Garvey's Ghost TV 11-22-2010

What to do With the Men

I had a brief discussion yesterday in regards to the situation of black males in America. I won't recount it here but I wanted to speak on something that has bothered me for a while.

As indicated on the right side of the blog I micro-lend via Kiva to Africa. When I see discussions about micro-lending (or other aide) a lot of it is about women. I follow Kiva on twitter and most of the tweets in regard to lenders is around women. When I read about people lending a hand to developing countries it is invariably about women. Now you may think that I have a problem with lending to women. Absolutely not. What I have a problem with is this apparent attitude that men have it made (or fucked up so badly) that they don't need/want help.

One needs to ask the question: What are these men to do? One of the most dangerous things one can have in any society are men who have no connection to anything. Men who are unable to or do not see themselves as a necessary part of the family or society become a danger to themselves, to the women and children around them and to society at large.

One paper I read yesterday said that the wars were fought and caused by men and that was why women needed to be funded. The statement is factually true. There is no disputing that men have been the primary causes of war. The problem is that we must look at the circumstances. Why are so many men, say in the DRC, killing? What alternatives do they have? I don't ask that question lightly. In reality what employment can they get that has any reasonably rate of income and "benefits" do these men have? If they wanted to start their own businesses how many of them could qualify for a loan? And IF they had wives and children, how many of them could actually earn enough for all?

How many of the men in these areas are actually teenagers and young men whom their society has created no productive space for them and for whom the military (which is nothing but a gang) is the only place they perceive to be somewhere where they are valued (for as long as they can survive)?

How many of these men had been under brutal regimes and therefore resolved that the only way for a man to rule was through violence? How do we condemn them and yet not offer a meaningful alternative?

It is clear that where men have a stake in society and feel that they can provide for their families without resorting to crime, that those societies are able to flourish. Women are relatively safer and children are better educated. They are less likely to to have power trips and rape women and abuse children.

Personally I micro-lend to males and females equally (as possible). It makes no sense to me to brag about how I helped 1/2 the gender pair. It is to our benefit to anchor a man to his family and society and to provide help for him to do so.

Systems

Our comrade Dr. Welsing tells us that upon figuring out her unified theory of White Supremacy (racism) it was as if a veil had been lifted from her face and she could see. Like Neo in The Matrix, the truth was all around him but he was simply unable to comprehend what it was he was seeing. I just had one of those moments where a read of an article on one topic reveals to the reader much about the current system under which he or she lives.

The NY Times posted a piece entitled: "No, They're Not a 'Hitler' or a 'Stalin'" where we find all manner of open "secrets" about systems:

Communism has never once arisen — not in the U.S.S.R., not in China, not in Cambodia, not in Cuba, not in Vietnam, not in North Korea — as the cumulative result of social reforms. It was always brought by violent revolution carried out by a fanatical minority, usually during or right after war. Once in power, committed revolutionaries sought to transform agrarian countries such as Russia or China into modern industrial states by oppressing peasants and applying political terror.

Of course this particular author is fixated on Communism but lets be clear, the US "democracy" was founded on bloody revolution (two of them actually). The French democracy was founded on revolution as well. All of these revolutions were carried out by the people who had reached a point where their wish to be free of an unresponsive and oppressive government outweighed the risk of death at the hands of said government (or ruling class). In the case of China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam,etc. we have a clear case of rebellion against the White Supremacist "West" who had colonized their lands and/or greatly disrupted the normal activities of their people. Let's be clear about that. The "fanatical minority" were the most organized and most motivated of a mass of oppressed and marginalized people in those societies. But as is typical of self-serving "western" authors, these people are marginalized and maligned for political ends.

And while the author may gloat about how Russia and China oppressed peasants, he conveniently leaves out the oppressed peasants of America. The same oppressed peasants who were used to build the industrial base of America.



Continuing:

After World War II, wise Europeans and Americans supported social reforms precisely as a way to hinder the spread of Soviet power. The Red Army had brought communism to Eastern Europe; the question was how to prevent its further spread to the nations liberated by the Western powers.

One thing that we learn when studying governments, corporations and other organizational systems is that once they are created they operate with the primary objective of preserving themselves. The persons who run and work for these organizations have a vested interest in seeing them continue. Eventually those persons will do whatever they deem "necessary" to maintain and protect that system. Knowing this the above paragraph can (and perhaps ought to) be read as "Wise Europeans and Americans supported social reforms precisely as a way of protecting their own power against those who could be motivated to remove such power from them."

Continuing on:

In war-torn Western Europe, democratic politicians of the left and right agreed that the extension of state services was the best way to assure democracy and to prevent revolution.Their policies were backed and enabled by the farsighted American aid provided by the Marshall Plan. American statesmen understood that the best way to prevent radical politics was to create contented societies.

Ahh the co-option game. having established that most governments have been established by some sort of revolution. One of the first things these governments do is to enact laws about "treason" and about waging war against the government. I have always thought it highly ironic that any state established by the people who acted in their group interest to remove an oppressive government, to then turn around and criminalize the very same acts they committed in order to free themselves from oppression. The above quote underscores the idea that the state acts to pacify the masses in order to prevent them from being revolutionary.

I recall one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek, Deep Space Nine. The head Vorta was discussing how to rule the quadrant. The worst thing would be outright and direct violence against the population. The best thing would be to convince the population that surrender and life under the new regime is in their own best interest. Save the violence for the most rebellious. This is essentially what the quoted text describes. by expanding social services, the people are unlikely to rebel because they will believe that the their best interests lie in the state. The state does not have to coerce obedience to it, it manipulates it's subjects into subjugating itself to the state interests. This is not to say that providing services is bad. It is to say that if a revolutionary group is arguing for a more equitable solution to whatever the population is bothered by, the powers that be will find some means of co-opting that idea to either implement in a way that serves them, or act to marginalize it.

Lastly:

Comparisons with Hitler are, if possible, even more far-fetched. The ideological foundation of the Nazi regime was racism. Hitler was a racist who believed that some Germans were real Germans and other Germans were not: the Jews, the handicapped, the long-term unemployed, the homosexuals, the Roma, the biracial. He thought that democratic politicians of the left should be placed in concentration camps. Hitler saw the outside world through the prism of a racial hierarchy, with Germans at the top and Jews and Slavs as racial enemies to be eliminated. He began the worst war in history to gain a colonial empire for the people he saw as a racial elite and killed millions of Jews and other Europeans along the way.

