Religion and Education

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom
-Proverbs

I recall reading that proverb when I was "gifted" the book of proverbs for a birthday sometime in my early teens. Of everything I read, that one verse stood out in my mind because of all I had witnessed up to that point and since then, was a lot of people with much fear of God but lacking seriously in the wisdom department. It's not to say these were stupid people, but as my knowledge grew and I became more inquisitive, the constant, "because of faith" answers became bothersome. It seemed to be a nice way out for trying to find out why a thing was as it was. There appeared to be this whole conspiracy to not give answers to questions that may contradict "biblical wisdom".

This especially held true for the specific evil ideology commonly referred to as "Evil-ution". Early on I was pretty ill equipped to even hold a conversation on evolution, and to be honest most of the people in the congregation were not equipped to have the conversation either. My interest in African history lead me to study human evolution and the origins of humanity which pretty much blew the whole lid off the Genesis account. Further study of the ancient Khemetic religion, further eroded the authority of the Bible. Education had irrevocably changed my understanding of God, what I then referred to as the "creative force of the universe", religion and religious institutions.

Fast forward and I would find myself posting on religion on this blog and making the comment that there was a correlation between education and certain religious expression. I caught some offline flack for that statement, but I stuck to my guns because in each case, I could demonstrate that there was a correlation between what a person didn't know and the specific belief they were espousing. Worse though, I found a rather strong desire for willfull ignorance. Not only did many of the individuals I was talking with, not know certain things they sincerely did not want to know any different.

Anyway, Gallup has done a poll which "staticises" (I made up a word there) what I have been discussing.

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

I have no doubt that such a thing is why we have these "Bible colleges" springing up around the US. College is not somewhere you go to become enlightened, it's somewhere where you get your ideas re-affirmed while being trained to be a good employee.

The relevant chart can be seen here:



Personally I'm pretty interested in the fact that of the people interviewed over 50% of people with post graduate degrees would say that the Bible is in fact the inspired word of God. But then again, post graduate covers a lot of fields that have little to do with information that would blow that idea out the water. But there is no doubt that as education increases, fundamentalism drops precipitously. It goes to show that a good secular education based on the "scientific" method is extremely useful in combating religious extremism.

Technorati Tags: Black Education, Christianity, creationism, critique, Religion , science

Gas Prices High On Purpose

Many weeks ago I received an e-mail that suggested a one day boycott of gasoline purchases, exempting emergencies of course. I deleted the e-mail. I did so because I knew that the outcome would be nothing. I knew this for two reasons. First and foremost since many people depend on their vehicles to go to work or to do work, even IF they were to not purchase gas as usual the monday (or whatever day it was), they would be right back on Tuesday and therefore the total economic cost to the gas station would be zed. Nothing. Secondly, the gas stations are generally the low man on the totem pole. Yes there are price gougers out there but by and large the gas station has very little influence on the actual cost of gasoline at the pump. Fact is they already paid for the gasoline, so the providers of the gasoline already got paid, will get paid again and won't even feel the one day boycott.

Instead I have oft said that the best means for citizens to send a message to the oil companies is to pick a single outlet, Exxon for example and simply not purchase gasoline from them at all. I call this the Texaco effect. For those who don't remember, Texaco executives were exposed for the racist bums they were and as a result people avoided Texaco gas stations like the plague. As a result, of the event the local Texaco by my residence went under and was replaced by one of it's "competitors". So my thinking here was that if consumers put the target on the back of a company such as Exxon, all exxon franchises, nationwide would be threatened with going out of business and since the whole oil industry is one big cartel anyway, there would HAVE to be a change in policy in order to save that company AND the jobs that would be lost by it going under. The problem is that Americans are simply too lazy to do stuff like that. So I will assume I'm the only person who has an ongoing boycott of Exxon-Mobile, BP and Shell.

So today in the NY Times, we get a report that states flat out that the so called "shortage" of gasoline is no accident. In a totally misleadingly titled article Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump, The oil executives said what is known by now by anyone paying attention:

In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels, along with some improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to reduce America’s use of gasoline by 20 percent within 10 years. Congress is considering legislation calling for a nearly fivefold increase in the use of ethanol.

That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.

In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Did you get that? companies are "reconsidering or scaling back" plans for new refinery capacity? reconsidering? I would have bought the argument if they said that the announcement devalued the current construction of refineries. But no, the plans for increased capacity were scaled back? Why is there planning? going on? What these executives want you and I to believe is that they do not have any research departments that foresee and project consumption based on different market indicators. They want you and I to believe that they had no clue that gasoline consumption would not increase. Got that? These multi-billion dollar companies with record profits know less than you and I about gasoline consumption forecasting.

Even worse is that by their statement it takes 5 years to increase capacity by 1.6 million barrels a day. Which means had they had intended to meet forecast demand without the huge increase in prices (enough of this silly inflation adjusted crap, ask someone who's making 30 grand a year or less if inflation adjusted $1.45 price means squat when filling up is 30 bucks a pop), they had to have started at 2002. 2002 folks.

Now read this:

Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined domestically.

More expensive why? Well if we've been paying attention to the news coming out of say Venezuela, then we know that not only do the oil companies own the domestic refineries they are usually the majority stakeholders in the drilling and refineries abroad. In other words, these oil execs are complaining about purchasing import oil that they already own! This is some real racket we have going on here.

More:

Until the mid-1990s, the United States had significant spare refining capacity. But because of consolidation in the industry, the number of refineries declined while unprofitable operations were shut. As demand grew, however, and capacity remained flat, the picture changed. In recent years, refineries in the United States have been running at or close to full capacity.

Get it. back in the mid 90's you could purchase a gallon of regular unleaded for 99c. I remember 5 bucks giving 5 gallons. But most important to this post is the admitting that the oil industry is "consolidated" which is another word for "monopoly" or "cartel". They admit that refineries were shut down for not being profitable.

Well thanks to Google we can find out just how "unprofitable" $1 gas was:

Gas prices boost Exxon, Shell profits

IRVING (AP) - Higher natural gas and crude prices helped Exxon Corp. and Shell Oil Co. increase profits by about 50 percent in the final three months of the year.

Exxon, the nation's largest oil company, reported Tuesday that net income was $2.49 billion, or $2 a share, on revenue of $37.62 billion in the fourth quarter. That's an increase of 49 percent over the $1.68 billion, or $1.35 per share, on revenue of $31.5 billion in the same quarter in 1995.

For the full year, Exxon reported net income of $7.51 billion, or $6.02 per share, on revenues of $134.36 billion. In 1995, the company earned $6.5 billion, or $5.18 per share, on revenues of $124 billion.

Exxon stock rose 87.5 cents to $103.37« per share on the New York Stock Exchange Tuesday morning.

Unprofitable? Really? Not good enough for you? Check this out:

For Shell and for the industry, analysts said they expected profits to rise on increasing demand for petroleum products now that all major industrialized regions are in a recovery. Many analysts predicted crude oil prices would average around $18 a barrel this year, up from just under $17 last year. In the chemicals sector, the turnaround will be even more dramatic, with some analysts predicting triple-digit percentage gains in profits for 1995.

I mean what are these oil companies taking us for? Complete idiots? Yes. Yes they are. We, sorry, y'all elect people who don't have the stones to put the brakes on these oil companies. Y'all put people in officer who work(ed) for Oil companies. Ya'll let the US Government get taken over by corporate lobbies and have turned public office into the place that goes to the highest bidder. So don't be shocked when not even the vaunted NY Times can't do basic research and challenge to Oil industry line.

Plainly put the gas prices are what they are because the Oil companies want it that way. If there are capacity issues it is quite intentional and they have admitted as such. So until the consumer puts one or more of these companies into the ground by simply not purchasing refined gasoline from them, we, the consumer will continue to be reaching for the soap on the ground.

Technorati Tags: critique, governance, Oil Prices, Exxon

Pew Make Stupid "Muslim Violence" Poll

So this morning I had Good Morning America on to get my daily dose of Non-news. So there is this "news piece" that discusses a Pew poll that indicates that Muslims agree with violence. That was the lead. 1 in 4 American Muslims agree with violence. So I'm thinkin' "And". Now before going into the actual poll, we really have to see the actual purpose of the "news piece" was to simply slander American Muslims. Lets be serious here upwards of 1 in 2 American Christians agree with violence. Why isn't that news? Why isn't that news since Christians claim to follow a man that was non-violent? Shouldn't THAT particular fact be "news"?

But back to the "1 in 4 American Muslims agree with violence" claim. So they didn't really say what Muslims they contacted for this particular poll. This is important because last I checked African-Americans make up a HUGE portion of the American Muslim population. Given that a large portion of this group are influenced by "any means necessary" Malcolm X, it wouldn't be at all surprising that African-American Muslims may not be averse to "violence." Of course one has to define what "violence" means.

The "news" report went on to "clarify" that the question was whether American Muslims agreed with violence in defense of Islam. That statement can be taken many ways. Someone can take the comment to mean that one should kill or harm someone who "defames" Islam or it could be taken as self-defense or defense of another Muslim who his or herself is being threatened or even the defense of one's Mosque. While I personally have issues with the first suggestion, the latter are pretty much a given.

Overall, the "news piece" was simply a piece of propaganda because it reported on nothing that a thinking person could not have figured out on their own. Nor did it put the question in any real perspective. Given the violence that American Christians are quite willing to visit on Muslims, I'd think that the 1 in 4 is a pretty small number and the real news would be in questioning why American Christians not only "agree" with violence against non-Christians, but why they actually commit this violence on a pretty regular basis.

Technorati Tags: critique, Islam, Christianity

Police Shooting in the Bronx

Just coming up 6 months since Sean Bell was shot and killed by the NYPD, we have yet another shooting of an unarmed black man by a police officer. What is more egregious about this particular shooting is NOT that the officer in question is black. After all we know that black men can and will devalue the life of another black man and have done so since before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (Maafa). No what is the most problematic thing here was that the officer ran out his house, confronted the would be hit and run driver and effectively decided on his own that the would be hit and run driver ought to be executed.

As we pointed out in our discussion of the Sean Bell case as well as the white boy shot in North Carolina, there is an increasing sense of impunity growing in law enforcement, emboldened by Head of State Bush. Since we know that Fermin Arzu was not armed, we know that the off duty police officer was not threatened with immediate mortal danger. Since Fermin Arzu was shot in the back, we know, beyond doubt that the officer, unlike the claims of the Sean Bell case, could not have been about to be rammed by a moving vehicle. The officer shot at the van at least 5 times. It is pretty clear to me, that given that Fermin Arzu was unarmed and the officer in question was wearing a hoody and claims to have been wearing his badge around his neck (Sean Bell's killers said the same thing). Perhaps it was Arzu who felt threatened. Not to excuse the fact that he mashed up two vehicles, but who's to say that the officer didn't brandish HIS weapon during the apparent argument and Arzu, fearing for his life attempted to get away? We'll never know will we.

And that is the point. It is not the job of the police anywhere to administer deadly force where an officer's life in not in jeopardy. I'm not understanding how this is simply not understood. Furthermore, this situation has a clear alternative resolution. Once the officer came out of his house to confront Fermin Arzu all he had to do was take down the license plate and get a good look at the man. He then could have used his cell phone, assuming he had one, and called in the plate and description and let his uniformed and on-duty coworkers deal with the situation. A clear, non-violent, no dead people way of dealing with the situation. I thought this up and I'm not even in law enforcement. How hard can it be for a trained professional police officer to come to the same resolution?

I said it before and I'm going to say it again, when police shoot and kill people in their own homes because they mistake a play-station controller for a gun there is a problem with tactics. When police kill people who's homes they've barged into by "mistake" and the owner defends her home, there is a problem with tactics. When this stuff happens not only are the officers involved at fault, but there is a serious problem with the leadership who are clearly NOT setting the example that killing civilians in the course of ones duty is NOT acceptable unless under very specific circumstances.

Don't expect to hear the usual Sharpton haters discuss this. NO. expect the usual about how Sharpton, etc. are exploiting Fermin Arzu's death for personal gain. Expect the same lame excuses about how the police put their lives on the lines every day. etc. etc. Expect someone to bring up the idiot in Manhattan that murdered two auxiliary police officers as if it is even relevant to this situation.

God forbid, that here during Allergy season I should have a sneezing fit and run into someone in a clear accident and end up with a hooded officer yelling at me with his gun out and I get my head blown off because I may not understand what he is saying but will try to take my chances by getting away from the man, in the hood, with the gun (not saying that is what went down).

Technorati Tags: Fermin Arzu, Police Tactics, Sean Bell

World N!gg@ Law.

When you travel abroad, they got world nigga law.
some folks get on a plane to go where they please,
but I go overseas and I get over sees!

-Mos Def
"Mr. Nigga."

So reading the Toronto Star from a link from Black Electorate, I find that Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party has been blocked from entering Canada because of a "five-year-old misdemeanour offence."

Now I'm going to be "fair" and note that Canada and the US have laws on the books that will bar the entry of persons with certain criminal backgrounds. Just the other day I was reading about some white professor who had tried LSD during research at a college and was barred entry into the US (or Canada) because the border agent googled his name and found an article in which he discussed his LSD use. Never mind that it was 30 years ago. The man was refused entry. Since 9-11 stuff like this has been going down. I'm not clear as to what the misdemeanour is and none of the reports that I've read so far have said what it is.

[Update] I don't follow Hip Hop concerts but as at least 2003, the Canadian Government saw fit to allow 50 Cent into canada to perform. I don't need to remind the readership that 50 has a criminal record. Furthermore it is written that:

Volpe's spokesman, Steven Heckbert, said permits allowing those with criminal records to enter Canada are issued regularly.

"It's permission that's granted typically about 12,000 times a year," Heckbert told the Canadian Press.


So I would presume that Negroes talkin' guns, bitches and hos are OK by Canada.

[/update]

What has gotten attention are statements made by the group that had arranged for Dr. Shabazz's appearance:

"What is to blame is the power of the Jewish lobby to influence politicians, to influence media, to influence whatever," said Nkem Anizor, president of the radical new Toronto group Black Youth Taking Action.

This statement illicited a response from one Jewish organization:

"The attempt to blame the Jews speaks volumes," Canadian Jewish Congress chief executive Bernie Farber said of Anizor's remarks.

"It is clear to us now that this was not just an invitation given out without thinking," he said in an interview. "This (Toronto) group, we believe sadly, makes common cause with the anti-Semitic views of Mr. Shabazz."

This of course is par for the course. You'll note that Bernie Farber claimed that the Black Youth Taking Action group attempted to blame Jewish people, en masse when the statement was pretty clear that it was directed at the "Jewish lobby" which any intelligent person knows:

a) does not represent all Jewish people and can be questioned as to whether they represent the majority of Jews anywhere and therefore:
b) The Jewish lobby cannot be synonymous with all Jewish people.

But small details such as that aren't important to the media.

The Toronto Sun also had an article in which we find the following:

black activist mob yesterday.

It's a "Jewish conspiracy," was one of the many anti-Semitic slurs.

It's the result of "white supremacy," was another common theme.

They are "enslaved by the enslavers' children" and "to hell with diversity." Do you want to hear more nonsense from a group claiming to be running an Education not Incarceration campaign?


I love how the relatively small gathering was referred to as a "mob". It's always "nice" to see white folk throw the word "mob" around when it comes to black people gathering. I mean really now, I'm pretty well read. I understand that mob can be used in "benign" ways such as "flash mob" which is a large group of people who converge on a location from a cell phone call to do something and then disperse. But we know full well that mob was used here in it's most negative connotation of "irresponsible" and potentially "dangerous" black people.

The next piece of foolishness is the supposed "slur" of "Jewish Conspiracy". I mean we all know that to claim that there is a Jewish lobby of any sort with any kind of power is a "slur". Unless of course it is the Prime Minister of Israel saying it. Right.

Moving along, we find this nice piece:

"It serves only as a divisive force limiting our effectiveness to fight the real and pressing issues of systemic racism, black on black violence, and the lack of economic opportunities plaguing the black community," said Rev. Don Meredith of the GTA Faith Alliance in a statement put out by B'nai Brith Canada.

"As responsible black community leaders we join with B'nai Brith in urging our federal and provincial leaders to work in tandem to ensure New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz does not have opportunity to spew hatred in Canada."

So what we have here are "responsible" black leaders. We know where THAT term comes from, but for those not in the know, whenever the white power structure needed a black face to cool out the "angry black mobs" they found someone, usually a Reverend, to be the black face that told everyone to cool out and how the "outside agitators" are only bringing discord into the peaceable community and upsetting the good white folk who have and are doing so much to help us "cullud folks". Different time, Different country, Same junk. Had the "responsible negroes" up in Toronto, been real black men and women, they would have first and foremost been upset that it is possible that legal excuses were made in order to stifle free speech. They would also have had an issue with outside, non-black organizations feeling that they can dictate what black folk should and should not listen too. Them days supposed to be done.

But most curiously, the above quotation makes it pretty clear that there is a plan or determination by at least one Jewish-identified organization to use it's influence in the government to stiffle the free association of black people thereby confirming the supposed "anti-semetic" comment made by the Toronto youth group.

Now I have my disagreements with Dr. Shabazz and I may not have been so moved to attend his presentation, but I damn sure am not going to have outside groups tell me what I can and cannot listen to. Furthermore, I will not allow Jewish organizations dictate to me what is and is not "anti-semetic" and I defintely will not be getting up on stage with such a group to lay a blanket condemnation on another black person committed to uplifting black people and the use of legal means to do so.

I hope that Minister Faust over at the Bro-Log will post some reports from other media sources.

Technorati Tags: Black Crime, Black Panther Party, Canada, governance, politics

Hating Sharpton

I've been feeling this for a while now. It reared it's head during the last presidential election and since the Imus situation and the acquital of the Duke Lacrosse players it has shown up again: Sharpton Hating (tm).

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

The Sharpton Haters feel that since Sharpton makes his living in such a manner that he the the reason racism is alive and well in America. By their logic, the reason racism exists in America today is because Sharpton and Jesse create it in order to make their living. Good one right? Now I'm not dumb enough to think that there aren't people who are so pathological as to want to make up slights for their own benefit. It happens. But I'm not feelin' that about Sharpton at all.

It bothers me that someone who made his living running up and down a wooden court and is on record making seriously derogatory remarks about black women, would even be considered a credible critic of someone who has been standing up for black people. it bothers me that sports writers, who make their living writing about people who make their living entertaining people by throwing, dribbling and hitting balls, feel they have something credible to say on what Sharpton is or is not doing. It especially bothers me because should any one of these types of people were to get shot at, or discriminated against, Sharpton would be the first person there to back them up.

It really is the case of most of these Sharpton Haters, that they are mad because relatively speaking, Sharpton is a free man. By a free man, I mean he can say what is on his mind about the state of America, without much fear of reprisal. He doesn't have to call anyone
"nappy headed hos" or hire people to make "race jokes". He doesn't have to trade on stereotypes or anything like that. Say what you want about Sharpton. Say anything you like, but the one thing that cannot be said is that he's a liar (We can debate the merits of the Tawana Brawley thing elsewhere). I have never seen Sharpton, in a debate where he has been caught lying.

The other component to this Sharpton Hating, is that many of those who are hating on Sharpton are doing so based on the reports by the same people that he exposes. How often is it that I hear black commentators talking about how Sharpton is a hypocrite for not going after MC's for using profane language. Anyone who has followed Sharpton knows full well he has been speaking out about such language, yet the same commentators are nowhere near the events where these things happens. There is no news in Sharpton talking about those things.

Certain black commentators have also tried to say that Sharpton has not addressed black on black crime. This is another completely false critique. I expect these kinds of critiques from white people. But the growing number of black talking heads and writing hands, have engaged in the Sharpton Hating. I can only surmise that these ill-informed people are acting, as usual, at the behest of some white "cheque writer" somewhere up the food chain. After all, as pointed out in the sound track below. Denigrating other black people will surely get you paid. Apparently there is a market for toms too.

Apparently to these Sharpton Haters, Red lining, mass unemployment of black men in places like NYC, predatory lending and corporate control and prostitution of Hip Hop is all the work of Sharpton. Yes, Sharpton is to blame for the Duke Lacross players waving brooms at strippers. Sharpton is responsible for the marginalization of conscious Hip Hop (which is not always clean Hip Hop). Yes, Sharpton is responsible for police misconduct and the drug dealers on your corner. Sharpton is why there's so many murders in Newark. Heck, while we're at it, why not blame the whole Iraq war on Sharpton.

So when you start seeing the Sharpton Haters running off at the mouth, or keyboard, recall who they work for, worked for or where their larger interests lay. Doesn't mean Sharpton is above critique, but the blatant hating directed his way: Suspect as hell.

Technorati Tags: Al Sharpton

Market 4 N!gg@z

For those unawares there is a video over on YouTube by Talaam Acey entitled "Market 4 Niggaz". I enjoy Talaam Acey's work and decided to do a remix of that piece. hear it below:

Market 4 Niggaz
Poem: Talaam Acey
Music Arrangement: Sondjata "Mista" Olatunji

Justices Gone Wild

Recently the US Supreme Court has made some decisions that I have found to be so disturbing that I have come to believe that the mental affliction that President George Bush has, is in fact highly contagious. The first decision was the one in which the Justices, none of whom are medical doctors or experts in the field decided that so called "partial birth abortions" are illegal. Well no, actually that a state ban on such actions are constitutional. Now this should bother everyone and in my opinion should not be framed as an abortion issue. Prior to this event, we have the Terri Shiavo case in which members of the US congress sought to pass a law based on their opinion that Terri Shiavo should not be taken off of life support. Much of this clear meddling in the personal medical life of both Terri and her rightful guardian, was based on the religious moral values of the members of congress that came out. If nothing else serves as a shining example of the reason for a separation of religion and the state, the Terri Shiavo case was it.

It was unfortunate that the Iraq war became the center of focus for much of the election news during the last election. Even though the Iraq war is a very important issue, I thought that this feeling that congressmen and women thought they could invade the private life of a citizen in order to determine what medical procedure should or should not be performed was a gross violation of the constitutional rights of US Citizens by one of the very bodies responsible for upholding said constitution.

So it came as little surprise to me that the Supreme Court would get in on the action. Reports said that the courts majority decision was that the Congress has the right to pass laws that they saw fit and to ban procedures they find reprehensible. There are a lot of things people don't agree with. For example I have no wish to be a vegetable. I have no wish to be live paralyzed from the neck down. I would like for my loved ones to be able to end life support under those circumstances. There are people who do not agree with that. I say that is perfectly fine for them. THEY shouldn't make such decisions but they do not have the right to dictate to me what manner of life I should live or what medical conditions I should be forced to "live through". In the case of the partial abortion ban, the justices put their personal, religious, etc. opinions over that of the medical establishment (with it's own faults) and experts in the field. While partial birth abortions may be rare, the fact of the matter is that some situation may arise where it may need to be done as the best procedure to protect the life of the mother. By using the language the court is reported to have used, it is only a matter of time before other abortive acts become "reprehensible" and therefore subject to congressional banning. Eventually we will see a situation where doctors would be unable to induce an abortion to save a mother until some other medical threat appears (often worse than the initial reason the woman showed up in the hospital). The NY Times had an article on that very situation in a South American country last year.

The next dumb decision made by the court was in regard to police chases. When they reported on it, ABC News noted that 30% of the victims of vehicle chases are innocent civilians. The issue at hand was the danger that such cases pose to the general public.. That 30% number clearly showed that police chases are a danger to the public. What I haven't seen is a report that shows how often criminals that escape car chases are caught later. Nor have I seen the percentages of captures when there is no chase involved. In other words what is the clearance rate for crimes that involved vehicles but not police pursuits. Is it possible to catch the criminal without the initial pursuit? If so shouldn't, for the safety of the public, there be restrictions on the conditions under which a pursuit will be undertaken? After all, given that most criminals in vehicles do not want to bring attention to themselves and want to survive to enjoy the spoils of their crime; wouldn't they be more likely to not speed, crash, dodge and weave and do those things that can get civilians killed? And if the ultimate purpose of policing is to keep the public safe, then why is a 30% civilian casualty rate acceptable but not a rarely performed abortion procedure?

Shiavo posts:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-kicking-horse-some-more-i-was.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/insanity-of-it-all-today-i-read-op-ed.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/teri-shiavo-and-you-even-though-most.html

Technorati Tags: critique, privacy, Supreme Court, US Constitution

Ishamel Reed Breaks it D.O.W.N

Yesterday I read Ishmael Reed's excellent take down of white and black media pundits who have been trying to big themselves up by attacking black people via Hip Hop and the repeated slander of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I usually take key quotes from articles and comment on them but the piece was so HARD, so TIGHT that all I can do is point you to it. Well OK ONE quote:

Imus also set himself up as the arbiter about whom black men should date. Of course, the majority of blacks have some European heritage--my mother has Irish-American ancestors on both her mother and father's side. But black people didn't become a Creole nation as a result of black men and white women having sex. Indeed, the first deadbeat dad of an African-American household was almost certainly English, Irish, or Scots-Irish. Both Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington's white slave-owning fathers had nothing to do with them. And though some black men are abusive to their families, I don't know of any who have sold their own children for profit.

What whaaaat!!



Go here:http://counterpunch.org/reed04242007.html

Technorati Tags: Al Sharpton, Conservatism, critique

Double Standards by the Numbers

So last week I attended a presentation given by some university students on the black woman. The point of the program was to discuss how black women went from being queens to being ho's and what should be done about it. The moderator of the event made a point that really should have been at the center of the discussion, that we should ask what is going on in the minds of men and women in black communities that they look at each other as pimps and ho's. Unfortunately this point was missed in the ensuing discussion about Buffy The Body, tight clothing and titles of porn films.

This was unfortunate because I saw a pronounced current of a need to control womens bodies. As if Buffy the Body posing in whatever she chooses to is THE problem or even A problem. One of the ironic points that came up was that one of the young women giving the presentation was wearing form fitting clothing and she's not a stick. I didn't have a problem with it. She didn't have a problem with it, but an audience member did find it contradictory that she was critiquing people in tight clothing while she herself was doing the same. Her explanation was that since her flash wasn't exposed it was acceptable. That's a pretty laughable point because it veers into a discussion of who is allowed to draw the line as to what is acceptable and what is not. But that's not really the point of this post.

The real problem I had with this discussion as well as the fallout from the Imus situation is the habit that many people, blacks included tend to stereotype black people based on the actions of a very few people. What is most startling about this situation is that other people are involved in the exact same behavior and are not called to account for their race for that behavior. Let me begin with "video ho's" as they are "affectionately" called.

There are supposedly 33 to 35 million black people in America. Lets say that 1/2 of them are women. If we take that assumption then we can say that there are around 17 million black females in the US. How many videos with black women shaking what their mammas gave them are there in current rotation. I'm not asking how often they are shown but how many of them are out. 100? 200? 1000?. How many women are in the videos? That is how many different women are in the total number of videos? 20? 50? 100? Assuming the largest number of unique black women in "booty shake" videos we could say that there are 100,000 unique black "booty shakers" in total max. That would be .5% of the total population of black women. So the question is why does 99.5% of black womanhood have to even explain themselves for the .5%? Why are we so fixated on the lives of these women? On the other hand there are girls gone wild videos, desperate housewives, and daytime soaps that show white women getting laid left right and center and yet no one even THINKS to either call these "actresses" ho's or to have various leaders explain how they don't reflect white womanhood in general. No it is assumed and expected that those white women who choose to show their breasts at spring break or whatever only reflect themselves (to an extent).

Since the young women in the presentation brought up porn, let me address that one. The largest population currently "starring" in porn are white women. But I will ask the question again; while the industry is a $2 billion one, how many actual "stars" are there. The fact of the matter is that there are not that many. In fact that 100,000 "booty shakers" that I estimated before is HUGE compared to the numbers of actual porn stars. While there are plenty of sexist language in pornographic "acting" and titles (as the young ladies read for us), a cursory glance across the board will let you know that the sexist language is not reserved for black women. Also a "study" of the vast internet porn marketplace will show that just about any and every racial group of women are "represented" (often at the "service" of a white male but that's another discussion). Again since the populations of black women involved in this industry is miniscule compared to the population of black women, why are black people being asked to explain themselves for the actions of a literal handful of people?

Lets look at Rap music. how many so called gangster rappers are there out there screamin' about bitches and ho's? 500? 1000? since the last time I listened to the radio I only heard the same 5-6 artists the over and over again I'm going to assume that I am being generous with that 500 number. so again out of the total population of black males in America (~18 million), how does .002% of the population (at most) suddenly represent black culture?

By the end of 2003 50-Cent' Debut album, Get Rich..., sold 6.5 million copies. If black people were the only ones purchasing the album then that would mean that 18% of the black population purchased the album. Much higher than the .05% doing the booty shaking, but still a particularly small population. But we know that black folk were not the only people purchasing "Get Rich". Knowing this, and knowing that Soundscan claims to not collect demographic data on the sales of music, I would venture that a smaller population of black folk, purchased the album (I'm one of the majority that did not). I would hazard to guess that even less black folk have purchased Snoop Dogg's individual albums. So again how is it that the entire population of black folk are being asked to explain the actions of the minority of the population especially a population that by and large does not control the means of production, distribution or broadcast o said population.

Ultimately, we should not even be trying to "explain" ourselves to other people. Rather we should turn the tables and ask them why they feel it is OK to judge black folk based on a small number of people. We should ask why, if they can "understand" that TV is not reality when it comes to whites and Asians, than why that "understanding" is suspended when it comes to black folk. But even more importantly let us not fall into the trap of being black woman body/sexuality police.

Technorati Tags: critique, politics

Double Standard Indeed!! *Warning! This Post Contains FOUL Language!!*

Again. THIS IS A WARNING. FOUL LANGUAGE AHEAD!!!


I want to send out a huge FUCK YOU to Detective or Sargent Fuentez or whatever THAT FUCK his name is.

Today we learned that the officer driving NJ Governor Corzine was doing above 90MPH at the time of the accident,

Detective Fuentez, in an interview aired on NJN News was quoted as saying that "we need to take into consideration the situation" in which the speed may have been "appropriate."

FUCK YOU.

From all the people in NJ who have had the indignity of being harassed by police speed traps, being followed and had our bank accounts tapped. How dare you even SAY something like that when if any civilian was caught doing less than that would be laughed out of court if they even attempted to say "I was late." " I was in a rush for an important meeting."

FUCK YOU.

NJ resident.

Speaking Of Double Standards

I was going to post on the whole double standard thing, but Dr. Edward Rhymes, who've I've had an online debate with before has an excellent post on the matter so I'll let him take the stage:

Eric Clapton's "Cocaine" and the Beatles "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" (LSD, as well as almost anything by Jefferson Airplane or Spaceship. Several songs from "Tommy" and Pink Floyd's "The Wall" are well known drug songs. "Catholic girls", "Centerfold", "Sugar Walls" by Van Halen were raunchy, misogynistic, lust-driven rock refrains. Even the country music legend Kenny Rogers in his legendary ballad, “Coward Of The County,” spoke of a violent gang-rape and then a triple-homicide by the song’s hero to avenge his assaulted lover. Marilyn Manson declared that one of the aims of his provocative persona was to see how much it would take to get the moralists as mad at white artists as they got about 2LiveCrew. He said it took fake boobs, Satanism, simulated sex on stage, death and angst along with semi-explicit lyrics, to get the same screaming the 2LiveCrew got for one song. Manson thought this reaction was hypocritical and hilarious.

I'm going to probably follow up with a post that addresses the following question posed in Rhymes' post:

Savage further asserts that the race-based double standard applies to violent content in music as well."There was the Eric Clapton remake of Marley's 'I Shot the Sheriff,' and there was little to be said. But then you have the 'Cop Killer' song by Ice-T and it's dangerous and threatening."

In this same article Cynthia Fuchs, an associate professor at George Mason University, affirmed that “the public seems far more disturbed by misogynistic lyrics in the music of rap and hip hop artists who are largely black than similar lyrics in rock music, perceived by most as a white genre.”

From The Notebooks Of Dr. Brain

From The Notebooks Of Dr. Brain is a Sci-Fi book from the mind of Minister Faust of the Bro-Log and I entered into reading it with high expectations.

When I started the book I was confused by the numerous acronyms that were thrown at me in the midst of a battle that was the opening of the book. I had to put the book down. This is not a fault of the author. It was me. I've found that since I deal with computers and computer language most of the time, I needed to adjust my mind for this book, much like I do for anything non-technical. This was a good move on my part.

Once I returned to the book, I soon became very impressed with the author's mixing of history, fiction, psycho-analysis and humor. Lots of humor. Once I got my mind wrapped around the acronyms I found that they were indeed coded references to some sort of historical account, social issue or something that would strike me later or the next day. My favorite by far is the Notorious N-I-G. Personally I think a college class could be taught on the numerous "oddly" named superheroes. I still haven't figured out yet whether Piltdown man was in fact a take on Piltdown man.

Personally I identified heavily with the X-Man. I don't want to post spoilers about the book, but suffice it to say that the X-Man Character along with the "Hawk-Kink" is a veritable encyclopedia of African history in coded form (like much else in the book). Ultimately this was a book worth purchasing and a good reader will also have a history book for reference. The acronyms can cause a bit of confusion for some but that's a minor quibble. I have to confess, I didn't answer the questions, but they were good ones that I do suggest people do answer for themselves.

Hip Hop to Pimp Hop, Hoes and History

"I'm a ho, you know I'm a ho. How do you know? Because I told you so."

So went the line in Whodini's infamous track "I'm a ho".


Thanks to Don Imus, the word "ho" has been placed front and center of the American conscience. We, that is those of us in the so called "hip hop generation, knew full well what a "ho" was. For those still unawares of what a "ho" is, it would be any person, of any race who was deemed particularly sexually "prolific". If the Whodini quote doesn't show that, then a quick review of pre-conscious KRS-ONE's tribute to the prowess of late DJ Scott La Rock:

Scott La Rock had 'em all.
He is a super ho!

Now, to be clear, back in the day, one had to be very specific about who one referred to as a ho. In fact in some circles one could have been ridiculed if one claimed to be a ho without "bonifides". You woudn't even THINK about calling Queen Latifa a ho. Nor would MC Lyte be referred to in such a manner. Black folks generally knew who a ho was and who was not. But that was when Hip Hop was still a "black thing". That was when you had to get mix tapes or wait till the Rap Attack on 'BLS or DJ' Red Alert's spin sessions on Kiss FM. Generally this was before white folks knew what Hip Hop was.

Back in that time, a time of party anthems, BDP, The Bridge, Radio and Dear Yvette, there was plenty of profanity and talk of black pride. I, self was introduced to Hip Hop via The Message blasting from the local record store on Sutphin Blvd while waiting on the Q6. That track was one of the few that made it on air. Back then, there were rules about what got air play. It had to be clean. period. You could cut a tape on anything you wanted but it wasn't getting airplay if you cussed. Period.

"My Adidas", "Bring the Noise", and Arrow Smith's colabo with Run DMC on "Walk This Way." brought White Suburbia into the mix. You had white kids in Bomber jackets and picking up Hip Hop music. The Beastie Boys, Third Base, and the like made Hip Hop more "accessible" to this soon to be huge market. Meanwhile something had to be done about those Africa Medallion wearing Black Pride MOFO's like Tribe Called Quest and DE LA Soul. Personally out of that era I think that PE and KRS one presented the largest threat to the social system than any other publicly known MC's. KRS one not only dropped science (however flawed) but HE was and IS a TOP RATED MC. Period. PE, fronted by Chuck D was the consciouness raising hype man next to KRS (in my opinion) since I think KRS One could out rhyme Chuck any day of the week (I'm just sayin'). After PE got you ready to fight the Power, you had KRS talkin' about "Bo! Bo! Bo!" and "You MUST Learn"!

It was about this time that the record companies, upon seeing what "safe" Hip Hop could sell after the likes of The Fresh Prince blew up with "Parents Just Don't Understand" realized that they had a "Nappy headed Negro" problem. If Hip Hop became dominated by KRS types rather than folks such as Heavy D and the Boys, then it would remain nitched. But if you made it "safe" then you could make some serious loot. So artists with less controversial language came to the fore such as LL Cool J. Now I'm not knockin' LL, I remember his very first album but we all know that after he rocked the bells, he really blew up on the Like a Panther and Momma Said albums.

Once this rise of what some called "happy rap" happened there was a nascent 'real rap music" movement in which MC's would lament the ability to get prime time airplay. Hence we saw the call for "real rap music" and to "keep it real" though this realness was never really defined. Wasn't The Show real? Wasn't LA-Di-Dadi real? In retrospect what we were really seeing was a call for the more explicit rhymes that one could get a peek of late nights on the weekends or in the clubs. But even those would be tame compared to what would soon be unleashed from the left coast.

Just as this "safe" Hip Hop was brining Hip Hop into the mainstream, we had this explosion from the West Coast. NWA. Then things got "interesting". While it could be argued that tracks like "Criminal Minded" were the first "gangster rap" tracks to make it on air, I don't think anyone can argue that once NWA stepped on the scene, that true gangsterism and gang style came to the fore. First off, the very name of the group put "Nigga" dead into the public sphere as never before. Sure "Nigga" had been said on air before by black folk (The Jeffersons). Sure it had been said on a track before, but no artist in their right mind, until then would even THINK about marketing themselves as a "Nigga". NWA spawned BWA, for those with long term memory problems, that was Bitchiz With Attitudes. The whole West Coast Hip Hop scene transformed Hip Hop in ways that would lead to very very destructive ends. What is most important though was the deep infiltration of gang and pimp culture into Hip Hop music. Ice T and Too Short, along with 2-Live Crew (among others) brought pimp and strip club culture into the main artery of Hip Hop. Men were no longer hoes. Men were "pimps" and "ho" became the exclusive domain of women. Just as it is on the street and clubs. Once this happened Hip Hop was changed because it became a money game. Hip Hop became "this Rap Game" And for those familiar with pimp and gang culture, when you "run game" you are hustling and you hustle for one thing: Cash. Hip Hop stopped being a form of black entertainment and became a Cash machine, another means for poor black men (mostly) to make money.

One had to understand that once Hip Hop took off within' black America, anyone with a microphone and a tape deck could make a tape and sell it on the corner or out the trunk of a car. In fact the vast majority of Hip Hop artists start out that way. In fact most artists start out that way. Hip Hop music for the a large portion of urban poor America, became an alternate and legal means of income. It was the rap game much like the drug game: Another way to make money without bending and scraping to "the man". Of course the audience for such music was at first was the 'hood the artist came from. This hood, filled with people who like any other group of people, wishes to see themselves reflected in their entertainment, connects with the lyrics that describe their hood or the mentality of that 'hood. So that the pimp and gang culture with it's requisite mysogyny and violence is reflected in that music is not some anomaly. it's not some conspiracy by the artist. It is simply a means to get paid. Period. It is not much different than the fact that Western music reflects so called country cowboy life and certain types of rock music is reflective of white teen suicide wishes.

What is important to understand here is that there is no means to legally stop anyone from producing any kind of music they want. There is also no legal means to stop anyone who wishes to, to purchase said music. Commentators that try to act like the government can or even should censor rap artisis because they don't like what kind of music they perform are taking the wrong tack and completely mis-understand where the real blame ought to be assigned for the stuff they "see".

The problem Hip Hop has, at least in the greater public is the record companies and the FCC. The reason that we have the relative garbage we have in Hip Hop is because of the "rap game". Record companies want one thing: profit. They will do whatever is legal to produce that profit. It is legal business to record and sell Hip Hop of any stripe. It is legal to record and sell Hip Hop with racist, sexist or any other language. The government cannot legally do anything about that. Anyone who wishes it would ought to be very careful about what they are asking for.

The real issue for both record companies and certain radio hosts is: Why is there a market for certain types of music or talk?
Simply put, millions of people listen to Don Imus, Millions of people purchase Hip Hop albums. Here's the rub though: the FCC sets pretty strict decency rules about what can and cannot be broadcast on the public airwaves. For some reason the FCC thinks that Janet Jackson's titty is more offensive than calling women hoes. For all the protests about rappers using crude language, the fact of the matter is that on the public airwaves it doesn't get broadcast. There are "clean" versions of any broadcast track to minimize the radio censor's work.
While any artist can be "fired" by his or her record company for any lyric the fact of the matter is that these artists are recruited because of their lyrics. This is the profound difference. I don't care to prevent Imus from saying whatever he want's to in private. If he was at home with his boys and commented that those were some "nappy headed hoes", that's his business. I dont' have to like it, but he has the right to say it, in private. Heck he has the right to say it on the street too. Similarly, I don't care for the language of many rap artists but I don't have the right to stop them from saying it in the privacy of their homes. In fact I don't even have the right to prevent them from writing raps with that language. Nor do I have the right to stop them from selling it.

The issue at hand is whether a company wants to be associated with such ideas. Clearly the record companies have made their position clear: They support the artists "right" to say it and their right to sell it. The radio stations that carry the music also support these rights within the FCC regulations. The advertisers of the various shows also support the radio stations. Why? Because this is the "rap game" Hip Hop at it's most capitalistic.

Understanding that the entire issue here comes down to money then we can only deal with the problem via economics. There are stupid black people out there who write to newspapers and such that they don't listen to rap music. They don't let their kids listen to rap music. These are, in my opinion, elitist, shamed of being black, folk. Seriously. Not only that, many of them are hypocrites because Jazz, R&B and other forms of black music had the same criticism in their day. Look at it this way. If I'm a music producer or artist and someone tells me that they don't purchase rap music and that person says they want me to change what I produce. I will tell them to take a hike ( to be kind). No way no how would any sane person with mouths to feed, NOT produce the music that does so, knowing that they will not buy.
Hence, the real and only way to change the Hip Hop music scene is to put your money in the pockets of the decent artist. Clearly if you don't listen to rap music then you don't know who these artists are. Simply put conscious Hip Hop rarely gets air or digital play. And that is NOT accidental.

In the end Hip Hop reflects America's obsession with sex, violence and money. if people are going to be upset with certain artists in Hip Hop music, reflecting that, then we ought to be asking why we have a system that pays niggas to be niggas. We ought to ask why MYV can go from a no Rap policy to Sucker Free Sundays. Clearly Viacom and it's employees don't have problems with sex, violence and money. Also, I'd be interested in knowing whether or not many of the people that object to the culture of violence and mysogyny in Hip Hop are also willing to address the social and economic issues that push so many young black men to see Pimp Hop as the best means of alleviating poverty.

Technorati Tags: critique, Hip Hop

A Special Case of Profiling in NJ

Firstly, I want to express my best wishes to Governor Corzine and his family. I hope he has a speedy and uncomplicated recovery.

Now I want to get at a problem I have with this situation. When I heard of the kinds of injuries that Corzine received in the accident I knew that he was not wearing his seat belt. Given that he was riding in a late model SUV with at least second generation air bags; the trauma to his chest and legs made it clear that he at least hit the dashboard. Also of interest to me was the fact that Corzine was being driven by a NJ State Trooper.

I am very bothered by this.

I have been stopped on the NJ Highways numerous times. I have been surrounded by police, some with guns drawn. I have been told that my birthday matches the birthday of someone who recently robbed a house in a neighborhood I was driving past on Rt 17. I along with many other black people have been harrassed by the NJ State Troopers who have used inane excuses to pull us over and search our vehicles. I have witnessed prosecutors and judges berate citizens and threaten to take away thier licenses for offenses that had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with lining the pockets of the county in question (Paramus I'm looking in your direction). I've been pulled over on the Turnpike, in pouring rain for allegedly having a tail light out (it was not).

I find it particularly insulting that Governor Corzine was permitted to be driven in a vehicle, by a NJ State Trooper no less, without his seatbelt. So I'm left to wonder just who else the NJ State Troopers allow to get away with law breaking while at the same time they feel free to prey on the wallets of citizens and whomever else happens to be driving in NJ?

This is just another example to me of the crass indifference to ordinary citizens that I have witnessed in New Jersey (Hackensack City Manager, and Captain of Police, I'm talking about you).

So perhaps this will provide the opportunity for the State and it's officers and officials to re-evaluate the "club" they think they belong to where they can routinely defacate on citizens while excepting themselves from the rules.

Speaking of Hip Hop

Brother Minister Faust has an ontime post on the demise of Hip Hop.

the super rich elites who control the production, distribution and radio/video play of pop music in North America, the same people who bought out the small labels when political hip hop was in its ascendancy, the same people who replaced conscious hip hop and its aesthetics with gangsta and then playa rap.

He links out to a post by Nekesa Mumbi Moody who shows among other things:

Though music sales are down overall, rap sales slid a whopping 21 percent from 2005 to 2006, and for the first time in 12 years, no rap album was among the top 10 sellers of the year.

I am not surprised. Last weekend I happened to leave my place sans-iPod which is a rare occurrence. I use the iPod simply because the radio does nothing for me. As if to provide more proof of radio's irrelevance to my ears, I happened to put on Hot 97 here in the Big A. That was a mistake. See I was headed to the gym and wanted something upbeat. well after the third "artists" came on that had the same beat, same style, and absolutely nothing of value to say, I turned around and headed back to my place to retrieve my iPod. I mean, I'm not a tight ass. I understand that there is a "need" for mindless party music, but they lyrics were so wack, so empty and so damn repetitive (bling, hoes, whips, chains, rims, Crys, Holla, and walkin' it out) that it was truly annoying. I couldn't even tune the words out as I had been able to because it was just THAT annoying.

Now I understand exactly why The Strange Fruit Project is the last Hip Hop I purchased.

The Duke Rape (not so) Case

As I said in my original write up on the case. The men involved walked. As I tried to tell a few online "feminists" the case was weak and became weaker by the month. Does it mean that something terrible didn't happen to the young woman? Not at all, It simply means that the evidence is to weak to prosecute. I wrote, about a year ago:

The next thing that went down was the DNA evidence or lack thereof. I was pretty much certain, as I'm sure the DA was, that when the DNA evidence came back the boys involved would be on the hook. Well the DNA evidence did no such thing. Instead we found out on or about April 11 that the DNA recovered did not match any of the Lacrosse players:

Appearing today on the alleged victim's campus, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong acknowledged that DNA tests failed to link any of 46 white lacrosse team members to the victim. The team's one black member was not tested.

Interestingly, we note that the report wasn't that no DNA evidence was found but that the DNA evidence found did not match any of the white players...

For example, three defense sources, who asked not to be identified, said a forensic examination of the alleged victim found no tearing, bleeding or other injury associated with a sexual assault. Instead, the exam detected only swelling in the accuser's vagina and tenderness in her breasts and lower right body, the sources said.

Citing nearly 1,300 pages of documents given them last week by the prosecution, the defense sources also said Tuesday that the woman told police she had sex with three men around the time of the alleged rape, which she said occurred at a Duke lacrosse team party at which she had been hired as an exotic dancer. The men were identified as her boyfriend and two drivers for the escort service for which she worked.


This is what it really came down to. Says the prosecutor:

An independent investigation “showed clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed,” Roy A. Cooper, the state attorney general, said at a televised news conference. “ We believe these individuals are innocent.”

He said the accounts of the events given by the woman who made the accusations were so inconsistent that they were not credible. “She contradicts herself,” Mr. Cooper said.

Like I said: Reasonable doubt.

Knowing this, had the prosecution gone ahead and lost the case, which they surely would have, the prosecutor and the state would have been set up for what we call "malicious prosecution" (something I think the US Justice Department may end up learning about).

I do know one thing though. Don Imus isn't the only one with "nappy headed hoe" floating through his head..

Technorati Tags: Duke Rape Case

Nappy Headed Ho's and Stringy Haired Tricks

After thinkin' Mr. Imus's and Brian McGuirk's commentary on atheletic black women, refering to them as Nappy Headed hoes' and the game as Jiggaboos vs. Wannabees,

I think one of, if not all, black sports commentators ought to, from now till Imus is out, refer to white female athletes as "stringy hair tricks".

Since apparently using such descriptors does not warrant a fine, suspension, or any other than a half-assed apology, those black commentators should feel free to call white female athletes, "stringy hair tricks".

And for the info of NBC, that Jigaboo comment is right up there with "nigger." so in effect Mr. McGuirk took to racial name calling on air and apparently without consequence.

That's cool though, 'cause now we know. It's perfectly OK to refer to white female atheletes as:

Pasty, Stringy hair tricks.

Thanks, NBC for clearing that up.




He hee hee. Apparently we'll need to keep the pasty, stringy hair tricks as NBC and CBS are apparently at least willing to suspend Imus for 2 weeks. I would want to know what will be happenening to Brian "Jigaboo" McGuirk.

Edwards Get's It Right on FOX Debates

The Black Agenda Report has been consistently putting the CBC on blast for failing to live up to the expectations of the general black population. One the latest absurd actions of the CBC has been to contract with FOX (FAKE) NEWS to promote debates of the presidential candidates. That the CBC, through it's institute, would align itself with a program with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and folk like Ann Coulter, is beyond rational belief, though it appears that Earl Ofari Hutchinson can understand:

The deal is less a violation of principle and integrity that critics lambaste it as then just another business deal. The CBC's oft-stated mantra is that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. In inking the deal with Fox, the caucus is merely living up to its mantra. And since that's the way the CBC does business, its interest in Fox and Fox's interest in it makes perfectly good sense.

Well I guess, it's so much for a "different kind of politics" and underscores exactly why folk like Cynthia McKinney have to go. So the question really is, in light on Hutchinson's comment, what are the permanent interests of the CBC Institute, and how does lining with a patently offensive network serve that interest?
Well that question is pretty clear to Edwards, who has dropped from the debate.

”We believe there’s just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they’re objective,” said Jonathan Prince, Edwards’ deputy campaign manager.

Exactly.

Now does this mean that the debate in and of itself cannot be "objective"? No of course not, but the fact is that by holding the debate on the FOX channel, in it's current form, would be signaling tacit approval of it's format. I would hope that the other candidates refuse to participate as well though I'm sure the thought of losing Rupert Murdock money, which is the real "permanent interest" here may be giving them pause.

Now we understand that the CBCI is a non-profit and therefore "a-political" organization, but If I were in the CBC I would be very
concerned with the very public link that this deal has with an organization I would be linked with. In terms of fund raising, is the CBCI of the opinion that they could not raise funds by linking up with any other organization? Perhaps money would have been left on the table, but at least they would have their reputation intact. Right now it's as if the CBC was caught on the street with a ho. You can't be SURE that something is about to go down or went down, but it sure don't look right. Though in this case, the CBCI may be the ho.

At the end of the day for me, Edwards did the right thing.




Update: Apparenly Clinton and Obama read Garvey's Ghost. Okay. Probably not but it both Clinton and Obama have declined to dignify FOX with their presence. This will not provide the CBCI with any political cover for calling off the debate. They will have to answer to the CBC constituents for that dumb move and I cannot wait to read what excuse they will come up with.. well aside from that "broad audience" thing.

Technorati Tags: Congressional Black Caucus, politics

Interesting Read

The NY Times Magazine has an article on the Pope and his take on the de-Christianization of Europe (Keeping the Faith. It is an interesting read not so much for the focus on Christianity and Europe but for the more base message of the roll of religion and culture.

One of my critiques of Africans who adopt Islam is my perception that there is an arabization of that person. That is, I see Islam as a vehicle for Arab nationalism both political and cultural. I don't begrudge the Arab for this as every culture's religion is tightly wound into the culture and habits of the people that make it up. The Pope makes a statement, quoted by the Times that says:

“The Muslims ... feel threatened not by the foundations
of our Christian morality but by the cynicism of a secularized
culture that denies its own foundations.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures,” 2005



Ratzinger can be forgiven for focusing so hard on Muslims, or his misunderstanding of secularism, but for those of us who are Pan-Africanists this statement is very important. Many Black people have left (forcibly or voluntarily) their foundations (their own religious thought) for either Islam or Christianity (some Buddhists as well). This is very important because just as Ratzinger sees a problem with a culture that denies it's own foundation, but we Pan-Africanists see it too.

Today I was at a birthday party where a book was given to the birthday girl on women in the Bible. I was struck at how one elderly black woman could list, off the top of her head various women in the Bible. I was instructive to me to see how a large number of Africans in America can identify with ancient Hebrews and commit to memory their history. Yet most of these individuals cannot recollect a single piece of folklore from any ethnic group in Africa (excepting Sheeba).

Indeed in parts of Africa, Nigeria for instance, communities will essentially go to war with each other over religions that are not of their making. It is a particularly sad state of affairs. Here in the states, not toeing the Judeo-Christian line will essentially get one ignored (on a good day).

Another quote:

Ratzinger’s theme was “the spiritual roots of Europe,” and he criticized a culture that gave value and protection to other religions — notably Judaism and Islam — but that denied the same to Christianity. With his trademark bite, he identified “a peculiar Western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological.”


“I began to realize that if we cannot recognize the fact that Christianity shaped our culture, then we lose our identity,” Pera said. “And then how can we have a dialogue with other civilizations? That’s exactly what has happened with Islam. Europe is losing its soul. Not only are we no longer Christian; we’re anti-Christian. So we don’t know who we are.”

Let me restate that for the African using Ifa as an example, but could easily be any other indigenous religion:

“I began to realize that if we cannot recognize the fact that Ifa shaped our culture, then we lose our identity,” Pera said. “And then how can we have a dialogue with other civilizations? That’s exactly what has happened with Islam and Christianity. Africa is losing its soul. Not only are we no longer OmoOrisa; we’re anti-Orisa. So we don’t know who we are.”


If Europeans are pathologically self-hating simply because of a perceived denial of Christianity, then what of the African? There is only one African country in which the national religion is an indigenous one: Benin. So according to Ratzinger, the Bininis are the only sane African people on the continent. So if African people are reading Ratzinger's words, then what should they be thinking? If he believes that a people ought not to deny their religious heritage in order to not be in danger of disappearing, then what does that mean for the million of non-European Christians?

Technorati Tags: Africa, critique, Pan-Africanism, Religion