Still Free

Yeah, Mr. Smiley. Made it through the entire Trump presidency without being enslaved. Imagine that.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Give Credit

Negrophile posted a tweet on on a Washington Post piece on a speech given by the president of Morehouse College. The author of said piece, Colbert I. King either knows nothing of Garvey or Garveyism or was censored by the editorial board. Methinks the former. I say this because he gushes over lines like:

He demanded, that students instead embrace his "Five Wells": well-read, well-spoken, well-traveled, well-dressed and well-balanced. And he highlighted three: reading, speech, and dress.

"I have seen too many students standing in lines wasting time. You should carry something to read and make good use of your down time. Read books, not just summaries of books. Choose an accomplished and prolific writer as a role model," he declared. "But just as important -- if not more -- study grammar and syntax and the art of composition. Learn the power of accurately constructed sentences and well-positioned words."

"It matters," he said, "how well you write."

He spoke of choosing words carefully.

"This reduces the necessity of relying on profanity or empty verbal placeholders like, 'um, um, ahh . . . ' or nonsense like 'you know what I'm saying?'


Well that's all nice, but it's not anything new at all. Let me point the reader to the words of Marcus Garvey, who was greatly influenced by the inspirational writers of his time:

Intelligence, Education, Universal Knowledge and How to Get It



You must never stop learning. The world's greatest men and women were people who educated themselves outside of the university with all the knowledge that the university gives, as [and?] you have the opportunity of doing the same thing the university student does---read and study. One must never stop reading. Read everything that you can that is of standard knowledge. Don't waste time reading trashy literature. That is to say, don't pay any attention to the ten cents novels, wild west stories and cheap sentimental books, but where there is a good plot and a good story in the form of a novel, read it. It is necessary to read it for the purpose of getting information on human nature. The idea is that personal experience is not enough for a human to get all the useful knowledge of life, because the individual life is too short, so we must feed on the experience of others. The literature we read should include the biography and autobiography of men and women who have accomplished greatness in their particular line. Whenever you can buy these books and own them and whilst you are reading them make pencil or pen notes of the striking sentences and paragraphs that you should like to remember, so that when you have to refer to the book for any thought that you would like to refresh your mind on, you will not have to read over the whole book.

You should also read the best poetry for inspiration. The standard poets have always been the most inspirational creators. From a good line of poetry, you may get the inspiration for the career of a life time. Many a great man and woman was first inspired by some attractive line or verse of poetry. There are good poets and bad poets just like there are good novels and bad novels. Always select the best poets for your inspirational urge.

Read history incessantly until you master it. This means your own national history, the history of the world---social history, industrial history, and the history of the different sciences; but primarily the history of man. If you do not know what went on before you came here and what is happening at the time you live, but away from you, you will not know the world and will be ignorant of the world and mankind. You can only make the best out of life by knowing and understanding it. To know, you must fall back on the intelligence of others who came before you and have left their records behi[n]d.

To be able to read intelligently, you must first be able to master the language of your country. To do this, you must be well acquainted with its grammar and the science of it. Every six months you should read over again the science of the language that you speak, so as not to forget its rules. People judge you by your writing and your speech. If you write badly and incorrectly they become prejudiced toward your intelligence, and if you speak badly and incorrectly those who hear you become disgusted and will not pay much attention to you but in their hearts laugh after you. A leader who is to teach men and present any fact of truth to man must first be learned in his subject.

Never write or speak on a subject you know nothing about, for there is always somebody who knows that particular subject to laugh at you or to ask you embarras[s]ing questions that may make others laugh at you. You can know about any subject under the sun by reading about it. If you cannot bu[y] the books outright and own them, go to your public libraries and read them there or borrow them, or join some circulating library in your district or town, so as to get the use of these books. You should do that as you may refer to them for information.

You should read at least four hours a day. The best time to read is in the evening after you have retired from your work and after you have rested and before sleeping hours but do so before morning, so that during your sleeping hours what you have read may become subconscious, that is to say, planted in your memory. Never go to bed without doing some reading[.]

Never keep the constant company of anybody who doesn't know as much as you or [isn't] as educated as you, and from whom you cannot learn something or reciprocate your learning, especially if that person is illiterate or ignorant because constant association with such a person will unconsciously cause you to drift into the peculiar culture or ignorance of that person. Always try to associate with people from whom you can learn something. Contact with cultured persons and with books is the best companionship you can have and keep.

By reading good books you keep the company of the authors of the book or the subjects of the book when otherwise you could not meet them in the social contact of life. NEVER GO DOWN IN INTELLIGENCE to those who are below you, but if possible help to lift them up to you and always try to ascend to those who are above you and be their equal with the hope of being their master.

Continue always in the application of the thing you desire educationally, culturally, or otherwise, and never give up until you reach the objective---and you can reach the objective if other[s] have done so before you, proving by their doing it that it is possible.

In your desire to accomplish greatness, you must first decide in your own mind in what direction you desire to seek that greatness, and when you have so decided in your own mind[,] work unceas[i]ngly toward it. The particular thing that you may want should be before you all the time, and whatsoever it takes to get it or make it possible should be undertaken. Use your faculties and persuasion to achieve all you set your mind on.

Try never to repeat yourself in any one discourse in saying the same thing over and over except [when] you are making new points, because repetition is tiresome and it annoys those who hear the repetition. Therefore, try to possess as much universal knowledge as possible through reading so as to be able to be free of repetition in trying to drive home a point.

No one is ever too old to learn. Therefore, you should take advantage of every educational facility. If you should hear of a great man or woman who is to lecture or speak in your town on any given subject and the person is an authority on the subject, always make time to go and hear him. This is what is meant by learning from others. You should learn the two sides to every story, so as to be able to properly debate a question and hold your grounds with the side that you support. If you only know one side of a story, you cannot argue intelligently nor effectively. As for instance, to combat communism, you must know about it, otherwise people will take advantage of you and win a victory over your ignorance. Anything that you are going to challenge, you must first know about it, so as to be able to defeat it. The moment you are ignorant about anything the person who has the intelligence of that thing will defeat you. Therefore, get knowledge, get it quickly, get it studiously, but get it anyway.

Knowledge is power. When you know a thing and can hold your ground on that thing and win over your opponents on that thing, those who hear you learn to have confidence in you and will trust your ability.

Never, therefore, attempt anything without being able to protect yourself on it, for every time you are defeated it takes away from your prestige and you are not as respected as before.

All the knowledge you want is in the world, and all that you have to do is to go seeking it and never stop until you have found it. You can find knowledge or the information about it in the public libraries, if it is not on your own bookshelf. Try to have a book and own it on every bit of knowledge you want. You may generally get these books at second hand book stores for sometimes one-fifth of the original value.

Always have a well equipped shelf of books. Nearly all information about mankind is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is an expensive set of books, but try to get them. Buy a complete edition for yourself, and keep it at your home, and whenever you are in doubt about anything, go to it and you will find it there.

The value of knowledge is to use it. It is not humanly possible that a person can retain all knowledge of the world, but if a person knows how to search for all the knowledge of the world, he will find it when he wants it. A doctor or a lawyer although he passed his examination in college does not know all the laws and does not know all the techniques of medicine but he has the fundamental knowledge. When he wants a particular kind of knowledge, he goes to the medical books or law books and refers to the particular law or how to use the recipe of medicine. You must, therefore, know where to find your facts and use them as you want them. No one will know where you got them, but you will have the facts and by using the facts correctly they will think you a wonderful person, a great gen[iu]s, and a trusted leader.

In reading it is not necessary or compulsory that you agree with everything you read. You must always use or apply your own reasoning to what you have read based upon what you already know as touching the facts on what you have read. Pass judgement on what you read based upon these facts. When I say facts I mean things that cannot be disputed. You may read thoughts that are old, and opinions that are old and have changed since they were written. You must always search to find out the latest facts on that p[a]rticular subject and only when these facts are consistently maintained in what you read should you agree with them, otherwise you are entitled to your own opinion.

Always have up-to-date knowledge. You can gather this from the latest books and the latest periodicals, journals and newspapers. Read your daily newspaper everyday. Read a standard monthly journal every month, a standard weekly magazine every week, a standard quarterly magazine every quarter and by this you will find the new knowledge of the whole year in addition to the books you read, whose facts have not altered in that year. Don't keep old ideas, bury them as new ones come.



How to Read



Use every spare minute you have in reading. If you are going on a journey that would take you an hour carry something with you to read for that hour until you have reached the place. If you are sitting down waiting for somebody, have something in your pocket to read until the person comes. Don't waste time.

Any time you think you have to waste put it in reading something. Carry with you a small pocket dictionary and study words whilst waiting or travelling, or a small pocket volume on some particular subject. Read through at least one book every week separate and distinct from your newspapers and journals. It will mean that at the end of one year you will have read fifty-two different subjects. After five years you will have read over two hundred and fifty books. You may be considered then a well read man or a well read woman and there will be a great difference between you and the person who has not read one book. You will be considered intelligent and the other person be considered ignorant. You and that person therefore will be living in two different worlds; one the world of ignorance and the other the world of intelligence. Never forget that intelligence rules the world and ignorance carries the burden. Therefore, remove yourself as far as possible from ignorance and seek as far as possible to be intelligent.

Your language being English you should study the English language thoroughly. To know the English language thoroughly you ought to be acquainted with Latin, because most of the English words are of Latin origin. It is also advisable that you know the French language because most of the books that you read in English carry Latin and French phrases and words. There is no use reading a page or paragraph of a book or even a sentence without understanding it.

If it has foreign words in it, before you pass over [them] you should go to the dictionary, if you don't know the meaning and find out the meanin[g]. Never pass over a word without knowing its meaning. The dictionary and the books on word building which can be secured from book sellers will help you greatly.

I know a boy who was ambitious to learn. He hadn't the opportunity of an early school education because he had to work ten hours a day, but he determined that he would learn and so he took with him to his work place every day a simplified grammar and he would read and me[m]orize passages and the rules of grammar whilst at work.

After one year he was almost an expert in the grammar of his language. He knew the differen[t] parts of speech, he could paraphrase, analyse and construct sentences. He also took with him a pocket dictionary and he would write out twenty-five new words with their meanings every day and study these words and their mords [forms?] and their meaning. After one year he had a speaking vocabulary of more than three thousand words. He continued this for several years and when he became a man he had a vocabulary at his command of over fifteen thousand words. He became an author because he could write in his language by having command of words. What he wrote was his experiences and he recorded his experiences in the best words of his language. He was not able to write properly at the same age and so he took with him to work what is called in school a copying book and he practised the copying of letters until he was able to write a very good hand. He naturally became acquainted with literature and so he continued reading extensively. When he died he was one of the greatest scholars the world ever knew. Apply the story to yourself.

There is nothing in the world that you want that you cannot have so long as it is possible in nature and men have achieved it before. The greatest men and women in the world burn the midnight lamp. That is to say, when their neighbours and household are gone to bed, they are reading, studying and thinking. When they rise in the morning they are always ahead of their neighbours and their household in the thing that they were studying[,] reading and thinking of. A daily repetition of that will carry them daily ahead and above their neighbours and household. Practise this rule. It is wise to study a couple of subjects at a time. As for instance---a little geography, a little psychology, a little ethics, a little theology, a little philosophy, a little mathematics, a little science on which a sound academic education is built. Doing this week after week, month after month, year after year will make you so learned in the liberal arts as to make you ready and fit for your place in the affairs of the world. If you know what others do not know, they will want to hear you. You will then become invaluable in your community and to your country, because men and women will want to hear you and see you everywhere.

As stated before, books are one's best companions. Try to get the[m] and keep them. A method of doing so is every time you have ten cents or twenty five cents or a dollar to spend foolishly[,] either on your friends or yourself [,] think how much more useful that ten or twenty five cents or dollar would be invested in a book and so invest it. It may be just the thing you have been looking for to give you a thought by which you may win the heart of the world. The ten cent, twenty five cent or a dollar, therefore, may turn out to be an investment of worth to the extent of a million dollars. Never lend anybody the book that you want. You will never get it back. Never allow anybody to go to your bookshelf in your absence because the very book that you may want most may be taken from the shelf and you may never be able to get one of the kind again.

If you have a library of your own, lock it when you are not at home. Spend most of your spare time in your library. If you have a radio keep it in your own library and use it exhaustively to listen to lectures, recitals, speeches and good music. You can learn a lot from the radio. You can be inspired a lot by good music [lines repeated]. Good music carries the sentiment of harmony and you may think many a good thought out of listening to good music.

Read a chapter from the Bible everyday, Old and New Testaments. The greatest wisdom of the age is to be found in the Scriptures. You can always quote from the Scriptures. It is the quickest way of winning approval.


So you'll excuse me if I don't trip over myself congratulating Mr. Franklin.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Mileage Tax

As mentioned in the video "The Obama Deception" proposals to put GPS units in all vehicles for the "purpose" of taxing citizens for how far they drive.

Of course defenders of this kind of legislation will have no problem with the government being able to track your every coming and going. It's not like the government abuses such information.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Obama Deception

Airplanes flying
overseas people dying
politicians lyin
I'm tryin
to hit the problem head on
by bringin' out the truth in a song


KRS-ONE
1989



Aside from the let's get your attention title, this is a video you need to watch. It would probably be better, or more accurately titled the Presidential Deception or something along those lines because it lays out the case that it's not really about Obama...or Bush or Clinton or any president, but rather who those presidents work for.

I've known about this video for a while and at nearly 2 hours long I needed to have time to sit and watch it all the way through before I posted a link to it here. Folks most of this is the real deal. I don't peddle in conspiracy theories. When I have an opinion on something I state that it is so. If I'm not sure as to the veracity of a story I come across I simply do not post it here. This means that you, the reader/viewer need to sit down with 2 hours to spare and watch this piece critically. Many of the points in this video have been made by me over the past 5 years of blogging. Furthermore I have independently read on many of the groups mentioned in this piece. That is I read about them under circumstances not related to the viewing of, or even knowledge of this video. Furthermore much of the criticism leveled at Obama and the power elite have been raised in other publications such as the Black Commentator and the Black Agenda Report. This does not include the documented evidence from so called "reputable" news sources that appear in the film.

That said I need to discuss briefly two points brought up in the film:

1) National Health Care: They didn't go into details on it but I can't be against that. I see that as something the government ought to be doing. The film acts as if nationalized health care would necessarily mean that the government can determine if as well as what health care you can get. Well maybe, but that's what we have now with private health "insurance" except you don't know when "they" will decide you're not worth treatment x. It is more likely that a national health care (single payer) system would establish the floor of healthcare that anyone can get: ER, Primary, Preventative, etc. But that private companies would be free to offer services above and beyond what is offered by the government. So I'm not going for the claims on that one.

2) Global Warming is a Hoax: I know there are people who believe that the global warming we have measured may not be due to human activity. Fine. The argument presented in the film is that we are experiencing the effects of sun spots. OK. I think it could be a combination of sun spots and human activity since you cannot discount the amount of CO2 that we are producing which is unprecedented in Earth history, nor can we discount the cutting down of trees that is also an unnatural event that necessarily has consequences. I do agree with the film's position that the people at the top are looking to use the "green push" as a means for a greater police state and a means of generating new revenues.

3) Lastly if there is any other reason to be very afraid of Rahm Emanuel and those other people close to Obama, this video provides it. Towards the end of this video Rahm is on record as saying that anyone put on the bogus No Fly List is not only a terrorist but that they no longer enjoy the "rights" of citizenship. This man ought to be fired and IMHO tried for treason. First of all the No-Fly list is completely made up list. No one on the list has been arrested, tried or convicted of anything. Yet this man thinks that simply because some ass-hat in Washington (or NY or wherever) thinks that a particular person is a "threat" you're rights (in this particular instance, to bear arms) no longer exist. Why isn't there some kind of inquiry into this? Why is this man even still employed in government? So now you know why so many bun stores are out of ammo. Watching Rahm made me want to go buy a gun because I now seriously believe that in the not to distant future police will be running up into people's homes and such based on non-existent evidence. I have no intention of going peacefully if it comes down to that. Seriously. So I'm not going to knock these right wingers in red states who are afraid. They are right.

Those are my major issues with the piece of major issues within' the piece. There are some other statements made in the piece that I do not believe were supported by the evidence presented. Doesn't mean they are incorrect but I would suggest further research. I'll put it like this, watch this with a critical eye. If you are unfamiliar with the organizations mentioned in this video then I suggest a trip to the library or other reputable information source. If you're familiar with the book the 48 Laws of Power, you will instantly recognize many of the power moves shown in the film.


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

New Haven Firefighter Suit II

So the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the New Haven Firefighter suit

Not having read any transcripts of the arguments and going only by this LA Times report, I can see there is still a lot of issues that are not being dealt with.

It appears that Souter and Ginsberg are asking the wrong questions:

a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation." If the city had used the test results, black fighters could sue and say they were excluded because of a discriminatory test. When the city scrapped the results, they were sued by the white firefighters. "Why not give the city an opportunity, in a good faith, to start again?" he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to agree. The white firefighters did not have "any vested right" to a promotion, she said, and the city should be given time to construct a fairer test.


While it is agreed that the white firefighters have no vested right to a promotion, neither do any of the black firefighters. No one is entitled to a promotion. Like many civil servant positions promotions are granted in large part due to results on various examinations. You do well on the test and you find yourself higher on the list of potential promotions.

The city of New Haven is claiming that it believes that the test in question is discriminatory because black test takers did poorly. That is not proof of discrimination. Indeed it is proof that something is wrong but it is not proof of discrimination. The city claims that it wants to modify the test in order to make it "less discriminatory." But since it has not been proven that the test is not discriminatory, how can they hope to make it less so? Is New Haven simply using "less discriminatory" as a code word for 'easier?" If so then that is an insult to all the black firefighters in New Haven. As I discussed the first time I posted on the subject, If a dyslexic firefighter could not only pass the test but apparently land near the top of the list then what exactly were the black firefighters doing to prepare for this exam? If the dyslexic white firefighter could get his hands on old (or preparatory) exams, what exactly were the black firefighters doing? Are we implying that the black firefighters in New Haven are less able to learn than white firefighters with learning disabilities? That's a serious charge!
If I were on the bench I would demand that the city of New Haven produce all the black firefighters to the court and grill them on how they prepared for the exam.