Racism as broadly defined by the general public may have been the foundation of Nazism, but to be sure the actual racist ideology of Nazism was White Supremacy. Nazism was in no way different than the common ideology surrounding the African before Nazism. Indeed Nazism is but a logical outgrowth of the White Mans' Burden. What was really different about the ideology of Hitler and the ideology of King Leopold as it regarded the Congo? Or that of the British in East Africa, or the French in West Africa? To be sure there weren't ovens, but the base ideology of the dominance of the white race (however defined) was and is clear.

in any case this piece is a good read for those who's eyes are open.

Truth Hurts

If truth be known, there is more justice in Burma under the military regime than in the USA. The military regime put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest in her own home.

The military regime did not throw her into a dungeon and rape and torture her under cover of false allegations and indefinite detention without charges. Moreover, the military “tyrants” released her either as a sign of good will or under pressure from international human rights groups, or some combination of the two.

But, alas, in America macho tough guys approve the virtual strip search of their wives and daughters by full body scanners and the grouping by TSA thugs of three-year old children screaming in terror.

Paul Craig Roberts via Counterpunch

Government is like...

On This Week a commentator said that the [federal] government is like the city government that puts up a traffic light after there have been four accidents. I thought that was an interesting analogy. I'd like to extend that thought.

If the government is like the agency that puts up a traffic light after 4 accidents then Democrats are like the safety experts that declare that the one traffic light is not enough but that there ought to be traffic lights at every intersection, speed cameras, red light cameras and cops at every intersection. The speed limit ought to be dropped to 5 MPH anywhere a person could possibly be walking and mandatory psychological examinations should be given to anyone caught breaking the rules because clearly those people are maladjusted and need to be properly re-socialized . Because, by God, accidents are happening and we just can't have that.

Republicans are the people who, late to the scene have no clue why there is a light at the intersection and decide that it is a case of big government interfering with the public and therefore have the traffic light removed. When the accidents resume at a nice clip, they then point to the agency as an example of incompetent governing and why that agency ought to be abolished and if they are elected they will solve that problem.

Libertarians are the ones who say that the traffic light impedes on the right of the people to freely move about and therefore not only should the traffic light be removed but the street, sidewalk and related items ought to be removed as well and the citizens will have to pay for road and sidewalk immediately adjacent to their property, if they so choose, and can set whatever rules they want for their piece of road.

Garvey's Ghost TV 11-8-2010 Dred Scott Alert II

The Constitution and Secession

A very good piece on the original Constitution, Federalism and the current crop of "back to the Constitution groups:

The Tenthers are fighting valiantly to reverse the 220 years in which that last item in the Bill of Rights has been emasculated and rendered effectively irrelevant, and they may even be gaining some attention, particularly in the states’ growing resistance to Obamacare. But it seems most unlikely that, with the other centralizing tools at their command, the Federal courts will give it much consideration.

And then when they finally see their beloved amendment in shreds, maybe then the Tenthers and other Constitutional-Firsters will begin to see that the U.S. Constitution, by the centralists, of the nationalists, and for the Hamiltonians, is not a document that will lead them to liberty and sovereignty. The only method for that, let us hope they finally realize, is secession.

This issue of secession has been on my mind for a couple of months. I think the US is fast reaching an inflection point. There are huge demographic changes going on. There is a vast gulf between generally liberal "coasters" and the "rest of the country". The former living relatively high on finance capital who generally don't produce anything necessary to live and the latter decimated by the exporting of low and semi-skilled labour and the importation of immigrants to fill other kinds of jobs. Usually those directly tied to manual labour and those things necessary to live.

The belligerence of the Tea Party right can be understood if you understand that the America they know and knew slips away (as they see it) by a ruling class (as they see it) that is quite arrogant and dismissive of those persons that are deemed "racist", "homophobic" and quite a few other "ists" and "ics". Of course they do not serve their cause by stomping on the heads of women. But they are mad. And if you saw what they saw as they see it, you'd understand the anger. Even if you disagreed with it.

In any case, historically when countries get to this point, one of two things happened: Mass killings of the dissenters or secession. The US went down the latter road in it's infamous civil war. As civil wars go though, as has been pointed out by authors more qualified than I, that a total victory of one side over the other is unusual. Usually there is some kind of negotiated resolution . Typically though, in a time when there was plenty of land available people "went and sat down somewhere" and a new country is formed. Like most nation-states, that country has it's own folklore and heroes (the ones who kicked butt). They usually have a common religion, language, monetary system and other things that we commonly call culture. Indeed the founding of the US is part of that rebel, move, settle, form nation pattern. What makes US is unique is that it claims to not be a land based on being "from the land" but being made under law. It is not "Our ancestors the Gauls" but "No taxation without representation" that supposedly bound the nation. There is supposedly no 'shared culture" just the law of the land and alleged freedom to live as one chose. Indeed such patterns played out. For example the Amish had an entirely different way of living and didn't even fight in the revolutionary war on religious grounds. They generally went and lived in Pennsylvania following the similar patterns of people with like culture deciding to live together. Indeed there were areas of America that were essentially transplants of Germany and other places.

We do know that at some point that there inevitably arose a dominant culture. That dominant culture, by and large has been WASP. Some of the hallmarks of the emergent US culture was Belief in a Christian God as an assumed thing. English language proficiency was expected of all regardless of what was spoken at home or where one arrived from. Newcomers learned it or had serious problems. Beauty standards, etc. have generally been under the dominant WASP ideology. Everyone who entered was expected to conform to this standard. The last 60 or so years has seen a direct challenge to these "norms" of US dominant culture. Notably the rise of immigrant groups who appear to have no interest in "assimilating" or "following the rules" and who demand rights that a generation ago would not have even passed the sniff test.

Wars in countries where there are actual concerns of civilian casualties (Yes that is some odd stuff).

The building of Mosques near where "enemies" killed Americans (something that wouldn't even have passed the suggestion phase 50 years ago).

And of course the black president.

"Real" White Americans, particularly males are at a point where they are asking "what about me? Where am I represented?" It's a funny question when you can see that white males as a group are well represented, in terms of numbers at least. But one has to see that the white man on main street small town USA doesn't necessarily see himself on Wall Street. He doesn't see himself on the pages of Forbes. He's NASCAR. He's Football. He's the "sexist"commercials on TV. He's laid off of outsourced jobs. He's 'patriarchal" and believes he ought to be able to provide for his family but His wife appears to have better employment prospects than he does and he's upset about these women telling him and his wife that something is wrong with their arrangement. His male children are made to feel inferiorized in school because they are energetic and wont sit down and read like the girl "model citizens" in school. He sees his masculinity attacked by "feminists". He sees his religion being mocked on TV by "liberal media". He is the global bad guy but sees nothing but "minorities" on TV committing crime and they are who he sees as getting special privileges are getting ahead. He. Is. Not. Happy.

