What Obama and Ray Kelly Have In Common

I was very disturbed by the "kill list" article I posted about yesterday. While that quote I posted served to show one of the main points I have made about the current administration, further reading showed some other disturbing policies.

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

When I read that I thought of the NYPD Stop and frisk policy. This Find and Kill policy is essentially the NYPD tactic on a global scale. In NY, if you are black, live in a high crime area, you are assumed by the authorities to be a criminal. On the global scale if you are 'Muslim", male and live in an area where Al-Qaeda (or the Taliban, they are not the same) runs things or has a base, then you are assumed to be a terrorist. Innnocent? Too bad, so sad.< p/> When we consider the video of an Al-Qaeda stronghold in Yemen That it is clear that not everybody "of military age" is a member of Al-Q. If Al-Q has taken over a city what options does any male have? Does that mean that simply being under rule of Al-Qaeda make you a terrorist?

What if we applied such logic to 9-11. What if Bin Laden had said, Well since the WTC housed a segment of govt. authority (Port Authority) anyone in the vicinity or under their control who are "of military age" are valid targets? No? Yes?

It would seem that US policy is essentially: You are all the enemy.

How Far We Have Fallen

Last night I was very disturbed to watch NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Walcott make an announcement in regards to teachers who have been accused of sexual assault or inappropriate behavior. From the NY Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Tuesday that the city should have the final say on whether teachers accused of sexual misconduct should be fired, even if hearings determined that they should keep their jobs.

So the city, meaning the Mayor or the Chancellor should be able to overrule the "due process" procedure which would have found a particular teacher should keep their job (likely due to the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim of misconduct).

This is like saying that a judge should simply overrule a jury decision simply because the judge thinks the defendant ought to go to jail anyway.

How is it that a mayor of a city on the United States presumes that due process has no place in a country where citizens are guaranteed due process rights?

Mr. Bloomberg, arguing that the union wants to protect its members more than it does students, proposed a new state law that would give the city’s schools chancellor, or any school superintendent in New York State, the ability to override an arbitrator’s decision and fire or penalize a teacher in a sex-misconduct case.

Read that again. Bloomberg actually went on record that he is opposed to the concept of due process. Furthermore, rather than the teacher's union being praised for standing up for the due process rights of it's membership, they are being painted by Bloomberg and the media as "protect members more than students". That is absolute bunk. Supposedly in the United States, a person who is accused of a crime must be proven guilty. Sexual misconduct with a student (minor) is a crime. Why are persons who are supposed to uphold the state and federal constitutions seeking to publicly eviscerate them? Why aren't they being called to task for it?

“There is simply no reason that teachers accused of sexual misconduct should have greater job security than other city employees,” said Mr. Bloomberg, who was joined by several state superintendents’ groups at a news conference at Gracie Mansion. “The fact that they currently do is wrong; it is dangerous; it is indefensible.”

Really? No reason? It is "wrong" for the accused to be proven guilty? It is wrong for the accused to have a vigorous defense? This is wrong? I get it. We wish to protect children. I agree with that. If the city wishes to remove a teacher from the classroom when a report is made, I can understand that. Better to be safe than sorry. However; there must be due process that is binding on all parties. If such conduct is proven then the teacher ought to be fired and appropriate criminal actions taken. If there is so much concern about teacher student behavior, put cameras in all the classrooms and other places where teachers and students are. But to have a situation where someone who is accused faces just about all the penalties of being found guilty of a crime, without due process and despite due process is a total disregard for the letter and spirit of the law of the land. Such changes to the law would make it very easy for students who do not like a teacher (for any number of reasons, bad grades come immediately to mind) to report him or her for 'sexual misconduct".

I Didn't Say It

A story in the NY Times entitled "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will" Contained the following:

A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Now a lot of people get upset when I point out some of the issues I have with the current administration. I have been consistent in my position that if it was wrong under the Bush administration it is still wrong under the Obama administration. That if it is unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional. Period. I'm not going to change positions on principle because I happen to think the current president is a cool fellow, a fellow "person of color" with a brilliant wife.

Let us be clear, If you were gnashing your teeth at Bush and upon reading the above have already formulated excuses, then you are a hypocrite. I'm not even going to mince words with you. YOU are a hypocrite.

If you'd like to reason that there are things that presidents have to do, I will accept that on a limited basis. The qualifier is that if that is the case, don't serve me with the "change" mantra. Just admit that politricks and politricks and you're willing to play the game. Just be straight up with yours.

Zimmerman, Alexander and Stand Your Ground.

A lot of fire has been directed at Florida's Stand Your Ground law that was brought to international attention due to the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A lot of this fire comes from "Liberals" who take the position that Stand Your Ground laws are "dangerous" and likely inherently racist. The problem with most of the commentary (and petitions) about Stand Your Ground is that most of it completely mis-represents what the Stand Your Ground provision is actually intended for.

In brief the Stand Your Ground law was passed in Florida in response to a situation that a homeowner found himself in after a hurricane. Under then current Florida law it was only legal for a person to use deadly force against a person if that person was in their home or vehicle. This was a part of the classic English Common law Castle Doctrine. That is, you are free to defend your home and property from harm.

The hurricane had damaged the home and so the owner parked a RV of some sort on his property and was using that for shelter. While he was in that RV a person seeking to loot the owner's property entered the RV and menaced the occupant. The occupant leveled and fired upon the intruder, killing him.

That action put him in a legal quandary. He was not in his home, nor his car, and it was questionable as to whether the RV would be viewed the same way as a home. In response to this the Florida law was enacted allowing a person to defend him or herself from an attack anywhere they had a legal right to be.

Unlike say, NYC where the law is that one is obligated to try to avoid conflict and may only use force if there are no other options available to you, the Stand Your Ground law did not place such a burden on the victim.

Since the law has been enacted it has been reported that more people have been claiming "Self defense" under Stand Your Ground for shootings that we assume would not have been covered. I say assume because since there were no trials, we cannot know for certain how many were bonifide cases of self defense and how many were cases of "dead men tell no tales". This brings us to Zimmerman and Alexander.

George Zimmerman, who is facing trial, has claimed that his actions were covered under Fl. Stand Your Ground statute because he was attacked by Trayvon. Indeed the police initially let him go based on that claim.

In stark contrast we have Marissa Alexander who has been sentenced to 20 years for simply firing a gun at a man who was attacking her, but who has killed no one.

Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.

Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment. Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."

From the Huffington Post:

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside.

The contrasts here are clear. In the case of Zimmerman the fact that he exited his vehicle to confront/follow Martin was not seen as an immediate disqualification of the Stand Your Ground defense as it was with Alexander. Clearly if Marissa Alexander was supposed to leave the scene, then Zimmerman too ought to have left the scene. If the court is consistent, the mere fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle will be enough to have him convicted of a crime (though I'm not sure if that would be murder 2).

