Black Male Unemployment in America

I saw a tweet by Negrophile that underscored a conversation I was having with my mother two weeks ago. This Christian Science Monitor article Really captures how bad the employment situation is for black men which is something we have discussed previously. The CSMonitor article points out a few things:

At a time when America has elected its first black president, more African-American men are losing jobs than at any time since World War II.

No group has been hit harder by the downturn. Employment among black men has fallen 7.8 percent since November of 2007, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

The trend is intimately tied to education, the report’s authors say. Black women – who are twice as likely as black men to go to college – have faced no net job losses. By contrast, black men are disproportionately employed in those blue-collar jobs that have been most highly affected – think third shifts at rural manufacturing plants.

And this short paragraph deserves attention:

Unemployed black men like Anthony Gilmore aren’t surprised by the findings. Laid off five months ago from a call center, Mr. Gilmore recently interviewed for a job detailing cars. A Hispanic man got the job.

I have been very direct in my criticism of those who act as if illegal immigration, particularly from or through Mexico has not had an adverse effect on black employment. We have written here of proof of how illegal immigration has directly affected the employment and wages of poor blacks.

The damage to the black family and specifically the potential choices for lifemates is particularly disturbing:

Correspondingly, his data suggest that, as of January, about 120 African-American women were employed for every 100 African-American men. “The current size of the overall gap in employment between black women and black men is historically unprecedented, and black Americans are the only group for whom the gender employment gap is in favor of women,” the report notes.

You know there is a blog called "What about our daughters." Perhaps it's time for black folk to start asking and answering seriously: What about our sons?

Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post

NY Times:

Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.”

Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally. In 2006, he warned that, “left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them and enrage those who are not.”

He did not soften his tone even on Wednesday, saying in an interview that “Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.”

The critics who led the effort to derail Mr. Freeman argued that such views reflected a bias that could not be tolerated in someone who, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, would have overseen the production of what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments destined for the president’s desk.

Policy neutral?


Who are we fooling?

The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

What is the percentage of Jews in the US? And what proportion of that support the Zionist policies of the state of Israel? So AIPAC represents what? 50% of US Jewery at best but has this kind of lock on policy? Recent polling in Israel itself shows a sharp split in regards to the policies of the Israeli government and Obama can't do better than this? But I told ya'll about this long ago:

Giving B&N the Benefit of the Doubt

And so one of Diversity Inc.'s incessant e-mails hit my inbox this afternoon. The blaring headline:Monkey Book on Display in an Obama-Themed B&N Window

Oh this should be good. The linked text started with:

While the New York Post denied that their cartoon of a chimpanzee being shot and the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" was a racist stab at President Barack Obama, Barnes & Noble is putting the blame on a customer.

This would be the emotional setup. Next:

:The Barnes & Noble bookstore's storefront in the Miracle Mile Mall in Coral Gables, Fla., featured several books about Obama and one about monkeys.



In a public statement, Barnes & Noble spokesperson Mary Ellen Keating said, "We believe that a customer played a cruel joke and placed an inappropriate title in the front window of our store. We are looking into it and are taking the steps necessary so that it does not happen again."

So a display about Obama is put up with a single Monkey picture in the middle. Odd. Very odd.

A photo of the display began circulating via e-mail by an unknown photographer and has sparked widespread criticism and the public apology from the U.S. bookseller. But is putting the blame on a customer really an apology?

So just to be clear, an unidentified man or woman took a picture of a display which they were offended by and RATHER than march into the store and demand an explanation and removal, they merely forwarded this message to whomever without attribute. OK so we expect first that the photographer ID him or herself then tell us why they didn't bring it up to the store manager immediately since they felt so inclined to defend the race.

Secondly though there is no direct evidence that the store in question is not telling the truth. Worse, the title implies that B&N as a corporate entity approved of such an action when we know that a B&N store is much more like a franchise.

On contrast the NY Post, owned by Newscorp has direct control over the content of the NY Post. No individual can sneak in a photo such as the offending one into the paper. There must be approval from the Editor in Chief to have such an item show in a paper. In fact it is common for so called "offensive" syndicated columns and cartoons to be rejected by a newspaper. Ask Aaron McGruder.

I'm not familiar with the store in Florida but I am familiar with two such stores here in Northern NJ where I as a customer could EASILY muck about with a window display or any other display in the store without much notice from anyone. Furthermore; it is entirely plausible that it was not a customer but an employee acting on his or her own behalf. In neither case would this be reflection on B&N the corporate entity unlike the situation with the NY Post where the very fact that the cartoon was approved up the chain reflected directly on the corporate entity.

So the comparison to the NY Post incident thus far is so far fetched that it would seem to me that Diversity Inc. is courting a libel suit by making such comparisons.

Anyway unless or until Diversity Inc. takes to actual reporting, like calling the store, tracking down the photographer or perhaps tracking down surveillance footage, their report ought to be taken with the same grain of salt used by the "know your 5 black presidents" poster they are selling.


on a side note though, I guess Flavor Flav doing his black face impression is OK by everyone

The Case of the Disappearing Photo

Anyone who saw the NY Times website this morning ~7:30AM saw the article on David Axlerod with an Obama sign with Hebrew lettering under the logo. It was commented on by a couple of readers. It is now gone. Poof. It has been replaced with a photo of Obama and Axlerod in the Oval office. I don't think it is an accident that the picture was changed. Not at all. And of course between Axlerod and Emmanuel we understand why Obama has decided to boycott Durban II over Zionism.

They Will Always Abuse The Authority

As someone who is still very much against the NSA wiretapping and the blanket immunity given to those companies that gave access to the government for it's clearly illegal activities I want to point out the recent revelations in Britain:

Just a day after the Information Commissioner raided a firm for possessing a covert database of construction workers’ personal information, it emerged that the police force is keeping a potentially illegal database listing the details of political activists and journalists.

In a Guardian newspaper investigation, the Metropolitan Police force, which is said to have pioneered surveillance techniques at demonstrations, was accused of storing details including names, photographs, political associations and video footage of protesters and reporters.

Mind you England is one of, if not the biggest police states in the English speaking world. Don't feel comforted by being in the USA since the NYPD and other police departments have been doing this kind of stuff as well. It just underscores the recent re-airing of a Like It Is report from 1980 about the infiltration of various black organizations and the extent to which the government will interfere with people and organizations who are doing nothing illegal just because they can.

Chris Brown and Rhianna

From the LA Times:

the assault began when Rihanna picked up Brown’s phone as the couple drove away from a pre-Grammy party in Beverly Hills. The singer saw a long text message on Brown’s phone detailing a sexual encounter between him and another woman, the warrant said.

The pair began arguing, and Brown pulled the rented Lamborghini to the side of the road and tried to make Rihanna get out of the car, according to the warrant. When her seat belt got in the way, he began punching her in the face.

“The assault caused Robyn F.’s mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the car,” the police detective wrote in the warrant filed Feb. 20.
During the alleged assault, the detective wrote, Brown told Rihanna, “I’m going to beat the [expletive] out of you when we get home. You wait and see.”

After Rihanna feigned a call to her personal assistant -- pretending to ask the woman to have police waiting at her home -- Brown became enraged, telling her, “Now I am going to kill you,” according to the warrant.

The assault escalated with Brown biting Rihanna on the ear and putting her in a headlock until she lost consciousness, according to the warrant. When she attempted to free herself by “gouging his eyes out,” the detective wrote, he bit her finger. Her screams for help were heard by a neighbor, the warrant says.

So Brown gets the gas face. But Ms. Fenty is dumb.

1) Finds long text message from some chick about some sex chick and Brown had.
2) Gets her ass beat when she confronts him on it.
3) Gets back together with the cheating beater.

Sympathy has now left the room. Clearly she likes it.

Obama Bows to the Zionists...Again

Alternet:

In what may signal a dangerous new, "post-racial" approach to global race relations, President Barack Obama's Administration announced that it will not attend the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Geneva next April. According to this article in the New York Times, the Administration will boycott the conference to protest what it deems the unfair equation of Zionism with racism in the outcome documents of the first conference held in Durban, South Africa, and now the second conference, also known as "Durban II, as well." Other concerns cited by Administration officials, some of whom recently attended preparatory meetings in Geneva, in their justification of the boycott include a proposal to place restrictions on the defamation of religions and any language calling for reparations for slavery. According to the Times article, one of the primary reasons for the Obama Administration's decision was that "Israel and some American Jewish groups urged a boycott of the April conference, and several close American allies, including Canada."

Yes because Barack Emmanuel....I mean Obama has no problems with things like this:

According to the Israeli Association for Civil Rights, anti-Arab incidents have risen sharply. “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” says Sami Michael, the organization’s president. Among the Association’s findings:

* Some 55 percent of Jewish Israelis say that the state should encourage Arab emigration;

* 78 percent of Jewish Israelis oppose including Arab parties in the government;

* 56 percent agree with the statement that “Arabs cannot attain the Jewish level of cultural development”;

* 75 percent agree that Arabs are inclined to be violent. Among Arab-Israelis, 54 percent feel the same way about Jews.

* 75 percent of Israeli Jews say they would not live in the same building as Arabs.

Nope. Zionism is A-okay!

Seattle, Washington Beating

Right. Lets get some legalities out the way. I know some people don't realize it but ANY unwanted contact with a person is legally assault. I have given advice to students having sit ins and the first thing I tell them is DO NOT touch ANYONE who is not part of the sit -in. And usually that contact with a police officer, trustee or other member of the university administration is the pretext for mass arrests. I say that so that the reader/viewer will understand that the girl here legally assaulted the officer when she kicked off her shoes at him. You will see in the video that the shoe did in fact hit the officer's foot and it was after that contact that he proceeded to do his illegal act.

The police cannot use any more force than is necessary to subdue a "suspect." It is clear that that though the officer was legally assaulted, that the girl did not pose a physical threat to the officer: she was already in the cell/room and had her hands crossed in front of her.

We cannot hear anything on the video but the question is, why did they feel that they had to cuff this girl given that she was not a physical threat. Clearly since they could have easily charged with assault on a police officer there was no need to have any further contact with her. Secondly, even if they did want to make a point by hand cuffing her and booking her for assault, there was no need for the bum rush, the hits to the head, the throwing on the ground or pulling her up by the hair.


So legally both the girl and the officer are on the hook. Morally it s clear that the officer is out of order. Being "lippy" with an officer is a constitutionally protected activity even though many police officers don't think so.

You Know it's Black History Month When...

The biggest hits to your blog is the post on the difference between segregation and separation. Oh yeah, and the hits come from 'edu' domains.

Rupert Murdoch Knows How to Count

Newsday Reports that Mr. Murdoch has apologized top all those offended by the Chimp cartoon. Without exception. Understand that Mr Murdoch understands what I laid out in an earlier post on the subject. Rev. Al has a large support base. Since the election, even more passive and a-political black folk are not having it. Stores are refusing to sell the paper and a whole lotta white folk in NY weren't having it either (except perhaps those in Staten Island).

Says Murdoch:

As the chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me," Murdoch begins.

"Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted."

"Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you -- without a doubt -- that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."

Yeah I bet he had a talk with the editors. I bet it was along the lines of: "WTF!? Do you know the demographics of the city?"

Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms

Continuing on thoughtful YouTube videos. This speech reminds me of the discussions I have on the existence of race. Often when I make the comparison between humans and other mammals, people are dumbfounded. They have been so conditioned to think about race in particular patterns and to think of humans as so very different, that the comparison completely throws them off. Yet without understanding that many of our most believed beliefs are social constructs that are illogically created we cannot truly break the chains of mental bondage and dependency that many of our people suffer from. Yes the speech in the video is about science and religion, but the concepts are applicable to Pan-Africanism.

Clay Shirky: Institutions Vs. Collaboration

Following the Hulu/Boxee dustup which I've written about on my other blog I stumbled on the following video on the Boxee blog:



The basis of the discussion is very much what I had in mind for the Olatunji Foundation, in terms of a point (the foundation) being the funnel through which various like minded individuals could pool resources and deal with issues of Pan-Africanism, without the usual structure of a UNIA, NAACP, etc. It's a good (and relatively old) video.

NY Post Apology

Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon — caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut — has created considerable controversy.

It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.

It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.

Period.

But it has been taken as something else — as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.

This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon — even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.

Well let me make this final statement on the subject. Those of us in the NYC area know full well that the Post hates Rev. Al Sharpton. But lets be clear here: Rev. Al is simply voicing the opinions of a great deal of people not only in NY but across the country. The Post can continue to issue back handed apologies, but the fact is Rev. Al. has put them on economic notice. I've seen Rev. Al. Cartoons in the past in the post (through other means since I don't give The Post my money) and while most of them have been completely tasteless but clearly within the bounds of political parody, only a priviledge white man or woman, priviledged enough to claim some sort of ignorance of the history of comparing African-Americans to Monkeys and other animals, along with other "jungle" references. And only such a person would then claim to "not understand" the problem with making a clear reference to Obama. I say clear because even though it is clear that the stimulus bill is the product of a number of writers, the cartoon clearly makes a SINGULAR statement in regards to the author of said bill. Since the Monkey in reference was male (and so is the president) and supposedly the buck stops at the President and the Stimulus is referred to as the Obama stimulus, the reference is clear, Obama is the Monkey who "wrote" the bill.

White people do racist stuff all the time, most times without so much as a raised eyebrow in response (see Thatcher) With the election of Obama there are a great deal of black people who are coming to be far less tolerant of the bullshit and the NY Post is going to realize that NYC is mostly "minority" and that stuff is not going to fly if they wish to stay in business. Most of these "minorities" also have a favorable opinion of Rev. Al. so continuing to pick on him is also going to become an economic liability. I have never heard of stores in Harlem refusing to sell the Post before. And if they have, it's the first time they've made the news with it.

So take note, Post, News, Record, just like you're not going to publish a cartoon that shows Nazi SS shooting Einstein and complain about the national IQ, I suggest a bit of editorial discretion in reference to black folk.

And in terms of that apology: Rev. Al wasn't looking for a personal apology (not that Al. I know) So that whole line was unnecessary.

Isaiah Washington Comes Home

I'm not clear as to Mr. Washington's politics but It's good to see a brother looking to the motherland rather than repeating euro-centric nonsense like some other people

Another Obama-as-Monkey Sighting

During the Campaign there were plenty of racist Obama as Monkey sightings around the country. The NY Post clearly feeling left out decided to belatedly join the others in the mud pit.

Guess who doesn't buy the post?

Burris

I would be remiss if I didn't
remind you and the rest of the committee that our role
here is to investigate Rod Blagojevich and not Roland
Burris.

-REPRESENTATIVE FRITCHE

Relevant testimony from Burris:

REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Now, prior to the
4 Governor's arrest, did you have any conversations,
5 prior to his arrest did you have any conversations
6 with the Governor about your desire to be appointed to
7 the seat?
8 MR. BURRIS: No.
9 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Did you talk to any
10 members of the Governor's staff or anyone closely
11 related to the Governor, including family members or
12 any lobbyists connected with him, including let me
13 throw out some names, John Harris, Rob Blagojevich,
14 Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma, did
15 you talk to anybody who was associated with the
16 Governor about your desire to seek the appointment
17 prior to the Governor's arrest?
18 MR. WRIGHT: Give us a moment.
19 MR. BURRIS: I talked to some friends about
20 my desire to be appointed, yes.
21 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is
22 I was trying to ask, did you speak to anybody who was
23 on the Governor's staff prior to the Governor's arrest
24 or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is

942


1 closely related to the Governor?
2 MR. BURRIS: I recall having a meeting with
3 Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get
4 continued business, and I did bring it up, it must
5 have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08
6 that, you know, you're close to the Governor, let him
7 know that I am certainly interested in the seat.
8 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. Did you speak
9 to any individuals who -- any individuals who were
10 also seeking the appointment of the United States
11 Senate seat, otherwise people we've referred to as
12 Senate candidates one through five?
13 MR. BURRIS: No, I did not.
14 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. At any time
15 were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro
16 quo with the Governor for the appointment of this
17 vacant Senate seat?
18 MR. BURRIS: No, sir.
19 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Okay. If you were
20 aware of a quit pro quo, what would you have done?
21 MR. WRIGHT: Madam Chairman, I think that
22 calls for a -- that's a hypothetical question that I
23 don't think that what he would have done, it could
24 have depended. I don't think that's an appropriate

943


1 question.
2 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I disagree. I think
3 that it is highly relevant. You're speaking to the
4 committee, but you're also speaking to the state of
5 Illinois. I think it's important to know what his
6 response would have been if he was aware of a quid pro
7 quo with the Governor and also for the appointment.
8 CHAIRWOMAN CURRIE: Representative Fritchey.
9 REPRESENTATIVE FRITCHEY: Madam Chairman, if
10 I may, Mr. Burris had already stated that he was not
11 aware of any quid pro quo, which answers that question
12 and puts it to rest. What his response would have
13 been had there been something, which he stated did not
14 occur, is clearly irrelevant to this, and according to
15 Mr. Burris, to speculate on something that would have
16 happened if another situation had happened which he
17 clearly says has not.
18 Representative Durkin, I'm not trying to stifle
19 you whatsoever, and I understand the generalities
20 where you're trying to go. But again, I think that
21 we're outside the realm here of what's germane to this
22 hearing.
23 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I think it's germane,
24 and I think in the conduct of this committee over the

944


1 past month that we've been given significant leeway to
2 try to find responses to individuals who are sworn in
3 before this committee, and I think that it's a
4 reasonable request to ask what would have been Mr.
5 Burris's response if he was aware of a quid pro quo
6 for the United States Senate seat.
7 REPRESENTATIVE FRITCHEY: But the leeway has
8 been with response to representatives on behalf of the
9 Governor and the Governor's administration, not with
10 respect to third parties who have clearly stated that
11 they've had no involvement with those actions.
12 MR. WRIGHT: Representative, Senator Burris
13 wants to be clear and open, so to the extent you're
14 asking him to speculate, he'll try to respond to that.
15 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: Thank you.
16 MR. BURRIS: Representative Durkin, knowing
17 my ethics, I would not participate in anybody's quid
18 pro quo. I've been in government for 20 years and
19 never participated in anybody's quid pro quo.
20 REPRESENTATIVE DURKIN: I guess the point is
21 would you have gone to the federal authorities if you
22 were aware of that?
23 MR. BURRIS: I have no response to that...

Can you say before this committee, sir,
21 emphatically that none of those things were promised
22 from you to the governor or there was no exchange in
23 regards to anything legal, personal or political?
24 MR. BURRIS: Representative Flowers, I can

976

1 before this committee state that there was nothing
2 legal or --
3 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: The three points
4 were legal.
5 MR. BURRIS: Legal.
6 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: Personal.
7 MR. BURRIS: Personal.
8 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: Political.
9 MR. BURRIS: Or political, exchanged for my
10 appointment to this seat.
11 REPRESENTATIVE FLOWERS: There was no
12 conversation, none to that effect, and I know you
13 answered this on numerous of occasions, no quid pro
14 quo, none of that?
15 MR. BURRIS: Absolutely, positively not...

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY: So you don't recall
17 that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you
18 expressed that interest to at that point?
19 MR. BURRIS: No, I can't recall. Because
20 people were coming to me saying Roland, you should
21 pursue that appointment, you're qualified, and this
22 was --
23 REPRESENTATIVE TRACY: Is there anybody that
24 comes to mind in that light that you can --

1000


1 MR. BURRIS: Yes, Rich Barber from Summerset,
2 New Jersey, the gentleman I introduced at my press
3 conference in Washington the other day, he contacted
4 me from Summerset, New Jersey, and said "Roland,
5 there's no one better qualified for you to be United
6 States Senator from the great state of Illinois. And
7 therefore, I'm going to start contacting --" you know,
8 I was just wait a minute, you know, Obama hasn't --
9 well, that happened after, maybe after November 4th.
10 See you're asking me a question that has so many
11 moving parts to it that I might not be -- and my
12 counsel reminded me that the class of 1955 from
13 Centralia, Illinois, also were contacting me. And of
14 course a lot of them, that got started after
15 President-elect Obama had been -- had won the
16 election.
17 And so I'm -- and I can start giving you names if
18 you need names of people who you can follow up after
19 that, after November 4th I can certainly give you a
20 few names, but I can't give you the thousands of
21 people who were involved in this.

Now if you read the Feb 5 affidavit and compare it to his testimony you'll see that he was correct when he said:

I mentioned a conversation with Lon Monk but was then asked another question and did not mention anyone else.

Now the NY Times is misrepresenting Burris' testimony writing:

In a sworn affidavit he provided to a committee of the Illinois House in Springfield on Jan. 5, Mr. Burris said “there was not any contact” between himself or his representatives and those of Mr. Blagojevich before he was chosen. At the time, Mr. Burris was pressing to be seated in Washington by Senate leaders, who waited for testimony Mr. Burris provided to an Illinois House committee.

The transcript above clearly shows that Burris never said he had " no contact." in fact the testimony is two part: One asking contact with anyone in Blagojovich's camp about the appointment and a second question regarding whether he had contact with any of "the five." It was to the latter question to which he responded "No contact."

The Times continues:

He was asked by the committee whether he had talked with “any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him,” including, by name, the governor’s brother, the governor’s chief of staff, former chief of staff and top advisers.

Mr. Burris answered, “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes,” and then told of a conversation he had had months earlier with a former Blagojevich chief of staff about his interest in the Senate seat.

The operative part of the answer being "Yes." If Durbin, the committee questioner had been so interested in the specifics he could have done so, but did not return to that line of questioning (as a good lawyer would have) and instead moved on to questions about some $1.2 million donation.

So by reading the testimony and the transcript, there's no discrepancy in the testimony and the affidavit.

Now what is potentially a problem is the fund raiser. The problem here though is the fundraising request. The problem is that asking for a fundraiser is not illegal. Asking for a fundraiser in exchange for a Senate seat is illegal. My question is, if the prosecutor had Burris on tape agreeing to a QPQ then why didn't the prosecutor bring it up when Burris was announced? Wasn't his reason for pre-empting his own case to prevent such a thing from happening? It doesn't smell right to me.

In the end the tapes will reveal all, Reed, Rahm, Burris, Jackson and Blagojevich.

How Bad is the US Auto Industry?

Today I went to get my cars inspected. I drove past the Dodge dealership where I bought my first new car, a Neon. Closed. There was construction going on so it is entirely possible that they were remodeling but it doesn't stop there. On the return trip for the second car I noticed that a Chevy dealership was definitely closed. So for that corridor only the foreign car dealerships remain. Well that's not true. There is a Buick Dealer with what I could see in passing as a lot full of Volkswagen's.

For Those Pissy about Those Critiquing President Obama

Kanye, "High Fashion" and Black Manhood

When the use of the word "boy" was no longer the term of common reference for Black males by whites, Black males began referring to themselves as "baby." For until most recently, with the changes in dress and clothing styles, most black males deeply resented any reference to themselves as "girl" or "woman." But the recent style changes towards high-heeled shoes, curled hair, hair curlers, braids, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, pocketbooks, midriff tops, cinch waisted pants, etc., that many Black males have adopted now suggest that there is a developing tendency, widespread amongst Black males, to not mind (consciously or unconsciously) being mistaken for a "girl" or a "woman."...



Thus it is clear that the origin of this specific pattern of speech begins with the perhaps unconscious recognition that within the framework of the white supremacy power system and it's reflecting culture, power rests only in the hands of whites, more specifically, in the hands of the white male. And relative to the white male, the Black male is a powerless "baby."





"In childhood male children learn- whether at home or at school- that they make mothers and female teachers happy (and they will shower you with smiles and affection) when they act like "females" rather than like boys...The braided and curled hair, the earrings and bracelets, the midriff tops, the cinch waisted pants, the flowered underwear, the high-heeled shoes with platforms and the pocketbooks are all behavioral answers to the above. They say in a loud and clear language, "White man, I will never come after you. I cannot run in my high-heels - you know that. And I may mess up my hair." The white-run clothing industry is all to pleased to provide the costumes of feminine disguise for black male escape.



The Isis Papers (1976,1974)

When I first saw the pictures of Kanye West and his crew; some of whom were wearing some outfits reminiscent of the 80's, Cameo, and of questionable taste, I laughed and moved along. Artists will be artists and I really wasn't going to waste brain cells on whether Kanye's particular choice of clothes and friends were indicative of his sexual proclivities. However; I saw a twit from a friend of mine to a blog post and a coincidental article in the NY Times fashion section which got my black man alarm going and immediately brought to mind the quotations above. Some pieces from the blog entry:

What's so funny to me about it , is that we dress like grown men. We are all approaching, or in our 30s, and we have style, money, and a vast knowledge of fashion. Has this hip-hop, street sh!t made everybody forget what a man REALLY is, or supposed to look like?

Grown men (and a woman?)

I'm not entirely clear as to what he means by "grown men." It seems they are dressed as they see fit but to declare that the above is how grown men dress is quite a stretch. Really. But see the undertones, well actually overtones of the comment? We're rich and we know more than you do about clothes, so everything we do is so beyond what you street niggas would know. You know that's really familiar to me, I've heard that said about black folks from not a few white people. You know, we poor country, jungle vine swingin' coons don't know or have nothin' that we rich and civilized white folk haven't done better at.

Lest you think I'm being too harsh in this critique, continue reading the blog post:

Every show that we walked into, the escorts wanted all of us to be in the front row because they honored the style that we brought and respected our presence. And the thing is, what we are actually doing, is showing the fashion world that American men, let alone Black Men, know how to really get busy when it comes to the fashion game.

Yep, that reminds me about that part where Dr. Welsing discusses how black men get rewarded for being non-threatening. Here's a nice translation: These white folk love us non-threatening negroes who spend the money our backwards street negroes provide us through album sales on high dollar, high thread count, name brand "couture" with names these ignorant negroes can't pronounce let alone wear first hand. They so approve of us aping their styles, that they put us on display for other white folk to see and talk about: "Oh those negroes dress so well!" Besides, what is with these rich negroes who apparently have a need to be validated by white folk? Seriously.

The blog continues:

>Everyone in the fashion world thinks that Black, American men can't dress because we wear everything baggy and boxy and our clothes just straight up don't fit right. It's the truth whether you like it or not. There are only 3, truly respected American men in fashion, and they are Tom Ford, Ralph Lauren and Marc Jacobs. Kanye is on the path to being the 1st American Black Man that high-end fashion buyers will be wearing with his Louis Vuitton collaboration, following Pharrell's collaboration with the fashion house for the LV "Millionaire" sunglasses that he designed (sunglasses are accessories, not clothing).

Wow so rich, ethnocentric, largely gay, European fashion designers, who think rail thin women are "ideal" have deemed American black men as fashion abominations. Boo hoo! First of all why is someone I assume to be black even repeating racist bullshit like this in the first place? Seriously. Some cracker in "high fashion" makes a blanket statement about African-Americans and instead of calling them out on such a clearly racist comment, they post it on a blog as fact. Methinks someone clearly has spent way too much time around these people. But in case the blogger in question has forgotten, for those of us who don't have record contracts and fat bank accounts, we have to buy the vast majority of our clothes at retailers like Walmart and Target, where clothes are factory made to generic sizes. so if, like me you are tall with long arms, you have to buy clothes that are large in order to not look like you have a 3/4 sleeve shirt on. A great deal of your black record buying customers buy their kids large clothes so that the kids can grow into them and therefor spend less money on clothes so that they can do things like pay rent, eat, etc. You know those things we lowly, not rich and clearly less intelligent than you.

Of course many of us don't do baggy pants when we are grown. But still don't have the cash to drop on $5,000 custom suits. so forgive us if our suits don't drape as well as yours. Lastly though, in terms of baggy clothes, well you know where that stuff comes from: Jail culture that made it to the streets. In either case who are these people in "high fashion" to tell Black Americans what they ought to be wearing given their clear penchant for dressing black men like women?

Of course for those in on there history would know that the baggy clothes phenom. also had it's roots in the Afrocentric undercurrent of late 80's-early 90's Hip hop. You know those high top fades were taken from fellows in Ghana? YOu know those Hammer pants have roots in West African clothing? Seen a Batakare? Huge and baggy dude. And colors? the Cross-Colors designs that were the rage and that track, Chris Cross will make ya Jump! Jump" which was a direct rip of the Massai jumping dance. So once again, accepting the blanket statement by European so called "high fashion" about the lack of taste of black Americans, smacks of a total lack of the cultural influences of such styles. But then again, anyone with their heads so far up Europeans asses clearly would not have such respect for things African anyway.

So you'll have to excuse me when I don't bow down to people who think dressing men in women's clothing is "fashion." if a man has questionable sexual proclivities or wants to wear women's clothes 'cause it makes him feel better about himself, I could care less. When people start running around calling it "high fashion" I call the queer fool out.

Fact is that people in high end fashion are allowed to put clearly junk pieces out there and not have it called what it is simply because a lot of the industry is full of egos and back talking people who self congratulate. It's like when BMW redesigned the 7 series to look like a Buick. It stank. It got play for the simple reason that it was a BMW. Had it been a GM vehicle people would have called it what it was and it would have been a dead product like so many other GM cars.

So hey if these fellows want to dress in an eccentric manner. More power to them. For the record I think Kanye was the best and sensibly dressed out of the group. The rest, in my opinion dress to be seen. Their business though, but enough with the condescension and repetition of clearly racist and ethnocentric stereotypes, it's low...class.

Old Ladies in Jail

So Alternet posts and article entitled "Why Are we Keeping Old Ladies Locked Up in Prison?"

The title underscores a tragic indifference in American society (if not elsewhere) that "Old ladies" (and perhaps ladies in general) deserve some sort of extraordinary sympathy that old men, or men in general do not. Why are old ladies locked up? For the same reasons old men are locked up. They did the crime, they are doing the time.

though there wasn't an explicit mention of the race of these old ladies, I can't help but think that the common visual conjured up by this title is of old white ladies, you know the type that helped President Obama get into the hearts of 45% of white folk in the US. Clearly there's little sympathy for relatively old black women like Assata, or relatively old black men like Mumia. For that matter I haven't seen an article attempting to raise sympathy for black political prisoners. But I suppose nothing quite pulls at heartstrings like "old ladies."

"She was a tiny old woman who just wanted to be released," said Killian.

Mumia is just a black political prisoner who just wants to be released.
Assata is just a black woman who'd like to go back to her home in NJ.
There are thousands of political prisoners who would just like to go home.

In Regards to Google Latitude

I posted the following at Internet Tablet Talk:

Quote:

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

that's the whole point of these services: that people explicitly want to let their friends and family know where they are. sometimes.

End Quote



Again I return to the idea that family and friends will be in a position to query as to why you have not shared your location. That is the expected norm will not be "I don't know and that's OK." Rather it will be "I don't know, therefore something is wrong." That is a huge fundamental change. I'm particularly concerned about this from a legal point of view as I'm currently reading a book concerning reasonable doubt and a jury's concept of privacy and guilt.



Anyway, if you read a recent report on ArsTechnica, you have a web company that had an advertiser put a box inline with their network that captured all customers net traffic for various reasons. The "Opt out" was buried in some fine text in the long "user agreement." and it was found that even those who opted out STILL had their traffic being logged by this third party.



So enough of the "explicit" junk.



Quote:

Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post

really, i don't understand all the fuzz. and i am concerned about my privacy in general (which is one of the reasons why i avoid using google services whenever possible and why i'm still surprised how easily people hand over their mails, contacts, documents, calendars to this company)



End Quote



The fuzz is about in the end the expectation of individual privacy. The US's NSA is on record as being very happy about people giving up this kind of information voluntarily because it lowers the legal expectation of privacy for them. This bothers me. The current trend is that once a large enough portion of the population volunteers to give up a certain level of privacy, then the government finds a means to then claim that the rest of us have given it up as well. This is specifically why the NSA got in it's head to use ATT, Verizon, etc.



The Fed is constrained by the 4th Amendment against warrantless searches of your private stuff. However no private company is under such a constraint. You then waive your privacy rights to internet company A, Internet company A then allows the government to access It's data, which was previously your private data, and you get a warrantless search. Now couple that with legislation "requiring" retention of logs and you have a whole lot of latitude for abuse.



But all you wanted to do is see an icon of your friend floating on a Google map.

Clearly I'm not going to be using the Google service.

Shortly after making that post I ran across the following on Ars Technica:

According to a slew of federal court rulings, police can use hidden tracking devices to monitor the public movements of a person or vehicle without bothering with a court order, since these devices don't violate any "reasonable expectation of privacy." But the sponsors of a bill making its way through the Georgia General Assembly think these GPS trackers do violate a privacy interest worth protecting—at least when they're used by private citizens.

I had completely forgotten about this police can track you if they like laws but it underscores my argument made on the other site that the lowered expectation of "reasonable" privacy is in fact endangered by widespread use of tracking devices which. Honestly could you imaging the founders approving of the state tracking a citizen without court order?

The bill "would make it a crime to "use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of another person without such other person's consent," Really? But you know what I think got this ball rolling? When Rental car companies thought it was a good idea to use GPS on vehicles customers rented in order to see if they drove over the speed limit for purposes of billing them extra for speeding. Never mind that speed does not cause accidents but lack of control and attention does. These same rental car companies don't bill you extra for owning a cell phone, the use of which is as bad as driving drunk in terms of reaction time. But anyway, millions of people gladly exchanged "privacy" for access to a vehicle. Therefore it was not much for the state to argue that people do not reasonably expect to have their comings and going tracked, specifically for "safety" and "security."

What is particularly egregious about this legislation is that when we see that the executive has the "right" to declare anyone it sees fit as a "terrorist" and that such a label already allows for all manner of extra-judical detention (which it appears the Obama administration is OK with) Now the state can attach a device to your private property (you know that thing that the 4th Amendment says you are "secure in") in order to track the vehicle's movement (not necessarily the owner's) 24/7. And should the battery on that device die they can come back to your property, and trade out the tracking device.

I'm sure that the judges that approved of this, as well as the idiots that wrote it, thought, Oh if you're innocent you have nothing to hide. Rather than, this is someone's property, who is presumed innocent of whatever it is that the state wants to investigate and therefore the court ought to protect them and their property from state intrusion a la 4th amendment.

What are Black people saying to you?

...But running into Black people—this Godlike place where they’ve put President Obama is really incredible. The first two days I got accosted on the street like six times....Things like I’m embarrassing, stupid ho, you stupid bi*ch. A lot of cursing at me, especially from Black women. They’re attacking me for asking why—after 232 years of White presidents and White first ladies who have been dressed by White designers—when we finally get a Black first lady with seven to ten slots open in her fashion schedule, there’s not someone like Mr. Arthur McGee, a Black designer who was just honored at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

--Amnau Eele

More stunted intellect commentary in the comments section.

Golliwogs

Apparently Carol Thatcher of the BBC thinks calling someone a golliwog is "a joke"

In trying to clean it up, She claimed the object of her comment looks like the "golliwog on the jam pot."

Oh. Like this one?

About Juan Williams Comment on Michelle Obama

And so Juan Williams is getting his behind handed to him for comparing Michelle Obama to Kwame Ture (Stokely Charmichael).

Here's the problem I have with the whole incident:

Exactly WHAT is wrong with Kwame Ture that such a comment is not seen as complimentary?

It has been the daily discourse among so called "liberal" and "progressive" whites to shit on black radicals one of the worst incidents appearing in the Daily KOS where they thought it "fun" to talk shit about Fred Hampton, who it should be recalled was shot a half million times, in his bed, next to his pregnant wife by the Chicago PD for the crime of being a black man not taking racist bullshit.

But it's not surprising given the number of black folk who gladly dropped the soap, bent over and greased their own bung holes, in order to get Obama elected. So that they'd not come to the defense of a man who risked his own life and limb to get black folk organized to vote in the south, who was imprisoned for such activities and literally had the Klan chasing him around the state of Miss., comes as little surprise.

Shame on black so called "intellectuals" for not defending the character of the late Kwame Ture. Shame!

A Quick Note on Blagojevich

I don't pretend to know whether Blagojevich is actually guilty of anything other than having a foul mouth, but the representation by the body of legislators in Illinois that Blagojevich was free to rebut the evidence against him is flat out false. It is clear from the rules that anyone who would be a part of the criminal proceedings against Blagojevich could not be called. It is clear that anyone who Blagojevich had contact with was likely to be a part of that criminal proceeding and therefore was unavailable to Blagojevich. That is patently unfair. You cannot claim to give someone the freedom to defend himself, but then bar him from calling the very people whom he would want to use.

It was a sham proceeding and it was a political show intended for the next election since not a single member wanted to be the vote against impeachment that was used against them in the next election. That makes the members anything but impartial. In fact that puts them under duress.

The whole thing was a sham to begin with. Doesn't mean Blagojevich isn't guilty of anything, but the process was tainted and any honest person knows it.

Edit:

I wanted to put this in a perspective that everyday people can relate to:

Imagine for a moment that you're a man who has had "private" conversations about a female co-worker that was very crude. Suppose that someone had overheard or had access to these private conversations and turned them over to a lawyer who later went to the company HR to announce that you were being sued for sexual harassment.

Imagine then that being called to HR you were barred from calling the female co-worker in question for questioning in regards to sexual harassment because she is part of the litigation that is going to proceed because the HR department was collaborating with the lawyer who is suing you. Say you were also barred from having the person with whom you were having the conversation with also testify or submit statements on your behalf. Now suppose that the HR department decides to terminate you based on the "conversation" and claims made by the lawyer. No one would say such a thing was fair and it is highly likely that should the harassment lawsuit fail to deliver a guilty verdict, that he company in question would be sued for wrongful termination.

Tell me anyone who if they were in the above situation would think it was fair.

Now clearly in the above scenario a private company can decide to terminate someone on the grounds of private speech since largely private firms can regulate speech on their premises. However, the government cannot make such a discretionary decision because the government is bound by the Constitution which expressly states that speech cannot be abridged by the government.

Furthermore, Blagojevich is correct when he calls the "court" in the senate a Kangaroo court. They made up rules what, 2 weeks ago? And made those rules in collaboration with a prosecutor with a vested interest in a particular outcome.That is not impartial.

Note To Dr. Walters

Bi-partisanship does not mean roll over and play dead.
I may not agree with Republicans on most issues, but I respect a party that understands what being an opposition party is about.

The Black That Matters

I suppose this post will not win me places on blogrolls, new audience members or calls from "establishment" blogs and newspapers but sometimes things just need to be said.

So I see this twit from Negrophile in regards to Obama's racial identity:

Though famously talkative about being biracial, Obama has also called himself black and African-American, and says he came to see himself as such in large part because that is how he is perceived.

"If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he once said in a television interview with Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed-race guy.' "

The article continues on about how being "black" in America in terms that basically were negative. That is, blackness perceived in terms of what white people thought of blacks and did to blacks. In other words a blackness predicated on and defined by white people. It is a sad state of affairs that black people continue to allow white people and their particular notions of the purity of whiteness to continue to control who is black. I'll get more into that later though.

The second problem is how Obama "came" to see himself. I'm black. I didn't "come" to see myself as black. My momma's black. My dad's black. End of story. Not that I didn't have people around me to point out I was a "nigger" (Thanks for the info Jane), but it wasn't something I had to "come" to understand. What I had to "come" to understand was the consequences for being who I was. Now those circumstances may have had an impact on how I then viewed the world, it had absolutely no bearing on what I was and am.

This is what underlies the huge problem of the social status of "Black" or "African-American" is the US as compared to the genetic reality of "breed" otherwise known as races.

In order to get a fuller grasp of the inanity of this co-mingling of "breed" and social stratification we should look at an impossibly confused post at Jack And Jill Politics

Obama is BLACK. This bi-racial mess is coming up because he’s successful, and because he made the choice, and I do think it was a choice to be Black

Black how? By what definition? Oh yes, that would be the aforementioned "by what matters" thing. See, there's this assumption here as to what "black" means. Now I will agree that the current push to really pin the bi-racial button on Obama is in large part because he is successful and president, but I did say on many occasions that a large reason for his success was that he is not black. It is because he is bi-racial AND has a father that is not African-American in terms of a connection to US slavery. But you know how well folks paid attention to that.

Jack and Jill continues:

While some purport that Obama is ‘ obviously bi-racial’, to which I call BULL, because if we had done a ‘Barbershop’ test in 2004, passing around the pictures of Barack Obama and Harold Ford, Jr., asking which one was ‘ obviously bi-racial’, who would have chosen OBAMA over the at least 2 shades lighter, green-eyed, born of two BLACK parents- Ford? Come on, now.

Yeah, Come on, now. Jack and Jill clearly fell down the hill here. Before I get into the science part, I'll point out that Mr. Ford was "called out" by the Black Agenda Report for claiming his grandmother was white a claim that I'll probably agree with regardless as to what is on the birth certificate. But lets get at why Jack and Jill are so wrong on this point.

For the sake of brevity and clarity for those unfamiliar with genetics let me introduce the punnet square, sideways as I have no intention of firing up Photoshop or Illustrator to make this point. When one has a purebreed anything you represent it by a (xx) or (yy). In this case we will use (bb) to represent a "purebreed" black person. That is a black person who has no white ancestors. We will represent a white person as (ww) as in a white person with no recent black ancestors, since white people, and everyone else who is not black has a black ancestor.

When you cross a purebreed black person and purebreed white person you have the following outcome:

(bb) x (ww) -> 4 (bw) That is all offspring are biracial.

When you take that biracial child and breed it with another biracial child you get the following:

(bw) x (bw) -> 1 (bb) + 2 (bw) + 1 (ww)

If you breed a biracial child and a white purebreed you see the following:

(bw) x (ww) -> 2 (bw) +2 (ww) There are no purebreed black offspring and a 50 % chance of purebreed white offspring.

and lastly if you breed a biracial child with a purebreed black you see the following:

(bw) x (bb) -> 2(bw) + 2 (bb) 2 biracial children and/or 2 purebreed black children

So it is quite the educated guess to say that Sasha and Malia are biracial mostly because in terms of genetics there's a lot that cannot be seen. Of course if you put Sasha and Malia against Bernie or some Africans with no white ancestry it will be readily apparent that they are not "all black." Such is the case with many African-Americans, but by no means all.

So it is possible for two biracial persons to give rise to a purebreed black or purebreed white offspring, though the odds are for producing more biracial children.

From what little we know (and see) of Harold Ford Jr, it is highly probable that he is in fact as biracial as Barack Obama. So Jack and Jill clearly have no clue as to what they are speaking on.

Please remember that the above examples are highly simplified and do not get into polymorphisms or linked genes or any of that. So don't anyone go writing me about it, I know all about it already.

Jack and Jill then gets to the root of the confusion:

nd, what does this sudden ‘ he’s bi-racial’ stuff really have at its core? It’s to divorce Obama from the Black community, because we’ve ALWAYS been a multi-racial people, from the first time the Slave Owner went down to the slave quarters. That’s how we can claim everyone from late NAACP head Walter White to Bernie Mac.

Always? been a multi-racial group? Oh so now you mean the social group of "African-American." Well that's true. But why? Well we have this little inanity called the "One Drop Rule." This piece of White Supremacist garbage was created for one purpose: The establishment of the purity of "whiteness." The White Supremacist dogma claims that all other human subspecies are degenerate at the biological level. Whites (Caucasians) are placed at the top of this genetic pyramid and other groups are assigned a value relative to their position to whites based on such things as hair texture, skin color and level of "civilization." Thus the Asian (Mongoloid) was assigned a higher value than the African. The Indian was actually granted a level of Caucasian-ness" because it is thought, dark skin notwithstanding, they exhibited a great deal of physical similarities with Europeans as well as showing signs of civilization (including the apparent disdain for the darker members of their society). Etc. etc. etc.

And so with this little rule, anyone with any "known" traces of black ancestry was defined as "black." though until relatively recently non-purebreeds were referred to as "colored" to designate their relatively higher status. A status that in fact remains today. As we've already explained above, the idea of a "one drop rule" is scientifically untenable. Why any thinking black person would even perpetuate this dinosaur of White Supremacy is beyond me.

So no, Walter is white and Bernie is clearly black and Obama is biracial as is likely Mr. Ford. And yes you do have the first African-American president since African-American is still defined vis-a-vis White Supremacy rather than genetics. And if one supports the "one drop rule" then Diversity Inc. is right with their 5 black presidents poster and Obama is NOT the first black president. If you go by the "can I get a cab at 2 AM rule" then Obama is the first black president. Complicated ain' it?

Now It must be said that the whole idea of separating out "mixed" "black" folk from the "rest of us" is not new for anyone who has studied history. Even old White Supremacist texts point out that a large number of black "firsts" were either "passably" white (a dumb phrase if there ever was one) or had "significant" white genes. Even these White Supremacist claimed that they preferred these types to the "backward" black of Africa of "low intelligence." This sentiment continues today with studies clearly showing that so called "light skinned black" males (another assinine term) are perceived as less threatening and more intelligent than their black bretheren. "Light skinned black" women are perceived as more womanly, feminine and beautiful, even in the eyes of black men, than their black sisters.

Look at African American leadership in many large cities a large proportion of them are clearly "mixed." The current favorites, Obama, Patrick and Booker have to be the yellowest, "good hair" crew I've seen in my life (Cory Booker sports a baldie like I do so we can't be sure on the "good hair" thing in regards to him).

Anyway, here's to hoping that the rest of us "darkies" get to standing up for ourselves and stop allowing ourselves to be put to the side, to have to apologize for being "too black" in our looks and our speech. For not having to excuse not having a white parent to somehow legitimize our "American-ness" or to be seen as "good looking " despite we're so dark or "smart" for someone so dark. or "So well mannered" despite being so dark.

Lasly lets hope we stop defining our blackness in terms of what other people do to us or say about us, and define it in terms of what we are from creation and correct that Bible verse: I am black AND comely.

Poltical Prisoners

Recent statements by Angola warden Burl Cain makes clear that Woodfox and Wallace are being punished for their political views. At a recent deposition, attorneys for Woodfox asked Cain, "Lets just for the sake of argument assume, if you can, that he is not guilty of the murder of Brent Miller." Cain responded, "Okay. I would still keep him in (solitary)…I still know that he is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates. I would have me all kind of problems, more than I could stand, and I would have the blacks chasing after them...He has to stay in a cell while he's at Angola."

counterpunch

Zionist Money

What can I say?

EU...I Mean Israel... Envoy Blames Gaza

Says "envoy":

"At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," he said.
"I intentionally say this here - Hamas is a terrorist movement and it has to be denounced as such.

We all know how Europe feels about colonialism. I mean every non-european anti-colonial movement has been called "terrorist" by European colonizers, so to expect different from this jackass is to expect a lion to bark like a dog.

To think that the BBC will post this bullshit but won't air an appeal for humanitarian aide because it would make the BBC seem "partial."

Lincoln Revisited

So I'm doing some reading over at the Angry Indian and run across what I'll quote in a few. The relevancy of this post is due to the numerous references to Abraham Lincoln by not only Obama but just about every talking head that has a microphone and a camera in their face. I will remind the dear reader that the Ghost had posted a piece on president Lincoln some time ago which featured such interesting tid-bits as:

"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."

A repost of a piece in the Mohawk Nation News by the Angry Indian serves as double duty. It pointed out that Obama's speech left out a group of people:

When Obama defined America as a nation of “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers”, he deliberately left out Indigenous peoples. We have our value systems. We have our knowledge.

I'll assume that the Mohawk Nation is using the term "Indigenous" to mean the first peoples of America. I would expand that term to mean those of us, aside from Hindus, who practice our native religions, be it Ifa, Juju, etc. Of course this comes as little surprise given that the inaugeration was a nice pagaent of colored folk and celebrities, with certain types activists (you know, the ones who make up the "or" of the either-or relationship America has had with the Civil Rights establishment left uninvited and as invisible as a black grandma of a Dominican family. Anyway, on the subject Lincoln, the Mohawk Nation News points out:

While Mr. Lincoln was earning a fake place in history, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862. This was a law offering huge tracts of our lands to foreign white settlement. It was put through without consultation, without consent and without regard for the rights and needs of our people. Eventually 1.6 million homesteads were granted on our land and 270,000,000 acres of our territories were privatized between 1862 and 1986, which is 10% of all lands in the U.S. In the conflicts that raged over this illegal action, thousands of Ongwehonwe men, women and children were killed and millions of acres of our territories remain unlawfully occupied. This has nothing to do with honesty, courage, fair play and tolerance. Obama’s speech demonstrates clearly his concept of loyalty and patriotism has nothing to do with respect for the Ongwehonwe of Turtle Island and our future generations...

Two days after Lincoln signed the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863, he signed an order to hang 38 Dakota Sioux in Mankato Minnesota. There were only about 40 adult men of fighting age left out of 400 “prisoners of war”. The U.S. agent refused to feed the Indigenous people and was selling the rations that were meant for them. The men begged for food for their people who were starving to death. He told them to eat grass.

They killed him and stuffed his mouth with grass.

It seems that a certain number of us are going to have to be diligent in the maintenance of history from the whitewashing and willful forgetfulness that is upon us.

60 Minutes Blows Israel's cover

Watch here. Surly a piece that many in power in Israel did not want being seen. After you watch that. Go over to the Kenyatta Edition and watch the video of US representatives making asses of themselves. Stark contrast. Lets also recall that most members of the CBC also lined up to kiss AIPAC ass as well.

Crisis Zimbabwe

Once across, the two men robbed them all. Because Ms. Shindi had insufficient money, payment was exacted otherwise. “Take off your underpants,” she recalled one gumaguma saying. “Today I am going to be your husband.”

NY Times

The Real Deal Dr. King

via Black Agenda Report

The Slave Reference

So apparently I wasn't the only one that was somewhat bothered by the " endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth" portion of Obama's speech.

Here's Harry Brown's comment:

It gets worse, a lot worse, if you follow the rest of the passage logically in terms of the contrast he has set up. The productive good guys of the next sentence, the doers and makers who brought not just prosperity but freedom – those folks clearly must have preferred work over leisure, or maybe they scored them even. And the final sentence tells us explicitly who he is talking about: farmers and settlers, sweatshop-workers and … slaves.

The idea that slaves helped build American greatness because (among other things) they preferred work to leisure is so offensively stupid that it clearly wandered into Obama’s speech via sloppiness rather than by design. (This is in itself undermines his reputation for wordcraft and attention to detail: the only reference to slavery in the inaugural speech of the first African-American president was permitted to carry this crazed logic.) Maybe we can just write it off as the sort of thing that happens when you’re absent-mindedly knitting together clichés and you drop a stitch. Nobody seems to have noticed it or taken offence anyway.

But that's not all I'm annoyed about being missing from the speech. Perhaps it's not front most in Obama's mind as it would be on mine, but I couldn't make an inaugural speech and not reference the fact that slaves built the city where I'm making this speech. pointing that out is not divisive and could be used to great effect.

Obama Halts Gitmo Prosecutions

Fair is Fair. Thanks President Obama for making the first correct step towards closing Gitmo.

Ivory Buses

This is the kind of development I like to read about:

Commuters in Ivory Coast can now travel around town on the first ever buses designed for and built in the region.
The engineering arm of the national transport company, Sotra, decided it could save money and create a bus better suited to African conditions.
"We want the transfer of technology in Africa, and we want to build our own buses with our own specification," says Sotra Industries director Mamadou Coulibaly.

This is a great development. However I have a problem with this statement:

"In Europe the technology is very sophisticated with lots of electronic devices. In Africa we don't need this.
"We just need robust buses because our roads are not very well done like in Europe. This is an African design for Africa."

This is a bad attitude. While I am all for simplicity in engineering. Saying that Africans don't need (or want) "sophistication" is bad.

Public buses in Abidjan are extremely popular and are frequently tightly packed despite the sweltering heat and lack of air-conditioning.


It's not true that if you're in a civil war you can't do things because you see yourself that during the crisis we tried to build big projects
Sotra's Mamadou Coulibaly
The new urban bus has fewer seats than a Western bus, meaning up to 100 people can be squeezed inside.
"I think it's a good thing. It'll help students to move about in more comfort," says Isaac Gueu, who is studying accountancy in Abidjan.

I didn't see it mentioned but I hope that air conditioning was not one of those "sophisticated electronics" that the company thinks is not necessary.

Anywauy beside that "sophistication" nit pick. This is a good development.

Misleading BBC Headline

The BBC lead a story:

Somali executed for 'apostasy'

Which implied that the Somali, Abdirahman Ahmed, had been executed because of supposed Apostacy. In fact the "Islamists" actual beef with Abdirahman Ahmed was that he had helped the Ethiopians

Mr Ahmed was also accused of spying for Ethiopian forces, said to be backing the forces of warlord Barre Hiraale in trying to recapture Kismayo.
He is believed to be the first politician executed by the Islamists.
Ethiopian forces are pulling out of Somalia, two years after they intervened to try to oust Islamists from the capital Mogadishu.

Which lead to:

Sheikh Hassan Yakub - the spokesman for Kismayo's Islamist administration - told the BBC's Somali Service that Mr Ahmed had admitted during his interrogation that he worked with those backed by Ethiopia. This, he said, was the basis for the court's opinion that he had changed his religion.

Om other words there was an assumption of apostasy based on his backing of Ethiopia. Now that's not acceptable to me, but it is clear that Mr Ahmed did not commit apostasy, rather he aided an "enemy government force" which is treason. That the Somalis put it in religious terms is besides the point. Mr. Ahmed could have recited the Shahada and still be executed.

Ding Dong The Bush Is Gone!

I'm having a Wizard of Oz moment right now.

Please Vote This Man Out

Via Negrophile

Sen. Robert Ford, a former civil rights worker, readily admits he's picking on young black men...

The saggy pants bill would make it illegal for people to wear pants more than three inches below their hips. He wants civil fines ranging from $25 for the first offense to $75, plus up to six hours of community service, for three or more offenses.

Yet another attempt by the government to police the clothing of certain people. Mind you, I don't particularly care for the pants off your ass thing, but legislation? It didn't start with legislation and it ought not be ended by it. If one is concerned with black men emulating prison garb, perhaps one ought to concern oneself with the numbers of black men in contact with said system.

Anyway, that's not the worst thing in the article. Not by a long shot. No, the worst was this:

But Ford said he's targeting a segment of the population ripe for regulation.

"We're talking about teenagers," he said. "They have no rights."

Umm, no, not true in the least bit. Really. And for an agent of the government to make such a comment show just how little respect some "lawmakers" have for the constitution, civil liberties AND the people they serve. Since this fellow, Ford, apparently has such utter disregard for the civil liberties of those in his state, he ought to be relieved of that seat.

Herring Vs. United States: Trampling The 4th Amendment...Again.

Today the Supreme Court decided to once again gut the constitution. As is usual "justice" thomas was on the wrong side of history. Here's the case:

On July 7, 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned
that Bennie Dean Herring had driven to the Coffee County
Sheriff’s Department to retrieve something from his im-
pounded truck. Herring was no stranger to law enforce-
ment, and Anderson asked the county’s warrant clerk,
Sandy Pope, to check for any outstanding warrants for
Herring’s arrest. When she found none, Anderson asked
Pope to check with Sharon Morgan, her counterpart in
neighboring Dale County. After checking Dale County’s
computer database, Morgan replied that there was an
active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear on a
felony charge. Pope relayed the information to Anderson
and asked Morgan to fax over a copy of the warrant as
confirmation. Anderson and a deputy followed Herring as
he left the impound lot, pulled him over, and arrested him.
A search incident to the arrest revealed methampheta-
mine in Herring’s pocket, and a pistol (which as a felon he
could not possess) in his vehicle. App. 17–23.
There had, however, been a mistake about the warrant.
The Dale County sheriff’s computer records are supposed
to correspond to actual arrest warrants, which the office
also maintains. But when Morgan went to the files to
retrieve the actual warrant to fax to Pope, Morgan was
unable to find it. She called a court clerk and learned that
the warrant had been recalled five months earlier. Nor-
mally when a warrant is recalled the court clerk’s office or
a judge’s chambers calls Morgan, who enters the informa-
tion in the sheriff’s computer database and disposes of the
physical copy. For whatever reason, the information about
the recall of the warrant for Herring did not appear in the
database. Morgan immediately called Pope to alert her to
the mixup, and Pope contacted Anderson over a secure
radio. This all unfolded in 10 to 15 minutes, but Herring
had already been arrested and found with the gun and
drugs, just a few hundred yards from the sheriff’s office.

This is the summary of events from the majority opinion. Let me also post a section from the dissenting opinion:

A warrant for Herring’s arrest was recalled in February
2004, apparently because it had been issued in error. See
Brief for Petitioner 3, n. 1 (citing App. 63). The warrant
database for the Dale County Sheriff’s Department, how-
ever, does not automatically update to reflect such
changes. App. 39–40, 43, 45. A member of the Dale
County Sheriff’s Department—whom the parties have not
identified—returned the hard copy of the warrant to the
County Circuit Clerk’s office, but did not correct the De-
partment’s database to show that the warrant had been
recalled. Id., at 60. The erroneous entry for the warrant
remained in the database, undetected, for five months.
On a July afternoon in 2004, Herring came to the Coffee
County Sheriff’s Department to retrieve his belongings
from a vehicle impounded in the Department’s lot. Id., at
17. Investigator Mark Anderson, who was at the Depart-
ment that day, knew Herring from prior interactions:
Herring had told the district attorney, among others, of
his suspicion that Anderson had been involved in the
killing of a local teenager, and Anderson had pursued
Herring to get him to drop the accusations. Id., at 63–64.
Informed that Herring was in the impoundment lot,
Anderson asked the Coffee County warrant clerk whether
there was an outstanding warrant for Herring’s arrest.
Id., at 18. The clerk, Sandy Pope, found no warrant. Id.,
at 19.
Anderson then asked Pope to call the neighboring Dale
County Sheriff’s Department to inquire whether a warrant
3
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009)
GINSBURG, J., dissenting
to arrest Herring was outstanding there. Upon receiving
Pope’s phone call, Sharon Morgan, the warrant clerk for
the Dale County Department, checked her computer data-
base. As just recounted, that Department’s database
preserved an error. Morgan’s check therefore showed—
incorrectly—an active warrant for Herring’s arrest. Id., at
41. Morgan gave the misinformation to Pope, ibid., who
relayed it to Investigator Anderson, id., at 35. Armed with
the report that a warrant existed, Anderson promptly
arrested Herring and performed an incident search min-
utes before detection of the error.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is clear "Shall not" Not "sometimes" not "mostly", not "unless there is a clerical error." It says "shall not. As in "cannot happen". In street terms that would be: "Sucks to be you Mr. Fed." Perhaps Roberts, et. al live in some alternate universe where "shall not" implies an exception, but perhaps they ought to be permanently removed to that location.

When we look at the summary of events by combining the writings of both the majority and minority opinion we see a trail of bureaucratic errors and what I consider "predatory" policing of Mr. Herring.

1) We have a warrant issued by the court in error for Herring. Why? How? Was Mr. Herring notified that a warrant was put out for him? Was he notified that it was in error and given some sort of document to show law enforcement agents in the case that he was mistakenly stopped? If not why not?

2) Some unidentified person did not update the computer systems as to the withdrawal of the Herring warrant. In fact for 5 months the error remained. Clearly there is no periodic auditing of the warrant database even though such errors have dire consequences for citizens.


In the Herring case, we find that investigator Mark Anderson had probable reason to "fuck" (excuse the non-legal term) with Herring as Herring had made an accusation against Anderson regarding a murder. So it is reasonable to think that Anderson was looking for a way to screw with Herring. In fact by the wording of the dissenting opinion, Mr. Anderson was not usually at this office and happened to have been informed that Herring was at the impound lot. Why? For what purpose would a law enforcement agent inform Mr. Anderson that Herring was at a certain location? What business was it of Mr. Anderson what Mr. Herring was doing at the Clerks office? And how does is very presence warrant an immediate inquiry as to whether he has a warrant for his arrest? This would explain in part what happened next:

So we have admitted at the outset that Mr. Herring was not a suspect of anything at the time that he entered Coffee County Clerk's office. Herring, as per his rights, was attempting to obtain material from his impounded vehicle.

3) It is noted in At this point let me point the reader to the show "Parking Wars" shot in Philadelphia PA. On that show we see that no one can get to their vehicle without showing a driver license, registration, proof of insurance and if necessary the court document showing the proper judgment. You can't go to the parking authority and say: Hey I have a license (or whatever), give me my vehicle. No, you MUST have documented proof. Similarly, if you wanted to get material from your vehicle you must sign a document and be escorted to the vehicle. In fact you can't even go back if you forgot something. You must sign another set of forms.

In this case we find that the court noted that Anderson basically went fishing for warrants. First he tried his county. Not satisfied with the results he then went to the next county. No doubt he would have tried another neighboring county if he could. This is a common thing done by police, who will stop (usually black men) looking for a reason to detain them further even though at the time the citizen has done nothing to warrant such behavior. Anyway, Mr. Anderson motivated for what can reasonably be seen as personal reasons, was told, hearsay style that there was a warrant for Mr. Herring's arrest. I say hearsay because by the evidence given to the court, Mr. Anderson had no actual evidence that there was a warrant. Mr. Anderson, instead of waiting for the fax transmission of the actual warrant, which would have substantiated the hearsay declaration, Mr. Anderson took it upon himself to have Mr. Herring arrested.

So we see the clear contradiction here: A citizen can be denied reclamation of their property for not producing a license, registration or proof of insurance, but an agent of the state can use hearsay declarations to arrest a person and search their person and property. Clear contradiction. That there us usually or "never been" a mistake is irrelevant, the 4th Amendment is clear: Shall not. Period. There was no warrant. Regardless to what the computer said, the actual document did not exist. Had Mr. Anderson followed procedure and waited for the confirmation fax, the arrest would not have happened. It was clear that Mr. Anderson had it in for Herring and therefore skirted policy in order to exact his revenge for the earlier incident between the two.

There was no need to arrest Mr. Herring at that point in time either. From what we find in the evidence, Herring had no clue that he had a warrant out for his arrest (or he would not have walked into a county clerk office). He was not a flight risk, nor was he an immediate danger to the community. All Mr. Anderson had to do was wait for the fax. and upon confirmation of the hearsay declaration, directed the police to arrest Mr. Herring either on sight, or at his known address(es). All would have been legal and fell within the bounds of the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore, on the subject of confirmation. It is entirely possible for either clerk to have entered Herring's name incorrectly into the computer system. How often do people misspell Google searches? What if either clerk had misspelled Herring's name and came up with a warrant for Herrin? or Herrinh? or Herrinb? or Jerring? you see? This is why confirmation is important. This is why there is verification of records. It is to protect the citizen from the state. Ultimately as pointed out in the dissenting opinion, the purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect the citizen from the state regardless of whether the state is acting maliciously or accidentally. It is clear to me that Mr. Anderson was acting in terms of a vendetta against Mr. Herring and abused his authority in seeking to detain Mr. Herring.

The majority decision noted that they believe that "The deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system" This was substantial. An agent of the state acting on hearsay, when there is a policy in place to confirm, goes on to arrest a citizen, is substantial. There is no harm to the justice system (though the err should always, IMHO, go to the citizen) because there was already a procedure for the "justice system": The fax copy of the alleged warrant.

So it is my opinion that the majority decision of SCOTUS is wrong and is a further erosion of the rights of citizens under the 4th Amendment.

Michael Neumann on Gaza

This means that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, and the Palestinians fight in self-defense. Under these circumstances, Israel's right of self-defense cannot justify Israeli violence. Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.

Self-defense gives you the right to resist attacks by any means necessary, and therefore, certainly, by the only means available. The Palestinians don't have the option of using violence which hits only military targets - apparently even the Israelis, with all their intelligence data and all their technological might, don't have that option! But suppose a bunch of thugs install themselves, with their families, all around your farm. They have taken most of your land and resources; they're out for more. If this keeps up, you will starve, perhaps die. They are armed to the teeth and abundantly willing to use those arms. The only way you can defend yourself is to make them pay as heavy a price as possible for their siege and their constant encroachment on your living space. You're critically low on food and medical supplies, and the thugs cut off those supplies whenever they please. What's more, the only weapons available to you are indiscriminate, and will harm their families as well as the thugs themselves. You can use those weapons, even knowing they will kill innocents. You don't have to let the thugs destroy you, thereby sacrificing your innocents (including yourself) to spare theirs. Since innocents are under mortal threat in either case, you needn't prefer the attackers' to your own.

counterpunch

Burris Seated

Ummm..yeah but I still want to hear that tape.