So he first elects President Bush. Bush seems to be like him. Bush seems to share his values. After Bush he sees the Tea Party as representing his interests as he sees them. And his interest is getting his America back and his 'rightful" place in it. So here's the problem: If he doesn't get to a position where he sees that he has a stake in the country, by electing people who represent his interests and there's nowhere else to go, what is he going to do?

Now we understand why there is a rise in militia groups and rising "hate crimes". As I told some people who were mocking Christine O'Donnell, don't be so dismissive of her appeal. A lot of the more sane things she has said is common culture for a lot of people. Particularly Christians. When liberals mock these ideas, they are actually mocking a segment of the American people. And if liberals say "that's un-American" then they are saying to those people that they are no longer under consideration as a segment that has a stake in the country. It's very dangerous talk. It's dangerous because if they don't feel they have a stake and they can't go anywhere else (or don't wish to because it's their land too.) then the violence begins.

Witches and Christianity in Africa

One of the worst things you can do to a people is confuse them in regards to their culture. Religious conversion was used as a means to divide Africans. One of the reasons I left "the church" was because I could not in good conscience support an institution that inferiorized the African. The following is a piece on just how badly some of these churches are for the sanity of the African.

Churches, especially those belonging to the Pentecostal and prophetic movement (charismatic, revivalist, etc.), play an important role in the diffusion and legitimization of fears related to witchcraft, and in particular, child witches. The pastor‐prophet is an important figure in the process of accusing children of witchcraft, by effectively validating the presence of a “witchcraft spirit”. Pentecostalists, for example, present their faith as a form of divine armour against witchcraft, and they participate actively in the fight against Evil that is incarnated through witchcraft.

One of the main themes of the report is that widespread violence against children accused of witchcraft is a very recent phenomenon in Africa, and it is not related to African Traditional Religion, but rather is associated with the spread of Christianity and Pentecostalism in particular.

"Children Accused of Withcraft": New UNICEF Report on Africa's "Witch Children"

Let The Firing begin:

Right. Since Juan gets canned (in part) for making an honest comment and defending the rights of those he's scared of to not be harassed and Rick Sanchez was out on his ass 24 hours after making the claim that Jews run the media (or at least the one that hires John Stewart)m lets see if Silverman here gets the can from any gig she currently has.

Clock is started.

Garvey's Ghost TV 10-25-2010

Waka Flocka Obama video

When I first heard of this video I eye rolled and went on to the next one. Tonight though I was bored so I watched it. And to be frank it is a piece of classic parody with a lot of hidden commentary which may or may not be intended by Waka Flocka. Let me explain.

First off, we, as in "middle class" and "non hood" black folk sometimes need to come up off our class pedestals and allow other black folk to do them. Obama has, for better or worse, inspired a lot of black folk and parody or not, I believe Wacka to be proud of Obama like any other of the 90+% of black folk who still support him nearly 2 years after they voted for him. So I'm not going to get into Wacka on his decision to do his Obama parody regardless of who sees it. If we simply take it as "hood video" we can easily be insulted, but if we look at it as political-social commentary, then it reveals quite a bit.

Check the headliner:

I'm the mah-fuckin' head of state niggah!

A boast for sure. But how many black folk feel that Obama is disrespected because he's black and feel a need at some point to assert that he deserves respect as head of state? How many of us thought that the disrespect shown to Obama when he gave his speech to congress was out of order? How many of us read the GQ interview with the General (I don't feel like looking up his name) who disrespected the Obama administration? Yes, Flocka is stating a feeling that many of us have felt about the rampant disrespect Obama has endured being "tha mah-fuckin' head of state niggah". It's not clean. It's not pretty but it is exactly the sentiments I am positive has run through this South Side Chicago politician turned president's mind.

So at once this anthem, which if I was Obama I'd have on my iPod for "hype" before a campaign speech, is one of accomplishment ie: I'm black. I'm head of state. Respect that! and one one of warning "I'm head of state and I'll deal with you." I can't get mad at that.

The next item on the list is Flocka's commentary on the gangster state of the executive. Rapping:

'I run the military if you want that beef"

Isn't that what the president is currently doing with Iran? Korea? Hezbollah? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Didn't Bush do this? Didn't Kennedy do this? Flocka reveals the gangsterism inherent in the imperial presidency that we have today. He's not the first to discuss this. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, discusses such things in great detail. So again, I can't get mad for Flocka for highlighting this issue.

Thirdly we see Flocka discuss the "spoils of power"

I got a man chick, and a mistress

I'm not saying Obama is getting some on the side, but we do know that men in power including recent presidents and a NYS governor do in fact have or have had such "arrangements". Also he raps:

"I put a nice suit on and got some marijuana"

This clearly highlights the fact that men and women in "nice suits" are able to get away with illegal behavior which ordinary "hood niggas" would get jailed for. Again, I'm not saying that Flocka actually meant to point this out, but the clear statement is right there for us to see.


One of the other reasons why I can't get mad at Waka is because I have to see it as a modern day production of the Richard Pryor skit of what he thought the hypothetical black president would act. Are we going to give Pryor a pass because he didn't say nigga"? Of course he couldn't. He was on broadcast television. We all know Richard Pryor would have had no problem (until his meeting with Maya Angelou) using that term.

What about the "educated" and 'classy" negroes who on twitter and elsewhere post commentary on Obama's various speeches and media appearances with #shortobama and #obamaslapelpin hashtags which are usually followed by common African-American vernacular not to different from the presentation under discussion. Why are those tweets funny and acceptable but Flocka Obama isn't? Dare I say that negative reactions to this video are based more on some "white folk will see this and think we're ignorant" type of thinking?

So I close by saying, we, "non-hood niggas" need to be careful about the judgment we pass on other black folks modes of expression 'cause sometimes they come up with political commentary in ways that we would never conceive of. Even if it may be accidentally.

NPR and the Silencing of Outspoken Black Men

I don't follow Juan Williams. In fact until yesterday I had no clue he was attached to either Fox or NPR. He was simply someone I saw from time to time on my TV. Yesterday however; the white female CEO, like many other white female CEO's and top political dogs like Christine Quinn Of New York's City Council, flexed her muscles and showed that Juan Williams who like other Negroes who dare think and speak freely (if not rationally) doesn't have enough "Black Male Privilege" to withstand the white corporate power structure.

Let me begin with the actual words of Mr. Williams. Slate Online gave us the actual back and forth between O'Reilly and Williams:

"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts...

Hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals—very obnoxious—you don't say first and foremost, "We got a problem with Christians." That's crazy."

