Faith Based America

So while I was on Alternet this morning I read a article entitled Welcome to Faith Based America in which the following was reported:

As part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative," US taxpayers gave the Salvation Army's children services division $47 million this year -- 95% of its total budget. Several Salvation Army employees refused to take the Salvation Army's pledge "proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord," reveal which church they belong to or identify gay co-workers -- and were summarily fired.

It links to a Washington Post article in which we find:

U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein noted that all the plaintiffs worked for a children's services division of the Salvation Army that gets 95 percent of its $50 million budget from government grants.

But the judge's 48-page opinion upheld the principle that a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds. That principle is at the heart of the Bush administration's policy.

"It's huge," H. James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said of the decision. "It's certainly a vindication of what President Bush has been saying from Day One -- that religious groups do not have to sell their soul, compromise their hiring practices, in order to partner with government in providing social services."

This is a very important and clearly wrong judicial decision that clearly violates Church-State boundaries that Mr. Bush et. al. are bent on destroying.

If a school receives federal funds it cannot discriminate against protected classes. Now the 1954 civil rights legislation makes it clear that religion based organizations may hire and fire based on religion since religion is the basis of the organization's founding. Now Non-profit entities such as the Salvation Army do not pay taxes so long as they abide by the rules of 501c(3) regulations.

So we see that there is a conflict of interest here. The government cannot by law give funds directly to organizations that discriminate, yet "faith based" organizations are free to discriminate. Lets look at the ethics here:

People look for work. Much of what the Salvation Army does requires low skilled labor. People with low skills in America are more likely to be poor and, hence in need of employment. If one of those persons were to apply for a job they are qualified for you would think that the Salvation Army, being a charitable organization, would welcome the opportunity to provide employment to people. In fact, the last page of it's Annual report states:

THE SALVATION ARMY, AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT,
IS AN EVANGELICAL PART OF THE UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
ITS MESSAGE IS BASED ON THE BIBLE.
ITS MINISTRY IS MOTIVATED BY THE LOVE OF GOD.
ITS MISSION IS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
AND TO MEET HUMAN NEEDS
IN HIS NAME WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.

Thus ethically, and by it's own mission statement, the Salvation Army is out of line for making demands on the employees. Secondly, since the organization clearly states that it exists to "Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ," then it should not be receiving any funds from the Federal, State or Local government for it's activities. If it does receive such funds, then they should be made to show that the monies were used in activities that did not involved "Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

According to it's 2004 Annual report the Salvation Army recvieved 11%$ of its finding from the "government." It's budget was $3,040 million, 11% of which was $334,000,000 of US Taxpayer money
$60 million more than went to HBCU's in that year. $30 million more than was allocated for Community Development Loan Guarantees. There are many programs that the $334 million could have gone to but, no, it was given to an organization to prosyletize and discriminate against employees involved in addressing human needs.

Now it has been posited that folks who are not Christian should not work at an organization that is Christian. I would agree, except, well we supposedly work in a secular country where discrimination is prohibited. I do wonder whether the peeople who donate to the Salvation Army know that it discriminates and harrasses it's employees. I wonder if the Salvation Army checks the religion of the folks donating to it. I mean if employing and paying non-believers is a problem for the Salvation Army, then taking the money of non-believers should be a problem as well.

I'd like my portion of that $334 returned.

All the news fit to print eh

The New York Times, long and often attacked as being a "Liberal" paper had a very interesting thing happen this weekend. It had no news of the Millions More Movement. There was reporting of the vote in Iraq, sports, house building, but no news on the Millions More Movement. Now it's not that you must agree with Min. Farahkhan or Jesse Jackson or Al Shapton. I would simply think that a couple thousand black folks on the Great Lawn would at least lend itself to at least a 2 paragraph note on the event. Maybe a picture. But no. Just now I did a search on the NYT website for Millions More Movement and came up with nada, zero, zilch, the big bupkiss. I also did another search on "black incarceration." and I got more than 1 result. I got quite a few results actually. It would appear the so called "liberal" NYT's finds reporting on black incarceration more 'newsworthy" than the goings on and opinions of the non-incarcerated among us.

So I'd really like to know. Does Bob Herbet have anything to say on the subject? No, I guess not. So it appears that here in 2005 Ralph Ellison still has it right. Black folks, Invisible, unless we're committing a crime or dancing a gig.

Thanks NYT's for reminding me of what's really "fit to print." At least online.

On Chavez

Today I read an article on counterpunch that discusses Chavez, his roots and his ideology. This would be a good read for everyone and underscored why I disliked Kerry as much as Bush because Kerry was just as wrong on Venezuela and Chavez as Bush was so as far as I was concerned: same diff.

Quote:
he white elite has not been amused by Chávez's recent moves. For them, the new president was an outsider. In contrast to previous leaders in Venezuela and throughout the region who identified with the outside European world, Chávez loudly proclaimed his indigenous and African roots. Chávez himself seems well aware of the race issue. According to the Venezuelan president, racial tensions have increased since his election. "There is racism here," Chávez remarked. "It used to be more hidden and now it is more open." Chávez's opponents, who argue that racism does not exist in the country, charged that the president exploits the race card for political gain. According to Fletcher, the Chávez opposition "has attacked him [Chávez] using racist language and imagery which would be totally unacceptable in public discourse in the USA." The Venezuelan elite has used racial slurs to taint Chávez, denouncing him as a black monkey. According to author Tariq Ali, "A puppet show to this effect with a monkey playing Chávez was even organized at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology." The attacks continued when Venezuelan media commentators referred to the Minister of Education, Aristobulo Isturiz, who is black, as "a monkey" and "an ape." Meanwhile, analysts have remarked upon the racial undertones of political conflict in Chávez's Venezuela. "Class and skin color differences," remarks Wilpert, "clearly correlate very highly at demonstrations, such that the darker skinned (and presumably lower class) support the Chávez government and the lighter skinned (and presumably middle and upper class) oppose the Chávez government."

links:http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff10142005.html

The Millions More Movement

So today was the Millions More Movement. I didn't go. I thought about it, but based on my experience last time, I simply did not feel like driving 3 hours to stand on wet grass and listen to speeches for the day and then drive 3 hours back to NY. SO I watched the speeches on C-SPAN.

What I saw on C-SPAN was much like what I experienced 10 years ago at the MMM. So I don't feel that I missed much, except the drive and the stand. I won't get into how many people may or may not have shown up because ultimately I don't think it's very important. What is important is what happens after tomorrow (This was a 3 day event). I just wanted to make some observations though:

1) Religion: While I "rested my eyes" I heard a speaker say that the only basis for black people to unify is around spirituality because we don't have a culture with which to rally around. While I think that the point about shared culture is valid to an extent, I must disagree with "spirituality" being the basis of unity. Firstly, if we are discussing a Pan-African government and society in which multiple types of people are involved, we have to realize that as small a minority as they may be, there are those who do not believe in God. Furthermore it is not the place of a movement for empowering black people to dictate that they must believe in God.

The second problem with the "spirituality" arguement is the insistance by many to define God in masculine terms. There are many of us who simply do not agree with this and we are slowly but surely voicing our position that we will not sit by and be silent while assumptions about "God" are made by those who claim to represent us.

This brings me to the second isssue. I watched a Reverend, whos name I don't recall start preaching about Jesus. Again, in the wish for unity, I don't see why that was relevant (though I'm sure he thought so) or neccessary. He should have gotten a clue when his calls for "Amen" went largely unanswered. If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could refrain from "preaching" (and I didn't catch all of thier presentations) then this particular individual should have refrained as well. Of course if Jesse Jackson did preach, then this last comment is out the window ain't it?

It appears that we have forgotten the lesson that Brother Malcolm X taught us: Leave your religion in the closet because it can become a point of friction and fractionalization when dealing with unity issues.

The second issue deals with a portion of Farahkhan's speech were he discussed the slowness of African unity. He was very brief on the subject, but I think that the issue should be looked at in more detail. There is quite a bit of "tribalism" that will prevent the unification of Africa. There is not only ethnic "tribalism" but also growing religious "tribalism" that will tear apart coutries like Nigeria and Sudan much like we saw in Rwanda. This post is not going to venture to discuss a solution for this problem especially since much of these issues are ingrained for hundreds of years.

