Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, March 31, 2008 backing Nancy Pelosi?

Dear MoveOn member,

This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.1

It's the worst kind of insider politics—billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.

But when we all pool our resources, together we're stronger than the fat cats. So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute

The Chick that put impeachment off the table? And they want ME to donate to Move On so they can "have her back?


What is with these supposed "progressive" organizations acting as fronts for the Democratic party anyway?

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Pat Buchanan: Cracker

Over at the assault blog was posted this "fine" piece of prose in response to Obama's "race" speech. It's kind of "funny" that it would show up not long after finding the "all jesus all the time" videos. Buchanan is being the typical cracker. For those unfamiliar with the term I'll remind you that a cracker is a Caucasian of any ethnicity who takes it upon themselves to put blacks "in their place". In former (and formative) times, this was done with a whip, hence the term "cracker". Now a days, blacks are "crackered" by news media, police departments, employers, teachers, blogs and other places where authority is determined. Let's examine Buchanan's response:

A Brief for Whitey

By Patrick J. Buchanan

March 21, 2008

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!"

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America."

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations.

Pat, did you say "black schools"? Barack never said anything about investing more money in "black schools" which, legally do not exist. His call was to fund public schools, which are attended by a vast number of white students. Specifically, Mr. Obama was addressing the clear and documented fact that certain urban schools are underfunded by the present funding system. If the reader is unaware, public schools are funded via property taxes. Therefore the poorer the neighborhood, the less money goes to the school system and unfortunately the lower the quality of education. You know, ancient books. ancient computers, lack of alternative programs, lack of advanced programs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Pat, do the teachers in the school system in your neighborhood spend their own money on classroom supplies because they have too?

You'll note that Buchanan plays the same "long ago" card that Obama played. I said it about Obama and I'll say it here: it is a huge mistake to present Wright, and others as old, grumpy people with old claims. the things we discuss are past and present.

What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."

Well in that case Pat, the world trade center bombing was the responsibility of the hijackers themselves and no one else. There is no Al-Qaida.

Shakedown. Such a nice word. Was the Bear Stearns bailout a shakedown of the tax payer? How many black folk made off with the billions lost Pat? I'm just asking? And the previous CEO's of Bear Stearns, where exactly were they when this all went down? Playing Bridge in Michigan?

When Enron went bankrupt exactly how many black people were involved in that scheme? When the Tulsa Ok. riots happened, umm exactly who was shaking whom down? Pat, did you see that movie about the black landowners who had been run off their land by white citizens and the Klan. Tell me Pat, does that sound like a shakedown to you? Clearly Pat, you know all about shakedowns don't you?

Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

I don't know Pat, was white racism the reason that none of those dealerships were black owned in the first place? Say Pat, how many liquor stores are in YOUR neighborhood? How many liquor stores in your neighborhood are owned by people that look like Obama? Say Pat how would you feel if every business in your neighborhood was run by people who not only didn't live there but didn't look like you, treated you like dirt and sold rotten food? Say Pat, how many of those looters actually owned anything in "thier" communities? And if they did, were they burnt? Now I'm not advocating arson and looting, but surely you are intelligent enough to know it's not a simply matter of "look they're burning.." Oh wait, no, you're not that intelligent.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

Well, I don't know Pat. I've been alive since the early 70's. I've been aware of the news since I was 9. I don't recall this mass "one way" conversation going on in the media that you're talking about. I mean if Sharpton, Jesse and Farrakhan were regular commentators on mainstream media all that time, you would have a point, but any studious person would know that the conversation has been, lets not have the conversation. Ignore the "radical" black folk at all costs, unless they make a comment in public about Jews or the Pope. Of late it's been, lets find us some conservative negroes and selectively sound bite other folk in order to make us feel comfortable.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

You know what Pat? I'm not going say what I want to say because I'm trying to be polite. Let's just say I've dealt with this position before. Short Summary: contact with Europe is THE reason why black folk are in the situation they are in. It's like someone coming in your house, killing your family and then taking you as their criminal protege and telling you to be thankful that you're rich and not dead like your parents.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

See, this is what happens when you half step on the issue of racism. As I said before Obama had an opportunity to know these arguments out the park and should have done so. But since he didn't it's left to people like me, who will go unappreciated, to set this junk straight.

Lets see now. According to the NIH, as of 2003, 42% of medicaid recipients were white (non-hispanic) nearly twice the rate of blacks.

According to Urban Institute 2001 report, 53% of low income whites have received the EITC, while that number is 48% among black poor.

According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2002) while blacks on the whole make up more than twice that of whites in receipt of financial aid, 38% vs,. 16%, on certain campuses with very low black enrollment such as Cal Tech and University of Chicago, we find that the greatest receipt of Pell grants are by Asians. But as Pat knows, or should know, Pell Grants are based on family income and since, according the the JOBHE, blacks are 3x more likely to be poor than whites, then it would be expected to see blacks over-represented certain cases. Why are blacks more likely to be poor? Well I don't think Pat would want to have that conversation.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

Pat, again with the broad generalizations. You act like churches are just doing work with blacks and not the poor specifically. Same with "civic groups". In fact again, all of the mentioned organizations help more white people than black. What are you? stupid?

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Yeah Pat where's the gratitude? I mean after slavery give the US a huge leg up on everyone else where's the gratitude? After sharecropping because the laws and "not so laws" prevented black ownership of land to the benefit of white farmers, where's the gratitude? After pushing through civil rights legislation that protects all Americans by offering our heads to be beat on where's the gratitude? I don't know Pat, I think you're projecting here.

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Hmmmmmm. Well Pat I suppose you haven't seen those Pell Grant stats have you? Thought not.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

Well Pat, lets see as previously discussed fully 50% of black inmates are in for drug offenses. Now we have this issue where crack cocaine prosecutions will land a person in jail for 25 to life, whereas powder cocaine possession, you know, the drug of choice among the rich and white, well you gotta have a boat load of that stuff to get that kind of jail time and that assumes that the DA wont' send your white behind home So yeah Pat, that would be the fault of those white people that white people like you hire to run the "justice" system. You do believe in responsibility for your actions right?

Ahh the 70% out of wedlock births by black women. which skyrockets after 1970. Interesting, integration breeds illegitimacy. But really though, it's pretty much common knowledge that among other things, "poverty programs" had stipulations that rewarded mothers for not having men in the home. Even the Heritage Foundation (*spit*) knows this

Oh and that 50% drop out rate. Well Pat, you do know that the statistic in question is for very specific locations, most if not all of which are in high poverty locations There is a direct correlation between rates of poverty (and English proficiency) and drop out rates.

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

Ahhh the ole, percentage and "times" argument. Pat did you know that in terms of homicide, 86% of white victims were killed by other whites?

No? How about the fact that as of 1996, 3 in 10 homicides committed by a stranger were interracial? How about this:

In 1998 per 100,000 persons in each racial group, 23 black, 4 white, and 3 persons of other races were murdered in the United States.

Not enough Pat? ok how about the 2006 stats from the FBI 575 white victims of murder were done in by blacks a little more than twice that of white murderers of blacks.

I mean damn Pat, these statistics your not quoting are just so wrong and or misleading as to make me think you have some other motivation here.