Williams reminds O'Reilly that "there are good Muslims." A short while later, O'Reilly asks: "Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there, or the Germans?" Williams refuses to play the group blame game. "See, you did it again," he tells O'Reilly. "It's extremists."
Williams warns O'Reilly that televised statements about Muslims as a group can foment bigotry and violence. "The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck," Williams reminds him. "Or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero … We don't want, in America, people to have their rights violated, to be attacked on the street because they heard rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly."

Are these the statements of someone who in the words of a NPR customer to thee NPR Ombudsman:

"NPR must and should take a stand against this bigotry and tell Williams' he must choose NPR's code of ethics or be let go to join the racist bigoted fearmongerers of FOX,” continued Khodr. “NPR can't have it both ways."

Really? Stating that regardless of whatever fear one has, that Muslims ought not be discriminated against and attacked in the street is racist, bigoted fear mongering?

Really?

Yesterday morning, in defense of NPR, Alicia Shepard, White woman number two, wrote the following:

One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPR’s CEO, is that the company felt he wasn’t performing the role of a news analyst:
“News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation,” said Schiller in an email to NPR member stations, some of which are upset about Williams' firing.
“As you all well know," she continued, "we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.”

As she neatly bypassing the snide remarks about Juan Williams psychological stability, this is total bullshit. First and foremost there is no such thing as objectivity in the news. News outlets decide what is an is not newsworthy. That is a value judgement and is in and of itself biased. Secondly by deciding what constitutes "acceptable speech" NPR like any other organization is in fact biased towards their own philosophy of "acceptable speech". To even act as if that is not itself bias is outrageous. The bias is evident in WHO is invited to comment and WHAT they are invited to comment on. When's the last time an economist from an HBCU was invited to speak on the economic crisis in America on ANY of the mainstream media outlets? Talk to me about bias.

To the point of Juan Williams actual and full commentary, there is no way to construe his total comments on the subject as being anti-Muslim. The fact of the matter is that he voiced an unpopular but in fact wide spread personal position about what he feels when he sees persons he can identify as Muslims. He then followed up that Muslims ought not be singled out or stereotyped (in his own way) due to these fears, any more than Christians do not judge Christianity on the basis of McVeigh. Then he pointed out the dangers of such fears by bringing up the recent stabbing of a cab driver in NYC. So it is clear that the firing of Juan Williams was a politically motivated move by the top (White?) folk at NPR.

Which brings me to the larger issue. Where are the black men on NPR? And if Juan Williams benign statements is enough to break the back of NPR, what other statements made by negroes are verboten on NPR? Last week was the first time that Tavis Smiley, to my knowledge managed to break the 'Chosen Negro" Embargo on "This Week" the ABC Sunday political show which has a handful (and there's plenty of space in that hand) of safe, appointed negroes who are allowed to pontificate on a limited set of subjects as if they represent "black thought". Gill Noble, the producer of Like It Is, has rarely if ever been invited to any of ABC's political shows including This Week or to do commentary outside of his perpetually threatened Sunday 12 PM time slot.

Lets look at NPR's Political news lineup as linked on the website:

The Morning Edition: Two white folk. One male one female.
All Things Considered; 1 Black Woman, 1 white male, Weekend with 1 White Male.
Fresh Air: 1 white woman
The Dianne Rhehm Show: 1 White Woman
On The Media This Week: (undetermined)
On Point with Tom Ashbrook: 1 White male
Talk of the Nation: 2 white men
Tell Me More: 1 black Woman
Weekend Edition: 1 White Male
Weekend Edition Sunday: 1 White Woman

Seriously folks. There is a total Black male embargo over at NPR. Why is this not a issue? Why is this not being discussed. Personally I find it more problematic that NPR has a No Black Man policy apparently in effect than whether Juan Williams is shook by a headscarf. How do we actually take the disrespectful treatment of Juan Williams seriously when NPR's news programming is 84% white with 0 black men?

You don't have to like Juan Williams or anything that comes out of his mouth. But when an overwhelmingly white organization decides to take out a black man simply because he didn't toe some PC line, you should be concerned. Very concerned 'cause it likely means they've been giving the shaft to others by simply denying them entry as NPR apparently does.

Garvey's Ghost TV 10-11-2010

No Wedding No Womb: African?

For the past two weeks the topic of No Wedding No Womb has been a constant source of, shall I say, bickering on my twitter feed. As is usual in the blogo-twitter sphere a lot of the commentary was predictable based on gender, age, socio-political leanings and most whether one was disposed to the idea that single parenthood is "OK". However; given that the author of said "movement" claimed that it was directed at black people, the sheer lack of discussion of how black people (meaning those in the US and descended from those who came via the slave trade) traditionally built their families and then how contact with the west affected these concepts of family.

For example, most Africans who came to America via the slave trade were completely comfortable with the concept of polygamy. It was normal for men to have multiple wives and multiple children by these women. The current social construct that a man ought to have and love only one woman is a very new concept for the African in America and is directly related to his exposure to white Christian "morality". So it would be fair to say that any black person espousing such thing as One Man one Woman marriage is merely parroting white culture to Black folk. Yet because many Black people in American are not aware of what their ancestors brought with them they are unable to discern what is an imposed system of thought and behavior and what is a natural progression of one of their own. This doesn't mean that all African customs are perfect and above critique but the African has the right to put his culture at the center of his thinking and to critique and change it in a manner suitable for his own needs instead of attempting to please or gain the acceptance of some other group.

In examining the No Wedding No Womb we note that the overall message is that in light of the high numbers of children born to unwed mothers and the observable social issues that are related to such a phenomenon, both black men and women ought to take seriously the idea that one ought to be married before having children. So what I'd like to ask is does such an idea correlate to any traditional African thought on family, marriage and child rearing. To that end I decided to look at the Akan people and the work of J.B. Danquah in "God: Coast: Akan Laws and Customs and the Akim Abuakwa Constitution. In that volume we find a discussion of courtship, marriage, divorce, etc. I think such an examination of the Akan is appropriate given that a large number of Africans in America came from that area of Africa and therefore came here with these concepts. Let us take a look:

Owing to the existence of multiplicity of wives in our institutions, the wife has to retain her maiden name thoughout and it does not need to be changed for her husband's."

While not directly related to the central issue of NWNW, this quote is interesting given the current propensity of women to take hyphened names (something I can not stand) upon getting married. Clearly if Black women wanted to return to the source, they could simply not take their husband's name at all (and husbands would not expect it). It also shows (at least as presented by Danquah) that marriage is clearly not a property based system as it was/is practiced in Europe as it relates to women. Clearly in the above a woman retains her identity within a marriage. Therefore; when we run across women who make claims that marriage is, by definition, the subjugation of women by men, then we know that woman has no knowledge of traditional African thought on the subject.