What I liked very much about the MMM was that the speakers spoke on many issues that have been co-opted by so called Black Conservatives. This made patent liars out of those so called "Black conservatives" who make their living attempting to smear us, us being the radicals, of being anti-family, anti-marriage, anti- self responsibility, anti-business. They were exposed for being that which we have always known them to be: white racists in black skins. can they honestly say that they had no clue that we were pro-family? and pro-Self-Responsibility? If they say that then they are exposed for not being in touch with the black radical community. That would also mean that they, like their white counterparts, base thier opinions on the grossly distorted information fed by the media.

I hope that the parishoners of those Reverends that spoke out against this event see their preachers and leaders for what they are.

Lastly I hope that those people who didn't go because they were not inclined to "black radicalism" have the chance to see the breadth of us and decide to join in.

In The Shadow Of Zimbabwe

The BBC has reported that South Africa is begining to liberate land from Afrikaners to return to blacks.

It appears that for the past 11 years the Government of South Africa has been trying to repatriate 1/3 of white "owned" land back into black hands but have only managed to transfer 4%. In this particular case we find that the value of the land to be in dispute:

Quote:
Mr Visser has the 500-hectare (1,250-acre) cattle and crop farm in Lichtenburg in North West province.

His family bought it in 1968, but a black family has lodged a claim to the property dating back to the 1940s.

Over the past two-and-a-half years, Mr Visser and the Land Claims Commission have been trying to negotiate, but failed to agree on the value of the property.

The government had offered to buy the farm for $275,000 but Mr Visser says it is worth almost twice as much.

Mr Visser now has 21 days to respond to the notice of expropriation.

In my opinion Mr. Visser should consider himself fortunate to be receiving any "compensation" for "his" land.

Having said that, having seen what a mess land transference can become, a -la-Zimbabwe, I hope that Mbeki and the ANC are very carefull in this plan. They need to make sure that land is given to persons qualified to continue the farming done there. I agree that the governemnt is right to use "eminent domain" on these lands, but they should be carefull to not scare off expertise that will be needed for at least a generation. I cannot stress it enough, that this land issue should not become cronyism.

links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4340396.stm

Join the Ummah

So I'm perusing Black Electorate when I stumble across this article by Carol Wolman entitled:

Why Americans should observe Ramadan which struck me was plain WRONG for many reasons. First we have this:

Muslims all over the world consider themselves part of the body of Islam, called the ummah. This is their primary identity, stronger than national loyalty. "Islam" means "peace", and "Muslim" means "servant of God". During Ramadan, most Muslims are praying for peace. The jihadis are aberrant, heretical- Islam has no place for targeting civilians or killing people who have not attacked them. On the other hand, an attack on any Muslim is considered an attack on the entire ummah, and self-defense is legitimate, according to the Qu'ran.

Firstly, Islam does not mean "peace." I don't know who told Carol this but it is wrong. Islam means submission to God. "Salaam" means peace. With such a basic mistake how can the reader even begin to take the rest of the article seriously. Why didn't the editor of this online journal correct this before it's posting? Anyway. For some reason the author wants us to believe that in spite of the vast history available to us, Jihadis are an aberration. Yah, OK. SUURE.

Then Carol puts this out there:

Any American who considers him/herself a servant of God can join the ummah and observe Ramadan. There are no special ceremonies needed to become a Muslim, one simply has to accept Allah, and the validity of Muhammed's prophetic mission. This is a sticking point for right-wing Christians, who are taught by their false prophets that Allah is a moon god, and not the same as Eli, the God of the Bible. Muslims and the Qu'ran, however, emphasize that Allah IS the God of the Bible, that Jesus is the ultimate leader, and that Muslims are descended spiritually from Abraham, through his older son Ishmael.

Oh I see, It's not really about fasting, it's about becoming a Muslim. See that's the problem. You'll note that the author wants us to believe that rejection of the institution of Islam is a by product of right wing Christianity. Note to author: Some of we aren't even Christians. But I don't want to dwell on that point. What is important here is the discussion of the Ummah, Jihadis and why taking Carol's advice is a bad idea.

The modern ideology of Jihad was authored by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While imprisoned he wrote that the world is divided into two realms:

Dar Al-Islam- The abode of Islam. and Dar Al-Harb- The abode of war. He wrote that Muslims should not fight for a particular piece of land, but rather the whole Dar- Al -Islam, which we shall refer to as the Ummah. Dar Al Harb is any place that hampered the practice of Islam and/or failed to apply Sharia. Furthermore the abode of war should be combated even if one's own relatives, national group, capital and commerce are there.

Later another Egyptian, Muhammad Al-Farag, a leader in Jamaat al Jihad movement wrote in a tract entitled "The Neglected Obligation" that Jihad was the sixth pilar of Islam and that armed struggle was an imperative for all true muslims.

"There is no doubt that the first battlefield for Jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order."

So since the objective of the Jihadi is ultimately to convert the infidel to Islam, the suggestion by Carol, that we join the Ummah, actually plays right into the Jihadi goal. Even though Carol couches her suggestion as a means to oppose the Bush regime, it is simply an unwise and ill informed suggestion. Rather than roll over for the Jihadi, those of us who are not Muslims, should denounce the Bush regime and Jihadis in our own terms from within our own faiths and belief systems.

Black Babies and Crime

Bill Bennett was caught in an interview stating:

But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

An interesting comment to put it lightly. The above comment was in response to a question by a caller questioning Bennett on a hypothesis about the drop in crime being related to the rise in Abortion. The usual suspects raked Bennett over the coals and the usual suspects ran to his defense. Among the unusual suspects, at least to me, was one La Shawn Barber who thinks that Blacks have blown the entire thing out of proportion. She says:

Black women are more than three times as likely than white women to kill their babies in utero. Thirty-six percent of all abortions are performed on black women. Bennett said that is morally reprehensible. But you won’t ever hear the media-addicted Jesse Jackson or the clownish Al Sharpton or the virulent Howard Dean or bigoted John Kerry say that. Your very own NAACP OFFICIALLY advocates the murders of its own people, and over 70 percent of black babies are born to women who didn’t bother to get married and create a stable home for their children, but you’re “outraged” over what some white man said?

And

Third, Bennett’s hypothetical is based on fact. Blacks are 12.3 percent of the population, and about half are black men, which means black men are approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population. [Note: Until I remember where I got a certain statistic and link to the source, I’m deleting it. Look for an update tomorrow. In the meantime, the stats found at BJS are still alarming.] (see Bureau of Justice Statistics). Why aren’t you outraged over those shameful statistics?

Hypothetically speaking, if fewer black boys were born, there’d be fewer around to commit crimes. Bennett didn’t (and couldn’t if he wanted to!) say that all blacks commit crimes. In the aggregate, however, blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their numbers in the general population. It follows, statistically speaking, that the fewer blacks there are, the fewer crimes will be committed. This is not a racist statement, people. It is a statistical reality. Blame black criminal thugs for preying on their own people, not Bill Bennett for pointing it out. Illogical!

These are the linchpins of her argument. I won't get into the abortion as murder argument, but I will say that in reference to Bill Bennett's position it is irrelevant. The problem with Bennett's statement is not its reference to abortion, but rather who should or would be aborted to get this great reduction in crime. Why would Mr. Bennett choose to single out the abortion of every black baby? Not black males (whom are the most likely to be incarcerated in the black population) but all black babies? See that really underscores the subconscious understanding that black people are a threat to society. Period. But La Shawn depends upon statistics so lets go there.

According to the Bureau of Prisons as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics there are 4,919 black male inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States (June 2004). If you divide the black population (~40 mill) in half and do the math (20 mill *4919)/100,000 you would get a total of 983,800 black male inmates or 2.45% of the total black population.