Secondly, Rico Grey had a restraining order against him. Therefore it was clear to the courts that he was a threat. After all they *approved of the restraining order*. Alexander was in a place she had a right to be retrieving her property with the expectation that she would not confront Grey.

If we look at the origins of Florida's Stand Your Ground statute you'll see that Alexander's position most closely resembles it's original intent. She was in a place she had a right to be in. A man whom was a known threat to her, who should not have been within a certain distance of her appeared, in violation of his restraint order. That made a threat to Alexander that could be taken as a threat to her life. And most importantly, Alexander did not shoot the supposed victim. Rather her "warning shot" had the effect of securing the premises without loss of life, unlike Zimmerman.

If Alexander can be jailed for 20 years for shooting a gun in the vicinity of someone who was threatening her in a place she had a right to be in, One would expect a convicted Zimmmerman to face far more time than that.

In the end though I don't have a problem with "stand your ground" laws. I think citizens ought to maintain their right to defend themselves, their property and others against assault. What needs to happen though is that it should be crystal clear as to what constitutes self defense.

Dear Ray Kelly

Today I read your opinion piece in the NY Daily news in which you opined as to the effectiveness and supposed legality of the Stop and Frisk program used by your department. Your piece made it clear that you clearly do not understand the legal framework under which your department works, and which the city and state of NY are obligated to adhere to. Since you are clearly not getting proper advice from your advisors I offer this in hopes that you will understand why you are wrong and why eventually your position will cost you, the city and possibly the state of New York, and ultimately the taxpayers a lot of money.

In your "treatise" found in the NY Daily News you stated the following:

The statistics reinforce what crime numbers have shown for decades: that blacks in this city were disproportionately the victims of violent crime, followed by Hispanics. Their assailants were disproportionally black and Hispanic too. Last year, blacks and Hispanics represented 96% of shooting victims and 90% of murder victims. Did the New York Civil Liberties Union and certain City Council members protest or demand something be done to reduce black-on-black violence? Not at all. Instead, they have directed their animus toward the Police Department, condemning the very tactics that have saved more than 5,600 lives in New York’s poorest neighborhoods in the last decade.

While the average person would take these words as evidence that there is nothing wrong with "Stop and Frisk", I sir do not. While your point pin regards to the criminal activity of blacks in New York is correct, you failed to address the actual issue at hand, which is whether "Stop and Frisk", as currently practiced by your department has actually lead to safer streets, or that it is legal. Perhaps it is because you do not wish for the readership to look at the rest of the statistics available on the subject. Here we find that since 2002 between 82 and 90 percent of the persons stopped by the NYPD had not committed a crime, were not about to commit a crime; nor did they have any weapons on their person.

If I were a basketball player and missed my shot 90% of the time no one in their right mind would allow me near their professional team. But we are to believe that by stopping between 80,000 and 500,000 innocent people per year has somehow actually lead to the decreases in crime is laughable. Why? Because "innocent people" do not, by definition, commit crimes. Yes, I know that concept is hard to wrap your head around. Take a few minutes before moving on.

Next I'm going to address your scurrilous claim that black leadership (aside from your apparent new love Al Sharpton) have not been advocating against black on black crime.

First and foremost, Your Hip Hop infiltration squad knows that since before the crack epidemic Hip Hop artists were at the head of those calling for peace. We had the Stop the Violence movement as well as the huge hit single "Self Destruction" which directly spoke to the people in regards to the consequences of violence. Hip Hop pioneers, in fact incorporated break dancing and rap battles as a means to decrease violence by giving youth a place to express themselves and compete when school systems were underfunded and in poor shape and unemployment was high. So we can start there. And that is just the Hip Hop artists. So on that front your entire claim that "we" have not been addressing violence in our communities is simply unfounded.

Secondly, since we know that employment opportunities for jobs with living wages and decent school systems are known means of reducing crime in any neighborhood, every time you see anyone discussing the need to invest in schools or to fund job programs, you are seeing a call to end black on black crime. I know these kinds of things are hard for you to put together but please try to follow. When we ask for our tax dollars to be spent in our communities for summer jobs programs, day care for parents, and the like, we are not only protesting "black on black" crime, we are offering actual working solutions. We know full well that although marching and other public displays have their place (which often go ignored by the media) we know that "shows" of displeasure pale in comparison to actual money and programs on the ground.

With that covered, let me point out that your own policy of "Stop and Frisk" is also contributing to "black on black" crime. The website Alternet posted a report back in June of 2011 where we find that due to your "Stop and Frisk" program. Black men are getting police records over possession of marijuana :

The vast majority of arrests in New York City are for low-level offenses, such as misdemeanors like possessing a small amount of marijuana or violations like selling umbrellas or flowers on the street without a license. Last year, for example, the city’s police made over 370,000 arrests. Most of these arrests occurred in New York’s low-income communities of color -- for example, although the majority of people who use marijuana are white, 86 percent of the individuals arrested for marijuana possession last year were black or Latino.

Let me stop here for a moment Mr. Kelly. How is it possible that your department manages to stop and frisk so many black people and yet it is white New Yorkers who are most likely to be walking around with contraband on them? Clearly by the data presented, most of the black people your department stop have committed no crime and have no contraband on them, and of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, the vast majority only have a joint? Really Mr. Kelly? This is what constitutes proper use of taxpayer money? But let us continue:

Many individuals subjected to aggressive arrest-driven police practices and subsequently charged with marijuana possession are coming forward with testimony that their arresting officers engaged in illegal search and seizure methods. According to these accounts heard over and over from people in different communities and who do not know each other, police often stop individuals, usually young black or brown men, for no apparent reason -- the persons involved are not engaged in what could be considered furtive or suspicious activity; they may have been walking to or from their school or workplace or been on a personal errand.... In another clear violation of their rights, the police conduct an aggressive search without asking permission and without any evident indication that the persons detained are carrying a weapon or contraband. The police reach into people’s pockets and crotch areas and/or tell them to remove their shoes. The police then confiscate the hidden marijuana and later claim to the court that the substance was open to public view,

So not only do your officers blatantly disregard the 4th and 14th Amendment rights of these individuals they are routinely committing perjury. Is it the policy of the NYPD to have officers commit perjury? Are you aware that such behavior endangers the successful prosecution of actual criminals? Are you aware that such actions lead to juries who do not believe the testimony of your officers and the district attorneys who depend on such testimony for trial? Does it not bother you or the Mayor or the Governor that your officers are undermining the very system you claim to believe in?

