Some observations about the OBL killing

As more reports come in that contradict claims made late Sunday and early Monday. We should stop and examine a few things:

1) The initial reports that came out said that SEAL Team Six was engaged in a "firefight from beginning to end" NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05binladen.html?_r=1&ref=global-home). That account has now been changed to:

Administration officials said that the only shots fired by those in the compound came at the beginning of the operation, when Bin Ladin’s trusted courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, opened fire from behind the door of the guesthouse adjacent to the house where Bin Laden was hiding.

So the vivid animations shown by news outlet ABCNEWS featuring multiple persons in the compound windows firing on Seal Team Six were absolute fabrications.

2) The claims of the men in the compound using the women as human shields proved to be false:

. The administration’s reticence came after it was forced on Tuesday to correct parts of its initial account of the raid, including assertions that Bin Laden had used his wife as a “human shield.”

3) In examining the reports of the actual killing of OBL we find the following:

When the commandos reached the top floor, they entered a room and saw Osama bin Laden with an AK-47 and a Makarov pistol in arm’s reach. They shot and killed him, as well as wounding a woman with him

Now last night it was reported on ABC World News Tonight via an interview with Leon Panetta that unless OBL was naked he would have been killed. This essentially confirms my assertion that this was not a capture operation but a kill operation. Therefore, the excuses that OBL "may have had" a suicide vest or did anything threatening to the SEAL Team is now severely compromised. If OBL had both an AK and pistol within reach at the time that the team made it up too OBL's bedroom after the shooting, why did he not have the weapon(s) in hand pointing at the ONLY entrance ready to shoot at anything that moved? Does that make ANY SENSE TO YOU?

We're to believe that OBL put the AK and Makarov on the bed (or counter,they haven't gotten that part of the story set yet) in arms reach even while he KNOWS that somebody has broken into his "home" and has heard gunshots? REALLY? Let me ask the gun owners who may be reading this: Would you put your loaded weapon down "in arms reach" if you knew that someone broke into your home?

If OBL did in fact have the AK and Makarov on his bed (or counter or wherever "arms reach" means) rather than in his hands ready to go out like a soldier of the Mujahadeen then isn't it clear that he actually had surrendered and that reports that he "offered resistance" but so much bullshit?

4) Moving away from the raid, I want to ask some questions in regards to the person. Since 2001 we have been told that OBL had kidney problems. It was reported that he had some sort of portable dialysis machine. No one that I know who has knowledge of medicine will say that a person who is need of Kidney is going to be running around the mountains of Tora Bora for too long. So the questions here are

A) if OBL had a bad set of kidneys to the point that he needed a portable dialysis machine, where is the machine in the compound? If there was no machine in the compound where was he getting his dialysis done? Was one brought to the compound? If so by whom and supplied by whom? Wouldn't that be on some sort of watch list?

B) If OBL had kidney problems and had received a transplant then where and when did this happen? Does "the body" have the scars that show that a transplant has been done? If OBL had a transplant I understand that he must take anti-rejection medicine for the rest of his life were any anti-rejection drugs found in the compound?

If neither a portable dialysis machine or anti-rejection drugs were found in the compound then there are two possibilities:

a) The reports of OBL's kidney issues were lies fed to the public for some reason.
b) This person is not OBL.


5)In regards to the location. I already posted yesterday that it was known that OBL (or whomever) was in Abbottabad as of May 2005. Last night ABC World News Tonight reported that the Pakistanis had invaded that compound "prior to OBL moving in". If we know that OBL was in Abbottabad as of 2005, then when did this raid occur? The World News report did not say the date of that raid. Other reports are saying that the ISI informed the CIA of the compound in question in 2009.

So the ISI "told" the CIA in 2009 about a compound that was allegedly raided "prior to OBL moving in" and documents show OBL in Abbottabad in 2005? Anyone else confused here? If OBL was known to be in Abbottabad in 2005, then every US soldier killed or maimed in Afghanistan since then has been for no good reason. All these people talking about "support the troops" ought to be very concerned about this.

[update 1:55 PM EDT] from Counterpunch article "Was Osama Betrayed":

For the record, this property has been under ISI surveillance while it was under construction. It was first raided in 2003, and the ISI just missed capturing Al-Libby (he was later captured by the ISI close to Mardan in K-P Province). It has been raided on numerous occasions since.

So by this "new" information this compound was known by "our allies" Pakistan in 2003. the town was "known" by US military as of May 2005 and raided in May 2011.

OK.

[/update]

I'm sure that more "clarification" statements will be coming out.

US knew of UBL location in 2005

Saw this piece in CounterPunch this morning:

The unredacted Guantanamo files show clearly that the trail to Abbottabad was known to the US intelligence services at least since 2005, when al-Libi, another Abbottabad dweller, was captured.

Timing is everything. The US President announced killing of Osama bin Laden just as Wikileaks completed its publication of Guantanamo files. Was it coincidence? If not, what was the connection?

So being the skeptic that I am I went to look at the actual WIKILEAKS file that is here (http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/prisoner/10017.html) and found the following:

: forces on 13 November 2001. This was detainee’s last face to face meeting with UBL where UBL discussed the logistical details of moving fighters out of Kabul to a safe haven. Detainee fled to Kandahar in late December 2001 and met his wife who was residing there. Detainee traveled to Gardez, AF to assist between 100 and 200 fighters move from Gardez to Kandahar. He spent the next nine to ten months in hiding with his family in Pakistan.11

(S//NF) In October 2002, Nashwan Abd al-Razzaq Abd al-Baqi, aka (Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi), ISN US9IZ-010026DP (IZ-10026), contacted and asked detainee to work with him in Peshawar. Detainee accepted the offer and spent the next five to six months working under IZ-10026 organizing the purchase of supplies for fighters including medicine, lights, batteries, food, and clothing. In July 2003, detainee received a letter from UBL’s designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility of collecting donations, organizing travel, and distributing funds to families in Pakistan. UBL stated detainee would be the official messenger between UBL and others in Pakistan.12 In mid-2003, detainee moved his family to Abbottabad, PK and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar.13

Checking footnote number 12 we find:

12 TD-314/12435-06, TD-314/46042-05, TD-314/40102-05, Analyst Note: In TD-314/37025-05, detainee stated of early May 2005, he was responsible for facilitation within the settled areas of Pakistan, communication with UBL and external links. He was responsible for communicating with al-Qaida members abroad and obtaining funds and personnel from those al-Qaida members. In TD-314/54704-04, TD-314/54644-04, detainee met with Taliban Defense Minister Mullah Obaidallah to establish a formal chain for passing financial support to the Taliban.

My emphasis:

If that note is read the way I see it, then it says that OBL was in Pakistan and communicating with "external links" outside of Pakistan. If this guy was THE LINK between OBL and the outside and was KNOWN to be in Abbottabad and this is known in 2005 then......

Gaining Knowledge as a Form of Self-Deception…

An excellent piece that I had running in my head for a while but never put into an entry. It really hits on what I have observed over many years and also applies to those who I'll call "so called feminists":

I started this because I saw people using knowledge as a mask to cover up deeper level, personal issues (I was here for a long period of time myself).


I noticed a tendency for people – particularly in the conscious community – to learn a lot of interesting things but to use it as a facade… as a way of appearing to have self-esteem, personal progress and overall togetherness all while avoiding their real life problems.


I noticed people using knowledge in the same way many use television, sex, or drugs: to escape the reality of their situation.

Right dead on center.

Papers Poems

Two quick pieces from my Facebook page:

I.

