Self Hating Black Man

I'll let him speak for himself.





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

From Atlah.org "All Jesus, All the Time"

John White Gets 2 to 4 for protecting his home

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

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

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

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

1) Had not gone to the house.

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

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

4) Had left when asked to do so.

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

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

[update]

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

[/update]

Sean Bell Watch: The Strange Testimony of Coicou

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

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



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



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

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

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

An entirely plausible explanation.

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

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

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



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

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

Technorati Tags: Sean Bell Watch

On Obama's Iraq War votes

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

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

Rev. Wright: Please Lay Off the Kool Aid

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

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

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

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

The Obama Speech Analysis

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that would be a nice start.

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

How Bad Is The Economy?

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

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

Obama Speech Live

How are you tonight?

10:48

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

10:49:

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

10:52:

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

10:53: Obama takes the stage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11:24: Native Americans exist!!

11:29: Standard presidential speech now.

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

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

Ohio Election Fraud

Now here's a case I can get behind.

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



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



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

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections

Sean Bell Watch: The Detective in Black

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

Detective Isanora

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

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

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

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

Obama to Give Speech on Race Tomorrow

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

From Delany to Obama: The Fall of the Black Male

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But lets look at the news clip from MSNBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you say so.

Obama: I would not repudiate the man.

Oh? Why?

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

Jesus good, Allah bad. Got it.

Obama: and helped bring me to church.

Church good, Mosque bad. Got it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Obama

Sean Bell Watch: The Case of the Weed

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: Sean Bell Watch

Obama Takes Miss.

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

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


Polls from CNN:


White Men

(22%)

70% Clinton

30% Obama

White Women

(27%)

75% Clinton

24% Obama

Black Men

(20%)

7% Clinton

93% Obama

Black Women

(29%)

12% Clinton

88% Obama



White 17-29

(6%) Apparently MIA -Blogger comment)

White 30-44

(11%)

69% -Clinton

30% Obama

White 45-59

(14%)

76% Clinton

22% Obama

White 60 and Older

(18%)

79% Clinton

20% Obama

Black 17-29

(8%)

12% Clinton

88% Obama

Black 30-44

(13%)

9% Clinton

91% Obama

Black 45-59

(17%)

9% Clinton

91% Obama

Black 60 and Older

(11%)

10% Clinton

90% Obama


Democrat

(70%)

32% -Clinton

67% -Obama

Republican

(13%)

77% Clinton

23% Obama

Independent

(17%)

48% Clinton

51% Obama

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections

A Strange Situation Brewing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Barak Obama, critique

It's Ludacris

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

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

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

Manning Marable on Obama and Race

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

He writes:

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



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

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

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

Marable must think we are all stupid.

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

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

A Response to Bill Fletcher

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

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

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



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

Let us examine the problems with the above paragraphs.

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

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

The next part is equally insulting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigration

Sean Bell Watch

Interesting testimony from Detective Sanchez:

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

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

Secondly we have this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections

Ishmael Reed Kills Again

I just love this brother.

I said Clinton had character problems. This was on the basis of the Sister Souljah incident [Clinton criticized rapper Sister Souljah for her "racially charged" rap lyrics] where he again used a Black audience to send a signal to Whites. Obama does the same thing. Obama goes to Black churches and preaches "personal responsibility."...



So, African Americans who have the same credit or better credit are charged higher interest rates than Whites. That's been documented: the Center for Responsible Lending, another place people can go to. Contray to newspaper myths, two thirds of those homeowners who have been caught in this sub prime mess had good credit. They went to the sub prime predators because they were denied loans by red lining banks.



So, I'm in the position of backing White businesses and homeowners because of my mortgage is at Wells Fargo. So, they use my money to finance White businesses and White mortgages. So, we're out trillions of dollars over the years for financing White industries. In other words, why don't Obama and Henry Louis Gates and other "post race" intellectuals and politicians preach "personal responsibility" to Whites?

Care of Counterpunch

Who's He Voting For

From the NY Times:

A number of workers conspicuously avoided the candidate, walking through a muddy area to enter the plant. One worker was pulled along by the crowd and ended up shaking Senator Clinton’s hand. “Aw, man,” he said. “Now I have to go home and wash my hands.” He declined to give his name.

I've said in recent conversations that I'm pretty wary of the open primary system. People on both sides are able to mess with the other sides nomination process by declaring themselves other than the party they are affiliated with or simply pick up the ballot from the other party. In Ohio, given that McCain is the agreed upon, if not certified nominee, there is not much for Republicans to do. But wait. What if a Republican is very much the Hillary hater? Well he (or she) can pick up a Democratic party ballot and help sink her in the primary there. It's all legal too.

I grew more concerned about this possibility when I saw the Wisconsin results where about 40% of the ballots counted were from people who were not registered democrats. Those people broke heavily for Obama which helps him in his unity campaign theme. However; as the quote above shows, it is entirely possible that a great deal of these votes are really anti-Hillary votes, especially among men who break for Obama by wide margins.

Some national polls have McCain beating both Obama and Clinton in a head to head vote which if it holds up ought to make the DNC seriously consider closing their primaries 'cause like I like to say: there's only one man in the house and one woman in the house. Anybody else don't like the rules they are free to leave.

Political Posturing

Now mind you, we don't want to say anything like "told you so." Or appear to be siding with Hillary Clinton, but I mean me, the Black Agenda Report and others have been telling you the real deal about Obama for the longest. But since Y'all think we're just haters:

But Clinton's campaign cited a memo about a meeting between a senior Obama economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, and consulate officials in Chicago reassuring the Canadians not to take Obama's message "out of context" and to view it "as more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."

-LA times

The quotation in question is:

Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Of course there is the denial (tm)

The memo was written by a Canadian official. Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist, has disputed its accuracy, as has the Obama campaign. The Canadian Embassy added its voice to the dispute today, saying that in the report out of its consulate in Chicago "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Sen. Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

I think Shaggy had a song about this one:

But she caught me on the counter (It wasn't me)
Saw me bangin' on the sofa (It wasn't me).
The Hill.com is not encouraging:

Initially the Obama campaign and Goolsbee denied such a meeting or conversation had ever taken place. Plouffe on Sunday said Goolsbee was not part of a formal meeting and was only speaking informally as a University of Chicago professor and not Obama's senior economic adviser.

From the horses mouth:

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

At the last debate Obama said:

"I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced," Obama said in the debate.

Which I understand to mean. We will threated to pull out of NAFTA if we cannot get labor and environmental standards enforced. His boy said to the Canadians:

"On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position

Which I take to mean, Obama is not in favor of any fundamental changes to NAFTA, we just want some clarification of the language. Now the difference between the debate comment and the one above, which is said to be "true and consistent" with Obama's actual sentiments on NAFTA is that in the debate he threatened to opt-out should enforcement of certain items not meet the satisfaction of an Obama administration. The latter says we want clarification on some things but we're not going anywhere.

I say it is significantly different. You may see it as not. what is important is that Obama voted for the recent free trade agreement with Peru. The AFL-CIO has stated on it's website:

But the agreement does not pave the way for other flawed trade agreements, such as pending deals with Colombia and South Korea and any effort to renew Fast Track trade authority, Lee said.

We hope that the new labor provisions will provide a starting point for future efforts to strengthen and effectively enforce protections for workers in the global economy. These provisions will certainly not solve all the problems workers face, but they provide one more important and useful tool to pressure both governments and corporations to respect workers’ fundamental human rights. Congress will need to bring to bear strong pressure on the executive branch to ensure that these newly negotiated provisions are effectively implemented and enforced, as these provisions cannot serve their objective if the executive branch does not enforce them.

Both the U.S. House and Senate are expected to take up the Peru agreement within the next month or two. Several lawmakers have said it is essential that countries bring their labor laws into compliance with the provisions in the agreement prior to implementation. Ways and Means Democrats have argued that the House should not act on the pending trade agreement until Peru makes much-needed changes to its labor laws, bringing them into compliance with the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) core labor standards, as required by the trade agreement.

In the past, countries that signed trade deals with the United States promised to implement labor law reforms or to improve labor law enforcement but ignored those promises once an agreement was ratified and implemented, Lee said. So far the government of Peru has not yet passed all the laws necessary to live up to its commitments, much less the ILO core labor standards, she added.

It is agreed that just like in Mexico, the Peru act will damage local agriculture in Peru, which many people there rely on to make a living. So the preponderance of all the evidence suggests that the idea that Obama gave the "wink-nod" to Canada is very likely.

Gotta love this "new politics" Obama is running.

90% there

Obama's statement regarding the arrival status of Blacks in America is ironic given the recent Pew Report that indicates that 1 in 9 black men between 20 and 34, which happens to be prime marrying age as well as income development time, in the US is in prison.

The table on page 32 of the report breaks down the age groupings. For all black folk.

1 in 36 18-19 yo
1 in 17 20-24 yo
1 in 17 25-29 yo
1 in 17 30-34 yo
1 in 19 35-39 yo
1 in 24 40-44 yo

That's some bleak numbers folks regardless of reasoning.

For black males specifically you have:

1 in 19 18-19 yo
1 in 9 20 -34 yo
1 in 10 35-39 yo
1 in 13 40 -44 yo
1 in 23 45-54 yo

While black women are not doing well at all compared to other populations their rate of incarceration pales in comparison to black men. In fact black women are statistically the average" for incarceration rates in any age group and are about 2x to 3x that of the incarceration rate of white men.

We're not going to get into the why's and wherefores here. We just hope that this data gets some people thinking real hard and really unconventionally. For example we could start by not getting mad at Bill Cosby.

Sean Bell Watch 3: Thank God, We're going home.

After realizing that none of his officers were hit, Lieutenant Napoli says his initial thoughts were:

Just to see that, thank God, none of us were hurt and we were going home.”

Apparently he thought that the 'Negroes with guns" had been dealt with. Now not having seen the transcript I can only guess that Napoli wasn't thinking something like: "Hmmmmm...we haven't been shot at." or "Hmmmm, did we make a mistake?"

But there's something more to this testimony.

As he got closer to the car, Lieutenant Napoli told Detective Michael Oliver to call an ambulance. Lieutenant Napoli said he could not remember if any of his detectives were wearing their badges.

As we discussed in Sean Bell Watch Part 2, the timeline says that the undercover officers, specifically Isanora had returned to the command vehicle and retrieved their guns and shields. So by that account Isanora had his shield on his person. However; there is no documentation that I've seen that says definitively that Isanora ever put there badge on his jacket, shirt collar or any other place that would be visible. We know that Isanora had his cell phone in one hand while following Bell and co. That's one hand down. Now the question that needs to be answered is when did Isanora unholster his weapon. Did Isanora have a cell phone in one hand and his gun in the other? If he had a cell phone in one hand and his gun in the other it is impossible for him to have shown his badge to Bell and co. That would bolster the claim that Isanora did not show his badge.

The next piece of testimony that is important is this:

But under questioning from Mr. Testagrossa, Lieutenant Napoli confirmed that undercover detectives do not generally make arrests; rather, they are supposed to alert their backup units to handle that.

I said before that one of the biggest problem here was that there were clear violations of NYPD protocol which, if they had been followed would have resulted in a far different outcome. Those protocols are in place not only to protect police officers but also the innocent population. What makes this case open and shut is policy and the broad admission that policy was not followed. Back in November of 2006 I wrote the police code.

NY rules in regards to shooting at a vehicle is as follows:



officers can fire only when they or another person is threatened by deadly physical force, but not if that physical force comes from a moving vehicle alone.



So at this point since all evidence shows that even if any occupant in the vehicle had a gun, unless the officer was fired upon they, under regulations cannot shoot at the vehicle. Thus this was, by the cops own words, an unjustified shooting. What were the cops words:



The undercover officer fired the first of 11 shots, yelling, “He’s got a gun! He’s got a gun!”



Notice the cop said "he's got a gun" (leaving aside the fact that no gun was even present). He didn't say anything about being shot at Which would be the only way, under police regulations for the officers to "return" fire.

The Times reports Napoli saying:

With Detective Headley driving, Lieutenant Napoli in the passenger seat and Detective Cooper in the back seat, their car turned south onto Liverpool Street from 94th Avenue, the lieutenant said. He spotted Detective Isnora, who raised his chin in an upward motion, gesturing toward Mr. Bell’s car, he said.



They drove past Mr. Bell’s car and were coming to a stop when he bent down to reach for the flashing bubble light to place on the dashboard, he said. Before he could get to it, Lieutenant Napoli said, he heard a collision and then gunshots.



“I told Marc and Paul, ‘Get down, we’re under fire,’ ” Lieutenant Napoli testified.

So the rules are clear. No shooting at a moving vehicle alone. Even if the force is deadly. Napoli knows this and his testimony on the stand as of Friday confirms that shots were fired by police after the Bell tried to escape the "Negro with a gun" who apparently had a cell phone in one hand and his gun in the other, and therefore was most likely unable to ID himself as a police officer. Besides, the aforementioned testimony makes the "who had a gun" argument moot.

Technorati Tags: Sean Bell, Sean Bell Watch