Continuing:

Criminal justice contact can also limit an individual’s job prospects, especially in New York where over 100 professions, ranging from barber to attorney, require licenses obtained from state authorities. Studies have shown that arrests alone can be an obstacle or even a bar to employment. New York City’s school system, for instance, mandates that an employee report any arrest, even for a violation, and will frequently suspend or reassign a teacher while a case is pending. Even where arrests do not legally or technically prohibit employment, employers will always prefer job candidates who have had no contact with the criminal justice system. The damage done in depriving people of jobs extends, of course, to the families who will suffer undue hardship when their breadwinners cannot find gainful employment

So not only is "Stop And Frisk" a violation of the constitutional rights of those being stopped, but the illegal searches and perjury committed by your officers lead to arrest records. It is well known that black males with arrest records are less likely to find employment than even white males with actual felony convictions. So not only have the actions of the NYPD violated the rights of citizens but due to illegal searches and perjury your officer's actions have decreased the employability of countless young men who may be more tempted to say "fuck it" and commit a major crime. That doesn't excuse the decision, but why are tax payer's dollars going to activities that would decrease the ability of a citizen to be productive?

Lastly, allow me to re-aquaint you with the US Constitution, which you failed to mention once which is binding on the state of New York and well as the city and all of it's agents. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In case your seeing this for the first time in years allow me to highlight the relevant portions as it relates to "Stop and Frisk": The people (that would be the people your department is supposed to be protecting and serving) SHALL NOT search or seize anything or any person unless there is probable cause. I know this seems quaint and old fashioned but it is the law of the land. If you do not have a warrant or probable cause there can be no search. Walking down the street, even a street where crimes have occurred is not "probable cause". Tossing a person's clothes to find a thing is not permissible. Your officers know this. That is why they lie in court. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I suppose this amendment was written for people like you, who apparently do not understand that black folks are in fact citizens of the US and are to be afforded all the benefits and protections of all the other citizens of this country. So to be clear, neither the city or the state of New York can pass a law or program or whatever else that abridges the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

So let us review:
1) between 82 and 90% of the persons stopped by NYPD were innocent. They were not committing a crime, had not committed a crime and were not engaged in any behavior other than walking to and from wherever they had a right to go to or from perhaps with other people.

2) Of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, 86 percent of them were arrested or fined for having marijuana. And most of that was found after an illegal search (after the illegal stop). Your officers then willingly committed perjury in order to give these persons arrest records which would have a negative impact on their education and employment opportunities, therefore increasing the likelihood that those persons would commit "major" crimes. Smart.

3) The remaining 5% or so, actually had contraband or something warranting an arrest. And you as a professional cannot figure out a means of getting to these persons without blatant and gross violations of the constitutional rights of the massive number of people stopped.

Hopefully you understand how ridiculous your prop piece for your illegal program is. Hopefully the NY Taxpayer will not have to suffer paying out for your obstinate nature and blatant disregard of the rights of the citizenry that your officers have violated.

Five Reasons Drone Assassinations are Illegal...Plus One.

From Counterpunch

One.  Assassination by the US government has been illegal since 1976 Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder.  Premeditated murder is a crime in all fifty states and under federal criminal law.  These murders are also the textbook definition of assassination, which is murder by sudden or secret attack for political reasons.

In 1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g), which states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation.  No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”  This ban on assassination still stands.

The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the CIA was involved in attempts to assassinate national leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces sought to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.

That was one of the five reasons offered by author Bill Quigley. Quigley was only focusing on drone attacks. However if we look at the law as cited by the author we would also conclude that the war in Libya that resulted in the killing of Kaddaffi  by what appears to be members of the "new regime" who could not have gotten to Khaddaffi without the direct intervention of NATO; can and may also fall under the same rubric. This is because if both direct and indirect assassination is illegal under US law (among other laws) and the war in Libya was, as far as I've researched, an indirect assassination of Khaddaffi, then the president of the United States did in fact break federal law (or at least whatever legal standing an executive order has).

For those confused about how I came to this conclusion they should revisit my earlier writings on the subject, (US admits to "Setting the Course" in Libya and The White House Libya Explanation Falls Short) There I explain in detail how all the rationalizations presented to the public do not stand up to law nor the claim that the US was somehow not "significantly involved".

Mind you. Had this been an act by Bush and co. we would be hearing it all day every day from certain quarters.

"Universal Jurisdiction"?

From an article in the NY Times

Under South African law, the police are obliged to investigate evidence of a crime against humanity, wherever it occurs, if the rule of law does not exist there, as is the case in Zimbabwe. he ruling has profound implications. It could cement South Africa’s commitment to protecting human rights and broaden the application of universal jurisdiction, which is the ability of countries to prosecute people who committed certain egregious crimes outside its borders.

So the basis of this "universal jurisdiction" is absence of presence of "rule of law"? And exactly how does this mesh with sovereignty? Continuing:

Unfortunately, the South African authorities want to sidestep it and are reportedly preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which oversees the High Courts.

I'm wondering if these are "liberals" who are apparently OK with a country up and deciding that it can essentially enforce it's own laws on someone else's land. You would think that a country that was a colony, essentially under the laws of the "mother" country, would even consider being the police force of some other country. Why not just invade, take over and engage in regime change as well? I mean so long as the intentions are good right? But I tell you what? How about South Africa take up the issue of torture by Europeans? Investigate their crimes? I suggest they investigate and indict the Sanford Police department as well as the NYPD. How about they do that? Or is it that they are more interested in being proxy's for Europe?

Arab Militants Attack and Burn Timbuktu’s Holy Sites

From the African Globe:

Reports over the weekend stated that Ansar Dine rebels attacked and burned a holy shrine and threatened Muslim worshippers on their way to observe Friday prayers...Haidara told reporters that the Arab attackers damaged “doors, windows and wooden gates”. AFP reported an anonymous source saying that the tomb of Saint Sidi (Mahmoud Ben) Amar was set alight. Haidara appealed to UNESCO to help protect Timbuktu’s heritage sites, saying that the attackers promised to return to destroy other tombs. Ahmed Ibrahim, a resident who witnessed the incident, said that an armed man condemned the praising of holy saints, saying that three men desecrated the tomb in front of onlookers.

Ever since the coup I thought that it was only a matter of time before something along these lines happened.

Black Women And Fat

On May 5th the NY Times posted an opinion piece entitled "Black Women and Fat" which took the issue of "size" in the African-American community head on.

 I am certain there are folks who saw the piece as yet another attack on black women along the lines of "we can't get married, we can't do what we want with our hair and now we're fat". I have found there to be a general discomfort of discussing, in public largely white forums, about "certain" issues. I find it odd, given that a great deal of the same people have no problem with "integration" and "diversity". Did they not think that such diversity would somehow act as a cover for issues? But that's a side commentary.

 The author, Alice Randall, took a look at some of the cultural "imperatives" that inform African-Americans to explain that black women aren't overweight by some happenstance (or that it is a claim of "big bones" the poorest excuse in the book. We can possibly by big muscled but big boned? No.). Rather Ms. Randall discusses the cultural imperative to "thickness".

The black poet Lucille Clifton’s 1987 poem “Homage to My Hips” begins with the boast, “These hips are big hips.” She establishes big black hips as something a woman would want to have and a man would desire. She wasn’t the first or the only one to reflect this community knowledge. Twenty years before, in 1967, Joe Tex, a black Texan, dominated the radio airwaves across black America with a song he wrote and recorded, “Skinny Legs and All.” One of his lines haunts me to this day: “some man, somewhere who’ll take you baby, skinny legs and all.” For me, it still seems almost an impossibility.

As any person who listens to Hip Hop or R&B will attest to, "thick" women are very much the ideal of "urban" blackness. Sir Mix-A-Lot is probably the most well known the genre, but anyone familiar with Hip Hop knows that there are far more explicit admonitions to be thick. What is of importance is that even within African-American culture there is an aversion to "fat" by the males. However "fat" is culturally defined much differently than the mainstream. There are many women who are thick by African-American cultural standards who would be considered obese or at least well overweight in the mainstream. That said, in an effort to be more "counter-culture" with thickness (discussed later)some women who would have been considered "fat" 20 years ago are calling themselves "thick".

 There is a larger issue within the mainstream that the author did not discuss: the "waif" standard pushed by many in the fashion industry. I have long said that the fashion industry needs to be examined for it's numerous homosexual males that dictate standards of female beauty. Though I have no direct proof of the matter, I believe it is them, and their desire for male bodies that has given us the white woman of no shape as the standard. Even the black women who are considered "model types" by their "boyish" standards are relatively shapeless rather than a reflection of a "black" prototype. I do not believe it to be an accident at all that these women look like made up boys. I simply cannot conceive of straight men preferring women with barely there breasts and lack of buttocks. Honestly; while I can appreciate a leggy woman, I have never understood the fashion industry's use of women with no curves to speak of to model clothes that will not drape the average woman anywhere close to what is shown on the runway. It makes no sense to me. While we are at it let us be clear most white women do have some kind of curve to them. They are simply excluded from the fashion world.

 While the author discusses American references to body types we would do well to look at the cultural link that goes back to Africa. A recent report about obesity in west Africa showed that the men in Mauritania had/have a thing for large women. They reported on a man that was very proud of the fact that he needed a wheel barrow to cart his wife around. They reported on the phenomenon whereas young girls as they reach marriage age to undergo fattening sessions .

The preference originated centuries ago among the Moors, nomadic Muslims of Arabic and Berber stock who make up two-thirds of Mauritania's 3.1 million people. To the ancient Moors, a fat wife (much like fat livestock) was a symbol of a man's wealth, proof that he had enough riches to feed her generously while others perished in the drought-prone terrain.

Indeed in places like Ghana and Nigeria one would note how the traditional dress of women does emphasize the curviness of women and is deemed very desirable. I have no doubt that some of these same traditions came with Africans into the new world.

 At the same time we should shatter this myth that Euro-centric body image, as commonly discussed among African-Americans, were always slim and "flat". This was not the case. In Europe there was a time when "large" women (and men I suppose) were seen as a marker of high social cast not much different from it's time in Europe. If one could afford to eat the amounts that it took to become large (and the non-exerition of non-manual labor) then one would naturally become overweight. In the 1850's High status European women were known to wear corsettes and bodice's that would emphasize the breasts and the buttocks. Even in the early 1900's women were to have an "s-shape" that today are often reserved for material usually deemed "pornographic", which is interesting in and of itself.

 So it's clear that within a cultural context even European "ideals" for their women have changed. Of course African-Americans being a minority group within a larger framework are subject to the same pressures and changes via mass media. That can be both good and bad. Let me touch on the slavery issue that Ms. Randall brought up via a quite because I think it was incorrectly presented:

By contextualizing fatness within the African diaspora, she invites us to notice that the fat black woman can be a rounded opposite of the fit black slave, that the fatness of black women has often functioned as both explicit political statement and active political resistance.

The slave trade had a definite mark on those Africans who survived the journey. Clearly those with the physical and mental capacity to survive the travel were the survival of the "fittest". In addition those who were able to deal with the insect born diseases and the climate of the cotton and tobacco plantation also acted as a culling agent for those "unfit" for duty. So we have to taken into account the unique environmental stresses that formed the African-American populations including a preference for metabolisms that can store as much energy as possible (usually as fat) and that can go without what we would consider proper hydration.


 The second issue with the history of slavery is that up until the slave trade was abolished, there was no basis for looking out for a strong slave (in terms of length of life) particularly for the female. Many slaves were literally worked to death. Once the slave trade was abolished, the necessity of having slaves survive became important as a dead slave was not only lost productivity but also literally irreplaceable with new stock. Females became objects of breeding as well as work. Though I cannot say what the emphasis was but we should also take into consideration that knowing that male slave owners (and later employers) had a penchant for "tipping out" with their servants/property, having women around who were allegedly "not attractive" may have worked to the favor of the women of the homes. But that is argumentative as I'm not prepared to actually provide evidence of that. But I do believe the concept of the Mammy is also a strong theme for women who worked in close proximity with white males who may attempt sexual liaisons with or without permission


 But let's suppose that the obese black body is somehow a political statement of "resistance" against the larger society. Isn't that, at this day and age immature? Would it not reek of "I'll show you even if it kills me" stupidity? Certainly the black body that was necessary to survive the plantations and the middle passage is not necessary or perhaps even desirable for survival in a largely sedentary society. br />
 One of the things that goes unspoken in many quarters is the sexual harassment of women and the "don't look like a crack head or AIDS victim" mentality that is in the black community. When crack hit the scene in black communities one of the common ideas that took hold was that if you were on crack then you didn't eat and therefore got skinny. Favoring a world class marathoner would likely result in a person being assumed to be abusing drugs of some sort.


 The issue of diet is also important. Indeed when Africans were involved in a high level of physical labour a high caloric intake made sense. The problem is that now in the 21st century such a diet is not only unnecessary for the vast majority of the population but is actually deadly. Simply put, old cultural habits are causing all kinds of medical issues for African-Americans. This has serious economic implications as money spent on insulin and other medications for avoidable diseases robs the next generation of wealth as well as the spending power of the diseased population.


 In the end though while we should be striving to more healthy bodies we should recognize that body variability exists and exists for a reason. Not everyone is going to have the shape of a world class runner or swimmer. That fact though is not a good reason to do nothing.

If You Are Stupid, You Should Be Taken A Slave

General Museveni on slavery:

“I have never blamed the whites for colonizing Africa: I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave.”

Michelle Alexander on the Criminal Justice [sic] System

So, what is the system designed to do? It seems designed to send people right back to prison, which is what, in fact, happens about 70% of the time. About 70% of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years and the majority of those who return to prison do so in a matter of months, because the challenges associated with mere survival on the outside are so immense. This is what we've created and we call it a system of crime control.

From her interview with Kathleen Wells

Powernomics

A few months ago I suggested that the readers watch Dr. Claude Anderson's videos on Powernomics. One of the major points on a video discussing The Black Consumer below:

He discusses how other ethnic groups consolidate control of their communities and provide the first employment for members of their communities. Today the LA Times has an article that discusses the changes in South Central LA that underscore the message of Claude Anderson and by extension Marcus Garvey. The first point of the piece is that black unemployment is worse in South Central LA now than when it was in 1992. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who is paying attention. But deeper into the article we see the issues that Dr. Anderson has pointed out repeatedly:

Now South Los Angeles is 30% African American, according to U.S. Census data, and black-owned businesses that once had a stronghold in the area have declined steadily.

So first we have the demographic shift of black populations out of South Central which took with it the entrepreneurial class.

Meanwhile, Latinos attracted by affordable housing have settled in the area and now make up about 64% of the population. Latino-owned businesses have cropped up along the main corridors. Mexican grocery stores are thriving. Immigrants flock to money-wiring outlets to send funds to relatives in Mexico and Central America. Spanish has become the language most commonly heard in the streets of South Los Angeles.

Anderson has repeatedly told us what "Hispanic" groups would do when they are able. Mind you this isn't a condemnation of that group. Rather it is a condemnation of black folks for not doing what they ought to be doing. Continuing:

Latino immigrants, he said, tend to form tight-knit job networks. "What employers learn to do, if they find workers they're content with, they ask those workers to bring any relatives or friends and become more dependent on them."

Garvey said a long time ago that the black man should not *expect* other people to provide employment for them. Rather they should create employment for themselves. Who can argue with that? That is exactly what other groups are doing. What are black folks doing? Arguing for "multi-culturalism" and anything other than black economic independence. If such an attitude continues I fully expect such findings like the one in South Central to persist. Martin Delany, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey and Claude Anderson all understood the sequential equation: +i;s;e;p;m.. (e), economics, before the (p) political. (e) economics informs and empowers the (p) political.

Ex-President of Liberia Aided War Crimes, Court Rules

Shocking. Just shocking news.

THE HAGUE — Charles G. Taylor, the former president of Liberia and once a powerful warlord, was convicted by an international tribunal on Thursday of 11 counts of planning, aiding and abetting war crimes committed in Sierra Leone during that country’s civil war in the 1990s.

I want you, the dear reader, to understand exactly what this says. Taylor is convicted of "planning", "aiding and abetting" war crimes in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Another. Country. Do you understand how this can apply to a LOT of other countries? This is not a defense of Taylor. What this whole thing means is that if a country "plans", "aides and abets" some other "rebel" group in any other country. The leader of that third party country can be held legally responsible for anything that the "rebels" do even if it cannot be shown that the third party country actually commanded such actions. What do you think the odds are of certain Europeans countries being held to the same standard?

Allegations of rape at West Point, Annapolis

When I saw this article on the CNN website I just shook my head. It was perhaps one of the clearest examples of the "all kinds of wrong" ideas presented in the common conversation that dominates the discussion of rape. As I read the piece my mind went back to my January rebut of the Ebony.com piece "Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped". In it I said the following which encapsulates my position on "rape advice:

I don't know about Ms. Maxwell, but I would prefer to not deal with after the fact.

"After the fact" being, the doctor visits, the trial, the emotional scars, etc. This is my overarching concern here. It is not satisfactory to me to have to comfort a woman who has been raped when I have the opportunity to help her avoid the situation all together. To that end let's look at what I pointed out in my January piece and see how it relates to the events in Annapolis:

Marquet said she got sick over a holiday weekend and stayed behind on campus. Her roommate was out of town and she was alone in her room. It was then, Marquet, said, that an upperclassman she knew showed up at her door late one night to talk "girl troubles." "I kind of felt cool that an upperclassman wanted to be friends with me and was seeking my advice," Marquet recalls.

So she's sick. Some "upperclass" male that she "doesn't know well" decides to come over to talk about "girl troubles". Not to see how she is doing. Not to offer to get her medicine. Not to simply check to see if she's feeling OK but to talk girl troubles. OK. This is the point where you say "Thanks for checking on me. I'm tired so I'm going back to bed. Call me later." Anyway...

After a drink, Marquet said, he persuaded her to go to his room. Karley Marquet became "depressed and suicidal" after the alleged incident and dropped out of West Point. "I just remember getting more and more intoxicated and my judgment really started to become impaired. ... I remember him turning off the lights and me asking, 'What are you doing?' And then he proceeded to rape me." Marquet said she woke up disoriented, in physical pain, afraid to come forward.

Sick, she decides to drink up with dude she barely knows but "trusts" because his entire claim to being trustworthy is being what? an upperclassman? She's getting more and more intoxicated with a man she does not know well at all? Why? Why hadn't someone informed her that studies:

Informs us of a group of 1,882 men out of whom 120 self reported acts that met the legal definition of rape. For you math heads out there that means of the group only 6% of the men self reported legal rape. Furthermore the report showed that the majority, 80% of these men committed rapes on women who were "incapacitated" due to drug or alcohol use

Had this young woman been educated in the ways that the vast majority of rapists behave, she would not have allowed herself to become intoxicated by a man she barely knew. Had she had this little piece of information her chances of being raped would have dropped 80 percent. If knowledge is power, who's advice, given in January of 2012 would have been more helpful? Before I deal with the perpetrator in this account let me move to the second Annapolis case:

During one of he first weekends at the academy, Kendzior was invited to a party off campus. "I was like, 'OK, cool! College, finally! I can live the college life for one night." But Kendzior said she had way too much to drink, so when a fellow midshipman offered her a place to crash, she accepted. "I was like, 'OK, you know, it will be fine. I trust you. You're an upperclass," Kendzior remembers, "Because that's what they teach you, to trust your upperclass." But Kendzior says that didn't happen. She was raped. "At one point in the middle of the night, I did come to and he was on top of me," Kendzior said. "And I remember saying 'No,' but I just passed out again.