Let me see your papers

lemmie see the stamp

given your ancestors

as they passed through

Ellis Island

'cause

I don't think you're a citizen

Yo'

momma aint' have no passport

word is she was illegal

claimin' people as relatives

when it wasn't so

changed her name

so she could fit in



lemmie see your papers

'cause I'm not convinced

your pappy didn't

overstay his visa

knocked up

a citizen to get that green card

that would make you

an Anchor baby

like them

puritans

and calvinists

who

weighed anchors

off this shore

and trespassed

on north American soil

where

they received free health care

welfare in the form of

this is how you grow food



lemmie see your papers

like America is

Smith

Adams

Johnsons

And Madison

but

Uche

Tunde

and Kojo

been here as long as you

Mohammed

beat you to these shores

and showed Columbus the way

and besides

weren't y'all

the same fools

who just a few

wanted to

change the constitution

so the terminator

could run?

We know the deal

if you're white

you're alllllllright

browns can stick around

so long as you

show me your papers.


II.

Jim Crow

done seen new light

you'd

think trump had an alter to that ancestor

musta

poured mad libations

in order to become a vessel

for that spirit

can't blame it on the alcohol

channeling old English stand by's

like

citizenship papers

soon

Obama's gonna have ta

read portions of the constitution

you know

the part that says

nigga you can't vote here

or

put your name on a ballot

unless

ol' jim crow

set him down

and confirm he

be that

responsible negro

he

must think this be

back when

negroes went

rented out by masters

to apprentice

papers in hand

like

black boys in NYC

where fugitive slave codes

called stop and frisk

rule the land

like

donations and philanthropy

can buy ones way outta

jack assery

but

niggas still

gonna roll up in Atlantic City

but hopefully

now that Obamas shown the papers

he'll back bone up

and make 'em show us

the taxes.

A Note About Obama's Birth Certificate

One of the interesting things about Obama's birth certificate is the designation "African" for the race of Obama Sr. Obama's birth certificate declares that Obama's father's race is "African" and his mother's as "Caucasian". I was kind of surprised that the "race" of the child was not noted but since I haven't seen birth certificates from that time I'll suppose they didn't keep that kind of records (at least in Hawaii).

It got me to thinking of a story that I believe Malcolm X would tell about an African diplomat going to a segregated restaurant and getting to sit in the white section because he "was not a Negro". Apparently the distinguishing feature being the head wrap this diplomat wore. But the certificate does shed a bit of light on the craziness of the American racial classification system. How is Obama's father NOT a Negro? Strictly speaking, Negro is spanish for black and is a reference to any African person with the features of Obama Sr. Did the American social system believe that there was a Negro race and also an African race? If so how exactly did that work? What was the science behind it? At what point did a person stop being an African and start being a Negro? Is it possible to be a Half Negro and Half African?

A cursory glance at American history shows that Africans themselves in Early America thought of themselves as Africans. Evidence being the African-Methodist Episcopal churches, The various "African Lodges" and other community organizations which often prominently announced their African origins. Even Africans who had immersed themselves in English society still considered themselves "African".

If the case was that Obama Sr's nation of birth was the deciding factor, why not designate him a "Kenyan"? It would be interesting to see how black people from the Caribbean were labelled on birth certificates. Strictly speaking they couldn't be "American Negroes" and they couldn't be "Africans" so exactly what racial designation would they have been given? Of course the very fact that one can read the title "American Negro" is testament to the idea that Negro really wasn't a special designation for Slave Trade Africans on the North American continent(tm).

Of course we are also left to ask this question: If Obama Sr. had married a down south woman with no known white ancestry and had a child with her, how would the birth certificate had read? African and Negro? And we would have to ask that given the child would be indistinguishable from two "American Negroes" with no known white ancestors, why should Obama Sr. be designated African and the hypothetical mother not be? Genetically they would both be Africans. By ancestry they would both be Africans. Furthermore, since that child would be indistinguishable from two "Africans" the same question applies: Would that child be considered African or Negro?

All of this to say that it is clear that the historical and current American social system of race makes no sense whatsoever and is really about designating and protecting whiteness (One Drop Rulism) than it is about phylogeny.

Big Bad Ghaddafi

Dissident Voice has an excellent piece discussing some of Ghaddafi's activities in Africa. As I've said to other people, I'm not saying Ghaddafi is a saint, but I know enough to not believe everything that comes out of 'official' channels. So how many of you knew about the following:

It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves,
seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.

China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.

This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.

Interestin indeed.

Excerpt from Black Male Passivity from the Isis Papers (Written 1974)

I offer the below written 33 years ago. What is absolutely striking looking at this with the life experiences I have had is how relevant most of what was written then is today. Also striking is the "progression" of some of the issues brought up by Dr. Welsing in terms of black male alienation, the increasing number of black women who ascribe to white female liberation (as described by Welsing which can be debated I'm sure) either consciously or subconsciously and the attitudes of many black men who are now of age (I was 3 when this was written). I think that there ought to be an Isis Papers convention to re-look at this book 30+ years later.




The white female's liberation movement is another disturbing threat to the white male's sense of power and masculinity, helping push him to a weakened and homosexual stance. However. white females are reacting to the oppression imposed on them by white males. Feeling inferior to "non-white" males and females, the white male said to the white female, "well, at least I am going to be superior to you." The white female reaction in the form of women's liberation is contributing further to white male/female alienation, pushing white males further into the homosexual position and incidentally, pushing white females in that direction also.



The long-standing white male/female alienation in the white family has pushed the white female, perhaps unconsciously , to mold her sons to be more like herself than like their father. Thus she creates a female with a penis. Additionally, she proceeds to fight back at the male and finally achieves, symbolically, a penis for herself-resolving the white female's penis envy complex, a compensation for her sense of inferiority imposed by men. In a similar way, she fights back at the white male when she captures a Black male's penis and taunts the white male, who believes "her" black penis is stronger than his own....



Under the white supremacy slavery system, the identity of "sex machines" was imposed upon black males, especially as many hands were needed in the fields for toil and labor. The many babies that were produced gave Black males their most open avenue for at least a limited sense of manhood. Presently, with birth control pills and with the pressure for population-zero for all non-whites, this major ego-support also has been taken away. Without jobs, income, power or even babies, there is no proof of sexual functioning. When this reality is coupled with the awareness that many women can receive more from a welfare check than they can from their male partners, the reasons for women respecting men and staying with them steadily decline, and Black male/female alienation increases.



Recent statistics reveal that today (1974), 34% of Black families are headed by females as compared to 10% of white families, and this figure is increasing each year....



As black males and females become more and more alienated, as our current rate of separation and divorce indicate, and as Black females are being left to rear Black male children alone, the alienation, hate and disgust felt towards adult males are visited upon their sons subtly. A female alienated from males is hard pressed to reinforce patterns of conduct in a male child that remind her of unhappiness and pain. She in much more inclined to say "There you go looking and acting like that no good nigger father of yours." The Black female teacher at school who also may be experiencing alienation from her Black man, if not inclined to make the same statement, in such a direct manner, only says it more subtly, says nothing, or simply acts out her hate, disgust and distrust of Black males, achieving the same end result....



In childhood, male children learn -whether at home or at school -that they can make mothers and female teachers happy (and they will shower you with smiles and affection) when they act like "females" rather than like boys.



The dearth of adult Black males in the homes, schools and neighborhoods leaves Black male children no alternative models. Blindly they seek out one another as role models, and in their blindness end up in trouble....



One ex prisoner patient told me: It is easier to endure life on the inside than to try to put up with the pressures of being a man, a husband and a father in the street."...The intent of racism programming had been achieved: "Give up trying to be a Black man. Why not be a woman?"



Many Black males have answered unconsciously, "why not!" The braided and curled hair, the earring and bracelets, the midriff tops, the cinch waisted pants, the flowered underwear, the high heeled shoes with platforms and the pocketbooks are all behaviors to the above. They say in loud and clear language: "White man, I will never come after you . I cannot run in my high heels [or sagging pants-Mr Tunj]- you know that. And I may mess up my hair." The white-run clothing industry is all too pleased to provide the costumes of feminine disguise for Black male escape...



Television, which has become an important programmer of behavior in this social system and its culture, plays a further role in alienating Black males (especially children) from Black manhood. Flip Wilson, the highest paid Black male on television maintains his high rating by dressing in great detail as a tough and coarse Black female. One of my seven-year old Black male patients told me, "My Mommy liked Geraldine and I think Geraldine is cute". "Good Times" [a show I never cared for -Mr Tunji] the latest media fare for indoctrinating the Black oppressed, shows a pitiful adult Black male who never can seem to find an adequate job and a Black adolescent male who is a criminal shoplifter and a complete clown. All of this takes place in the presence of a strong and powerful Black female, who periodically drops down on her knees to pray to a white Jesus whose miracles save the situation.These weekly insults to Black manhood that we have been programmed to believe are entertainment and not direct racist warfare, further reinforce, perhaps in the unconscious thinking of Black people, a loss of respect for Black manhood while carrying that loss to ever deeper levels. One 12 year old Black male summer it up in this manner when I questioned him about working hard and studying in school: "No, I do not want to study so I can help Black people. If you try to help Black people, you will be killed. Look at Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and George Jackson. I don't want to die."

Banking or Revolution?

I saw this earlier on FaceBook but could not place a source. Finally have found it so here it is:

It seems that the rebels might actually be under the overall supervision of the international banking industry, rather than the oil majors. On March 19 they announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.’”

CNBC senior editor John Carneyasked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Has Moqtada Al Sadr created a central bank in Iraq? Nope the US is the one who created a new monetary policy in Iraq after deposing of it's leader. That deposed leader is the same one who posed a direct threat to Dollar Dominance (tm) when he sought to sell Iraqi oil in Euros rather than dollars. Why do I mention that? Read on:

“According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

“And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed: ‘One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . . Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.’”

Now we start to see the real deal here. But if you want to still believe that this is about civilians, you go right ahead.

sources:

Counterpunch: What's Really Going on in Libya?

Where did the Weapons Come From?

How It's Done

Paul Craig Roberts breaks it down again:

One traditional means by which the US influences and controls a country is by training its military and government officers. The program is called International Military and Education Training (IMET). AFRICOM reports that “in 2009 approximately 900 military and civilian students from 44 African countries received education and training in the United States or their own countries. Many officers and enlisted IMET graduates go on to fill key positions in their militaries and governments.”

Before Obama Speaks

Before Obama speaks this evening I want to make a few things particularly clear:

1) Libya is not Rwanda. I was around when Rwanda happened. Rwanda was a clear ethnic conflict. It was not about government it was about two groups of people who were made to hate each other. It was about ordinary people doing un-ordinarily evil things to people they did not know and who had done nothing to them.

2) Obama's own military brass got on TV on Sunday and admitted that Libya posed absolutely no threat to the United States. Without this condition a US president cannot just up and put the military into the middle of a civil war without prior congressional approval. Even Ronald Regan was bright enough to declare that Libya was a threat to the US before he dropped bombs on Ghaddafi's kids.

3) Libya is in the middle of a civil war. Regardless of who you think is right, this is a civil war. It can be ended at any time by those trying to overthrow the government giving up and putting down their arms. I'm not saying that they should, I'm simply stating the facts here. Civil wars are violent bloody things and they are the internal matter of a sovereign state and unless there is verifiable evidence that a war crime is happening such as targeted ethnic cleansing, mass rape, etc. the UN, including the so called Security Council has no standing to interfere.

4) Declarations by the head of state in Libya to "show no mercy" is not evidence of ethnic cleansing anymore than someone saying I'll kill my boss" is indicative that a crime will actually happen.

5) Even IF the no fly zone was somehow legal, the bombing of ground troops is not "no fly zone" but it is in fact a bona fide act of war against the state of Libya and therefore requires the approval of Congress. Furthermore, bombing ground troops and the like is so NOT a part of a no-fly zone that is clearly outside the illegal UN mandate.

6) The UN decision making process does not pre-empt the US Constitution. One cannot make the case that if the UN says it's OK that it's OK under the Constitution.

7) The speed at which the conflict is concluded has no bearing on its legality.


Just want the readership to keep these points in mind when Obama starts talking this evening.

The End of Topeka

To my dismay I sat and read Bob Herbert's column entitled "Separate and Unequal" And I was forced to ask: How long are Negroes, who James Baldwin declared, only exist in America, going to keep on with the "Black kids need to sit next to white kids in order to learn" thing?

Bob is clear about his bias, stating:

I favor integration for integration’s sake. This society should be far more integrated in almost every way than it is now.

That's nice that he has such an opinion, but it is just that. Such a position has diddly squat to do with the potential educational achievement of negroes. And I want the reader to know that I am using "negro" on purpose.

You see if you read Bob Herbert's piece you will note that he does not deal with one very obvious question: If integration is so necessary for educational achievement, then why are white students in America doing so well academically with nary a negro in sight?

Ahh the answer soon shows up in the form of "oh this is about economics". Having affluent people around is what is needed for negro children to do better. Really.

Firstly lets address the whole "who's sitting next to who" question. You know what country has students who kick the tail out of the Affluent White Population(tm) that negroes are enamored with? China. How many white people are in China? How many of them are sitting in classes with Chinese students? I'd hazard to say very few if any at all.

You know another country who's students kick affluent white tail in education? India. How many white people are there in India? I could go on but seriously knowing full well that there are races of people who in the total absence of Affluent White People(tm) are somehow able to graduate engineers, doctors, etc. ought to make a laughing stock of any person who still seriously proposes that the fix for negro education is proximity to "affluent white people".

You know what else ought to make this line of thinking untenable? The huge number of negroes who graduate from HBCU's. Let me tell you that HBCU's are the most separated (segregation is a legal issue) places in America. on most HBCU's there are less white people on campus (if any) than there are black people on HWCUs. Seriously. Check it out. Still those students graduate and find employment and start companies just like their white counterparts. How is this even possible if it is the case that negro achievement is determined by proximity to Affluent White People(tm)?

So this brings me to why I'm using the term "negro" here. Negroes, that American invention as Baldwin pointed out, have this one trait that is mostly absent from other black people, particularly those who are in majority or all black surroundings: They need white folks. Negroes need white folk like Oreos need creme filling. Negroes simply cannot imagine their lives with the absence of the All Mighty White Person (tm). Negroes think that if white people are not involved there is a problem. For negroes white people represent the pinnacle of everything right with the world and whipping boy for anything that goes wrong. Negroes do not take responsibility for self and do for self. They complain when the All Mighty White Man(tm) doesn't give them a part of the All Mighty White World(tm). When the All Mighty White Man(tm) says that he doesn't like black women, negroes tweet about it. They lament and complain and vent in wrathful anger. They can do this for days. Negroes spend an awful lot of time and energy wondering why white people don't like them. Negroes will also complain if negroes act too much like the All Mighty White Man(tm) 'cause that's All Mighty White Man(tm) blasphemy. You wanna know when you're dealing with a negro, see how they deal with non-negroes. Negroes are quick to put non-negroes "in their place" when non-negroes do not show proper adoration of the All Mighty White Man(tm). You want to know when you're dealing with a negro, open a business, do something original. Negroes will pay you no mind. They will offer lip service but no business until or unless you get props from or support of the All Mighty White Man(tm). Then Negroes will talk about how they knew you back when and then negroes will come looking for a hook up. If your business fails, negroes will be talking about what you did wrong and how negroes are bad at business, but those same negroes won't have much to say while you were actually IN business that would help a non-negro stay in business.

I could go on and on about how negroes act but that would be beside the point. The point is that the race or economic background of the students in a school means nothing at all. The determining factors in the success of students are the involvement of parents (which includes feeding their kids, getting them into bed at a decent hour, etc.), the expectations of the schools and the quality of the teachers and the teaching tools. Nothing else matters. There are kids in Africa walking barefoot for miles to go to a one room school. They do that after morning chores which can include things like going to fetch water. They do homework by candlelight. Candle. Light. And negroes here are talking about how to get close to Affluent White People (tm).

Negroes; I tell you.

When Man Takes Sides: The logical perspective on A Theological Perspective.

This morning I saw a piece on my FB wall linking to a piece entitled: "When God Takes Sides: A Theological Perspective of the Gang Rape in Cleveland, TX"
which immediately caught my attention because anytime someone claims to know what God is doing or thinking at any given moment I find it quite amusing. Unfortunately given the heaviness of the subject I kept reading. It is clear that the author has much sympathy for the victim here, which he should have, but in his zeal to be, shall I say, non-sexist, he wades into very deep water and drowns in his own lack of clarity. Let me explain.

First let me say at the outset that since I am not a Christian or a follower of any of the "big three" religions which have their origins in the nile valley civilization (Abraham gets no credit from me), I won't be critiquing this piece based on my religious differences with this individual. He is entitled to his belief system. Since that belief system informs his logic it is only proper to base the critique on the theological pool which he draws from. Let us start here:

one of them a well-known community leader, have started a media campaign whose primary agenda seems to be to discredit the victim. They have made statements to the press saying that she wears make-up, that she dresses provocatively, and that she talks about sex on her Facebook page.

Lets just name names, OK. The fellow in reference here is Quanell X. He is a Muslim. I do find it particularly...ummm...interesting that this Christian author would point out this Muslim man. Don't you? Quanell X's position has been that he feels that the black males in this situation are being unfairly maligned and misjudged by the news media that he feels regularly portrays black males as animals who are out of control. Whether one agrees that such a judgement is appropriate in this case is besides the point. Quanell does in fact have a point. I will remind the audience that it was Quanell X who brought to light the video a recent beating of an unarmed black male by police officers in Texas. Admittedly I do not know the full extent of Quanell's statements in regarding this Cleveland situation, but to write as if he does not have a larger point that is credible is intellectually dishonest. In any case, that is not a theological argument so it's not really relevant.

Continuing:

I believe that God is interested in the wholeness and the redemption of all people.  When applied to this 11 year-old girl, I believe that her need for wholeness and redemption is  not because she has done something that needs to be “fixed”. She is a surviving-victim; to assign blame to her is to victimize her all over again.

I'm sniffling over here. That is such a sweet statement. Awww. Under Christian theology the above holds no water whatsoever. Under Christian theology every human being on the planet is in need of "fixing" because every human being on the planet is born into sin. It is the Christian theological position that humanity is inherently flawed. That sinful state requires "fixing" and the "fix" is Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent re-animation (resurrection). Humans get "fixed" by believing in this "son of God" intercession.

Furthermore, Jesus' actions and statements aside, Christian theology binds the behavior of humans to a set of rules, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments. Some people are under the impression that somehow the commandments no longer apply because Jesus "took care of all that." Others think that because Jesus said that the highest of the commandments is to love your neighbor somehow negates the rest of the commandmens. Sorry. Not the case. In Exodus 20 there are well spelled out "don't do this..." rules that all Christians are bound by. One of them is fornication. For the uninitiated, fornication is sexual intercourse prior to marriage. If this young girl's posts on FB are correct, and anyone who works in the school system knows full well that they are likely truthful, then this girl is clearly in violation of the fornication rule. And had she been alive in Moses' day would have been stoned to death.

As a matter of fact, if we go strictly by the religious codes laid out in scripture, this 11 YO was technically a whore. I know we're not comfortable seeing it that way, but her actions, in the biblical sense was that of a whore. She was a sexually mature female (as in physically) who made herself sexually available to men she was not married to. Personally I don't go along with such conventions, but if you're going to pull the "What God thinks" card, then these are the kinds of things you're going to have to deal with which you may or may not be very comfortable with. Of course that is why a number of so called Christians have a habit of picking and choosing what they like from the Bible in order to make it fit whatever they are doing or thinking at the moment.

This brings me to a point that I have been mulling for quite some time, We are all familiar with the story of the woman caught in adultery from John 8:

   1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
   2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
   3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
   4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
   5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
   6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
   7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
   8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
   9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
   10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
   11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

You'll note that at no point in this passage did Jesus declare that the woman had not sinned. Go ahead and read it again. The story ends with Jesus telling the woman to "go and sin no more." So even though the men who had accused her were themselves sinners, their own actions did not negate the sin that the woman had committed. Jesus' position was that the men could not mete out punishment (what is referred to as judgment) on her because they themselves were guilty.

Therefore, unlike what is proposed by Mr Pierce, God is on the side of those who take responsibility for their actions and seek to "sin no more". and that includes the males who engaged in the rape of this 11 year old. Therefore; by Christian theology if any of those males involved were to declare that they would "sin no more" they would find the sympathy of Jesus just as much as the woman who committed adultery would have been. They would have the same forgiveness as the thief on the cross. But nowhere in this fellow's piece do we find such a theological point. Nowhere. Go ahead and re-read it. The fact is, contrary to the author's statement that

God chooses the victims of rape over the rapist(s).

Based on the words directly from Jesus's mouth, God is on the side of those who seek to "sin no more" and is NOT on the side of those who seek to condemn and punish for their own selfish ends because under Christian theology all have sinned and fallen short and therefore are in need of forgiveness. I suggest Mr. Nelson go and re-read his scripture before he posts on the subject again.

The Un Charter

Many of the readers are in the US and know of my comments regarding the requirement of congressional approval and the war powers act. However; many people are not familiar with the UN charter and below are the relevant portions of the UN charter that I believe makes the current NATO involvement in Libya illegal:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

My emphasis

Chapter VII contains the following:

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

My emphasis.

To recap. It is clear that this civil war in Libya is an internal matter as recognized by article 2 of the UN Charter. Furthermore it is clear that that the security council took sides in the Libyan civil war which is in clear violation of article 40 which requires impartiality to both parties.

US, UK FR and UN Criminality

In what is as far as I know an unprecedented move by the UN, it has taken sides in a civil war. The UN charter does not give it the authority to interfere with the internal business of it's member states. It may do so only if there is a genocide or ethnic cleansing, neither of which are happening or has been threatened to happen in Libya.

The UN has always made statements in regards to its disapproval of actions taken by parties in a conflict. The UN has always sent peacekeepers or other troops to protect civilians but it has never actually taken sides in a conflict and armed either side or taken military action on behalf of one party or the other. We should note that "civilians" are people who are NOT engaged in conflict but who are trapped in a conflict zone. Anyone in Libya who has taken up arms against the government of Libya, regardless of whether one thinks it is a legitimate government or not, is NOT an innocent civilian by any definition. Therefore; we need to ask, since when did the UN become a tool for certain countries to determine the course of events in other countries? Or for those of us who have been paying attention, what has changed in the world where the UN is not blatantly a tool of imperial powers? There is a difference between being a disinterested party and a neutral party. No one is saying that the UN should be the former, but it MUST be the latter. Now let me get at the US.

If anything shows that the Nobel Peace prize is now a joke of an award, at least as it is purported to uphold the principle of "peace", It is the recent actions of president Obama. Obama has just upped the Bush antics and in my opinion has fallen square into impeachment territory. When it was clear that Ghaddafi was not just going to sit and be tossed out on his duff as others around him had, Obama went on national TV and said that Ghaddafi "must go now". I don't know about you, but the last I checked there were 50 states and a few territories none of which include the state of Libya. So exactly what standing does Obama (or any head of state) have to say whether Ghaddafi has to go or stay? It would seem that decision is in the sole providence of the people of Libya and for them to work out. It is clear that our imperial black president has gotten comfortable with his position.

A Clear Act Of War

Let us be clear here, a "no fly zone" is an act of war. Bombing anything in libya is an act of war. Bombing a building where the head of state of Libya may be is a brazen act of war. Therefore I need to ask where was the congressional authorization for this? The War Power's act does not apply here at all. Libya posed and still does not pose any immediate or long term threat to the United States. Libya has, in fact, been a "partner" in the ongoing so called "war on terror". Therefore; by any legal standards this is a blatant war of aggression against the state of Libya given sanction by the so called "United Nations". Let me repeat for those having a difficulty understanding this:

This is a blatant war of aggression, without required congressional approval, against the sovereign state of Libya, which poses and has posed no threat to the United States of America or any of her so called "allies". All of this is being done with full knowledge of and backing of the so called "United Nations" which itself is in violation of it's own mandate.

Since Libya hasn't been a threat to the US on a state level. Since libya has been a "partner" against Al-Qaeda, the bombing cannot even fall under the "war against terror" laws such as the AMUF(most of which are unconstitutional). There is no excuse for this blatant trespass of international law to which the US is beholden to.

And let us not be fooled by this "coalition" bullshit either. This is the work of England (can we say Pan-Am), the French and the US. Of the bombs that fell on Libya in the past two days 122 were of US origins and 22 were of UK origins (as reported this morning on GMA on ABC 7 NY).

In stark contrast is the response to Bahrain which has been killing opposition protestors none of whom to my knowledge had actually taken up arms against the government and therefore are in fact legal civilians. There are no "no fly zones". There are no US..sorry, "coalition" planes firing on government forces. As a matter of fact our "ally" the monarchy of Saudi Arabia who've been in power longer than Ghaddafi has wet dreams about, has sent troops into that country to help that government put down the protests.

On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, in which she showed that having a woman at the helm can result in the same shit coverage and shit questions as the men, had some military official on who said that the situation in Bahrain was "different" because they are an "ally" and have been "cooperative" in the War on Terror (tm). Really? I told y'all already that Mubarak was "our boy in the Middle East" which is why the administration went through all manner of back channel means to make the transition "orderly". Ghaddafi is apparently not a "wholly owned subsidiary of the United States" and therefore not an "ally" and therefore the rules are different.

I will not even begin to discuss the ongoing open air jail that is Gaza.

I Thought We Had No Money

The next thing this brings up is the various "austerity" budgets that the US, UK and France have pushed on it's citizens. Among the excuses for these drastic cuts to public services and welfare has been that "there is no money." If there "is no money" then there "is no money" for another war. If there is in fact money to be spent, then given that Libya poses no military threat to any of the so called "coalition forces". then that money be spent on the public. It is clear then that the heads of state for the US, UK and FR do not have their citizens welfare in mind.

That Obama could stand up on national TV after the governor of Wisconsin, under the guidance of the Koch brothers, gutted the public unions ability to bargain collectively after creating a fake budget crisis, and not say that Scott Walker needs to go now. Or to even speak forcibly on the subject of blatant union busting makes it crystal clear to those of us not high on "dumb dust" that there is a serious problem of priorities in the White House. The White House is not the only place where there are problems either.

10 Dowling Street clearly has a problem. Apparently it is preferable to treble the cost of tuition for "austerity" rather than not engage in a war of aggression against a state that poses no threat to the UK. It is also very clear that the UN has morphed into something entirely different than its mandate. It's "lesser" members ought to consider that if the so called "security council" can decide who they can remove from power, then they too can be targeted.

Either way the world is now watching an illegal war sanctioned by the UN. And they keep saying Alex Jones is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Of Fake Dissidents

From the Huffington postdiscussing the US Military's procurement of software to create fake online people:

The technology would not be used in America, or by American owned companies--which include major social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. "We do not target U.S. audiences, and we do not conduct these activities on sites owned by U.S. companies," Speaks told the Washington Times.

Sure. And no radiation from Japan will reach America.

The Story of the Elephant

This is a twist on the old "elephant" story.

One day a teacher in a city where no one had seen an elephant (work with me) decided to take his children to see one up close and in person. So they arrived at the location and the teacher told the students that they would have to put on goggles that blinded them and that they would enter a room and in that room would be an elephant. The kids were all excited as they donned their goggles. They were all a chatter about what they would feel, smell and hear.

They were ushered into the room where the elephant was lazily sitting on the floor. The children wandered around aimlessly at first as they tried to find the elephant. Soon one stumbled across something and shouted excitedly "over here!"

Soon the children were all around the elephant.

"Oooh it's so hard and long!" said one feeling on the tusks.
"Well it's got a long nose. I can feel the air moving in and out like my nose."

One child said, "it has small ears!" as he felt the head of elephant. He felt the nose and it wasn't long. there was a bit of doubt as he had heard the other kid say the nose was long. "Must be long to him" he thought to himself as he continued to feel up the elephant.

"Man this thing has big feet!" Exclaimed another child.

The kid who had felt the small ears said to himself: "What is wrong with those kids? The feet didn't seem particularly big to me. They are such over the top. Wait until we can remove these goggles and I'm gonna make fun of them for being so dramatic."

Finally the teacher announced that the time for inspection was over and all the kids would be lead to another room where they could draw the elephant based on what they had "observed". So off they went to the next room where crayons and paper awaited them.

They all drew their pictures and though each child drew differently they all had similar characteristics. Except one. The child who had felt a small nose, small ears and small feet had drawn something entirely different than his peers.

When he presented his drawing to the teacher he said, "Here. I've drawn the elephant."
"No you did not." Said the teacher.
"Yes I did." replied the boy " I drew exactly what I remember feeling."
"I'm sure you did." said the teacher. "But that is not an elephant."
"I don't get it." said the boy. "You said we were in the room with an elephant. You said to go and inspect the elephant and I did that. This is exactly what I felt."
"Well," said the teacher, "just because I said that there was an elephant in the room doesn't mean that there was one. Nor does it mean that the elephant was the only thing in the room. You assumed you were feeling an elephant because you were lead to believe it was an elephant. You ignored the very evidence presenting itself to you that it was not an elephant. Young man, that was a bull you were feeling on."

The boy was pretty annoyed to have been fooled like that but he had learned a valuable lesson that day: Don't let your belief in elephants lead you to talk a lot of bull.

For the Obama Apologists:

On Friday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denounced the conditions of Bradley Manning's detention as "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid," forcing President Obama to address those comments in a Press Conference and defend the treatment of Manning. Today, CNN reports, Crowley has "abruptly resigned" under "pressure from White House officials because of controversial comments he made last week about the Bradley Manning case." In other words, he was forced to "resign" -- i.e., fired.

Denounce Farrakhan who hasn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anybody.

Denounce Rev. Wright as the "grumpy uncle" who hasn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anyone.

Fire Van Jones: Because some Republicans decided he was a "too black" "Communist" but hasn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anyone.

Fire Shirley Sherrod because some white Republican smeared her as a racist and God knows Obama can't have "black racists" in his administration. She hadn't killed, tortured or illegally detained anyone.

A recent book quotes Obama as saying:

His goal, he said, was to be as effective and empathetic a president as possible for all Americans. If he could accomplish that, it would advance racial progress for blacks more than anything else he could do.

Ye Olde "empathetic" black man. Don't get the white folk upset...the arguably most powerful man on the planet still thinks he has to make nice with white folk. Just think of how profound that is. With this kind of attitude it is entirely understandable that this guy would be fired for speaking words that easily could have come out of the mouth of Dr. King Jr.

Countdown to apologists in 3...2...1....

The NY Times Owes You Nothing

Last week we had the misfortune of learning of a rape of an 11 year old girl by multiple males some of whom were legal adults. I described the events as another perfect storm of pathologies, taking particular aim at the role played by the so called "men" in this situation that was eerily similar to a situation that happened in Chicago :

why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled?

In this particular case the victim herself was not mentally disabled but rather legally unable to consent to sex (among other things). In the wake of the story being picked up by the NYT, a group, Color of Change along with a few gullible negroes and various so called feminists launched an internet tirade against the NY Times for "blaming the victim" for her rape and propping up a "rape culture". As is the usual case with people with an ideological axe to grind, be it racial or gender, the failure to do things such as research, read and think didn't stop any of them from trying to make an example of the NY Times. The last time I looked, upwards of 20,000 people signed the online petition. Clearly the dunce cap is large. Let's look at why these people are full of the proverbial shit.

Firstly, anyone who was paying attention to the story would have known that the original report on this incident came out of a relatively small paper out of Texas. It was then picked up by other outlets as far away as England and including the NY Times. In the Times and the UK's Daily Mail, we see that much of the articles were direct copies from the original Texas article, therefore even if there was a claim of blaming the victim, it would have to be directed at the original report which served as the meat of all the other "reports". It is not as if the NY Times sent a reporter to Texas to find out what happened and wrote an original piece based on that. The failure of both Alternet, Color of Change and others to even point that out is a failure of large proportions.

The second issue, the issue at hand, is that Color of Change, New Black Man, etc. have determined that reporting on the behavior of an 11 year old minor was not only irrelevant, but amounts to blaming the victim for her victimization. This faulty logic says that any reporting of all the circumstances of a situation amounts to blaming the victim, even if the victim's own behavior had a direct contribution to the situation at hand. Furthermore; this faulty logic assumes that those who do discuss the total circumstances of a particular case think it has any bearing on the legal issue at hand. It does not and we do not think so. In this case these issues of circumstances are entirely relevant to the social issue of what happened, even though, legally it does not.

Let me give an example of how the logic works. Say a person walks into an busy intersection with their headphones deafening them to oncoming traffic while they are looking intently at their cell phone reading or sending a text message. Say that they walked straight into the path of a vehicle traveling 15 MPH over the posted speed limit. Would anyone in their right mind come to the conclusion that the accident was the complete fault of the driver of the vehicle? No. It is clear that the pedestrian was not paying attention to what he was doing and therefore placed himself in danger of being struck by a vehicle. Legally though, because the driver of the vehicle was speeding, he will be held responsible for that. They may sue in civil court and it will likely be found that both parties were negligent. That the pedestrian was negligent does not erase the fact that the driver was also negligent or vice-versa. Such logic seems to be tossed out the window when the subject is a female though.

The major, pre-victimization point here is that an 11 year old girl was hanging out on the street unsupervised. The so called "feminists" would have you think that to ask the obvious question as to why an 11 year old child of any gender is simply hanging out on the side of the street, away from home, apparently going nowhere and doing nothing is a problem. Forget the rape that occurred. Would anyone be claiming "rape culture" if this young child had been grabbed off the street and killed? What if she had simply been kidnapped and held for ransom? What if she had been kidnapped and removed from the country? Would anyone seriously question a news report that contained the fact that a child was left on the street unsupervised, doing nothing, going nowhere and who got into a vehicle with people who were not relatives and without permission from the parents? I. didn't. think. so.

Lets face the facts that no sane parent, not even these so called "feminists" would ever teach their children to hang out on the side of the street doing nothing in a "notorious part of town". Nor would a single one of these so called feminists tell their 11 year old child to hop onto a car with a group of men, all at least 8 years older than them to just "hang out". This is not a case of an adult woman making a choice to do whatever she felt like, dressed however she felt like, to hop in the car with anyone she felt like to do whatever she felt like and being raped. In such a case where she was and who she chose to hang out with are completely her business. This does not apply with an 11 year old child whom adults are legally required to keep as safe as possible.

Due to these factors it is clear that in terms of the entire story, the actions of this child and perhaps the failure of the parents to adequately address their child's habit of acting out sexually is entirely relevant. You don't have to like it, but that is the case. Legally her actions are irrelevant to the prosecution of the males in question. Since having sex with a minor is illegal regardless of what she may have consented to even if there was no duress. Those males who coerced her into sexual activity and who invited their "friends" to engage in sexual activity with her are entirely responsible for any and every part they had in the situation. As do the persons who disseminated the videos produced during the gang rape. And no one I know, not even the NY Times is arguing otherwise. This is journalism and not legal proceedings.

The last charge leveled at the NY Times is that they somehow made the boys seem more sympathetic. Seriously.
Because describing the actions they engaged in is sympathetic. Saying that some are "star athletes" is sympathetic, rather than say an implied commentary on the sense of entitlement that some athletes have. Or perhaps saying that one boy was the son of a school board member. I'll be honest and say that I thought that made up for it and that I never thought "hey this fool definitely should have known better." Nope. I was very sympathetic for those jocks and sons of board members. You know what else endeared me to the boys. The fact that some of them have criminal records. Before I read that I was completely willing to say that they were just being set up and it was all the 11 year-old's fault. Oh and to top it all off, the calling the family of the girl and threatening them. Total sympathy there. Who wouldn't have warm fuzzy thoughts about the friends and family of rapists who threaten the family of the child they raped.

If you took anything in the above paragraph seriously. You have a problem. Anyway it is clear from objectively reading the articles and applying common sense that the NY Times owes nobody an apology. If anything, those attempting to slander the NY Times over this "issue" owe the NY Times.

Another Perfect Storm

Back in August I wrote about the rape of a mentally challenged minor in Chicago describing the entire incident as a "perfect storm of pathologies" I wrote then:

Firstly we have the group of males involved. By the reports there were adult males of undetermined age and boys of various age. So the first thing we have to ask is why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled? If I were the 'hood type I would ask "where they do that at?"

This is similar to the situation that took place in Trenton NJ where another group of "grown" men raped a child who had been brought to them by another child and involved other minor males.

I'm not sure how widespread this particular phenomenon is but I find it particularly disturbing that male minors are being this influenced by "grown" men who have clear psychological issues.

Once again this issue has reared it's ugly head with the victim being an eleven year old girl.

Once again the perpetrators were a group of young males (I simply will not call any of them "men" a title they have clearly not earned) which consisted of person as young as 14 and as old as 27. I am left to ask the question once again:

why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled?

To make matters worse some of the perpetrators (or those with connections to the perpetrators) have no shame and have been harassing the family of the eleven year old victim. The lawyer for three of the defendants said, and I'm not making this up:

James D. Evans III, an attorney who represents three of the defendants, insists: "This is not a case of a child who was enslaved or taken advantage of."

Listen, I'm all for a vigorous defense but really sir? Sex with a minor is THE LEGAL DEFINITION of taken advantage of. Furthermore, that the males involved:

first went to the blue house, where she was ordered to disrobe. If she refused, the statement said, she was warned other girls would beat her up and she would never get a ride back home.

Is what? Right...kidnapping. Coercion. Really sir? The child was not "taken advantage of"? Sir, fuck you.


Mind you it is clear that the child victim here had issues much like the one in Chicago did. But legally and morally that is beside the point. That she talks about smoking and having sex is irrelevant. Unfortunately some of these guys are going to learn what "an offer you can't refuse" feels like.

Chief Alfred Sam

Alfred C. "Chief" Sam inspired hundreds of African American Oklahomans to follow him back to their "ancestral home," Africa. Expounding the virtues of Africa's Gold Coast with tales of diamonds lying on the ground after a rain, trees that produced bread, and sugar cane as large as stove pipes, Sam, who claimed to be an African chief, sold passage to Africa in large, camp-style meetings throughout Oklahoma in 1913. By purchasing twenty-five dollars worth of stock from Sam's Akim Trading Company, an African American could retain passage for the whole family to the Gold Coast of Africa. Sam claimed he had access to land that the group could colonize.

Oklahoma Historical Society

At Least China is Being Honest

From the NY Times article China Adds New Limits on Foreigners

Separately, Beijing officials announced Wednesday that they intended to monitor the movements of millions of residents via information transmitted by their cellphones. One official was quoted on a government Web site as saying that the new program would provide “real-time information about a user’s activity.”

The project, which would make use of global positioning technology, aims to monitor all Beijing residents who use mobile phones — some 20 million people — to detect unusually large gatherings. One official said the primary use would be to detect and ease traffic and subway congestion. But Chinese media reports said government officials could use the data to detect and prevent protests

And people wonder why I do not have EasyPass. Understand that the govt. here is fully capable of (and probably already does employ these methods.

Who is "The Enemy"?

The NY Times is reporting that 22 new charges have been filed against PFC Bradly Manning in regards to the WikiLeaks issue. Of interest is the following:

The new charges included “aiding the enemy”; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it was accessible to the enemy; multiple counts of theft of public records, transmitting defense information and computer fraud. If he is convicted, Private Manning could be sentenced to life in prison.

Long ago when Bush II was in office I made a note that it was very dangerous to give the executive the power to decide who is and is not "an enemy" and that such a power was ripe for abuse. Anyone who reads the above quote ought to see why Assange has been particularly concerned with being extradited to Sweden.

As noted in the article "the enemy" is not defined. Is WikiLeaks "the enemy"? Furthermore is speech (including whistleblowing) restricted to only when "the enemy", whoever that may be, is unable to hear or read it? If so then the citizens of the US ought to be very concerned since just about anything we post online can be read by the enemy and therefore can be seen as "aiding the enemy".

Now I totally understand that this is standard military stuff. The problem though is that a private lawyer, Lynn Stewart was convicted by the US for supporting "an enemy" by means of a press release about her then client Abdel-Rahman.

I will re-iterate my position that Manning is a whistleblower and the mechanics by which he disclosed information will ought to be a moot point.

Dr. Barbara Sizemore

Listen up.

Piracy's New Price...

The NY Times has an opinion piece discussing the recent murder of the 4 Americans sailing near Somalia. As usual they are blaming the "pirates" for the "new violence." but the truth is actually far different. For those with short memories that one of Obama's early acts of president was to give the US Navy the go ahead to kill the pirates that had boarded a US vessel. Up to that point no act of piracy by the Somalis had involved actual killing. In fact as far as I've heard, up to that point the pirates were reported to have treated their captors well. As well as being a captive can be. I said then and I am proven now, that the decision would cause the Somalis to either enact revenge or step up to killing passengers themselves, particularly if they thought they would be caught like the one who was recently sentenced in NY.

The fact of the matter is that the US escalation to killing is why these four people are now dead and no amount of historical revisionism will change that fact.

Garveys Ghost TV 2-21-2011

Who's Coonin' for Who?

Chauncey DeVega, who appears regularly on Alternet posted a piece on Herman Cain, a Republican which was entitled "Black History Month is Herman Cain Playing the Race Minstrel for CPAC". In this piece, with an accompanying YouTube video DeVega purports that Cain was essentially a black man "showing out" for the benefit of white folk at the CPAC.

Thems serious charges bro.

DeVega starts in early with the uncalled for insults; writing:

As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.

I'm not above cheap shots myself, but I usually...no always have proof to back me up. Seriously, save the garbage pail kids commentary for certain entertainers *cough* method man *cough* who actually say stuff that denigrates black people. His positions that black conservatives simply act out for white folks is pretty insulting particularly when plenty of black folk on the left do the same thing.

DeVega goes into great lengths to inform the reader on the different faces of coonery and charges Cain with what DeVega considers the lowest of the low:

Herman Cain’s shtick is a version of race minstrelsy where he performs “authentic negritude” as wish fulfillment for White Conservative fantasies.

I'd like for you to keep this in mind because when we are done we will see that, though Cain indeed has some "odd" positions for a "black man", It is actually DeVega who is cooning...sorry minstrelling "authentic negritude" to the readers of Alternet (overwhelmingly white) in order to fulfill white LIBERAL fantasies on how black people ought to think, say and do.

DeVega presents his "evidence of minstrely" as follows:

Let’s consider the routine. First, Cain enters the stage to Motown music.

Really? Right then. New Negro Law: No Negroes shall not enter a speaking engagement to any black music 'cause this is a sign of cooning. Check.

Then Cain feigns swimming after rolling up his sleeves to show them his black skin and how he is a hardworking negro (not like those other ones).

Really? that's what DeVega got from that? I didn't see it because I did not rewind the video to before the part that it was set for. Perhaps though he was showing that he's tough? Some machismo? Maybe? nahhhh...better to play the race card. Check.

Cain bellows in a preacher affected voice and channels the folksy negro down home accent of his late grandpappy

Cain noted the "vernacular" of the speaker. Perhaps DeVega is ashamed that there are black people who have and continue to speak in a certain manner. I have certainly clowned a person or two over their manner of speech and writing, I've never said that they did it specifically to make a mockery of black folk or to affect the fantasies of white folk. Besides anyone who watches the speech in question will note that Cain showed a lot of respect for his family and was staying authentic to what specific advice he was given and how it was imparted. I suppose DeVega would have preferred that Cain be ashamed of his people and cleaned up the speech for the good, high brow white folk in the audience. Check.

New Negro Law: No Negro shall use anything but "standard" American English when making a presentation. Any use of African dialects is strictly forbidden and shall result in 30 lashes. This law shall henceforth be referred to as the 'Your name is Toby" law.

In the money shot, Cain gives the obligatory “black folks who are not Republicans are on the plantation” speech to the joyous applause of his White benefactors.

Now this may be the strongest argument DeVega has given. Personally I probably would not raise the plantation metaphor in such an audience. However; in black left circles the plantation metaphor is used regularly in reference to the Democratic party and African-American loyalty to it. Therefor for the sake of consistency I have to give Cain a pass to use the same phrase (which I suppose he got from the black left) where he pleases.

I suppose while DeVega was looking at the "Monkey in the window" (his words not mine) he missed one very important portion of Cain's speech which starts around min 16 of the linked video in which he had a disagreement with a caller to his radio show who was upset that Cain had raised a disagreement with president Obama:

Well sir I have two thoughts on that may be difficult for you to comprehend. But work with me. First It may surprise you and a lot of folk that some black people can think for themselves without having somebody else think for 'em.

I know that's a shockah.

And I said secondly sir. Secondly... and this one may be even mo' difficult for you to understand. When this nation reaches a point where it's citizens cannot constructively criticize it's leaders we are no longer a democratic republic we have become a nation of tyranny and that's not gonna happen on our watch.

It is our right... to disagree. So I had to add that to the list of me an Nigel: Shameless.

I cannot tell you the number of times I have had people run that "You can't criticize Obama" line past me. And how they don't care about x,y or z 'cause Obama is "our" president. Understand that I am an old school Pan-Africanist. I've seen what happened in countries where the first black president was given too much leeway because he was "first" and since he inherited so and such conditions and since the white folk did what they wanted then we should let this one do "whatever". You ALWAYS hold the leadership accountable to your interests and principles regardless of whether that leader came out of your camp or out of somebody elses. But that is besides the point here.

The point here is that DeVega insulted us, the black collective, by using insulting language in reference to a black political opponent particularly on a white owned internet property. By doing so he did exactly what it was he was charging Cain of doing. It was unnecessary and unfounded by the video. Alternet ran that piece because, in my opinion, DeVega fit the "minstrel" requirements for white liberals. After all DeVega is a "Respectable Negro" is he not?

Mind you this isn't a defense of black conservatives or even a specific defense of Cain's positions. The charges leveled by DeVega simply are not supported by the evidence provided. Therefore he was wrong to publish the piece. Wrong is wrong regardless of which end of the political spectrum it comes from. and to quote Cain's pappy:

I does not care what DeVega thinks of that charge.

Amos Wison on Manhood.

" A man should be threatening. Particularly to his enemies"



Real Talk.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-7-2011

Education and the State of The Union

Obama made another one of his eloquent speeches last night. One of the themes was about education and how America is falling behind other nations and how Americans need to look for college educations in order to compete. And how we needed a "Sputnik moment".

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started to educate their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home of the world largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer...We're home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than anyplace else on Earth...America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree...

Let's take a look at these statements, particularly in reference to yesterday's post (Sell me what?) Firstly let's look at world history. Historically neither China or India were educational or economic competitors to the US. China was effectively under colonial control by the British and so was India. These countries did not become competitors to the US until their independence. Thus historically the US (and Europe) has not had any competition from "colored folk" for most of it's existence.

The second important thing is that the US military and space programs were directly affected by the importation of Nazi scientists after WW2. Those familiar with the Nazi regime know full well that the Nazis had some serious scientists and had very bright rocket scientists. These persons were allowed to avoid prosecution and were given express entry into the US so that their knowledge could be used. I suppose this fact was somewhat inconvenient for a State of the Union speech.

So that countries are hell bent to educate their populations after being under the heel of exploitative colonialism, which had left the vast majority of the population illiterate, should come as no surprise at all. However; there is a bad side to the mass education of the population.

In China there is a growing number of college grads who are unemployed or employed in jobs they are grossly overqualified for. This of course is what happens when there is a gross mismatch of available jobs and education levels of job seekers. Here's the rub with a highly educated population in a country that has a low wages: they cost corporations less than the ones in the "first world". That is a direct threat to college grads in the US. All manner of "college required" jobs can be done by cheaper labour overseas: accounting, programming, some medical, architecture, etc.

In the 90's corps began to see how they could move low skilled labour out of the US due to the lower costs of labour in those countries as well as a more compliant (read: desperate) government. They soon discovered that this could also be done with people with higher levels of education. It is not an accident that the huge increases in corporate profits have been accompanied by the shrinking of the US workforce which is usually covered up by hailing the " high productivity of the American worker."

Paul Craig Roberts, often seen on the Counterpunch website has repeatedly shown that much of the jobs that have been created even before the crash are those in the service industries and generally pay significantly less than the jobs that have disappeared. In many cases people who have high qualifications simply do not have the employment opportunities that match their skills.

Thus looking at the situation in China, and my discussion of the employment matrix it is clear that attempting to educate the US population into full employment is not going to work. Significant manufacturing must return to the US for this to happen. Exactly how many degreed administrative assistants are we going to have?

Also while technology is a great thing, I am concerned with the increasing "dehumanization" of work. I discussed this back in 2004 using I Robot as an example:

Therefore there still must be some means of making money. As we know, all throughout human history, where there is class there are those who are deprived. Clearly, everyone cannot be an Accountant or a Programmer and clearly even if they could, there would not be enough jobs to go around. So where are these people in this 2035 Chicago? Is there some huge welfare state going on? I'm not sure, but the absence of regular people doing regular things just bothered me. Currently (Aug 2004)...So if it is true that high wage/low education jobs are not being created (or worse yet disappearing) then how does the future presented in I Robot even exist? very few people would be able to afford a robot much less the 1 robot to every 5 humans spoken of in the movie. I know, I know, this is science fiction and none of this is real. But i think that the movie presents a very very real spectacle as to how the elite in the US view the masses, People without "ends" are expendable and replaceable and hopefully we can make them just disappear.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Sell me what?

I saw a piece of the news conference that Obama had while Hu Jintao was in the States. During that clip I saw Obama state that America would like to sell the Chinese things. When he attempted to list what Americans would like to sell he paused for a moment and then listed cars and ..uh.. software. The clip ended there but I think it would be instructive to think of what exactly the US has to offer the Chinese.

We could sell the Chinese cars and apparently they do like some American brands such as Buick and GM is reportedly selling more cars in China than in the US. However; slowly but surely they are building up their own auto industry and one of them, Geely bought one of Ford's brands.

But what won't we be selling to the Chinese?
TV's? We don't make those anymore.

Clothes? Check the labels, Not happening.

Cell phones? Ah no. Cause even though Apple's an American company the phone is manufactured in China, so really that's a local product. This either phones, Taiwan, Korea or China. Not selling them that stuff.

Tools? I'm not sure how popular Craftman tools are over there but from the things I see in Home Depot, The Chinese have plenty of their own.

Toys? That is the sound of me laughing.

Computers? Yeah, I'm having another laugh.

Solar Panels? China's making their own.

Windmills? You did catch the controversy surrounding the use of Reinvestment Act funds to buy Chinese made windmills right?

I'm sure if I thought about it hard enough I could come up with a lot of things that we won't be selling the Chinese anytime soon. This brings us to the larger problem. Having exported so many manufacturing jobs and so much industry off shore, millions have been left unemployed and with little prospects. Let me explain.

I supported the auto bailout and not the bank/wall street bailout for the following reasons:

1) Automobile production necessitates manufacturing which employs a great deal of people, particularly those who are what we'd consider "under-educated". These persons make up the majority of the people I the US and a large percentage of the unemployed.

2) manufacturing also employs the tradesmen and those who we'd call semi-skilled.

3) above these are a lesser number of managers who either worked themselves up the ladder or had some college experience to justify such positions.

4) Suppliers who employ people in specific areas. As they are not directly tied to automaker they are another level of employment of semi-skilled and skilled tradesmen.

5) higher up in the automaker are the engineers, accountants and other various white collar employees (ignoring admin assistants). They are relatively few relative to the line workers

6) Outside advertisers. Anyone in the magazine industry can tell you that the auto industry represents a large portion of advertising and thus the auto industry is responsible for A lot of jobs for artists, web site designers, etc.

I'm going to leave out the dealerships, the auto parts supply stores and independent garages, but the point is clear, that manufacturing businesses are the engine of employment in an industrialized country. So called "high finance" cannot begin to compete with the level of job creation that manufacturing does and is why the FIRE (Finance-Insurance-Real Estate) sectors are essentially a vampire class. The entire point of that class is to place themselves between the consumer and the products they wish to obtain. They add no value to the product. they don't even produce a product which should be very clear now after the housing market crash.

You will note that though unemployment is still at it's highest rate in years, the stock market has recovered quite nicely (almost 12000 as of this writing). If you are of the investor class (that is you create nothing) you are making a killing.

The Chinese are making so much stuff that I understand that there are traffic jams that last for days. Delivery truck a actually sit on highways for days waiting to deliver goods. Have you heard of any such thing in the US?

No?


To be sure there are serious environmental consequences to all of this. If the Chinese are bright they will see these challenges as opportunities to develop cleaner manufacturing, patent the he'll out of it and then charge the rest of the world if they try to use those innovations. Kinda like how corporations are going after each other in the mobile phone/computer space.

I'm old enough to remember when Ross Perot was running for president and talked about the "sucking sounds" of jobs being lost to Mexico due to NAFTA. It may not be Mexico but it's still a sucking sound and it has happened.

If manufacturing does not pick up in the US, the. Unemployment is going to stay high. If decent paying jobs that do NOT require a college degree are not created, then unemployment is going to stay high. It is these jobs that enable the US to sell stuff to other countries other than cars and software ( intellectual property).

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Garvey's Ghost TV 1-24-2011

3 point condemnation

“First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?”

From the NY Times

Baby Doc's Plan

Swiss officials, eager to clean up the country’s image as a depository for dictators, responded to the uproar by quickly passing what is known as the Duvalier Law, giving them more discretion to return ill-gotten gains to the countries they were stolen from.

But the new law does not go into effect until Feb. 1, which may explain the timing of Mr. Duvalier’s bold move. Under the current rules, states making claims to money in Switzerland must show that they have begun a criminal investigation against the suspected offender before any funds can be returned.

So if Mr. Duvalier had been able to slip into the country and then quietly leave without incident, as he was originally scheduled to do on Thursday, he may have been able to argue that Haiti was no longer interested in prosecuting him — and that the money should be his.

I was so surprised by this move by "baby"that I couldn't even write about it. It was such a bizarre move. The above makes sense though.

NY Times

At Stake in Southern Sudan

ndependence for the South will unleash its vast untapped potential. Apart from having some of the largest oil reserves in Africa outside Nigeria and Angola, Southern Sudan has the capacity to feed most of the region.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says 90 per cent of the land in Southern Sudan is arable, representing 12 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa's total arable land. Currently, only 16 per cent of this land is under cultivation.

All Africa

Dap to Kwame Zulu Shabazz for the notice

Garvey's Ghost TV 1-10-2010