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Well Pat, as a matter of record, we haven't heard much of anything about Tawana Brawley from Rev. Al in quite some time and even then it's after crackers like you bring it up. In so far as the Duke case went, Rev Al. was right on the money when he said to support justice. As for Jena, well Pat, you're an ass. Jena wasn't a hoax at all. Where do you get your information from?

Monday, March 24, 2008

A Note to David Paterson

Dude. Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut the hell up.

In case you didn't quite get my point:


Sean Bell Watch: "keep shooting until you eliminate the threat."

And so detective Oliver lets us all know what "real" police procedure is

Oliver also blamed the fusillade on police training, saying cops are told "to keep shooting until you eliminate the threat.ñ.ñ. Unfortunately, as a result, some people die."

Some people die. Oh the fuck well. Mistake a wallet for a gun? Oh well. Man got his hands where you can't see them? Oh well. Innocent? Oh well.

But the testimony of Oliver shows a clear intent to kill.

"I though he was shooting.ñ.ñ. at members of my team," he said.

So what did he do?

But Oliver - who fired nearly three times more bullets than anyone else that night - emptied his gun, took out another clip, reloaded and continued to fire at the vehicle.

"I kept firing at [Guzman]. I really had no more bullets," said Oliver.

And then?

At one point, Oliver said he even had time to move around "to get a better line of fire."

Did he say move around to see if anyone was shooting? Did he say move around to evaluate the situation before shooting some more? Nooooo. This "man" moved around the vehicle to get a better shot. That's called an extra-judicial execution.

Oh and in case we weren't sure about it

Oliver said he changed his target away from Guzman and pointed his gun at Benefield's direction after he thought bullets were coming from the back seat where he was sitting.

Translation: Nigger, you want some too?

[update] from the NY Times:

He said he did not know that any other officers were firing at the car. He said he fired the full 16 rounds in his gun, reloaded and fired the 15 in his new magazine as quickly as he possibly could.

But when asked if he felt he should have reassessed the threat at some point, he said: “I reassessed after every single shot, and after my second magazine I had no more bullets. I then had no choice but to assess the situation.”

He reassessed the situation after every shot AND fired all the rounds in his gun "as quickly as possible"? That's a contradiction. You can't reassess a situation while firing as quickly as possible.

He said he did not fire as Mr. Benefield ran out of the car and down Liverpool, where he was arrested.

Hmmmmm. Was that because his gun jammed? Is it because he thought he was out? By the NY Times account, he only had one shot left. Were other officers on the scene who may have been witnesses to this execution? Did he not want to have to explain shooting a suspect in the back?

Technorati Tags:

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Self Hating Black Man

I'll let him speak for himself.

That last video contained so many factual "extrapolations" that I had to laugh.

From "All Jesus, All the Time"

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

John White Gets 2 to 4 for protecting his home

An injustice. You have the right to protect yourself, your family and property from anyone who poses an immediate threat to them.

The facts are that Daniel Cicciaro's son went to John White's home with a bunch of his boys in two cars, and made threats against John's son.

I have absolutely no doubt that John White asked Daniel Cicciaro's son to leave and remove himself from John White's property. Since Daniel was shot in the face, I am absolutely positive that Daniel both refused AND continued to make threats against John's son.

Daniel would be alive today had he done a couple of things differently:

1) Had not gone to the house.

2) Had not gone to the house with 2 car loads of "friends."

3) Didn't yell nigger at the father and son.

4) Had left when asked to do so.

5) Didn't put his hand on Mr. White's gun as suggested by the prosecution.

Mr. White ought never had been charged. Mr. White ought never have been convicted of manslaughter. Mr. White ought not be put in jail.


Since Mr. White had an illegal gun, he ought to have been charged with illegal possession.


Sean Bell Watch: The Strange Testimony of Coicou

I'm not entirely sure what is going on here but the testimony offered by Fabio Coicou is confusing and directly contradicts his grand jury testimony. Does he realize that he has just set himself up for a perjury conviction?

A pillar of the officers’ defense is the claim that undercover detectives witnessed an argument between Mr. Bell and Wednesday’s witness, Fabio Coicou, over a remark about Mr. Bell’s drunkenness, and that someone in Mr. Bell’s group said, “Go get my gun.”

Mr. Coicou, (pronounced kwah-COO), 30, testified that he never heard those words. Last year, however, he gave a different version of the event in meetings with Queens prosecutors and in appearances before a grand jury, a contradiction that was pointed out during cross-examination. A defense lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, asked him if he remembered telling prosecutors in January 2007 that he heard someone say, “We’ll get the gat,” slang for a gun.

Mr. Coicou replied: “I don’t recall that. I don’t remember anyone saying that, and I don’t recall that statement.” He later said he did not even know what the word “gat” meant. The statements before the prosecutors from the Queens district attorney’s office were not made under oath.

No seriously a black guy, sorry to have to stereotype here but, a black guy, who grew up in a black neighborhood, 30 years of age, has never heard of the word "gat"? Is he serious? I don't do street life and I know what a gat is. Mr. Coicou is a liar.

“I kept my hands in my pockets to demonstrate peace,” Mr. Coicou said.

An entirely plausible explanation.

Mr. Coicou told Mr. Bell, “I got bread up in here,” referring to his girlfriend and the money she earned, he said. He said he noticed a bald man who did not seem to belong to the group, and suspected him of being an undercover officer. He later learned he was correct.

So let's get it straight. Coicou doesn't know what a "gat" is, but does know slang for money? Liar. He doesn't know what a "gat" is but is streetwise enough to recognize an undercover cop? hmmmmmmm. Now that part is bad for the prosecution. The question is whether Sean Bell and co. were also street wise enough as Coicou to recognize that there were police around. Or where they, as Coicou suggested, controlled by alcohol?

After the men walked away, Mr. Coicou said, he found himself alone in front of the club, and drove around the block. Last year, Mr. Coicou said he felt uneasy because several of the men were “peeking” at him and he thought “they were going to go get whatever to do whatever.”

But as he explained his actions on Wednesday, he said he never felt uneasy. “Let me just get out of here for a little bit, circle the block, come back around,” he said, recalling his thinking that morning.

I have previously argued that it is entirely possible and probable that Sean Bell and company thought that the police van and the detective in black was in fact Coucoi returning to get back at Bell. Coucio's actions, though not criminal and in fact very street smart on his part, add to the validity of the idea that Bell thought he was about to become a victim of a shooting.

Technorati Tags:

On Obama's Iraq War votes

As we know Mr. Obama was not in the Senate to make a vote for the authorization for the Iraq war. He has given a speech where he has said it was the wrong war and that the authorization ought not be given. Fine words that. Dennis Kucinich has not only voted "no" but has also not voted for funding the war. So let's take Obama's voting record and speech record and view it in another way.

Say you had a friend who was a crack head. Say you gave them a speech saying that you don't agree with using crack. You tell them that crack is going to do nothing good for them. You tell them they need to get off crack immediately. Then imagine after giving all this good advice, you turned around and handed that crack head friend of yours the cash to go buy more crack. isn't that contradictory?

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Rev. Wright: Please Lay Off the Kool Aid

I know, I know, people have their heros and sheros and want them to be number one. That's expected. However; sometime we take in a wee bit too much of our own kool-Aid. Rev. Wright, who've I've defended here ought to do a bit of self-reflection while he's on "sabatical".