Again we have a young women 'trusting" males she knows nothing about other than "upperclassman". I am failing to understand what parent does not educate their daughter better than that for their own protection. Secondly, notice the alcohol again. Had this young woman not gotten "passed out" drunk she would have decreased her chance of being raped by 80 percent. Let's return to my January piece:

Let's pause here for a minute. If we go back to Ms. Maxwell's position that it is "offensive" and "ineffective" to advise women to not get drunk, how do we reconcile such a position with the above fact? It seems quite clear that advising women to not get drunk or otherwise incapacitated would possibly reduce the incident of rape by 80%.

I wonder if the young women in question would rather have been "insulted" by being told not to get passed out drunk around men they do not know and not have gone through "bouts of depression" and of course the specter of an STD. I don't know about you, but I would far prefer to be "insulted" and whole of body. There are folks who left this piece a long time ago because they are of the opinion that I am "blaming the victim" and letting the rapist off the hook. That is not the case. The behaviors of these males are exactly as I discussed back in January. Serial rapists, and I am certain that these guys are in fact serial rapists have a specific M.O. Like any other criminal, if you understand how they operate then you can present a less "appealing" target. And this is what it is about: Not being an appealing target. Let's go back to my January piece. I quoted Mz. Maxwell's position in regards on how to stop rape:

We need anti-rape campaigns that target young men and boys. Campaigns that teach them from a young age how to respect women, and ultimately themselves, and to never ever be rapists. In addition, we should implore our men and boys to call out their friends, relatives, and classmates for inappropriate behavior and create systems of accountability amongst them.

Let's take a look at these two cases. As is typical of serial rapists, the first perpetrator got the victim alone. This means that no matter how many "good men" there were on campus, not a single one would have been in a position to do anything to help her. Newsflash people: most of these criminals avoid situations that would bring them to the attention of other males. Why? These criminals understand that their behavior is deemed unacceptable by the vast majority of males. The criminal knows his or her behavior is wrong but they simply do not care. No amount of educational campaigns will change this. In the second case,once again, the perpetrator removed the young woman from the gathering so as to keep his actions from being witnessed by other males who we suppose would have intervened. Think about it, some girl at a party is falling out drunk. A guy offers to take her home/his place to "crash". Even if you think something is "wrong", what do you do? Ask the guy what he's doing? Exactly what "looks" wrong about a guy who seems concerned about a woman's well being offering her a place to "sleep it off"? I don't care how "good" the set of men are in this situation, they are unlikely to step in because there is no "probable cause" to do so. In light of that overwhelming evidence that "education" would have done squat for these women. That the presence of "good men" would have done squat for these women. What are we left with? Allowing the women to be victims because the criminal should have had better morals? If you like your women to be victims I suppose that's what you could go with. Me? I prefer to tell young women in these environments to not get passed out drunk at frat(like) parties. Don't get passed out drunk with upper clansmen who are visiting you while you are vulnerable (sick) and offering you alcohol. Establish a relationship with these men so you can get to know them before letting down you guards. Reducing your chances of being raped by 80% is worth it.

Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

In what shouldn't even be a surprise, the Guardian is reporting that the British government has been hiding and destroying documentation on it's colonial empire:

Thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments, an official review has concluded...

The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman [sic] said to have been "roasted alive";...

many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".

Way too much material to quote here. Hit the title to go to the report.

Black Woman Cake?

Swedish "Feminists" protesting FGM (clitoral cutting and/or closing of the vaginal opening) by eating a black woman cake..starting from the genitalia. Artist is a black person who sees this as "protest art".

Zimmerman's Likely Defense

So anyone who is not under a rock knows that Zimmerman is now in custody and charged with Murder 2 in the case of the killing of Trayvon Martin. What I'm going to do here is lay out my non-expert thinking as to what is likely to go down should this end up in trial and some of the pitfalls that I see in the Murder 2 charge vs. Manslaughter or some other "non-intent" non "frame of mind" charge.

I, like everyone else not in the prosecutors office, only have what has been leaked or given to the media to use to form my positions. There may be evidence that is in the possession of the prosecutor that I am not aware of that will make for a stronger case for murder 2. I offer this piece due to what happened in the Sean Bell case. In that case, I thought that the charges of murder 1 were not provable beyond a reasonable doubt. It took me a while to understand that, but it was certainly the case. The problem with the murder charges against the NYPD officers was that the police are assumed to not have malicious intent to kill anyone, but rather that anytime they shoot it is to protect themselves or others. When we looked at the testimony we saw that all the statements made by all the police in that incident kept saying how they felt threatened by Sean Bell who was "assaulting them" with his vehicle and "reaching for waistbands" and that they "heard shots".

I wrote then that I thought that the murder charges were a community set up. There was intense pressure to "get justice" and the prosecutor IMHO decided on a show trial with a charge they knew could not be proven, particularly to a judge who, in my opinion, was far more disposed to believing in the "good will" of the police than any jury taken from the local pool would have been. I will say outright that I believe that such a possibility exists here.

Let me first get the following out: Regardless of what was said by the special prosecutor, the only reason that Zimmerman has been taken into custody and charged e is due to the national backlash once the word got out that a coverup was afoot. We know that the DA had decided on the night of the shooting to take Zimmerman at his word over the concerns and recommendation of a professional homicide detective. Had there been no outcry, Zimmerman would be a free man.

I just had to get that off my chest.

So lets' look at Murder 2 under the Florida statutes:

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.[my emphasis]

Of interest is the portion that states:

perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life

Evincing a "depraved mind". This is the key here. The prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind". While the defense has no obligation at all to present any evidence that Zimmerman was not of depraved mind, they are expected to present evidence and argue against this particular point. Therefore it is important that we understand what a "depraved mind" is in legal terms.

If we look at the Florida Supreme Court in regards to Jury instructions (2008) we find the following for depraved mind:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

Did Zimmerman express "ill will"? "Hatred"? "Spite" or "evil intent" on the night in question? That is going to be the first hurdle.

It is likely that the defense is going to point to three things to refute these items:

1) They are going to point to the recent rash of break-ins in the neighborhood. They are going to say that Zimmerman was motivated not by "hate" or "ill will" but a genuine concern for the well-being of his community and neighbors. They are going to point to reports that Zimmerman had come to the aid of a break-in victim and offered all manner of help to her.

2) Zimmerman's defense is going to point to the phone calls that Zimmerman made prior to this incident and say that it shows that Zimmerman was concerned and being vigilant. And if ANY of the persons he called about are non-black, they will highlight that to deflect the racial angle.

3) Zimmerman's defense is going to point to the actual 911 call and argue that Zimmerman was again concerned for the safety of the neighborhood when he saw Trayvon who may have "fit a description" of those who previously burglarized homeowners.
They will argue that in prior break ins, the perpetrators had brandished or acted as if they had weapons so Zimmerman was reasonable to believe that when Trayvon was "eyeballing Zimmerman" as he "walked towards him" with his hands in his pocket that Trayvon was armed (just like the other burglars) and therefore Zimmerman felt that he had the right, under Florida law to stop a felony he reasonably thought was in progress.

The Defense will likely argue that when Trayvon ran he was exhibiting the same behavior as the other burglars that had terrorized the community (and I fully expect the use of the word "terrorized" to be used) and that behavior added to Zimmerman's reasonable thought that Trayvon was in fact a criminal caught in the act of committing a felony.

This point is how they are likely going to attempt to explain Zimmerman's exit from the "safety" of his vehicle. He, based on recent events had reason to believe that a crime was occurring (because Zimmerman noted so called "erratic" behavior displayed by Trayvon). This is important because not only does Florida law provide for citizens to stop a felony from occurring, but they also do not have to wait until harm is done to interfere. Think of it like this: If you see a man on the street following a woman and he's acting "oddly" and you go over to him and ask him why he's following that woman, you have not committed a crime. If that man yells at you and then throws a punch at you, you can, in fact, claim self-defense and defense of others.

The Coon Comment

What could sink this defense is the "fucking coon" comment. The 911 tapes clearly has Zimmerman stating that "they" always get away. Then under his breath he says something that many, including the author, believe to be "fucking coon". I am not clear as to whether there will be an audio forensics (if that is the proper term) expert on the stand to testify as to what was actually said on the audio. At the very least, the audio strongly suggests either "goon" or "coon". We know that linguistically it is pretty easy to confuse a G and a C. The mouth formation necessary to make either sound is very similar. I fully expect the defense to lean heavily on the "goon" interpretation arguing that goon and 'thug' and "criminal" are easily associated words. I'm not sure of the mindset of the prosecution but if they are anywhere close to my mindset they will lean heavily on the "coon" interpretation. Such an interpretation, if believed by the jury would be in my opinion enough to meet a "hate", evil or "spiteful" burden.


The Point Of Contact


After dealing with why Zimmerman left his vehicle with his alleged reasonable suspicion the argument will move to the point of contact. This is the muddiest part of the waters. First and foremost because the victim is dead and therefore cannot speak on his own behalf. Secondly there is, as far as I know, only one person, who witnessed any of the actual conflict. His commentary to the media indicates that Trayvon was on top:

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

Everyone else, as far as I can tell from the media reports, only heard the yelling and the gunshot. None of them actually took a look out of their windows or doors. Therefore at best, their calls can only serve as a means of creating or confirming a timeline of events. If this "John' is called to testify and repeats this story, the defense will say that this shows that Zimmerman was under attack and shot Trayvon to protect his life. They will no doubt show the enhanced video footage showing the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head and on his nose to show that it was a "life or death struggle".

This will go to the argument of "indifference to human life" and Zimmerman's "act of defense" may be believed by the jury/judge. Once they "establish" that Zimmerman was acting in defense of his community and a "reasonable" belief that Trayvon presented a danger to it (which is why he left his vehicle), they will add that even if one wanted to believe that Zimmerman should not have left his vehicle, that since he was confronted after he gave up catching Trayvon, that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself at the point of alleged "aggressive contact" initiated by Trayvon. I call this the "disjoint" argument, where they will attempt to disjoin the leaving the vehicle from the "fight" which they will unlikely describe as a "fight" but rather as an "ambush" or something to that effect (anything to make Zimmerman look to be the victim).

The kink in this argument would be the phone call from Trayvon's girlfriend. Her comments to the media indicate that Zimmerman initiated contact with Trayvon. The defense will certainly grill this young woman. They will say that she did not hear the entire conversation and that when she heard Zimmerman say "what are you doing here?" it was in response to Trayvon's "do you have a problem?" question at point of contact. The defense will likely get the jury/judge to believe that this young woman has a reason to distort the truth (it's her boyfriend, community pressure, etc.) and perhaps even lie. That she could not have possibly heard everything that happened and that any "scuffling" she heard does not prove that Zimmerman initiated aggressive contact with Trayvon. They will attempt to get her to admit that it is "possible" that the noises she heard were actually the result of Trayvon's actions.

The Closing Argument

The defenses closing argument to the jury would probably be something along the lines of: Zimmerman was concerned for his neighborhood after a rash of burglaries that involved African-American males. Zimmerman prior to this had called the police numerous times about suspicious people, but they often got away. On the fateful night Zimmerman happened upon a person who was acting in a suspicious manner, much like criminals usually do. Zimmerman called the police. Trayvon ran away, Zimmerman pursued, putting himself at risk for the protection of his community. He was confronted by Travon after losing sight of him and returning to his vehicle. Trayvon beat on Zimmerman who in self defense, shot Trayvon. It is a tragedy. A Trajedy that would not have happened if Trayvon had not beat on Zimmerman.

Understand that an "unbiased" jury is going to enter deliberations with the idea that Zimmerman is not a "murderer" in the way that we typically associate the word. He certainly will not "look" like a murderer when he is in court. The prosecution will no doubt try to enter into evidence about Zimmerman's past arrests and behavior. The defense will likely counter that while it may show Zimmerman to be zealous it does not make him "depraved".


The above summation is why I think a lesser charge of manslaughter should have been levied against Zimmerman. I think the depraved indifference borden is going to be a high bar to hurdle. As noted before, it is entirely possible that the prosecution has evidence that leads them to believe that they can meet the burden, but allegedly so did the prosecution of the Sean Bell shooting.

Strip Search

[Updated 1:58 PM]

Yesterday it was reported that the Supreme Court ruled that strip searches of people taken jail under any circumstances by police are constitutional. Despite much noise from a lot of people, the ruling made 100% sense. The problem is not whether strip searches are constitutional (they are) it is what we as a society have allowed the police to jail people for.

As the justices in the majority decision pointed out, strip searches are done for the protection of those who work with inmates and for the safety of other inmates. Unless you have worked in "corrections" you have no idea the kinds of people that enter the system and the violence that some of them are capable of. Throw in gang members and you'll be very happy to know that you are unlikely to be on the cutting end of a razor that was under someone's tongue or some other implement that was in someone's ass.

Trust.

Say for instance that a gang member is stopped for a bench warrant from a speeding ticket. Say that person is carrying a weapon on his body. Say that because the court ruled that he cannot be searched because the bench warrant was "petty" this gang member enters a holding facility and is not "thoroughly" searched and the weapon is not found. Say that upon entering the holding cell, he comes across YOU who were also held from a bench warrant. Say the gang member decides that YOU are today's meal and picks a fight with you and brandishes the weapon that was not found. Sucks to be you eh? Well at least you weren't searched.

Sucks to be you.

Hopefully this decision will move people to reconsider their support of legislation that allows for people to be arrested for civil offenses. It was the people who elected people, repeatedly, who made it legal to arrest people for past due speeding tickets. It is certain segments of society who wish to criminalize certain speech. It is a certain segment of society that has created "zero tolerance" rules for school children to the point where police are arresting minors for dumb shit. How did these people not think that these rules would eventually lead to such a thing as being stripped searched? You allow minor BS to lead to arrests, exactly what did they think would happen once the person was arrested? Did they not know the process of being processed?

Take the previous gang member example. If the police could not jail people for bench warrants arising from speeding tickets but rather could only cite you again or at worst impound the vehicle. Neither the gang member or you would have been in a holding cell in the first place. Life and limb spared.

Don't get mad at the Supreme Court for deciding that the people running a jail are generally in the best position to judge what actions are in the best safety interest of those that work under such circumstances. Get mad at yourself for allowing legislatures to write laws that jail people for petty nonsense. There are other means to get people who have committed "petty" things to be accountable without sending them to jails.

[update]

So while I was working out I thought about this some more. I considered that a lot of people, when they see particular laws being passed like to say "well if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." I'm sure the people that passed laws that made it OK to arrest and hold people in jail for minor civil offenses thought the same thing. I'm sure not a few of them are in a position where now they see how such "minor" inconveniences and minor nicks in the Constitution can end up having you bent over and spreading your cheeks because you had the gall to go over 65 MPH.

Too Short and Trayvon: The Criminalization of Black Men

When Too Short was invited by XXL to give "fatherly" advice to school age boys (I suppose) on how to "take it to the next level" with a girl that they were "running around trying to get kisses from" a lot of people got upset with him. It was understandable given the aggressive nature of the advice and the culture of misogyny that is in Hip Hop. I caught a lot of flack from people, mainly women, for saying that the mistake here was not so much what Too Short said, but who it was targeted to. I expected nothing different from Too Short, who made and continues to make his money off of sexually explicit material. I expected nothing different from a Hip Hop magazine that trades in artists that trade in the same material. Therefore; I was not shocked by the statements in the least bit. Matter of fact I was quite puzzled at why people were surprised by any of it. I personally have bought 1 (one) Too Short track in my life (The Ghetto), so my money is and has been where my mouth is. But that Too Short said wasn't really what bothered me about the entire fiasco that was the Too Short incident.

What bothered me more than what was said was that even though there was absolutely no mention of consent by Too Short, not a few people were saying that Too Short was advocating criminal actions such as sexual assault and rape. While I agreed that the "advice" was certainly aggressive in nature, my position was that there was certainly a way to take the "advice" in a non-criminal manner. In fact I assumed consent was implied in the statement since I don't assume that men set out to sexually assault women (an assumption that the data supports). To that end I posted a number of pictures of men "holding" women "against walls" (as was suggested by Too Short)that certainly could NOT be construed as assault or rape. I heard nothing in response to such photographs.

Not a peep.

I pointed out that "spitting" on one's finger/hand for lubrication also does not indicate sexual assault or intention to commit such an assault because it's no secret that KY, ID Lube, Trojan, Lifestyles and a number of companies are making millions of dollars in the sexual lubricant market. So clearly even folks who consent to sexual behavior see a need to use such items.

These items showed that it was certainly premature to assume that Too Short meant anything other than what he actually said and if there was a question about consent , then someone should have asked him directly such as: "what if the girl in question does not want to be touched "down there"?

I pointed out that while Too Short may have given distasteful advice, there were two movies, one of which was shown twice the same week that Too Short was being drug through the wringer, where actual depictions of rape (marital and acquaintance) were shown, without legal consequence, which not a single person going in on Too Short mentioned.

In A History of Violence, Vigo Mortensen's character rapes his wife. Yes, because she put up a fight before finally giving in to a fuck on the stairs. This movie is seen by impressionable people all over the US and the world. How is Too Short the picture of rape, when his material is not on TV or in movie theaters?

In the film Infidelity the cheating wife is raped by her soon to be lover in their first sexual encounter. She hits him. She pushes him and he insists until she gives it up. How can Too Short be the poster boy of advocating sexual assault when this movie is played on Cable as it was the very same weekend that the Too Short controversy broke?

Similarly Fiat, in it's commercial for its new hot shot 500, depicts a man who is drooling over the car, as personified by a leggy white woman who is bent over adjusting her shoe. She proceeds to slap the man (assault) and then make sexual overtures to the man ( I suppose she Took Too Short's advice). This commercial, first aired during the Super Bowl, appeared no less than 4 times during the showing of Rambo on Spike TV. To this day, I have not heard a single person who was offended by Too Short's dubious advice even utter a peep about this blatant display of assault. And let us be clear, had the commercial been cast where the man was slapping a woman for looking at his ass and then pushing up on her suggestively, we would have heard many many comments about it.

So in light of these blatant examples of "mainstream" acceptance of depictions of sexual assault and rape, not a single person who was going in on Too Short could even muster the effort to bring these issues to the table. Furthermore; no one until about week later decided to actually ask Too Short himself. So rather than ask Too Short directly about questions they had about his statements many women and men decided that Too Short MUST be advocating sexual assault. I said it then as I am saying it now: It is dangerous for black men to have people, particularly our own, to use us as poster children for criminal behavior. It is troubling, in a white supremacist society for so called "conscious" people, to allow ourselves, even when engaging in righteous critique of each other, to allow ourselves to assume criminal intentions of each other. Why? because the larger society already does this and we know what happens.

So I will say with all seriousness that the thoughts that went through Zimmerman's head that fateful night is not much different than what happened with Too Short. In both cases each party took a look at a black man and decided that his actions confirmed our deepest held prejudices about black men and both parties acted upon it. No, no one shot Too Short, but by saying that he advocated rape is no different than Zimmerman saying "this guy looks like he's up to no good".

In each case, neither party checked their own prejudices at the door and said, I'm going to give this black man the benefit of the doubt. Each party decided that the black man "fit the description" of what they felt was a "bad man" and acted on it.

So I will re-iterate: Be very careful about the language you use when discussing various issues within the African community. You just may be adding to the climate of fear and hate that is out there. Too Short was fortunate, he was facing words and not an armed man.

APNS Editorial: America Needs Social Justice, Not ‘Soul Searching’

The Aboriginal Press Journal goes in on the broader meaning of the Trayvon Martin murder. Usually I can quote a part of a piece that best summarizes the main point of the piece but this time the author has made so many points that to highlight one would do the piece an injustice. Click the title (or here)and set aside some time to read. It's worth it.