The Constitution

Read Cheney's Speech. He mentions the constitution 3 times.

We didn’t invent that authority.
It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given
specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution
authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the
American people...


Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its
operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used
was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty
obligations...

move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And
when they see the American government caught up in arguments
about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional
rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder
whether they had misjudged us all along.

Obama mentions the Constitution 11 times:

The documents that we hold in this very hall -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world...

My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words -- "to form a more perfect union." I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake...

First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists...

In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution...

I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- so did each and every member of Congress. ..

We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government...

That's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That's what makes the United States of America different as a nation...


The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last 222 years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way...

It is clear that Cheney sees the constitution as something that either gives him power or hinders it while Obama sees the Constitution as the sovereign document that it is. This is why Cheney and his cohorts are wrong and why they need to see the inside of a jail cell. This is one situation where Obama is right on the money.

Between Bell and Berry

In an odd twist of events the killer of MC Dolla is claiming self defense

Price said Berry and Burton clashed at the Platinum 21 Adult Entertainment club in Atlanta. Berry and Burton happened to run into each other Monday in the restroom of P.F. Chang's China Bistro in the Beverly Center in what Price described as a chance encounter.

Price says the rapper threatened Berry, who decided to leave the restaurant. When Berry went to the mall's valet area for his car, Burton and two other people followed him, the attorney said. Berry thought Burton was reaching for his waistband and fired his weapon. "He perceived that his life was in danger," Price said.

Now the huge hole in this defense is that by this story, unless Berry is a robot or a Cylon Sentinel, he was walking through this restaurant with his gun drawn, because he managed to bust one off thinking that Dolla was going for a gun. Think about that for a minute. But what this defense move reminds me of is the result of the trial for the killing of Sean Bell. The story for the cops was that they "felt threatened" and though there was no visible weapon, the movement of the Bell and co. justified the shooting.

It will be interesting to see how this defense works out in this case since the claims are very similar. Does a citizen have the right to pre-emptivelyprotect himself from a perceived threat just as the police apparently do? I don't think the argument will fly even if they establish that a prior altercation happened. That whole walking through the restaurant with the gun at the ready is probably going to doom the defense.

The NY 4

A fool and his freedom are soon parted.

And so last night 4 men were arrested for attempting to bomb a synagogue and shoot down military aircraft in NY. The FBI apparently learned from it's Miami case, that one needs to prosecute people for actual committed crimes rather than talk of committing crimes. These guys were caught after placing two fake bombs in cars. Therefore I see no way a defense attorney is going to be able to claim entrapment. But that's not why I'm posting on this.

The reason I'm posting on this is for a variety of reasons the primary being that these guys were caught, particularly the apparent ringleader James Cromitie, was because James talked too much and was stupid. It was clear from the news conference that Cromitie talked to an informant about his issues with what was going on in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which in and of itself isn't a big deal. Not even a little deal. His problem, which for someone his age and apparent criminal background ought to have known, was that you don't go talking about your plans to blow up stuff with other people.

The second problem with Cromitie was that he had no idea how to make his own bomb even though the information and supplies are readily available. This is unlike Timothy McVeigh who not only did not discuss his plans with many other people (as far as I know) but also knew how to build his own bomb. Had Cromitie had done those two things I believe that the news conference this morning would have been entirely different.

The third problem was his attempt to get stinger missiles. I actually laughed out loud when I heard that one. Seriously, this guy must have been watching waaaay to much 24 and other forms of entertainment where people acquire military hardware with ease. I know this guy was concerned with Afghanistan but he's not there and arms don't go falling out the sky here in the US and what's worse, he had no clue that anything he got was fake.

So what we apparently have here is a mickey mouse operation with people who wanted to be "big shot Jew killers" striking at America, who were too dumb and too lazy to learn the tools of "the trade." I wrote before that these kinds of people are the least of the worries of law enforcement. They are more concerned with big ego boosting shows than with actual results. Given how loose gun laws are here, these guys could have easily, easily armed themselves with particularly potent guns, walked into the synagogue on a Saturday and blew away a "good" number of people and perhaps lived to see the resulting news. And that's only one thing I can think of off the top of my head. I can think of a great deal of other things that would completely escape the view of law enforcement that would have NYC shook up.

But in the end such actions would do nothing to forward my aims and the intended actions by these fellows too would have not furthered their aims. It's far easier to destroy than to build. The Haitian in the group ought to know that intimately. Jail cells are full of people who didn't think through on their plans, talked too much, or were just plain stupid. Another set is about to gain residents.

What? What? Whaaaaat?

“This one man was with his wife or girlfriend and I was by myself. When he got away from her, it’s like, ‘Hey, how are you? Can I get your number? Can I call you?’ It’s the weirdest feeling.”"

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?!!!! Fellas. Stop with this nonsense!

Malcolm

Obama and Black Colleges

Here is something you can't understaaaand.
Cypress Hill

Why are people surprised at the move by Obama to cut federal monies to HBCUs? The cold hard fact of the matter is that for those who have never attended an HBCU they don't matter. Really. I was one of them until I landed at Tuskegee. Most white people who do not live in the vicinity of a HBCU probably couldn't tell you what HBCU stands for. Heck a large portion of black folk can't tell you what an HBCU is. A small portion of the black public goes to an HBCU yet HBCU's have provided the greatest number of "degreed negroes" than "HWCUs".

Did anyone not think that by buying into and promoting the race-neutral, color-blind, or whatever strategy to get Obama elected, that it wouldn't have consequences? One must realize that in the face of "race-neutrality", there is NO NEED for an entity called a HBCU. That when one is a part of the "mainstream" you are just another subgroup on a HWCU? And if there is no need for an HBCU and there is a stated desire to be "mainstreamed" why should the govt. supply money to HBUCs?

Furthermore, as anyone who has either attended a HBCU or researches them knows, many of them are on their last financial legs. Some have lost accreditation. Some face dwindling student enrollment due to the brain drain to HWCUs. The fact is that eventually there are going to be a very small group of "elite" HBCUs such as Spelman, Morehouse, Hampton (and Tuskegee I hope). Furthermore, the complexion of these campuses are going to change as the stigma of attending a "black school" dwindles and those black schools become less "black." Now I understand the mission of many of the schools (at least as stated)to provide education for those who cannot get it elsewhere but the fact is that many of them are going to go away.

Recall that many HBCUs were created to provide educational opportunities where there were none. They were created to provide education where HWCU simply refused to do so. So we've moved from a point where going to a Tuskegee was the only thing you could hope for, to Tuskegee hoping you'll attend. Today we have an African-American president, who had he been school aged in the 30's, 40's 50's or early 60's, really wouldn't have had a choice in the matter (regardless of his white mother) but to go to an HBCU. Trust me he does not value the history of HBCU's like I do or like Michelle could. Obama did not grow up in a household or region of the country where one was expected to go to an HBCU. He didn't grow up in a household as far as I know, where black folks were a part of his daily experience. Obama simply cannot comprehend what a black college experience is. And don't take that wrong. Most black folk who have not attended an HBCU have no clue as to the unique collegiate experience it is. But what is critical here is that Obama has, like a growing number of upwardly mobile black folk, gotten where he has without those "traditional" black roads. So he has no reason to feel any real affinity to them beyond whatever political capital they can bring to him or Democrats.

Understand, I've been to a Big 10 school. I've been to an Ivy League campus. But for me some of the most impressionable experiences I have had were at Tuskegee. I would not trade that experience for anything. Anyone who has not experienced years of higher education where one is NOT the spot in the lecture hall or classroom. Where the cafeteria is one big "black section", Where the barber is almost any room in any dorm. Where regardless of your political leanings you're in the same boat as your intellectual adversary.

If you haven't experienced it, then you simply won't get it. And I'm not talking about a utopia but an imperfect but unique world that those of us who experienced it would not need convincing that it's money well spent. But since we have a president who didn't go through that to get where he is, I'm not surprised.

The Enemy Within'

A recent report by the NY Times discussing Pakistan's apparent increase in nuclear armourments demonstrates the lingering effects of colonialism. Pakistan, which is being overrun by Taliban thinks that "maintaining the minimum, credible deterrence capability" is a "high priority.

These fools are so stuck on a nuclear India that they think spending money on a nuclear deterent is a high priority. A note to Pakistan: The problems you have cannot be nuked to resolution.

Communist Healthcare?

From the NY Times:

When a Chinese citizen is rushed to the hospital after a car accident today, the first stop for the victim’s family is often the cashier’s window. Many hospitals won’t admit patients until they have paid, and many families have no health insurance. Instead, they insure themselves, by saving.

Sounds like a free-marketers wet dream.

Kiva Update

Thus far our three businesses that have been donated to have started to repay their loans. As soon as we recover 50% of our initial outlay we'll lend that back out to another set. If you haven't donated to us please do so. You can either join Kiva yourself and attach yourself to our team or you can donate directly to the Olatunji Foundation.

High Crimes and Misdeameanors

Frank Rich

And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.)

What’s up with that? As Draper writes, Rumsfeld is not known for ostentatious displays of piety. He was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible. But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war. As one alarmed Pentagon hand told Draper, the fallout “would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

And it gets worse.

Cuts Both Ways

There's a lot of writing and talk about Israel and how it treats Palestinians. Putting aside the criminal treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, we also note the second class citizenship afforded Palestinians who are in Israel "proper". Issues with land ownership, discrimination in politics, special license plates, etc. These things have been used to show that Israel is a racist regime in par with South Africa by many writers, and this one agrees to much of that.

What is often not discussed or written about at length is what goes on in some Islamic countries. This vast silence on the left is probably attributable to the discomfort with being seen to be as "out there" as Republicans and certain conservatives, yet I believe that such silence is damaging to the reputation of those persons.

What brought this to mind was a recent article in the NY Times in regards to the dwindling number of Christians in the Middle East. Not that I particularly care about the number of Christians in the Middle East per se, but much of the causes of this strike me as something to be commented on:

On Sunday in Jordan the pope argued that Christians had a role here in reconciliation, that their very presence eased the strife, and that the decline of that presence could help to increase extremism. When the mix of beliefs and lifestyles goes down, orthodoxy rises, he implied, as does uniformity of the cultural landscape in a region where tolerance is not an outstanding virtue.

I have to agree with the Pope on the position that the decline in the presence of religious minorities of ANY kind leads to a monoculture and extremism. Particularly faiths that have expansionist tendencies such as Christianity and Islam. Now I'm very aware that the Pope has a horse in this race in that the diminishing Christian population in that part of the world is a direct threat to the Catholic church's power in that region. I'm also quite sure that the Pope is not exactly going out of his way to increase the population of Muslims in Italy or the Vatican. But in this case he has a point.

In Saudi Arabia, churches are illegal. In the rest of the Persian Gulf region, Christians are foreign workers without the prospect of citizenship.

Herein lies the problem as I see it. I pointed this out in my critique of Afghanistan earlier, where it is illegal to convert to Christianity or any other religion for that matter. I will also mention the attempt to use the UN conference against Racism and Xenophobia to pass an outrageous rule making it illegal to "defame" religion.

All of these are signs of religious institutions that are weak of mind and spirit. The "faithful" do not need laws to prevent them from leaving their religion. If their religion is so correct, so true and upright, then it will withstand any criticism leveled at it. It is the duty of all fair minded people who rightfully critique Israel for trying to create a "Jewish" state to the clear exclusion of it's Christian and Muslim population to also level the same criticism of Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc. for their own clear discrimination and censorship.

RE: The End of Free Speech?

Paul Craig Roberts asks a very relevant question in his latest featured in Counterpunch. This topic was also broached in the video The Obama Deception, which I highlighted previously and highlights an issue that has been bothering me for a while now. Writes Roberts:

Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House.
As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.

While Roberts is concerning himself with Israel, the fact of the matter is that it goes a lot further than that. Last week Feministing posted a piece in which it was proposed that hate crimes be treated as terrorism. The logic went that since the supposed legal definition of terrorism was any coercive acts that have as their ends a political aim, and since those who commit crimes against GLBAQT apparently have some political axe to grind, those who commit such crimes ought to be tried for terrorism. Shockingly, well, actually not so shockingly, a great deal of the commentators on that piece didn't have a problem with the proposal. Worse though, IMHO was the complete acceptance of the state prosecuting for crimes people based on what they think (or say).

I am against hate crimes legislation of all forms. A free, democratic society does not police peoples thoughts or mete out punishment based on what a person may or may not have been thinking at the time of committing a crime. The biggest problem I have with hate crimes legislation is that there are often laws already on the books for the actual act being done. I always use the example of Klansmen and other white supremacist types of groups. I could care less whether in the commission of a beat down they claim to hate niggers. From a law enforcement perspective: I. Could. Care. Less. The beat down is either felony assault or attempted murder. Both of these are prosecutable regardless of the motives. The problem back in the 1920's on up, when lynching, firebombing and other forms of illegal activity was being perpetuated against black people, was that the laws against these things weren't enforced. No way no how could the Klan have gotten away with violence against the black community had the law enforcement bodies actually enforced the law. The Klan grew and prospered specifically because it was given space to operate by the state.

The test of someone's commitment to freedom of speech and thought is not whether they protect the speech they agree with but whether they protect the speech of those they disagree with even to the point of being offended. Unfortunately a great deal of people on the "left" have turned into thought police and it is very disturbing how some of them will abuse their power. Let me give an example:

At William Paterson University a professor of women's studies had a campus announcement sent out on the daily "announcements" e-mail. The announcement was for a play about two lesbian women. As a part of the e-mail, there is a note that says to contact the author of the announcement. Another employee who was also a student responded to the email stating that he objected to getting an announcement about "lesbianism" believed in "Adam and Eve" and did not want to receive any more announcements such as the one that dropped into his inbox.

The professor objected to the e-mail and decided to make a formal complaint to HR. Her claim was that the e-mail was harassment and that his message was threatening and such talk "leads to violence." The employee/student faced discipline including loss of pay. Even the NJ AG got into the act making claims about protected groups which apparently he neglected to note included the employee who was a member of both a racial and religious minority group.

With the intervention of various third parties, the university settled on charging the employee for the misuse of university computer resources. That is he was charged with using a university computer to do personal, non-work related "stuff" which was responding to an e-mail that only goes out to students and employees and encourages feedback directly to the departments who submit announcements.

Clearly had the women's studies professor respected the concept of freedom of speech (particularly in an institution of higher learning) then she simply would have deleted the e-mail or stored it for future reference. No instead she used her position as a protected group higher on the totem pole than that of the employee/student to threaten his employment when he did nothing that supported such actions. Furthermore, the state which ought not have been involved unless there was an actual threat made, threw it's weight behind the favored protected class in complete disregard to the facts on the ground.

Herein lies the dangers of legislating so called "hate speech" and "hate crimes". It quickly becomes a murky cesspool of opinions of the monied and favored class of people against those whom those people deem to be threats and these people often see threats everywhere.

I don't have a problem with keeping statistics on the motivations for particular crimes. No doubt that information is useful for research and pattern recognition, but to make up new laws specifically to punish particular points of view is completely anti-democratic.,

Oh So Unfair

“We know by our statistics that this is a growing group by interest in plastic surgery,” said Dr. Few, who performs as many as 40 nose jobs a year on nonwhite patients. “Being African-American, when I was growing up, it was said at my house and a lot of other houses that plastic surgery was only for wealthy white people. That seemed unfair to me.”

NY Times

Yep, so unfair that black folk are generally stuck with those flat wide noses. This is about up there with an article I read a while back about vitamin D deficiencies in black people due to not enough sun exposure and low intake of vitamin D fortified milk. One "expert" said that the "downside" to black folk going out into the sun was that they would get darker which he said was undesirable to his patients.

The Ghost says: The blacker the better, get outside and take a vitamin D supplement.

Problems Either Way

So Alternet posts an article about soldiers "hunting down Afghan men for Christ." Which is itself objectionable. But nowhere in the article OR in the comments did I see anyone object to the law where:

Trying to convert Muslims to any other faith is a crime in Afghanistan.

I have a huge problem with that too. In fact I'm pretty bothered with my taxes going to prop up such a government. What kind of weak minded people need state protection against those who dare to question the faith, to keep the faith? If you're so strong in your belief then you can handle attempted conversion.

The Afghans need to scrap the law and learn to deal with unwanted religious prosyletizing the way the rest of us do:

Close the door.
Say 'No thanks." or for the insistent: "Talk to the hand."

Just Wow

Wowwwwww.

Translation: This Black Guy is Safe

Late to this but yet another report on how black men coming off like kids makes people feel less threatened:

The study asked non-black men and women to evaluate head-shot photos of 10 black men and 30 white women and men. The 10 blacks all were current or former CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

Participants rated each photo based on perceived babyfaceness, attractiveness, age and appearance. They were also asked about perceived personality traits, how warm the person seemed and whether he or she would be a competent leader.

Across the board, the black CEOs were thought to be warmer and more baby-faced. In addition, the more baby-faced black CEOs were thought to draw higher salaries. The perceptions turned out to be true: The more baby-faced the CEO, the more prestigious the company he led.

Conversely, past studies have shown that babyfaceness hinders rather than helps white males who aspire to positions of power.

So remember Mr. Black Man. Cut them naps off your head and face and the corporate world is yours for the taking.

Give Credit

Negrophile posted a tweet on on a Washington Post piece on a speech given by the president of Morehouse College. The author of said piece, Colbert I. King either knows nothing of Garvey or Garveyism or was censored by the editorial board. Methinks the former. I say this because he gushes over lines like:

He demanded, that students instead embrace his "Five Wells": well-read, well-spoken, well-traveled, well-dressed and well-balanced. And he highlighted three: reading, speech, and dress.

"I have seen too many students standing in lines wasting time. You should carry something to read and make good use of your down time. Read books, not just summaries of books. Choose an accomplished and prolific writer as a role model," he declared. "But just as important -- if not more -- study grammar and syntax and the art of composition. Learn the power of accurately constructed sentences and well-positioned words."

"It matters," he said, "how well you write."

He spoke of choosing words carefully.

"This reduces the necessity of relying on profanity or empty verbal placeholders like, 'um, um, ahh . . . ' or nonsense like 'you know what I'm saying?'

Well that's all nice, but it's not anything new at all. Let me point the reader to the words of Marcus Garvey, who was greatly influenced by the inspirational writers of his time:

Intelligence, Education, Universal Knowledge and How to Get It



You must never stop learning. The world's greatest men and women were people who educated themselves outside of the university with all the knowledge that the university gives, as [and?] you have the opportunity of doing the same thing the university student does---read and study. One must never stop reading. Read everything that you can that is of standard knowledge. Don't waste time reading trashy literature. That is to say, don't pay any attention to the ten cents novels, wild west stories and cheap sentimental books, but where there is a good plot and a good story in the form of a novel, read it. It is necessary to read it for the purpose of getting information on human nature. The idea is that personal experience is not enough for a human to get all the useful knowledge of life, because the individual life is too short, so we must feed on the experience of others. The literature we read should include the biography and autobiography of men and women who have accomplished greatness in their particular line. Whenever you can buy these books and own them and whilst you are reading them make pencil or pen notes of the striking sentences and paragraphs that you should like to remember, so that when you have to refer to the book for any thought that you would like to refresh your mind on, you will not have to read over the whole book.

You should also read the best poetry for inspiration. The standard poets have always been the most inspirational creators. From a good line of poetry, you may get the inspiration for the career of a life time. Many a great man and woman was first inspired by some attractive line or verse of poetry. There are good poets and bad poets just like there are good novels and bad novels. Always select the best poets for your inspirational urge.

Read history incessantly until you master it. This means your own national history, the history of the world---social history, industrial history, and the history of the different sciences; but primarily the history of man. If you do not know what went on before you came here and what is happening at the time you live, but away from you, you will not know the world and will be ignorant of the world and mankind. You can only make the best out of life by knowing and understanding it. To know, you must fall back on the intelligence of others who came before you and have left their records behi[n]d.

To be able to read intelligently, you must first be able to master the language of your country. To do this, you must be well acquainted with its grammar and the science of it. Every six months you should read over again the science of the language that you speak, so as not to forget its rules. People judge you by your writing and your speech. If you write badly and incorrectly they become prejudiced toward your intelligence, and if you speak badly and incorrectly those who hear you become disgusted and will not pay much attention to you but in their hearts laugh after you. A leader who is to teach men and present any fact of truth to man must first be learned in his subject.

Never write or speak on a subject you know nothing about, for there is always somebody who knows that particular subject to laugh at you or to ask you embarras[s]ing questions that may make others laugh at you. You can know about any subject under the sun by reading about it. If you cannot bu[y] the books outright and own them, go to your public libraries and read them there or borrow them, or join some circulating library in your district or town, so as to get the use of these books. You should do that as you may refer to them for information.

You should read at least four hours a day. The best time to read is in the evening after you have retired from your work and after you have rested and before sleeping hours but do so before morning, so that during your sleeping hours what you have read may become subconscious, that is to say, planted in your memory. Never go to bed without doing some reading[.]

Never keep the constant company of anybody who doesn't know as much as you or [isn't] as educated as you, and from whom you cannot learn something or reciprocate your learning, especially if that person is illiterate or ignorant because constant association with such a person will unconsciously cause you to drift into the peculiar culture or ignorance of that person. Always try to associate with people from whom you can learn something. Contact with cultured persons and with books is the best companionship you can have and keep.

By reading good books you keep the company of the authors of the book or the subjects of the book when otherwise you could not meet them in the social contact of life. NEVER GO DOWN IN INTELLIGENCE to those who are below you, but if possible help to lift them up to you and always try to ascend to those who are above you and be their equal with the hope of being their master.

Continue always in the application of the thing you desire educationally, culturally, or otherwise, and never give up until you reach the objective---and you can reach the objective if other[s] have done so before you, proving by their doing it that it is possible.

In your desire to accomplish greatness, you must first decide in your own mind in what direction you desire to seek that greatness, and when you have so decided in your own mind[,] work unceas[i]ngly toward it. The particular thing that you may want should be before you all the time, and whatsoever it takes to get it or make it possible should be undertaken. Use your faculties and persuasion to achieve all you set your mind on.

Try never to repeat yourself in any one discourse in saying the same thing over and over except [when] you are making new points, because repetition is tiresome and it annoys those who hear the repetition. Therefore, try to possess as much universal knowledge as possible through reading so as to be able to be free of repetition in trying to drive home a point.

No one is ever too old to learn. Therefore, you should take advantage of every educational facility. If you should hear of a great man or woman who is to lecture or speak in your town on any given subject and the person is an authority on the subject, always make time to go and hear him. This is what is meant by learning from others. You should learn the two sides to every story, so as to be able to properly debate a question and hold your grounds with the side that you support. If you only know one side of a story, you cannot argue intelligently nor effectively. As for instance, to combat communism, you must know about it, otherwise people will take advantage of you and win a victory over your ignorance. Anything that you are going to challenge, you must first know about it, so as to be able to defeat it. The moment you are ignorant about anything the person who has the intelligence of that thing will defeat you. Therefore, get knowledge, get it quickly, get it studiously, but get it anyway.

Knowledge is power. When you know a thing and can hold your ground on that thing and win over your opponents on that thing, those who hear you learn to have confidence in you and will trust your ability.

Never, therefore, attempt anything without being able to protect yourself on it, for every time you are defeated it takes away from your prestige and you are not as respected as before.

All the knowledge you want is in the world, and all that you have to do is to go seeking it and never stop until you have found it. You can find knowledge or the information about it in the public libraries, if it is not on your own bookshelf. Try to have a book and own it on every bit of knowledge you want. You may generally get these books at second hand book stores for sometimes one-fifth of the original value.

Always have a well equipped shelf of books. Nearly all information about mankind is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is an expensive set of books, but try to get them. Buy a complete edition for yourself, and keep it at your home, and whenever you are in doubt about anything, go to it and you will find it there.

The value of knowledge is to use it. It is not humanly possible that a person can retain all knowledge of the world, but if a person knows how to search for all the knowledge of the world, he will find it when he wants it. A doctor or a lawyer although he passed his examination in college does not know all the laws and does not know all the techniques of medicine but he has the fundamental knowledge. When he wants a particular kind of knowledge, he goes to the medical books or law books and refers to the particular law or how to use the recipe of medicine. You must, therefore, know where to find your facts and use them as you want them. No one will know where you got them, but you will have the facts and by using the facts correctly they will think you a wonderful person, a great gen[iu]s, and a trusted leader.

In reading it is not necessary or compulsory that you agree with everything you read. You must always use or apply your own reasoning to what you have read based upon what you already know as touching the facts on what you have read. Pass judgement on what you read based upon these facts. When I say facts I mean things that cannot be disputed. You may read thoughts that are old, and opinions that are old and have changed since they were written. You must always search to find out the latest facts on that p[a]rticular subject and only when these facts are consistently maintained in what you read should you agree with them, otherwise you are entitled to your own opinion.

Always have up-to-date knowledge. You can gather this from the latest books and the latest periodicals, journals and newspapers. Read your daily newspaper everyday. Read a standard monthly journal every month, a standard weekly magazine every week, a standard quarterly magazine every quarter and by this you will find the new knowledge of the whole year in addition to the books you read, whose facts have not altered in that year. Don't keep old ideas, bury them as new ones come.



How to Read



Use every spare minute you have in reading. If you are going on a journey that would take you an hour carry something with you to read for that hour until you have reached the place. If you are sitting down waiting for somebody, have something in your pocket to read until the person comes. Don't waste time.

Any time you think you have to waste put it in reading something. Carry with you a small pocket dictionary and study words whilst waiting or travelling, or a small pocket volume on some particular subject. Read through at least one book every week separate and distinct from your newspapers and journals. It will mean that at the end of one year you will have read fifty-two different subjects. After five years you will have read over two hundred and fifty books. You may be considered then a well read man or a well read woman and there will be a great difference between you and the person who has not read one book. You will be considered intelligent and the other person be considered ignorant. You and that person therefore will be living in two different worlds; one the world of ignorance and the other the world of intelligence. Never forget that intelligence rules the world and ignorance carries the burden. Therefore, remove yourself as far as possible from ignorance and seek as far as possible to be intelligent.

Your language being English you should study the English language thoroughly. To know the English language thoroughly you ought to be acquainted with Latin, because most of the English words are of Latin origin. It is also advisable that you know the French language because most of the books that you read in English carry Latin and French phrases and words. There is no use reading a page or paragraph of a book or even a sentence without understanding it.

If it has foreign words in it, before you pass over [them] you should go to the dictionary, if you don't know the meaning and find out the meanin[g]. Never pass over a word without knowing its meaning. The dictionary and the books on word building which can be secured from book sellers will help you greatly.

I know a boy who was ambitious to learn. He hadn't the opportunity of an early school education because he had to work ten hours a day, but he determined that he would learn and so he took with him to his work place every day a simplified grammar and he would read and me[m]orize passages and the rules of grammar whilst at work.

After one year he was almost an expert in the grammar of his language. He knew the differen[t] parts of speech, he could paraphrase, analyse and construct sentences. He also took with him a pocket dictionary and he would write out twenty-five new words with their meanings every day and study these words and their mords [forms?] and their meaning. After one year he had a speaking vocabulary of more than three thousand words. He continued this for several years and when he became a man he had a vocabulary at his command of over fifteen thousand words. He became an author because he could write in his language by having command of words. What he wrote was his experiences and he recorded his experiences in the best words of his language. He was not able to write properly at the same age and so he took with him to work what is called in school a copying book and he practised the copying of letters until he was able to write a very good hand. He naturally became acquainted with literature and so he continued reading extensively. When he died he was one of the greatest scholars the world ever knew. Apply the story to yourself.

There is nothing in the world that you want that you cannot have so long as it is possible in nature and men have achieved it before. The greatest men and women in the world burn the midnight lamp. That is to say, when their neighbours and household are gone to bed, they are reading, studying and thinking. When they rise in the morning they are always ahead of their neighbours and their household in the thing that they were studying[,] reading and thinking of. A daily repetition of that will carry them daily ahead and above their neighbours and household. Practise this rule. It is wise to study a couple of subjects at a time. As for instance---a little geography, a little psychology, a little ethics, a little theology, a little philosophy, a little mathematics, a little science on which a sound academic education is built. Doing this week after week, month after month, year after year will make you so learned in the liberal arts as to make you ready and fit for your place in the affairs of the world. If you know what others do not know, they will want to hear you. You will then become invaluable in your community and to your country, because men and women will want to hear you and see you everywhere.

As stated before, books are one's best companions. Try to get the[m] and keep them. A method of doing so is every time you have ten cents or twenty five cents or a dollar to spend foolishly[,] either on your friends or yourself [,] think how much more useful that ten or twenty five cents or dollar would be invested in a book and so invest it. It may be just the thing you have been looking for to give you a thought by which you may win the heart of the world. The ten cent, twenty five cent or a dollar, therefore, may turn out to be an investment of worth to the extent of a million dollars. Never lend anybody the book that you want. You will never get it back. Never allow anybody to go to your bookshelf in your absence because the very book that you may want most may be taken from the shelf and you may never be able to get one of the kind again.

If you have a library of your own, lock it when you are not at home. Spend most of your spare time in your library. If you have a radio keep it in your own library and use it exhaustively to listen to lectures, recitals, speeches and good music. You can learn a lot from the radio. You can be inspired a lot by good music [lines repeated]. Good music carries the sentiment of harmony and you may think many a good thought out of listening to good music.

Read a chapter from the Bible everyday, Old and New Testaments. The greatest wisdom of the age is to be found in the Scriptures. You can always quote from the Scriptures. It is the quickest way of winning approval.

So you'll excuse me if I don't trip over myself congratulating Mr. Franklin.

Mileage Tax

As mentioned in the video "The Obama Deception" proposals to put GPS units in all vehicles for the "purpose" of taxing citizens for how far they drive.

Of course defenders of this kind of legislation will have no problem with the government being able to track your every coming and going. It's not like the government abuses such information.

The Obama Deception

Airplanes flying
overseas people dying
politicians lyin
I'm tryin
to hit the problem head on
by bringin' out the truth in a song

KRS-ONE
1989



Aside from the let's get your attention title, this is a video you need to watch. It would probably be better, or more accurately titled the Presidential Deception or something along those lines because it lays out the case that it's not really about Obama...or Bush or Clinton or any president, but rather who those presidents work for.

I've known about this video for a while and at nearly 2 hours long I needed to have time to sit and watch it all the way through before I posted a link to it here. Folks most of this is the real deal. I don't peddle in conspiracy theories. When I have an opinion on something I state that it is so. If I'm not sure as to the veracity of a story I come across I simply do not post it here. This means that you, the reader/viewer need to sit down with 2 hours to spare and watch this piece critically. Many of the points in this video have been made by me over the past 5 years of blogging. Furthermore I have independently read on many of the groups mentioned in this piece. That is I read about them under circumstances not related to the viewing of, or even knowledge of this video. Furthermore much of the criticism leveled at Obama and the power elite have been raised in other publications such as the Black Commentator and the Black Agenda Report. This does not include the documented evidence from so called "reputable" news sources that appear in the film.

That said I need to discuss briefly two points brought up in the film:

1) National Health Care: They didn't go into details on it but I can't be against that. I see that as something the government ought to be doing. The film acts as if nationalized health care would necessarily mean that the government can determine if as well as what health care you can get. Well maybe, but that's what we have now with private health "insurance" except you don't know when "they" will decide you're not worth treatment x. It is more likely that a national health care (single payer) system would establish the floor of healthcare that anyone can get: ER, Primary, Preventative, etc. But that private companies would be free to offer services above and beyond what is offered by the government. So I'm not going for the claims on that one.

2) Global Warming is a Hoax: I know there are people who believe that the global warming we have measured may not be due to human activity. Fine. The argument presented in the film is that we are experiencing the effects of sun spots. OK. I think it could be a combination of sun spots and human activity since you cannot discount the amount of CO2 that we are producing which is unprecedented in Earth history, nor can we discount the cutting down of trees that is also an unnatural event that necessarily has consequences. I do agree with the film's position that the people at the top are looking to use the "green push" as a means for a greater police state and a means of generating new revenues.

3) Lastly if there is any other reason to be very afraid of Rahm Emanuel and those other people close to Obama, this video provides it. Towards the end of this video Rahm is on record as saying that anyone put on the bogus No Fly List is not only a terrorist but that they no longer enjoy the "rights" of citizenship. This man ought to be fired and IMHO tried for treason. First of all the No-Fly list is completely made up list. No one on the list has been arrested, tried or convicted of anything. Yet this man thinks that simply because some ass-hat in Washington (or NY or wherever) thinks that a particular person is a "threat" you're rights (in this particular instance, to bear arms) no longer exist. Why isn't there some kind of inquiry into this? Why is this man even still employed in government? So now you know why so many bun stores are out of ammo. Watching Rahm made me want to go buy a gun because I now seriously believe that in the not to distant future police will be running up into people's homes and such based on non-existent evidence. I have no intention of going peacefully if it comes down to that. Seriously. So I'm not going to knock these right wingers in red states who are afraid. They are right.

Those are my major issues with the piece of major issues within' the piece. There are some other statements made in the piece that I do not believe were supported by the evidence presented. Doesn't mean they are incorrect but I would suggest further research. I'll put it like this, watch this with a critical eye. If you are unfamiliar with the organizations mentioned in this video then I suggest a trip to the library or other reputable information source. If you're familiar with the book the 48 Laws of Power, you will instantly recognize many of the power moves shown in the film.

New Haven Firefighter Suit II

So the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the New Haven Firefighter suit

Not having read any transcripts of the arguments and going only by this LA Times report, I can see there is still a lot of issues that are not being dealt with.

It appears that Souter and Ginsberg are asking the wrong questions:

a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation." If the city had used the test results, black fighters could sue and say they were excluded because of a discriminatory test. When the city scrapped the results, they were sued by the white firefighters. "Why not give the city an opportunity, in a good faith, to start again?" he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to agree. The white firefighters did not have "any vested right" to a promotion, she said, and the city should be given time to construct a fairer test.

While it is agreed that the white firefighters have no vested right to a promotion, neither do any of the black firefighters. No one is entitled to a promotion. Like many civil servant positions promotions are granted in large part due to results on various examinations. You do well on the test and you find yourself higher on the list of potential promotions.

The city of New Haven is claiming that it believes that the test in question is discriminatory because black test takers did poorly. That is not proof of discrimination. Indeed it is proof that something is wrong but it is not proof of discrimination. The city claims that it wants to modify the test in order to make it "less discriminatory." But since it has not been proven that the test is not discriminatory, how can they hope to make it less so? Is New Haven simply using "less discriminatory" as a code word for 'easier?" If so then that is an insult to all the black firefighters in New Haven. As I discussed the first time I posted on the subject, If a dyslexic firefighter could not only pass the test but apparently land near the top of the list then what exactly were the black firefighters doing to prepare for this exam? If the dyslexic white firefighter could get his hands on old (or preparatory) exams, what exactly were the black firefighters doing? Are we implying that the black firefighters in New Haven are less able to learn than white firefighters with learning disabilities? That's a serious charge!
If I were on the bench I would demand that the city of New Haven produce all the black firefighters to the court and grill them on how they prepared for the exam.

Now, all that having been said I agree with the City of New Haven insomuch as the lack of promotable black firefighters is a problem. The problem is not solved by kicking the hard work of other firefighters to the curb. The City of New Haven should have spent the money they are spending on this case on outreach programs to their black firefighters. They should reach out to relevant benevolent associations and offer low or no cost preparatory courses for anyone who wishes to partake. For those who are poor test takers, there respective organizations should offer test taking courses.

It is clear here that the Supreme Court can decide in favor of the white firefighters while still allowing New Haven to take race into consideration for it's promotions. It is for the best that among equals (that is the top performing test takers) to be selected on the basis of other subjective criteria that all people up for new jobs are judged on (and I've been on enough hiring committees to know that there are a LOT of subjective things that go into getting jobs and promotions).

[update]

So it turns out that out of 118 people who took the test only 56 passed. Methinks New Haven may have a larger problem. Anyway if only 47% of the people are passing the test then it is clear that the exam is a weeder and did it's job pretty well. Also of note is that the City of New Haven paid a good chunk of change to a professional "race neutral" test creating service who's services I'm sure not a few clients are having second thoughts about. I believe this highlights my primary position that the problem lies not with the test but in the preparation done by the exam takers. More foolishness:

Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Of course. Negroes are notorious for not being able to memorize? Anything more complicated than Souljah Boy lyrics is waaaaay to much for our brains to handle. Clearly the brain of the average Negro cannot be expected to surpass that of a dyslexic white man.

Clearly Negroes cannot be expected to memorize what to provide "leadership" in emergency situations. Practice is for dyslexic white men right? We all know that Negroes can only be expected to act from the gut right?

This just gets more and more insulting as it goes.

Israeli Pirates

Of course you didn't know.

Was there lethal intent? A gun boat came out of the black of night with no lights showing whilst a searchlight from the other gun boat displayed the port hull of its target. It would have approached at about 30 degrees to the Dignity’s port and at speed. The intention to sink the Dignity and thus to drown its company was clear. If the hull had been GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic) it would have shattered and the boat would have sunk like a stone where it was rammed 53 nautical miles off Haifa. Fortunately, the hull was constructed of marine ply with timber ribs and the company survived. The Zionist entity greatly resents anyone coming to the aid of the native population, whatever its depth of suffering, and war lust was growing by the day.

Now there were Americans on board but exactly how many days straight have we heard about this?

Dissident Voice

Text of Ahmadinejad's Speech in Geneva

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92046

The About Face

Anyone who saw Rahm Emanuel state on This Week that the CIA agents who created the "legal" justification were not in danger of prosecution should recognize the recent report in the LA Times:

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

As what we refer to as an about face. Now the problem here is that the onus has been put on the AG who is a political appointment and has an interest in pleasing his boss rather than the citizenry. Obama did not direct Holder to investigate which is what should have happened. At this point the pressure would need to be put on the judiciary committee to take up the issue and therefore force the hand of the AG.

Please understand that this is exactly what is being asked for. Obama is too scared to spend political points going after these crooks so he's placing it in Holder's hands so that he can say later that it was Holder's determination and not his.

"What Is It With These People?"

The LA Times reports:

Crimes suspected in 20 bailout cases -- for starters

which contains this gem:

"That's an appalling record," Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said of the 20 criminal investigations. "In the midst of this crisis from which they are being bailed out, the same people who created this mess are apparently still breaking the law. What is it with these people?"

Oh I can answer that. The previous president stood up in front of TV cameras and on live TV said that he broke the law. A couple of laws. He wasn't prosecuted. The current president has documented evidence of torture, illegal under international law and US law. Both the previous and current president have declined to prosecute those who not only directly committed crimes but those who conspired to provide "cover" for those crimes. Both the previous and current president faced with the fallout from the fraud on Wall Street decided against prosecuting anyone for it. Rather they both authorized handing them more money.

So given that a clear message has been sent out that those "too big to fail" are also "to big to prosecute" is it not surprising when it is clear that some people are above the law that some other people are trying to include themselves in that group? It's been said that taxes are for little people. Seems so is jail. But if you're black you know that already.

How Many Times?

How many times you need to pretend drown someone before you realize, that perhaps, maybe that shit doesn't work?

Hands Off Assata

NJ State Sen. Sean T. Kean, R-Monmouth, sent a letter to Obama stating:

"sends the message to the world that we are not committed to pursuing justice for a police officer who was savagely gunned down in the line of duty."

Whatever. The problem with this case is the continued denial of white people as to how policing in NJ is done relative to black folk particularly in the 60's and 70's as evidenced by this write up

Chesimard, a Black Panther and member of the Black Liberation Army, was sentenced to life in prison in 1977 after being found guilty of murdering State Trooper Werner Foerster just south of interchange 9 on the New Jersey Turnpike four years earlier. Authorities said Foerster was shot execution style during a routine traffic stop of a car in which Chesimard was a passenger.

Understand for a black person on the NJ Turnpike, even today the only thing routine about a traffic stop is that you know it's coming if you're in the wrong part of "town" at the "wrong" time. Furthermore, in the 70's, if you were a Black Panther, you were known to all manner of "law enforcement" who generally were looking for an excuse to lock you up if not shoot you down in the street. And I'm not making this up having had the "routine" treatment of being stopped and had guns pointed in my direction during "routine" traffic stops.

I'm "sure" the reason for pulling over the black panthers was something like a taillight being out since that seems to a standard op for NJ State Troopers.

One of the interesting things about Shakur's trial was the following from Wikipedia:

Shakur testified that Trooper Harper shot her after she raised her arms to comply with his demand, the second shot hitting her in the back as she was turning to avoid it, and that she fell onto the road for the duration of the gunfight before crawling back into the backseat of the Pontiac which Acoli drove 5 miles (8 km) down the road and parked, and remained there until State Troopers dragged her onto the road.[47][124]

Does that sound familiar to anyone? It should. It is practically the same thing that happened in the killing of Sean Bell. Here's what was said back in April of last year:

Q. And what did you see this person doing at that



time?



A. I saw the passenger of the vehicle. The window



was blown out, and he kept moving like this as to



indicated he was trying to raise his arm, and I didn't



want him to get that arm up.



Q. Just for the record, you are indicating that the



man in the passenger seat was kind of twisting towards



the interior of the car?



A. No.



Q. Why don't you clarify that?



A. What I saw was the passenger of the vehicle, he



kept trying to raise his right arm as to bring a gun up



to me the whole time. I didn't know if he could have



been shooting through the vehicle because he couldn't



get his arm up. I was not about to let him get that arm



up. I felt if he got that arm up he was going to kill



me.



Q. Would it be fair to say, as you made the motion



that you just demonstrated to the jury where you



indicated this man was trying to reach for his waist you



were also lowering your left shoulder and basically



putting yourself in a position where your left shoulder



is also lowered to your waist?



A. I can't answer that, that way. I don't know if he



was tipping his shoulder. When he is trying to reach he



wasn't just sitting still, and moving his arm. He was



like -- he was trying to get his arm up.



Q. The motion that you are making now as you



demonstrate to the jury is an attempt to show the jury



the motion that man was making?



A. It was a motion that appeared to me that he was



trying to raise a gun at me.



Q. But the motion that you are demonstrating to the



jury is an attempt by you to show the jury the motion



that man was making, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. And in making that motion you are tipping your



left shoulder, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. When this man, who you testified was making this



motion, he was in the passenger seat of the vehicle, is



that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. And when he made that motion and was tipping his



left shoulder that was kind of pushing his body towards



the interior of the car, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. And again you saw this motion, but you saw no







weapon, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. You fired that shot at the same time you saw this



motion, is that correct?



A. I'm sorry?



Q. You fired your first round at about the time you



first saw this man making this motion?



A. Yes.

So we see that it is standard op. for police to shoot at people in the back and claim they were reaching for weapons. Back to Wiki:

The reports then state that after Acoli complied and as Harper was looking inside the vehicle to examine the registration, Trooper Foerster yelled and held up an ammunition clip, as Shakur simultaneously reached into her red pocketbook, pulled out a nine-millimeter weapon and fired at him.[124] Trooper Harper's reports then state that he ran to the rear of his car and shot at Shakur who had exited the vehicle and was firing from a crouched position next to the vehicle.[124

And Officer Oliver claimed that Guzman was reaching in his waist for a gun too. but of course:

Under cross-examination at both Acoli and Shakur's trials, Trooper Harper admitted to having lied in these reports and in his Grand Jury testimony about Trooper Foerster yelling and showing him an ammunition clip, about seeing Shakur holding a pocketbook or a gun inside the vehicle, and about Shakur shooting at him from the car.[45][101] Trooper Harper retracted his previous statements and said that he had never seen Shakur with a gun, and that she did not shoot him.[126]

Imagine that. Lying under oath. I wonder if this fellow has seen the inside of a jail cell a-la lil Kim for perjury?

Back to the point though. This State Senator's attitude is unfortunately typical of many people in NJ. The Embargo against Cuba is an act of war. It needs to stop regardless. Talk about political prisoners in Cuba are hypocritical when the US has plenty of its own. And hands off Assata!

Obama Discloses Spies in Iran

In a spate of disclosure last week Obama announced that there were spies in Iran. Now you're probably saying "How do you know?" It's simple really. When Obama said, unequivocally, that he knew Roxana Saberi was not a spy. He made a pressupposed statement. Clearly anyone who is not Roxana or her potential handlers does not know for certain whether Roxana is a spy. Roxana's family can say anything they want but really spies don't tell their families that they are spies. But the issue here is that I can guarantee you that when Roxana was "caught" president Obama asked whomever he needed to whether or not Roxana was on the US Payroll. He got his answer, and he knows whether or not Roxana is a spy. Furthermore as Americans now know, it is a felony to disclose the status of a CIA undercover operative. Obama is one of the only persons (if not THE only person) who can disclose such information. Therefore; by making the statement that he knows that Roxana is not a spy, he is also admitting that he knows who the spies are in Iran.

If Iran had some cheek they would have asked Obama that since he knows who is and is not a spy in Iran, he should disclose who the spies are so that Roxana can be freed and the real spies tried for espionage. Of course THAT is not going to happen. My advice to Mr. Obama should something like this happen in the future, is to refrain from making statements about persons spy status while trying to rally sympathy.

Not Only Me

It's not only me wondering what it would take Americans to go Bangkok.

MW: Why is Treasury a revolving door for investment bankers that are tied to Wall Street?
Morgan: Because the American public allows it. Benjamin Franklin said . . . Well done is better than well said. Too many Americans gripe and moan, but when it comes time to doing anything . . . they sit back on the couch with a bag of chips and the TV. We think it is cute to use the TV to amuse our toddlers. Do you think it is any different for 75 per cent of the American public?

marketoracle.co.uk

Blagojovich: Possibly the Most Honest Politician Alive

Unlike the general sentiment now it is entirely possible that Blagojovich is the most honest politician to have been in office. Now let us not confuse ethical with honest. Heck the upcoming trial may even show that he's the most honest politician to be convicted of a crime. Why do I say this? I say this because all over the news we see reports of congresspeople and senators and wannabes for both, raising funds for re-election. Every year these folks get money from all manner of lobbyists and special interests. These companies and organizations almost always get some kind of payback for their investment. You and I don't see it for a few reasons:

a) the recipient of these funds is careful to get the donation using "legal" and "understood" language.

b) It is never asked for but is rather understood that you pay to play.


Blagojovich understood how this system worked. But like me, he doesn't really like the shadiness of acting like you don't want or expect something for nothing. None of this beat around the bush and indirect talk. No Blagojovich apparently came to the table and said I need x, you want y? How do we proceed? Simple to the point. You want in, you pay. Oh sure it's crass. Oh sure it locks out the "little guy" who can't afford to pay up. But lets be real here. How many major contracts go out to the "little guy." Seriously folks. In many cases the favored party knows about the upcoming project long before any of the little guys.

Currently Jesse Jackson Jr. is under the spotlight because there is a thought that he agreed to raise funds for Blago in exchange for being appointed to the Senate seat vacated by Obama. People are calling this a bribe. Really? When companies are regularly asked to make donations to campaigns? Does the public really believe that there is no expectation of ANYTHING in return? Look, if there wasn't any kind of expectations or returns, these companies would not be lobbying and not donating to political parties and candidates.

Lets take this example: If you want to register a business in NJ there is a fee. If you want that expedited you pay an extra fee. Why? Why isn't everything expedited? Why do I have to pay a bribe to get my business registered quick? Also who gets put on the back burner when I pay up? Why are they, who may have submitted before me, thrown to the back of the line? Simple: they didn't pay up. This is nothing more than state sanctioned bribery.

Take the case of immigrants trying to get their green cards. It is pretty much known that if you don't have the cash to pay a lawyer, it's going to take forever. All manner of paperwork junk and slow moving stuff happens. But you get the right lawyer with the right connections? Green cards float down like leaves off a tree in fall.

So I give Blago some credit here. He doesn't smile in your face and say: "I'll see what I can do" and hope you get the picture. No sir. He gets on the phone and tells it like it is: "This thing is effin golden! I'm not giving it up for nothing!" Why should he, a whole lot of people getting rich off the Obama train. Trading up jobs, getting book deals. Banks getting bailed out. etc. etc.

Did Blago do some unethical stuff? Sure. I'm sure a lot of it will come out. But still it seems to me that if anything the man was honest even if we dislike on what he was honest about.

NSA Wiretapping: What Will it Take to Piss People Off?

With the numerous about faces the Democrats have made on issues that put them into power, I'm wondering exactly what will it take to get the American public to go Bangkok? Seriously the last president says outright and on tape that he broke the law and he suffers no consequences. While people on the left talked a good game about how Bush needs to go and the right went to all lengths to justify the clearly illegal behavior and the people? They went about their business.

During the Republican Convention Reporters are harassed and arrested while doing their constitutionally protected jobs. It is caught on tape and what happens? Nothing. A few squawks here and there on "lefty" blogs and that's it. This type of thing happens in say Iran and it's front page news and an example of how repressive the government is.

Mass arrests at the Republican convention in New York most without any cause whatsoever. People penned up for hours if not days and there's some noise on lefty blogs and not a head rolls, not an elected official put out on his ass. Not a hired police big man fired. The people do nothing.

3 young men are assassinated by plain clothes police officers who admit they saw no weapon. One of whom stops to reload and busts off a whole extra clip and the court says it's 'unfortunate" but not jail-able. There's a protest, a few angry words in front of TV cameras and nothing. Not even the then presidential candidate can muster up enough respect for the victim's family and the colored folk of NYC to NOT say dumb shit like "violence gets us nowhere." As if black folk in NYC have no control over themselves (or ought to have).

Wall street tanks the economy and people lose millions and millions of dollars in value of their 401K's. People on the verge of retirement have seen their "nest egg" rot and have to consider working at KFC or such to make ends meet. Meanwhile not one but two presidents hand these same companies billions of these tax payers dollars to prop up the clear ponzi scheme that is Credit Default Swaps.

All and all there is not a single run up on DC. I ask what the hell is wrong with the American population?

Last night we see a(nother) report that the NSA was gathering more intel than previously "known." This included tapping a congressman. I said long ago that the NSA and other agencies have been gathering so called "intelligence" (translation: blackmail material) on people both in and out of government. Can you imagine if such a thing was uncovered in Iran or Venezuela? front page news and speeches by politicians about how undemocratic these places are. Where is the outrage? What exactly will it take for Americans to go Bangkok?

Obama Bows to the Zionists...Again and Again...

Glen Ford hit the bullseye on Obama, Durban and so called Black Leadership.

On Tuesday, April 14, according to the Huffington Post, the White House placed a conference call to American “Jewish leaders,” all but assuring them the U.S. would not show up for Durban II, the international conference on racism, in Geneva, Switzerland. President Obama’s close adviser Samantha Power, of the National Security Council, said the event’s revised draft document “met two of our four red lines frontally, in the sense that it went no further than reparations and it did drop all references to Israel and all anti-Semitic language. But it continued to reaffirm, in toto, Durban I.”

And the question of the day:

We must first ask: Why is the White House reporting to “Jewish leaders” on an issue that is of interest to all Americans, most especially people of color?

How Burger King got Owned

Today people are so scared to call "bullshit" on people who claim to be offended by certain things, that they run around doing damage control when there's nothing to fix. Such a case is BurgerKing who Diversity Inc. decided to applaud for taking "swift" action to pull an add supposedly offensive to Mexicans. Though the ads themselves were aired in Spain and the UK. Here's the ad:




Here's Diversity (Abraham Lincoln was black) Inc. on the ad:

The print and TV ads showed a small Mexican wrestler using the flag of Mexico as his cape standing next to an American cowboy twice his size. They were shown in Spain and the United Kingdom. The Mexican ambassador in Spain raised the outcry, asking that the ads be pulled because they used stereotypes of Mexicans.

Well let's see The entire ad stereotypes not only Mexicans but US citizens as well. After all Americans are not only white males but are also white females, blacks, Asians, etc. So the ad excludes all those people. But nobody really expected any advertising for a burger to represent everyone and every type in America did we? I didn't think so.

Secondly, Not all Americans are cowboys (or gals for that matter). We are urban, metro-sexual, suburban. ghetto, countrified, etc. But this ad takes on ONE particular segment of "Americana" and puts it on the ad. A segment that is stereotypical of America. But there's no mention of that in the Diversity Inc. piece. Nor in the Burger King "apology."

Moving on.

According to The Associated Press, a Spanish newspaper published a front-page story titled "Denigrating advertising," which said the ads "show Mexicans as notably inferior to all Americans." Mexico also has laws against using its flags in a derogatory manner, but the ads did not run in Mexico.

Well the fact of the matter is that the cape of the "Mexican" is not in fact the Mexican flag. It is a cape of the Mexican colors. The Mexican flag has an crest in the middle with an eagle on it. The "Mexican" in question is adorned in Mexican colors No different than someone in the US (or England, or France) wearing Red, white and blue. Simply wearing a countries identifying colors does not equate to wearing the flag of said country.


Secondly the short Mexican is a clear exageration of the relative average height differences between white American males and Mexican males. White American males are on average 5' 10". On average Mexican males are 5'7" That's a full three inches which is very noticeable. SO it is clear that the advertisement is not only taking broad liberties with cultural icons of both Mexico and the United States, but also with general biological differences between the two countries.

Therefore there is nothing offensive about an advertisement chock full of overblown cultural and biological symbols used to make a funny point about the coming together of two groups who currently are having political issues around immigration, to make something new and "exciting."

What is offensive is that some people take the opportunity to make wild and clearly unfounded accusations. It is offensive to have such bullshit land in my inbox by a company claiming to be defenders of diversity.

It is offensive that such a publication didn't feel compelled in their writeup to point out the issues I did even IF they thought that the advertisement is offensive.

As for Burger King, I understand the business case for their apology. a company never wins an argument with a customer. They are in business to sell red meat not to score political or sociological points with newspapers and company's claiming to be represent diversity. But it is unfortunate that they could not. And of course with the racket DI runs, BK wants to stay in their good graces.

Fin.

"Justice" Thomas ought to be removed from the Court

Justice Clarence Thomas ought to be removed from the Bench if in fact he :

The evening was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

NY Times

Does not embrace the constitution? I'd like to see the exact quote here. But if this is in fact true then I see absolutely no point for this man to continue to serve as the protector of a document he does not "embrace."

I'm also particularly disturbed by "Justice" Thomas's apparently infatuation with the military and indoctrination:

“Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”

Sounds like a Nazi wanna be. Shall we have students pledge their life to our Great Leader?

Then there's this:

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

Well I suppose Mr. Thomas would have a stronger point if there were in fact parts of the US Constitution called the Bill or Responsibilities or Bill of Obligations. But there aren't. Well no that's not entirely true since most of the document which Thomas appears to have problems "embracing" spells out the responsibilities of office holders. You know it says things like respecting treaties. Providing for things like Due Process, Habeus Corpus and other government "obligations."

Rather than take the opportunity to discuss his obligation to uphold that unloved thing called the constitution, he rambles about dishwashers and air conditioning. Clearly "Justice" Thomas has a serious perspective problem. I think that this presentation by Thomas reveals (again) a person with serious problems. To have someone one the highest court of the land claim to not "embrace" the Bill of Rights is very, very troubling.

While You Cheered for the Captain...

And celebrated over the sniping of 3 pirates. While on the news a Navy man discussed how there are laws and such we find:

es: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."

Alternet

The New Haven Firefighter Suit

The NY Times is reporting a case from New Haven regarding a firefighter promotion exam:

Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination.

Their case, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 22, is the Roberts court’s first major confrontation with claims of racial discrimination in employment and will require the justices to choose between conflicting conceptions of the government’s role in ensuring fair treatment regardless of race.

Unless there is something shown that indicates that the test contained material that a Black person is unable to learn, study for or comprehend, I believe the city is in err. You don't toss out the results of an exam because black folk don't pass the test (or score high enough). You do look to see why. What is particularly disturbing is that Ricci:

who is dyslexic, paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews.

If he did all that, then the question is, and the reporter should have asked is, what did the black test takers do? It is highly relevant. Did they know that practice tests were available? Why or why not? Did the black test takers do mock interviews (the only part that I could think is subjective, but I don't know the contents of the interview or the written test).

We're not buying the race-neutral talk of the National Police Organization, but we're also not going to support throwing out people's hard work either. I also reject the position of the Black Professional Fire Fighters, Young people have the RIGHT to have fully qualified professional firefighters respond to emergencies in their neighborhood. The city ought to be doing all it can to promote the most qualified members. That includes everybody. And black people who want to get promoted need to do what my uncle has been doing in the MTA. Getting up in the AM and studying. Going to classes if available. Coming home in the evening and studying. and then kick tail at the test. Follow up here

Australia an Example of Global Warming

From the LA Times A pretty harrowing tale of what we're going to be seeing in parts of Africa. Yes I said Africa. What I don't understand though is this:

Scientists are frustrated that such dramatic anecdotal and empirical evidence hasn't sparked equally dramatic action from Australia's government. They suspect the inaction can be partly explained by examining the nation's relationship with coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and relies on it for 80% of its electricity. That helps make Australia and its 21 million people the world's highest per-capita producers of greenhouse gases in the industrialized world.

Why is a country with THAT much sunlight not at the forefront of solar energy? With winds that high why aren't they at the forefront of wind energy?

Obama Strikes Again!

I really am not enjoying having to make these posts. I find it particularly troubling that a man who invoked that "preacher" Dr. King, whom the government surveilled without cause in an attempt to destroy him, would have his justice department state "that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of U.S. law."

However; I must point out that I said that the Democrats were willing to go along with the Patriot Act, which is what the Obama administration is basing it's position on, because they wanted the powers it conferred when they got into office. This is why Bush, Cheney and Co. are sleeping well at night. They know that the so called "liberal" Democrats are no less craven for power than Republicans are.

From the Alternet article:

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).

From Alternet

Cynthia McKinney on Buyer's Remorse

Increasingly, though, there's another type of voter that is contacting me, expressing "Buyer's Remorse" for having supported candidate Barack Obama. These voters can be futher subdivided into three categories: those who voted for Obama, not knowing very much about our Power to the People campaign; those who voted for Obama, knowing a lot about Rosa, me, and the Power to the People campaign, but who chose instead to vote for Obama out of fear of a McCain/Palin White House; and finally, those who knew about our Power to the People campaign and were hostile to it because they were suspicious that our campaign was designed to deny the White House to candidate Obama--the spoiler campaign. Fortunately and hopefully, because of the integrity with which we ran our campaign, those in this latter category are few in terms of their numbers in communication with me.


For me, the number of people contacting me expressing regret for having voted for Obama is a double-edged sword. That is, it indicates that prior to the election, we were not able to seal the deal with a significant number of our natural voters. There are many reasons for that, but being severely underfunded lies at the base of that failing. However, on the other hand, these expressions of "buyer's remorse" indicate that people knowingly allowed themselves to be swept into the voting booth and vote against their values.

The Rest

http://www.opednews.com/articles/From-Cynthia-McKinney-Buy-by-Cynthia-McKinney-090407-426.html

bringing Up a Past Post

The article on Blacks being at odds on Obama and the comments that I've seen posted on Huffington remind me of a post I made back in May of 2007 when the object of scorn was Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson:

What is Sharpton Hating? it' pretty clear. People hate Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) because they show up when black people are insulted, threatened, etc. Sharpton takes the risk of being wrong by speaking out. Whereas you and I, work for someone else and have to put up with various insults and the like, Sharpton (and Jesse) don't work for anyone and are free to call spades, spades. In other words, they make their living, by and large by being there when racist stuff happens.

Just exchange Tavis for Sharpton and you get the same thing.

Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President (or Confused Negroes Exposed)

Excellent Washington Post article which exposes many Negroes for what they are: opportunistic black folk looking for access who use so called "black politics" as their in.

I said early in the primary season that one of the great things that having an African-American president will do is to get black folk off the "first one." syndrome. I wrote that all one has to do is look at countries in Africa and the Caribbean where the first set of leaders after independence were practically worshiped as gods. They could do nothing wrong and anything negative said about them was a sign of being a tool of the colonialist. How quickly the African realized that simply having "skin folk" in the 'Big house' meant little. It meant the "Big man" could fly around the world and skin and grin for the "adoring" white leaders who had nothing but effusive praise for the next new African leader.

The African, being so used to being excluded was happy just to be in the mix. This is what we are seeing right now among most African-Americans. But what this also reveals in plain sight for everyone to see is who was on the black wagon because it was a tool for advancement and who was on the black wagon because they believed in the destination. Heck if they even KNEW the destination.

Check some of the choice pieces from the article:

Johnson is one of a growing number of black academics, commentators and authors determined to press Obama on issues such as the elimination of racial profiling and the double-digit unemployment rate among blacks.

But doing so has put them at odds with others in the black community. Love for the Obamas is thick among African Americans -- 91 percent of whom view the president favorably, compared with 59 percent of the total population, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted last month -- and as a result, the African American punditry finds itself navigating new ground.

Well first off black academics are not and ought not simply be concerned about domestic issues. We ought to have, consistent with figures such as Garvey, Delany, King and Shabazz, an international agenda to push. We should find it offensive when we are put in the "domestic corner" of police brutality, unemployment and housing discrimination.

Secondly one can have a favorable opinion of Obama and still hold him accountable to our permanent interests. The two have nothing to do with each other. I have a high opinion of Obama as a person and how he played the electoral game. That doesn't mean I set down and roll over.

They are learning to negotiate what talk show host and author Tavis Smiley calls an "unfamiliar dance." If you push too forcefully, he says he has learned, you risk your credibility in the community.

Unfamiliar to who? Again the history is there in our faces. And who's credibility is at risk. Is it not credible to site inconsistencies and contradictions in ANYONE'S behaviour? Or is it inconsistent to be critical of Bush and whomever else simply because they are White and Republican? Methinks the latter shows a lack of credibility.

What he is up against are people like Leutisha Stills, a regular blogger on the African American opinion site Jack and Jill Politics. She dismisses anything Smiley has to say about Obama because he is "always going negative."

Would this be the same Leutisha Stills of Congressional Black Caucus Report Card fame? That's a damn shame. Another confused negro exposed. I won't even get into Jack And Jill whom the basics of Mendelian genetics seems to have passed them by in high school.

Wilson-Smith, who started the volunteer group Black Women for Obama just after he announced his candidacy, says it is way too soon for people to ask Obama to fix long-held racial disparities. "The fact that he is a black man doesn't mean he's going to get in office and wave a magic wand and solve all the black community's problems," she says. "To jump all over him at this point because they haven't seen anything specific toward the black condition, when he has two wars to deal with and an economy failing, is a little silly."

Another confused negro exposed. Wilson Smith thinks we the critics suffer from some kind of delusion about how things work. Wilson-Smith either knows nothing of Douglass or forgot his famous quote about demands of power. You get because you make demands. Ask anyone on Wall Street about how that works. When we make a critique it is because Obama or his team is on the wrong side of an issue. Whether that issue be his silly ass statement about "the rules." his grovelling to AIPAC et.al., His AG's position on state secrets vis-a-vis the holding of "enemy combatants" or the NSA wiretapping. Or perhaps the gifting to Taxpayer monies to Wall Street while shutting down auto manufacturers. Or any other number of things that are way out of line both domestically and internationally. Obama gets no break because he's black. I don't operate like that. Wilson needs to keep that Affirmative Action "we'll hls him to a lesser standard" bull to herself.

So I'm glad that the Washington Post has exposed the confused Negroes. I'm glad they exposed themselves for the politically naive, historically limited people they are. Now I know who to avoid.

[Update] Many confused Negroes posting comments at Huffington [/update]