White males are represented by 717 male inmates per 100,000 white males. In 1988 the white/black population ratio was 6.44. If we assume this number to still be accurate then our hypothetical white male population would be 128,800,000 people. Doing the math we did for the black population, we would get another 923,496 inmates. If we put these numbers together we get close to the total prison population of the US as of June 2005 (2,131,180). What immediately jumps out is that following Bennett’s logic, if we aborted every white baby, we would see the same drop in crime, since eliminating all white babies or all black babies would produce, mathematically, the same drop in inmates, and the crimes they committed.

So then, why, if Mr. Bennett is so informed, did he choose to pick on black babies? Hmmmmmm. Perhaps it is because the 2.4% of black males that commit crimes and are convicted of them are more in the forefront of the consciousness of Americans than we would like to believe. After all we get to hear about black males being 4x, 9x and whatever X more than whites to be doing something negative. But when we look at actual numbers we realize we are talking about a relatively small number of people. A relatively small population spread out over many states.

Fully 50% of those incarcerated are for drug offenses. 50%. We already know that, for example, the Rockefeller laws of NY state placed many blacks into prisons for the mere possession of a bit of crack, while powder cocaine users, who are largely white, were getting off easy. Are we then not surprised when in certain locales, blacks make up a large majority of prison inmates and whites do not? This isn't to pooh pooh the drug trade, but merely to show the clear bias in Bennett’s statement. If you wanted to reduce crime (as indicated by incarceration) merely treat crack users like powder cocaine users and voila! Instant drop in crime. Better yet, legalize drug use and realize a full 50% drop in drug crimes, and perhaps a good percentage of it's attendant ills of prostitution, homicides and homicide.

But the statement wasn't really about crime or abortion. The statement was about blacks being perceived as the cause of crime. Crime is a Black problem. Crime wears a black face. This is why we find Bennett’s comments offensive. Not because it was statistically wrong, but that it portrayed crime as a black problem and harkens back to the Eugenicists who claimed that lower class people (blacks and poor whites) ought to not breed in order to reduce the burden on society. We should all be alarmed when such ideas are put forth in such a ways to feed the idea that crime is a BLACK problem.

Of course you don't have to see it that way. You can see it as a simple abortion and statistical issue. But if you see it that way, don't go calling the rest of us names 'cause we don’t.

The Not Too Intelligent

This post will fall way out the ordinary fare of this blog. About the only link this has to any subject previously broached here is that it again critiques the religious who insist upon trying to force the rest of us to believe as they do. Back in August Time Magazine had an article about the "debate" between Darwinian Evolution (nee" Evilution to some fundamentalists) and Intelligent Design (nee: Creationism without mentioning the Christian God-Head). And let's be clear here, this is all about the Christian God head, since I am sure that should the schools decide to teach, say, the Kikuyu version of creation, all parties would be unified in attempting to get the school to stop.

However, this isn't about the relative merits of various religious views on creation, rather it is a discussion on why the ID crowd is, scientifically, wrong. I want to point the reader to one of the arguments given for ID as written in Time:

The eye couldn't possibly be the product of accidental mutations, say Darwin's critics. Sure a bird with sharper eyes might catch more prey and have more offspring, but where did the first eye come from? How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ that needs all it's parts-pinhole, lens, light sensitive surface - in order to work? It's no accident, say Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, that the eye resembles a camera, which everybody instantly recognizes as a product someone designed. "If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck," Behe writes, 'then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck."

On the surface this is a simple argument. In fact it's simplicity underscored why it is so bad (and why those who need simple, straight forward answers to things would gravitate to it). Instead of trying to argue for the eye, lets instead look at the camera.

Cameras are in fact the result of many many many different and unrelated inventions and discoveries. The person who made the first camera did not invent each and every piece himself at one time. No the camera is in fact the amalgamation of previously developed parts.

The lens: In order to make a lens one must first have discovered how to make glass. Of course to make glass one had to master fire, sand collection, etc. Clearly those who made a lens were not even remotely thinking of a camera, yet the work to make a lens and different lenses were laid down.

"Focusing Tube": For the sake of argument this is the space between the lens and the element that the image is captured on. Early cameras had flexible "tubes'. These accordion type of material used in early cameras clearly depended upon the invention of that kind of paper or whatever material it was (which is another discussion in itself).

The "Picture taking button": This is a whole other thing here. Something has to actuate the 'blinds" to take the picture. This requires vast knowledge in physics including knowledge of levers, mirrors, springs, none of which were invented with the camera in mind as a purpose.

Clearly then, there are many prior inventions and discoveries that went into the appearance of the camera. None of these events were necessarily related nor do they exist in the camera as they existed when first invented. Thus each individual portion had to appear and "evolve' in order to get to a form that would be useful in the camera. Thus the argument that the pieces of the eye (or camera) could not have "spontaneously occurred" is rendered moot since the camera itself can be proven to be the result of random mutations.

But some would say that since humans made each part then such human intervention is evidence of intelligent design. It is not. In nature cells respond to environmental stimuli. We all know about bacteria that mutate to become immune to medicines. In the human, macrocosm, humans are the "environmental stimuli." The camera, as dissected shows how each piece can and was made without some higher goal of creating this one complex thing, but rather each piece was made in, of and for itself. Similarly each mutation, each symbiotic relationship exists in and for itself.

Going back to the eye argument, Why would the light sensitive cells (retina) be situated right behind the pinhole? Why would they exist anywhere else? It could be argued that the cells that make up the retina are there because that is the only place where light enters the body and the cells are protected. The only other light responding cells in the body is the skin, where Melanocytes will produce more or less melanin in response to sunlight. It is interesting that the retina also produces Melotonin which is considered a master regulator of other hormones in the body. It is entirely possible that retinal cells and Melanocytes had the same job but by some mutation the retinal cells were able to lodge themselves in the eye. It is instructive that Melanocytes and retinal cells arise from the neural crest during embryonic development (In humans). But all of this is besides the point, since I'm not trying to explain how (as I am not qualified to do so).

ultimately the argument that this ID supporter uses is weak. Those unfamiliar with the science behind Darwinian Evolution would fall easily to the arguments behind ID. Unfortunately a great deal of the American public actually has very little science knowledge. So it is no surprise that the arguments are even being considered.

Garvey's Ghost Responds to Rising Son (The Real One)

Well right after I posted my "taking a break" post I happened upon comments to my last post regarding responses to Common's commentary on "Dreads" with White women. Apparently my post caught the attention of one of the artists whom took issue with Common's words who proceeded to post the following the comments section:

