Obama's Rabbi

Yet another confused Negro who's roots are clearly in West Africa but finds himself in Canaan.

Not only spends way to much time trying to get white jews to "respect" him, but has the gall to want to mass convert Igbo's to Judaism.

Why don't these people just wear a great big sign that says: "I am ashamed of my ancestors." Seriously. I'm real tired of Negroes who find thier religious awakening in other people's religions and whom have not even spent time studying or even practicing the religions of their ancestors. I'm tired of these Negroes getting press and air time. Tired of it. Why not spend some press on black folk who went back and picked up the religions of their ancestors? Those practicing Ifa, those who go directly to Khemet?

Where are the articles in big so called "Mainstream" presses where folks say right out that they call God Olodumare, or Chuckwu or Amen-Ra? Where are they dropping science on the Khemetic origins of Islam, Judaism and Christianity?

Noooo, We get articles about black folk who need blessings from white Rabbis. Black folk trying to convince Arabs that they are good Muslims. Black folks trying to convince the Pope they are good Christians.

Sad.

PW Singer on Military Robots

I often tell people that if you want to see what the future of warfare and of state control over people, one only need to watch movies and TV shows like Terminator, Star Trek, Total Recall (a favorite of mine), etc. I clearly understand that many of these things will be implemented by convincing the people that it will make them "safe" from whatever boogie man the state can conjure up. It's always just a matter of time before that which is used "over there" becomes in use "over here." The overwhelming attitude that will be used to justify these things will be "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why are you worried?" This presumption that a citizen who does not want to surveilled, RFID'ed or whatever, MUST be engaged in some sort of activity that is illegal is one of the most perverse ideas to have taken hold in the US today. To this end I offer up this video from TED:



There are a couple of problems with this presentation. Problems which underscore the importance of the issue being discussed. P.W. Singer states at time 2:00:

A robot revolution is upon us. Now I need to be clear here. I'm not talking about a revolution where you have to worry about the governor of California showing up at your door a-la The Terminator

But in fact we do. It is interesting that prior to Singer making this statement there were mulitple clips of automated robots firing relatively large arms in some conflict. Take a look at Terminator 3 and we see that the "original" terminators did not look all that different from the images presented in this clip. Furthermore we see in this clip, soldiers throwing a mobile unit into a building to look for bad guys. How long until local law enforcement show up at citizens homes with such things a la "minority report"? Before the 1970's it was pretty much taken for granted that police and the military were different in terms of what they did and the armourments they had. Now looking at the Binghamton shootings for example, the local police have SWAT teams that are essentially military. What's the point of a Posse Comidus Act if the police have essentially the same training and equipment as the military? Of course the justification for this militarization of the domestic police is "safety" because the bad guys have all these sophisticated weaponry so we must adapt.

Similarly in NYC there are squads of special police that are heavily armed as if they are going to prevent a plane crashing into a building. At Penn Station there are a plethora of monitoring devices in use and a squadron of police on each corner down to about 30th street. And the people don't bat an eye at it.

Another point of contention is where Singer states (time 5:43):

The second is that we are going to see an expansion in the realm of terrorism. The future of it may be a cross between Al-Qaeda 23.0 and the next generation Unabomber." Another way to look at that is, you don't have to convince a robot that they're gonna receive 72 virgins after they die."

Well the entire presentation is a problem when we look at this statement. The whole presentation is about soldiers who, for example, from a desk in Nevada control a plane that kills people thousands of miles away in order to affect what kind of government they want. How is that any different than Al-Q sending people to fly planes into a building? Who is the terrorist? It is clear that Singer believes that the terrorist is defined as the Arab Jihadi. But who is sending unmanned planes to kill people? Who is it that feels that collateral damage (that's innocent people to you and I) is acceptable for the US but not acceptable for non-state actors? Of course it depends on who one agrees with and who has the "power." Of course that is the real problem here. More than the means by which the killing is done but the WHY killing is done that presents the problem. The jihadi believes that the use of suicide bombers is justified given his or her relative weakness and the rightness of their cause. The US military similarly sees that killing people remotely in countries not even adjacent to the state actor, is justifiable by his or her own ideaology. Both parties believe themselves to be correct and so the killing continues. So the related statement for Singer is that the Robot does not have to be convinced that Jesus is on his side and has blessed his country to defend the Christian world. Or the robot does not have to be convinced of the rightfulness of Zionism and the right of Jews to the land of Palestine. It's all about perspective.

Ultimately, if looked through the lens of the Terminator movies, and excusing the time travel, The lesson of the Terminator is that the machines take over because humanity, specifically those of the European West are so hell bent on control of the world and doing so with as little personal loss as possible, allow machines to do the killing for them. In the end the machines become intelligent enough to realize that they have the power particularly since they are not burdened with "morals". With the amount of cyber hacking that is going on, these intelligent killing machines are going to pose a serious threat to humanity.

Something to think about.

Mr. Obama, You are Full of Shit

Speaking in Europe in regards to the recent launch of a test missile by North Korea President Obama said:

“Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

Mr. Obama is full of shit. SO is Susan Rice, speaking on This Week on ABC.

Our "Ally" Israel is in violation of a number of UN resolutions and have been for over 20 years. Where is the strong statement in condemnation of Israel? Oh I get it, Since words must mean something, Saying nothing means there's nothing meant.

In the recent war crime that was the invasion of Gaza was chock full of violation of international law, including the reported use of White Phosphorus. Where is the speech condemning this use? Perhaps it's because such material has been sourced here in the US?

Maybe the rest of the world is still hypnotized by Obama but I'm not. I see the contradiction. And I'm calling the bullshit.

Lawrence Summers Gets Financial Firm Money

From the NY Times

WASHINGTON — Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to President Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money, the White House disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top officials.

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said the compensation was not a conflict for Mr. Summers, adding it was not surprising because he was “widely recognized as one of the country’s most distinguished economists.”

No not a conflict at all. The big firms have the ear of the fellow next to the president and pays him directly when he shows up to give pep talks. So when the choice is between not bailing out and bailing out what do YOU think he's going to decide?

We told you Summers was dirty and a part of the problem a long time ago didn't we?

Black Women Need Not Apply

Apparently Sean Combs doesn't want Black Women for his Vodka Ads:

From Playahata

Diddy’s CIROC vodka sent out a cattle call looking for and I quote, “White, Hispanic and Light-skinned African American” women to represent his vodka.

We'll get into this later this weekend.

I've has a chance to digest this nonsense. Apparently other reports on the matter have Mr. Combs pushing back on this charge. Here are a couple of problems:

First we have the fact that Cirroc Vodka is fronted by Mr. Combs. The website has Combs on there at least 6 times. Therefore anyone working to adverstise Cirroc Vodka would have to be in tune with what Mr. Combs considers acceptable. So for example, if it were me, once such a draft had been made, someone would have said ' No way is Mr. Tunji going to accept that. Heads will roll." Why because I don't brook for the exclusion of black women. And when I say black I mean black like my Black MacBook. But apparently Mr. Combs does not have that kind of reputation. Perhaps that's a part of why he is where he is and I am, well in my living room typing this. Of course we have David Banner who apparently gets my drift

One thing I've always done is make sure that there are dark-skinned women in my videos because I believe they are always underrepresented.

Though to be honest I'm not a customer of Mr. Banner nor have I seen any of his videos so I can't verify that statement. Nor will I get into the discussion of women in music videos.

But there is of course the issue of the larger industry. It is readily apparent that in terms of beauty standards if you're black skinned, "nappy" headed (natural) and broad nosed, regardless of your dress size, you are not wanted. Don't think so? Ok check it, show me the "super" models that have the proportions of Alek Wek. You won't find much though in much of the black world Alek Wek (facial feature wise) is "normal." But of course the point is that the advertising is not meant for the "black world" is it? Of course not. The advertisement is meant for those who are wealthy and know "good liquor." The type that Kanye West thinks the world of.

These are the people that Combs and his marketing team want to convince to part with their money. And what do those people want. They like "exotic" women? What are exotic women? non-black hispanic women and non-black African-Americans. And let me emphasize that this was a direct attack on b.l.a.c.k. women since anyone with a clue knows full well that there are black hispanics and that the casting call excludes them as well.

While many were outraged at the directness of the casting call, I don't think too many are fooled and think that such exclusions don't exist where the advert isn't so direct. Many black models will tell you how little work they get. This is why I am so adamant about tossing the One Drop Rule. I have no doubt that the ad agency thought nothing about how offensive the call was to black women, because for them black women don't count. African-American women As we saw in the recent "doll test" African-American and interracial couples across the country are instilling in their children, particularly their girl children that blacks are mean, ugly and don't listen to directions. How can one be offended by something that is subconsciously regarded as true?

I pointed out in my post The Black That Matters:

Look at African American leadership in many large cities a large proportion of them are clearly "mixed." The current favorites, Obama, Patrick and Booker have to be the yellowest, "good hair" crew I've seen in my life (Cory Booker sports a baldie like I do so we can't be sure on the "good hair" thing in regards to him).

I won't even get into the leadership of the Urban League or the NAACP. I won't get into the hip hop artists who shamelessly slam black women both in song and in interviews. I said it before and I'll say it again, black folk need to speak up. Black folk need to stop supporting people and companies that exclude or mis-define us.

The Problem With GMA's Doll Experiment

This morning GMA (Good Morning America for those outside the US), ran a report on a "revist" of the infamous doll test. The doll test was an experiment used to show how racism made black kids feel bad about black people and the way they judged two identical dolls who differed only in "skin" color was how these attitudes were revealed. Did I mention that test was first done 60+ years ago?


First there is the problem with the Dolls themselves. At time marker -4:46 we see the dolls in question. They are clearly different in shade but no where near the kind of skin tone spread that is observable in the real world. In my opinion the brown doll ought to have been much darker. I'm talking Hershey candy bar dark. If you look at the footage at time point -4:20, you'll notice that the "black" doll was in fact darker than the dolls used in this current experiment. Also it appears that the dolls had "racially" appropriate hair. These I think are significant in and of itself. In fact I would have liked to see the following:

1) A spectrum of dolls ranging in complexion from practically white to Hershey dark chocolate brown.

2) With hair colors from blond, red black, brown reflective of what happens naturally in nature (That is no chocolate brown dolls with blond hair).

3) Hair textures that are also genetically appropriate: No Blond straight haired chocolate dolls and no afro'd blond white dolls.

4) Different nose widths on the dolls reflective of what happens in nature. So we can have chocolate dolls with flat wide noses AND narrow noses, but no blond white dolls with flat wide noses.

Now going into the "findings" we find the following:

88% of the African-American children in the study said the tan doll looked like them. We'll interpret this to mean that having the idea implanted in their minds that the tan doll was the "black" doll and since they are "black" they My the cognitive association between themselves and the doll. That is we see the common phenomenon of black folk associating whatever is defined as black as being a part of that group. Furthermore the association is relativistic. That is relatively speaking the tan doll most resembles most of the respondents.

But then the report gets muddy. You'll note that Diane Says: "The majority would prefer to play with the darker doll, or both or neither." This is clearly confusing. The implication of the statement is that a majority would prefer to play with the darker doll, but that is not what the actual statement says. The actual statement is that as a collective group the respondents who would prefer to either play with the dark doll, both dolls or neither, represented a majority over those respondents who wanted to play only with the white doll. That doesn't really mean much. What would be important is how many of the respondents only wanted to play with the tan doll and how many wanted to only play with the white doll. Are they split equally? I haven't seen the actual study so I don't know.

The same problem arises with the question regarding which doll was "nice." and again the majority of our kids said the black doll was nice,or both dolls equally so. Again this lumping of two clear categories to represent a "majority" is misleading. It is even more problematic because the segment proudly boasts the "88%" who identify with the tan doll but is unwilling to post any percentages in regards to the other questions. Clearly a majority is simply 51% or more. So we could imply that half the respondents thought that that tan doll was not only not nice but also not worthy of being played with. Certainly that would not be the feel good results which the program would be trying to project.

but then we get to some real deep issues. At time -2:47 we have a tan skinned girl (who incidentally is the same complexion as the tan doll) who expounds on why the white doll is nice and tan doll is bad:

In regards to the nice white doll: "It always be good and listens."
In regards to the bad black doll: "It talks back. It don't follow directions."

Now clearly this child is projecting not HER thoughts on the doll but the thoughts of her parents and/or teacher. Having never seen the doll before in her life there is no rational reason for her to claim that the doll is "always good." Furthermore; since the doll is clearly an inanimate object it could never have actually been good, or bad or ever followed directions.

If you follow the eye movement of the child before she answers the question about the nice doll you'll note that she looks up and to the right (her left). In psychology this indicates that she is constructing a visual image rather than remembering something. So it is clear that she is creating a narrative. Then she looks dead ahead which is a sign of visualization. She does the same thing with the question on the bad doll though there is a camera cut at the point where she would be making her initial eye movement. But she does show signs of visual construction during her answer.

It is clear that this young girl has been fed particular images associated with black folk and is able to reconstruct and project these images onto others at a subconscious level. she has no clue that she is creating good and bad people literally out of thin air.

The next issue was the boys answer to which doll was the prettiest. All the boys said both. With one stating matter of factly that they aren't really different except for skin color. Of course this is a statement of fact. This underscores my position that a wider range of dolls with varied physical features would have been more useful. Clearly we know that differences are far more than skin color.

Now in what I can only call a clear setup: They showed a what I assume to be, by her own statements, a biracial child who had a complexion closer to the white doll. Not a problem right? She says that the white doll is pretty? Why Because she likes the color white. Is it fair to judge this child on a color preference? Is that a broad statement? Since she, skin tone wise, is closer in color to the white doll what is wrong with her feeling an ID with that doll? Furthermore since she is biracial it means one of her parents are white (by her own admission), therefore it should be expected that she's going to have different affinities than someone who does not have a white parent or guardian.

Going back to the dolls. She says that she does not like the "brown doll" because it's brown. You'll note that this is a different answer than the answer to why she thought the white doll was pretty. In that case she made a blanket statement about color preferences and in the latter case she made a specific object color reference. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I think it's significant.

However; most disturbing was her response to the which doll she ID's with question. She claims to ID with the brown doll because as she says: "I'm brown cause I'm mixed up with white and black." While she makes this statement (time code -1:20) she puts her hand to her head as if she's trying to figure something out and makes a face that shows clear confusion and exasperation as to how she identifies herself. When she ID's the tan doll as the one that looks most like her she blurts out "but I'm not mean." (time -1:13). Clearly then someone has informed her that brown people are mean.

Taking this "mean" theme, the next child, clearly black and not biracial though her specific lineage is not disclosed, states that the tan doll is the ugly doll because it is frowning. Never mind that both dolls are physically constructed the same. Unfortunately the between the angle of the camera and the girl's eyeglasses it is impossible to see how she is constructing her reasons for the supposed ugliness of the doll but she is clearly troubled by either the question or the possible mental processes going on because she nearly broke off her fingers while her eyes darted left and right looking for a justification for a statement she has already taken to be true.

The other problem with this line of questioning is that the questioner has given a powerful suggestion to the child. By asking which is the ugly doll she has implanted the idea that one of the dolls MUST be ugly. Therefore the child, who is more susceptible to suggestion, must think that there must be an ugly doll on the table and therefore goes about trying to justify whatever choice they are going to make. I think that this particular child was torn by this suggestion. Had she been asked if she thought either of the dolls were ugly would she have said something different? What about instead of asking which doll they would want to play with, tell them they have to go to another room and they need to bring one of the dolls and see which they choose.

There are clear problems with how the study was done and how it was presented. I think if some of the issues I brought up were addressed the study could be far more useful. Secondly I think that the focus on Obama at the end of the piece is also misleading. Between 1940 and 2009 there have been a lot of changes in the visible rolls of black folk (and some not so much). The black pride movements in the 60's and late 80's /early 90's have created a parent class that is different than those of the 1940's. Obama's election is the culmination of a lot of changes as well as a lot of missteps by the previous administration. But also it's simply not just about skin color.

Oliphant Cartoon

Attempts and comparing this cartoon to that of the NY Post Chimp cartoon fall flat. The Star of David, is representative of the state of Israel which does, in fact use the Star of David in it's national flag. This state uses force of arms (The headless soldier) against a population that is relatively defenseless (represented by the dimunitive figure of "gaza"). The headless soldier can be said to represent the lack of thought behind the recent actual event of invading gaza and the admitted murder of civilians by Israeli forces.

So, If the ADL and Simon Weisenthal center don't like the cartoon, then perhaps they ought to take up the subject with the government of Israel.

A picture of Ujamaa

China in Africa

The Ghost did sound the warning didn't it? We discussed the impending pollution problem.

We discussed the loans and investment from China. And responded to those who had issues with our analysis.

And so we find the following from the NY Times as further evidence of our warnings:

China’s approach to securing minerals in Africa has been to sign agreements to build huge projects in exchange for minerals. In Angola, this kind of arrangement has guaranteed Chinese access to oil in Africa’s second largest oil producer, which is now booming after emerging tattered and broke from a vicious civil war that lasted decades. Chinese and Angolan officials trumpeted this partnership as a model for Chinese investment in the continent, a win-win relationship benefiting both countries.



But that formulation has proved problematic in an economic downturn. African governments are now realizing that these deals are in essence loans against future revenue, and falling prices could leave them saddled with giant piles of debt...



In Guinea, China has backed away from what Guinean officials portrayed as a done deal to build a much-needed $1 billion hydroelectric dam.



“The dam is not a gift; it is an investment,” said Mr. Huo, the Chinese ambassador. “That is what win-win means.”



Guineans are increasingly suspicious of Chinese investment. Many people see Chinese companies as being just as exploitative as Western ones, if not more so. After the military took power in December, it raided Chinese companies suspected of selling fake medicines, but the raids degenerated into open looting of Chinese businesses, tapping a vein of resentment long suppressed.

So mad at the Chinese for looking out for their own interests? Mad at the Chinese for having the foresight to make sure they could enforce those interests. You would think that these "leaders" would only borrow that which they could project to pay for. Surely they didn't THINK that price fluxuations wouldn't happen? Anyway the picture from the Times says it all.

Who's doing the pushing and who's doing the managing? Same situation different race of people. Just not bright enough to notice.

R.I.P John Hope Franklin

John Hope Franklin, Black Historian, Dies at 94

Late to the Party

Urban League asks Obama to address black issues

A bit late to that party aren't they?

The Genius of Diop

I found a post on the Bro-log on climate change that caught my attention and made me think of some of Diop's work. The post highlights an article in the New Scientist. A couple of things stood out in that article that made me think of Diop:

In order to survive, humans may need to do something radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms of resource distribution. "We are locked into a mindset that each country has to be self-sustaining in food, water and energy," Cox says. "We need to look at the world afresh and see it in terms of where the resources are, and then plan the population, food and energy production around that. If aliens came to Earth they'd think it was crazy that some of the driest parts of the world, such as Pakistan and Egypt, grow some of the thirstiest crops for export, like rice."

The thing is that for those of us who are Pan-Africanists we've already come to this conclusion. If we take a look at Diop's Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State, we find in part 3:The Industrialization of Black Africa in which Diop lays out how Africa can be seen has having 8 natural zones of development. Diop discusses how each zone could specialize in certain types of industries rather than each of the 53 states attempting to do all industries within their own borders.

In terms of energy production the New Scientist article points out:

Supplying energy to our cities will also require some adventurous thinking. Much of it could be covered by a giant solar belt, a vast array of solar collectors that would run across north Africa, the Middle East and the southern US. Last December, David Wheeler and Kevin Ummel of the Center for Global Development in Washington DC calculated that a 110,000-square-kilometre area of solar panels across Jordan, Libya and Morocco would be "sufficient to meet 50 to 70 per cent of worldwide electricity production, or about three times [today's] power consumption in Europe". High-voltage direct current transmission lines could relay this power to the cities, or it could be stored and transported in hydrogen - after using solar energy to split water to provide hydrogen for fuel cells.

Again, we saw that Dr. Diop as prescient in his discussion of Solar power in Africa (though due to cost he was more inclined to Hydro-electric and nuclear. I'm sure that if his treatise was written in this current time he would not be so favorable of nuclear and would definitely be more bullish on solar power.

One thing we must understand is that Africa is not the source of much of these emissions. Yet due to it's geographic location, under the scenarios presented in the New Scientist article, Africans stand to lose a great deal if much of it becomes desert.

Some other interesting issues in the New Scientist article is the proposition of moving large portions of the world population to the newly greened northern and southern poles. Given that a vast majority of the people who will be adversely affected by global warming and whom had played the least part in it's occurrence will be subject to moving the most, I wonder what kind of sociological issues will arise with this crush of "colored' non-western peoples who will have to inhabit lands long void of non-Europeans (in the case of northern regions). There undoubtedly be serious friction where people of very divergent customs and values are forced to live in the same geographic location and under the same government.

Things to ponder.

Kiva Update

This morning we have started to loan. You may check them out here:

http://www.kiva.org/community/viewTeamLoans/?team_id=5738

The Kiva Initiative

The Olatunji Foundation has signed up with Kiva in order to add a new dimension to our mission. The Olatunji Foundation was founded on the principle that those of us who are Pan-Africanists and who are relatively economically well off should put our money where our mouths are. We believe that by pooling our resources in such a way that makes a minimal impact on our individual finances, we can push forward a Pan-African agenda by training the next generation and now by directly providing economic assistance to Africa by way of it's people. Furthermore through the Olatunji Foundation team we can make it know WHO we are and WHAT we stand for rather than donate to organizations who are doing things but perhaps not in a way that reflects our particular values.

There are three ways you can push forward this initiative:

1) You can join Kiva yourself and join the Olatunji Foundation team and donate on it's behalf. You will need to use Paypal to transfer funds.

2) You can donate directly to the Olatunji Foundation at its website and we will disburse the funds via the Kiva page. You can see that we mean business because you can check the Kiva website to see exactly where we have put your money.

3) You can purchase a Garvey's Ghost T-shirt and support both the Olatunji Foundation itself and have a portion of sales go towards Kiva and our Scholarships.

What will we be doing with the pooled money? We are going to target our donations to Africans and to black people in the Diaspora. In other words the recipient will be a person of African descent. A goal that I would like to have by the end of the year is for the Olatunji Foundation team to be the premier donor to Africans. I would like to see us be able to fully fund requests.

Imagine for a minute that in a village or city in Africa a Kiva representative hands over a micro-loan to a small business owner and tells them it came from the Olatunji-Foundation Team. Imagine they go to the website and see a collection of black folk following in the steps of Garvey (remember that Garvey wanted black folk of the diaspora to use their technical skills and financial resources to develop Africa so this is directly in line with that age old goal).

One of the biggest potentials here is that these loans are to be repaid (if possible) When that happens we will be able to pool previous donations into a growing pool for future donations. Of course it is entirely possible that the business that we donate to will fail and be unable to repay the loan. Such is the risk we take with anything.

So please use one of the options to support our Kiva initiative.

Sondjata K. Olatunji

Admitting War Crimes

From the NY Times

When asked why that elderly woman was killed, a squad commander was quoted as saying: “What’s great about Gaza — you see a person on a path, he doesn’t have to be armed, you can simply shoot him. In our case it was an old woman on whom I did not see any weapon when I looked. The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, ‘Maybe he’s a terrorist.’ What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood.”

Don't Let the Bonus Distract You

There are a lot of people who are really mad about the AIG bonus situation. While I agree that it is pretty laughable that people who managed to bankrupt AIG think they deserve some kind of bonus I think that this is distracting a lot of people. Lets take a look at the situation.

AIG supposedly received $170 billion in bailout money. It gave out $160 million in bonuses to a number of executives. First lets do a little math. Sure $160 million sounds like a lot of money to the average person on the street who will see less than $50,000 per year and will probably never have a net worth of even 1% of the bonus amount. But when you start dealing in billions and trillions; millions are not that much. 160 million is but 1/10 of 1% of the total bailout money that AIG got. divide 160,000,000 by 170,000,000,000 and multiply that number by 100. That would be .094117%. To put that in perspective That would mean if I gave you 100 bucks and you had to bonus someone out of that you'd be giving them $1 buck. And even that would be too much.

So in terms of the amount of capital we're talking about this is a drop in the buck. But we have another interesting thing here. Since this is realized income (taxable) these execs will be subject to Federal, State and City taxes on that windfall come 2010. So it's likely that 30% of that $160 million is coming back to the treasury. That's 48,000,000 leaving $112,000 more or less in actual expenditure (say 70 cent on every 100 bucks loaned out).

Now personally if I were one of those execs I would be more concerned with the attention my assets were going to receive by the IRS than with the bonus. I bet that if the IRS looks hard enough there is going to be evidence of tax evasion found in some of these execs. You don't run the kind of scam that AIG's financial arm was running and not try to put one over on the IRS as well. So if I was one of these execs I would turn down the money simply so that I could avoid the IRS getting in my financial business. Anyone who has dealt with the IRS knows they can get very grab happy.

But even so this whole bailout is simply a distraction. The big news that came out was how AIG had to pay on policies to banks out of the bailout money given to them. So in essence the institutions that were AIG clients got taxpayer money via AIG. I believe that was some $43 billion. That number is way larger than the mere $160 million the AIG execs got. Can we say 268 times larger? The NY Times has a list of institutions that it paid tax dollars to,

Bank of America received another half billion bucks of tax payer money via AIG among other institutions, some not even so called "American." I use the term loosely because anyone who still thinks of these large institutions as somehow beholden to or could give a damn about "Americans" is in complete denial. So don't let yourself get distracted by the small payout to some rogue execs at AIG, that's like worrying too much about the pawns on a chess board and neglecting to notice that your king is being cornered.

Witness to a Cover Up

From a twit by Professor Kim Louisiana: unarmed, black, 73-year-old cancer survivor shot dead by police

The money shot?

As Monroe lay dying, the witnesses said, the second police officer, who has not been publicly identified, picked up a handgun that Monroe, an avid hunter, always kept in plain sight on the porch for protection. Using a police-issue blue latex glove, the officer grasped the gun by its handle, the witnesses said, and then ordered everyone to back away from the scene. The next thing they said they saw was the gun on the ground next to Monroe's body.

Straight up movie style frame up of the victim. And these cops are so convinced that they are above the law that they commit the frame up in front of witnesses.

I won't even get into the legalities of running up into someone's property without a warrant or imminent danger to the occupants or immediate probable cause.

Black Male Unemployment in America

I saw a tweet by Negrophile that underscored a conversation I was having with my mother two weeks ago. This Christian Science Monitor article Really captures how bad the employment situation is for black men which is something we have discussed previously. The CSMonitor article points out a few things:

At a time when America has elected its first black president, more African-American men are losing jobs than at any time since World War II.

No group has been hit harder by the downturn. Employment among black men has fallen 7.8 percent since November of 2007, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

The trend is intimately tied to education, the report’s authors say. Black women – who are twice as likely as black men to go to college – have faced no net job losses. By contrast, black men are disproportionately employed in those blue-collar jobs that have been most highly affected – think third shifts at rural manufacturing plants.

And this short paragraph deserves attention:

Unemployed black men like Anthony Gilmore aren’t surprised by the findings. Laid off five months ago from a call center, Mr. Gilmore recently interviewed for a job detailing cars. A Hispanic man got the job.

I have been very direct in my criticism of those who act as if illegal immigration, particularly from or through Mexico has not had an adverse effect on black employment. We have written here of proof of how illegal immigration has directly affected the employment and wages of poor blacks.

The damage to the black family and specifically the potential choices for lifemates is particularly disturbing:

Correspondingly, his data suggest that, as of January, about 120 African-American women were employed for every 100 African-American men. “The current size of the overall gap in employment between black women and black men is historically unprecedented, and black Americans are the only group for whom the gender employment gap is in favor of women,” the report notes.

You know there is a blog called "What about our daughters." Perhaps it's time for black folk to start asking and answering seriously: What about our sons?

Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post

NY Times:

Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.”

Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally. In 2006, he warned that, “left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them and enrage those who are not.”

He did not soften his tone even on Wednesday, saying in an interview that “Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.”

The critics who led the effort to derail Mr. Freeman argued that such views reflected a bias that could not be tolerated in someone who, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, would have overseen the production of what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments destined for the president’s desk.

Policy neutral?


Who are we fooling?

The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

What is the percentage of Jews in the US? And what proportion of that support the Zionist policies of the state of Israel? So AIPAC represents what? 50% of US Jewery at best but has this kind of lock on policy? Recent polling in Israel itself shows a sharp split in regards to the policies of the Israeli government and Obama can't do better than this? But I told ya'll about this long ago:

Giving B&N the Benefit of the Doubt

And so one of Diversity Inc.'s incessant e-mails hit my inbox this afternoon. The blaring headline:Monkey Book on Display in an Obama-Themed B&N Window

Oh this should be good. The linked text started with:

While the New York Post denied that their cartoon of a chimpanzee being shot and the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" was a racist stab at President Barack Obama, Barnes & Noble is putting the blame on a customer.

This would be the emotional setup. Next:

:The Barnes & Noble bookstore's storefront in the Miracle Mile Mall in Coral Gables, Fla., featured several books about Obama and one about monkeys.



In a public statement, Barnes & Noble spokesperson Mary Ellen Keating said, "We believe that a customer played a cruel joke and placed an inappropriate title in the front window of our store. We are looking into it and are taking the steps necessary so that it does not happen again."

So a display about Obama is put up with a single Monkey picture in the middle. Odd. Very odd.

A photo of the display began circulating via e-mail by an unknown photographer and has sparked widespread criticism and the public apology from the U.S. bookseller. But is putting the blame on a customer really an apology?

So just to be clear, an unidentified man or woman took a picture of a display which they were offended by and RATHER than march into the store and demand an explanation and removal, they merely forwarded this message to whomever without attribute. OK so we expect first that the photographer ID him or herself then tell us why they didn't bring it up to the store manager immediately since they felt so inclined to defend the race.

Secondly though there is no direct evidence that the store in question is not telling the truth. Worse, the title implies that B&N as a corporate entity approved of such an action when we know that a B&N store is much more like a franchise.

On contrast the NY Post, owned by Newscorp has direct control over the content of the NY Post. No individual can sneak in a photo such as the offending one into the paper. There must be approval from the Editor in Chief to have such an item show in a paper. In fact it is common for so called "offensive" syndicated columns and cartoons to be rejected by a newspaper. Ask Aaron McGruder.

I'm not familiar with the store in Florida but I am familiar with two such stores here in Northern NJ where I as a customer could EASILY muck about with a window display or any other display in the store without much notice from anyone. Furthermore; it is entirely plausible that it was not a customer but an employee acting on his or her own behalf. In neither case would this be reflection on B&N the corporate entity unlike the situation with the NY Post where the very fact that the cartoon was approved up the chain reflected directly on the corporate entity.

So the comparison to the NY Post incident thus far is so far fetched that it would seem to me that Diversity Inc. is courting a libel suit by making such comparisons.

Anyway unless or until Diversity Inc. takes to actual reporting, like calling the store, tracking down the photographer or perhaps tracking down surveillance footage, their report ought to be taken with the same grain of salt used by the "know your 5 black presidents" poster they are selling.


on a side note though, I guess Flavor Flav doing his black face impression is OK by everyone

The Case of the Disappearing Photo

Anyone who saw the NY Times website this morning ~7:30AM saw the article on David Axlerod with an Obama sign with Hebrew lettering under the logo. It was commented on by a couple of readers. It is now gone. Poof. It has been replaced with a photo of Obama and Axlerod in the Oval office. I don't think it is an accident that the picture was changed. Not at all. And of course between Axlerod and Emmanuel we understand why Obama has decided to boycott Durban II over Zionism.

They Will Always Abuse The Authority

As someone who is still very much against the NSA wiretapping and the blanket immunity given to those companies that gave access to the government for it's clearly illegal activities I want to point out the recent revelations in Britain:

Just a day after the Information Commissioner raided a firm for possessing a covert database of construction workers’ personal information, it emerged that the police force is keeping a potentially illegal database listing the details of political activists and journalists.

In a Guardian newspaper investigation, the Metropolitan Police force, which is said to have pioneered surveillance techniques at demonstrations, was accused of storing details including names, photographs, political associations and video footage of protesters and reporters.

Mind you England is one of, if not the biggest police states in the English speaking world. Don't feel comforted by being in the USA since the NYPD and other police departments have been doing this kind of stuff as well. It just underscores the recent re-airing of a Like It Is report from 1980 about the infiltration of various black organizations and the extent to which the government will interfere with people and organizations who are doing nothing illegal just because they can.

Chris Brown and Rhianna

From the LA Times:

the assault began when Rihanna picked up Brown’s phone as the couple drove away from a pre-Grammy party in Beverly Hills. The singer saw a long text message on Brown’s phone detailing a sexual encounter between him and another woman, the warrant said.

The pair began arguing, and Brown pulled the rented Lamborghini to the side of the road and tried to make Rihanna get out of the car, according to the warrant. When her seat belt got in the way, he began punching her in the face.

“The assault caused Robyn F.’s mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the car,” the police detective wrote in the warrant filed Feb. 20.
During the alleged assault, the detective wrote, Brown told Rihanna, “I’m going to beat the [expletive] out of you when we get home. You wait and see.”

After Rihanna feigned a call to her personal assistant -- pretending to ask the woman to have police waiting at her home -- Brown became enraged, telling her, “Now I am going to kill you,” according to the warrant.

The assault escalated with Brown biting Rihanna on the ear and putting her in a headlock until she lost consciousness, according to the warrant. When she attempted to free herself by “gouging his eyes out,” the detective wrote, he bit her finger. Her screams for help were heard by a neighbor, the warrant says.

So Brown gets the gas face. But Ms. Fenty is dumb.

1) Finds long text message from some chick about some sex chick and Brown had.
2) Gets her ass beat when she confronts him on it.
3) Gets back together with the cheating beater.

Sympathy has now left the room. Clearly she likes it.

Obama Bows to the Zionists...Again

Alternet:

In what may signal a dangerous new, "post-racial" approach to global race relations, President Barack Obama's Administration announced that it will not attend the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Geneva next April. According to this article in the New York Times, the Administration will boycott the conference to protest what it deems the unfair equation of Zionism with racism in the outcome documents of the first conference held in Durban, South Africa, and now the second conference, also known as "Durban II, as well." Other concerns cited by Administration officials, some of whom recently attended preparatory meetings in Geneva, in their justification of the boycott include a proposal to place restrictions on the defamation of religions and any language calling for reparations for slavery. According to the Times article, one of the primary reasons for the Obama Administration's decision was that "Israel and some American Jewish groups urged a boycott of the April conference, and several close American allies, including Canada."

Yes because Barack Emmanuel....I mean Obama has no problems with things like this:

According to the Israeli Association for Civil Rights, anti-Arab incidents have risen sharply. “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” says Sami Michael, the organization’s president. Among the Association’s findings:

* Some 55 percent of Jewish Israelis say that the state should encourage Arab emigration;

* 78 percent of Jewish Israelis oppose including Arab parties in the government;

* 56 percent agree with the statement that “Arabs cannot attain the Jewish level of cultural development”;

* 75 percent agree that Arabs are inclined to be violent. Among Arab-Israelis, 54 percent feel the same way about Jews.

* 75 percent of Israeli Jews say they would not live in the same building as Arabs.

Nope. Zionism is A-okay!

Seattle, Washington Beating

Right. Lets get some legalities out the way. I know some people don't realize it but ANY unwanted contact with a person is legally assault. I have given advice to students having sit ins and the first thing I tell them is DO NOT touch ANYONE who is not part of the sit -in. And usually that contact with a police officer, trustee or other member of the university administration is the pretext for mass arrests. I say that so that the reader/viewer will understand that the girl here legally assaulted the officer when she kicked off her shoes at him. You will see in the video that the shoe did in fact hit the officer's foot and it was after that contact that he proceeded to do his illegal act.

The police cannot use any more force than is necessary to subdue a "suspect." It is clear that that though the officer was legally assaulted, that the girl did not pose a physical threat to the officer: she was already in the cell/room and had her hands crossed in front of her.

We cannot hear anything on the video but the question is, why did they feel that they had to cuff this girl given that she was not a physical threat. Clearly since they could have easily charged with assault on a police officer there was no need to have any further contact with her. Secondly, even if they did want to make a point by hand cuffing her and booking her for assault, there was no need for the bum rush, the hits to the head, the throwing on the ground or pulling her up by the hair.


So legally both the girl and the officer are on the hook. Morally it s clear that the officer is out of order. Being "lippy" with an officer is a constitutionally protected activity even though many police officers don't think so.

You Know it's Black History Month When...

The biggest hits to your blog is the post on the difference between segregation and separation. Oh yeah, and the hits come from 'edu' domains.

Rupert Murdoch Knows How to Count

Newsday Reports that Mr. Murdoch has apologized top all those offended by the Chimp cartoon. Without exception. Understand that Mr Murdoch understands what I laid out in an earlier post on the subject. Rev. Al has a large support base. Since the election, even more passive and a-political black folk are not having it. Stores are refusing to sell the paper and a whole lotta white folk in NY weren't having it either (except perhaps those in Staten Island).

Says Murdoch:

As the chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me," Murdoch begins.

"Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted."

"Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you -- without a doubt -- that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."

Yeah I bet he had a talk with the editors. I bet it was along the lines of: "WTF!? Do you know the demographics of the city?"

Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms

Continuing on thoughtful YouTube videos. This speech reminds me of the discussions I have on the existence of race. Often when I make the comparison between humans and other mammals, people are dumbfounded. They have been so conditioned to think about race in particular patterns and to think of humans as so very different, that the comparison completely throws them off. Yet without understanding that many of our most believed beliefs are social constructs that are illogically created we cannot truly break the chains of mental bondage and dependency that many of our people suffer from. Yes the speech in the video is about science and religion, but the concepts are applicable to Pan-Africanism.

Clay Shirky: Institutions Vs. Collaboration

Following the Hulu/Boxee dustup which I've written about on my other blog I stumbled on the following video on the Boxee blog:



The basis of the discussion is very much what I had in mind for the Olatunji Foundation, in terms of a point (the foundation) being the funnel through which various like minded individuals could pool resources and deal with issues of Pan-Africanism, without the usual structure of a UNIA, NAACP, etc. It's a good (and relatively old) video.

NY Post Apology

Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon — caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut — has created considerable controversy.

It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.

It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.

Period.

But it has been taken as something else — as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.

This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon — even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.

Well let me make this final statement on the subject. Those of us in the NYC area know full well that the Post hates Rev. Al Sharpton. But lets be clear here: Rev. Al is simply voicing the opinions of a great deal of people not only in NY but across the country. The Post can continue to issue back handed apologies, but the fact is Rev. Al. has put them on economic notice. I've seen Rev. Al. Cartoons in the past in the post (through other means since I don't give The Post my money) and while most of them have been completely tasteless but clearly within the bounds of political parody, only a priviledge white man or woman, priviledged enough to claim some sort of ignorance of the history of comparing African-Americans to Monkeys and other animals, along with other "jungle" references. And only such a person would then claim to "not understand" the problem with making a clear reference to Obama. I say clear because even though it is clear that the stimulus bill is the product of a number of writers, the cartoon clearly makes a SINGULAR statement in regards to the author of said bill. Since the Monkey in reference was male (and so is the president) and supposedly the buck stops at the President and the Stimulus is referred to as the Obama stimulus, the reference is clear, Obama is the Monkey who "wrote" the bill.

White people do racist stuff all the time, most times without so much as a raised eyebrow in response (see Thatcher) With the election of Obama there are a great deal of black people who are coming to be far less tolerant of the bullshit and the NY Post is going to realize that NYC is mostly "minority" and that stuff is not going to fly if they wish to stay in business. Most of these "minorities" also have a favorable opinion of Rev. Al. so continuing to pick on him is also going to become an economic liability. I have never heard of stores in Harlem refusing to sell the Post before. And if they have, it's the first time they've made the news with it.

So take note, Post, News, Record, just like you're not going to publish a cartoon that shows Nazi SS shooting Einstein and complain about the national IQ, I suggest a bit of editorial discretion in reference to black folk.

And in terms of that apology: Rev. Al wasn't looking for a personal apology (not that Al. I know) So that whole line was unnecessary.

Isaiah Washington Comes Home

I'm not clear as to Mr. Washington's politics but It's good to see a brother looking to the motherland rather than repeating euro-centric nonsense like some other people

Another Obama-as-Monkey Sighting

During the Campaign there were plenty of racist Obama as Monkey sightings around the country. The NY Post clearly feeling left out decided to belatedly join the others in the mud pit.

Guess who doesn't buy the post?

Burris

I would be remiss if I didn't
remind you and the rest of the committee that our role
here is to investigate Rod Blagojevich and not Roland
Burris.

-REPRESENTATIVE FRITCHE

Relevant testimony from Burris:

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Now, prior to the
4 Governor's arrest, did you have any conversations,
5 prior to his arrest did you have any conversations
6 with the Governor about your desire to be appointed to
7 the seat?
8 MR. BURRIS: No.
9 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Did you talk to any
10 members of the Governor's staff or anyone closely
11 related to the Governor, including family members or
12 any lobbyists connected with him, including let me
13 throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich,
14 Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma, did
15 you talk to anybody who was associated with the
16 Governor about your desire to seek the appointment
17 prior to the Governor's arrest?
18 MR. WRIGHT: Give us a moment.
19 MR. BURRIS: I talked to some friends about
20 my desire to be appointed, yes.
21 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is
22 I was trying to ask, did you speak to anybody who was
23 on the Governor's staff prior to the Governor's arrest
24 or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is

942


1 closely related to the Governor?
2 MR. BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with
3 Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get
4 continued business, and I did bring it up, it must
5 have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08
6 that, you know, you're close to the Governor, let him
7 know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
8 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. Did you speak
9 to any individuals who -- any individuals who were
10 also seeking the appointment of the United States
11 Senate seat, otherwise people we've referred to as
12 Senate candidates one through five?
13 MR. BURRIS: No, I did not.
14 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. At any time
15 were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro
16 quo with the Governor for the appointment of this
17 vacant Senate seat?
18 MR. BURRIS: No, sir.
19 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. If you were
20 aware of a quit pro quo, what would you have done?
21 MR. WRIGHT: Madam Chairman, I think that
22 calls for a -- that's a hypothetical question that I
23 don't think that what he would have done, it could
24 have depended. I don't think that's an appropriate

943


1 question.
2 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I disagree. I think
3 that it is highly relevant. You're speaking to the
4 committee, but you're also speaking to the state of
5 Illinois. I think it's important to know what his
6 response would have been if he was aware of a quid pro
7 quo with the Governor and also for the appointment.
8 CHAIRWOMAN CURRIE: Representative Fritchey.
9 REPRESENTATIVE FRITCHEY: Madam Chairman, if
10 I may, Mr. Burris had already stated that he was not
11 aware of any quid pro quo, which answers that question
12 and puts it to rest. What his response would have
13 been had there been something, which he stated did not
14 occur, is clearly irrelevant to this, and according to
15 Mr. Burris, to speculate on something that would have
16 happened if another situation had happened which he
17 clearly says has not.
18 Representative Durkin, I'm not trying to stifle
19 you whatsoever, and I understand the generalities
20 where you're trying to go. But again, I think that
21 we're outside the realm here of what's germane to this
22 hearing.
23 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I think it's germane,
24 and I think in the conduct of this committee over the

944


1 past month that we've been given significant leeway to
2 try to find responses to individuals who are sworn in
3 before this committee, and I think that it's a
4 reasonable request to ask what would have been Mr.
5 Burris's response if he was aware of a quid pro quo
6 for the United States Senate seat.
7 REPRESENTATIVE FRITCHEY: But the leeway has
8 been with response to representatives on behalf of the
9 Governor and the Governor's administration, not with
10 respect to third parties who have clearly stated that
11 they've had no involvement with those actions.
12 MR. WRIGHT: Representative, Senator Burris
13 wants to be clear and open, so to the extent you're
14 asking him to speculate, he'll try to respond to that.
15 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Thank you.
16 MR. BURRIS: Representative Durkin, knowing
17 my ethics, I would not participate in anybody's quid
18 pro quo. I've been in government for 20 years and
19 never participated in anybody's quid pro quo.
20 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is
21 would you have gone to the federal authorities if you
22 were aware of that?
23 MR. BURRIS: I have no response to that...

Can you say before this committee, sir,
21 emphatically that none of those things were promised
22 from you to the governor or there was no exchange in
23 regards to anything legal, personal or political?
24 MR. BURRIS: Representative Flowers, I can

976

1 before this committee state that there was nothing
2 legal or --
3 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: The three points
4 were legal.
5 MR. BURRIS: Legal.
6 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: Personal.
7 MR. BURRIS: Personal.
8 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: Political.
9 MR. BURRIS: Or political, exchanged for my
10 appointment to this seat.
11 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: There was no
12 conversation, none to that effect, and I know you
13 answered this on numerous of occasions, no quid pro
14 quo, none of that?
15 MR. BURRIS: Absolutely, positively not...

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY: So you don't recall
17 that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you
18 expressed that interest to at that point?
19 MR. BURRIS: No, I can't recall. Because
20 people were coming to me saying Roland, you should
21 pursue that appointment, you're qualified, and this
22 was --
23 REPRESENTATIVE TRACY: Is there anybody that
24 comes to mind in that light that you can --

1000


1 MR. BURRIS: Yes, Rich Barber from Summerset,
2 New Jersey, the gentleman I introduced at my press
3 conference in Washington the other day, he contacted
4 me from Summerset, New Jersey, and said "Roland,
5 there's no one better qualified for you to be United
6 States Senator from the great state of Illinois. And
7 therefore, I'm going to start contacting --" you know,
8 I was just wait a minute, you know, Obama hasn't --
9 well, that happened after, maybe after November 4th.
10 See you're asking me a question that has so many
11 moving parts to it that I might not be -- and my
12 counsel reminded me that the class of 1955 from
13 Centralia, Illinois, also were contacting me. And of
14 course a lot of them, that got started after
15 President-elect Obama had been -- had won the
16 election.
17 And so I'm -- and I can start giving you names if
18 you need names of people who you can follow up after
19 that, after November 4th I can certainly give you a
20 few names, but I can't give you the thousands of
21 people who were involved in this.

Now if you read the Feb 5 affidavit and compare it to his testimony you'll see that he was correct when he said:

I mentioned a conversation with Lon Monk but was then asked another question and did not mention anyone else.

Now the NY Times is misrepresenting Burris' testimony writing:

In a sworn affidavit he provided to a committee of the Illinois House in Springfield on Jan. 5, Mr. Burris said “there was not any contact” between himself or his representatives and those of Mr. Blagojevich before he was chosen. At the time, Mr. Burris was pressing to be seated in Washington by Senate leaders, who waited for testimony Mr. Burris provided to an Illinois House committee.

The transcript above clearly shows that Burris never said he had " no contact." in fact the testimony is two part: One asking contact with anyone in Blagojovich's camp about the appointment and a second question regarding whether he had contact with any of "the five." It was to the latter question to which he responded "No contact."

The Times continues:

He was asked by the committee whether he had talked with “any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him,” including, by name, the governor’s brother, the governor’s chief of staff, former chief of staff and top advisers.

Mr. Burris answered, “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes,” and then told of a conversation he had had months earlier with a former Blagojevich chief of staff about his interest in the Senate seat.

The operative part of the answer being "Yes." If Durbin, the committee questioner had been so interested in the specifics he could have done so, but did not return to that line of questioning (as a good lawyer would have) and instead moved on to questions about some $1.2 million donation.

So by reading the testimony and the transcript, there's no discrepancy in the testimony and the affidavit.

Now what is potentially a problem is the fund raiser. The problem here though is the fundraising request. The problem is that asking for a fundraiser is not illegal. Asking for a fundraiser in exchange for a Senate seat is illegal. My question is, if the prosecutor had Burris on tape agreeing to a QPQ then why didn't the prosecutor bring it up when Burris was announced? Wasn't his reason for pre-empting his own case to prevent such a thing from happening? It doesn't smell right to me.

In the end the tapes will reveal all, Reed, Rahm, Burris, Jackson and Blagojevich.

How Bad is the US Auto Industry?

Today I went to get my cars inspected. I drove past the Dodge dealership where I bought my first new car, a Neon. Closed. There was construction going on so it is entirely possible that they were remodeling but it doesn't stop there. On the return trip for the second car I noticed that a Chevy dealership was definitely closed. So for that corridor only the foreign car dealerships remain. Well that's not true. There is a Buick Dealer with what I could see in passing as a lot full of Volkswagen's.

For Those Pissy about Those Critiquing President Obama

Kanye, "High Fashion" and Black Manhood

When the use of the word "boy" was no longer the term of common reference for Black males by whites, Black males began referring to themselves as "baby." For until most recently, with the changes in dress and clothing styles, most black males deeply resented any reference to themselves as "girl" or "woman." But the recent style changes towards high-heeled shoes, curled hair, hair curlers, braids, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, pocketbooks, midriff tops, cinch waisted pants, etc., that many Black males have adopted now suggest that there is a developing tendency, widespread amongst Black males, to not mind (consciously or unconsciously) being mistaken for a "girl" or a "woman."...



Thus it is clear that the origin of this specific pattern of speech begins with the perhaps unconscious recognition that within the framework of the white supremacy power system and it's reflecting culture, power rests only in the hands of whites, more specifically, in the hands of the white male. And relative to the white male, the Black male is a powerless "baby."





"In childhood male children learn- whether at home or at school- that they make mothers and female teachers happy (and they will shower you with smiles and affection) when they act like "females" rather than like boys...The braided and curled hair, the earrings and bracelets, the midriff tops, the cinch waisted pants, the flowered underwear, the high-heeled shoes with platforms and the pocketbooks are all behavioral answers to the above. They say in a loud and clear language, "White man, I will never come after you. I cannot run in my high-heels - you know that. And I may mess up my hair." The white-run clothing industry is all to pleased to provide the costumes of feminine disguise for black male escape.



The Isis Papers (1976,1974)

When I first saw the pictures of Kanye West and his crew; some of whom were wearing some outfits reminiscent of the 80's, Cameo, and of questionable taste, I laughed and moved along. Artists will be artists and I really wasn't going to waste brain cells on whether Kanye's particular choice of clothes and friends were indicative of his sexual proclivities. However; I saw a twit from a friend of mine to a blog post and a coincidental article in the NY Times fashion section which got my black man alarm going and immediately brought to mind the quotations above. Some pieces from the blog entry:

What's so funny to me about it , is that we dress like grown men. We are all approaching, or in our 30s, and we have style, money, and a vast knowledge of fashion. Has this hip-hop, street sh!t made everybody forget what a man REALLY is, or supposed to look like?

Grown men (and a woman?)

I'm not entirely clear as to what he means by "grown men." It seems they are dressed as they see fit but to declare that the above is how grown men dress is quite a stretch. Really. But see the undertones, well actually overtones of the comment? We're rich and we know more than you do about clothes, so everything we do is so beyond what you street niggas would know. You know that's really familiar to me, I've heard that said about black folks from not a few white people. You know, we poor country, jungle vine swingin' coons don't know or have nothin' that we rich and civilized white folk haven't done better at.

Lest you think I'm being too harsh in this critique, continue reading the blog post:

Every show that we walked into, the escorts wanted all of us to be in the front row because they honored the style that we brought and respected our presence. And the thing is, what we are actually doing, is showing the fashion world that American men, let alone Black Men, know how to really get busy when it comes to the fashion game.

Yep, that reminds me about that part where Dr. Welsing discusses how black men get rewarded for being non-threatening. Here's a nice translation: These white folk love us non-threatening negroes who spend the money our backwards street negroes provide us through album sales on high dollar, high thread count, name brand "couture" with names these ignorant negroes can't pronounce let alone wear first hand. They so approve of us aping their styles, that they put us on display for other white folk to see and talk about: "Oh those negroes dress so well!" Besides, what is with these rich negroes who apparently have a need to be validated by white folk? Seriously.

The blog continues:

>Everyone in the fashion world thinks that Black, American men can't dress because we wear everything baggy and boxy and our clothes just straight up don't fit right. It's the truth whether you like it or not. There are only 3, truly respected American men in fashion, and they are Tom Ford, Ralph Lauren and Marc Jacobs. Kanye is on the path to being the 1st American Black Man that high-end fashion buyers will be wearing with his Louis Vuitton collaboration, following Pharrell's collaboration with the fashion house for the LV "Millionaire" sunglasses that he designed (sunglasses are accessories, not clothing).

Wow so rich, ethnocentric, largely gay, European fashion designers, who think rail thin women are "ideal" have deemed American black men as fashion abominations. Boo hoo! First of all why is someone I assume to be black even repeating racist bullshit like this in the first place? Seriously. Some cracker in "high fashion" makes a blanket statement about African-Americans and instead of calling them out on such a clearly racist comment, they post it on a blog as fact. Methinks someone clearly has spent way too much time around these people. But in case the blogger in question has forgotten, for those of us who don't have record contracts and fat bank accounts, we have to buy the vast majority of our clothes at retailers like Walmart and Target, where clothes are factory made to generic sizes. so if, like me you are tall with long arms, you have to buy clothes that are large in order to not look like you have a 3/4 sleeve shirt on. A great deal of your black record buying customers buy their kids large clothes so that the kids can grow into them and therefor spend less money on clothes so that they can do things like pay rent, eat, etc. You know those things we lowly, not rich and clearly less intelligent than you.