Let us continue on with Danquah's discussion of Courtship:

It has been my special experience to notice in forensic cases and elsewhere, the very affectionate qualities which young men and women display in their love affairs. A young man will make love to a girl, giving her presents in money or its kind as assurance of his love, and the girl will sometimes give return presents as a sympathetic assurance of her affection. Usually he meets with his sweetheart at different places and at the dances, but not very often in public for fear of scandal... Soon the fact of her courtship would get abroad, and it would be the young man's lot to announce it to the girls parents or guardians.

We would note here that Danquah has stated pretty clearly that there is pre-maritual sex going on here. This will be confirmed in later quotes. We can say that at least for the Akan, sex before marriage was not considered odd at all, but publicly flaunting one's "love affair" was frowned upon until (or unless) the man presents himself to the woman's family. The obvious question would be what happens if the man "knocks up" his lover? Well we'll get to that. What is important here though is that such an idea of abstinence prior to marriage can be seen as foreign and so we must ask who's ideology is one pushing when one pushes such a thing? Where did it come from? And what outcome has adopting such an ideology lead us to?

Continuing:

Money presents of a value recently regulated by law according to the position of the husband, are given to the parents and other near relatives of the girl's family. The intended husband should also, as far as his means allow him, make occasional money presents to the mother or grandmother of his betrothed, otherwise the absence of such presents may be a ground for cancelling the betrothal, for it is a test of the husband's benevolence. This, though not enforced by law, is a custom which the ardent lover never fails to comply...When a lover has completely gained the heart of his fiancee, it falls upon him to introduce himself to the parents of the girl. This may be done by appearing personally or sending messengers with drinks, to make the announcement. When the parents consent is given she automatically becomes betrothed to him. There is no need for engagement rings or other superficial imitations of the deed. In course of time the husband, having previously obtained certain domestic necessaries, would inform his parent or guardian of his intention, and it devolves upon the father, uncle or other guardian with whom he has been living, to send to the parents of the intended wife, for the purpose of "begging" them to give their daughter in marriage to his son or nephew. as the case may be

And so we see here something that is quite common across the continent. A man who wishes to marry must give gifts to the family of the woman he wishes to marry. There is no doubt that such gifting is not only a means of showing "benevolence" but also a way of making sure that a man has the means and drive to support both his wife and future children. You'll note that the husband to be must have "obtained certain domestic necessaries" prior to announcing his intention to his parents/guardians with whom he's been living. We also should note the extensive use of the phrase "uncle" or guardian. It is clear here that there is an assumption of extended family (or non related persons of responsibility) availability and involvement in the affairs of both single persons. Secondly we can observe that there is a linkage of both families. I don't know how many black Americans today can imagine having family members "beg" the intended's family for a wedding.

The Girl's uncle, (i.e, her mother's brother), has to be informed before any grant of marriage is made of his niece, but his consent is not always necessary.

So to extend the idea of "It takes a village to raise a child" it apparently takes extended family to wed one was well. It should be clear thus far that marriage in the Akan perspective is very much a group event rather than the increasingly individualistic approach taken by US society.

Continuing:

...Should a father or guardian of the girl refuse to give her in marriage, and signify his dissent thereto, the connexion should henceforth cease...It will be impossible to "elope" with the girl or to contract marriage under any circumstance whatsoever. He may continue his love but he must be sure that should there be any scandal, the issue of the illegal connexion will be "illegitimate" -- Not that the child would be disinherited, or in any way inconvenienced in it's general progress in life, for illegtimacy of children is unknown in our institutions. The putative father, can, therefore, in course of time apply to his child's uncle or other maternal relation for the presentation of the child to him. In this case he will be required to pay certain fees, generally comprising the amount the baby's mother (i.e. the lover) and her parents must have expended on account of the birth and care of the child. The baby's uncle or grand parents will also be pacified by payment to them of a sum of money. This rule also applies to the case when with no object to marriage at all, an accidental issue springs from the connexion of a young man and girl

We can take the above to be a clear example of how an African group dealt with such issues as unwed pregnancies: The man is clearly prohibited from being recognized as "father" until he compensates the mother and persons in her family that helped in the care of the child. In addition he has what is clearly "punitive fines". It is also clear that it is not consistent with Akan thinking to declare a child "illegitimate" as understood by Europeans. Danquah addresses this issue in a later part of his book:

The law, as it stands at present, recognizes as legitimate a child born to a man who had cared for an unmarried girl for whose baby he stands as the putative father. Marriage is necessary to make a child legitimate, but it would seem that among the Akans a bastard child is not particularly one whose mother and father are unmarried, but one whose paternity is indeterminable, his father (or fathers) not being known. Hence the name Aguaman-ba (child of harlotry)

This stands in clear contrast to the American definition of bastard in which regardless of the verifiability of the father, so long as the parents are not married, the child is considered a bastard. It is also evident that even the Akan have a low opinion of "hoedom" since clearly there is a stigma attached to a woman who cannot ID the father of her child.

Continuing into the meat of this issue:

If on the other hand, Kwaku had kept Adjoa in concubinage for any length of time, she being unmarried, and he subsequently applied to the parents of Adjoa for a grant of lawful marriage, the previous issue of their connexion automatically become legitimate as soon as the marriage is lawfully solemnized. It therefore follows that if the family refuse to grant the application for marriage, the issue of Kwaku and Adjoa's connexion would be 'illegitimate." and Adjoa's family would be the proper persons to give names to them.

We see here that legitimacy as used by the Akan only pertains to the circumstances of the relationship as it pertains to "ownership" of the child. That is a father cannot "legitimately" act as father or make any claims on "his" child unless he "does the right thing." You'll note that in this case, the father does not even have the right to name "his" child. So we can see that for the Akan, marriage brings privileges and a male who forgoes marriage does not get the benefits. Danquah illustrates this:

Now as regards the custody of children in general, the law is clear on the point. A child belongs to his father- or rather to his father's household, and so long as the child remains with his parents his custody is in the hands of the father. A mother cannot take a child away from the father. If the child is young the father may be ordered by Tribunal to leave it in the nursing hands of its mother. After the first two or three years of infancy a father can always claim possession of his lawful child [my emphasis]

It is clear then that child "illegitimacy" as discussed in NWNW has a solution in an African context. Firstly by de-stigmatizing the unwed mother by recognizing that it is the responsibility of the male lover to perform the proper actions to obtain legitimacy for his fatherhood. Secondly; since the concept of legitimization is squarely on the shoulders of the parents and not the child, The child is not penalized by the social group. Thus any man wishing to claim his "fatherhood" MUST legitimize himself by ACTING and DOING what is expected of fathers. there is a built in social construct that would discourage "single parenthood." After all to have to pay the mother, the grandmother and uncle(s) of a woman one got pregnant just to claim paternity is not something I think lends itself to "spraying their seed all over the place" as the author of NWNW posted in her FAQ. Look at the rules as set down by the Akan:

According to Akan customary laws, the upkeep of a child is the father's duty. From childhood until the age of puberty a father is held responsible for the care and welfare of his child. This personal responsibility for a child is held to be terminated when a son is given a gun and a wife or a daughter is given in marriage

You'll note that a father's male child is not considered generally a "man" until he is given a gun (a means of self defense, family defense and means of killing animals for meat) and a wife. Nor is a man considered legitimate father unless he has married a women who he has children with regardless to whether those children were created before or after "marriage". It is clear then, that a workable solution to the issue that NWNW seeks to address would be for African-Americans to be less "American" in their outlook on child-bearing and marriage and taking on a more African/Akan outlook. It is clear that slavery and the acceptance of certain European norms of thinking have brought Africans to a point where children are going uncared for and improperly socialized. Where both boys and girls are not being shown or taught constructive social relations which places value on fatherhood, motherhood, uncle-hood and grandparent-hood. Where children (and even "grown adults") are free to be disrespectful of their elders. In short as a collective our acceptance of Europeans norms have arguably resulted in mass dysfunction.

Cat Calls

About half of the people I follow on Twitter are women. One of the great things about Twitter is that I get to hear women speak about their experiences in a less filtered way than most of us [men] would otherwise. For the most part the insight is quite informative and by and large I don't opine on anything I hear. Shocking, I know. On occasion the discussions, particularly on the phenomenon of cat calling, come up and the commentary surrounding it can veer into some troubling ground. Today I ran across a blog post which I think highlights some of my concerns.

The blog The Intersection of Madness and Reality has a piece entitled "Street Meet: Black Women, Black Men, & Everyday Sexual Harassment" in which I found a couple of interesting points. Let me state outright that I don't take the matter of sexual harassment lightly and personally have a "no cat call" policy. So this is not a defense of those who engage in such behavior so I don't want to hear it.

I have a few problems with the piece so I'll start off with those. First:

“Good Morn’en”, says the toothless alcoholic who lives on the curb as I make my way to the bus during my morning commute.

This particular point came out as the first example of harassment. It bothered me most of all because despite the man being drunk (an issue I will address later) exactly how is "Good morning", slurred or not, harassment? It's not. fortunately (or not) we live in a society where people can and do greet each other in public. In many places in the south it is impolite to not greet someone on the street regardless of whether you actually know the person. Up north (and generally in urban settings) this form of politeness is not generally practiced and people have an attitude that if you don't know me, don't speak. This is purely personal and I cannot in good conscience label someone who says good morning (in whatever way he or she is motivated to do so) as harassment. I recall some 9 months ago writing that there were actually women out there who thought the mere speaking to them uninvited was harassment. Some blogger who saw that comment made a sarcastic remark about how I made it up. Well here's exhibit A.

Lastly, with respect to the described situation why is an alcoholic being used as an example of "Black men"? That would be like me saying that since a prostitute is a ho, and she's female, then all females are ho's. Silly isn't it?

continuing with the 'don't even speak" issue we have exhibit B:

Next time you have the urge to break your neck to speak to a woman in the street ask yourself would you put the same effort into greeting a male? If not, chances are your attempt at displaying ‘manners’ is a thinly veiled opportunity to show a strange women that you noticed she had a vagina rather than a gesture of common courtesy. Let’s call it what it is.

Of course a straight male is NOT going to "break his neck" to show 'interest" in another male. Of course he noticed you have a vagina (or should have one) and probably breasts as well. Welcome to the wonderful world of heterosexual sexual display.
Unlike some of our mammalian friends who have breeding cycles that come once a year or few months, humans are always "on the hunt". No amount of bitching (ahhhh, you like that?) is going to change that. And asking men to NOT approach women on the street or in a club or whatever is like asking a bee not to mess around with a Stamen. Not happening.

But of course there's more. Exhibit C:

I don’t owe you shit, not a response, not a smile, not eye contact and definitely not a chance to gain access into my personal life. I’m a person and I deserve to be treated like a human. That’s your prerogative if you insist on playing the role of untamed animal but you will not claim me as your piece of meat.

Well technically that's true. She doesn't owe anyone a response to anything. Of course taken to it's logical extreme this would be called anti-social behavior. However; anyone with half a brain knows that most of us would not be here if our father's had not attempted to "gain access" to our mother's personal life. And as indicated earlier, really anyone has the right to initiate a conversation with anyone else. It is form that ought to be discussed.

And lastly Exhibit D:

I don’t give a fuck if your ignorant ass grandmother, momma or favorite auntie told you it was ‘polite’ to speak to a woman; you’re words aren’t wanted or appreciated.

The above serves two points. First it re-iterates the flat out wrong notion that a man cannot initiate a conversation with a woman for the purposes of "getting to know her". The second point leads to the second part of this commentary. You'll note that the author has noted the alleged "women" in the man's life who allegedly informed him that he can "politely" speak to a woman. You'll notice the complete lack of male references. The latter point is in my opinion very important.


The next set of examples of harassment are more on point but are marred by, well you'll see:

“Hey Pretty Lady”, says the dirty day laborer as he rubs his dick, “You got a hus-ban?”

“Dam, you got a fat ass, Ma!” says the under age drug dealer as I escort my 11 year old daughter from martial arts class.

"“Fuck you then! What? You think you’re better than me?!” says the random Nigger on the corner in some urban hood that could be in any urban town anywhere in America."

What was that?

Nigger?

Really?

I was enjoying the piece until I ran across that. Why was "Nigger" necessary? Here I was thinking that we (black men and women) were trying to get away from the name calling. I can put down a large wager that had I written a piece about various women who had done me wrong or acted trifling and decided to write "Bitches' this and that, I'd have people writing me off as some misogynist. I base that on the responses I've had on Twitter after referring to two females as bitches when they had it coming.

But alas for the rest of this piece it's Nigger this and "random nigger" that. Really? Is the writer white? No, actually she states:

I’m ‘light skinned’

I'll let Kola Boof deal with that 'cause really I have to question the motives of a so called "black" woman who rants about "random niggers".

Seriously though I don't know where Tracy grew up or with whom she associates with but making a point about black males using "nigger" is bad form. It is even worse form because honestly harassment from males is not just a black thing. Just ask the women in various countries that have special buses and trains for them. So this racialization of harassment doesn't sit well with me.

But let me get to the meat of her discussion because aside from the points above she does bring up a serious issue. The author talks about having things thrown at her and the like. Anyone who reads this and much of the other accounts of harassment will see a pattern emerge. What kind of men have the time to hang around en-masse drinking in public places where they throw bottles at women?

Who are these men who are hanging around on the street with nothing better to do with their time but comment too passing women?

What kind of men make sexual remarks (or advances) to girls?

No doubt they resemble the boys who live downstairs from me who don't work, aren't studying or have little to no responsibilities with which to spend their time and energy.

What many women fail to understand is that men with proper manners and etiquette do not simply show up fully formed out of nowhere. There is no hormonal queue for "treat women like this". There is no biological process that teaches a male the roles of manhood. It irks me to no end to hear and read women talk about men as if manhood grew on trees and the "men" they encounter simply decided to avoid eating that particular fruit.

As the recent allegations again Eddie Long shows, manhood generally does not flow from mothers. I know this is an unpopular sentiment but take it from a man who was raised by a single mother. While I certainly learned things from her, MUCH of my concepts of manhood came from observations and conversations with elder men whom I was impressed with. I would wager that many of the males that the author of the piece encountered not only did not have respectable fathers in their homes (if any father at all) but that male figures who made an impression on them exhibited the same behaviors.

And do understand that for the vast majority of these males, having a woman berate them over their behavior is ineffective. Why? Males, particularly those raised in female headed households have taken female berating for their entire lives. Their ascension to adulthood is marked partially by the ability to ignore the negative "outbursts" of women.

I was recently watching a video by Amos Wilson who was discussing the Samburu. When the males are going into manhood they are required to state publicly to their mothers that they will no longer be served by her, live in her house, etc. His separation from his mother is symbolic of his manhood. He is no longer a taker but has entered the role of provider and protector. Generally speaking boys are socialized into manhood by their fathers and/or community of accepted males. I say accepted because in these societies males who have not gone through rites of passage are not considered men, regardless to age. But what happens when fathers are absent from the home? What happens to a community is which manhood is conferred by age and not accomplishment? What happens when the media which is accessible by impressionable young men push musicians with "pretty boy swag" or "gangsterism" as THE markers of manliness? What happens when young men see the "honorable" men who are garbage collectors, bus drivers and other non-white collar, non "glam" jobs, who "window shop" are spoken of negatively by his female peers? When the females that he is most attracted to seem to fall over themselves for the "rough" guys?

For a large portion of these boys they take those media images and the fellas on the corner as examples of real manhood. And those are the "men" who throw bottles, bitch call, grab their dicks at passing women. Not a few of these boys have witnessed their mothers talk very negatively about their fathers and/or the men in her life. So we are to think that somehow these experiences have not shaped a large proportion of boys?

So what we have are groups of boys (mentally) who have never been taught the proper ways of dealing with women. A boy who has proper male role models and mentors will be taught how to read a woman (or any other person for that matter) to discern when she's giving off the "don't bother me" signs and when she's giving signs that it is OK to approach. He would be taught what to and not to say as a cold start to a woman. He will be taught what to do to let her know that he means her no harm and that a "no" will not lead to actual harassment. He would be taught what behavior is unacceptable to be directed at him by women and how to deal with such behavior. Women/mothers generally do not teach these things to their sons. In fact a son is more likely to ask his mother about how women think and what he can do to get their approval. Understand that sons by and large are socialized by their mothers to seek out female approval. When they enter pre-adulthood and their brains get a taste of testosterone and the biological imperative to attract a mate kicks in, Such socialization leads to double trouble. Those untutored in manhood, will grow into adult males still seeking female approval and will act out when such approval is not met because such approval is part and parcel of how we values himself. Men who have been tutored in the ways of manhood do not have female approval at the heart of their self-esteem. There is a twisted version of this that goes into woman hating as compensation. Here the male seeks to dominate females as a means of dealing with his issues of inadequacy. That is not we are discussing here. If I were to meet a female on the street who I said good morning to without response I move along. I am not threatened by such rejection (or rudeness). I do not need to call her names or throw anything at her, because I do not have a visceral reaction to her lack of acknowledgement. My self-esteem is not bound up in the acknowledgement or approval of random females. My value is not in my dick so I don't need to grab it (or has been the case, display it) in order to get approval.

Generally then we must come to understand that men with "class" do not just "show up". There is no magic button that gets turned on once puberty hits. Manhood is socialized. When you see a man that habitually acts in a disrespectful manner towards women it is a sign of failed socialization. Calling these men names does not address the problem. Asserting bullshit harassment claims for public speaking is also not helpful. Unless we as a community take on the issue of the proper raising of black boys and the proper understanding and valuation of manhood these situations will continue unabated.

Garvey's Ghost TV 9-27-2010

Freedom of Speech for Everybody. Including Idiots.

A few weeks ago a pastor out in Gainesville Florida announced his plans to burn a number of Qurans. As expected there was a lot of hand wringing about what Muslims in the US and abroad would do when they saw this. Most pointed out that such an action would inflame the Muslim world and complicate the current military expeditions in places such as Afghanistan. While I agreed that such events had a high likelihood of happening, they were ultimately irrelevant to the issue at hand. They are irrelevant because in the US, where there is a secular constitutional government this pastor and everyone else [still] has the right to do and say things that others find offensive. That right cannot be abridged for the sake of non-citizens or threats of violence by those citizens that are offended. In short, one does not negate the right of someone with threats of or actual use of violence. Furthermore; I argued that the president and others representing the country ought to be making it clear that in the US we [still] allow for all manner of speech including that which would be seen as blasphemous and sacrilegious and that a democratic society must do so in order to protect everyone. That is what the troops that so many claim to support are supposed to be fighting for.

Some persons argued that the pastor's threat to burn his private property is akin to shouting "Fire" in a theatre. The problem with this argument is two fold:

1) The shouting of "fire!" in a theatre (regardless to whether a fire exists) is not free speech because doing so induces people to carry out a lawful activity that may result in their own harm. Getting up and running out of a building is a legal action. It is the mass confusion that would result in the possible deaths of people by trampling (which again is not something a person can be prosecuted for) is what is being avoided. This leads to point two.

2) The violence that would be directed either at the pastor or anyone else is illegal activity. Protesters cannot assault someone they dislike. They cannot legally assault someone who says or does something they dislike. They may not threaten to kill a person or groups of people. They may not threaten to destroy private or public property of others either. Therefore if any Muslim or non-Muslim who would be offended by the pastor's action had decided to have revenge by illegal means it is they and only they that have broken the law and who would be responsible for any loss of life or property. They have no existential threat to defend against which is in clear contrast to the patrons of the theatre who are lead to believe their very lives are in danger.

Ultimately my support of the Florida pastor was not about his stupid behavior. It was a defense of his right to do behavior which I do not personally approve of. Understand that this is purely a selfish thing. I defend his right to be an idiot because at some point in time I may engage in behavior that someone else thinks is completely abhorent and I would not like for my right to do whatever it is to be abridged by that persons sensitivities. I warned people that if they took their eyes off of the constitution because they are so self centered, then the government would eventually abuse their power.

As if on cue, news came that a NJ state employee was fired because he burnt pages of the Quran during the Sept. 11 memorial event.

There are a number of important problems with the firing of this fellow. Firstly Fenton works for the state. One of the state's primary functions is to protect the rights of its citizens. It must do so regardless of race, creed, color and yes political and religious leanings. The state cannot pre-empt it's employees constitutional rights so long as the actions of that employee were not done during his or her hours of employment, while representing the state or acting in a capacity in which the public can construe that his actions are on behalf of the state.

On September 11th Mr. Fenton went to the site of the current and supposedly soon to be remodeled mosque at Park 51. He was on his own time exercising his constitutional right of free assembly by joining a protest against said mosque. During that protest Mr. Fenton burned a copy of (or pages of) a Koran, which we must assume was his personal private property. Such actions, including the burning of the state or national flag, cigarettes, toilet paper, effigies of past or present presidents are all constitutionally protected speech. There is no legal controversy about this. The SCOTUS has laid this issue to rest.

Mr. Fenton was "ushered" from the scene by NYPD who found no grounds to charge him (a shock I know). So as it stands Mr. Fenton broke no laws and was exercising his right to freely assemble and freely speak while off the clock and out of uniform and no one at the scene or reading about the incident would have thought that Mr. Fenton was acting on behalf of the state of New Jersey. You would think that the highest elected official in NJ who is charged with protecting it's citizens constitutional rights on both state and federal would have come to his defense. No a chance. Gov. Christie decided to defend the state's decision to fire Mr. Fenton for exercising his rights.

"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.

"NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."

Ahh the infamous NJ Code of ethics. I am familiar with the NJ code of ethics. Much of it is on the level but a number of its codes fall afoul of prior restraint. Prior restraint is when a state attempts to abridge the rights of it's employees by claiming that certain activities must have the prior approval of the state. Those codes remain on the books because the citizens: 1) usually do not have the resources to challenge these rules to the supreme court.
2) Do not have representatives who are looking out for the citizenry.

What exactly is the "trust as a state employee"? Exactly what was he "entrusted" with that was paramount to his constitutional rights? NJ and the Federal government are not religious authorities. They do not have the right under any law of the land to determine what Mr. Fenton can say or do with his personal property on his time. The state MAY require employees from refrain from certain religious speech on state grounds by state employees. It may, for example, deny the display of the Ten Commandments on it's property. It cannot stop any of it's employees from posting them on their front lawn and it certainly cannot fire an employee for doing so.

Ultimately the firing of Mr. Fenton was a political move to pander to the group du jour. It is also a dangerous move that threatens the constitutional rights of every resident of New Jersey. Who gets to decide what "trust as a state employee" means? Who in the state get's to draw the line on what legal activity is off limits to state employees? Will it be a twitter post? A facebook update? Attending the wrong meeting? Your sex life? Perhaps support for the wrong political candidate? It is a slippery slope when we carve these so-called exceptions to constitutional rights.

I don't expect the usual suspects who fill my twitter time line with rants about unfair immigration laws in Arizona or about the right of Muslims to build mosques where they please (within' zoning laws) or who defended the attacks on the 14th amendment to the Constitution to come out against this blatant civil rights violation because who wants to defend a so called "Islamophobe"?

Precursor to H.I.V. Was in Monkeys for Millennia

NY Times via Science Magazine

scientists have found evidence that the ancestor to the virus that causes the disease has been in monkeys and apes for at least 32,000 years — not just a few hundred years, as had been previously thought.

That means humans have presumably been exposed many times to S.I.V., the simian immunodeficiency virus, since people have been hunting monkeys for millennia, risking infection every time they butcher one for food.

And that assumption in turn complicates a question that has bedeviled AIDS scientists for years: What happened in Africa in the early 20th century that let a mild monkey disease move into humans, mutate to become highly transmissible and then explode into one of history’s great killers, one that has claimed 25 million lives so far? [My emphasis]

I will recall the reader's attention to this

Philanthropy

The Koch brothers on why they give:

David Koch has acknowledged that the family exerts tight ideological control. “If we’re going to give a lot of money, we’ll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent,” he told Doherty. “And if they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don’t agree with, we withdraw funding.”

Absolutely.

Monday Linkage

Long time no post. Some links to people putting it down on the internet.

1) Given the controversy around the aborted (probably never would have happened) Quran burning Alexander Cockburn puts it down:

For their part, Afghans demonstrated in Kabul in anticipatory protest at Pastor Jones’ plan. They denounced disrespect for the Koran. But we also learn from earnest proponents of religious tolerance and interconfessonal amity that the Koran promotes respect for the Bible, (though not, of course, the Christian claim of the divinity of Christ – a view also held by followers of Judaism, whose Talmud locates Christ in hell for all eternity, boiling in excrement). What did the indignant Afghans say when, in early August of this year ten members of a Christian medical team – six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton, three women among them – were gunned down by the Taliban who claimed they were trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who screamed he was a Muslim and babbled some verses from the Koran. The group were members of the International Assistance Mission, one of the longest serving nongovernmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, registered as a nonprofit Christian organization, apparently not proselytizing. So, what if they were?

Today we also remember the passing of Tupac. Our friend the Red Clay Scholar writes:

'd argue that Shakur's life and influence in contemporary black culture serves as the metanarrative (master narrative) of Hip Hop post those stories waxed after 1996. What is most striking about Shakur's narrative is his desire to openly connect audience to his innermost battles, critiquing the same temptations and corruptions that he embraces as a young African American man. While exposing his insecurities and shortcomings, Shakur maintains control of his stories, both in reality and imagined mediums like his movie roles. He borrowed from difficult situations (i.e. the relationship with his mother or his rape case in 1994) to serve as the undercurrent for much of his creativity.

And our friend Isaac Perry also comments on 'Pac:

Where once Tupac posed with middle fingers raised high, vehemently singing, “Fuck the system,” today’s mainstream line of rap chorus singers blatantly pledge their allegiance to the system, bowing and praying before the gods of their own cultural demise.