. The problem with obesity is one of culture. Most obese people that I have met are obese because they want to be. Yes, Want to be. They do not care about what they are eating or what amount they are eating. They do not want to know how many calories are in a food or drink. They do not care how many cubes of sugar are in a soda. They want to eat and drink what they please, when they please. Whether I agree with it or not, they have a total and complete right to do so. Anyone who decides that they care what they eat will look at labels. They will drop soda from their diets. They will drop a lot of foods from their diets. They will work out. Most importantly they can and will do so even while they pass aisles in the supermarket with rows and rows of 2 litre sodas, cookies, cakes, bread, bread, bread. People who care about their bodies do not need the government to tell them what they can and cannot eat and drink. It's good that the decision laid out the legal basis for the smack down, but I think it is high time for blatantly unconstitutional laws be simply thrown out as "blatantly unconstitutional". It shouldn't require 37 pages to explain why the state cannot tell an establishment or a citizen how much of whatever food they can eat. That clearly is an issue of privacy just like a woman's right to what she will allow to grow in her body.
News reports said this is the first "non-European" Pope. But Pope Francis is the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina. How is that a "non-European" Pope? By nationality? Sure. By race? Yet another European Pope. See this is why I don't follow silly Negroes who think that somehow "white" people don't exist in South America.
Monday, March 11, 2013
So far as I read it, it's been argued by the court the same way I argued back when it was first proposed: Huge overstep. Hopefully I'll be able to add additional commentary not found in the ruling but equally important.
The Obama administration demanded Monday that China take steps to stop the widespread hacking of American government and corporate computer networks and that it engage in a dialogue to set standards for security in cyberspace.Let's assume for a moment that the Chinese military is in fact hacking various US based companies and government websites. Let's make that an operating assumption. Having exposed the US's use of hacking to attack the sovereign state of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran who is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and has broken none of it's requirements the US shouldn't have SHIT to say to anyone about the use of cyber warfare against a perceived threat.
The demands, laid out in a speech by President Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, represent the first direct response by the White House to a raft of attacks on American computer networks, many of which appear to have originated with the People’s Liberation Army.
But although Mr. Donilon emphasized the importance of developing a code of conduct on cybersecurity, he made no mention of Washington’s attacks on the computer networks in Iran, which have impeded Tehran’s development of nuclear centrifuge machines.No mention? That is soooooooo surprising. I suppose it is proper that I am not a 'diplomat" because my immediate response would be for Obama et. al. to shut the fuck up. It is the height of hypocrisy for a country that regularly kills males over the age of 16 because they "might" be terrorists in contradiction to any number of international laws including those that cover warfare. And if you, dear reader are so naive as to think that organizations closely or loosely related to the US Govt. is not in fact doing the same thing to perceived enemies, you are stupid. Very stupid. I'm just wondering how long it is going to take before other heads of state grow a set of balls, ovaries or whatever gives them intestinal fortitude and tell the US and some others to Shut The Fuck Up in public and on record. The hypocrisy is nauseating. Too bad we have lost a strong man like Hugo Chavez who had the guts to call Bush by his proper name.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Saturday, March 09, 2013
The survey was conducted after an incident in upscale Yorba Linda, in which an African American family said they had been forced to flee the county after enduring months of racial attacks and acts of vandalism that seemed racially charged.While I'm sympathetic to the families and certainly think that those who think that dressing up like Klan members is "fun", I have to seriously ask why families who apparently have the means to live in an upscale neighborhood don't simply band together and create an upscale black neighborhood? What is with this need to be a tiny minority of black folks in a neighborhood where your neighbors don't want you? I really do not understand the whole "they gonna like me. They gonna accept me" mentality.
In response, the Orange County Human Relations commission held a series of public "listening sessions" at churches across Orange County, urging African American families to share their stories of life in a county that — at one time — had a reputation as a place of intolerance.
The stories — collected in a document released Friday and that will be discussed at a public forum next week — include those of a woman who said a company CEO seemed "shocked" when she complained about the Confederate flag outside his offices and the high school student whose classmates said they planned to dress up in KKK garb for Halloween and "lynch" black people.
And although African Americans make up only about 2% of Orange County's population, officials with the human relations group — which has been tracking hate crime and discrimination in the county for more than 20 years — say black residents have been the most targeted in hate crimes.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Guess what kind of hair didn't make it? Shouldn't take long. Probably the biggest slap in the face to Black women is "bed head". I mean seriously, uncombed white hair as it is first thing in the morning rates better than natural black hair of any state? Damn.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
They regarded the elected president of their country as uncouth and uncivilised, a zambo of mixed African and indigenous blood who could not be trusted. His supporters were portrayed on private TV networks as monkeys. Colin Powell had to publicly reprimand the US embassy in Caracas for hosting a party where Chávez was portrayed as a gorilla.So allow me to ask. Why is it there was a shit storm about the prostitutes and this right here didn't see light of day? How many people got fired for this? So: Prostitutes: bad. Racist characatures of a head of state: OK. Yes Powell did his bit. My commentary is about the larger outrage that should have followed.
Reporting on the current UNC "Honor Court" case the Huffington Post show's it apparent confusion over the use of the term "alleged":
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is under intense community backlash after news broke that Landen Gambill, a sexual assault survivor, faces possible expulsion for "intimidating" her alleged abuser.No court that I know has actually found that Gambill was actually sexually assaulted. Gambill has not even bothered to file charges with the local police. Let me re-iterate this: There has been no police report of this alleged felony. Yet the Huffington post has decided to declare that Gambill is an actual factual "sexual assault surviver". How does the Huffington Post know this? Were they there? Are they in possession of forensic evidence that we don't know about? If not then the onlu responsible way for the Huffington Post to describe Gambill is as an "alleged" or "possible" sexual assault victim. Why? Because Gambill has made a claim that has not been substantiated by any party. One cannot declare that someone is in fact guilty of a felony without providing proof. And no, simply saying so is not proof. More:
she received the charge, she was told by a student with the Honor Court system that she could potentially be violating the Honor Code by speaking publicly about her rape.Again, how does the Huffington Post know that Gambill was in fact "raped"? The sentence should have read [purported] or [alleged] rape. I'm particularly disturbed, as I was when I was on Twitter at the total willingness of people to assume that a claim is true simply because it has been made. I would not sign a petition or anything else until Gambill at the very least reported the incident to the police. If she feels so strongly about the situation why hasn't she reported this person to the police? Let's be clear: You don't get to call a man or woman a rapist (yes, women can rape. Shocking, I know), not report them to the police for the alleged offense and then stalk them. If Gambill wants "justice" she should start with a trip to the local police station. This whole situation stinks and it's high time for proper reporting on this issue. I've seen it and it hasn't come from Huffington or any of these other "mainstream" sources.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%....Jast passing along info.
During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares... Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials. In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
By a 354-to-72 vote, the House approved a measure sponsored by Representatives Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican, and Grace Meng, a New York Democrat, that would authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency to make direct grants to churches, mosques, synagogues and other houses of worship “without regard to the religious character of the facility or the primary religious use of the facility.”Never mind that:
Supreme Court rulings interpreting the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishment of religion have long barred the direct use of tax money to build, repair or maintain buildings devoted to religious services or other religious activities.I have long said that the voters, in cases of gross ignorance of the constitution, should remove from office any representative (or senator) who willfully and knowingly proposes or votes for legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. In my opinion, those who have done so have clearly shown their inability to perform their required duties and should be replaced with one who does. NY Times
Monday, March 04, 2013
Saturday, March 02, 2013
NPR attempted to dismiss Justice Roberts point in regards to Black voter turnout in Miss. being higher than that of Mass.
The number of black citizens eligible to vote in Massachusetts is 236,000, while it is 721,000 in Mississippi, more than three times that number. Therefore, according to Census officials, when looking at the estimated turnout rate in Massachusetts, the voting percentage for African-Americans at first blush is estimated at 39.3 percent. But the margin of error is 11.5 percentage points, meaning that the black voter turnout actually could be as high as 50.8 percent (or, conversely, as low as 27.8 percent).Could. You'd think that a company with the resources and reputation would not leave an article with "could". Surely they would actually see if more firm numbers could be had. Well lets look at some numbers. First we have a link to the black population of all Miss. counties. Then we have a link of the 2012 voter results for every county in Miss. So for example, in Jefferson County, with an 85% black population, we can observe a 89.1% Obama vote (3,951 votes). Since we know that 85% of the population is black and that there is no way at all that the 15% of the population that is not black is representative of the vast majority of the votes. It is clear that the eligible and registered black voters had no problems going to the polls. In Tishomingo county where Black people make up 3.7% of the population, Obama received 20.7% of the votes (1,643 ballots). We can note that: 1) There was no effective means of preventing people from voting for Obama since it is clear that a decent sized minority of non-blacks, 6 or 7 times the size of the total black population, voted for Obama. In fact if one compares the two charts you will note that the votes for Obama correspond quite closely with the percentage of the black population. And this would also match up with the data that shows that African-Americans country wide voted for Obama at over 90%. Clearly then one cannot argue voter suppression with such evidence. If we look at Massachusetts population we find that only one county has a black population above 20% (Suffolk County). That county voted for Obama by 77.4% (223,896 ballots). No more than 24.6% of those votes could possibly be African American (44,780 ballots). Which brings us to the position of The Ghost on the issue of the Voting Rights Act. I have said on many an occasion that actual citizens do not need "voting rights acts" because actual citizens are covered under the 14th Amendment which reads, in part:
Now, look at Mississippi, where black turnout is listed at 48.7 percent. But because of the large size of the African-American population that was sampled, the margin of error is only 5.4 percentage points...
That means that factoring in the margin of error, the black turnout rate in Mississippi could be as high as 54.1 percent, or as low as 43.3 percent.
So, if you factor in the margins of error at their extremes — with Mississippi at the low end and Massachusetts at the high end — Mississippi could have had a black voter turnout rate that was 7.5 percentage points lower than Massachusetts.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...Clearly the latter portion is why the Voting Rights Act is constitutional insofar as it supports the aforementioned claims of the amendment. If the federal government cannot show that the states under the "prior clearance" rule have abridged the 14th Amendment, then from what I can see, the requirement would be unconstitutional. It is clear from the data that Justice Robert's point, however badly stated, is accurate. Not only are black people generally not being disenfranchised in MS. but it is quite correct that more black people voted in MS. than in MA AND did so in higher percentages. Therefore the situation in MS. is not what it was when the Voting Rights Act was implemented and those who wish to see those states still operate under the pre-clearance rule will have to make a better argument.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.