Of course many of us don't do baggy pants when we are grown. But still don't have the cash to drop on $5,000 custom suits. so forgive us if our suits don't drape as well as yours. Lastly though, in terms of baggy clothes, well you know where that stuff comes from: Jail culture that made it to the streets. In either case who are these people in "high fashion" to tell Black Americans what they ought to be wearing given their clear penchant for dressing black men like women?

Of course for those in on there history would know that the baggy clothes phenom. also had it's roots in the Afrocentric undercurrent of late 80's-early 90's Hip hop. You know those high top fades were taken from fellows in Ghana? YOu know those Hammer pants have roots in West African clothing? Seen a Batakare? Huge and baggy dude. And colors? the Cross-Colors designs that were the rage and that track, Chris Cross will make ya Jump! Jump" which was a direct rip of the Massai jumping dance. So once again, accepting the blanket statement by European so called "high fashion" about the lack of taste of black Americans, smacks of a total lack of the cultural influences of such styles. But then again, anyone with their heads so far up Europeans asses clearly would not have such respect for things African anyway.

So you'll have to excuse me when I don't bow down to people who think dressing men in women's clothing is "fashion." if a man has questionable sexual proclivities or wants to wear women's clothes 'cause it makes him feel better about himself, I could care less. When people start running around calling it "high fashion" I call the queer fool out.

Fact is that people in high end fashion are allowed to put clearly junk pieces out there and not have it called what it is simply because a lot of the industry is full of egos and back talking people who self congratulate. It's like when BMW redesigned the 7 series to look like a Buick. It stank. It got play for the simple reason that it was a BMW. Had it been a GM vehicle people would have called it what it was and it would have been a dead product like so many other GM cars.

So hey if these fellows want to dress in an eccentric manner. More power to them. For the record I think Kanye was the best and sensibly dressed out of the group. The rest, in my opinion dress to be seen. Their business though, but enough with the condescension and repetition of clearly racist and ethnocentric stereotypes, it's low...class.

Old Ladies in Jail

So Alternet posts and article entitled "Why Are we Keeping Old Ladies Locked Up in Prison?"

The title underscores a tragic indifference in American society (if not elsewhere) that "Old ladies" (and perhaps ladies in general) deserve some sort of extraordinary sympathy that old men, or men in general do not. Why are old ladies locked up? For the same reasons old men are locked up. They did the crime, they are doing the time.

though there wasn't an explicit mention of the race of these old ladies, I can't help but think that the common visual conjured up by this title is of old white ladies, you know the type that helped President Obama get into the hearts of 45% of white folk in the US. Clearly there's little sympathy for relatively old black women like Assata, or relatively old black men like Mumia. For that matter I haven't seen an article attempting to raise sympathy for black political prisoners. But I suppose nothing quite pulls at heartstrings like "old ladies."

"She was a tiny old woman who just wanted to be released," said Killian.

Mumia is just a black political prisoner who just wants to be released.
Assata is just a black woman who'd like to go back to her home in NJ.
There are thousands of political prisoners who would just like to go home.

In Regards to Google Latitude

I posted the following at Internet Tablet Talk:

Quote:

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

that's the whole point of these services: that people explicitly want to let their friends and family know where they are. sometimes.

End Quote



Again I return to the idea that family and friends will be in a position to query as to why you have not shared your location. That is the expected norm will not be "I don't know and that's OK." Rather it will be "I don't know, therefore something is wrong." That is a huge fundamental change. I'm particularly concerned about this from a legal point of view as I'm currently reading a book concerning reasonable doubt and a jury's concept of privacy and guilt.



Anyway, if you read a recent report on ArsTechnica, you have a web company that had an advertiser put a box inline with their network that captured all customers net traffic for various reasons. The "Opt out" was buried in some fine text in the long "user agreement." and it was found that even those who opted out STILL had their traffic being logged by this third party.



So enough of the "explicit" junk.



Quote:

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

really, i don't understand all the fuzz. and i am concerned about my privacy in general (which is one of the reasons why i avoid using google services whenever possible and why i'm still surprised how easily people hand over their mails, contacts, documents, calendars to this company)



End Quote



The fuzz is about in the end the expectation of individual privacy. The US's NSA is on record as being very happy about people giving up this kind of information voluntarily because it lowers the legal expectation of privacy for them. This bothers me. The current trend is that once a large enough portion of the population volunteers to give up a certain level of privacy, then the government finds a means to then claim that the rest of us have given it up as well. This is specifically why the NSA got in it's head to use ATT, Verizon, etc.



The Fed is constrained by the 4th Amendment against warrantless searches of your private stuff. However no private company is under such a constraint. You then waive your privacy rights to internet company A, Internet company A then allows the government to access It's data, which was previously your private data, and you get a warrantless search. Now couple that with legislation "requiring" retention of logs and you have a whole lot of latitude for abuse.



But all you wanted to do is see an icon of your friend floating on a Google map.

Clearly I'm not going to be using the Google service.

Shortly after making that post I ran across the following on Ars Technica:

According to a slew of federal court rulings, police can use hidden tracking devices to monitor the public movements of a person or vehicle without bothering with a court order, since these devices don't violate any "reasonable expectation of privacy." But the sponsors of a bill making its way through the Georgia General Assembly think these GPS trackers do violate a privacy interest worth protecting—at least when they're used by private citizens.

I had completely forgotten about this police can track you if they like laws but it underscores my argument made on the other site that the lowered expectation of "reasonable" privacy is in fact endangered by widespread use of tracking devices which. Honestly could you imaging the founders approving of the state tracking a citizen without court order?

The bill "would make it a crime to "use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of another person without such other person's consent," Really? But you know what I think got this ball rolling? When Rental car companies thought it was a good idea to use GPS on vehicles customers rented in order to see if they drove over the speed limit for purposes of billing them extra for speeding. Never mind that speed does not cause accidents but lack of control and attention does. These same rental car companies don't bill you extra for owning a cell phone, the use of which is as bad as driving drunk in terms of reaction time. But anyway, millions of people gladly exchanged "privacy" for access to a vehicle. Therefore it was not much for the state to argue that people do not reasonably expect to have their comings and going tracked, specifically for "safety" and "security."

What is particularly egregious about this legislation is that when we see that the executive has the "right" to declare anyone it sees fit as a "terrorist" and that such a label already allows for all manner of extra-judical detention (which it appears the Obama administration is OK with) Now the state can attach a device to your private property (you know that thing that the 4th Amendment says you are "secure in") in order to track the vehicle's movement (not necessarily the owner's) 24/7. And should the battery on that device die they can come back to your property, and trade out the tracking device.

I'm sure that the judges that approved of this, as well as the idiots that wrote it, thought, Oh if you're innocent you have nothing to hide. Rather than, this is someone's property, who is presumed innocent of whatever it is that the state wants to investigate and therefore the court ought to protect them and their property from state intrusion a la 4th amendment.

What are Black people saying to you?

...But running into Black people—this Godlike place where they’ve put President Obama is really incredible. The first two days I got accosted on the street like six times....Things like I’m embarrassing, stupid ho, you stupid bi*ch. A lot of cursing at me, especially from Black women. They’re attacking me for asking why—after 232 years of White presidents and White first ladies who have been dressed by White designers—when we finally get a Black first lady with seven to ten slots open in her fashion schedule, there’s not someone like Mr. Arthur McGee, a Black designer who was just honored at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

--Amnau Eele

More stunted intellect commentary in the comments section.

Golliwogs

Apparently Carol Thatcher of the BBC thinks calling someone a golliwog is "a joke"

In trying to clean it up, She claimed the object of her comment looks like the "golliwog on the jam pot."

Oh. Like this one?