Firstly he needs to apologize to Mrs. Clinton for that semen stained dress comment. Secondly he needs to re-evaluate the following statement from his letter to Jodi Cantor of the NY Times

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

So Dennis Kucinich is not honest? Should I assume then that you think that Mausley-Braun was not honest? Ron Paul isn't honest? C'mon mister that was simply wrong.

The Obama Speech Analysis

Below is a light critique of the Obama speech. It's a more expanded version of the live blog entry of the speech. This only contains certain portions of the speech. Commentary may be updated later for grammar or readability issues. I just can't look at this any longer today.

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Well as a matter of fact, the original sin of America was not slavery but the slaughter of the Native American. It was after the Native American helped the colonists survive by showing them corn and Turkey and such, they were thanked by taking of land, purposeful illness (what we call biological warefare) reservations and numerous broken treaties. It is a fact that before the African was considered for labour in the new world the Native American was first used and abused. The African slave trade was brought about in large part due to the fact that the African was largely immune to European diseases.

The second, very glaring problem here is that women were clearly left out of this "meeting of men". Of course a full analysis of that founding meeting would reveal it's very, umm, undemocratic intentions.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

Well, historically correct, though it took amendments to said Constitution to get to that equal citizenship. Recall that not every citizen was meant to be equal under the constitution. It is interesting, and notable that Obama does not quote the Declaration of Independence, which has statements regarding the Native American that round quite counter to the "All men are created equal" argument. But this is a political speech and such things are well, not helpful. but anyway. The above would be one of the more factual and correct statements.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Here lies one of the more problematic themes in this speech. Understanding that America, unlike most any other country on the planet is supposed to be founded on guiding ideas. That is, it is not a country of people of common ancestry as is England, France, etc. Rather an American is supposed to be defined by the adherence to the ideas of the Constitution. They are supposed to be motivated by the equality of everyone before the law and the constriction of government power over it's citizens and that the government exists and rules only by the consent of those governed. What Obama did in his presentation is posit the idea that an American is the sum of the amalgamation of people and that he, by virtue of being an embodiment of that genetic amalgamation represents the "real" America. it is an argument I hear from a great deal of people who happen to be of obvious multiple race inheritance. He then presents that argument as "unique" to America. In fact that amalgam can be seen in Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and any other colonial land. In fact it can be seen in England and France to an extent (we are missing the direct slave holders there though).

Most Americans are more ignorant of the history of people outside the US than they are of history of the people in the United States so they cannot readily dissect this particular argument. A question that could be asked of Obama is if he feels so attached to these ancestors of his, why identify as black or African-American at all? If one is supposedly "post-race" then no need to even ID with any particular group when you are not, in fact a part of said group. Of course that leads to some very uncomfortable questions about one drop rules and who's black and he doesn't want to go there, and neither do a lot of other people.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

Well, it's nice he mentioned South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies. If it bothers him so much why not have said something about it when they were up for voting? Not politically expedient? I understand. In South Carolina, black folks voted Obama for a few reasons:

1) They saw that white folks in Iowa would vote for this black candidate.

2) They were pissed off at the distorted comment about MLK and LBJ

3) Blacks want to vote in a Black president and have wanted to since Jesse Jackson ran (No disrespect to Shirley Chisolm).

The white vote was largely split between the white candidates just as they were in Miss. Many of thew whites that have voted for Obama are on him specifically because of his white mother. That makes him safe. It's documented. Other white people see Obama as the Anti-Sharpton and the Anti-Jackson. the assention of Obama represents to them a means of killing off uncompromising black leadership, that's leadership made by black folk, not white folk and the media.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

Well the "too black" commentaries which I assume to have come from white sources since I've yet to meet a black person who claims that Obama is "too black" is clearly a white set-up for Obama failure based on race. The "not black enough" comment goes directly to the issue of the white mother and the obviously non-black upbringing. Now the Black-Brown thing is well politics, you'll note that black-brown wont' come up again.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

Well who knows on the "affirmative action" part. I agree that, as discussed earlier white folk are hoping to shut down or take control of the racial conversation by dealing with a black person who is seen as amenable to their emotional need. How much I can't say. This does not mean that I think Obama is unqualified to run a country. He's certainly more qualified than Bush and has, in my opinion, better academic qualifications, but the "affirmative action" argument is based in part on the idea that white people lower the standards for black people. And so the idea is that the media has to, up until now, given Obama the "easy" treatment. It is definitely a racial argument but that's where it comes from.

Now on Wright. I think Obama makes a huge mistake by calling Wright's comments as denigrating to America. The fact is that the comments that Wright has made are factual. Whether you like it or not. Whether it makes a person comfortable or not. And this comfort level is where the speech really goes south as we will discuss.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam

OK. Lots of ground to cover here. We see Obama going from the "I wasn't there" response to the sure I heard this stuff before response. The latter being honest, the former a bald face lie. Now the problem for Obama is that like NAFTA, he can be portrayed as saying whatever he needs to say to remain politically viable. However; that's really not where I want to go right now. You'll note that he does not address which political views he "strongly disagrees" with. Perhaps that will come up in the general election cycle should he become the Democratic nominee. But in terms of race and racial viewpoints, as I said before, it's not whether you agree or disagree it is about whether the statements are true or not. That is what is important. That's what is important if were are dealing with principle rather than feeling. That's what is about when you are a constitutional American, rather than simply an "ethnic group" American.

It is simply wrong to say that in at least the clips shown of Wright, that he was discussing "perceived" injustices. When he discusses US policy in the Middle East he is talking about actual injustices. When he discusses drugs being shipped into black communities, and a justice system that targets blacks for prison and the like, these aren't imaginary things. These are actual factual injustices. By using the term perceived Obama is providing white America with cover.

When US bombs are used to level Lebanon, that is injustice. When we provide arms to Israel who uses it to bomb Palestinians who have been raped of their property and land, that is actual injustices. You see, this is what is missing from Obama's world view. You see, by excluding the Native American from his presentation and ignoring that great injustice called "reservations" and the trail of tears, once can then side with the colony that is Israel. But if you are aware of, and mindful of the injustice done to the first peoples of America, then you cannot stand by the actions of the Zionist entity. I wrote about this last week. It is a scary thought of a black man signing the paper that delivers the bomb that is dropped on the people who had the back of the ANC.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Again, wrong? Absolutely not. More comfort for white folk. Wright wasn't being divisive and I'll go further and say Farrakhan wasn't being divisive when they brought up the issues. And as a matter of fact, "radical" blacks like Wright and myself have been discussing healthcare, wars (more than two), terrorism, the failing economy and climate change for a long ass time. Problem is that white folk feel they can ignore us. The problem isn't us and it is insulting for Obama to act as if blacks are part of the problem. Some blacks are a part of the problem and we know who they are (Rice, Powell) but the "radical" black person has been and will continue to be on the vanguard of calls for fundamental changes to the system that would benefit everyone. That Obama can't make that argument is indicative of either his ignorance of that position OR his willingness to mis-represent them for his own ends.

But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

Well some real data. Thanks Obama. Now how many of us have been writing and saying this? For how long? And where were the cameras?

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

While the anger argument is nice and fits into the idea that black people, and black men in particular, are just seething pools of anger just waiting to boil over. The problem is that among many of us, those of us who have never had a fire hose put on us, or been forced to go to a segregated school, but by learning the facts, by being honest with ourselves that we must forcefully confront the issue of racism. Many of us, including myself are not poor, never were poor. Many of us are educated, never been to jail, won't be going to jail. We own homes, we have nice cars, we have relatively high net worths. We don't take for granted what we have, but we won't be bought, we won't be sold. So lets clear this up we are emotionally stable and analytical and painting us as angry, seething and emotional is simply out of order.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

The great equivalence argument. I hate it. I hate it because it is so wrong, on so many levels. That white Americans don't feel that they have been "particularly privileged by their race" is well, irrelevant to the facts on the ground. When researchers can find that white applicants for employment enjoy a higher callback rate, or that a white applicant with a criminal record is more likely to be interviewed for a job than a black person with no criminal record AND a college degree, then white folks who don't think they have privileged are simply out of touch with reality. That's a problem they need to work on.

Oh and this immigrant experience, yes that would be, a generation of "no Italians" and "No Irish" and whatnot. Next generation, the signs come down, the neighborhoods are created and now accepted, they too step on blacks. Does anyone think that Jim Crow (and I'm going to leave slavery off the table for this) was thought up by and only implemented by anglos? Seriously? Must be the same people who think that the slave trade was only carried out by the British. "As far as they are concerned." That is the operative statement. They haven't been concerned. I wont even GET into the riots of those union workers against black labour. As far as they are concerned indeed. And those jobs being shipped overseas? Well see can't direct that anger at black folks we largely do not own those businesses. We are also the victims of those jobs shipped off overseas. And ummm, as the most unionized ethnic group in America, we've been at the forefront of fighting for US labour while these "as far as they are concerned" white folk put big business white men and women of the "conservative" credentials into office. But that is the real problem. Whites of lower and middle class stock have been voting against their interests for a long time. That's not black folk's fault.

On that whole bussing issue. Well again that was the dream of white men and knee-grows who insist that black kids need to sit next to white kids in order to learn, while all over the world people are learning quite a bit without the benefit of white children in their schools. Besides, bussing is and always has been voluntary by law.

On that "African-American" getting the good job or spot in a good college, all the data shows that Affirmative Action and all actual black enrollment at the state college level and above is in the low teens. That means that at a school like Michigan State University where there are upwards of 40,000 students approximately 13% or 5,000 may be black. Leaving a whopping 35,000 seats for white students. It is plain racist to state that African-Americans are displacing white students at universities. Similarly with employment, outside the government sector which employs the most numbers of black people, black people are disproportionally represented at the lowest rungs of businesses and the numbers decrease rapidly as one goes up the ladder. So even there, these "as far as they are concerned" white folk are simply out of touch with reality.

In terms of crime the vast majority of documented crimes involve members of the same race (a whole other discussion). Urban violence is waaaay down and has been for over a decade. The problem is that the media over-reports black crime, which makes for good news ratings. What of those 1 in 9 black men in jail? Can we saw Rockefeller laws? Can we say arrests are made where police are put? Can we say prosecution unwilling to convict white offenders of drug crimes?

So as far as I'm concerned, Obama has made a huge factual and historical mistake by attempting to equate ignorant white ideas on race and privilege to factual and documented issues that Wright and others have discussed. This is what we call pandering. I don't like it, regardless of the race or gender of the politician.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Yes these "resentments" may not be expressed in polite company, but then again they are entirely out of touch with reality. Obama brought up welfare but failed to point out that white people are the largest beneficiaries of welfare (and Social Security for that matter). In terms of affirmative action, the largest beneficiaries have been white women, and by extension the white men they marry. So Obama passed on an excellent opportunity to set that record straight with these "as far as I'm concerned people.

I am pleased that Obama brought up these show hosts. He ought to have named names though.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

More correctly stated, white resentments over wholly imaginary offenses of non-whites distracted them from the real culprits. Again that's not black folks fault. It's not Wrights fault. It's not Sharpton's fault. It's not Jackson's fault. It's not even Farrakhan's fault. It is the fault of these 'as far as I'm concerned" white folk who think that black folk ought to shut up and sit down, who by their own self absorption and privilege, refuse to listen to black folk who speak directly and truthfully. These folk ought to talk to Tim Wise, if they can't deal with direct speaking black folk. But these imaginary issues being equal to that of black issues? Not. At. All.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.

Well I agree that one ought not allow oneself to wallow in or allow ones past to keep one from making positive change. However Obama fails to realize that when we call for "a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life" that means foreign policy as well. That means Israel and Palestine.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

Well I cannot speak for Rev. Wright but I think Obama has mischaracterized him. We are fully aware that progress has been made in America. Only a moron thinks otherwise. Out issues are with the quality of the progress. We are not impressed with equal access to the voting box, if the candidates do not work for the constituents or uphold the constitution as they are supposed to. Or when those politicians pledge themselves to the protection of states that were formed illegitimately and our tax dollars go to supply said states with weapons of mass destruction. We are not impressed with school desegregation when the funding is pulled from under those same schools and the curriculum still excludes us and by us I mean all of us. We are not OK with integrated police forces that harrass us on the streets, shoot us down and get away with it. What good is sitting in the front of the bus, when if you drive you're pulled over simply because you are black or black in the "wrong neighborhood."

Nothing I've posted here (previous paragraph) is past, It is present. Again, this is an attempt to mischaracterize the issues that Wright and others have put on deck. We are not interested in cosmetic changes. We are not interested in putting a black face on American imperialism. Oh and about that run for highest office? Chavez in Venezuela and Moralez in Bolivia.....lets not get overly puffed up about US progress, 'kay?

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

Well that would be a nice start.

The rest of the speech is campaign material, I'm not going to comment on it.

How Bad Is The Economy?

I just had a man ask me for gas money at the gas station. It takes quite a bit for a grown man to ask a total stranger to help him put 5 dollars of gas in his tank. That meant he had no cash for anything else, or needed it for something else. It means that he also either has no credit cards or the credit card(s) are maxed to the point where he can't put gas in his car (a chevy cavalier).

These are not good times and summer gas prices haven't even hit yet.

Obama Speech Live

How are you tonight?


Abraham Lincoln and his steady hand? Well, so much for scholarship.


The rest of the world does not look like we do? Who is we? I look like a great deal of the world. So here we have a "speech" on race that is being introduced from the white perspective. Again.


And so we get the usual King homage along with the Kennedy homage. How many other black heroes people does this guy even know?

10:53: Obama takes the stage.

10:55: Independence stained by "original sin" Slavery. Well it also has this issue of the Native American. Not mentioned.

10:57: We all want to move in the same direction. Well no, not really.

10:58: Story that can be made in no other place in terms of his family make up. Actually that's not true.

11:00: incendiary comments that hurt people white and black? So? That could potentially divide people? So? The first thing is to expose the truth. Truth hurts. It is a lie.

11:01: Israel good. Palestinians bad/wrong. Scholarship be damned.

11:06: And sooo we are now get a presentation on the black church. On a presidential bid. Unfortunately he and Romney have to actually explain this kind of stuff.

11:08 race cannot be ignored. But the campaign up to now has attempted to do just that.

11:09: good jobs for every American. Actualy under a Capitalist system, there must be unemployment. But that's off topic.

11:10: We don't need to go over the injustices of the past. Well yes 'cause people don't know the information. Nice to see Obama actually discuss this material. Could have been done a lot sooner.

11:12: Why, after discussing the fact that discrimination was and IS a problem, why pigeonhole Wright as being simply a product of the past?

11:13: More code words. "Anger", "Frustration" black folks acting emotionally. Not that some of us are dealing from scholarship.

11:14: Working class whites feel "not priviledged." This is not the same. Since black folk have no part in policy. These resentments are scapegoating and are the result of white privilege.

11:17: Whites being distracted. The problem with that argument is that black activists have long been telling white folk that they too are being screwed by those in power. The problem being that many white people and a large number of black folk want to get into the same position as those in greater power.

11:20: Wright thought the society was static: I'm not particularly buying that, but I can't speak for Mr. Wright.

11:24: Native Americans exist!!

11:29: Standard presidential speech now.

Overall. If you're in the middle the speech ought to go well. I don't see Obama losing any voters who were already for him. I think some of his white support may go down if not in democratic circles, in Republican circles. I think this speech may be a tipping point for Independent white voters the tilt being determined whether they are on the right or left side of the tilt.

Obama mentioned losing jobs overseas which I don't think plays well for him given the Canada flap. We'll see how PA plays. Overall thought I think that black voters will stay in his camp especially now that on a national stage he as actually made mention of them. Overall though, scholarship wise and data wise the comparisons of white resentment and so called "black anger" as equivalent is extremely flawed. It would have been better had Obama taken the opportunity to point out that the vast majority of people on welfare are white and that the leading beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are white women.

Ohio Election Fraud

Now here's a case I can get behind.

At the request of election officials, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has seized voting machines for forensic analysis and has launched a criminal investigation into the Franklin County Board of Elections.

The investigation was launched after Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State and chief election official, found that a candidate's name was marked as withdrawn on the electronic voting machine that she used during the recent primaries, an irregularity that was also reported by voters in other precincts. The state attorney general is now working with a team of computer forensic consultants to determine if there was any tampering.

Preliminary analysis conducted by specialists from SysTest Labs indicates that the internal audit capability of the Franklin County voting machines had been manually disabled by county election board programmers last year, making it almost impossible to tell if any nefarious changes have been made to the systems.

Technorati Tags:

Monday, March 17, 2008

Sean Bell Watch: The Detective in Black

On March 14th, the NY Post posted pictures of the detectives that were taken at the precinct after the shooting. Isanora's photo has his head cropped to protect his then under-cover status.


Detective Isanora

Let's go back to the story according to the NYPD. Sean bell had a verbal altercation with someone wearing black in an SUV (Ford?). A few minutes afterwards a van comes around the corner and a man wearing black is pointing a gun at Sean Bell and co. Who does he think is in front of him? Also, be honest, looking at the picture there if you didn't know that was supposed to be a cop would you guess that was a cop? Can you make out the badge on collar? NOw imaging bright headlights on it.


Above is a photo of the crime scene. I had a very different idea of where and how the shooting occured. I thought that the shooting occured on Bell's side of the vehicle. It is evident that the shooting was very different than I thought. Says the NY Times:

According to investigators, the Altima appears to have been struck by 20 bullets; 17 of those struck the passenger side, and 13 of those hit the front door. A 21st bullet hole in the rear driver’s side door is believed to have been caused by an exiting bullet. One bullet struck the trunk, and two others, the windshield. Other bullets hit up and down Liverpool Street, striking nearby parked cars, fences, a living-room window and an elevated AirTrain terminal.

assuming those straw pipes to be indicative of the direction of fire, it would seem that the shots were at door level. Almost as it someone was shooting from the hip or a crouched position. I've gotta think on this.

Obama to Give Speech on Race Tomorrow

Garvey's Ghost to slice, dice, mince, and toss it in the garbage if necessary 24 hours later.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

From Delany to Obama: The Fall of the Black Male

I knew it would happen. Most aware political watchers knew it would happen. Yesterday it happened: Obama officially put his pastor on the auction block.

Obama's "There is no race" campaign has once again shown those paying attention that race and white supremacy still holds. First a matter of the political math. Black folk make up a relatively small amount of the overall electorate. Of that group an even smaller amount has any real knowledge of national or world events. An even smaller amount of those persons are actually informed enough to have educated critiques of those events. An even smaller amount of that group are nationalists of any stripe and of that group a large percentage probably do not vote, or would not vote for any mainstream politician. In other words the potential loss of votes for Mr. Obama by the groups that agree with Jeremiah A. Wright, are so miniscule as to be unimportant in the political calculus.

Political calculus aside, the recent denouncement (and rejection?) of Jeremiah White is significant in the history of African-American politics and "leadership".

Obama made great fanfare of the "Joshua generation" taking over and taking it's place in history. In the space of 40 years we've gone from leadership critical of the US establishment to "leadership" that pledges allegiance and protection to non-citizens (Israel); bows to "the lobby" AIPAC, and takes special care to show white folk that they have nothing to fear from him by kicking down black people in general and black leadership in particular whenever he is asked to.

Going back to the last debate on CNN. HIs reply to the totally unncessary and race-baiting question on Farrakhan, was a perfect example of the how high?" show that is the Obama campaign. In essence he was told by white folk (Clinton, et-al) to jump so high and he did so. Later he went to an AIPAC meeting and did another "how high" moment. And Friday another "how high boss" show of obedience to the whims and wishes of white folk was done.

What is particularly insulting about this "how high" show is that it's not even being done for survival. Obama won't be going hungry or losing his only means of income as many civilian black folks would be faced with. I recall after going to the Million Man March I came back to an illegal interrogation regarding my whereabouts on that Monday and who gave me "permission" to be out that day. although I was in student loan debt, car note debt, with little savings and even less invested, I didn't lie about my whereabouts. I didn't "explain myself". I didn't denounce Farrakhan or any of his statements. Sure, doing so would have been good for the bottom line. Sure it would have made my all white colleagues comfortable. But I didn't. That's what proud black men who fear no one but God (assuming belief in such a deity) acts.

On every occasion when Obama has had the opportunity to "change" the conversation on race he has instead attacked black folk as being 'anti-semetic" or "anti-immigrant". When that tactic isn't available then black folk simply don't exist (see South Carolina speech).

But lets look at the news clip from MSNBC

Obama: Well you know there was a recognition that he's on the verge of retirement. He's taking a sabatical and it was important for him to step out of the spotlight in this situation.

-A sabatical? Retirement? From what? For what? Spotlight? What Spotlight? haven't seen hide nor hair of this fellow since the campaign began.

Obama: You know frankly I wasn't in church during the time the statements were made. I think it's important Keith to point out that he's been preaching for 30 years, he was a former Marine who served this country, a biblical scholar, someone who's spoken at theological schools all across the country and is widely regarded as a preacher. That's the man I know . That's the person who is the pastor of this church. I did not hear such incendiary language. My self personally. I've had conversations with him, when I was in the pew he was always preaching the social gospel and was sometimes controversal in the same way that many people who speak on social issues are controversial.

Stop for a minute. So people who speak on social issues are often controversial. So since the Obama campaign isn't controversal that would mean what?

Obama: But these particular statements that have been gathered are ones that I strongly objected to. Strongly condemned. If I heard them in church I would have expressed that concern directly to Reverend Wright.

Stop. In my time in Christian churches I have never ever heard of any congregant rolling up on a pastor to disagree with a sermon. Obama either has an exceptional relationship with Mr. Wright, he's lying or I've been out of churches for a long time.

Obama: I didn't become familiar with these until recently.

If you say so.

Obama: I would not repudiate the man.

Oh? Why?

Obama: As I said this is somebody who I have known for 17 years helped bring me to Jesus.

Jesus good, Allah bad. Got it.

Obama: and helped bring me to church.

Church good, Mosque bad. Got it.

Obama: and he and I have a relationship. He's like an uncle who has talked to me, not about political things

Stop. Not about political things? I don't know anyone who is into Black Liberation Theology who does NOT talk about political things. And WHO does not talk politics with a politician?

Obama: not about social views but about faith and God and family. And he's somebody who is widely respected throughout Chicago and around the country for many of the things has has done not only as a pastor but also as a preacher. but I have to say the comments that have been played are ones that are contrary to what I believe. What I think about this country the love I have for this country and are ones that anger and distress me. So I would describe it as a member of your family that said something that you really disagree with they don't stop being a member of your family but you have to speak out forcefully on the issue.

a person respected throughout Chicago and around the country, as a preacher? I thought he was talking about Farrakhan for a minute there. He's respected world wide. He's respected nation wide. But Obama couldn't find the balls to say " i don't repudiate the man". Why? because of a statement he made what 20 years ago? Well Obama just said that such a person ought to be considered "family." So where was this "family" love for Farrakhan?

Is it because he's *gasp* a Muslim? Could it be Obama is playing the religion card?

Now what were those statements that angered you? Maybe the statement your wife made the other day? perhaps something like this:

Earlier in the week, several television stations played clips in which Mr. Wright, of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, referred to the United States as the “U.S. of K.K.K. A.” and said the Sept. 11 attacks were a result of corrupt American foreign policy.

Does that make Obama angry? Does the statement distress Obama? Why? Are they false? Explain that to me man. Oh I forgot I'm a part of that invisible, keep your mouth shut and vote for me, black person. I'm not owed an explanation.

Obama: Now one thing that I do hope to do is to use some of these issues to talk more fully about the question of race in our society. Reverend Wright represents a generation that came of age in the 60's. He is an African-American man who because of his life experiences continues to have a lot of anger and frustration...

Stop. Did I just hear Obama use the "Angry black man" statement to characaturize black people who speak up forcibly about race and international politics? I mean I EXPECT that from Clinton, McCain, etc. That's pretty bad. And note to Obama, some of us haven't grown up in the 60's and share Rev. Wright's critiques of US society... Oh wait...

Obama: and will express that in ways that are very different from me and my generation partly because we benefitted from the struggles of that generation.

You don't say. And after benefitting from that struggle it's cool to talk shit about them right? Anyway, that generational thing is pretty important.

Obama: Part of what we're seeing here is a transition from the past to the future and I hope that our politics represents that future.

Yeah that's a part of it. The other part is that this "Joshua generation" is fuckin' clueless. It is the least active, most self-interested and in spite of the internet, least informed generation of black folks EVER. it is, as we've recenty learned, the most imprisoned, least employed, least wealth holding (overall), least land owning, and possibly the least business owning generation of black folks since segregation.

That the general black electorate cannot see that Obama is playing the same exact race cards and using the same exact code language (as pointed out over at the 'Assault" blog) or that the black electorate does not care that Obama is using the same racial and religious code words is pretty sad commentary on the same folk.

That we went from the strong speakers and leaders like Martin Delany, Garvey, Powel, Martin and Malcolm, to this, it is a really sad state of affairs.

Technorati Tags: ,

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Sean Bell Watch: The Case of the Weed

And so the NY Times is reporting that three bags of weed were found "in a puddle" near the shooting site. This is some very potentially damaging evidence and may raise reasonable doubt. The defense attorneys are positing that Trent Benefield dropped the bags as he ran away from the Altima. The argument being that if he knew that the shooters were police that he knew he would be busted for possession and therefore attempted to get rid of the criminal evidence. Should the weed in question be linked to Mr. Benefield he will have to explain why he had them and why he had tossed them. It would be highly unlikely that Mr. Benefield would have tossed the weed if he simply thought that the persons shooting at him were just "Negroes with guns."

I repeat, this is potentially reasonable doubt material. On the one hand the weed bags had no fingerprints on them, but on the other hand how long does it take hand oils to get off a plastic bag? assuming the packets to belong to him, Had Mr. Benefield touched any of the product? Did he leave any skin cells or anything else that could link him to the packets inside?

Lastly, assuming the packets to be Mr. Benefield's, did he realize that it was police before or after the shooting began? If the answer is before, consider the officers acquitted.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Obama Takes Miss.

Which isn't really news. Had Clinton beat Obama in Miss., that would have been news. However the news from Miss. is that racially the vote is a repeat of South Carolina with whites voting the white candidate and blacks voting the black candidate.

But what is even worse, to me, is that the actions of Republicans, which I have been discussing, in messing with results. Clinton would have been worse had she not had all those Republican cross over votes going to her. Like I said in regards to cross over voting that went Obama's way: Are these votes that he (or she) would get come November? The DLC is has to be doing some number crunching to determine who in November will carry the all important electoral votes which, unlike the primaries are winner take all (with one exception I believe). Can Obama take states that usually vote Republican, like MS, in November? Can Clinton? Can Clinton take the small red states that Obama won primaries in and therefore break the Republican lock on the mid-section of the country? Can Obama?

Polls from CNN:

White Men


70% Clinton

30% Obama

White Women


75% Clinton

24% Obama

Black Men


7% Clinton

93% Obama

Black Women


12% Clinton

88% Obama

White 17-29

(6%) Apparently MIA -Blogger comment)

White 30-44


69% -Clinton

30% Obama

White 45-59


76% Clinton

22% Obama

White 60 and Older


79% Clinton

20% Obama

Black 17-29


12% Clinton

88% Obama

Black 30-44


9% Clinton

91% Obama

Black 45-59


9% Clinton

91% Obama

Black 60 and Older


10% Clinton

90% Obama



32% -Clinton

67% -Obama



77% Clinton

23% Obama



48% Clinton

51% Obama

Technorati Tags:

A Strange Situation Brewing

Last night a Palestinian friend of mine forwarded a poster to me that had a picture of a US aircraft dropping a bomb on a baby carriage with the words GAZA at the bottom. An artistic truth in more than one way. Mulling this over in my head I came to a very worrisome realization. We may be on the verge of something that is very very bad for black folk in America.

Up until now, or better put, the possible near future, the ammunition and other war making hardware sold to Israel has been done under the signature of a white male president and his lackeys. The demonization of the Palestinian people and their cause has flowed from the mouths of white men and women for the longest time, with a few cul-lud folks chiming in with a ""yessa massa." every now and then. The majority of black folk however have been at least wary of the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation. Most call for at least a "balanced" approach to the situation. Those of us who are more political are far more supportive of the Palestinian cause, even though we are also critical of how it has been carried out. We remember that the PLO had the back of the ANC when our brothers and sisters were under the Apartheid government of South Africa.

We are now faced with a possibility that there will be a black man in the oval office, signing off on weapons sales to Israel that will be used to kill Palestinians. This bothers me. It bothers me a great deal. Many leaders of the Palestinian movement cite Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement of the United States as inspiration for their struggle. How ironic and perhaps damaging to the reputation of black folk, that a beneficiary of the Civil Rights struggle may be directly to blame for the deaths of innocent Palestinian children, women and men?

How ironic and perhaps damaging to the global reputation of black folk in America, that they would have supported this candidate uncritically by upwards of 90% in every election he's been in which would probably grow to 100% in the case he is the Democratic nominee.

How ironic and perhaps damaging to the global reputation of so called radical black folk most, if not all of whom are strongly pro-palestinian and who have rightly and correctly lambasted the hypocrisy of the US for it's unwavering support of Israel, have been conspicuously quiet about this support of Israel by Obama who has even shown himself willing to go out of his way to let Jews and Israel know that he'll keep those radical black folk in check in order to gain the White House.

If Obama wins the White House with the overwhelming support of blacks of all stripes and continues to help fund the Israeli war machine, how would we answer the Palestinian who asks us why we supported such a person and policy? The most likely honest answer would be "because he was black."

If American Imperialism has a black face, a black face supported by the masses of black people, then what does it say about the moral compass of black folk in general? What does it say about the principles that black America claims to have? Will it mean that the entire "struggle" was simply to get in on the game? To get a piece of the pie?

These are some serious questions. Meanwhile, I remain very nervous about the prospect of Obama giving a news conference after the latest Israeli incursion and proclaiming that the Palestinians must do x,y and z and accept the taking of a,b, and c land. That's not a good look.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Monday, March 10, 2008

It's Ludacris

While Chris Bridges, AKA Ludacris got some flak over his track: I got hoes (in different area codes), it would appear that Eliot Spitzer will join Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick in the ranks of officials busted on the phone tryin' to get some from someone other than their wives.

What I still cannot understand (aside from the actual cheating) is that both these fools thought that they were so high and mighty that they could make these calls and send these text messages from phones that were linked to them (Kwame) or having been a prosecutor, knows full well that ho-houses are liable to be under investigation and phones to be tapped (Spitzer).

All I gotta ask Spitzer is: Was sex with your wife so bad; so infrequent that the possibility of a career ending bust did not matter?
Well I could ask another question: Was the prospect of divorce so financially devastating that it was deemed untenable? And is it affordable now?

Friday, March 07, 2008

Manning Marable on Obama and Race

If I didn't know better I would have assumed that Mr Marable was actually smoking some potent ganga when he penned his last piece that appeared in the Black Commentator

He writes:

So I return to the white college administrator whose son is in prison on drug charges. I made a mistake. People of color must break through the mental racial barricades that divide America into parallel racial universes. We need to mobilize and support the election of Barack Obama not only because he is progressive and fully qualified to be president, but also because only his campaign can force all Americans to overcome the centuries-old silences about race that still create a deep chasm across this nation’s democratic life. In the end, we must force our fellow citizens who happen to be white, to come to terms with their own whiteness, their guilt and fears about America’s terrible racial past.

If there is any hope for meaningful change inside U.S. electoral system in the future, it lies with progressive leaders like Barack Obama. If we can dare to dream politically, let us dream of the world as it should be.

Perhaps he has had personal meetings with Obama or perhaps he has seen some presentation that managed to not get covered by the press. However; the above quote is La la land as any I've read.

Obama's campaign has not been anything about forcing American to overcome "centuries-old silences about race." The man could not bring himself, while in NYC to comment on the Sean Bell Shooting. He was nowhere to be seen when the Jena Six incident happened. He stood up in King Jr's old church on King Jr's birthday and chose to scold black folk about their supposed anti-Semitism. After "denouncing and rejecting Minister Farrakhan, he went to meet some Jews to make sure they understood that he was on their side and he would be there for Israel. Exactly how does this all become a " overcome centuries old silences?"

Marable must think we are all stupid.

Obama is not about making white folks examine America's racial past. His status is directly related to the fact that Obama has a nominal relation to America's "terrible racial past." He is liked by so many white folk because, as many of them have said themselves, he is not fully "black." He doesn't make them feel bad about Americas past. Even Obama's wife, who I actually like better than Obama, has felt the "don't step out of line nigger" pressure when she honestly discussed her feelings of non-pride in America.

Look, if Marable is in Obama's corner that's not a problem. He should do him. But please lets not start attributing things to the man or the campaign that are simply not there.

A Response to Bill Fletcher

Bill Fletcher Jr, wrote an excellent piece in the last issue of the Black Commentator. The title and subject was NAFTA, Immigrants and the Discussion That is NOt Happening. In that piece Fletcher does an excellent job on discussing how NAFTA is largely responsible for the lowering of the standard of living for Mexican farmers and is therefore a major cause of illegal immigration.

However; when Fletcher got to the end of his piece he decided to attack one of the victims of NAFTA: The black working class.

I thought a great deal about this recently when I was moderating a debate on immigration within a labor union. The vehemence of some of the anti-immigrant speakers, including - and very unfortunately - an African American woman, was not only deeply unsettling, but equally lacking in any historical context. While the focus of the anti-immigrant speakers was allegedly undocumented immigrants in general, there was nothing in their language that indicated that they were thinking about Irish, Poles, Russians, or anyone other than Latinos, and most particularly, Mexicans. When confronted with this question of NAFTA they had nothing to say. Interestingly, they could also not explain why they had nothing to say about any other ethnic undocumented worker besides Latinos.

It is commonplace in the USA to think in terms of what affects us, and particularly the notion that whatever harms us in the USA must be among the most catastrophic things to affect the planet. Rarely do we stop and think about the actual consequences of the actions of the USA on the rest of the world. Rarer still has been our consideration of how the actions the USA initiates, whether treaties like NAFTA or military actions such as the 1980s Central American wars, end up boomeranging.

Let us examine the problems with the above paragraphs.

I thought a great deal about this recently when I was moderating a debate on immigration within a labor union. The vehemence of some of the anti-immigrant speakers, including - and very unfortunately - an African American woman, was not only deeply unsettling, but equally lacking in any historical context.

Well after telling us how Unions were foremost in the fight against the passage of NAFTA, Fletcher now want's to get mad at Union members for arguing against the fallout of a program that they opposed. I don't think that is particularly fair. But to then get on the case of an African-American woman as if by virtue of being black she is supposed to toe some line that Fletcher has decided was THE hallmark of his worldview is equally offensive. What is even worse is that he never really discusses what the woman actually said rather he gives us a summary of that which he thought was "wrong" and we're supposed to agree with him because well, he's Mr. Fletcher.

The next part is equally insulting.

While the focus of the anti-immigrant speakers was allegedly undocumented immigrants in general, there was nothing in their language that indicated that they were thinking about Irish, Poles, Russians, or anyone other than Latinos, and most particularly, Mexicans. When confronted with this question of NAFTA they had nothing to say. Interestingly, they could also not explain why they had nothing to say about any other ethnic undocumented worker besides Latinos.

Note the use of the term "allegedly." This is a common tactic used against those of us who have issues with illegal immigration. They like to try to say that we are against all immigration or hate all immigrants and want everybody to go home. This is not the case. I would really like it if those on the other side of the argument stop putting words in our mouths. There is no doubt that there are those who are true xenophobes and they ought to be spoken out against across the board, but simply opposing illegal immigration is not in and of itself evidence of xenophobia.

On the next issue, that of immigrants other than those from Latin America, Fletcher decides to throw us a very red herring. Lets throw this fish back in the water. If we look at the following chart


Now it you look at the chart you'll see that 80% of illegal immigrants, as of 2004 come from Latin American countries. By contrast only 6% of illegal immigrants come from Europe. So those Russians, Poles, Irish, are really irrelevant to the conversation. This is not like say racial profiling on the NJ Turnpike or in Maryland where black folk make up about 15% of the driving population but were (are?) stopped at an extremely high rate. The fact of the matter, whether one likes it or not is that if one is discussing illegal immigration one is typically talking about a Mexican or other Latin American national. It is not xenophobic to actually point out a fact. Now if we assume that Mr. Fletcher actually knew this bit of information then we can also assume that Mr. Fletcher had decided to purposefully mischaracterize this African-American woman. Why would he do that? Personally I think this reflects very poorly on Mr. Fletcher.

So even though Mr. Fletcher wants us to think that black folks, well some of us, are oblivious to the consequences of US policy. Well we are. We support indigenous rights in Latin America. We support killing NAFTA or at least replacing it with something far more equitable. But we are not blind to our concerns and are no longer willing to put other peoples needs before ours. Out working class black folk need our support. It is clear that illegal immigration depresses wages for American citizens. It puts stress on urban schools that are underfunded to begin with. It causes housing pressure at the low end of the market.

But I guess these things aren't important to Mr. Fletcher. But I suppose these things are important to that African-American woman who he decided to smear in his piece.

Technorati Tags:

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Sean Bell Watch

Interesting testimony from Detective Sanchez:

He said that he saw them outside among about 20 customers, and that Detective Isnora told him he had retrieved his gun, which he could not carry into the club.

So did Isnora simply retrieve his gun or did he retrieve his gun and his badge from the Camry as was described by police in December and pointed out in our previous posting.

Secondly we have this:

Officer Robert Maloney testified that at least one of the undercover officers had his badge out when he arrived, although he arrived there moments after the shooting had stopped, theoretically allowing the officer to pull the badge out. Whether the officers involved in the shooting had identified themselves in the frantic seconds before the shots rang out is one of the central questions of the trial.

Did anyone ask him which undercover officer had his badge out? And to repeat a previous question: Are there any pictures from the scene of the officers? Did Isanora still have his partners phone in his hand?

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Ohio Irregularities, Texas Caucuses and Super Delegates. Oh My!

And so once again Ohio election officials are unable to properly run an election. Despite the fact that there has been record turn outs in Democratic races everywhere and despite the fact that registration was up, Ohio election officials still did not have enough paper ballots. This is partly due to an apparent late decision over the electronic voting machines. Another part of the problem was reported high cross over voting from Republicans which is another reason why cross over voting ought to be banned.

Then in Texas, the only state where you vote in a primary AND a caucus, rooms were overflowing to the extent that all supporters of either candidate were unable to fit at caucusing places. It is clear that the completely DUMB Texas process has disenfranchinsed both the voters and the candidates. Texas needs to do either a primary or caucus. Not both.

In any event, barring some unforeseen event this race is going to come down to the superdelegates. Let's get this straight, the superdelegates were not created to reflect the popular will. They were not created to rubber stamp the "choice of the people." If that was the purpose they would never had been created in the first place. The role of the superdelegates is to maintain control of the "process" so that the "wild public" cannot do "damage" to the party by voting for a candidate that either can't win or is anti-thetical to the party "needs."

Now a days the media has taken over much of the purpose of the superdelegate. The media can kill a candidacy by simply ignoring or ridiculing a candidate. So the DNC does not have to worry about people like Kucinich or Sharpton ever getting close to the nomination. Similarly a Ron Paul is equally unlikely to get very far. So what's really left for the superdelegates to do is decide which candidate is most likely to win and folks up until last night I thought that was Obama. However; as Clinton said last night, no president in recent history has won the presidency without winning Ohio. Obama took the cities where the most votes are, but Hillary took the rest of the state. In fact where Hillary lost, she still got more votes than McCain got in his win. And remember, this happened after what I consider to be minor attacks on Obama by Clinton. I'm not buying the "Clinton camp sent out the African garb picture." because I get mail from myself all the time, e-mail headers are easy to forge and there are a lot of people out there who have pictures of Obama and want to see him, well, dead, who would gladly send such a e-mail. The resco thing is old and the NAFTA commentary I think is fair game. Not that Hillary has a better plan on that subject but her advisor wasn't caught discussing "political posturing" to Canadian officials. Obama must know that it's not what you do that's important but what you get caught doing that is important.

in any event If Hillary does get the nomination those superdelegates that changes sides when she appeared to be losing ought to be pretty concerned. If Hillary is anything like me, she hates and despises people who are not loyal and will plan on some way to pay them back. I think James Clyburn of South Carolina said it best:

I still remain studiously neutral. I think that the historical significance of so-called superdelegates, these are unpledged delegates, is very, very important for us to maintain. We are in place in order to either extend the wishes of the voters or to try to make corrections if they need to be made.

The superdelegate's job is not to influence the primaries and caucuses by endorsing any candidate. The superdelegate is supposed to wait until it is their turn to weigh in.

Lastly, on Florida and Michigan I find myself in agreement with Al Sharpton, that as it stands they ought not seat the delegates from those states because the elections that were carried out there were flawed. However, given that neither candidate will reach the magic number, I think the DNC ought to reset the voting for those two states. If for no other reason than that many superdelegates and Obama himself have made the claim of the popular will (which, interestingly enough Obama has changed his tune on and is now talking about delegates mattering more than the results.) Had the elections gone down when they were scheduled it is likely that Obama would have lost Florida and the Michigan primary would have been close given the state demographics.

However, Obamas current strength may make the results go in his favor in Florida. So the only way I would agree to a seating of delegates from those states would be under those circumstances. New voting for both states or nothing.

In closing we note that Clinton is apparently floating the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket which I said is the best ticket that a Clinton headed ticket could have and would in my opinion be a clean sweep. Clinton needs Obama more than Obama has needed Clinton and I still think that is the case. If both of these cats are real about the need to "end it now." they ought to sit in a room with no press and no advisors and talk it out. I'm a seniority person and I think that Clinton ought to head the ticket based on that especially given that they both have virtually identical positions. Obama can run for president next time and still be a young face with none of the "experience" liabilities. They'd have the womens vote wrapped up, the youth vote wrapped up. the Hispanic vote wrapped up and the black vote wrapped up.

But let me repeat, for all those who may be confused by that last paragraph: I support neither candidate. Neither one fits my politics. My comments are a basic analysis of "the game." Nothing more. Nothing less.

Technorati Tags: