Garvey's Ghost Endorses Cynthia McKinney For President

It is official. As of today, the Ghost is officially endorsing the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney.

This decision was not made lightly. Originally I had intended to stay neutral in this race for a few reasons. First I have never voted. This is by choice and I have explained by reasoning here and here so I wont bother repeating the reasoning here but those who's head exploded when they read " I have never voted" ought to take a read.

Since I don't vote then what do I do? As with my non-profit, I put my money where my mouth is. As I've explained many times over the state of Israel is not a state of the Union yet receieves billions in dollars of aid. That's your money. They can't vote yet they get looked after. For those of us who clearly understand this system, we understand that money is power. That is in general those who can afford to influence policy will have their needs and wants looked after.

The second piece of the pie is access to media. Of course access to media is heavily influenced by money but even more than that, with the corporate ownership of the airwaves, companies can legally disappear people from the public. And so it comes down to alternative media to get the word out. But even then the vast majority of people are tied to the big corporate outlets and they have powerful gatekeepers. I understand all this and so I choose to spend my efforts to be an influencer. That said, let me get back to my endorsement of Cynthia McKinney.

This endorsement is about policy. Period. This election is historic in that it is the first time in US history that a black person is on the presidential ticket of one of the major parties and at the top of said ticket. It would be easy to fall in line and just be excited a black man is "on the verge" but I cannot. So lets get to the issues:

1) The Iraq War: Obama has said much about being against the war from the beginning. However he has been voting to fund it. Furthermore, day in and day out his position in regards to ending the war gets closer and closer to that of McCain (Or McCain is getting closer to Obama). Neither one advocates an immediate end to the illegal war.

2) War in Georgia: In line with the war in Iraq both Obama and McCain have made ridiculous statements in regard to the situation in Georgia. Statements that fly in the face of facts. How can one on the one hand claim to be against the war in Iraq, which is a sovereign nation that was invaded by the US, but also say that it is wrong for Russia to go into Georgia even though the Russians are :

a) neighbors

b) provoked by military action by Georgia?

No; Obama and McSame are on the same page and that's not change and it's not what I believe in.

3) Israel: I cannot support the Zionist. Period. I will not support anyone who supports the Zionist. Joe Biden has plainly stated that he is a Zionist. McCain is equally in the pocket of our 51st state. End of story.

4) FISA: Obama claimed that he would be opposed to the renewal of FISA. In the end he did a complete about face on that issue. The retroactive immunity for telecoms who broke the law is a clear abandonment of the job of any Senator to uphold the constitution. If Obama cannot be trusted to uphold the constitution then what's the point of voting him into office. Same for McSame.

5) Church State Issues: I am strongly in support of separation of religion and the state. This is especially so for a multi-cultural society. the McCain-Palin ticket has on it a person who thinks creationism ought to be taught in public schools (and we don't have to ask which creationism). Nor does the Republican VP pick think that global warming is due to human activity.

On the democratic side we have seen a willingness in the Obama camp to continue with the so called "faith based" funding. I was opposed to that when Bush proposed it and I'm still against the government funding of religious based organizations. I don't care which party is doing it.

6) Reparations: We already know where the reparations argument goes with the Republicans. However; Obama decided to put down the idea when he could have easily said that if such a bill was passed with support of a majority of representatives he would sign it. Rather Obama playing to white voters wants to say that by doing x,y or z, that blacks will benefit. Reparations is not about some general "benefit." it is redress for a specific grievance by a specific group.

7) Healthcare: Neither party is willing to do universal, single payer health care for all citizens. Both parties are in the pockets of the Health "insurance" industry that makes a profit by denying health care (as was shown in Michael Moore's Sicko) McCain tried to pass off the current health care system as "choice." But tell that to people told they "can't" have a procedure done. Single payer man, not single point of healthcare.

You'll note that with the exception of Reparations, there are no "race specific" items on this list. There are no gender specific items on this list. Therefore the argument about we black radicals only being interested in black folk a the expense of others is pure nonsense.

So why McKinney? I followed her while she was a congresswoman from Georgia. She was the first to publicly question the administration over 9-11. She asked the important questions: who knew what? When?

In respect to the criminal activities of Bush, McKinney has actually proposed impeachment (HR 1106). That shows character and a committment to the constitution not seen by either candidate of the "major" parties.

And on the experience level I'll just note that McKinney was a 6 time congresswoman who was also on committees, even though the Democrats stiffed her (with nary a comment by the black caucus) of her seniority.

So we have to answer the obvious question: Why should you vote for her even though she won't "win"?

People, third parties don't just show up over night. Especially given the stranglehold of money and media. The stated goal for this run is 5% of the vote. This will qualify the Green Party as a 3rd "Major" party. People the two party system, in which both parties are bought off by the same interest parties is broken. The Democrats have been going right and the Republicans have become the party of White Christians. Both parties are responsible for setting the tone where police are given the OK to brutalize peaceful protesters and journalists. How could impeachment be "off the table" if the Democrats had to worry about a third party putting it on the table?

So this endorsement is all about policy and changing the future playing field.

Rudy Takes Cheap Shot at Obama

I can see the legitimacy of comparing being a community organizer to being a mayor or governor. But to act as if being a community organizer is nothing at all especially when it's done by someone with a law degree from a rather prestigious institution, when that person could have easily gone into one of many Chicago law firms and made huge bucks; that's cheap.

A Few Links

First Cuba Helps Africa overthrow the White Supremacists in Africa, but how many knew they've been helping the people of the Sudan?.

Twenty years ago, Bol and Wek were two of 600 children sent to Cuba for an education during the bloody decades of Sudan's north-south conflict.

Many of the children were already members of the southern rebel army when they walked across the south's swamps and vast plains and then crossed the border into Ethiopia. They were then flown or shipped halfway around the world to Cuba's Isla de la Juventud...

They were told their education -- a gift from Fidel Castro -- was to be crucial in the fight against northern marginalization.

And while people are distracted by a pregnant 17 year old, The 4th and 1st amendments to the constitution continue to be trampled upon without any comment from either candidate.

In the months leading up to the Republican National Convention, the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force actively recruited people to infiltrate vegan groups and other leftist organizations and report back about their activities. On May 21, the Minneapolis City Pages ran a recruiting story called "Moles Wanted." Law enforcement sought to preempt lawful protest against the policies of the Bush administration during the convention.

Since Friday, local police and sheriffs, working with the FBI, conducted preemptive searches, seizures and arrests. Glenn Greenwald described the targeting of protestors by "teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets." Journalists were detained at gunpoint and lawyers representing detainees were handcuffed at the scene...

Preventive detention violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants be supported by probable cause. Protestors were charged with "conspiracy to commit riot," a rarely-used statute that is so vague, it is probably unconstitutional. Nestor said it "basically criminalizes political advocacy."

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections

Quote of the Week

"One man wants your shoes. One man wants your shirt and another wants a kiss."

-ex Gangster

You know I was reading about the fact that black men who sleep with men in NY represent one of the largest groups of HIV infections. I can't help but think that the high incarceration rate is informing that rate of infection. So these want to be thugs need to understand the above quote.

McCain Goes for the jugular

And so, continuing with his quest to go after dissaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, McCain goes for the jugular. I actually expected this kind of move, though I had no clue who it would be.

So November is going to shape up like this:

The answers to these questions will be an accurate predictor of where votes go:

1) Would you ever vote for a Democrat/Republican?
2) Would you ever vote for a black man?
3) Did you support Hillary Clinton and are now pissed she didn't make it?
4) Are abortion rights are of paramount importance to you?
5) Are you hawkish?
6) Is the experience argument important to you in regards to the president or VP?

Democratic Party Makes American History

Last night the Democratic Party made US history in nominating Barack Obama as it's candidate for the US presidency. I specify American history to note that there has been black presidents and prime ministers elsewhere in the world. Not to take away from the event, but to put it in a certain perspective. While I disagree with Obama on a number of subjects and political strategy I will give him his due as a history maker.

I wasn't all that impressed by the speech he gave last night. I don't think it was his best and I felt that kucinich was far more lively and by my own biased, much more real about what kind of change needs to happen in the US.

It was interesting watching the movie that introduced Obama. It struck me as particularly odd how the black candidate for president, had a life that, as presented on screen was completely devoid of black folk and black experiences as it relates to African-Americans. In fact, had there not been a picture of Obama or Obama's face was not a part of the movie, One could have easily "mistook" the film to be about a white man from the mid-west. It is clear to me, that the acceptance of Obama by many non-blacks has much to do with who he is not and where he does not come from or out of.

Alice Walker on an interview I was listening to yesterday was making comments about how good it was that Obama was mixed because "we'll all be mixed someday." I've heard these remarks a few too many times. I find such commentary insulting because it carries with it the implication that not being black and just black is bad, passe. It also implies the same thing about Europeans and Asians.

Anyway. US history in the making. A luta continua.

Boo Biden

If Biden is representative of an Obama administration, there is a huge ass problem. His comments about Russia and Geogia during his speech at the DNC were dead wrong. It is a fact that it was Georgia st fault for the little war that occured. By siding with Georgia, Biden is on the wrong side of facts and history. That's not change. That is more of the same. That's neo-con. That's old cold war BS.

Dennis Kucinich: The One No One Would Vote For

Don’t Write Off the Liberals

Regular readers of Garvey's Ghost will note that I usually say "so called liberals" and "so called conservatives." The reason for this is that by and large I see the left and right as part and parcel of the larger problem. Michael Fisher has an excellent post in which the basis of the Ghost's use of "so called" and "supposed" is based upon. Read it and understand.

Obama, Douglass and Lincoln

And so the NY Times wants to compare Barack Obama with the "elder" Fredrick Douglass whom the article's author Michael Cohen, supposedly felt that Lincoln was "not being a more aggressive abolitionist,"

Well those of us not into the whitewash, we know that Lincoln was by no means an abolitionist in the sense that Douglass was. But we covered this before

"Negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers."

"All the unoccupied territory...shall be reserved for the benefit of the white Caucasian race --- A thing which cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."

So either Frederick Douglass was a damn fool or he used Lincoln's clearly "racist" sentiments in regards to slavery in order to maneuver to get emancipation as a stepping stone to increase the oft quoted "demands."

Jamaica Run T'ings!

Get it?

Congratulations Usain Lightning BOLT!!

Congratulations Shelly-Anne Fraser!!

Shelly- Thunda and Lightning Bolt!!

Olympic Gold for Togo

Togo won its first ever Olympic medal when Benjamin Boukpeti took bronze in the men's single kayak slalom at the 2008 Beijing Games.

"I can hardly believe it but I'm not surprised," said Boukpeti, who became the first non-European male kayaker to win an Olympic slalom medal.

-BBC

Arkansas Shooting

And so the question must be asked: Did this guy have anything in mind as adkisson?

President Bush, Why Don't You Shut Up?

From Pravda:

President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up? Do you really think anyone gives any importance whatsoever to your words after 8 years of your criminal and murderous regime and policies? Do you really believe you have any moral ground whatsoever and do you really imagine there is a single human being anywhere on this planet who does not stick up his middle finger every time you appear on a TV screen? Kinda makes ya’ll think, eh?

Do you really believe you have the right to give any opinion or advice after Abu Ghraib? After Guantanamo? After the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? After the torture by CIA operatives? Kinda difficult, eh?

I believe I pointed this out Monday.

Impending Collapse of NYC?

Anyone who paid attention to Governor Paterson's comments about the state of economic affairs in NY ought to take a serious look at this article from the NY Times:

Wall Street’s losses are fast becoming India’s gain. After outsourcing much of their back-office work to India, banks are now exporting data-intensive jobs from higher up the food chain to cities that cost less than New York, London and Hong Kong, either at their own offices or to third parties.

Bank executives call this shift “knowledge process outsourcing,” “off-shoring” or “high-value outsourcing.” It is affecting just about everyone, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Credit Suisse and Citibank — to name a few.

Think about that bail out that recently happened. Now think again..how much of that Money left the country? And how many more jobs will be leaving? And how much will the taxpayer have paid these companies to remove tax revenue from the state? but back to NYC in particular:

The jobs most affected so far are those with grueling hours, traditionally done by fresh-faced business school graduates — research associates and junior bankers on deal-making teams — paid in the low to mid six figures.

Cost-cutting in New York and London has already been brutal thus far this year, and there is more to come in the next few months. New York City financial firms expect to hand out some $18 billion less in pay and benefits this year than 2007, the largest one-year drop ever. Over all, United States banks will cut 200,000 employees by 2009, the banking consultancy Celent said in April.

So now the "entry level" b-school grad job is going away? Pray tell how will you get further up the ranks if the entryway is gone? But enough of that, did someone say $18 billion less in pay? Do you know what that's going to cost NYC? NYS? Did someone say 200,000 financial sector jobs that pay upwards of six figures, will be going away? It's no wonder that..

Many investment banks, including Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, would not make executives available to discuss the topic.

You don't say? If I was getting tax write offs and bail outs from the Fed as well as having the major political parties in my pocket, I wouldn't talk on record either.

But you must like the joke:

In the future, executives in India like to joke, the only function for highly paid bankers in New York or London will be to greet clients and shake hands when the deals close.

So when these "high value jobs" leave NY leaving a few highly paid "client greeters" in NYC just what will the tax base of NY look like? NYC has already lost upwards of 70% of it's finance sector revenues and movie prices can only go so high. Apple Stores will only bring in but so much. Fashion avenue is only going to bring in so much. The super rich buying from each other will only do so much. Is there an impending collapse here? We shall see.

Cynthia McKinney Interview

Cynthia McKiney:

There was a document dated May 11, 1965, a full three years before the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King jr, that said: 'somewhere at the top there must be a Negro who is clean who can step into the vacuum and chaos Once Dr. King is exposed or assasinated.'...

That document is stamped with the stamp of the CIA"

Now I said before that the rise of Obama represents the victory of the CointelPro program against black folk. One could say that Obama is far removed from Dr. King Jr. However; we see that there has been a steady charge against people like Al. Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and of coure Cynthia McKinney, who are arguably heirs of Dr. King Jr. Even now the NY Times has produced articles discussing the end of "black politics."

Yes, the "clean negro" has arrived on the scene.

A Note on Salon.com's round table on the US Presidential Candidates

Edsall: I think that McCain has sort of begun a message of Obama as an elitist, but to make it really work, you have to show that the liberal elitist is actually going to cost the average guy money or a job. That the elitist is going to tilt money or benefits away from regular working people -- i.e., whites -- and towards special-interest groups and the well-to-do.

So exactly what has the Republicans been doing all this time? This is the problem with your "average" white Republican voter. They simply do not understand that they are being used by the party to deliver the goods to large corporations that have been shipping their jobs overseas while getting massive tax benefits.

Salon.com

A quick note on Russia and Georgia

Recall that the Russians objected to the invasion of Iraq. Recall that Putin made it particularly clear that if the US thought that fighting what it called "terrorism" justified the invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate danger to the US, then Russia would assume the same "right" in what it viewed as threats to it's sovereignty and national integrity.

The attack in Georgia was a fulfillment of that ideology and the chicken hawks in Washington have no one to blame for it but themselves. Furthermore the US has been spending the last couple of years giving the Russians the middle finger as they meddled in the internal politics of former Soviet states in order to get "pro-western" governments into power. And let us not forget the plan to put a NATO missile "defence" ring, supposedly to protect western Europe from terrorists, right around Russia. This is something that the Russians have strenuously objected to. So 90% of the blame for the current situation in Georgia falls in the lap of the US and the remainder in the lap of the Georgians who thought that toying with Russia was a brilliant idea. Is it good to ya?

Update 11:58 AM

Oh and from the LA Times:

At a news briefing for reporters in Beijing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the United States was "100% focused on solving this peacefully. . . . We respect Georgia's territorial integrity and we expect Russia to do the same."

Oh just about the same respect shown for the territorial integrity of Serbia? Yeah, OK.

Issac Hayes Joins the Egun

Just as I'm getting my head around Bernie Mac, We hear about Issac Hayes whom I have NUFF respect for wearing a Gran Buba to a music awards show. My favorite of his music was his redo of Walk On By which featured prominently in the movie Dead Presidents.

You Don't Understand!

Yes, even us militant type negroes get our laugh on. RIP Bernie Mac.

I only wish my hair line would have lasted as long as his.

Suddenly Loud Negroes

I just have to say that I find it amusing how due to the Obama candidacy we have so many suddenly loud and militant black folk around.
Really, it's funny.

I graduated from Tuskegee back in 1994. I got my first job some 2 months later. I remember how shook folks were when I had the nerve to come to work in a Gran Buba. Man these folks scattered like roaches after a light been turned on.

The last time I seen so many opinionated black folk was after the OJ Simpson trial. Black folk who wouldn't give me a second look lest they be mistaken as "militant" gave me thumbs up (like I gave a damn about OJ), grins and all manner of "solidarity" signs.

But like I was saying, I've been Mr. Pro Black, as in people not individuals, since at least 1991. I'm not new to this. And that excludes my days of early KRS, early PE or anything like that. I'm talking straight up real as in study, research and analysis. BUt now a days, we have all kinds of black folk, feeling themselves because of Obama. Suddenly folks who couldn't even bring themselves to make a critique of white folk in front of white folk want to get mad at black folk who have critiques of Obama. Imagine that!

Suddetly these folks are experts in dissecting supposed "racist" statements and comments which just four scant years ago these same folks would have called people like me "over-sensitive" and "reading race into everything" had we pointed out the same thing. That's just too funny.

I just had to get that out.

A Note to Amiri Baraka

Brother In Struggle:

Last Sunday I caught you on Like It Is with Gil Noble. I have always enjoyed listening to you. Of late however I have been sorely disappointed in your commentary as it regards Barack Obama's presidential bid. We are all entitled to our opinion and I respect that we who are looking out for the best interests of African people may have a difference of opinion on Obama's run for and probable presidency. However; it saddens me to see you of all people to stoop so low as to name call and categorically dismiss other people of differing opinion for the simple reason that they have a different opinion. You expounded on this difference of opinion in a most unsavory manner in a piece that picked up on the Assault on Black Folk Sanity website, which has prompted me to write this response.

But I’m talking about another substantial pimple of soi disant, dare I say, intellectuals & self advertised radicals who are quite audible & wordy in opposition to Obama.

So I could understand getting at people who call themselves black conservatives. I could even fathom the bile spit at Hillary Clinton supporters, but "pimple"? for having the audacity to critique brother Obama?

You might say, ‘but how is that, since now there is only the prisoner of war, McCain, who proves every time he opens his mouth that he is still a prisoner of the Vietnam war’ that Obama faces. McCain’s major campaign plank is that Americans need to keep dying in Iraq and our tax monies need to keep being fed to Halliburton and the other oilies and cronies. McCain also holds that we continue the Bush type savaging of the US constitution by denying habeas corpus and the legal rights of prisoners in Guantanamo. Keep it open as a Bush-Cheney concentration camp. McCain also wants to maintain the widespread hatred of the US by the world, as well as making Bush giveaway tax cuts for the super rich permanent.



Here’s a charming character who on returning from Vietnam soon dumped his lst wife who had been severely crippled in an automobile accident, to run off with, among others, a beer brewery heiress who cd support his political barn storming. Here’s a man, who for all the media clap about him being “an independent” is the spiritual follower of the man whose seat he sits in as Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater.



I mention all this because it is criminal for these people claiming to be radical or intellectual to oppose or refuse to support Obama. I hope we don’t have to hear about “the lesser of two evils” from people whose foolish mirror worship wd have us elect the worst of two evils.

Who said anything about McCain? I don't know of any person critical of Obama who is pro-McCain so why even bring him up? Well since you did bring him up, lets compare records for a second. Obama started out with the "I didn't agree with the war in the first place" position. A position shared with Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. The aforementioned also were critical of Haliburton, etc. Tell me Mr. Baraka how much time (and money) did you spend supporting these individuals? I contributed cash money to the McKinney campaign. Did you? I devoted space on my blog to supporting AND critiquing her re-election campaign and you did what exactly? But let me not get into a pissing contest here and get back to McCain and Obama. Obama went from "remove the troops now" to "16 months" or whatever the "commanders on the ground" think is best. McCain went from 100 years to about the same thing. In either case the current PM of Iraq wants a withdrawal within 2 years so it doesn't really matter what either candidates have to say on the subject. But McCain and Obama have something more relevant in commmon, they have both repeatedly voted to continue funding this war. I find it odd how someone who is opposed to the war in Iraq would vote to keep sending money into that hole. I suppose that piece of contradiction doesn't bother you much.

Secondly, while you focus on the issue of Habeus Corpus in Guantanamo, I would remind you that Obama did a very significant and public about face on his opposition to the immunity for telecoms who BROKE THE LAW! Should I assume that the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't mean much to you? After all, if the government doesn't need a warrant then exactly what's the point of habeus corpus? Please, do tell.

Mirror worshipers would have "us" elect the worst of two evils? See that's some Democratic party line talk right there. That's up there with the 'Nader cost us the 2000 election" dumb talk. It's sad to see you have fallen for that line. In 2000 all that had to happen was for Gore to win his home state (like every other winning president has done to my knowledge). Had he done that, we wouldn't even be talking about Florida. Secondly why is it that the Democrats and Republicans (whom you admitted were two sides of the same coin) have been able to keep a monopoly on power? Where are the third and forth parties that could radically change how power is wielded in government. In any event, it won't be the "radicals" that will be electing any of the evil since it is clear that "intellectual radicals" are but a small minority in the US and really don't determine US electoral outcomes.

For those who claim radical by supporting McKinney or, brain forbid, the Nadir of fake liberalism, we shd have little sympathy. As much as I have admired Cynthia McKinney, to pose her candidacy as an alternative to Obama is at best empty idealism, at worst nearly as dangerous as when the Nader used the same windy egotism to help elect Bush.



The people who are supporting McKinney must know that that is an empty gesture. But too often such people are so pocked with self congratulatory idealism, that they care little or understand little about politics (i.e. the gaining maintaining and use of power) but want only to pronounce, to themselves mostly, how progressive or radical or even revolutionary they are.

No, I don't know of anyone who is posing McKinney as an alternative to Obama. Rather, I believe that those supporting McKinney are doing so because she supports their positions and policies. They are voting their policy interests. They know full well that McKinney is not going to win the election. So then does that mean that she shouldn't run and that people shouldn't vote for her? You do believe in democracy don't you? You claim that this is about being an idealist. Au Contrair. Her supporters know full well what reality looks like. To claim that they do not know or understand politics is condescending. As you noted we are discussing the gaining, maintaining and use of power. Apparently you have overlooked that point of "gaining." McKinney or others like her will never just show up with power. They gain power the same way everyone else gains power: they start out with a small determined (perhaps idealist) group of people and then work their asses off.

let me say that no amount of solipsistic fist pounding about “radical principles” will change this society as much as the election of Barack Obama will as president of the US. Not to understand this is to have few clues about the history of this country, its people, or the history of the Black struggle in the US. It is also to be completely at odds with the masses of the Afro-American people, let us say with the masses of black and colored people internationally. How people who claim to lead the people but who time after time tail them so badly must be understood. It is because they confuse elitism with class consciousness.

There is not a doubt among us "intellectuals" that the election of Barack Obama will have a serious impact on the US and the world. We are keenly aware of this and it is for THAT reason why we critique brother Obama as we do. There is much at stake. As you know and said in your interview with Gill Noble, Newark, NJ has not had a white person in the seat of power since the 1970's. There's a whole generation of people in Newark who have never known a white mayor of the largest city in NJ. Yet the economic situation for blacks in Newark is pretty bad. Schools are generally below par. And crime? Do I have to even discuss that? But you got black people in the big house. You seem to have plenty of not too nice words for Corey Booker. Why is it OK for you to shit on Booker as often as you do, while those of us who are critical of Obama are subject to being shit on by you? Seems very hypocritical to me.

Returning to the masses of "Afro-American" people and their support of Obama. I understand it. Who doesn't want to see a black president? What we are saying is that you must hold Obama accountable like you would any other politician. Why is that a problem? If Obama is going to vote for banks to jack up interest rates, then that's not good. We need to hold Obama accountable. If Obama doesn't have the balls to vote to impeach Bush, then we need to ask what he stands for. What Constitution is he pledging to uphold? If Obama wants to further entangle the state with religious institutions and we are opposed to that, then we need to hold Obama accountable. Each and every time the voters allow the Democrats to compromise on issues, we allow them to move further to the right. It's about principles.

On the international stage, many of us have studied how the mere presence of black faces in high places doesn't necessarily translate to real, on the ground positive changes. See Kenya. See Myanmar (Burma), See Liberia. I asked a question in regards to an Obama presidency some time ago. What happens when Obama signs the papers that sells the arms to Israel that ends up killing Palestinians (or maybe some Iranians)? How would that reflect on black Americans? That is a serious question because and Obama presidency may mark the first time in history that Black Americans as a group are directly complicit in the oppression of another group. That, to me is a very scary thought.

For the so called left and would be radicals (and some grinning idiots who say they don’t even care about politics) the McKinney gambit is to label oneself “Quixote of the loyal opposition” to pipsqueak a hiss of disproval at the rulers while being an enabler of the same. Neither McCain nor McKinney will help us. Only Obama offers some actual help.

McKinney can't help us because WE did not help McKinney. Don't you forget that.

Even the dumbest things Obama has said re: Cuba and the soft shoe for Israel must be seen as the cost of realpolitik, that is he is not running for president of the NAACP and not to understand that those are the stances that must be taken in the present political context, even though we hold out to support what he said about initiating talks with the Cubans, the Palestinians. After years of Washington stupidity and slavish support for the Miami Gusanos and Israeli imperialism, there is in Obama’s raising of talks with the US Bourgeois enemies something that must be understood as the potential path for new initiative. It is the duty of a left progressive radical bloc to be loud and regular in our demands for the changes Obama has alluded to in his campaign. We must take up these issues and push collectively, as a Bloc, or he will be pushed inexorably to the right.

The tired ass argument about Obama not running for president of black America is just that. Tired. Obama has made more than "dumb" statements about Israel. He went so far as to make promises of an undivided Jerusalem as a capitol of Israel. This is something that has been negotiated off the table by previous administrations. Obama promised more to Israel than Israel has even been asking for. That's not soft shoeing. That's outright capitulation. He says he'll talk to Palestinians? So? Everyone talks to Palestinians. Bush has people talking to Palestinians. What's the diff man?

Now the funniest thing about this paragraph is the "duty of the progressive and radical bloc" to be "loud and regular." Dude that's what we've been doing. That one sentence completely contradicts the entire tenor of the preceding screed against McKinney supporters.

Some people were grousing about the father’s day address and the stance he took lecturing Black men to actually become fathers not just disappearing sexual partners. But can anyone who actually lives in the hood, and has raised children there really claim that what Obama said is somehow an “insult to half a race.” We need to take up that idea of making Black men stand up and embrace fatherhood (a lifetime gig) as men and quit winking at the vanished baby makers that litter our community with fatherless children. This is where a great deal of the raw material comes from for the gangs that imperil our communities.



As I answered one irate e-mailer who was pissed off at Obama for leveling that challenge, a Negro man killed my only sister, a Negro man killed my youngest daughter. I can’t give no mealy mouth slack about that, we need to Stand Up!

Let me say that I was an early and ardent supporter of Bill Cosby's call out tour. I still support Dr. Cosby. Why? Because I feel his advice was dead on. Some question why I could support Cosby and not Obama. After all they were saying much of the same things. Let me clue you in on why Obama was out of line. In politics a candidate regularly compliments a group that he or she wants to win votes from. That Obama took his first appearance in a church after severing ties with Rev. Wright's church was a clear message to white voters that he'll keep the niggers in line (in political terms). Clear as day. Cosby was sending no such message. You ought to be insulted that a black candidate would see fit to pander to white voters by exploiting a problem in the black community. Secondly, Obama chose to single out Black Men in the speech. His prerogative, but if he wanted to make a point about parenting, there is MUCH to be said about Black women as well. He hasn't gone there. That too is insulting. So it's not so much the message, which in and of itself is skewed, but the reason for it's delivery. Surely you can understand that point.

But where is the Black left and general progressive, radical and revolutionary lobby? That is the real job we need to address. We must bring something to the table. It is time for the left to really make some kind of Left Bloc to support Obama. I was at the Black Left meeting in North Carolina and had to argue with a group of folks who want to be revolutionary as heck with a Reconstruction Party supporting Cynthia McKinney. Though there was some good discussion, nothing concrete has been offered especially around the Obama campaign.

Good quesion brother Baraka. Given your advanced age, lets pose the question to you. I'll tell you what we don't bring to the table: Cash money. I disagree that there needs to be a Left Bloc to support Obama. What there needs to be is a Left Bloc that can throw financial and voter support behind any candidate that furthers their objectives. This is not a personality contest, this is an issue contest. If Obama fits the bill then he gets support. In regards to the meeting in North Carolina, they were doing just as I said. McKinney represents their interest, while Obama apparently does not. So why should they support him? Regardless, as you are well aware, revolutionary blacks are not exactly the type of people Obama wants support from anyway so what does it matter where they want to expend their energy?

When Race, Poverty and Unnatural Events Collide

An interesting piece in the NY Times, discussing the ongoing fallout in New Orleans.

Remember; There is no black America.

Obama: No to Reparations for African-Americans

"I have said in the past — and I'll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

USA Today

Expected. What else would a black man running for POTUS and scrambling for white votes while kicking black folk whenever necessary say?

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Obama

Obama Truths, Half Truths and Lies

Hat tip to Michael Fisher over at Assault on Black Sanity, for posting the youtube capture of the brothers in Florida for trying to keep it real with Obama.

Here's the video:

Let's break Obama's response down:

Obama: I've been talking about predatory lending for the past two years in the United States Senate and worked to pass legislation to prevent it when I was in the state legislature.

Truth: Well Mr. Obama did in fact vote against the so called "bankruptcy reform" Act. However; in the process of amending the bill Obama voted in favor of allowing credit card companies to charge interest in excess of 30%. Oh and If you happened to have had a serious medical condition or were called to fight somewhere? Obama voted down that amendment as well.

Obama explained that he voted against the larger bill because he felt it was "written" by the big banks. However; he had his hand in making sure that these banks could charge poor people well over 30% interest on their debt as well as making sure that the sick and active duty could have their life savings taken by creditors. In other words, Obama wants to have it both ways. Unfortunately the questioners were not specific with Obama's record and so Obama managed to squeeze himself out of that particular trap.

Obama: Jena 6. I was the first candidate to say to get out there and say this is wrong there's an injustice that's been done and we need to change it.

Truth: The record shows that Obama did, in fact speak out on the Jena 6 situation. He, like many people, were not there early on, but he did release statements. So the brother in the audience was off the mark in that accusation against Obama.

Obama: When Sean Bell Got shot I put out a statement immediately saying 'this is a problem'

Truth: Obama was in NYC not long after the Sean Bell shooting and made an extremely tepid comment on the shooting. I pointed this out on the blog:

Of course no speech to AIPAC would not be complete without the requisite sympathy for Israeli victims of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.

Just six months after I visited,

Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that

destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service

members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been

kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with

his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.



Oh yes Obama, has sympathy for some Israeli citizens and wants to do anything he can to help, but when he was in NYC, right after Sean Belle was murdered by the NYPD in a branzen act of wrecklessness, Obama couldn't even muster up the guts to call the shooting what it was. Nor did he even offer "help" to Sean Bell's family. But i understand, Sean Bell and his family are not wealthy white (and Jewish) donors, so they don't matter. I expect that kind of stuff from Hilary but Obama should know better, especially if he's going to tout the "different kind of politics". But the only thing different right now is the color of the face, and the texture of the hair.

The point above being pretty clear that Obama felt the need to extend "help" to an Israeli, who's not even a citizen, but when a US citizen is shot up by the NYPD, Obama hasn't much help to extend.

Even worse, after the verdict in the case, Obama made a comment to the effect that we must respect the justice system and not be violent. That was all. Meanwhile his remaining Democratic competitor, managed to speak words of comfort for the Bell family and question the validity of the verdict (whether it was sincere or not is a whole other matter). There was no violence in NY and it was because a lot of people expected the verdict to come down the way it did.

But Obama in his answer in St. Petersburg hedged his comments with the: "I may not have said it the way YOU would have." which went over very well with that crowd because you know black folks are just tired of loud, confrontational black men. And you know how white folk are scared shitless of "angry" black men.

In the end though the brothers in audience need to tighten up their game. They should have researched Obama's comments and votes and then hit him with his record. They also should have hit him with his FISA vote. There's no way he could have escaped that question with loose language. When I was in college and in an organization, we had a rule about public speaking: Only the designated speaker may speak. Oh I'm sure people thought it was just ego, but the above video shows why it is so important to have a designated speaker and for that speaker to be up on his or her game.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Jena 6, Obama, Sean Bell

HIV in Swaziland

Joy Magongo, a mother of two whose husband moved out to live with his second wife after the couple discovered they were both HIV-positive, told IRIN: "Men say, 'I've been circumcised. I don't have to wear a condom.' They get infected, and they give us HIV.

"He [my husband] was circumcised and felt he didn't have to wear a condom. When we found we had HIV after testing, he blamed me. He said, 'You brought HIV into this house.' It was because I tested first, when I was pregnant with my second child," she said.

"My husband did not believe he could be HIV-positive because he was circumcised. I did all I could to convince him to test, and he finally did. That was the end. He took another wife and left us," Magongo said. Polygamy is legally recognised in Swaziland.

All Africa

It would appear that a larger issue at hand is the fact that these men are clearly cheating on their wives. It would seem also that this unfaithfulness is expected. Even worse is that the "other wife" is about to be the next victim of this man and it is highly probable that she has no clue that she is soon dead.

I honestly do not believe that this man, or others in his situation actually believe that the wife "brought HIV into this house." Instead what we have is a serious case of denial and projection.

Technorati Tags: Africa, HIV, Pan-Africanism

HRES 194

Late to the table with this one:

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 194

Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 27, 2007

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. LEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. WATSON, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. CARSON, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. HARE, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. HODES, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HONDA, and Mr. KUCINICH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

Whereas millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865;

Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals;

Whereas Africans forced into slavery were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage;

Whereas enslaved families were torn apart after having been sold separately from one another;

Whereas the system of slavery and the visceral racism against persons of African descent upon which it depended became entrenched in the Nation's social fabric;

Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 after the end of the Civil War, which was fought over the slavery issue;

Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;

Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as `Jim Crow,' which arose in certain parts of the Nation following the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against persons of African descent engendered by slavery;

Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially existed into the 1960's--a century after the official end of slavery in America--until Congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day;

Whereas African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow--long after both systems were formally abolished--through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity;

Whereas the story of the enslavement and de jure segregation of African-Americans and the dehumanizing atrocities committed against them should not be purged from or minimized in the telling of American history;

Whereas on July 8, 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush acknowledged slavery's continuing legacy in American life and the need to confront that legacy when he stated that slavery `was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history . . . The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all.';

Whereas President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery when he initiated a national dialogue about race;

Whereas a genuine apology is an important and necessary first step in the process of racial reconciliation;

Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help Americans confront the ghosts of their past;

Whereas the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia has recently taken the lead in adopting a resolution officially expressing appropriate remorse for slavery and other State legislatures are considering similar resolutions; and

Whereas it is important for this country, which legally recognized slavery through its Constitution and its laws, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so that it can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all of its citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;

(2) apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and

(3) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African-Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.

Lets See How This Goes Down

Back in 1994, if I recall correctly, when the World Trade Center was first bombed a blind cleric was convicted and sentanced to federal prison for giving speeches that inspired/drove that actual perpetrators to bomb the building. That was called "justice." I have long opposed that particular conviction because it criminalized speech rather than action.

Fast forward and today I find the following in regards to the recent shooting at a Unitarian church in Tennessee:

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."



Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."



Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."



Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

Not only that but Adkisson thought that he would have been killed by police. That makes him no different than a suicide bomber. Therefore, by the logic used by the justice system, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly ought to be arrested and tried for incitement to terrorism. by the legal precedent provided by the cleric's conviction, this is a clear and easy case to convict.

For reasons I don't think I need to explain here, I don't expect any such actions to be taken against those men.

Happy Birthday Baba Mandela

Just wanted to say that.

More N-words for Jackson

So apparently, true to FOX's claim, there is more on the off the record remarks by Jesse Jackson. Apparently Jackson is on tape saying "Niggas" or "Nigga." We don't know which because neither a transcript or video has been released as of this writing. Jackson has supposedly apologized for the N-word usage but I don't see why. Well I see why, but I think it's foolish. I know a lot of people, self included, who do not approve of indiscriminate usage of Nigga, particularly in public spaces. Many of those same people are not in any way opposed to the usage of said term in private or in historical context. Fact is, that until we see the context of the N-word usage, it is not a controversy at all.
Is there a double standard in the use of N-words. You damn bet there is. Deal with it. Within' all in groups are in group usages of terms not allowed for use by those outside the group. Of course Niggas always need to be told what to do, what they ought not to do and in the case of the Obama campaign, what to say as well. Of course, that may have been Jesse Jackson's point. Until we see a transcript or video we just won't know.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, N-Word, Jesse Jackson

More With the Insults

Says Obama at the NAACP convention:

Mr. Obama said that government has a responsibility to provide education, employment opportunities and tax breaks for struggling families. In return, parents have a duty to turn off the television, attend parent-teacher conferences and teach their sons to treat women with respect.

Nothing wrong with the above statement, but again, conspicuously absent would be critiques of mothers and daughters in particular. It's the same reason I refused to sign onto the R Kelly petition that went around a couple of weeks ago. I'm simply not having the "shit on black men for votes" go past without comment.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Obama

What I Learned from the New Yorker Obama Cover

1) Black folk are scared shitless that white folk won't vote for Obama.

2) Black folk don't mind Obama throwing his reverend of 20 years under the bus but do mind a magazine cover because of item one.

3) Black folk don't mind Obama's about face on the FISA legislation but do care about a magazine cover because of item one.

4) Black folk, because of item one, are ashamed of the Black Panther Party (never mind that the Black Panther Party colors were baby blue shirts under black jackets).

5) Black folk, because of item one, are ashamed of Afros and Angela Davis.

6) Black folk, generally ill-informed on the subject of African Culture, thought that the clothing in the picture on Obama was "tribal African" rather than clearly middle eastern.

7) Black folk, motivated by item one, don't even raise the question of since there are no religious tests to become president, why it should even matter if Obama was a Muslim. But then again, critical thinking has not been in abundance during this election cycle (or much of any other for that matter).

Yep, that about sums it up.

A Blow to the Head

Charles M. Blow offered a weak defence of Barack Obama in an Op Ed piece in the NY Times entitled Talking Down and Stepping Up:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson wants to do what to Barack Obama? Ouch!



And why? Because he thinks Mr. Obama’s speeches on fatherhood have been too hard on black men and not hard enough on The Man? I’m sorry, Mr. Jackson, but that’s just ... what’s another word for crazy?

Well not exactly. Here we have opinion error number one. While I'm not one to speak on behalf of Jesse Jackson, I do know that his issue with Obama predates Obamas speech in that Chicago church on Father's day. Jesse Jackson had issues with brother Barack (as Dr. West puts it) when Obama had nothing to say on the national stage about the noose hangings in Jena La., I also believe Jackson had issues with Obama's absence from the King memorial at the Lorraine Hotel in Tenn. So we see that Mr. Blow is woefully ill-informed on the origins of Jesse Jackson's issues with brother Barack.

But the problems with "brother" blow only start with his opening paragraph. As is typical of those of Mr. Blow's ilk, the stats and charts play a prominent role in his defense of Obama.

According to the United States Census Bureau, black children are the only group more likely to live with a single mother than in a two-parent household. (That’s in part because black men are the least likely to be married and most likely to be divorced or separated.) And, according to a 2002 report by Child Trends, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group, in 1997 single black mothers were the least likely to receive full child support payments (and most likely to receive none) and only about half of black children had any contact with their absent fathers in 1996.

Poor people are more likely to be on welfare. Wow imagine that. You'll note that in order to get around the glaring number charts at the head of the article, Mr. Blow, like others before him use the term "more likely." It's the same argument about blacks being more likely to commit crime, and more likely to be this, that and the other. While Mr. Blow's statement will possibly be quoted by someone somewhere, the chart above paints a different picture.

Firstly we see that 32.5 million white children live with both parents. By comparison 3.9 million black children live with both parents. Well here's the problem: these aren't percentages these are a straight up head count. By that chart, more white children live with their mothers, by a margin of 1.1 million, that black children. More white children live with their father's, by a margin of 1.5 million, than black children. And there are more than 200,000 more white children who do not live with their parents than there are black children.

As is usually the case, while certain things seem to be disproportionately affect black folk in America, it is usually the case, as is here, that the raw numbers show that white folks lead by far in the numbers. Don't expect Mr. Blow to get this though.

Mr. Blow's next blunder is here:

Are there social ills, racial injustices and economic hardships in the black community? Of course there are. Are there biased judges, outmoded laws and difficult exes? Yes, some. Do these issues excuse child support not paid, time not spent, hugs not given, foreheads not kissed, “attaboys” and “big girls” not spoken? Absolutely not.

Mr. Blow shows absolutely no evidence that the fathers, even those who are not married to the mother of their children or living with the mother does not have contact with their children. Yet there he is blowing off hot air about what he thinks they are or are not doing. But lets go back to the chart on the NY Times page. You'll note the clear disparity of child support payments made and not made but damn, they went as far back as 1997 for this data? Is this some kind of joke? I'm just going to point out NY as an example. The black unemployment rate in NYC in 2003, the same year that the charts in question was published, was 48.2%. by comparison, white men had an unemployment rate of 25%. In 2006 the unemployment rate of black men fell to 40% In some states the rate of unemployment is three times the state average and nationally upwards of 8 times, so Mr. Blow needs to explain how men who aren't working who have reproduced are supposed to magically come up with child support payments. I'm sure Mr. Blow would say that they ought not to have reproduced. Fine. However that fails to address the current problem and we are here to solve current problems aren't we? Or are we here simply to get press for talking junk about black folk (again)?

So really what we have here is a man who clearly knows not what he speaks of. Unfortunately this "dumb in the light of Obama" disease afflicts a great many voter, as discussed in my last blog posting. So let me set Mr. Blow straight here. It is usually bad for a politician to go to a group of people for whom he or she wants votes, to get up and insult them. Obama doesn't go to Appalachia and talk this way to poor white folk who dropped out of High School and are on welfare. He hinted at them being bitter and had his head served back to him on a platter.

You don't go to Texas and tell Hispanics about their illegal immigrant family members and how they ought to stop taking citizen jobs and using fraudulent Social Security numbers and the like. No you don't do that. If black folk had any kind of self-respect, they would have put Obama on notice the first time he insulted them on national tv ( That would be the charges of anti-Semitism, homo-phobia, and racism) that he would not receive our votes if he continued. He would have stopped. But black folk, like Mr. Blow, who clearly have not an iota of self-respect will make excuses for Mr. Obama using Father's day to beat up on black men (calling them boys no less) in order to make a national appeal for white votes.

Anyway, As for the proverbial nuts that Jackson claimed to have wanted to cut off, he would find that those nuts have long since been in the possession of AIPAC. Mr. Blow has another piece of Obama's anatomy in his mouth and I suggest he remove the offending organ from his mouth prior to writing another trash piece for the NY Times.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Obama

Why Does Barack Obama Hate My Family?

How would people respond if John McCain (or any person of a different race, nationality or ethnicity) threw out stereotypes like these? What would we say if a white person had stood in the pulpit of a black church, or anywhere else for that matter, and referred to black men as “boys,” in any context?

But since it’s Obama, sounding like Bill Clinton before his fall from black grace, or Bill Cosby speaking out of his own personal pain, the change candidate’s remarks were met with hosannas mostly by a vapid, racist, white-dominated corporate media, the black people who say what their white bosses want to hear, and blacks and whites alike who shout amen even when Obama’s saying something plainly contradicted by their own life experiences.

It was no big surprise that after the speech those critical of Obama were dismissed “as out touch” with the new “post-racial” illusion. Bob Herbert of The New York Times appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball went so far as to say that anyone who disagreed with Obama’s Father’s Day admonition to black men was living in a racial “fog” of the past. Newspapers across the county affirmed the smear with headlines like “Obama tells black men to shape up” or “Obama speaks ‘inconvenient truth’ to black men” or “Obama calls black men irresponsible” or “He's saying things people don’t want to hear” - with the inference that truth was flowing from his tongue.

I saw no headline lead with the word "some" black men.

Playin’ folk on any day is bad enough. But, as a father, grandfather and a black person, I see playin’ black men on Father's Day as even more repulsive. The day is for honoring fathers. We don’t honor the vets on Veteran’s Day by pointing out those who choose not to fight, or the cowards, or even the enemy.

http://counterpunch.org/gray07112008.html

Welcome To Waterville/Blue Rapids

About 2 a.m., the defendants found J.L. asleep on the ground and put him in a lawn chair. He was tied, the defendants directed racial slurs at him and urinated on him. They used a can of spray paint to paint the victim’s arms and legs white.

They told the victim he should “go back home” and go back where he came from before he moved to the Waterville and Blue Rapids area.

Capitol Journal Online

Zimbabwe

Documentary on Yoruba Child Naming

If you watch carefully you'll find the meaning of my last name.

No Words for This

I can't even comment
New forms of African pornography

Ten minutes later they arrive at a magnificent uninhabited looking building. A sixty something year old white male and his wife, also white and much younger, welcome the girls. The dim lights at the far end of the house reveals a tennis court. A gaze at the poolside of a large swimming pool in the garden area; nine black girls and six well built black men chat away happily. They all move into the building. Introductions are made by the white couple in a spacious hall in their basement which has its walls covered in wine coloured tapestry. To the right is a grand bar displaying bottles of champagne and assorted whiskies accompanied by delicious smoked salmon finger food. The floor of the room lays a thick mattress, same colour as the walls. A cameraman and his two technicians enter the room and start installing their equipment. The boss claps his hands and no sooner had a handler accompanied by six german shepherds entered than the zoophilia scenes begun, starring africans. The film titled “Black Bitches” sold out in specialised shops in europe shortly after its release.

I'll Pass on That R. Kelly Petition

I first saw the petition on a posting at Feministing.com. I read the petition and decided not to sign it. I don't think anyone else ought to sign it either. There are a couple of reasons for this.

Firstly, I'm still pissed off that Obama used his return to church/father's day speech to talk shit about black men. Yes I'm well aware of, and have often commented on the absent fathers in the Black community. But Obama's speech was clearly a political ploy to get white support by showing that he's willing to "get tough" on black folk. What made that extra insulting was that he didn't seem to feel that he should have shat on black women on Mother's day, as if black women as a group have never done anything wrong at all. Ever. Yeah, OK.

Second: I was pretty much put off by the whole "black men need to...." tone of the title and resulting text. First of all I'm not responsible for R-Kelly. I don't produce his records. I don't buy his records. I don't pay the man millions to perform world wide. The fact of the matter is that a whole lot of black women love R-Kelly. In fact I would hazard to guess that black women are one of R-Kelly's primary audiences. It would seem to me then, that the onus for putting R-Kelly in his proverbial place, is on those black women who have been throwing their panties at him for all these years. But you know how it is. Always a [n-word]'s fault so I don't expect the so-called "feminist" crowd to exactly get in other women's asses for purchasing R-Kelly's music.

Third: This part probably bothered me most. There was this whole The jury ought to have convicted him because the crime was so immoral, tone to the piece I simply cannot get with the whole lets put aside jury rules attitude. If the people writing the petition are so OK with juries or jurist deciding cases regardless to the evidence (or lack thereof), then I expect them to post a petition supporting Judge Cooperman for finding that "attitude" of Sean Bell's friends, justifies ignoring the evidence that none of the officers involved in the Sean Bell shooting, were in any danger of gun fire, since they admitted a few times that they saw no gun.

This slippery, forget the law, logic raised it's head in the Duke case. All over the black female blogosphere I read material which basically said, the suspects were guilty simply because they were white, male, rich, said some really "racist" stuff and happened to be accused.

Even after evidence came to light that put one of the accused in a car, far away from the scene, one of these bloggers made a post giving the alleged victim an award for her bravery? Excuse me? I suppose then that it's OK then for black men to be judged guilty of whatever is sent their way simply because they are black, male, poor (and you KNOW how much crime poor people commit), and perhaps under-educated.

Other blog posts I have read have discussed how the rich get off because they are rich. Well no, the rich get off for a variety of reasons one of which is that they can afford adequate council. I would think that the public would be bright enough to wish that all citizens, regardless of income could get adequate council. In the R-Kelly case, Kelly had adequate council and plenty of reasonable doubt. Does that mean the man is a moral compass for black youth? No. It does mean that unlike numerous black men who have landed in prison or death row because they were simply black, R- kelly received what is commonly known as "justice." People should be happy that a jury was able to evaluate the evidence rather than make some up.

To be honest I'd be very afraid to have some of these people sit on a jury that I may end up on. In the end, the petition does nothing but lay blame for disrespect of black women in general on black men. I'm not having it. This problem did not start with only black men and it wont end with blame shifting or scapegoating.

Obama on the White Hand Side

Since black folk are by and large on Crack in their support of Obama, the following will make little difference but still needs, ummm.. recordification...:

Obama Backs White Blue Dog over Progressive Black Woman

It appears there is no white Democrat so far to the Right that Obama will not lend him support - even in a race against a progressive Black challenger. Obama recently cut a campaign radio commercial for U.S. Rep. John Barrow (D-GA), a "Bush Democrat" if there ever was one. Barrow, a Blue Dog Democrat whose fulsome praise for Bush should be an embarrassment to his party, faces challenger Regina Thomas, a state lawmaker from Savannah, in a district where Blacks make up 70 percent of Democratic primary voters. Thomas has no money, but she is backed by progressive bloggers like Matt Stoller of Open Left, who says: "I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats is a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi endorsing Al Wynn" - the corporate-backed incumbent defeated by progressive challenger Donna Edwards, in Maryland, this year.

More on Zimbabwe

Horace Campbell and Eusi Kwayana write some good stuff on Zimbabwe.

“We fought for this country, and a lot of blood was shed…We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?”

This kind of talk is dangerous and should be condemned by pan Africanists and decent persons everywhere.

ZIMBABWE AND THE QUESTION OF IMPERIALISM

First, there should be an attempt to clear the landscape of certain obstacles. Zimbabwe was in growing trouble before the sanctions imposed by the governments of Britain and the United States. Still, the attempt to bully a small country’s ruler who was in turn bullying his compatriots draped Robert Mugabe in the role of a hero against imperialism. The attempt encouraged a blundering ruler to stay on course. The ZANU-PF forces and sympathizers have blamed the disastrous economic situation on the sanctions. Yet, the political leaders have accumulated wealth in such a conspicuous manner that their consumption of luxury goods stands out in a country where more than 80 per cent of the eligible workers are unemployed. Millions more Zimbabweans have been rendered as economic refugees in Africa and beyond.

Garvey's Ghost been saying this.

Obama Continues to Disappoint

Obama has been, since his defeat of Hillary Clinton, letting his "realness" come out and play. The candidate of change, who's spots we peeped long ago, has been doing a lot of status quo of late. The latest of his transgressions has been his support of the Telecom bill that we discussed last week.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.



It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people

I've long said that the reason that Democrats have not impeached Bush or done anything opposition like, is because they want the same power when they get into power. In any case, Obama is full of the infamous Toro... when he states:

It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does no such thing. Democrats, including Obama have one way of making it clear that the president cannot circumvent the law: Impeachment and criminal proceedings. They have not done so, and therefore they are all full of the "toro." Also, as expected, the progressives, who have been hanging off Obama's left nut, and who have had all manner of vitrol for Republicans and other Democrats about caving into the administration, have nothing to say on Obama's statement. Move On? Not a word. ACLU, from whom I get damn near daily e-mails? Nada. Silence on nearly all fronts.

"Only God, who appointed me, will remove me"

Says President, for life apparently, Mugabe. Don't worry man, time soon come.

Wiretap Fiasco

So the NY Times has reported that:

WASHINGTON — After months of wrangling, Democratic and Republican leaders reached a deal Thursday that would re-write the rules for the government’s wiretapping powers, and would provide what amounts to limited immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The deal would expand the government’s powers in some key respects. It would allow intelligence officials to use broad warrants to eavesdrop on foreign targets, and to conduct emergency wiretaps on American targets without warrants if it is determined that important national security information would be lost otherwise.

The deal would also make the phone companies involved in the post-Sept. 11 program immune from legal liability if a district court determines that they received valid requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.

Never mind the fact that the FISA statute already allows the government to do "emergency" wiretaps with after the fact justification. What is the purpose of legislation that restates what's already on the books? Oh that's right, the immunity thing.

What exactly constitutes a "valid request from the government?" I'll tell you what constitutes a valid request. It's a fucking warrant that's what. it's a court order. They didn't receive one of those. So what exactly is the point of the whole district court proceeding? Oh I know!! The appearance of some kind of "due process."

See the congress doesn't want to do it's job. The Judiciary committe doesn't want to do it's job and the Justice Department doesn't want to do it's job, so they pawn the clearly illegal activity onto a district judge who they can then point fingers at when the inevitable "AT&T is in the clear" decision comes down.

Obama's Father's Day Speech

This is a particularly hard post for me to make. Indeed it even kept me from having a good night's sleep. In fact, it has placed me at a particular crossroads. A crossroad I never really thought I would get to. I've always told myself that my biggest problem, and perhaps in another light my biggest asset, is that I really take this stuff seriously. When I say "this stuff" I mean justice for and the independence and self-respect of black people everywhere. And I mean everywhere. I'm not the kind of person who goes with the crowd whether that crowd be the so called revolutionary one or the reactionary one. I sit, read, evaluate, think on, and then apply whatever principles I have across the board. It's not easy.

So then, when Bill Cosby was catapulted onto the scene by the white media when he made his infamous 'pound cake" speech. I didn't have a problem with it. That put me at odds with many of my colleagues on the left, who felt that Cosby was unfairly beating up on the black poor. My argument to them was that the problem I had was that the media was:

a) taking bits and pieces of his speech and using it out of context.
b) Cosby wasn't lying and as a comedian I'm going to give him "artistic latitude."
c) He has been putting his money where his mouth is for a very long time.

and lastly, relative to Obama,

d) He hasn't to my knowledge talked shit about other "radical" black leadership like Farrakhan. In fact he went out of his way to compliment the NOI.
e) Hasn't gone on record saying that Black America doesn't exist.
f) Isn't using black folk to advance his political career.

During the Obama campaign, I have been particularly disturbed by previously "radical" black writers and thinkers (I suppose), who prior to Obama's win in Iowa, were known for thier sharp critiques of presidential candidates, mayoral candidates, senate seat candidates, US policy, and just about anything that came out of any politician's mouth. Suddenly now, they can't say a thing about Obama other than to vote for him. If Bush kisses AIPAC's ass, these writers are all over him. Obama does the same thing and it's: "well a brother's got to do...." Where's the principle? Where are the principles that says I have issues with anyone who's kissing AIPAC's ass?

When Obama talks about defending Israel against Iran, who poses no threat to Israel, nor will they be dropping a nuke on Palestinians or one of Islam's holy sites, where are these writers? Where are these writers who constantly talk about Dr. King and his opposition to war? They are off writing: "A brother's got to do what..." Where are the principles?

Now I wait to see if these same writers who had all manner of things to say about Bill Cosby will, get to tapping on their keyboards and spew the same condemnation at Obama that they did at Bill Cosby? I'm not holding my breath though. I fully expect these same men and women to find some "brother's got to do.." angle to peddle this time around.

Does this mean that I disagree with what Obama had to say? Absolutely not. Like he said, Any fool can make a baby. But unlike Mr. Cosby, Obama has previously disrespected his former pastor who has said many of the same things in the past. In fact, I will lay odds, that Rev. Wright has said more about Black fatherhood or lack thereof than any sermon on Israel, Iraq or God Damn America. It is blatant disrespect that knowing full well that the media was going to show and report, to stand up in one's first black church appearance since the whole Rev. Wright incident, and run with that kind of speech. I don't recall Obama rollin' in a church on Mothers day and attacking the black women who are doing shit jobs raising their kids, that they decided to have. I don't recall that speech being aired on international TV.

There are a lot of reasons for the rate of single parenthood in the black community but I'm not going into all that right now. My issue is the blatant political opportunism that was on display Sunday. I've been saying for months that black folk would be used as the whipping boy for Obama to seal his "not too black" and "keep them in line" credentials with white voters. Black folk are so desperate to have a black face as POTUS, that all semblance of self-respect has been lost. It has finally occurred to me that the vast majority of black Americans are not in it for Dr. King Justice not Malcolm X justice or for that matter any kind of real justice. It is becoming clear to me that it is about simply getting that piece of the pie. That seat of power. A seat at the table to do the same things that everyone else has been doing.

You know what? I didn't sign on for that. If this is the direction black folk want to go in then I'm going to have to re-evaluate my advocacy on behalf of said group.

Obama's Baby Momma?

Again, not that I am an Obama supporter, but for Fox to run have a mast in which Obama's wife was referred to as a baby momma, is particularly insulting. We know exactly what that label is meant to portray to the public and it's not cute at all.

It's Art

And so we find this which has put off a lot of people. (and there is a lot more potentially offensive material at the link including some not safe for work). The question has arisin as to whether it is art or racist. It is a dumb question since Art can be racist and still be art. While there are people quick to applaud the removal of the art and arrest of the artist, I would remind them that at some point something they agree with may be deteremined to be offensive to some other group at which time they too could find themselves on the receiving end of state censorship.

I recall the artwork. "Your Mommas Last Supper" was created. A lot of people were pissed off about that. It may be Anti-Christian or Anti-Catholic, but it was still art.

Perhaps we can recall the Cross put in urine. Anti-Christian, Most likely. Art? Definitely.

Oh and lets not forget the Cartoons of Mohammed.

To be honest I thought that the exhibit as far as I've seen it is intellectually stimulating. Particularly the Nappy Headed Hos and Audacity of Black Hope images.

The Just Passing and Passed are, to me, interesting pieces in and of themselves.

The point of having a free speech society in which all speech that does not directly threaten the welfare of the public such as shouting fire in a crowded auditorium, is that you protect the speech you may disagree with because by doing so you protect your own speech. It seems that way too many people have forgotten this little point.

Obama The Nominee

Regardless of my policy differences with Obama I would be remiss not to note the historical nature of his future nominee status, which, I will add, I predicted would happen after Super Tuesday.

Re: Norms and Deviations: Who’s to Say?

Frank Rich's article by the above name touched upon a topic that I like to discuss. I touched this topic when I dealt with the subject of so called "Hereto-Normativeness" a theory that basically asserts that the dominant society has constructed a social order in which Heterosexuality has been made to be normal (normalized) as opposed to homosexuality, transgender, etc. My position was that normal was not so much socially created but of a biological fact. Heterosexuality is a necessary biological situation that perpetuates mammalian species. If homosexuality was normal than mammalian species (among many others) would cease to exist; a brutal but honest fact.

The typical argument usually follows the form of: Sex is pleasurable and not meant to always cause reproduction. Therefore since not all heterosexual unions result in children (for whatever reason), it stands to figure that same sex coupling is no different. The entire flaw with this argument is that apart from cats for whom sex is painful, the pleasure derived from having sex is part of the biological drive to procreate. If sex causes massive amounts of endorphins to be released, and if the semen of males, contain chemicals that facilitate emotional bonds between males and females, then it is clear that the pleasure involved in sex is to 'nudge" the reproductive cycle. That humans decide to not reproduce is a consequence of our ability to think and go counter to our nature (for better or worse). This is not to say that social constructs do not exist in society that have no basis in fact. For example the idea that women are inherently bad at math and logic is a social construct that even recently has been shown to be a consequence of socialization of women and opportunities open (and closed) to women.

Getting back to Stanley Fish, There were a few things that stood out in his piece that prompted this post. First was this:

the film’s director, Brett Ratner, who said on About.com that the story “has strong racial, political and sexual aspects” and wonders, “What if … African-American[s] could take a pill [that would] ‘cure’ them of being black or if a gay could take something that would alter his sexuality?” That is, what if a condition scorned by the majority but prized by the minority that inhabits it could be eliminated by a simple injection? What would the minority do?



In the case of blacks and gays, the answer has already been given in the mantras “black is beautiful” and “we’re queer; we’re here; get used to it.” In the years since these battle cries were first heard, African-Americans and gay Americans have secured rights, gained in influence and earned respect, however grudging and superficial.

The first problem with this is the equation of gay and black as equal supposed "afflictions." As discussed above, it is clear that homosexuality would, in nature, cause the elimination of whatever species in which it was "normal." So in fact such an "affliction" can rightfully be seen as abnormal or even a disease in the way that Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease. (assuming a genetic component). However; being black or heavily melanated is not a disease and is far from abnormal. The fact of the matter is that not only are the vast majority of people on the planet not white, but it is known that all human life began in Africa, and that those early ancestors were in fact black. All the other shades of skin color are in fact deviations from the "normal" state of blackness with the blond haired, blued eyed European being at the far end of the "abnormal" scale. In fact it has been determined that white skin as an inheritable trait only came to be about 10,000 years ago when the predecessors of the Egyptians were experimenting with pyramids, charting the stars, and creating such things as calendars. And so the words of this director, directly reflects the socially constructed reality of a default of whiteness that many white people think of themselves.

Again, to be sure there are definitely socially constructed concepts that are based on general wishful thinking. Equally though there are those who challenge certain constructs based on their own wishful thinking that thinking usually being that they want to be accepted by everyone else. I have no problem with people wanting to be accepted and accommodated, I do have a problem when the arguments for it are just silly. For example those who are deaf attempting to make the case that there is nothing wrong with them. Clearly the fact that the two things on either side of one's head not working, is clear evidence that something is wrong. That sign language was created to help those persons communicate is beside the point. Again I simply point the reader to the nature test. A deaf person, in humanities birth grounds would be soon dead, as any deaf mammal. Simply put, being unable to hear an approaching predator is a serious problem for survival. I won't even get into what would happen to a blind person.

Of course it would be a fair argument to say that we are not in the bush, desert, arctic or forrest. That observation is true and it is also the reason why certain arguments about certain constructs can even take place. Today a handicap may be an inconvenient, whereas in our past lives, they would be deemed a death sentence. The fact that society accommodates those with handicaps leave some to think that they are somehow not broken. This I think is a mistake. I'm all for accommodating those with disabilities, but I disagree that somehow we ought to act like something isn't wrong. If I lose my legs, I will probably never run again, certainly not at the pace that I do now. I would never be able to ride my bike the way I do now. I would never be able to drive a manual transmission again (and that would really piss me off). Similarly, if I were suddenly blind, I would reach out and slap anyone who told me "everything is going to be alright." No it wont. I know what I'm missing. Similarly if I were to go deaf, I would be missing my piano, my music (which I always have on), the sound of my just tuned engine among other things not fit to print on this blog.

So in the end some social constructs are valid and ought to be defended because they are provably "right" and beneficial. Others ought to be challenged and discarded. In both cases the determination ought to be done carefully and without ego.