From The Wafer Trial

I've been watching the live tweets from the trial. This one caught my attention:

balash testifies that the gaping hole in mcbride's face (3.5-4 inches by 7 inches) was not caused by shot itself but by force of the shot

— oralandar brand-wms (@oralandar_DN) July 31, 2014

Hey Mickey Z: Learn Your Geography

I saw this title in my rss reader:

Sometimes The Border Crosses You

Yes another Counterpunch article in which the author apparently hasn't sat down and actually critically analyzed his or her own work before posting it (something that is unfortunately becoming increasingly common at Counterpunch). Of course anyone paying attention would think this would be about Mexico, the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago. But watch the hands!!

According the Washington Post, Texas Governor Rick Perry “reportedly plans to dispatch the Texas National Guard to the U.S. border with Mexico” to deal with “the continued surge of young immigrants, most of them from Central America, crossing the border.”

Oh I KNOW! Let's see a Republican, Mexican border and soldiers!! Border!

Oh wait. Central America. Where have the recent waves been coming from? Oh Right, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala. Countries that have shit to do with "the border that crosses you", that could ONLY be relevant for Mexican nationals.

Oh I know what Mickey Z wants. Anywhere that is not the US is Mexico. No? Maybe if Rick Perry put soldiers in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras it would make more sense. Occupy those countries!!! No?

Then Mickey Z should rescind his "lesson" in history and familiarize himself with a map. I swear! Sometimes I think these folks are so isolated from critical thought that they believe their own feces is golden and scentless.

The Folly Of Rev. William E. Alberts

The recent Hobby Lobby ruling has impressed upon me the fact that a good number of people in the United States, citizens I presume, do not understand the supreme document of the land. If they do "understand" that document, then they simply do not wish for it to apply to people with whom they disagree with, particularly when something in that document is inconvenient to them. Lets look at the latest example, and remember, The standard here is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Let us proceed:

Christianity is fundamentally imperialistic. Its aim is to convert and control people with its assumed biblically revealed one true savior of the world. The tip of its evangelizing iceberg is seen in the folly of Hobby Lobby.

Ok. So what does that have to do with the SCOTUS decision? Should the opinion that Christianity is an imperialistic religion play a role in a decision in which revolves around "free exercise"?

Following its recent Supreme Court victory– that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide contraceptive coverage for women employees violated its religious freedom– a New York Times story on Hobby Lobby’s “new project” contains more of its mission to gain power over people– which motivates much of Christianity.

We should amend that paragraph to read more accurately:

that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide [free to the user] contraceptive coverage for [only] women employees violated its religious freedom [of free exercise].

See how by providing the left out information transforms the paragraph to accurately reflect what the legal case was about? Secondly, Hobby Lobby is not trying to "gain power over people". Hobby Lobby, the agent of it's founders, is and was merely protecting it's enumerated right of "free exercise". That is it was protecting itself from the federal government's power grab.

The evangelical family-owned craft store chain has purchased a huge, eight-story building in Washington, near the National Mall, to house a Bible museum. Why? Steve Green, Hobby Lobby president is quoted as having “referred to the Bible as ‘a reliable historical document,’” and intends to “’reintroduce this book to this nation.’”

That's nice. I won't be visiting, but again how is this relevant to the aforementioned constitutional requirement at hand?

Steve Green is correct. But not in the way he thinks. Dangerous indeed is “ignorance of this book.” The danger is failing to see how people with power use “this book” to justify imposing their beliefs on others, dehumanizing and robbing them of their rights, oppressing and killing them and stealing their resources and land. It is about power– ordained and licensed by “what God has taught” in The Bible.

Of course the Reverend does not see that it is in fact those who slipped in the unconstitutional requirement (IMO) for free to the user but provided by the employer contraception mandate into the ACA, who are actually trying to impose their beliefs on others. Those persons believe that free to the user contraception is a right. It is not. They believe that they can pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of those who hold a particular religious belief simply because they disagree with it.

Other than that, the talk about "robbing them of their rights. Killing them and stealing their resources" is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only issue at hand is whether the founders of Hobby Lobby, having founded their business on what they consider to be Christian principles were having their free exercise rights abridged.

The imperialism underneath Christianity’s evangelizing iceberg surfaced right after The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s biblically-based, “be ye fruitful and multiply,” anti-contraceptive desire to control women’s bodies. Fourteen Christian leaders immediately sent a letter to The White House, requesting that their institutions be exempt, on religious freedom grounds, from a forthcoming presidential ruling that would prohibit groups, receiving federal funds, from discriminating against LGBT persons in hiring. To these and many other Bible-believing Christian leaders, religious freedom means the “freedom” not to hire a gay, lesbian or transgender person and, when it is known, the right to fire a same-sex marriage partner—because homosexuality is “an abomination,” which is “what God has taught” in The Bible. Conventional Christian leaders want LGBTQ persons to stay in the closet, i.e., remain invisible, i.e., to not even exist.

It seems that it hasn't occurred to the Reverend that "be ye fruitful and multiply" puts a burden on male followers of such a teaching as well. A different burden but a burden none the less. But even so, what they believe is irrelevant to the issue. The first amendment does not have a "that we agree with" clause in it. Whither one thinks that such a "be ye fruitful" ideology is "controlling women's bodies" is irrelevant. In America women are free to disregard the edicts of any religion and do what she pleases. She can even leave said religion without fear of bodily harm, including death.

As for the "discriminating against LGBT persons" again, that is explicitly permissible under the first amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Religious institutions and organizations run by them, as well as private clubs cannot be held liable under anti-discrimination laws. If the president or anyone else has a problem with that, they are also free to not hire religious companies to do federal work.

o these and many other Bible-believing Christian leaders, religious freedom means the “freedom” not to hire a gay, lesbian or transgender person and, when it is known, the right to fire a same-sex marriage partner—because homosexuality is “an abomination,” which is “what God has taught” in The Bible.

And they have an absolute right under the US Constitution to do so whether anyone else likes it or not.

Conventional Christian leaders want LGBTQ persons to stay in the closet, i.e., remain invisible, i.e., to not even exist.

This is an entirely fabricated argument. And it is irrelevant to the constitutional issue at hand.

What would happen if such Christians had the power to impose all of their biblical beliefs on society? If various Christian denominations could do that? If other religions could subject everyone to their will? If white persons were in complete control? ? If “pioneers” and “settlers”– and “capitalists”– could have their way with others?

If "such Christians had the power to impose all of their biblical beliefs on society" then we would be in England before the Mayflower.

Duh.

The reason we have the first amendment is so that Christians [or any other religion] could not impose all of their biblical beliefs on society. Does the Reverend understand that?

The literal belief in “this book” provides the license to dominate — given by an infallible god who favors his own. It is just a matter of obtaining the legal—and military—power to carry out “what God has taught” his chosen people. Beware of this “God.” If he thinks like a man, and talks like a man, and acts like a culturally-conditioned man, then, he is a man—dressed in “spirituality.”

Yadda yadda yadda. What exactly does any of this have to do with "free exercise"?

The rest of the piece is more "yadda yadda..." Enumerating the various "sins of the father" may be fun. It may be a nice way to guilt trip certain people. However; at the end of the day it has squat to do with the constitutional issue at hand. And yet this fellow has a PhD.

:-/

With writing like his, the apparent value of these PhD's in the non-hard sciences is becoming quite dubious.

‘Cold battle’ for Africa: China’s Economic Interest Vs. US Military Activity

RT: China and the United States are engaged in an ongoing rivalry for influence in Africa. Who do you think will emerge as the dominant player? BO: I think even if you look right now, China’s influence is greater in Africa, especially from the economic side. The US does roughly about 85 billion dollars a year in trade with Africa; China does 200 billion dollars in trade with Africa. So China is already dominating the continent economically, and I think that influence will only deepen.

Economic colonialism? The "real" neocolonialism discussed by Nkrumah?

Collective Punishment

Not going to say much about the war crime that is the current situation in Gaza. I will say this much though, the destruction of the one and only power plant in Gaza is a form of collective punishment expressly prohibited..

Article 53 - Destruction of property [hide] Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.[my link]

There isn't a military reason to hit the one and only power plant in Gaza. Hamas does not have a "pentagon" or any other sophisticated, high power consumption radar or other command and control operation which would be rendered useless by the destruction of the one and only power plant.

That is all.

Rule Followers’ Flock to a Convention Where Fake Violence Reigns

Nowhere is violence in entertainment more prominently on display than at Comic-Con. And yet, historically, all of the attendees have been strikingly well behaved.

“They are rule followers,” Lt. Marshall White, a San Diego police officer, said of the Comic-Con masses. Lieutenant White, who oversees patrols at the convention, added, “To them, the police are superheroes.”

This is the Comic-Con mystery — and it highlights the question at the heart of a prickly debate over violence in entertainment: Is violent behavior in real life influenced by the mayhem that viewers consume on screens big and small?

This may come as a shock to certain people but not only is Comic Con "safe" but at places where real guns are dealt with, like Gun shows and NRA conferences, there are no incidences of violence. None.

Same cannot be said of certain "Bike Week" and "Expo" events. I'll say it as it has been said again, it is not the gun. It is not the video game. It is not the role playing. It is the mentality of the group.

Exodus Gods and Kings: Yet Another White Wash of Ancient Black Folks

So I go to sit through the latest Ape installment when my senses and tranquility are disturbed and perturbed by yet another white wash "Bible movie". It took me a minute to figure out that it was supposed to be Egypt I was supposed to be seeing because the characters were straight out of northern Europe.

Rameses? Did someone say Rameses?

Wait! Is this supposed to be Exodus? Are they serious? The fuck is going on here? Egypt in in Africa. Egypt existed as a black country before Arabs and Greeks overran it. Who are these white people playing Egyptians? Why are these Hollywood people doing yet another "lets disappear the black folks" move? I'm gonna say this again. Moses and Rameses and the rest of the Egyptians ought to be looking at the very least like this fellow:

No. Seriously. To not have cast this fellow or anyone who resembles him, at the bare minimum, as Moses is a slap in the face of black people. Now there are a lot of black people who are too uninformed to realize they are being pimped slapped yet again, but that doesn't mean at least 4 fingers haven't been laid to face.

[Not Moses]

Now someone reading this is saying to themselves: "Oh what does it matter?"

Fine. If it didn't matter, then why not have the entire cast black? Why not? If it doesn't matter, how come no one has thought to ask Djimon Honsou to play Abraham Lincoln? Why is it when I see the BBC show about revolutionary America the cast isn't black? Or Arab? Or Indio? No seriously. The race of the cast doesn't matter right? I know.. How about the next Avenger movie have all the cast members black? No one should be bothered by that and I'm sure the actors could use the gigs.

Give me a break. Accuracy matters. historical facts (Biblical mythology aside) matter.

90% of Twitter’s Tech Employees are Male

And my reaction to reading that headline:

So?

No really. So?

Apparently among the folks at Time and elsewhere the nation's workforce is supposed to be reflective of the total population. It's an easy branch to grab, but one that shows a total lack of intelligence.

When it comes to racial diversity, 88% of all Twitter employees and 92% of tech employees are either white or Asian (mostly white). And unlike gender diversity, Twitter’s non-tech roles similarly lack racial diversity: 83% are white or Asian (mostly white). In leadership, non-Asian minorities hold only 4% of leadership roles.

We'll get back to this in a second but first lets look at the NBA:

The NBA continued to have the most racially diverse group of players of the major professional sports. People of color represented 82 percent of all players, and 78 percent of all players were African-American

Question: If having an over-representation of white males at Twitter is bad. Then it should be bad that there is an over-representation of black males in the NBA.

Is the NBA predominantly black because black males are inherently superior to others in the sport? And if that is the case, then is it that White (and Asian) males are inherently better at computer science that black males? If it is not the case that black males are inherently better at basketball than white (and Asian) males, then is it discrimination against white (and Asian) males that explains their lack of numbers (relative to the general population)? And if that is the case, then why no reports on that?

Going back to Twitter, lets look at their handy dandy chart:

Yes, I grabbed it, cause I'm tired of graphics disappearing from their original source and messing up my future posts.

Anyone see anything rather...usual?

Yes, that's right, Black employment at Twitter hews closely to the rate of black computer science degree holders. Of course, the silly people making a big deal of who's employed (or not) where, don't even consider the fact that you have to look at those who are qualified not the general population. But then again, if they were THAT bright, the articles wouldn't be written in the first place.

Secondly, we notice that Asians are once again, way over represented at Twitter relative to the general population. I will note that this is the first time that I have seen a publication mention this (even though not directly). Of course, rather than address that issue, they run to the gender complaint. Never mind that Twitter was created by a white male. If a white female created Twitter and failed to employ other white females. I think THAT would be news. But no, Twitter, like so many "social" apps was created by a man, is maintained by men, and women use it to complain about why women aren't employed at Twitter.

It's pretty interesting that this came out the day after I saw an HTC advert that showed a number of employees at the company doing design work. I saw Asian men, Asian women, White men and White women, no Blacks. What got the press? The apparent leak of an HTC smartwatch.

Let me help all these publications out: Every other company that releases this data is going to show the same thing. Also, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth, the demographics will generally be the same. There may be an uptick in the percentage of women in the tech and non-tech areas, but the general demographics will not change.

I really cannot wait until these so called "social justice" reporters are fired and replaced with actual, research orientated journalists.

Detroit Water Shutoffs Are Racially Motivated, Lawsuit Claims

This headline would be funny if it weren't so sad. I swear that some black people are so attached to white folks that they cannot imagine a world in which things happen without their involvement. Before I start my quote fest, let me remind the reader that current day Detroit is upwards of 85% black. It has had a black mayor since Coleman Young was elected in 1974. Let us begin:

There are concerns the shutoffs are “being done in a discriminatory fashion,” the Defense Fund’s Veronica Joice told a local CBS affiliate. “They should at least take a look at whether there’s a better way to do this that doesn’t affect the most vulnerable citizens — the majority of whom are African-American here in Detroit.”

Detroit is 85% black. who else other than black folks are going to be the majority of those affected by water shut offs? Martians?

“These companies are basically Caucasian companies,” she told the station. “The folks who are being cut off are almost one hundred percent African-American.”

Two things here:

1) Why, in a city that is 85% black are the companies operating in it "basically caucasian"? Do you know of any city that is at least 85% "caucasian" whom the businesses are "basically Africoid"?

2) The Ghost covered the issue of commercial entities in the previous post on this matter The businesses that owe should be gone after just as aggressively as the individuals. No one. Repeat: No one should be off the hook. IMO, pointing the finger at the other folks is simply an excuse for your own inexcusable behavior. They should pay their bills and so should you. I have also noted that if those companies that owe, have to shut down for whatever time, that their employees (perhaps many of the employed in Detroit) may well find themselves without pay. Could be a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Detroitannounced Monday that it would suspend its aggressive policy of cutting off water for the next 15 days, but the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said in a press release Monday that it’s not enough. They also want the financial aid program for Detroit’s neediest people to be reformed.

I just have a question: Since there are about 5 billion in capital repairs needed to be done and the water supply is not free, who is going to be paying for all this "relief"? Serious question. 'Cause if a large majority of Detroit citizens are "unable" to pay for their water now, we have to assume that they will be unable to pay for water delivery in the future. Are people entitled to free water delivery? If so, why charge anyone for water delivery? I was always under the impression that if one could not afford to live somewhere, you either moved or got people to live with you to share costs. Does this not apply in Detroit?

Serious questions.

Lastly, is there anywhere in "basically caucasian" America where water service (or any utility for that matter) where it was expected that the city (or state) intervene and supply water to those who did not pay? Serious question. 'Cause either there has never been a situation where a large number of poor white folks in a city were ever cut off from water for non-payment or a large number of white folks have had their water cut off and nobody reported on it.

US: No Link To Russian Gov't In Plane Downing

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

1) The Ghost said that Russia had no direct involvement on day one. Sane and rational people knew this from day one.

Now how many of these politicians are going to publicly apologize for their war mongering statements?

2) The Ghost objects strenuously to the "responsible for 'creating the conditions' " bullshit. The "conditions" were created by those who overthrew the elected government in Kiev. The persons who created the conditions have been caught on tape and they reside in US embassies and the White House.

Asked why civilian airline companies were not warned about a possible threat, the officials said they did not know the rebels possessed SA-11 missiles until after the Malaysian airliner was shot down.

Really? Ukraine has "Buk" systems purchased from Russia. Many of the separatists have gotten arms from Ukraine armories and nobody in the "intelligence" communities considered that those separatists may have gotten their hands on such weapons? Even after 12 Ukrainian planes had been shot down? The "Buk" systems date back to the 1970's

1970's.

Sad state of "intelligence" if you ask me.

Chase Bank Surveys Workers To See If They’re ‘Ally Of The LGBT Community’

If I hadn't already severed my ties to Chase bank over it's business practices I would now.

But the last question was the most controversial. It read, Breitbart reported: “Are you … an ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT?”

The employee said he feared that answering no could open him up to charges of discrimination that could negatively impact his employment.

The employee told Mr. George in a written statement that he worried about his future with Chase, saying that “this survey wasn’t anonymous,” Breitbart reported.

First they came for Manny Paquiao. Then they came for Brenden Eich. They will come for you next.

Specifications of SU-25 Aircraft

According to Wikipedia the following are the specifications for the SU-25 aircraft operated by the Ukraine military:

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 0.8 (975 km/h, 526 knots, 606 mph) at sea level
Combat range: 750 km (405 nmi, 466 mi) at sea level, 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) weapons and two external tanks
Service ceiling: 7,000 m[97] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons
Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)
[My underlines]

The Russian report claims that the SU-25 was 3.5km from M17. 3.5KM is 11,482.94 feet. Note that 33,000 is 21, 518 feet, well within the operating ceiling of the SU-25 jet. This is contrary to claims made by persons such as Paul Craig Roberts who wrote:

Another fact is that the separatists have no incentive to shoot down an airliner and neither does Russia. Anyone can tell the difference between low-flying attack aircraft and an airliner at 33,000 feet.

No, the separatists may not have incentive to shoot down an airliner but they do have an incentive and have indeed shot down Ukrainian airplanes. And if the report from RT is correct, it is highly likely that they mistook the civilian aircraft as a military one "under guard" of a fighter jet. Obviously I don't know this for a fact and have no way to prove this. But it is certainly more likely than Putin ordered the plane shot down and sent people in Ukraine to do so.

ABC Thinks You're An Idiot

So I just finished watching ABC World News [sic] Tonight, where they lead with a piece in which they asserted that Russia has claimed that a Ukrainian fighter jet, which we covered in a previous post, was responsible for shooting down the MH17 plane. The problem of course, is that no such claim was made. ABC News [sic] showed a website, which we are to presume represents "official" Russian declarations that none of the ABC News[sic] Watchers are expected to be able to read because the vast majority of the viewership cannot read Russian.

There was an "expert" who said that any fighter pilot would be laughing at the suggestion that a fighter jet would down a civilian airplane. First thing: Why? Is it technically not possible? Is this like RoboCop where the planes are unable to shoot at "red targets"?

Of course this isn't the case. It's a red herring. The point of concern is not whether the planes would or would not shoot at a commercial jet. The point of concern is that Ukrainian fighter jets would be in a war zone close to a commercial jet, thereby placing it in danger.

Oh. Who's laughing now?

Next is the website thing. I'm certain there are conspiracies out there. I noted that RT went with the "mistook for Putin's plane" report before removing it (which is why I now do screenshots). I'm not trying to hide anything. But to report on rumors and theories by partisans on either side is not reporting. It is gossip. How about we base our reports on US policy by referring to Alex Jones? Maybe The Onion. Oh right, The Onion has fooled reporters in the past.

As for video or pictures of a truck driving off with the weapon "across to Russia". Maybe it is. I don't know. I could go outside and take a picture of a truck on a road and claim it's going to NYC. Does that prove it was indeed going there? But Kiev says it is!

Kiev claimed that rebels were handing out leaflets to jews to report themselves to the government. That turned out to be false. They had pictures and everything.

Oh.

Hans de Borst is an Idiot. NY Daily News Close Behind.

A Dutch father penned a letter to Putin describing his 17-year-old daughter Elsemiek, one of the 298 passengers who perished in the crash.

“Elsemiek would next year take her final exam, along with her best friends Julia and Marina, and she did well in school,” wrote Hans de Borst.

His teenage daughter planned to be an engineer, the anguished father said.

And that has what to do with Putin? Serious question.

“She then wanted to go to TU Delft to study engineering, and she was looking forward to it! She is suddenly no more! From the air she was shot in a foreign country where a war is going on,” he raged.

A foreign country called Ukraine. This has what to do with Putin?

“Many thanks to the separatist leaders of Ukrainian government for the murder of my dear and only child,” de Borst wrote. “Gentlemen of the above, I hope you're proud of including her and her young life was shot up too, and you can look in the mirror!,” he wrote, signing it Hans de Borst, “whose life is ruined.”

I'm sure whoever shot down MH17 had a beer or maybe champagne after. I'm absolutely certain of that.

That urgency was echoed by Silene Fredriksz-Hoogzand, whose son Bryce and his girlfriend Daisy Oehlers were killed in the crash. “Mr. Putin, send my children home,” Fredriksz-Hoogzand told Britain’s Sky TV.

Hey dumb fuck: The bodies are in Ukraine not Russia. Putin has no say over what happens outside the territory of Russia.

“I am not a politician. But I know for sure that Mr. Putin can do something,” the despairing mother said.

You know what else this woman is? Uninformed. Here's Putin on the matter(as of 3:56PM today):

“There are already representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk working there, as well as representatives of the emergencies ministry of Ukraine and others. But this is not enough,” Putin said officially commenting on the tragic event on Sunday.

“This task force is not enough,” Putin emphasized. “We need more, we need a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of ICAO, the relevant international commission.”

“We must do everything to provide security for the international experts on the site of the tragedy,” Putin stressed, adding that Russia will also do everything in its power to help shift the Ukrainian conflict from a military phase into a political discussion.

“We need to do everything to provide its [ICAO commission’s] safety, to provide the humanitarian corridors necessary for its work,” Putin added.

“In the meantime, nobody should and has no right to use this tragedy to achieve their ‘narrowly selfish’ political goals,” Putin stated.

“We repeatedly called upon all conflicting sides to stop the bloodshed immediately and sit down at the negotiating table,” the President reminded. “I can say with confidence that if military operations were not resumed on June 28 in eastern Ukraine, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.”

How about "news"papers and other media stop interviewing uninformed, emotional people who have been duped by politicians into saying and writing dumb things?

Apparently Hans de Borst works for a bank. You'd think a person who works in an industry that depends on the cool understanding of numbers would know better than to be scattershot with his assignment of blame. How about Hans stop playing politics with his dead daughter?

Blaming Russia

In the ongoing mystery of the downing of MH17, we see some interesting things: Here is the front page of Russia Times as of 12:28PM today:

Essentially, RT is reporting the presence of Ukrainian fighter jets in the vicinity of MH17. Knowing that the local resistance (rebels, whatever) have been shooting at Ukrainian military planes, if this turns out the be true, Ukraine has to explain why it would fly a fighter jet in close proximity to a civilian commercial flight. If the RT report is true, then IF the resistance had downed MH17 thinking it was a Ukrainian military asset (read: legitimate military target) then the lion's share of the responsibility falls on Ukraine.

Now given the weight of such a report, you would think the Western press would be all over such a report. Instead this is what we see on the Guardian UK as of 12:30PM today:

[edit]
I'll remind the US president that under US law, it is the accusor that has to prove a charge. It is not the accused that has to show innocence. Mr. Constitutional Law Man should know this and present this when he speaks to a world audience. [/edit]

You see anything about that radar report? No? Neither did I. What we do see is propaganda bullshit coming out of Obama's mouth. We see representatives from the UK doing their imitation of Obama bullshit. We see something about "world anger" at Russia.

In a sane and informed world, such as the one I live in, no one would be angry at anyone. The "world" would be uniform in it's demand for information. The UK wouldn't be pushing for sanctions and Obama would simply be silent.

The US is currently providing asylum to Luis Posada Carriles who was involved in taking down a Cuban civilian airplane flying between Barbados and Jamaica. If the US wants to hang the actions of people in Eastern Ukraine on Russia, then lets take the US to task for sheltering a known terrorist.

This is not to say that RT has it right. What this is saying is that rather than parrot the US line, why doesn't the so called "free press" of Europe report on everything rather than just parrot the lines of certain politicians?

White House meets with activists calling for gender equity in My Brother’s Keeper

I wish I didn't feel the need to write this post. Really. But this action encapsulates why I have become increasingly hostile to feminism. I have a particularly dim view of those feminists who are black. Lets look at this particular nonsense, which should have been stopped as soon as it was mentioned.

Top White House officials had an hour-long meeting with a group of scholars and activists calling for the inclusion of girls of color in President Obama’s signature racial justice program known as My Brother’s Keeper. The meeting included the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has championed MBK, and top activists and academics who signed a letter criticizing the initiative for focusing on boys and young men of color without a corollary for girls of color.

Personally I don't even think they should have gotten the hour. But that's my opinion. "Girls of color"? I assure the reader that "girls of color" are not the subject of the MBK because "girls of color" are not the group dealing with the issues that the black boys (and lets be clear, this was and is for black boys, but a certain other group was added for political reasons).

Today, Valerie Jarrett, Tina Tchen and Broderick Johnson met with a group of stakeholders to discuss how they could work more closely with the White House Council on Women and Girls (CWG) to increase opportunities for girls and young women of color. During the meeting, the officials walked through the Administration’s accomplishments on issues critical to women and girls of color.

Issues? Compared to the issues MBK is meant to address, what issues rise to the same level? What are they and why weren't they even LISTED?

Let me inform the reader as to why MBK was created.

1)

oday there are 2,670,000 black women with a four-year degree or better. This compares to only 1,909,000 black men. Therefore, it turns out that black women account for almost 58 percent of all the African Americans who have completed four years of college or more in our country.

For those African Americans who have only a bachelor’s degree but no higher degree, black women have an even larger lead. There are 1,874,000 black women with a bachelor’s degree compared to 1,341,000 black men.

Some 669,000 black women hold a master’s degree compared to 409,000 black men. Thus, black women hold 62 percent of all African-American master’s degrees, an even larger share of their total in bachelor’s degree attainments.Speaking of Degrees

black women now earn nearly two thirds of all new professional degrees earned by African Americans. Therefore, it will only be a few years before black women overtake black men in the total number of professional degrees held by living African Americans.[ibid]

So in terms of education, one of the things MBK is meant to address, what "issue of women and girls" is in need of addressing that required attacking MBK?

2)

The data in the new paper is equally fascinating, and on one level, as you might expect, quite troubling. To begin with, the dramatic disparities the rates of nonfatal gunshot injury: overall it’s 46.5 per 100,000 for the city as a whole from 2006-2012. It’s 1.62 per 100,000 for whites; 28.72 for Hispanics, and 112.83 for blacks.

For all males, it’s 44.68 per 100,000; 239.77 for black males, and for black males from 18-34 it’s 599.65. As Papachristos and co-authors Christopher Wildeman and Elizabeth Roberto point out, that’s a staggering one in 200.Chicago Gun Violence: Big Numbers, But a Surprisingly Small Network

Do these people know that the the number one killer of black males between 15 and 40 is assault (homicide)?

Knowing all this, we have to ask: Why did these women (and their male counterparts) decide to literally butt in? Does gender resentment run so deep that it has come to the point that when an attempt, however feeble, is made to address the issues that affect black boys, issues that if addressed will have greater benefits for black girls and women, they cannot simply let it happen? How do you call for "gender equity" in MBK (therefore no longer making it My Brother's Keeper), when the issues being addressed by MBK are not "equitable"?

It Starts Early

I never knew the story behind this sign. I do now. The following jumped out at me:

Before Hood began drawing the sign, he and his supervisors met with Highway Patrol officers and saw photos of accident scenes. What got to him most were the deaths that involved families.

"Graphically, I wanted to show a family," said Hood, who lives in San Diego. He chose to include a pigtailed girl, rather than a boy, because "there is something about a little girl running across with her parents that we are more affected by."[my underlines]

Not say, lets include two children, one a boy and one a girl, but that maximum sympathy is given to girls and hence women. Boys don't rate and father, unattached goes first as to risk his life in the service of the females.

Just something to consider.

Senator Jeff Sessions Breaks it Down

It's pretty sad when the actual facts on immigration and wages has to come from a "conservative".

Look at these recent headlines.

Today: ‘Microsoft To Cut Workforce By 18,000 This Year, ‘Moving Now’ To Cut First 13,000.’

How about this headline: ‘[Google-owned] Motorola To Cut 10% Of Workforce After Laying Off 20% Last Year.’

‘Panasonic To Cut 10K More Workers In The Next 5 Months.’

‘[Online media and advertising company] CityGrid Lays Off 15% Of Its Employees.’

‘Hewlett-Packard: 27,000 Job Cuts to Save Up To $3.5B By 2014.’

I would say things aren't going as well as some would suggest, and the demand out there for workers ought to be met from our current supply.

Read the entire thing.

Why Are We Surprised?

A now removed casting call for a movie about NWA reads just about like the old ditty:

If you're white you're all right (A)
If you're yellow you're mellow (B)
If you're brown stick around (C)
And If you're black stay [way] back (D).

SAG OR NON UNION CASTING NOTICE FOR FEMALES-ALL ETHNICITIES- from the late 80's. Shoots on "Straight Outta Compton". Shoot date TBD. We are pulling photos for the director of featured extras. VERY IMPORTANT – You MUST live in the Los Angeles area (Orange County is fine too) to work on this show. DO NOT SUBMIT if you live out of the area. Nobody is going to be flying into LA to do extra work on this show - and don't tell me you are willing to fly in. SAG OR NON UNION FEMALES - PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN. DO NOT EMAIL IN FOR MORE THAN ONE CATEGORY:

A GIRLS: These are the hottest of the hottest. Models. MUST have real hair - no extensions, very classy looking, great bodies. You can be black, white, asian, hispanic, mid eastern, or mixed race too. Age 18-30. Please email a current color photo, your name, Union status, height/weight, age, city in which you live and phone number to: SandeAlessiCasting@gmail.com subject line should read: A GIRLS

B GIRLS: These are fine girls, long natural hair, really nice bodies. Small waists, nice hips. You should be light-skinned. Beyonce is a prototype here. Age 18-30. Please email a current color photo, your name, Union status, height/weight, age, city in which you live and phone number to: SandeAlessiCasting@gmail.com subject line should read: B GIRLS

C GIRLS: These are African American girls, medium to light skinned with a weave. Age 18-30. Please email a current color photo, your name, Union status, height/weight, age, city in which you live and phone number to: SandeAlessiCasting@gmail.com subject line should read: C GIRLS

D GIRLS: These are African American girls. Poor, not in good shape. Medium to dark skin tone. Character types. Age 18-30. Please email a current color photo, your name, Union status, height/weight, age, city in which you live and phone number to: SandeAlessiCasting@gmail.com subject line should read: D GIRLS

Of course it may be easy to get at Sande Alessi, but I've discussed this issue repeatedly such as Black Women in Gaming. The "Controversial "black hispanic". The study in which participants rated black women least attractive The Seattle Reader cover photo. Even singer Ne-Yo thinks black is not so beautiful

Unknown?

From the Guardian UK:

Death toll: 298
• Netherlands: 189
• Malaysia: 44
• Australia: 28
• Indonesia: 12
• UK: 10
• Germany: 4
• Belgium: 4
• Philippines: 3
• Canada: 1
• Hong Kong: 1
• New Zealand: 1
• Unknown: 1
Unknown? How does a person of "unknown" nationality, purchase a ticket and board an international flight without a passport?

And suspiciously, Obama announced a single US citizen among the dead.

What We Know About MH17

Someone fired a missile. Plane went down.

Since that is all we know, why are there people blaming one party or another? There is a missile launcher out there missing a missile. Find it. If the trajectory has it launched from Russian land, then Russia is responsible. If the trajectory places in it Ukraine then it is either the Ukraine government or the rebels.

Off the cuff thoughts: I have not read anywhere that the rebels are in possession of warplanes. I have read that they have been taking out Ukraine warplanes with anti-aircraft munitions. Therefore I'm leaning towards the rebels being responsible for MH17.

The Russian military has no interest in shooting down a plane that is not over their territory unless there is a circumstance that warrants it such as the briefly published idea that the ML17 plane was "mistaken" for Putin's jet (Saw that on RT last night and it then disappeared). Such a scenario would either justify Russians firing the missile as defending their president or that there was an assassination attempt by Ukraine.

About the only thing that the black box will determine is whether the plane was hit by a missile or not.

So pay no attention the the attention jockeys looking to score political points with tough talk, when they know no more than anyone else.

Once Again BAR Misses The Obvious Question

In the latest from Black Agenda Report we find the following:

Why can't Latino politicians and corporate media call the current wave of Central American children refugees, when that's what they plainly are? What's the role of the US drug war, US trained cops and military, and US funded death squads in the violence and poverty that sent them here, and why won't Latino politicians mention that either? And why are none fleeing Nicaragua, which is just as poor as Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador?...

Nicaragua's homicide rate is a third that of Mexico, and its socialist government is free to provide low-cost health care, education, food security, democracy and hope to its people. Hence Nicaraguans are not interested in smuggling themselves north. You'd think Latino politicians would be eager to acquaint a larger US public with these facts, backed up as they are by irrefutable UN statistics.

Anyone else see the obvious question here? No? Let me ask it:

Why, if it is so good in Nicaragua, which has a better situation than Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador, the destination of people from said countries?

Nicaragua borders Honduras. Clearly if the issue is simply fleeing crime, the cheapest and shortest escape would be Nicaragua. Why bother with the far longer and dangerous trip north?

Similarly a person from El Salvador would only have to pass though Honduras to get to Nicaragua. It is probably the same distance as crossing New Jersey.

Guatemalans have a further journey, but still, it is closer than the United States. Furthermore in Nicaragua you don't have people relatively hostile to your culture, including the language.

So why? Why with all these obvious options do persons instead head north to the United States?

Secondly, while we have no disagreement with BAR in their recitation of US interventions in South America, we disagree that the logical conclusion is to shit on African-American working people by telling them they need to support their own dispossession and dilution of political power, the swamping of their schools by students with emotional issues, language issues, educational issues, and the like. Particularly given the dire straights many predominantly African-American schools are already in.

Lastly, BAR's commentary on what Nicaragua has attained shows that depopulating Honduras, etc. is not the way to deal with any real problems in those societies. It is actually by the people who demand better, staying and making it better, will the situation in those countries change for the better.

BRICS Establish $100bn Bank And Currency Reserves

Over the past few years the US and western Europe have played themselves, quite publicly in their actions towards certain governments. They have used the financial system, which ought to be neutral in any international dispute to foist themselves into the relations of countries and entities in which they have no business being.

The last most notable show of this meddling was the reaction of the US and Europe to the situation in Ukraine where Visa decided to stop processing payments to [certain] Russian banks and entities. Should have never happened. The asset freezes and the like exposed for all to see that the certain bodies in the financial system were really inside agents. Any sane country, concerned with it's sovereignty would do whatever it needed to do disentangle itself from such a situation.

The group of emerging economies signed the long-anticipated document to create the $100 bn BRICS Development Bank and a reserve currency pool worth over another $100 bn. Both will counter the influence of Western-based lending institutions and the dollar.

The new bank will provide money for infrastructure and development projects in BRICS countries, and unlike the IMF or World Bank, each nation has equal say, regardless of GDP size.[my underline]

Assuming they actually work the way they say it will certainly be more democratic than the IMF or World Bank (say didn't I just post on that?).

The big launch of the BRICS bank is seen as a first step to break the dominance of the US dollar in global trade, as well as dollar-backed institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both US-based institutions BRICS countries have little influence within

This publication, among others have been warning about the impending dollar implosion for a while.

“This mechanism creates the foundation for an effective protection of our national economies from a crisis in financial markets," Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

Translation: Never again with that Visa and asset freeze bullshit.

Jesse Jackson Doesn't Get It

So I see a piece in Counterpunch by Jesse Jackson about the World Bank:

In 2009, the Government Accountability Project identified only four black Americans out of more than 1000 American professionals working at the bank, not counting several thousand foreign nationals. The bank’s reply essentially was that there are not sufficient qualified black Americans...

In 2009, a former senior vice president explained that blacks were placed in the Africa regional section to give them opportunity to prove their competence and win the confidence of management before they were considered for assignments in other areas. This made it difficult for black professionals to gain higher positions — and difficult for the bank to retain skilled black professionals who could find greater opportunities elsewhere.

Just curious but how has the "Africa wing" done in terms of helping Africa?

Here's the fun part:

, President Kim assumed personal leadership in advancing the bank’s agenda for equality for women and the LGBT community. In the last six months he published two op-ed articles on women and LGBT issues, met with external advocacy groups, and made presentations and chaired sessions at related forums. In contrast, he has not met with leaders of the DC Civil Rights Coalition, delegating this to his chief of staff.

Apparently Jesse hasn't gotten the memo: Rainbow vaginas are the new black.

Bernadette Lancelin: The Ghost Cares

The Ghost has been very clear that illegal immigration hurts black folks. It hurts working class black folks the most. The Ghost has provided documentation(1)(2)(3)(4)to support this fact.

So called "Black leadership" cares nothing at all about working class black folks, except for when they need votes or website donations. The Ghost is not running for office and isn't asking for money.

The Ghost understands that some, nut not all, of the issues in the various countries that these individuals come from are a part of NAFTA and predatory corporate entities. The Ghost rejects the logic that due to those actions, working class black folks ought to have their group interests put off the burner. Working class black folks are not responsible for NAFTA and none of them run the predatory corporations.

The Ghost says that all working class black folks in the US should be as mad as Bernadette. In fact The Ghost says that black folks who are in the upper economic scales should ALSO be as mad as Bernadette. When the president asks for billions of dollars to house and move illegal immigrants around the country when deporting them, as the law proscribes for illegal entry into the US, costs billions less black folks should be mad. Black folks should be mad if their schools are in need of repairs, expansions, increased salaries, and whatever else, and have been denied such funding which can miraculously appear for folks who have no legal right to even be in the country.

Almost every workday I drive across two bridges in which the steel girders are showing as the concrete crumbles away. Black folks and other citizens should be LIVID that their infrastructure is not being paid for, but billions can be found to resettle illegal immigrants.

If your school classrooms are overcrowded, when studies show that smaller classrooms lead to better outcomes, yet the only interest "your government" shows in a school building is to house illegal immigrants, you should be pissed off like Bernadette.

So Bernadette: Do not apologize for your statements. Don't take anyone's shit talk about xenophobia, racism or any other label they will try to put on you for speaking truth to power. You are not the only one. Trust.

Isn't That Really What These Trans-Racial Adoptions are?

So there is a controversial video out there

Question: When white folks go to Africa and "adopt a child" much like you adopt a pet from a pound, because they feel that the child "needs help" how is it really different?

Doctors without borders and their ilk don't go and build infrastructure, they come in "feed the locals" and then wait for the replacements.

No seriously. Think about it. Do you really think that this idea popped into the mind of the creator just all willy nilly? I think that this is at the very least subconsciously how Africans are looked at the world over. It's expression is different whither the thinker is liberal or conservative but both parties do see the African in general as dependent...much like a pet dog. Provides amusement, will provide for protection (as in armed services) and if left uncontrolled may cause mayhem (crime).

None of this shocks me. What is shocking is that people don't realize the thought patterns are out there. Much like the 12 Years a Slave posters were changed for certain audiences.

Is Research Too Hard?

I used to Read Salon.com daily. I don't anymore. There are some sharp writers there. In fact one wrote a decent piece on the recent Hobby Lobby decision that was free from insults, observant of that paper called the US Constitution and had an understanding of why the RFRA was passed. That author also critiques Ginsberg and her declarations on what is and is not religious expression. But then we get this nonsense:

Deranged Todd Akin is back — and steps in it again!

I suppose it's sweeps time at Salon.

Akin says he was telling the truth about lying women who claim they were raped to get out of the consequences of sex – but that he was strong-armed into apologizing by craven GOP bosses.

“My comment about a woman’s body shutting the pregnancy down was directed to the impact of stress of fertilization,” he writes in “Firing Back: Taking on the Party Bosses and Media Elite to Protect Our Faith and Freedom.”

Of course The Ghost, who possesses a degree in Biology (not the associate kind either), knew exactly what Akin was referring to when he first said it. For example:

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

So. Akin was 100% correct. Yet he is labelled "deranged" How does that work exactly? Oh right! Vagina.

Akin, who is not a doctor, insists “this is something fertility doctors debate and discuss. Doubt me?”

Why yes, Todd, I do.

“Google ‘stress and infertility,’ and you will find a library of research on the subject.”

Well, that settles it.

Well I'm not a doctor either but yeah, if you Google it you will find out what I wrote in 2012.

Why didn't Joan Walsh, do what reporters are SUPPOSED to do and do the research?

Because vagina.

If you're not mature enough to admit when someone you dislike is correct you have no business writing for any "reputable" publication.

Democrats Push Bill to Reverse Supreme Court Ruling on Contraceptives

Allow me to fix the headline for the NY Times: Democrats Push Bill to Reverse Abridge Supreme Court Constitutional Protections of Religious persons and the businesses they run.

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that they had developed legislation to override the Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The bill would ensure that women had access to insurance coverage for birth control even if they worked for businesses that had religious objections.

The bill, put together in consultation with the Obama administration, would require for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to provide and pay for contraceptive coverage, along with other preventive health services, under the Affordable Care Act.

It is pretty clear that this administration, along with a good number of Democrats could give a total of 1 fart about the US Constitution. How do they think that they can somehow get around Constitutional protections of non abridgment by essentially declaring that if your organization makes a profit then it is somehow not "religious"?

This is a part of a huge problem going on in Washington and state houses around the country: Politicians creating clearly unconstitutional laws in the hopes that they won't get challenged. If the laws are challenged you have the long wait, and expense of getting it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is sad that women are being used as political tools to dismantle constitutional protections and enumerated rights. Women's personal choices have no business being put up against enumerated rights. Women are just going to have to understand that under this democratic republic religious groups are exempted from certain things. If you don't like it, then you have the right to choose not to work for such a group. This should not be cast as a Republican vs. Democrat, male vs. female or religion vs. secular fight. It is a constitutional issue which was decided correctly. What needs to be explained to people is that:

1) The Hobby Lobby Decision does not stop women from obtaining contraception.

2) The government has no business dictating to other individuals that they have to pay for someone else's "medicine" for their lifestyle choices under threat of fines, etc.. If the government wants there to be cost free contraception for women, it should provide and pay for it.

“The one thing we’re going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Mr. Reid said Tuesday.

This is both sexist and racist. Period.

In its 5-to-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court said that a federal rule requiring many employers to provide contraceptive coverage for female employees was unlawful because it violated a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That law says that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the burden is “the least restrictive means” to advance “a compelling governmental interest.”

The court said that a family-owned for-profit corporation may engage, like an individual, in “the exercise of religion.”

1) I have a problem with the decision turning on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I have a problem with the fact that such a piece of legislation had to be created in the first place. I think that any clear reading of the US constitution should cover all of this.

2) The ruling did not say that corporations, like an individual [meaning: person], may engage in the exercise of religion. The ruling said that a corporation, profit or non-profit may be organized for any legal purpose. Such a legal purpose may be to conduct a for profit hobby business under the Christian principles of it's founders. Therefore the Corporation is the expression of the individuals that founded it and it is the founders principles that are being exercised viathe corporate entity they created.

I know that the average person has a hard time understanding the difference between what the NY Times asserted and what the Supreme Court actually determined, but it is the job of those representatives in government to understand the difference and to make sure the people are made to understand that.

Ms. Murray’s bill criticizes the court’s majority opinion and declares that “employers may not discriminate against their female employees” in the coverage of preventive health services.

Of course that is already the law. What is also the law, you know, that came before the ACA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that pesky first amendment to the Constitution.

To this end, it says that an employer “shall not deny coverage of a specific health care item or service” where coverage is required under any provision of federal law. This requirement, it says, shall apply to employers notwithstanding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In other words we're trying to get around not only the RFRA but also the first amendment. Essentially, fuck the constitution! If I want it, then I shall get it. Seriously, like this chick, and yes, for proposing this bullshit, she gets called a chick, seems to think that the Federal government should just trample on people's rights just because vagina!

Seriously. This is what this is: Just because Vagina. It is pretty shocking that the US has come to a point where a blatant attack on a basic fundamental freedom goes without stinging commentary in mainstream media.

Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a co-author of the House version, said: “Our main concern is making sure that women are not denied contraceptives while we sit around trying to figure out what to do. The bill is an interim solution, to make sure women can get birth control while we look at broader issues, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Of course the main problem with this comment is that women are not being denied contraception. Their employers are asserting their right to not pay for [some of] it. The women are still free, as they were before the ACA to purchase any legal form of contraception they wish to purchase. I suppose it's too hard for the NY Times to point that out to their readers.

Judge under fire for blog post on Hobby Lobby case

Good.

I read a portion of his musings in the NY Daily News And I'm glad that he's getting heat.

Blogging will be light while I figure this out," U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf of Nebraska said this week after coming under fire from fellow jurists and legal experts for writing a blistering criticism of the high court's recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.

He should have waited to "figure it out" before he posted the blog entry. While most of the people are concerned about his tone, I'm concerned about two things:

1) His blatant sexism and religious bigotry:

n the Hobby Lobby cases, five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith and who each were appointed by a President who hailed from the Republican party

Can you imagine if the decision or a decision of great controversy were decided by 5 female justices who were Catholic were written about in such a manner by a sitting judge? The misandry is clear, men cannot make proper, just and constitutionally sound decisions in regards to healthcare (of women or anyone else) because they are men. And lets be clear, it is the men part because had they all been protestant and decided the same way, he would have dropped the "Catholic" part. But I already know the deal, if you do something a woman finds objectionable, it's because you're a man, not because you thought about it.

2) He clearly didn't read or understand the ruling:

decided that a huge corporation, with thousands of employees and gargantuan revenues, was a ‘person’ entitled to assert a religious objection to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate because that corporation was ‘closely held’ by family members,” Kopf wrote in the entry posted Saturday. “To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse.”

Sorry to break it to the judge but the average person is woefully uninformed and misinformed in regards to the law. And the average person hasn't bothered to read the decision, even though it's on the internet, for free, 24-7. The average person reads a newspaper, usually with the same bias they have, and trusts that the reporting they are getting is accurate.

More to the point is that the judge got the point wrong. This decision was not, I repeat not decided under the assumption of corporate person-hood. It was decided as a matter of a closely held corporation is the creation of it's founders and that said corporation may be formed for any legal purpose, including making money in a manner proscribed by it's founders. Here's the relevant section:

the laws of those States permit for-profit corporations to pursue “any lawful purpose” or “act,” including the pursuit of profit in con - formity with the owners’ religious principles. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1301 (2001) (“Corporations may be incorporated under this subpart for any lawful purpose or purposes”); Okla. Stat., Tit. 18, §§1002, 1005 (West 2012) (“[E]very corporation, whether profit or not for profit” may “be incorporated or organized . . . to conduct or promote any lawful business or purposes”); see also §1006(A)(3); Brief for State of Oklahoma as Amicus Curiae in No. 13–354.

So the real issue is, why is there a judge on the bench who:
1) Apparently doesn't read.
2) Is biased against males (doesn't matter that he is male himself).
3) Lacks respect for his profession and fellow judges.

Quick! Which Is The Real AK?

You have one second to determine which gun is real. You will be shot to death if you make the wrong choice. Now about that police officer using "excessive force"

Follow Up To Superpower and Caliphate Post

In that post I mentioned that Black Agenda Report got it wrong when they stated that ISIS (or ISIL) was "Anti-Imperialist". I noted that while they may be anti "western" imperialism, they are themselves quote imperialist in nature. Here is a nice recent example:

'We’ll take back Spain': ISIS fighters vow to seize 'occupied lands'

From the Russia Times:

he minute-long footage shows them speaking in Spanish, and saying that ISIS will take over Spain.

“I tell you, Spain is the land of our forefathers, and, Allah willing, we are going to liberate it, with the might of Allah,” says one of the men. He adds that the group won’t stop at Spain and intends to spread its Islamic Caliphate across the world.

So much for "anti-imperialist". I like many black folks used to like to talk about the Golden Age of the Moor, but it took me a while to realize that what I was in fact in awe of European colonization. If colonization is wrong then colonization is wrong. Spain belongs to the natives of that land, not some folks from the Middle East or North Africa.

Poor White Pupils Put Off School By Multicultural Timetable

Large numbers of schools follow a curriculum that celebrates a “diverse range of pupils” while sidelining those from poor British families, it was claimed.

Head teachers told how they ran numerous projects such as Black History Month and “cultural days” to raise awareness of countries such as Portugal, Poland and Jamaica.

But it was claimed that white British pupils from deprived homes often “cannot see themselves or their lives reflected in the curriculum”, turning them off school altogether.[my underlines]

Say now. Could this also apply to other people? *wink* *wink*

According to figures, just 32.3 per cent of poor white British children left school last summer with five A* to C grades at GCSE. Poor children from every other ethnic group performed better, with more than three-quarters of poor Chinese pupils and 61.5 per cent of those from deprived Indian families achieving the best results.

Are poor Chinese and Indian children smarter than or more motivated than native British (and native British = White)? If not, then what does it say about a country that is failing to educated it's native/founding population?

Teachers criticised a culture of low aspirations and a “small world” mentality among many poor white families, claiming many parents spent hours with children in front of the TV, refusing to visit local parks.

But the study said parents themselves “lamented a lack of white culture reflected in school life which perpetuated for many the marginalisation they felt within their communities”.

Hmmmm...I've seen this same "culture" argument discussed in relation to poor African-Americans. Is it racist only when the target is Black or is it not racist at all but labelled racist by those who have certain motives? Surely if it is racist (and therefore presumably factually incorrect) to make such a "culture of lazy" charge against poor African-Americans, then surely it is equally bollox to make the same charge against poor whites.

One primary school teacher told how the school was “very explicit in celebrating other cultures”, but added: “There is always that difficulty in identifying what is British culture. How many of our pupils would understand what maypole dancing is about?...

“We celebrate Christmas and Easter but even that is done in a diverse way. I think white families are expected to just fit into the curriculum, it is seen as the norm for them and we focus on the children new to the country.”[My Underlines]

And exactly how did the British get into a position where they cannot identify their own culture? I would think that is a sad state of affairs. Let's be honest though. There is no mystery as to what British culture is. The problem is that it is "white" and definitively excludes non-whites (except in it's contact with non-white people). I would dare say that non-whites who have had extensive contact with the British, know full well what is British, vs. their own cultures. I dare say that due to being perceived as racists, the British have abandoned their own culture. Question: Is that necessary in order to not be racist? Can Whites of whatever nationality be pro their cultures (French, German, etc) and NOT be racist? And if being pro "your culture" makes you definitively "racist" then aren't black folks (and other non-whites) who are pro-their cultures just as racist?

Children from poor white British families are coming to school barely able to speak after being “stuck in front of a TV all day”, according to head teachers. A study found evidence of children who were only able to “grunt” after being raised by lazy parents with an “appalling” attitude to education.

The research – commissioned by Lambeth Council in south London – suggested that the prevalence of “text culture” was also a problem, with many pupils becoming overly reliant on mobile-phone style abbreviations at the expense of a proper grasp of English.

The Ghost has previously discussed the appalling practice of overconsumption of television in the US, particularly by African-Americans. So now that we have it shown that poor parenting, regardless of race, leads to poor outcomes, can we stop saying that it is "racist" to point out when black parents are messing up? It is pretty sad when students need remedial language classes for what is their native language.

Children from poor white families are being increasingly pushed aside by their middle-class counterparts who hog community facilities, a study has found. Researchers said that too many children from poor white homes were alienated by wealthy peers from the same ethnic group.

The study, commissioned by Lambeth Council in south London, said the “barrier to achievement for some white working-class children was the achievement of the white middle-class children”.

It also told how local children’s centres were “dominated by the white middle-class” but not the “target audience” of deprived families.

Interesting. In the US the idea is to have mix use of facilities by persons of various incomes. The idea being that by being exposed to people of more means (and we presume the "culture" that leads to getting and maintaining said means) that the outcomes for the poor children would get better. It would appear that this is not happening in London.

The Superpower and the Caliphate

The truth:

The jihadist die is cast, a point of no return for the U.S. strategy of projecting imperial power in the region through armed Islamic fundamentalist surrogates. The international jihadist network, which did not exist before the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan created it to undermine the leftist secular government of Afghanistan in mid-1979, has become a movement that can no longer be controlled.

I suppose messing with the Russians was worth it.

The slight problem:

. The jihadists are, at root, anti-imperialists – inalterably opposed to domination by the “Crusaders” of the West and Zionists.

Not so much. Jihadism by Muslims is not new to this century or last century. Jihad and the establishment of Caliphates is definitively imperialist:

the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

So then the correct statement is that they are anti-western imperialism. Which I suppose if you are a victim of western imperialism doesn't seem to be much of a problem. However if one is anti-imperialist in principle then you must ALSO be againt Islamic imperialism. I will remind the reader that the Trans Atlantic slave trade was preceded by the Trans Sahara slave trade across and within the Maghreb (north Africa). Islamic imperialism has not been any more kind to the African than that of the Western kind.

Hobby Lobby Vs. Entitlement Queens (And Their Trusty Knights)

I was wrong about exactly ONE thing in my previous discussion of the Hobby Lobby case: That the men on the court would be afraid to take on the women. Yes, I know Breyer voted with the women, but like I said, the Men...While a few commentators noted the political divide in the decision, I noted that there would be a gender breakup and it happened that way. I will give Kagan credit for not joining the entire dissent, probably seeing it for the shrillness for what it was. Let me point out a few items. First I want to point out one thing that bothered me most about the decision AND the dissent.

The ACA contraception mandate rests on a particular and peculiar assumption: Free contraception, as in free to women, is a right.

There was no challenge to this assumption and that in itself is problematic. Such an idea, in my opinion, seriously undermines some long held beliefs about a thing called adulthood. Adults are expected to pay for themselves. They pay for the food they eat. They pay for the roof over their head. They pay for their clothes. They pay for their transport. They are supposed to have children when they are able to afford to have them. It has never in the history of this country, been the expectation that the government had any responsibility whatsoever in providing the means of preventing fertilization for adults. If an adult wanted to engage in sexual activities and not produce offspring, the responsibility to negate the chance of having offspring was entirely the responsibility of those persons involved.

I mentioned in my major Hobby Lobby piece that the very fact that the ACA did not provide for no cost contraception for men showed that this was not about "contraception" per se, but a gendered war on religious people. I have seen for myself what happens when gender is put up against religion. Gender almost always wins in the court of popular opinion. Moreover such a mandate was a clear violation of equal protection. That also went unnoticed on by the justices. Again, I don't think the government or any private individual should be on the hook for anyone elses contraception decisions. But it is clear that a lot of people do think so.

How did the population get to the point where no-cost contraception (at a cost to someone else) is thought of as a God given right? How is it that there are women who are actually upset and angry that they do not even understand that this ruling does nothing at all to block their access to contraception. How is it that the thought of actually having to pay for your own sexual choices so repugnant? Why is nobody publicly questioning this clear case of Entitlement Syndrome?

Lets look at some commentary from some Entitlement Queens. First up Hillary Clinton:

Clinton said she found the implication that “a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom” to be “deeply disturbing.”

Well no actually. If Clinton read the actual decision she would see that the court did not declare that a corporation has the rights of a person. The ruling states:

d the laws of those States permit for-profit corporations to pursue “any lawful purpose” or “act,” including the pursuit of profit in con - formity with the owners’ religious principles. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1301 (2001) (“Corporations may be incorporated under this subpart for any lawful purpose or purposes”); Okla. Stat., Tit. 18, §§1002, 1005 (West 2012) (“[E]very corporation, whether profit or not for profit” may “be incorporated or organized . . . to conduct or promote any lawful business or purposes”); see also §1006(A)(3); Brief for State of Oklahoma as Amicus Curiae in No. 13–354.

So no, Mrs Clinton. It is that corporations, profit or non-profit, can be organized for any legal purpose and one such legal purpose may be to make money in a way consistent with the founder's religious beliefs. Shocking, I know. Therefore what is actually disturbing is that a person seeking the highest office of the land (again) not only doesn't read court decisions before commenting on them, but doesn't understand how and why corporations may be formed. Of course, when you think you are entitled to shit, such things do not matter. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

Clinton continues:

“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said.

Notice the entitlement. Sales clerk wants contraceptives, well certain types of contraceptives, but the clerk should have it paid for by the employer rather than out of her own pocket. This same clerk I presume would be aghast if the employer were to tell her who and under what circumstances she should have sex. How exactly do you fix your mouth to demand someone else pay for your private activity while simultaneously demanding they stay out of your private business? But even IF she thinks someone else should pay for her contraception (other than the man she's planning on having sex with, who is, IMO the logical target for such an pay scheme), It does not dawn on Clinton that there is a far more constitutional means to do so: Government can pay for it (and provide it).

And also look at the sleight of hand that Clinton used: She said "employer doesn't think she should use contraception". That was not and is not at stake. What was at stake is WHO PAYS for contraception. Whether the employer thinks it's a good idea or not is immaterial and was not in dispute.

Clinton discussed how her career has focused on the rights of women and girls in particular. Chief among those rights, she said, “is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families.”

You know what, I'm totally on board with that. Women deserve and have a right over their own bodies. 100%. They deserve and have control over their own health care. Control over the size of a family is a joint decision IMO. But the point here is that NOTHING in the Hobby Lobby decision impacts any of that. Hobby Lobby (and others) wants no parts of certain choices. That is totally in line with Clinton' thinking. A woman's control over her body should and has No bearing on my wallet or my business. I want no parts in the decision on what doctor, facility or whatever that a woman chooses to provide for her healthcare. And that decision should have no parts of my wallet or my business. What Clinton and her ilk don't understand, because they are Entitlement Queens, is that she is actually promoting putting other people into the private business of women and she expects them to sit back and take it. I kinda blame Bill (what the meaning of is is) Clinton for that. He has spent a few decades kissing Hillary's ass to make up for his past behavior. Women who are not regularly told "no" by men are unfamiliar with the concept.

“So does this mean whoever wrote that concurrence is in favor of a single-payer system for contraception?” Clinton asked.

The Ghost has been and is 100% for single payer healthcare. The Ghost also noted, multiple times, that such a scheme would have constitutionally addressed a number of issues. I will remind the reader that it was DEMOCRATS that took single payer off the table in favour of what we know of as ACA.

She also warned that companies may soon try to roll back coverage for treatments like blood transfusions. “I mean, this is a really bad slippery slope,” she said.

This is a stinking red herring of an argument that I dealt with in my previous commentary. Firstly, the scope of this ruling was pretty clear in that not all objections can or will be sustained. Secondly as pointed out in earlier postings, blood transfusions, unlike contraception is a life saving technique. A patient may decline immediate life saving treatment via living wills and the like, but not an insurance company (and we're not talking experimental cancer treatments, or non experimental treatments that are known to have slim chances at life savings). There is exactly zero chances that such a claim, even if made, would be approved. Clinton is being shrill and she knows it. Let's look at the protestors:

I agree with the Entitlement Princesses on display. "Bosses don't belong in the bedroom". Agreed 100%. So make sure "bosses" aren't asked to pay for your reproductive choices. Problem solved.

"Getting Birth Control Shouldn't be Thas [sic] Difficult"

Really? According to who? And what constitutes "difficult"? Because I'm not of the opinion that anything that is not "free" is "difficult". But this is typical Entitlement Princess type of behavior. If I can't have my way, then something is wrong.

"This guy shouldn't get to decide about my birth control" (looks like a picture of fictional character Don Draper.

Well sure. And that guy shouldn't be made to pay for it if he objects to it. Anything else is, you know, theft.

Here's Josh Earnest playing White Knight:

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and added that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

Serious question: How is contraception jeopardizing women's health? Do you get pregnant by sharing a needle? Do you catch pregnancy by inhaling a virus or bacteria? Do you get it from food poisoning? Is pregnancy, generally speaking a life threatening condition and if so, why was that chick running a 800 meter race while pregnant?

The answer of course is that the lack of "free" contraception (they even object to co-payments) is not a jeopardy to women's health anymore than the lack of free Motrin is.

Secondly, this decision does not prevent any woman from making personal healthcare decisions for themselves. It actually, in fact affirms that they have to make health decisions for themselves and not with the assumption or expectation that everyone and anyone else is obligated to finance those decisions.

Mr. Earnest urged Congress to find ways to make all contraceptives available to the companies affected.

Which, I will note, they ARE available, just not for free to the purchaser.

A supporting brief from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy group, said that many women cannot afford the most effective means of birth control and that the coverage requirement will reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Justice Ginsburg cited the brief in her dissent.

Quick note. The most effective means of birth control is not having sex. This is beyond dispute. Once one decides that one will have sex, then one takes on the responsibilities for the consequences of such actions. If one is unable to pay for whatever means of chemical or physical birth control, then it is also likely that one is not in a position to deal with the consequences of said behavior. Why then should private citizens be on the hook for financing the choices made by people who are not being responsible in their decisions?

Lets look at statement from Ginsberg:

“The court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers,” she wrote. “For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.”

Ginsberg shows her complete ignorance of certain religious bodies and their texts. Since the debate is focusing on Christians then I will remind inform Ginsberg that Christians have an order to go out into the world proclaiming Christ. And that their central figure, whom they claim to follow, spent much time dealing with non-believers and that one of the main purposes of such organizations is to spread the word to non-believers via there words and actions. It is pretty clear that Ginsberg is not fully informed on the subject matter. You'd think someone so uninformed would recuse themselves or at the bare minimum inform themselves on the parts they know nothing about. Here's Cicile Richards:

“The thought of your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can’t get is offensive and it certainly is motivating to women to vote,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which plans to spend several million dollars this year to campaign for Senate candidates.

Again, the Entitlement Princess does not even think that there is anything wrong with forcing someone else to pay for her life choices. It is beyond her comprehension. How dare these folks say "no" to me. Along with that she completely confuses the issue. It is not your boss telling you what kind of birth control you can and can't get. It is your boss telling you what he or she WILL and WILL NOT pay for. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it these folks feel entitled to make other people do things and pay for things they have no wish to pay for? Do other people (non-females) have rights that others (females) must regard? Here's Lori Lamerand

“It’s really unbelievable that we’re still fighting for access to birth control in 2014,” said Lori Lamerand, president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan

Of course the fact is that "we" are not fighting for access to birth control. "We" are fighting the idea that an enumerated right to free exercise of religion can be abridged by the government over the planned privilege of free to the user birth control. Not a single woman, not a one, is unable to get birth control as a result of this ruling. Women have the same right to birth control that they had before the ruling. But here goes the Entitlement Queen perspective: How dare these men say "No" to providing for me a product I desire.

Am I the only person who recognizes entitlement language when I see it?

“A woman’s decision to use birth control should have nothing to do about her boss or her bosses’ beliefs. We can imagine a scenario where a woman has to lobby her boss to be able to use birth control pills.”

Let me guess, Lori also imagines the 1 in 5 statistic to be true as well. I can imagine a lot of things. Quite the opposite (religious schools excepted), this ruling takes the boss out of the equation. If the boss cannot pay for contraception, then the boss has no interest or say in who gets to use it either. It's that whole "he who pays the piper" logic. If I pay for my own shit, then nobody can tell me what I do with it. Of course Entitlement Queens think that not only should the boss pay the piper but that the boss should pass the tune request he paid for to someone else.

We close this post with a quote from a non-Entitlement Queen, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller:

The congresswoman also said the court’s decision does not limit the rights of any American to use the form of birth control they choose just because a small employer decides not to cover certain services under employee health coverage.

Shockingly logical. Surely she hates women and being a woman.