WOW.....i'm lost for words. You think i want to "Eliminate the black man". haha. You don't even know me, and you've not spoken to me to find out what i ACTUALLY have to say about it. All YOU've done is take QUOTES from other sources and formulated an opinion, and in doing so you have managed to label me (not in so many words) as a racist. For a website called "Garveys ghost" you don't seem to have anything positive to say about Rastafarianism, which i'm not sure if you're aware that Garvey revolutionised this in Jamaica. It's why Burning Spear openly pays homeage to the man. To mock the belief that "Selassie is not dead" is almost blasphemous because people say the same thing about Christ and i dont see you being sarcastic about that at all. So already you have made a mockery of what your name represents, not a good start. As you can probably tell from my tone i am far from happy.
I am extemely hurt by the way you have made me out to be some kind of Anti-Black mixed race boy with some kind of identity problems. I know who the hell i am. My mother is white and my father was a revolutionary who did more for the black race than You and probably anyone you know. If i mention some of the names of the people he worked closely with you will faint. Assata Shakur is one of them, do you even know who that is? Allow me to tell you some more about my father.....
He grew up in Trinidad at a time when the americans had pretty much colonised the island. He fought for the rights of Black women to have jobs in Black banks in a Black country. He had to fight for that and they eventually won. He has had guns put to his head, been buried alive and all sorts, fighting for black power. He was also a part of the movement that went down to the american airbase in Port of Spain and burnt it down sending all the americans packing back to america where they stayed. They liberated Trinidad. That means any family you had there at the time was Liberated by my dad and his people. Thats a lot of history there, a history that i am so PROUD of.
So can you imagine now my anger at people like Common when they make comments like the ones he's been making. It's almost like all that history i just told you goes out the window because he went out with my mum, and he becomes a "sellout". Never mind the fact that he was a Black Panther and fought for equality and almost died hundreds of times for Black people. That really hurts. I don't think a lot of people actually get what we're trying to say. You and many others seem to think that we're trying do discredit the black woman by encouraging black men to pay more attention to white women. No WAY. I'm sorry but it's not that. I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER (i put that in bold because i want it to be CLEARLY understood) WITH ANY PERSON FROM any PART OF THE WORLD WHO PREFERS TO STICK TO THEIR OWN RACE. i uNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF RACIAL PRESERVATION, AND I THINK THAT IN THE bLACK COMMUNITY ITS EVEN MORE IMPoRTANT DUE TO THE ALARMING RATE IN WHICH YOUNG BLACK MALES ARE KILLING EACHOTHER. However, on the track, All i'm simply saying is that you cant go around condemning people for the people they choose to love. Yoko Ono was married to john Lennon and nobdy Chinese said a God Damn Word, why, because it's not important. I don't hear common telling blacks not to mix with indians or malaysians or anyone else, so to only pick on the white race (and i don't really care what you say) Is RACIST. It's reverse racism. And until EVERYONE IN THE WORLD stops behaving so, there will always be racism and we will keep going round in circles. My dad is NOT a F**king sellout and i will fight anyone who says that he is because he is part of the reason why we are even in england today with the rights that we have. I'm sorry if my defending this has upset you, but quite frankly my dear i don't give a f**k and if you think that i'm a racist you can go to hell. I am proud as hell of my African Heritage thank you very much, so you can take your sorry, unresearched, opinionated review and stick it up your over sensitive ass.

Soooooooo I guess it would only be right for me to respond, though perhaps this discussion ought to be carried out between Rising Son and Common.

So lets examine this post first Rising Son says:

WOW.....i'm lost for words. You think i want to "Eliminate the black man". haha. You don't even know me, and you've not spoken to me to find out what i ACTUALLY have to say about it. All YOU've done is take QUOTES from other sources and formulated an opinion, and in doing so you have managed to label me (not in so many words) as a racist.

Well actually I never said that I think Rising Son want's to "eliminate the black man." I simply quoted the verse off the track he was on which was quoted in UK Magazine in which he is quoted saying:

Rising Son refers to Common as a "racist bitch" and spits, "I predict the future is mixed/ Marking the end of all this racism sh--."

So if Rising Son has a problem with the quote he ought to take it up with UK Magazine. Real PAn-Africanists would never ever have that kind of commentary fall out their mouths anyways. My commentary on the statement said:

So while these MC's think they are on some higher plane than Common, they are found to be repeating the racist commentary of Mexico, Brazile and other counries in which "Lightening up" the black population was/is the ideal.

Thus I was comparing how these MC's, presumable including Rising Son, happened to share the worldview of some racist places. Does that imply that Rising Son is racist? By no means, It implies, well actually states, that Rising Son and his compatriots in thier attempt to address racism have actually fallen into the trap laid by racists by calling for a future of "mixed" humanity which will eliminate racism, just as the Presidenst of said countries in the past ( and perhaps present) believed they could eliminate the "Negro Problem" by eliminating "the Negro." So this is all a matter of history.

Next Rising Son takes aims at my 'Garveyist" credentials stating:

For a website called "Garveys ghost" you don't seem to have anything positive to say about Rastafarianism, which i'm not sure if you're aware that Garvey revolutionised this in Jamaica. It's why Burning Spear openly pays homeage to the man. To mock the belief that "Selassie is not dead" is almost blasphemous because people say the same thing about Christ and i dont see you being sarcastic about that at all. So already you have made a mockery of what your name represents, not a good start. As you can probably tell from my tone i am far from happy.

Well sorry your not happy mate. For the record I have Burning Spear's seminal Album " Marcus Garvey" and Infamous "Garvey's Ghost" dub album. That Rasta think of Garvey as the "Black Star" of Africa does not diminish my issues with Rasta and Rasta ideology as practiced today.

Those interested in the links between Garvey and Rasta ought to read:
Rasta and Resistance by Horace Campbell
Also a reading of Marcus Garvey by Rupert Lewis, would enlighten the reader as to the attitude that Garvey had towards Rasta, specifically the worship of Haile Selassie as God. The latter issue Rising Son falls into. Rising Son, clearly not a regular here at Garvey's Ghost fails to realize I have plenty of venom for Christianity and Islam and am a practicioner of Ifa, a traditional religion of the Yoruba of Nigeria. A religion unpolluted by European ideology I might add. To say that Selassie is dead, because it is true is not blashemous, it's simply true. But truth hurt. Hurt bad.

Rising Son continues to show is "revolutionary bonifides" with the following:

I am extemely hurt by the way you have made me out to be some kind of Anti-Black mixed race boy with some kind of identity problems. I know who the hell i am. My mother is white and my father was a revolutionary who did more for the black race than You and probably anyone you know. If i mention some of the names of the people he worked closely with you will faint. Assata Shakur is one of them, do you even know who that is? Allow me to tell you some more about my father.....

Ok. I'll stop laughing right now, since had Rising Son spent some time reading Garvey's Ghost he would have run across the "Hands off Assata" post from May 4, 2005. I'm not going to get into the "Mixed race" argument since the emotive response here merely underscores the issue as discussed in the original post. Rising Son is here and may indeed do more for black folks than Jonas Savimbi so I ain't gonna go picking at his gene pool. But please don't go assuming to know what I am doing, ask.

In the next paragraph Rising Son tells me about his fathers exploits in Trinidad. I'm not going to discuss that except that I think Kwame Toure, another Trini has a far more impressive record and..ahem.. slept black...ahem....anyway....

Rising Son, apparently very emotional at looking into his past and defending the circumstances of his conception, which he really doesn't owe anyone to do states:

So can you imagine now my anger at people like Common when they make comments like the ones he's been making. It's almost like all that history i just told you goes out the window because he went out with my mum, and he becomes a "sellout". Never mind the fact that he was a Black Panther and fought for equality and almost died hundreds of times for Black people. That really hurts.

Common was just pointing out how "odd" it is that a man who supposedly was so down, couldn't settle down with a black woman. I think it's a valid question. Rising Son really isn't the person to speak to it. We all know, or should know, the great psychological pressure that exists in Caribbean society to marry light, no doubt this was under Rising Son's fathers skull. It was Under Frantz Fanon's and as much as I respect Frantz Fanon, I still think his choice of a mate spoke volumes about his inner conflicts. Are we saying we cannot question the motives of our comrades in struggle? As much as a respect and Honor Garvey, He isn't beyond critique so why does Rising Son, think he or his father should be beyond question for thier choices?

Rising Son starts to close with this, which is in complete contradiction to the record he was on:

I'm sorry but it's not that. I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER (i put that in bold because i want it to be CLEARLY understood) WITH ANY PERSON FROM any PART OF THE WORLD WHO PREFERS TO STICK TO THEIR OWN RACE. i uNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF RACIAL PRESERVATION, AND I THINK THAT IN THE bLACK COMMUNITY ITS EVEN MORE IMPoRTANT DUE TO THE ALARMING RATE IN WHICH YOUNG BLACK MALES ARE KILLING EACHOTHER.

This simply is not the case made in Rising Son's response to Common with it's references to Segregation (the album cover reference) and the "future is mixed" commentary. If Rising Son wishes to retract the record, then I think he should and do so publicly, stating it was not reflective of his true ideas and he was spitting out of emotion.

Rising Son points out:

However, on the track, All i'm simply saying is that you cant go around condemning people for the people they choose to love. Yoko Ono was married to john Lennon and nobdy Chinese said a God Damn Word, why, because it's not important. I don't hear common telling blacks not to mix with indians or malaysians or anyone else, so to only pick on the white race (and i don't really care what you say) Is RACIST.

I already discussed the "love" think in my last post so I'll refer right back to it. I ain't talkin' about John Lennon and Yoko. But if I was, Rising Son ought to visit some Asian web boards and see how mad many Asian males are about Asian females getting tagged by white men. Believe me there are some not too happy Asians out there. Also, I can't speak for Common, but I would assume that the reason "mixing" with other POC's (that's People of Color) isn't discussed is related to the shared oppression by white men and women. But do know that even in London, which I've been to many times, There are black women who are none too happy about that kind of mixing too. Now see how Rising Son goes and falls into the "reverse discrimination" trap. " Oh It's racist to critique connects with whites!!!" Still ain't get the point.

Rising Son closes with this:
until EVERYONE IN THE WORLD stops behaving so, there will always be racism and we will keep going round in circles. My dad is NOT a F**king sellout and i will fight anyone who says that he is because he is part of the reason why we are even in england today with the rights that we have. I'm sorry if my defending this has upset you, but quite frankly my dear i don't give a f**k and if you think that i'm a racist you can go to hell. I am proud as hell of my African Heritage thank you very much, so you can take your sorry, unresearched, opinionated review and stick it up your over sensitive ass.

My, my, I don't think I'm the sensitive one here. My original problem with Rising Son, et al. was thier crass "whole world mixed" commentary. Otherwise I think they would have had an excellent retort. This really isn't about his dad and he really shouldn't spend his time speaking for him. His father, and mother should speak for themselves and speak honestly about their circumstances (If they speak at all). As for "rights in England", well given the latest warning about the "Ghettoization" threat in England as well as the incidences that have been going on there, I wouldn't be so quick to give props to England. Especially when the police shoot to kill colored folks because they "mistook him" for a terrorist.

Anyway my suggestiong to Mr. Sun is that he spend less time defending his fathers breeding preferences(or his own) and if he's really that proud of his African Heratage he ought to find a nice brown woman to have kids with and stop getting quoted saying "the future is mixed."

Silence of the Blog

So if you follow this blog you've noticed that I havent' posted nearly as much as I did in the first year and a half. Reason is, that for the time being it's become pretty repetitive. Kicking the same horse, you know, Black conservatives, White conservatives, White Liberals, Black liberals. Stating the should be obvious. So I need a break. So I won't be posting until mid Oct. unless something absolutely nuts happens. I need a mental break from this and I have so many other things going on in my life that I just don't have the energy to post anything more than links to other peoples writings like most other blogs do. I pride myself in not only pointing to stuff but also giving detailed commentary on the material. Since I can't do that, I don't want to waste anyone's time. So Untiul Oct 15. Peace out.

GG

Common Sense

I've learned a few things. One of them is don't discuss interracial relationships with people who are in them. Bad idea. Biggest reason being that a whole lot of people in them are very conscious about it and get very defensive when the questions come. Secondly, your likely to get the standard "You never know who you'll fall in love with" line which is bullshit. No one falls in love with people they choose not to socialize with In the end, people do what they want to do and should simply own up to it. "I wanted a (pick your group and put it here) (pick your gender and put it here) 'cause I wanted to." Anyways, this is not about my particular position on the subject but on the reaction to none other than the Rapper Common's position. A UK magazine reported:

quote:
in an interview with London magazine, Touch, where he criticized blacks with dreadlocks for dating white women, stating that those men would be "going against what the dreadlock's purpose was."

Three multi-cultural emcees from the UK didn't take lightly to Common's words and have recorded a track in retaliation. Rising Son, Yungun and Doc Brown -- three emcees who are known for the lyrical skills in Europe -- put together "Dear Common (The Corner Dub)," where they respond to Common's extreme views.

Rising Son refers to Common as a "racist bitch" and spits, "I predict the future is mixed/ Marking the end of all this racism sh--."


Britain is known to be more multicultural than America, which Doc details on the chorus. Meanwhile, Yungun says, "Black and white used to drink from different taps/ And you should know 'cause your album had a picture of that/ So when you say that you're showing how a hypocrite acts/ Now I ain't dissing this cat, I'm only spitting the facts."

"I respected Common more as a person before," Rising Son told BallerStatus.net. "I thought he would have been a bit more educated. He's quite a well-traveled person; he's been around the globe with his music, so I expected him to be a bit more clued-up about the world. It's a new day, it's a new era, a new time, and that was so last century -- all that 'stick to your own race' sh--.

Now I find it interesting that the MC's were decribed as "multi-cultural" which would appear to implyu that they were of "mixed" descent. This takes me to my second observation on the subject. It is often the products of "mixed" parentage that make statements about how the "whole world wil l be mixed." or some other variation on the "We are the furture" type commentary. So while these MC's think they are on some higher plane than Common, they are found to be repeating the racist commentary of Mexico, Brazile and other counries in which "Lightening up" the black population was/is the ideal. The elimination of the black being the target. You'd think those with "Lyrical Skills" would have thought a bit harder before calling for the elimination of half thier gene pool, you know, the half that allowed them to exist in the first place. You know, the half that gave birth to the music they make thier living off. But that's off point, as was the entire tirade against Common. Common is quoted as making a very specific remark about a specific group of people. Common was discussing the cultural origins and meaning behind Locks and Rastafarianism and it's roots and aims. He was pointing out, quite correctly, that the gallavanting around with European woman by "Lockmen" is contradictory. Of course the reason why we see such behavior is due to the famed locksman, Bob Marley, who purportedly had women of many hues all over. It didn't help with the commercialization of Locks and the relegation of Reggae music to "feel allright" music, with Bob Marley calling us to come together with "One Heart, One Love, and Feel Allright."

Of course now a days, white women go to Jamaica and get rent a dreds for sex filled vacations and movies in the 90's played up the Jamaican drug dealer angle (Jamaican drug dealers were always "dred") and the roots reggae has been over shadowed by it's dance hall offspring that is/was heavily sexist and violent. A black man with dreads is now cliche with few even adhering to it's origins as a cultural restoration and African liberation movement.

Now, if you listen to the track in question you'll note how these cats discuss how they've seen white women ( and men) join up with Rasta ( the religion) and accept African truth (you know that one where Selasie is not dead.....yah...yeah.. ok) But in the end exactly what kind of African Redemption are they about? The repeated comments (including discussion boards) where these MC's discuss the "Elimination of race" as the final solution should be an alarm for all simply because Rastafari is not for the elimination of the black man (Check Burning Spear). So just how much knowlegde of Rasta do these folks have and how much is the album a knee jerk reaction to feeling insulted because parentage was questioned.

All in All Rising Sun et al. could have sparked an interesting discussion on the topic had they not gone the "eliminate the black man" route. It ain't new and it ain't cute.

Link:
http://www.ballerstatus.net/news/read/id/74526514/

Knockin' the Elderly

This morning I had the pleasure of reading the latest from Larry Elder in a "Human Events" online article entitled: The Idiocy of the Race Card and the Hurricane of the Welfare State
In this piece Larry Elder takes a position similar to the Future of Freedom Foundation where he castigates the so called "welfare state" as the cause of the current plight of Blacks in New Orleans. Elders takes a rather circutous route to his point:

quote:
CNN's Cafferty and so-called black leaders refuse to ask basic questions. Since 1978, for example, black mayors controlled the city of New Orleans, with many of the city's top officials also black. What about their responsibility? What about the damage done by the modern welfare state, helping to create poverty by financially rewarding irresponsible behavior? What about the damage to the black psyche by so-called civil rights leaders who demand not just equal rights, but equal results, helping to create a victicrat-entitlement mentality? Maybe someday one of the news anchors will ask one of the so-called civil rights leaders the following question: Doesn't the demand for race-based preferences, set-asides, private sector anti-discrimination laws, social welfare programs, and social "safety net" programs all conspire to say one thing -- "You are not responsible"?


I'm wondering what equal results Elder is talking about? Oh yes "preferences" and "set-asides" Mr. Elder also has problems with anti-discrimination laws, I'll presume he's a part of the 89%of black teens who say they never experienced racism. But his most glaring error is when he equates social welfare programs and social safety nets (probably a euphemism for Social Security) He equates that with the state and society saying "You are not responsible."

It is so sad that these people, THe FFF, Walter Williams and Elder, have their heads so far into their white counterparts nether regions that they cannot see the idiocy of their statements. For example, if Mr. Elder really believes that "safety nets" are in fact means of removing responsibility from individuals to the state or other persons, then they should follow through. By this I mean, If they get into an auto accident that destroys property and perhaps maims someoone. They should not be able to make a claim against their insurance. I mean in all likelyhood they never paid into the insurance the amount they will be putting out so let them take responsibility for their actions. Also should Mr. Elder be a meat and dairy eater and have the misfortune of having a genetic predisposition for Prostate Cancer, I do hope that he pays out of pocket for the surgery,and chemo-therapy.

I don't expect someone of Elder's low intelligence to know that the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is a medical emergency. That's right, most hard working middle class Americans, yes those heterosexual, 2.5 kid having,played by the rules Americans are one medical emergency from being wiped out. By Mr. Elder's logic the government, to whome these middle class Americans have paid taxes to that have been given to various business interests in Washington. Sent to Israel and Iraq among other things, should not expect sqaut in return. No, They are responsible. Sorry you didn't see the leukemia coming dude!

ANd lets be equally clear here that most "set aside" and so called "quota" programs only really help the middle class who already possess the skills and education to put them into positions to take advantage of such programs. But lets move off of Midle Class Blacks and look at the poor.

Since the poor need to pull themselves up and in order to pull themselves up and since Larry Elder is siting the example of the Irish of the mid 1800's, where are the black businesses that are going into New Orleans Parish and setting up shop and employing the black folks there? hmmmm? I don't hear you Mr. Elder? No, blacks need to beg for jobs from white people (largely) in casinos, hotels and other low paying jobs. Of course if such busineses do not want to hire poor black people for reasons such as perhaps they don't like the way they act or that illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere can be exploited at lower wages without the need to worry about the issues that come with citizenship, perhaps that would explain the level of joblessness.

All in all, Elder's is no better than the so called "Civil Rights" leadership he attempts to critique. He has no plan for alleviating poverty or bringing jobs and industry and tech to those in New Orleans, he is simply another black mouth to white conservative ideas making money off white owned and run radio stations, getting published in white run websites. It is clear what his solution to black problems is: Pimp yourself to White folks.

Links:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8961

The Future Of Freedom

If you follow Garvey's Ghost then you've noticed that I haven't said peep about Katrina. There's a couple of reasons for this primary among them is that allmost everywhere you look you'll see commentary on it much of which I agree with, so I wouldn't really be educating anyone about anything. The other reason is kind of the reason for this my 301st post at Garvey's Ghost:

Private individuals should not be or feel compelled to give a single buck to the relief effort.

This particular mode of thought will probably piss not a few readers off, but if you wait a bit I'll explain. This administration has wasted over $200 billion in a fake and unneccessary war in Iraq. The government should be compelled to spend at least that amount on New Orleans without any extra monies from private individuals. In my opinion, monetary and other material donations amounts to a tax on the people for doing what our taxes should be going to.

Let us turn our attention to an article by the Future of Freedom Foundation entitled: The Deadly Legacy of the Welfare State Lies in New Orleans. Here the author proposes that the failure of the government to properly respond to Katrina is evidence that Socialism nee "Big Government (tm)" is bad.

Quote:
Among the most tragic scenes in the Hurricane Katrina disaster was that of the thousands of poor people — almost all of whom were African Americans — who were stranded at the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center, desperately waiting for the federal government to come and save them.

Why were they stuck there when thousands of others had already left the city? Because they were too poor to save themselves from death and disaster. They lacked the money to drive out of town and get a motel room for a few days before the hurricane struck.

Leftists are now saying that the New Orleans disaster shows that federal-government assistance to the poor and needy is more necessary than ever.

What in the world could leftists be thinking? It is leftist economic ideology — reinforced unfortunately by modern-day conservative “reform” philosophy — that is responsible for the horrible economic plight in which the New Orleans poor find themselves.

After all, don’t forget: The economic situation in New Orleans comes 70 years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt converted the federal government into a welfare provider for the poor and needy. Under FDR, the primary purpose of the federal government became to relieve poverty through the coercive confiscation of wealth from “the rich” in order to redistribute the money to “the poor.” This was the era in which Americans witnessed the advent of Social Security, a bankrupt tax-and-transfer program that ultimately became the crown jewel of the socialistic welfare state.

Thirty years after the New Deal came Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, in which Johnson declared “war on poverty” all across America. Here we saw the advent of Medicare and Medicaid along with hundreds of other federal programs whose supposed aim was to abolish poverty, once and for all.

Decade after decade, the federal government became a massively growing tax-and-spend engine that sucked trillions of dollars of income and savings out of the pockets of the American people in order to fund ever-growing federal programs to “help the poor.”...

...New Orleans is proof positive of the bankruptcy of leftist economic ideology. For it is the welfare state itself and its 70-year-old FDR–LBJ federal “war on poverty” that have left those tens of thousands of people in New Orleans penniless, waiting for the federal government to come save, feed, transport, and house them. What leftists don’t want to face is that it is their beloved socialistic welfare state itself that has doomed tens of thousands of people in New Orleans — and elsewhere — to a life of poverty and governmental dependency.

To the untutored this argument seems to make a whole lot of sense. The government cannot be expected to help everyone so it should help no one. And If people didn't have to pay taxes, they could save and invest that extra 500 bucks a year. I mean you really have to ignore the fact that the $500 bucks a year won't really amount to much after oh 30 years, only $15,000. I guess the FFF believes you and I can live off of that after we retire, unless we're not to retire. But oh, this is really off point. Katrina demonstrates the deadly falibilty of socialism. Or does it?

Well see, there is this Island called Cuba. On this island is a socialist leader named Fidel Castro. He and the government he runs is, well, Socialist! But it gets better. This island, which has faced as many if not more hurricanes than the U.S. and they have had no where near the numbers of deaths as the US. Lets us not forget that this island is still under an embargo imposed by the U.S. and it has a MUUUUCh lower tax base than the US and yet and still it has what is considered the best system for evacuating residents of areas threatened with flooding and other ills from Hurricanes. So with a single example we show the Future of Freedom Foundation to be full of cow excrement.

While I agree that the black residents of NO should have beem prepared for such an event (perhaps a group of neighbors could have put a stash together for a rental van and a trip to a hotel room for a few days). And perhaps not a few of them need to adjust their belief systems and "Act like they know" and stop acting like an Angel is going to stand up in front of thier home and part the waters. But the FFF is just outg of order to suggest that the residents of NO could not and should not have expected the government to do what it is formed to do: Preserve the common good and provide services to its residents. Services that include disaster recovery and prevention.

Ultimately we see the FFF and other conservative outlets for what they are: They want to cut off everybody under the guise of " Do for self." Like Walter 'Willy" Williams they participate in quasi-socialist organizations such as Health Insurance, Auto Insurance and soon, Social Security. They expect their auto insurance company to pick up the tab for the thousands of Dollars in Damage done to the vehicle they leased, even though they haven't paid in the cost of the car.
They want their health insurance to cover the multiple thousands in hospital bills for their stay, but haven't put in anywhere near that amount.

So yes, the FFF is full of it and a little bit of research would have prevented that article from being posted. But when you only see what you want to see, that's all you see.

Links:

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0509a.asp

BS in the Name of Christ

So I've been really busy and unable to post for a while. I even missed my Garvey Quote for his birthday. However, that which I did do on August 17th makes up for it by far.

Anyway this post is a result of the non-sense that I find myself reading about coming from certain Christian quarters. I thought the whole Intelligent Design thing was perhaps the silliest thing that a good number of Christians have come up with to attempt to get Christian Creationism (there are other creation stories out there) taught in classrooms. But more nasty things appear on the horizon as Pat Robertson spewed his hatred of Venezuela's head of state. Says Robertson:

Thanks, Dale. If you look back just a few years, there was a popular coup that overthrew him; and what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing; and as a result, within about 48 hours, that coup was broken, Chavez was back in power. But we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent. I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger, and this is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, and we have other doctrines that we have announced, and without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another 200-billion-dollar war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Commandments be damned!! Lets commit murder seeing as how we covet his oil and tell all kinds of Lies in order to try to get him ousted from office. I guess Robertson has no clue about democracy given that in this Christian country a president can take office without the majority of votes nor can that president be re-called or have a referendum called to remove him from office. Oh no, the fact that Chavez was elected and confirmed by the majority of the people in his country is a sign of a dictator.

To prove that such idiocy in Christendom is not limited to old white men, one Chavannes Jeune in Haiti is running for presidency of Haiti stating:

eune believes his Christianity will positively influence Haiti if he is elected. “Good, solid Christian values like justice, truth, transparency and integrity are lacking in Haiti, so I think that with the gift of God and the help of God, I can bring these things to my country.”

Bhy what arrogance does this man assert and co-opt such notions as Justice, Truth, Transparency and integrity as being the providence of Christianity?

That article that hosted the defaming statement is chock full of other defamatory statements such as:

On Aug. 14, 1791, a black slave and witch doctor named Boukman led Haitian slaves in a voodoo ritual, drinking the blood of a sacrificed pig to form a pact with the devil. The slaves agreed to serve Satan for 200 years in exchange for freedom from French colonizers who ruled their island. Beginning on Aug. 22, 1791, the slaves rose up against the French, and by Jan. 1, 1804, they declared Haiti the world's first independent black republic

It is of little wonder that the "intelligent Design" proponents are so STUPID since they rely on Christian publications such as this to "inform" themselves on world history. Boukman was what was referred to as a Hougan or Papaloa, using local vernacular, He would also be called a Babaloa which would be closer to the Yoruba root of the word as "Baba" is the yoruba word for father as Papa is the local slang for father. a Loa is the Haitian term for the Orisa, what the Yoruba call messengers of God whom they (and I) call Olodumare. the Babaloa is the equivalent of the Babalawo of the Ifa religion which the symbolic side of Haitian Vodun is based upon. a Babalawo is literally the father of wisdom. This wisdom is gained by gathering information from Orisa which is why the Haitian reference of Babloa is linguistically and practically derived from the Yoroba. This is important to understand because there is no devil in Yoruba theology. Therefore it is impossible for Boukman to have "made a pact" with the devil since he could not have believed in a devil as Christians understand the figure.

The second problem is the sensational "drinking of blood of the pig. I don't see anyone calling people who eat rare meat names. I don't see anyone critiqing Christians for symbolic blood drinking they do for communion.

I see that it is asking too much for a Christian publication to actually get their facts straight when discussing religion (even thier own). Earlier I discussed an article in which a black Christian was asking that so called "liberals" stop being intolerant and bigoted towards Christians. He should understand that such articles as these and other offenses are the sole reason for the hostilities that Christians get from so called "liberals." If Christians are serious about wishing to not treated hostily then they should deal first and foremost with these types of articles and organizations.

Links:
http://www.cbn.com/about/pressrelease_hugochavez.asp
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1347510.html

Marcus Garvey's Birthday Today

Today is Marcus Garvey's Birthday. I have a writeup in the works and will post it later.

peace.

Stuff Palestinians Get Shot At For

Today the NY Times reports that:

The army and the police took control of Neve Dekalim early today, but there were clashes later in the day. They arrested 48 demonstrators who threw stones and eggs at officers trying to ensure that moving vans could enter for those residents who wanted to leave.


No ones been shot, but I do recall Palestinians getting shot at for throwing stones at the Israeli military.

hmmmm......

Isn't It Ironic?

For those who have been living under a rock, Israel is evicting Jews from the Gaza Strip this week. Now here's what is sooooo ironic about this: Last night on ABC World News this Weekend we saw a woman saying how it was wrong for her to be evicted to make room for Palestinians. Never mind that the state of Israel exists because the same thing was done to Palestinians. Oh, but the irony continues! sympathisers for the settlers have snuck into the strip and say they will put up a fight. Hmmm.. This sounds like an Intifada! Oh but it gets even more ironic!! How about a member of the Israeli security forces going on a killing spree? And on TV we see Jews, American Jews at that, claiming "It is our land and we aren't going anywhere! You have to hold on to what's yours!"

Really?

It would seem to me that the very actions being seen here by Jews in Israel only proves the correctness of the Palestinian position, it's rhetoric and even it's violence. If there is indeed violence in the next two days when Israeli security forces have to physically remove the settlers, then Israelis woudl have lost any and all moral high ground they may have had with any thinking people who see the clear parallels.

Niger Cont.

Yesterday I discussed how the Starvation in Niger is our, as in all Black peoples, problem. The AP highlighted an issue that was brought up by the BBC last week, that there is indeed food in Niger, it just costs too much for the poor, a large percentage of the population, to purchase. In an article entitled Niger's market filled with food but unaffordable for the poor we find the following:

While mothers continue to bring children weak with hunger to feeding centers, market stalls are filled with food — but at prices well out of the reach of many in this desperately poor nation.

"It is the government's job to deal with the hungry, we the traders are here for business," said Ibrahim Baye, who sells millet, a staple in Niger, at a Maradi market.

The well-stocked markets are deceptive. The food shortage is real. Last year locusts, in the worst invasion in 15 years, ravaged 7,000 square miles of Niger farmland. That and a subsequent drought cut cereal production by 15% last year, according to the United Nations.

Hunger was a problem in Niger even before the locusts and drought. Today, more than a third of the nearly 12 million people in Niger face severe food shortages. Children are most at risk.

On Tuesday, Baye shooed away beggars dressed in rags and staring at the heaped food on display. A friend sitting with him who gave only one name, Louali, said the grains on display had been stockpiled "and traders wait until the lean season to sell at double its price."

Prices have dramatically increased. A bag of 220 pounds of millet went from $23 to $44.

Few can afford that in the second-poorest nation in the world, where 64% of the people survive on less than $1 a day.

hmmmmm. I see. So it is the job of government to deal with the hungry. Fair enough. But since the govt. is clearly unable to do so who should pick up the slack? Oh yes,, the white foreigners. Let's shoo our hungry women and children away and let the white folks feed them. I mean we got profits to make!!!

I think I get it now. Allah Be praised! Here's a model Muslim for us.

RE: The Religious Left Fights Back

Over the weekend I stumbled across a piece on Alternet by Von Jones entitled "http://www.alternet.org/sms/23725/"> The Religious Left Fights Back. In this piece there was a reference to the "religious bigotry" that "lefties" apparently harbor towards those of practicing faith:

He also wants to challenge the Left's chronic and toxic bias against religious feeling, expression and people.

Lerner hopes to end "religio-phobia among progressives." And such efforts will not be welcome among a great many rabidly secular progressives.

As for me, I will be praying for the Rabbi's success. I am an African-American Christian who was raised in the American heartland. When I moved to the cosmopolitan coasts of Connecticut, and later California, I ran headlong into shocking levels of anti-religious bigotry among progressives.

I literally have had liberals laugh in my face when I told them I was a Christian. For awhile, I felt self-conscious about telling other activists that I preferred not to meet on Sunday mornings, because I wanted to go to church.

It is still commonplace to hear so-called radicals stereotyping all religious people as stupid dupes -- and spitting out the word "Christian" as if it were an insult or the name of a disease. I thought progressives were supposed to be the standard-bearers of tolerance and inclusion.

He then goes on to discuss his experiences in the black church in the south proudly proclaiming that:

But one key fact seems to escape the notice of today's activist crowd. The champions of the civil rights struggle didn't come marching out of shopping centers in South. Or libraries. Or high school gymnasiums.

To face the attack dogs, to face the fire-hoses, to face the billy-clubs, these heroes and she-roes came marching boldly out of church-houses. And they were singing church songs. They set an example of courage and sacrifice that will endure for the ages. And as they did it, they prayed on wooden pews in the name of a Nazarene carpenter named Jesus.

I think that Von Jones presents us with a very distorted idea of the black church as well as the origins of so called "religious bigotry" among liberals. While I cannot speak for all so called "religious bigots" I can speak for those who know what I know.

I would like to first address the issue of the Black church. While indeed the black church was often at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement, it was not always there. A cursory reading of the "letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Dr. King Jr. would show that a great many Christians were not so moved to stand up to Jim Crow. It would seem to me that this shows that in many instances it was the fact of discrimination and not some inherent morality of the Black Church that drove blacks to stand up to Jim Crow. Other examples of this would be the Haitian Independence movement, which was lead by a Hougan (So called Voodoo priest) or the Quilombos of Brazil or Maroons of Jamaica, none of whom was lead by Christians but all of whom were movements of Black people against oppression. These facts underscore a fact that is uncomfortable to most, Black Americans are Christian largely because their former owners/captors were. In places where Africans were sold to Muslim slaveholders, those Africans became Muslims. A great example of this phenomenon would be a country such as Nigeria where the population is pretty much evenly divided between Christians and Muslims, a legacy of the two colonial influences in that country. Therefore it is pretty specious to argue that somehow it was the Black Church, per se, that was the engine of change in the black community. Fact is, regardless of religious institution, where blacks wanted freedom, they used whatever tool or ideology worked for them.

The second issue with the Black Church, which is also endemic to White Churches, is the rife bigotry they have towards non-believers. I cannot count the number of times I have been personally insulted by Black Christians because I was not a Christian. It is simply hypocritical to belong to a faith that regularly damns and otherwise belittle persons who do not agree with the religion while at the same time calling for "liberals' to be more tolerant. Again, I know of many likeable, liberal Christians who have no problem sitting in a pew while a Reverend says that the only way to salvation is through Christ. These persons will say that the Reverend didn't say anything about being "damned" but it is clear that if there is one way to being "saved" then the rest of us are in for a subterranean no-joy ride for eternity. It is almost as if such Christians do not think we can understand the logic of the material presented at churches.

Let me move away from the Black Church and refocus on Christianity in general. One of the big problems that some of us "religious bigots" have is that we know the sources of the religion. We know that the Commandments were lifted from the Egyptian Oracles of Maat. We know that the Jesus story is also lifted from the Ancient Egyptian Mystery System. We know that there is Ancient Egyptian symbolism throughout the Books of Moses as well as much of what is called the New Testament. We find it particularly insulting when Egyptian Mysteries are passed off as Christian property, when it is not and were are further insulted by lay people who insist they know more than people who have dedicated their lives to the study of said systems. This particular issue underscores the larger issue of Christians co-opting things and presenting them as "their own" while simultaneously devaluing the origins of those ideas or of belief systems that share those ideas. For example I like to tell people that Jesus believed in Karma. Many Christians, especially those of "lesser knowledge" will swear up and down that Jesus did not believe in such pagan things, yet there he is saying "as ye sow, so shall ye reap." Is that not Karma?

This co-option of other peoples or faiths ideas and presenting it as ones own is a large reason why many "liberals" do not care much for religion. Such a thing is called plagiarism and a great many of us can spot a fraud when we see it. The issue is that Christians do not like being told that they have been sold recycled goods. It cuts to the very core of who they are and what they want from their faith and they get defensive about it as anyone would. However, I find it disingenuous to call the very people who are pointing out the flaws in Christian doctrine bigots when they are not bigoted at all (though I can't speak for all of them).

Lastly Van Jones states:
Number two: At the same time, any approach that fails to honor and embrace the positive contributions of religiously inspired people is also wrong-headed, and it foolishly and needlessly shuts progressives off from our own history, achievements and present sources of vital support.

I disagree with this statement because it is the "religiously inspired" person that injects religion into their "positive contribution." Where many of us may say "It was the right thing to do." The religious person says "God moved me to...." Why? Why can't it simply be "the right thing to do?" There is a portion of the Bible in which a story is told of a rich man and a poor man who go to the temple. The rich man proclaims loudly how he thanked God for what he had and his life and how he wasn't low. He made a great show of his offerings. Meanwhile there was a poor many who humbly went to the temple, went over to the corner and gave the little offering he could and quietly made his prayer. It was said that the offering and prayer of the poor quiet man was of more value to God than the one who made a big scene. You would think that Christians, liberal or not would take note of that story.

Niger: Our Problem

Anyone who has been paying attention and watching something other than US Newscasts, well at least ABC and affiliates, knows that there is a sever drought going on in Niger, a land locked country in North West Africa. The drought is so bad that there are cattle carcasses all ovger the place and nomads are eating rotting meat in order to survive long enough to make it to the aide centers set up by various agencies. Does any of this sound familiar? We've been here before. Many times before.

As usual when I watch the sad state on the BBC, I see white, mostly European aid workers giving speeches about how this could have been averted and how they need more supplies. Stuff we have heard before. I'm not going to go into a diatribe about the presence of white aide workers in the country because to be honest they are doing something that we, blacks, have not been.

I am old enough to remember the Live Aid concert which gave us the song "We are the World." In which musicians got us to send money and raise awareness for the then plight of Ethiopians. Since then Ethiopians, outside of Rastafarian circles, are synonymous with starvation and its attendant symptoms in the minds of many Americans. That was 20 years and 8 months ago. Today we see that absolutley NOTHING has changed in the ability of Africa to help itself and prevent such tragedies from occuring. What is the point of the AU if it cannot organize itself enough to prevent mass starvation? Why is it that once again an African country must put it's hand out and beg for help from former colonizers in order to feed it's population? Just what exactly are these leaders doing?

Let's dig even further, Why are some of the people in Niger still herding cattle as their major supply of food in an environment that is increasingly hostile to that way of life? Why in 2005 do the people only have enough grain for x, amount of days, when the technology is available to extend such supplies for months? Why are there perhaps millions of black men, women and children apparently underemployed when the 52 governments in Africa could be putting them to work to raise and store enough foodstuffs to be able to provide for such an event as is going on in Niger?

I fear that not a single "leader" will suggest, much less implement, a change of course for Africa after this latest continental shame. And a continental shame is what it is. We, and especailly these so called leaders should be shamed, for allowing this to occur. No, we cannot control nature. We cannot prevent drought or heavy rain. However, we are intelligent human beings that can learn from our past and plan for the future. The rains or lack thereof may not have been preventable, but the starvation that resulted was indeed preventable and the mass begging of international aid agencies was preventable. However, as I have been pointing out, the knowledge that Aide agencies will step in and do what the "leadership" was supposed to be doing, is partially the reason why the "leaders" are not doing any leading.

-Garvey's Ghost

Quite Possibly The Most Honest Writing by White Man

Today at Alternet I came across an article entitled: On China At Least, Nixon Was Right written by Robert Sheer in which he states the following:

Sadly, the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being lifted from abject poverty seems to alarm even leading Democrats in Congress, who claim to be driven by a standard of social justice. And many Republicans, who tend to trumpet the virtues of free trade when it involves the domination of world markets by U.S. businesses, are also raising the protectionist flag against the prospect of Chinese ownership of a single mid-size American-based oil company.

The signals we send to China have always been bizarrely mixed: Play in the capitalist ballpark but not so well that you become one of the big stars. It is a message that, as with the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, is at best paranoid and at worst racist. We in the West can be trusted with enormous economic power, but not the children of a lesser god.

Remember that when we discussed White Supremacy we made it clear that Whites will always want to be on top and that the economic and social systems invented and used by them are for thier benefit. Furthermore, they will change the game whenever it is neccessary to keep White Supremacy intact. Clearly this author, though not stating it as sucinctly as Dr. Welsing and Neely-Fuller, has none the less said the same thing.

Go ahead and read the rest of the article.

Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23726/

Go To People on Africa: Black Conservatives

With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).

So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.

In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:

elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.

Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.

Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:

Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.

A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.

Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?

The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.

Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.

Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.

It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.

Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.

Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.

See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.

When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.

But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:

Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.

Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?

Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.

Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:

Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.

Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.

Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.

I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:

Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.

As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.

Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.

I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.

Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml

The Further Cooption of Garveyism

By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:

I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.

Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):

You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.

Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."

Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:

and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:

a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?

So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA