Guardian's Stupid "I Could Have Been Mike Brown"

I didn't even bother reading the entries because the premise of the entire piece is flawed. First and foremost, Mike Brown was not "profiled". Mike Brown was blocking traffic by walking in the street and was asked to move to the sidewalk. That's not profiling and ANYONE who has had to deal with mofos walking in the middle of the street and/or taking their own sweet half time cutting diagonally across the street as if oblivious to the 2 to 3 ton vehicle coming knows how annoying that is.

The second problem with the premise is just like the premise of domestic violence. There is the fact that witnesses and Wilson's testimony line up with Brown striking officer Wilson. I don't know about YOU but I don't go around striking police officers. Do you? Even if I'm stopped for reasons I feel are suspect I don't strike police officers. Do you?

So if you don't walk willy nilly down the middle of the street blocking oncoming traffic then how could you have been Mike Brown?

If you don't go around striking police officers in the face when they stop you (for good or no good reason) then how could you have been Mike Brown?

How is it that millions of people every year have contact with police for good and no good reasons and don't get shot? By the Guardian's reckoning that shit is nigh impossible.

If you want to post a story about racial profiling, which does in fact happen, please leave out the Mike Brown angle cause most of the time (though not all the time per Oscar Grant) the ones who get shot are the runners and the fighters. If you don't do either of those you have a high probability of NOT being a Mike Brown.

Oh, and for those confused about the domestic violence angle let me explain. I hear all the time about how it's wrong when after a woman has hit a man with or without an object, a man strikes her back. That may be fair enough, but I always ask: So you strike men regularly? See the implication here is that somehow not only is it OK for women to get physical, but that women ought to be excused from the standard "keep your hands to yourself" rule as well as the consequences of acting out (like babies). I say, if you don't accept that hitting is right and don't engage in it, why the sympathy for those who so engage and catch the consequences?

The Growing Nanny Corporation

I don't know if many of the readers remember back in the day (or were even alive back then) when TV shows and the like would regularly post notices that "the views expressed by (so and so) are not necessarily the views of (name of organization)." Essentially the business was saying that they are simply a presentation medium and not an endorser of whatever was said. This was essentially a means of covering themselves in the case the person said or wrote something libelous or slanderous.

Part of this disconnect of the company and the person(s) was the idea that the only time a company had any say over your behavior was when you were on the clock. It was not the business of the business what you did off the clock and off premises. But of late this has changed quite dramatically.

A few years ago a state employee went to a protest over the "Ground Zero mosque" and proceeded to burn a Koran. People called for this guy to be fired. First amendment and prior restraint issues aside, I was quite bothered by the idea that people think that people ought to be unemployed, possibly for the rest of their lives, if they engaged in behavior, on their own time, particularly protected behavior, that others did not approve of but was not criminal.

In lesser observed news, obese people were and are being threatened with unemployment if they fail to get healthier. Why? Insurance reasons. It costs more to insure a fat person as they pose more of a risk. At first I thought that such thinking wasn't a problem. But then I thought about me. I'm not obese by any stretch of the imagination but I engage in behavior that would be considered "risky". I bike in traffic. Sometimes without a helmet. That puts me in a higher risk category for medical coverage that of a non-cyclist. And that behavior is entirely voluntary. Should my employer forbid me to ride a bike? Should my health insurance be higher? I rollerblade. I might get an ACL injury due to that. It is definitely a higher risk than non roller-bladers. Should my employer ban that behavior? I skateboard. I could fall off, veer into oncoming traffic. Twist my ankle and cost my employer. Should I be banned from that behavior?

I swim. I love big waves. I could be pulled out to sea and drown. Should my employer forbid me from that? I drive a convertible. The risk of a head injury is far higher than in a standard frame vehicle. Should my employer....you know the deal. If it's OK for an employer to discriminate against an employee for behavior and body types that are either voluntary or not "to save money" is a very slippery slope. Why is the employer in your personal business? The only thing that matters is whether the employee is doing the job which he or she has been employed to do. That is all.

This brings me to the recent NFL decision in regards to domestic violence:

Goodell said that effective immediately any N.F.L. employee — not only a player — who is found to have engaged in assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involved physical force will be suspended without pay for six games for a first offense. Second-time offenders will be banished from the league for at least one year.

While I am in no way belittling domestic violence, my problem here is like the previous commentary. Why is the NFL, a corporation involving itself in the personal, off premises activities, of it's employees? And it appears to me that there isn't even a consideration of criminal charges being proven. That aside, why should the NFL put itself in between the issues of it's employees and the people they are in relationships with? if the NFL wants to hold itself to a higher standard as they claim, they SHOULD have said that we believe that corporations ought not be involved in the personal lives of it's employees beyond those activities directly related to their ability to perform the jobs they are hired for.

Domestic violence is bad. Unfortunately domestic violence is initiated by both men and women. What is the position of the NFL if your significant other, a non-NFL employee, decides to threaten an NFL employee with a knife and the NFL employee disarms that person and in the process injures the significant other? Will the NFL suspend the employee? In essence the NFL has decided that only one party in what is often (as in 50% of the time) an act initiated by another party. It threatens the life long employment of it's employees (mostly men) in order to play politics. And when you read the letter sent by Goodell it is clearly aimed at men, with absolutely no regard to the facts of domestic violence.

The NFL should leave punishment for crimes to the justice system. If an employee is convicted of domestic violence, he or she should do the time, pay the fine and go back to work. What happens if/when every company takes such a position? What happens if/when such positions are taken on a whole range of behaviors (criminal or not)? Permanent unemployment? Really?

Be vary wary of the growing nanny corporation.

Enraged!!!

Continuing on our expose on negroes and their white enablers who believe in the church of the Super White Man(tm) and the No Agency Negroe(tm) here's another Counterpunch article

First let me address this phenomenon which is white folks (liberals mainly) who are using black folks for their own political ends

Some on the left are viewing the Ferguson uprising as the (the) long awaited American Spring in which resistance to the routine murder of black youth becomes the wedge cracking open the (a) system revealing itself to be rotten to the core.

This explains the frequent sightings of white faces in the protests in Ferguson as well as the eventual hostility to those persons expressed by the people who live in Ferguson who were having none of that.

It may become that. What happened to Michael Brown was all too typical and while his life was cut short by real bullets, so too does an entire generation see its prospects figuratively murdered as Wall Street consigns it to a future of permanent debt slavery abetted by militarized police forces crushing any attempts at mobilizing in opposition to it.

All too typical? What part? The shooting or who did the shooting? And bullets do not have agency. Bullets are set off by someone. This is typical blame-the-inanimate-object thinking that is in fact "too typical" of thinking [sic] in certain quarters.

While the issue of debt slavery and militarized police forces is indeed a valid point, here it is irrelevant. The incident here involved a single police officer, responding to a call, a single handgun and an alleged scuffle. Beware folks who come in and start yapping about the "bigger picture". They often don't care about the people or places they swooped into. Anyway, here's the meat:

Reverend Al Sharpton who, according to Cooper, presided over the Brown funeral by

“stick(ing) to safe truths, convenient ones, about the problem of militarized policing, particularly in black communities. Sharpton chose not to be a prophetic voice for the people of Ferguson but rather to do the work that the Obama administration sent him to do. That work entailed the placating of the people by ostensibly affirming their sense of injustice, while disaffirming their right to a kind of righteous rage in the face of such injustice.”

Well first of all, anyone paying attention saw that Sharpton quickly changed his tune when Obama got elected. It will be interesting to see when (if?) he gets put down and tossed out once Obama has left office; particularly if he (and others) are unable to mobilize black folks to vote for the next [non-black] Democratic nominee .

But again, the issue in Ferguson wasn't militarized police. That was made into an issue by outsiders. The folks in Ferguson were/are mad about what they consider the killing of an innocent person by a white police officer. There really isn't a reason for him to discuss anything else.

More troubling was Sharpton’s appearance at the funeral for Eric Garner the day before where, according to Byron York in the Washington Examiner, pro forma criticisms of the NYPD functioned as an introduction to hectoring his audience with the “bootstraps” line associated with Bill Cosby and Sharpton’s increasingly close confident President Obama.

“We’ve got to be straight up in our community, too,” he said. “We have to be outraged at a 9-year-old girl killed in Chicago. We have got to be outraged by our disrespect for each other, our disregard for each other, our killing and shooting and running around gun-toting each other, so that they’re justified in trying to come at us because some of us act like the definition of blackness is how low you can go.”

Ahh yes, folks were MAD at Cosby. Not because he said much wrong (I think his discussions of names was out of order) but because it was picked up by the media and "made black people look bad" by "seeming racist". We covered the whole "seem to be racist" angle already.

But here's the thing though, the quote from Sharpton wasn't not factual. Why would anyone be upset by the truth? It's one thing for Obama to take Father's day as an opportunity to shit on fathers in general and black fathers in particular. That's just an inappropriate time for that. But according to the author there is no time where these things can be discussed.

Many in the audience were “enraged, among them Eddie S. Glaude Jr., professor of religion and African-American studies at Princeton who “found the middle part of the eulogy profoundly disturbing.”

I'm confused here. Is Princeton's religion professor "profoundly disturbed" by the fact that we have a outsized problem with violent crime or that it was mentioned? I'm a sane person and therefore I am "profoundly disturbed" by the levels of violence in our communities and not by the fact that it is mentioned in someone's speech.

Lastly let me address this:

Ferguson, a relic of Jim Crown in its apartheid white governance of a black majority is a distraction from this reality.

This is a total whitewash of the history of Ferguson. Ferguson used to be 90+% white up until about 1970. It is only recently that it became a majority black area (64+%). The white governance of Ferguson is in fact caused by two things:

1) The historical fact that Ferguson was once almost entirely white.

2) That black Ferguson residents fail to show up at the polls to vote for assumed black candidates.

Given the latter, not a single person can blame the Super White Man(tm) for the failure to act by black folks. If black folks in Ferguson were intent on controlling the government ALL they have to do is run. The demographics would almost guarantee a change in demographics. Is expecting black folks to vote for their own representatives racist? Is that disparate impact? Or is it the same thing we expect of any other group?

Of course what these people are suggesting is that once the town tipped to a majority black area, the white folks should have just up and resigned and abandoned office. You know what? That would have been fun to watch.

For Example.....

Since I'm talking about Super White Man(tm) Syndrome, here's a fine example:

Do you even understand the legacy of slavery in America? How can black people who were given their freedom in 1863 complain after all these years that they have been given a raw deal? Consider visiting a public school in an inner city and tell me what you see. Isn’t the public school system in much of the United States in shambles because you refuse to adequately fund it? Quality education—quality anything—does not come cheaply. A hundred and fifty years of inferior education for black people (and other minorities) in the United States is bound to have its consequences.

Lets pause here first.

"Given their freedom." To whom is given, can be taken. But anyway, since we were "given", then we were/are in the inferior position and the "giver" is in the superior position. Definitively, the giver of "freedom" is the superior to the one whom it is given. Who is the "giver"? Super White Man(tm). He who giveth.

Ahh the public school system. Yes it is unequally funded. That is definitely true. I've argued for equitable funding, moving away from the property tax system. But lets be serious. It does not take modern amenities to learn math. Science labs will suffer, but sciences can be taught without any modern amenities whatsoever. And behavior issues? Nothing at all to do with the state of the schools. And what "other minorities" is this person talking about? Chinese? Japanese? Indian? Cause last I checked those "minorities" are doing quite well in school (and elsewhere).

But these black people, you say, have cell phones, TVs, computers, automobiles, so how can the issue be one of inequality? True, they have those consumer goods in part because you have convinced them that they need to have them. But all along the road—segregation, voting rights, economic parity and education—the system you have built in our unequal capitalistic society has been filled with bumps and road blocks and dead ends designed not only to guarantee any sense of equality but—worse—dignity.

They (being black folks)....because "You" (White folks) convinced them...

Stop.

Super White Man(tm) syndrome in full effect. See, Black folks cannot think for themselves. They cannot critically analyze the messages being sent to them. Black people are so gullible and impressionable, like children, that white people can convince them to do dumb shit like spend all their money on consumer goods (IF that is true).

This Super White Man(tm) syndrome is so clear that I don't understand how supposedly "non racist" people do not realize it when they write the above nonsense. And why can't they (black folks) get ahead? Is it because they cannot think? Is it because they cannot say to themselves "you know what? I don't need this huge ass TV. I don't need to purchase this vehicle, etc? Nope. Super White Man(tm) has so much power that he has made it impossible for black people to think and act in their own interests. And Super White Man(tm) has put obstacles in the way.

Like in Ferguson where Super White Man(tm) had the audacity to have local elections on odd years instead of even years. Everybody knows that black folks cannot vote in odd years. It's a great conspiracy to keep black voters away from the polls so that white folks can continue to rule Ferguson.

No seriously. This was an argument put forth last week to explain why Ferguson is run by white folks.

Super White Man(tm) caused black folks to take out loans for houses they couldn't afford. So it is Super White Man's fault that black folks found themselves losing their homes. Apparently I'm immune to the effects of Super White Man 'cause I figured out that real estate was bloated. And I went to public school! Shocking!!

Can we please kill off this cancer of Super White Man(tm)?

Afraid To Be Seen As Racist

Let's begin this post off by covering a story that appeared yesterday in the UK press

The sexual abuse of about 1,400 children at the hands of Asian men went unreported for 16 years because staff feared they would be seen as racist, a report said today.

Children as young as 11 were trafficked, beaten, and raped by large numbers of men between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, the council commissioned review into child protection revealed.

And shockingly, more than a third of the cases were already know to agencies.

But according to the report's author: 'several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist'...

The lack of reports was partly down to a fear of being racist, Prof Jay wrote, as the majority of the perpetrators were described as 'Asian men', and many were said to be of Pakistani origin.

Afraid to be seen as racist.

Think about that for a few. The people tasked with protecting children in England were afraid to report on dangerous predators because they did not want to be seen as racist. This is the nonsense that certain ideologies on the left have gotten us.

It is why I got a response to one of my posts last week "informing" me that I sounded like "southern white college students" and "elderly" southern white folks with an affinity for golf.

Afraid to be seen as racist.

Telling the truth is never racist. What you do with the truth may indeed be racist, but TELLING the truth is never racist.

There are those who object when I point out the truth that far more black males are killed by other black males than are killed by police. But this is a fact. If black folks are serious about addressing the issues of our communities then we have to face up to these truths. Police aren't in black communities on some cotton plantation overseer type shit. They are there because we have people in our communities that pose a threat to the very people who live there.

When 105 out of 113 murders in a year are of black people with black suspects, where do you THINK the police are going to be present? Where the crime and suspects ARE NOT located?

About a year or so ago, I listened to a podcast of four what I assume to be intelligent and educated black men. They were talking about Trayvon Martin and made the claim that blacks kill blacks and whites kill whites and that's how crime goes and therefore the focus on black criminality is racist.

Well it may be the fact that certain people focus on black crime because they are racist, but that does not change the actual relevant fact that when it comes to violent crime, black males are by far the disproportionate victims and perpetrators of said crimes. That is what we call "a problem". Many of these so called "intellectual black folks"[sic] try to use the booming prison population of proof of conspiracies to jail black men. Indeed in terms of drug related offenses such an argument may be made (crack vs. powder cocaine). But when it comes to a dead body that argument no longer applies. Dead is dead is dead. Generally you go to jail for dead regardless. The thing is that even though you would reduce the prison population of black males due to drug offenses (selling and using), you'd STILL have a disproportionate number of black males in jail for non-drug offenses. So the drug offenses thing really doesn't explain away the issue.

Too many black people and their white liberal enablers believe in the Super White Man(tm). Whenever black folks mess up, they are quick to point to something white folks did past present or planning to do in the future as an explanation. For them, even though it goes unsaid, the White Man is Super Man.

It's not the S. It's not the yellow rays. It's the pale skin.

White folks up and leave because black folks are moving in? It's white flight and when the schools go to shit and the businesses close up, it's white folks fault. They should have stayed.

White folks up and decide to move in, set up businesses and invest in real estate and the like. It's gentrification. White folks every time. They go and we complain. They come back, we complain. Super White Man is what is the God of these folks.

Black guy gets mad during an argument and beats a guy bloody? It's because he's mad about micro-aggressions done to him by white folks every day.

Black guy walks down the street and decides to shoot at some other guy? This is because white folks have not valued black lives and therefore it is their fault. Never mind its the job of the black guy's parents to instill the value of life. Oh right,their failure is also the blame of white folks.

Shooting at a party? White folks are at fault for having the audacity to create a constitution that allows citizens to possess firearms. Clearly THAT was a long term conspiracy from George Washington HIMSELF. Clearly he thought

many years from now, these niggas gonna use this little amendment to kill each other!! They won't even see this coming. We got these niggas!

Little Tommy doesn't want to do his homework? It's because of all those white folks in the textbooks. Clearly if the books didn't have white names and faces in them, he'd be a math whiz!

Always with the Super White Man(tm). I'm a Garveyite. This blog is called Garvey's Ghost. Marcus Seh:

Anything any other race has done we can do also.....Rise up black man and do what you will! Where is your factory? Where is your shipping company? Where are your men of big affairs?

Garveyites don't believe in the Super White Man(tm) We understand that the White Supremacy System is just that. It is a system designed and maintained by and for white folks. Not that white people themselves ARE superior but that they have ORGANIZED themselves. What did Garvey tell us?

Organize

The only way to overcome a system is with an equal or better one. You don't get that from rioting. You don't get that from begging for diversity. You don't get that by being afraid to be "seen as racist".

Possible Shooting Audio

The NY Daily News is running a report based on CNN's unconfirmed and unverified report of audio of the shooting in Ferguson.

If you listen to the audio you hear 7 shots and then another 4 for a total of 11 (the lawyer says she hears 11 as well).

This can cut two ways in this case since we know that Brown was hit 6 times. This means 5 shots missed and are lodged somewhere down the street.

1) In Brown's "favor" it could mean that officer Wilson shot at him while he was rushing the officer (confirmed by witness accounts) but that Wilson, possibly mad, shot Brown in the second round of 4, one of which hit Brown in the head. That would be a retaliator action on the part of Wilson and could get him put on the hook for manslaughter or murder since it has been concluded that the shot to the head was the kill shot. If a jury deems that the last set of shots were unnecessary then they could choose to indict Wilson.

2) In Wilson's favor the shots could back up his story that Brown rushed him. It is a known strategy to shoot "center mass" to stop an oncoming combatant and then to shoot for the head should the body shots fail to halt the threat. He could claim, if it gets to court (he does not get to testify at the grand jury) that the first set of shots failed to stop Brown and that he shot again to "end the threat". The audio would support this argument since we know Brown was shot 6 times and that the last volley consisted of 4 shots. That means that if he hit with all of the last 4, he only hit twice with the first set. It would also make sense because we know that the kill shot was the head shot.

Had the head shot been in the first set or even the first shot, Brown could not have been shot again, in the front because he was face down. So the head shot would have had to occurred last or in the last set since his forward momentum would have, unlike hollywood movies, sent him forward.

Human [un]employment...

Whenever you hear a politician talking about how more people are needed to "fill jobs" in America, you think about this video.

Update on Facial Injuries

I'm away from my computer so I must be brief. In the interest of facts and truth I need to play this report from CNN on the facial injuries on Darren Wilson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n95mxT1AkpI< p /> It is claiming that previous reports of orbital bone fracture is incorrect and that Wilson only had a swollen face. Itstill supports the report of a fight between Wilson and Brown but does change the force used to hit Wilson which goes to motive and intent on Brown's part.

Idiots In the Comment Section of the NY Times

This is the level of idiocy in the public as seen in the comments section of a NYT article:

blasmaic Washington DC 44 minutes ago The prosecutor says he won't release the autopsy photographs because he doesn't want to bias the jury pool, but there isn't going to be a jury pool. There isn't going to be a jury, or a judge, or a trial, or a defendant, or indictment, or even an arrest. No white cop has ever been put on trial for killing a black man, anywhere.

And

Doris Chicago 53 minutes ago There is a process of selecting only whites for juries and they are known to side with police. I have tried to find one case where ANY policeman who shot an unarmed African American has been convicted, and have found none.

None? Anywhere? Johannes Mehserle who shot Oscar Grant

On July 8, 2010, the jury returned its verdict: Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and not guilty of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.[12]

Once again, I call for all idiots running their mouths, tweeting, facebooking and commenting to be called out, named and put out of the conversation.

Addicting Info: Total Idiots

Continuing to name names and shame the idiots dealing with Ferguson, Addicting Info is up next with their claim that Brown didn't steal anything. Here's AddictedInfo's "thinking"

From observation, it looks as if he had tried to buy more, but then was unable to afford it, hence why he left several packets on the counter. This prompted the store owner to come out from behind the counter and have a discussion with him, which prompted the shove witnessed in the full video.

Are you done laughing? Ok right.

Look. These idiots want you to believe that Brown wanted to buy more stuff but couldn't afford it. Left packets on the counter and was leaving and the manager, just for shits and giggles left his post to "talk" to Brown.

No seriously.

What store do YOU know of where the manager just comes around for shits and giggles to talk to you about shit you couldn't afford to buy.

Then AddictedInfo thinks that the reason the store owners didn't call the police was because there was no theft. Well maybe the customer who saw the shit go down called the police. Just because the store owner didn't call the police doesn't mean a theft didn't occur. For all we know the small Asian man could have been concerned about retaliation.

But you know what? All of that doesn't matter. Why? Because........drum roll:

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) - The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.

That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC. Police in Ferguson had earlier announced that Brown was suspected of taking cigars from the convenience store in what was described as a "strong-arm robbery."

Well so much for the "he paid for his shit" theory.

The saddest thing about this non-report? They posted their "paid for" theory 40 minutes before the AP reported that Dorian confirmed Brown had robbed the store. You'd THINK that a website that claims to have "The knowledge you crave" would have posted an update correcting their erroneous theory. As of this writing there is no such thing.

I'm tired of all these misinformants, agenda pushing, crime excusing leeches on the black community. I'm naming names and calling em out.

A War On Black Males You Say?

Spike Lee says there is a war on Black Males. See it here

SPIKE LEE: I see it. This is about Trayvon Martin. This is about Jordan Davis, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ezell [Ford], who was shot a couple days ago, today in St. Louis a couple blocks away another African-American man who was shot and killed today. They said he had a knife. I just think there is a war on the black male and it's tearing the country apart in my opinion.

I see. Mr. Lee. Who is waging this "war on black males"? This week alone I had contact with no less than 5 police officers. Not a single one did anything to me. There were no rude comments. No guns were drawn. I wasn't asked to show ID. I wasn't stopped and frisked. Seriously. And I was in what would be considered a "white neighborhood". Surely I fit the description of SOME SHIT that went down SOMEWHERE?

In 2013 105 black people in St Louis were killed...mostly by other black people.
In 2012 257 black people were killed in Chicago.....mostly by other black people.
In 2013 191 black people were killed in Philly....mostly by other black people.
In 2012 386 people in Detroit were killed. Detroit is 80% black. You do the math.
In 2012 193 people in New Orleans were killed. The mayor pointed out " the murder epidemic in New Orleans is largely confined to African-American men between the ages of 16 and 30, both victims and perpetrators. Murder is the leading cause of death for that demographic group, "

I could go on and on here but the astute reader sees the pattern and the truth:

More black males have been killed by other black males than by all incidences of police shootings combined by several orders of magnitude.

So obviously the question should have been put to Spike Lee. WHO is at war with Black Males? Because the ONLY way you get an answer other than "other black males" is to believe in all powerful white people who are the sole arbiters of black behavior. And that right there is a view as racist as it comes.

Rob Urie: Total Definition of Idiot

Counterpunch has reached a new low in what they allow to be published in it's pages. Rob Urie's post is the clearest example of liberal total disregard for constitutional jurisprudence in the service of his own fantasies about about race.

This from a website who's masthead claims to "tell the facts and name the names".

Few who heard the eyewitness accounts of the murder of eighteen-year-old Mike Brown by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson needed an autopsy report to know that Mr. Brown was gunned down in cold blood.

Really? How pray tell do people who did NOT witness the actual events know shit? If people didn't need to see evidence like autopsy's, then why the fuck do we have a jury system and rules of evidence? Fuck it. We should just do a Rob Urie and just let the defendant tell his story and let the jury make up their mind. That's what Rob is asking for. Fuck the evidence, Just go with your gut and what you overheard from someone who overheard from someone who saw a tweet.

But the death of Mike Brown was a political assassination.

Man put down whatever illegal substance you are smoking.

The systematic nature in which youth of color are harassed, intimidated, incarcerated and assassinated perpetuates the historic repression of American blacks and browns from the barbaric founding of the U.S. in slavery and genocide to supposed resolution with the Civil Rights movement.

Wow. All black crime and criminal behavior is the fault of white folks and slavery. This is some tired ass shit. Tired. Ass. Shit. It is insulting to the vast majority of black folks. Men and women who grew up in various circumstances and never ever held up a convenience store for cigars. Who never smoked weed. Who never punched a cop in the face because we didn't like how he spoke to us (or whatever excuse is going to be trotted out by these enablers. Who never shot anyone. Never stabbed anyone. Who followed the law. Fuck Rob and his criminal enabling self.

The sense of entitlement exhibited when white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot the young Mr. Brown combined the impunity of racial privilege with a pathological indifference toward the person of Mike Brown, his family and his community.

This is a lot of white liberal quasi-feminist bullshit. Wilson was a peace officer. A peace officer has the entitlement to not be assaulted by civilians. You know who else has a federally protected right to not be assaulted by civilians? letter carriers at the post office. Did you know assaulting one of those people is a federal offense. So yeah, they are entitled to not be hit.

But see Rob Uries total dismissal of the relevant facts. No mention that Wilson was assaulted (see the broken eye bone). Forget that the gun was discharged in the vehicle. No forget all that. Wilson must have been some Klan in a blue uniform because, well he's white. That's the entire logic here. In Rob's world, black men don't commit crimes, unless they do and we can complain about the unfair sentences.

Whatever the personal failings of Darren Wilson, it was in his official role on the Ferguson police department that he murdered Mr. Brown

Try this Mr Urie:

It was in his official role on the Ferguson police department that he [attempted to apprehend a civilian who had just punched him in the face (assault on an officer) and attempted to get his gun (assualt on an officer), that went off (attempted murder of a police officer) and was attempting to flee the scene of a felony who had turned to bum rush him].

See, the latter is a proper description of the known facts in the case. Oh right Rob is of the opinion that facts don't matter. Fuck him entirely.

As the late Huey Newton put it nearly a half century ago, the police aren’t in poor communities to protect property because poor people have no property to protect. And the police in Ferguson conspicuously weren’t there to protect Mike Brown and other youth from violence.

Rob shows his total ass with this statement. Firstly it shows his fascination with the late sixties. So the police are not in poor communities to protect youth from violence? Hmmmm... OK. So not that we've established that black communities are violent and that the violence is NOT from the police (Rob just said it) then WHO exactly is perpetrating the violence?

And since it is the job of the police to investigate crimes of violence and the folks in those communities are the ones committing and victims of said crimes? Where pray tell should the police be? Where the crime isn't? Does Rob really want the Ferguson PD to simply not police black neighborhoods? Lets make a wager: 1 month with zero "occupiers" in black Ferguson and there will be mass begging for police to come back and "Do something" like it was back in the crack epidemic of 85-86 when black community leaders and representatives BEGGED the police to come into their neighborhoods and deal with the violence and drug dealing.

To the canard of black on black violence, three centuries of racial repression haven’t created a state of justice so why would continued repression by external forces be a plausible way to bring it about?

This bullshit here.

This. Bullshit. Here.

Let me clue in the many many number of white people who are under the impression that black violent crime is the result of slavery, Jim Crow and shit like "micro-aggressions". Stop with that bullshit. Most violent crime is a result of an inability to properly deal with conflicts. Small minor shit like shoe stepping, bumping in a club, disagreements about who's the best rapper, and shit like that, lead to violence where sane people would walk away.

To believe that black crime is largely the fault of external forces is RACIST to the CORE. It is a proposition that black people are unable to be agents of their own behavior. It places white people as the ultimate arbiter of black behavior past, present and future. It is the HEIGHT of racism as it is a "gentler" form of White master and black subject. It totally disregards the documented trends of fatherless homes, generational welfare dependency and the like, that were LESS prominent in the more [overt] racist past.

But all that is lost on people who think that facts don't matter.

Put differently, why would police violence of any sort be considered a solution to violence?

Man Rob is stupid. Here's how it works: The state takes over as having the monopoly on legitimate violence. The citizen may only use violence in self-defense (or of others). Having established that, the rules are simple, if you obey the law you're good. If you break the law you do not get to employ violence to get away with breaking the law. The idea is simple: if you break the law, you know that there is a very real possibility that you will lose your life. For many people that serves as a deterrent to crime. Some people, a small minority to be sure, either do not think the rules apply to them or are willing to chance it.

What Rob is actually telling us is that he thinks that the pubic, no, black folks ought to be left to the mercy of those who are willing to break the law and inflict violence on the community. He thinks that in the absence of "violent police", crime in these neighborhoods will disappear. He is a fucking idiot.

The release by the Ferguson police department of a videotape allegedly showing Mike Brown shoplifting some cigars feeds into this premise.

Earth to Rob: Brown's accomplice has already admitted that he and Brown robbed the store. So there is no "alleged" in this part of the story. It is established fact. Oh right. Facts don't matter. Fucking idiot.

By way of comparison, pictured below are four Wall Street executives who ‘run’ banks that could be accurately described as ongoing criminal enterprises— this by the number of criminal and civil charges made against the banks, not as empty pejorative. Not only would it never occur to any cop in America to empty an entire clip into one of these executives under the premise of intrinsic criminality, the entirety of Western policing is dedicated to protecting them from criminal prosecution and from retribution by those harmed by the criminal acts that they oversee.

Here's to hoping that Rob never EVER serves on a Jury. His chosen profession is artist. He should stick to whatever his "art" is and stop writing.

First of all, the criminal actions of the Wall Street bankers (and other allied parties) is irrelevant to what happened in Ferguson. You couldn't even bring it up in court without being stopped by the judge.

Secondly that the Wall Street bankers are criminals does not matter. None of the Wall Street bankers committed assault on a peace officer. Is that fact hard to understand? Rob, like the rest of the idiots out there, still think this is about "walking down the street" or "stealing cigars". It's not. Had the Wall Street executives on the verge of being questioned had tried to run away and in the process punched a cop in the face that exec might actually find himself with extra holes.

See this is the thing about "white collar crime" that many a nincompoop cannot understand. White collar crime does not pose an immediate threat to someone's life. That is the only thing an officer [usually] responds to. No matter how many bribes were paid out by an exec. So long as he goes quietly when the police come. He has nothing to worry about. People who commit robberies of stores and people ARE an immediate threat to lives and this is why they get met with guns drawn.

I know this is hard for people to understand but if you can't you shouldn't be opining on subject matter beyond your intelligence scale.

Implied in the release of the videotape is equivalence; that the alleged theft of some cigars changes the balance of culpability in the murder of Mike Brown.

No, the videotape goes to state of mind and motives of one Michael Brown. Just as if there was video of Officer Wilson beating a person for no reason it would be proper to show that.

Dummy.

The toxic narrative of black criminality ties in history to the (post-Civil War) Reconstruction practice of using ‘the law’ to continue the social repression of slavery by different means. Nominally ‘freed’ blacks were charged under criminal statutes carefully crafted to place them in work camps or in ‘convict-leasing’ programs.

Wow. You know back in the day in South Carolina, if a black person was walking on a sidewalk and a white person approached, the black person had to go out into the street until the white person passed. Then they could resume walking on the sidewalk. I suppose the conspiracy now is that Black folks ought to walk ON the sidewalk or risk lashes.

Bullshit.

I'm glad Rob remembers his grade school lesson's on post reconstruction laws used to get around the prohibition of slavery by imprisoning people on bullshit things like loitering. But this is 2014 Rob. Assault on a peace officer is illegal for everybody. Rob is positing that black people are incapable of following the same rules that everybody else is expected to live under. That's some special type of racism!!

Oh yeah. Brown shouldn't be expected to not rob a convenience store because that whole don't steal shit is for white folks! And since some [rich] white folks get away with their crimes then we should allow black folks to rob and steal and punch police officers in the face. It's only fair.

The fuck out of here with that racist bullshit.

if a population is fifty percent white and fifty percent black but nine out of ten people the police ‘investigate’ are black then most ‘criminals’ will be black even if the propensity toward ‘criminality’ is evenly distributed.

Rob is TOTALLY clueless about crime in many urban areas. But lets keep it on St. Louis. In 2013 there were 113 homicides. 105 of them were black people. How the fuck can anyone with a clue write that crime is "evenly distributed" when black folks in St. Louis are killing one another at a rate of one every 3 to 4 days? But this is the LIE that is presented by the left. Everyone is doing crime at the same rates and if they are not, the black ones are the fault of the omnipresent and omnipotent white folks. No Rob, crime in St. Louis is not evenly distributed. Facts matter.

Rob Urie is an idiot. He has shown himself immune to facts. He deals entirely in lies and irrelevant pieces of information. The question I have for those running Counterpunch is this:

If you claim to "tell the facts and name the names" then why is this piece on your site. It is neither factual or naming any names relevant to the events.

We Good With Lynching Now?

Seriously people? Sacrifice?

Isn't that the shit we marched about? Had dogs on us about? Sacrifice = Lynching.

We're good with lynching now? Really?

The fuck out of here with that bullshit.

We went to work for equal justice under the law. Equal justice!

Dude was "sacrificed" for "justice".

Governor Nixon: Out Of Order!

At time index 3:24 Governor Wilson did something NO sitting official should do. Ever. Called for the "vigorous" prosecution of an American citizen who, under the US Constitution, is considered innocent until proven guilty.

It is not the place of the Governor to tell the judicial branch of government who should be and not be prosecuted. It is the job of the DA or county prosecutor (or whomever is legally given the responsibility in these matters) to look at the available evidence and determine if the evidence warrants a prosecution. By declaring that Wilson must be prosecuted, the governor has declared that Wilson is guilty. The Governor is not in any position to make such a determination. Anyone concerned with the rule of law should be just as alarmed by this action as they are about the militarized local police.

The same people who were concerned about extra judicial killings of American citizens overseas should be concerned about this.

Whether you believe officer Wilson or the statements of the Brown family you should NOT, EVER support the idea of prosecuting someone because a higher official says so but rather as the LAW DEMANDS: a finding that, based on the evidence, it is more likely than not a crime has been committed. That is the legal requirement.

Governor Nixon, you are out of order!

Michael Murray: Idiot

Michael Murray of the Ottowa Citizen is yet another white liberal giving cover to the scourge of black criminals who inhabit many black neighborhoods necessitating the presence of police:

When I was Michael Brown’s age growing up in Ottawa back in the ’80s, I probably ran from the police about a half dozen times, and make no mistake, I was guilty of doing something illegal each and every time. The important take away from this is that I never, not for one second, imagined that I might get shot.

What is important is what Michael Murray did NOT say in his little story about running away from the police so lets ask Michael Murray the following relevant questions:

1) When you were running away from the police had you just assaulted that officer by punching him in the face and breaking his eye bone?

2) during your epic run from the police did you turn around and attempt to charge at the police officer you just assaulted?

3) Did your epic run from police occur after you punched the officer in the face and caused his weapon to discharge in the police vehicle while you were trying to take said firearm?

See, these are the relevant points in this story. But Michael Brown, like so many white liberals have conspired to obfuscate the facts of the case. Even up to today there are white liberal commentators all over Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere repeating statements that have been proven false:

1) He was shot while running away: Completely destroyed by the autopsy. Yet this argument is still circulating.

2) Brown did not assault the officer: Completely destroyed by the medical evidence showing Officer Wilson orbital bones broken. White Liberals have even offered that Darren broke his OWN EYE BONE by hitting himself with the door or by Brown slamming the door on Wilson (which by the way would constitute assault on a peace officer).

3) That Brown didn't rob the store: Yet Brown's friend and accomplice has confessed to the crime.

4) That the robbery is irrelevant: Anyone with a clue on how the law works knows that the robbery goes to state of mind. Just as the defense (and community) will want to know if officer Wilson has any disciplinary record or any civilian complaints because it would go to his state of mind, so to is it relevant as to the criminal intent of Brown.

5) Brown is a child. Brown is 18 years old. That is an adult. Technically a teenager, but legally an adult. The attempt to infantilize him is as racist as it is biased. The AP stylebook clearly states that persons 18 and older are to be referred to as men or women, yet the AP reporters have repeatedly attempted to portray Brown as a minor in violation of their own rules. If reporters cannot be trusted to follow the rules of their profession why should they be trusted?

6) Brown had his arms in the air: Brown's accomplice has stated to the FBI that Brown did NOT have his hands in the air but were near his sides. That is consistent with the autopsy findings and consistent with witness statements that Brown was charging the officer. Furthermore the untrustworthy accomplice stated that he did not see Brown hit Wilson. Yet the evidence shows that Brown did. So what else is the accomplice lying about?

Michael Murray is an idiot. If you think his piece is something profound then you are an idiot as well.

It's Coming....

Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson

— Christine Byers (@ChristineDByers) August 19, 2014

Update: Officer Wilson apparently suffered an orbital fracture during the struggle with Brown.

The Ghost told you how this was going to go down.

That Autopsy

The released autopsy report is yet another nail in the coffin that is the dominant dialog in regards to Ferguson Mo.

People who either have no clue as to competing claims in regards to the shooting, or have not heard the witness to the shooting, or who have a vested interest in playing the "Brown was surrendering" card for all it's worth do not understand what this autopsy has actually revealed.

Before I continue let me make it clear to the reader:

I am among the very few black folks who correctly saw that the Duke Lacrosse team rape charge was a hoax.

I am among the very few black folks who correctly told the public that the charges against Zimmerman would not stick because they were the wrong charges, not because Zimmerman was not guilty of a crime.

I am among a select few who correctly saw that the Sean Bell decision would be an acquittal because like the Martin case, the wrong charges were pressed.

I am among a select few who came out and said that the Hobby Lobby case would be decided in favor of Hobby Lobby due to the issue of enumerated rights.

All this to say that The Ghost has a track record of being right (even if I disagree with the outcome) because The Ghost deals in facts. When you read anything else, ask yourself one question: Is this writer dealing in truth or is this writer pushing an agenda regardless of the facts?

So here we go.

If you are familiar with the audio Then you know that the witness said that not only did Brown struggle with the officer, but that he ran and then returned and rushed the officer. That is eyewitness testimony.

We know there is no dash cam video. So the only evidence to back up the story would be the forensics. The autopsy supports the Officer's story.

One must understand that trained police personnel and others trained in the use of firearms for self-defense know to shoot for the center mass and if need by "finish" with one (or two) to the head.

Once Brown entered the vehicle or even attempted to "struggle" with the cop, the officer had a duty to arrest brown. This is why whether the officer knew Brown had just committed a robbery is not relevant to his actions but IS relevant to the state of mind of Brown.

The autopsy shows that anyone who said that Brown was running away from the officer at the time of the shooting was flat out lying. We now know that all of the shots came from the front, including the head shot.

Did Brown have his hands extended? I say YES. I believe that witnesses that said that saw Brown with his "hands up" saw Brown with his hands extended above his torso. But above the torso does not necessarily mean "up in air in surrender". Let me explain.

The man in the black represents someone trying to come in for a take down. Notice the position of his arms. The are extended "above" his torso but they are not "up in the air" as in surrender. This is why a witness could plausibly say that Brown "had his hands up" when he actually had his arms extended.

Note the body position. Head is down and the crown of the head is pointed directly at the opponent. In the case of the shooting, this would be how Brown received bullets to the head.

You will also note that in the demonstration the assailant has his right side slightly forward. Assuming Brown was also right handed, he would have also lead with his "strong" side. This would explain why the first shots hit him on the right side. And those shots did not stop him and were "non-lethal".

Please note that I am not arguing that the charge was done at the close range depicted in the screen shot. The screen shot is an example for Wing Chun close quarter hand to hand combat.

The would be prosecution would have to argue that the head shot was unnecessary. That's a tough order because shots to the arm of a 300lb motivated thief is not going to stop him.

Is it entirely possible that Brown was standing still with his hands in the air? Sure. Is it possible that the police officer was such a poor shot that he had a clean shot of a 300lb male and could only hit him in the arm but make two head shots? Sure? Is it likely? Not at all.

There may be those who are saying, well maybe he had his hands at chest height. Well lets take that into consideration. Firstly that would contradict witnesses who said his hands were in the air. So you've just created reasonable doubt. Congratulations. Secondly if Brown's hands were so situated then why are there no entry wounds to the back of Browns forearms? The back of Brown's forearms would have been facing the officer and would have been hit first. The autopsy is quite clear that only the front of Brown's arms have entry marks. Consistent with an attempted grapple. So that argument fails on the facts in evidence.

The evidence. This is what matters. This is what counts. Anyone who is not dealing with the evidence is a liar with their own motives.

Drought In California

The LA Times headline screams in alarm: Alarming images emerge from state's drought It's very bad. Very bad. Now what is one source of the drought? Why it's immigration. More people means more water usage:

LOS ANGELES — A report released Tuesday suggests that one quarter of the illegal immigrant workforce in the United States lives in California, and it offers a detailed look at who they are and how they live, using the Golden State as a microcosm to explore how current immigration reform efforts in Washington could impact America.

The study by the University of Southern California’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration estimates that about 7 percent of California residents – or more than 2.6 million people – are in the country illegally. In Los Angeles County – the nation’s most populous – 1 in 10 residents is illegal.

How much water do 2.6 million people use? How much water do the 1 in 10 residents that should not be there use? Drinking, showering, cleaning, flushing. How many gallons? Isn't it the duty of a government to protect the resources of the nation? And if there are people in the country who do not belong, using a finite resource why is that national government not doing anything about it? Well this website says that the estimate is:

Estimates vary, but each person uses about 80-100 gallons of water per day

So at the low end. 2.6 million people use 17.2 million gallons of water per day. Multiply that by 365 and you get 6.278 billion gallons of water used by people who have no business being in the country.

Perhaps if the government was doing what it was supposed to do, the water situation wouldn't be what it is.

Some Inane Stuff Coming Out of Ferguson

So reading the LA Times I perused this piece which had many items that should insult the intelligent among us.

“We cannot have looting and crimes at night,” Nixon said, referring to the latest spate of violence that left three businesses with shattered windows and looted shelves. “We can’t have people fearful.”

At that, someone in the crowd yelled: “We can’t have police officers killing people!”

Because of course the latter is informed by the former. Again, these wanna be revolutionaries don't roll up on the police station and city hall. They don't roll up on the homes of any of the police officers, they roll up on business owners who didn't do the alleged crime.

So how about if, say as a result of the knock out of an elderly white man, white folks went around and looted black businesses?

Oh wait, there aren't any black businesses in white neighborhoods. Wait. There are few black businesses in black neighborhoods. Never mind with the analogy.

But I'm a sellout for noticing that right?

And allow me to fix this paragraph for the LA Times:

Brown, who was 18, was shot and killed Aug. 9 by Darren Wilson, a six-year police veteran with no prior disciplinary issues. Police say Wilson shot Brown when the young man attacked him. Witnesses say that Wilson was the aggressor and that Brown was holding his hands in the air at the time he was shot.

It should read:

Brown, who was 18 and had just robbed a convenience store 10 to 15 minutes prior, was shot and killed Aug. 9 by Darren Wilson, a six-year police veteran with no prior disciplinary issues. Police say Wilson shot Brown when the young man attacked him, perhaps due to Brown thinking Wilson was coming to arrest him for the just committed robbery. Witnesses say that Wilson was the aggressor and that Brown was holding his hands in the air at the time he was shot. Witnesses have not mentioned whether they saw any prior struggle with Wilson as has been claimed by the Ferguson PD.

See. There we have the relevant facts in place. Yes, the robbery is relevant because it goes to state of mind of Brown. Continuing:

But that changed Friday after Jackson released a police report identifying Brown as a suspect in a strong-arm robbery that occurred minutes before Brown's encounter with Wilson. Critics lashed out at Jackson, accusing him of trying to deflect attention from what they say was the true crime: Wilson’s shooting of Brown

Because never mind the actual crime committed by Brown. The way I see it, there was one crime committed by Brown and then there is the alleged crime that is under investigation which may reveal another crime committed by brown: assault on an officer.

his is crazy,” said an older man watching the worst of the looting. “Why?” he said to two young men passing him with boxes of liquor. “Why?”

Obviously all that liquor is for a world record libation pouring for Brown. I'm certain about that. [Apparently the article was severely edited between the time I read it on Flipboard and the time of this writing. What follows is the article as it appeared on FlipBoard's News section as of 1:30PM]

"I want to be clear," French said later on Twitter, "Police not coming in at this point -even with the looting- was a good thing. It could become very violent"

I think every business owner that has had their places of business looted or otherwise vandalized ought to sue the city and state. It is the DUTY of the state to protect it's law abiding residents from those who are breaking the law (including police when they act outside of the law). This is clear failure to do so. Those who wish to commit crimes can and should expect that they may lose their lives in the process.

It's a small number of people doing the looting compared to how peaceful demonstrations were before," said local resident Steven Roach, 20 "The looting is not as big as the media is making it seem"

Then he left, saying it was no longer safe to stay

Nope things are not as bad as it is being reported but I can't stay here cause it's not safe.

Right.

Look, it's true. Those who commit crimes are always in the minority. But as colonialism has taught us, it does not take a majority to control. Only a relative few people, with a mind set on conquest and with the will to disregard decency and law, can set the tone.

113 homicides. 105 of them black people in 2013.

That is the power of the unchecked minority.

He dismissed the looters as "suburban nerds" likely to get busted. But after years of living in a town where he said African-American men are singled out for harsh treatment by the police, he shared the looters' frustration.

113 homicides in 2013. 105 of them black people, mostly black males. That's one dead black person every 3-4 days. Why, pray tell are African-American men singled out by police? How about the community turn out the minority of their members who commit the crimes that puts the African-American community into the spotlight so that the police don't have a reason to be in the community and "single out African-American men"?

He gestures to surrounding businesses, whose florescent lights were now shattered, their parking lots strewn with broken bottles.

"They support these police, give them free food. People just got tired of it," he said.

Why ever would a business owner not support the law? Did we not see the video of Brown stealing and roughing up a manager of one of those businesses? What? Should the businesses be handing out free shit to the local Bloods for protection? Oh, does this twit think that now after the looting the business owners are going to say "well shit, I better get with these gangsters instead"?

"The President needs to come here," Powell said. "He needs to make sure they fire the police chief of Ferguson, get an alternative prosecutor and put [Gov.] Jay Nixon in a corner. He's anti-black people and pro-law enforcement," Powell said. "That will be a start."

Two things here:

1) Why is it that so many African-Americans act like President Obama is their personal lord and savior? Like he's their out of state rich uncle? Obama needs to do X for us. Obama needs to Y for us. Sound like a bunch of fucking children.

2) What is wrong with being pro-law enforcement? 113 homicides in 2013. 105 were black people. Sounds like it's black folks who are anti-black and who are in need of "pro law enforcement". Here's a clue: You can be pro-law enforcement, as in believe in the rule of law and be pro-black. And if you call yourself any kind of nationalist then you better be pro-law enforcement because a nation that does not enforce it's laws is soon not a nation.

"Infuriated"

In an example of why our communities suffer from a disproportionate amount of violent crime:

But in a move that infuriated Brown’s family, police also released security camera footage and an incident report that implicated the 18-year-old in an earlier robbery at a convenience store. The family’s lawyer described the revelation, which came unaccompanied by any further details of the shooting, as a “character assassination”. [My underlines]

In any sane society the above would have read:

But in a move that [brought shame to the] Brown’s family, police also released security camera footage and an incident report that implicated the 18-year-old in an earlier robbery at a convenience store. The family’s lawyer described the revelation, which came unaccompanied by any further details of the shooting, as a [a sad situation and that the family extends it's apologies to the store owner for any harm that came to him and for the destruction of his property and livelihood in the resulting riots].

But we don't have a sane society do we?

Brown’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said his parents were “incensed” and accused police of playing “the old game of smoke and mirrors.” He added: “It’s bad enough they assassinated him, and now they’re trying to assassinate his character.”

Sure. Because the video is obviously a fake. The 911 call is obviously fake and there was no reason for any officer to have any dealings with Brown.

Now we understand why 105 or 113 killed in St. Louis in 2013 were black.

See. Brown is not Sean Bell. Sean Bell didn't rob anybody. Sean Bell was trying to go home to his bride to be. Sean Bell was shot for no good reason.

Brown is not Trayvon. Trayvon was walking down the street talking to Rachel. He bought items at the store. He didn't rob it. Zimmerman should have stayed his ass in his car. Trayvon was defending himself against an armed stalker who he did not know.

Brown is not Renisha McBride, who was shot in the face at close range for banging on someone's door, looking for assistance late at night after having a car accident. Renisha is dead because some guy didn't have the decency to call through the door to simply ask "what do you want?"

No, Brown is not any of these innocent black people. Brown robbed a store and assaulted its owner. Brown lived by force and died by force. And now that we know Brown is not above stealing and assaulting people it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he did in fact assault the police officer in question.

Strong Arm Robbery In Ferguson MO

So Mr. Brown had just robbed a store. The same store that folks tore up and wrote "snitches get stitches" on.

Excuse me while I stop feeling any sympathy for the Brown family.

Officer Darren Wilson was responding to a sick call last Saturday when dispatch alerted him that two young black men had robbed a Kwik Shop.

“Brown grabbed a box of Swisher Sweet cigars and handed them to Johnson,” says the report. “[REDACTED] witnessed [REDACTED] tell Brown that he had to pay for those cigars first. That is when Brown reached across the counter and grabbed numerous packs of Swisher Sweets and turned to leave the store.”

When a bystander attempted to stop Brown from leaving, Brown allegedly “grabbed [him] by the shirt and forcefully pushed him back into a display rack.”

Here's what's going to happen next: Folks are going to focus on the policeman's action and not the fact that Brown was clearly a "thug" who just committed a felony.

There will be zero outrage directed at the Brown family for raising a thug who thinks that robbing a store of cigars and beating on the owner (who was much shorter than Brown). No one will hold the Brown family for adding to the danger in their community.

There will be zero outrage at whoever it was that wrote "snitches get stitches" on the robbery victim's store after vandalizing it.

Watch.

Ferguson MO Follow Up

There may be those who do not understand the implications of yesterday's post so this one is to make what should be obvious clear.

There were 115 homicides in St. Louis in 2013. 105 of them were African Americans, almost exclusively male. Generally speaking that is one dead black person every 3 to 4 days. I don't like doing the "x per day" thing because we know that these events tend to occur on weekends. We know that they tend to occur at night. For example the 80 or so shootings that happened in Chicago on a recent weekend.

Knowing that 105 black people were killed (usually by other black people) in 2013 we shall assume that the rest of the homicides, all 8 of them, were white's of any gender.

Eight.

Eight white homicides a year is about 1 every 45 days. That is one homicide about every month and a half.

1 every 45 days vs. 1 every 3 days.

Anyone want to guess why there are police running around black neighborhoods? Our collective behavior, including sheltering those who commit these crimes, and making excuses for those who do them (because none of them were killed while struggling over food, clothes or shelter) is what causes police to be in our communities in the first place.

Does that mean that police have a license to shoot unarmed persons for no reason? Of course not. But how about this: The next time a black person is killed in Ferguson or elsewhere how about the community come out and riot in front of the place(s) the gang members hang out? How about trashing the homes of known gang members? Someone want revenge? How about offing one of the killer gang members in the neighborhood. You'll probably cut the crime rate by 15% if you off just one of them.

See black folks don't really value black lives. Seriously. If black folks actually valued black lives, 98 black people would be alive today in St Louis. Because the black killers in that city would not be tolerated by the community. But no, black people don't care about black lives. What they care about is attention from and revenge on white folks.

Let me repeat that: What they care about is attention from and revenge on white folks.

This is not about the dead black boy. The dead black boy is only a vehicle for the real goal. In the end there will be some court case, as there should be. And even if the officer is convicted, in the time that is spent doing that, lets say a year, another 105 or so black people will be dead, and not from police. And this doesn't even include those shot, stabbed or beat down and survived.

If you really want to end police violence in black communities, increase the peace.

Perspective

Events after one (1) police officer shoots one (1) allegedly suspect black male.

Events after one hundred and five (105) Black men killed by other black men in 2013.

If you don't understand the significance of the differences and why the latter informs the former, then you just want to be mad to be mad. If you believe that the former poses a greater threat to African-Americans than the latter, carry on with that. Get at me when you're serious about the situation.

Ecuador Show's It's Spine

Ecuador doesn’t need anybody’s permission to export agricultural products to Russia, which now has a big gap that needs to be filled after it banned supplies from a number of western countries, said President Rafael Correa.

“I want to immediately say that we don’t need to get anybody’s permission to sell products to friendly countries: as far as we know Latin America isn’t a part of the European Union,” as RIA cites Correa’s Tuesday comments to the Andes press agency.

Who's next?

EU to urge Latin America not to export food to Russia

The European Union is reported to be planning to dissuade Latin American countries from providing Russia with agricultural produce, saying it would be unfair and ‘difficult to justify.’

“We will be talking to the countries that would potentially replacing our exports to indicate that we would expect them not to profit unfairly from the current situation,” the Financial Times (FT) quotes one senior EU official talking at a briefing on the situation in Ukraine on Monday.

Any Latin American country that agrees to the EU "request" should have it's leadership removed

Sterling Example Of Black Liberation

Yup. This guy right here is sure showing the Ferguson MO PD the real consequences of their actions. No doubt Ferguson PD are quaking in their boots right now. You show 'em boy, with your draws all out! I'm certain those bottles (of liquor I presume)will be funding the local black IOS app developer make payroll!

No DashCam in Ferguson MO

Police cruisers in Ferguson, a town of some 23,000 people, are not equipped with dash cameras, which would have proven valuable to investigators. There are also no surveillance cameras at the apartment complex where the incident occurred.

Well then. Since the story is that the officer fired at Martin Brown in the back 8 times and there is so far no corroborating evidence to the "he tried to get my gun" story it is time to arrest the officer for manslaughter and let a jury decide.

A Simple Way To End The Questions In Ferguson Mo.

Release the Dash Cam audio and video.

There is Dash Cam footage right?

You Pay For Delivery....

From the recent news conference put on by Mayor Duggan:

“When somebody says water should be free, I don’t know how to filter water and pipe it (from) the river to somebody’s house at no cost,” Duggan said. “Right now, it is other Detroiters paying for it.”

Which is what has been written here not a few times. You pay for delivery. If you aren't paying, someone else is.

“Y’all know as the NAACP we wish it will be longer,” Anthony said of the moratorium.

How long pray tell?

Wafer Guilty of Murder In Dearborn Heights Shooting

For the record, I am pro second amendment. I have no problem with law abiding people having firearms and I believe in the fundamental right of every living thing to defend its life.

Wafer was found guilty because his own words and his own actions made it clear that he was not acting in self defense. What Wafer attempted to do was what we call pre-emptive violence. He thought something was going to happen and acted to stop what he assumed was the case. Had he "simply" knocked McBride out with say a baseball bat, he probably would not have been put on trial.

Asked why he opened the door and fired, Wafer answered, “I thought they were going to come through ... I didn’t want to cower. I didn’t want to be a victim in my own house.”

He said told police at the police station that the shooting was “self-defense as far as I’m concerned” but also told police, “I should have called you guys first.”

Had I been a juror, that statement alone would have been all I needed to hear to come to a verdict. If someone is pounding on your door to the extent that you feel that your life is in danger (hint: pounding on door does not constitute a threat against one's life) then you call 911 immediately. You can pick up your gun if you like, but you call 911.

You do not open the door.

Repeat:

You do not open the door if you think that the person on the other side is out to end your life. You wait until that moro breaks the door and attempts to enter your home and then you blow them away.

Wafer did not do this. Wafer heard a banging on his door. Got his gun and opened the door to the person he claimed he was in mortal fear of. That is not self-defense.

Let this be a lesson for the trigger happy out there. In order to make a claim of self-defense you must have an immediate threat to your person. A threatening environment or circumstance is not enough. Someone has to actually attempt to do something to you or your property. Even then, the force used must be [usually be] proportionate to the threat presented.

Kanye West Compares Paparazzi to Civil Rights Movement

From The Guardian UK

“[Celebrities], as a group of minorities here in LA … have to band together to influence guys like this – guys trying to take the picture, guys trying to get the big win, guys trying to get the cheque,” West said in his deposition. After the rapper made a comment about sit-ins in the 1960s, he was asked whether he was equating his own paparazzi problems to the struggles of African-American civil rights campaigners. “Yes, 100%,” West is quoted as replying. “I equate it to discrimination. I equate it to inequalities.”

Seriously. He said this.

Earlier in the interview, Goldberg, who is white, started quoting a line from West’s song, Flashing Lights: “I got flashed by the paparazzi/ Damn, these niggas got me.” West interrupted there, telling Goldberg “to ask for a … pass” before using the N-word. “You can’t just say [that] word around me,” West said. “It offends me because you’re a white person saying ‘nigga’.”

Really?

And wait...wait....

he tells the lawyer. “I’m the smartest celebrity you’ve ever fucking dealt with,” he warned him.

Smartest you say? Look Mr. Smartest Celebrity ever. You are a capitalist trying to make money. Paparazzi are capitalists trying to make money. You are a public figure. People have a right to photograph public figures in public places. There are no civil rights at hand here. The only thing at hand is harassment. That's a legal issue. Harassment by Paparazzi isn't a civil rights issue. You're not employed by them and they are not the government.

Oh yeah and the inequality? That would be the net worth.

Smartest celebrity ever.

Technology and Human Labour Replacement

Continuing in our observations in the coming displacement of workers, particularly men, by automated systems of various types. Here's a report from New Scientist on exoskeletons which had an interesting tidbit:

The world's top three shipbuilding firms are South Korean – Daewoo, Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries – and their shipyards are already renowned for their level of automation. In a study of the firms' facilities in 2012, US Navy personnel found that five out of the six yards they visited used robots in some capacity. At one shipyard, robots did 68 per cent of all welding as well as carrying out jobs from cutting and grinding steel to polishing freshly assembled hulls, with minimal human oversight. [my underlines]

Welding jobs cut by 68%.

Minimal human oversight.

Soon coming to an [former] employer near you. Don't worry though. You can go back to school, at a nominal cost and train for one of those jobs "overseeing" the machines or go into another field that will soon suffer the same fate.

Enjoy.

Government To Review £8bn Of Arms Sales To Israel

Ministers say contracts for military equipment will be individually examined to ensure they are not being used in Gaza offensive

Ummm...Generally speaking, where else has Israel been using it's military equipment?