Now, all that having been said I agree with the City of New Haven insomuch as the lack of promotable black firefighters is a problem. The problem is not solved by kicking the hard work of other firefighters to the curb. The City of New Haven should have spent the money they are spending on this case on outreach programs to their black firefighters. They should reach out to relevant benevolent associations and offer low or no cost preparatory courses for anyone who wishes to partake. For those who are poor test takers, there respective organizations should offer test taking courses.

It is clear here that the Supreme Court can decide in favor of the white firefighters while still allowing New Haven to take race into consideration for it's promotions. It is for the best that among equals (that is the top performing test takers) to be selected on the basis of other subjective criteria that all people up for new jobs are judged on (and I've been on enough hiring committees to know that there are a LOT of subjective things that go into getting jobs and promotions).

[update]

So it turns out that out of 118 people who took the test only 56 passed. Methinks New Haven may have a larger problem. Anyway if only 47% of the people are passing the test then it is clear that the exam is a weeder and did it's job pretty well. Also of note is that the City of New Haven paid a good chunk of change to a professional "race neutral" test creating service who's services I'm sure not a few clients are having second thoughts about. I believe this highlights my primary position that the problem lies not with the test but in the preparation done by the exam takers. More foolishness:

Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.


Of course. Negroes are notorious for not being able to memorize? Anything more complicated than Souljah Boy lyrics is waaaaay to much for our brains to handle. Clearly the brain of the average Negro cannot be expected to surpass that of a dyslexic white man.

Clearly Negroes cannot be expected to memorize what to provide "leadership" in emergency situations. Practice is for dyslexic white men right? We all know that Negroes can only be expected to act from the gut right?

This just gets more and more insulting as it goes.

Israeli Pirates

Of course you didn't know.



Was there lethal intent? A gun boat came out of the black of night with no lights showing whilst a searchlight from the other gun boat displayed the port hull of its target. It would have approached at about 30 degrees to the Dignity’s port and at speed. The intention to sink the Dignity and thus to drown its company was clear. If the hull had been GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic) it would have shattered and the boat would have sunk like a stone where it was rammed 53 nautical miles off Haifa. Fortunately, the hull was constructed of marine ply with timber ribs and the company survived. The Zionist entity greatly resents anyone coming to the aid of the native population, whatever its depth of suffering, and war lust was growing by the day.


Now there were Americans on board but exactly how many days straight have we heard about this?

Dissident Voice

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Text of Ahmadinejad's Speech in Geneva

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92046

The About Face

Anyone who saw Rahm Emanuel state on This Week that the CIA agents who created the "legal" justification were not in danger of prosecution should recognize the recent report in the LA Times:

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.


As what we refer to as an about face. Now the problem here is that the onus has been put on the AG who is a political appointment and has an interest in pleasing his boss rather than the citizenry. Obama did not direct Holder to investigate which is what should have happened. At this point the pressure would need to be put on the judiciary committee to take up the issue and therefore force the hand of the AG.

Please understand that this is exactly what is being asked for. Obama is too scared to spend political points going after these crooks so he's placing it in Holder's hands so that he can say later that it was Holder's determination and not his.

"What Is It With These People?"

The LA Times reports:

Crimes suspected in 20 bailout cases -- for starters
which contains this gem:

"That's an appalling record," Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said of the 20 criminal investigations. "In the midst of this crisis from which they are being bailed out, the same people who created this mess are apparently still breaking the law. What is it with these people?"


Oh I can answer that. The previous president stood up in front of TV cameras and on live TV said that he broke the law. A couple of laws. He wasn't prosecuted. The current president has documented evidence of torture, illegal under international law and US law. Both the previous and current president have declined to prosecute those who not only directly committed crimes but those who conspired to provide "cover" for those crimes. Both the previous and current president faced with the fallout from the fraud on Wall Street decided against prosecuting anyone for it. Rather they both authorized handing them more money.

So given that a clear message has been sent out that those "too big to fail" are also "to big to prosecute" is it not surprising when it is clear that some people are above the law that some other people are trying to include themselves in that group? It's been said that taxes are for little people. Seems so is jail. But if you're black you know that already.

Monday, April 20, 2009

How Many Times?

How many times you need to pretend drown someone before you realize, that perhaps, maybe that shit doesn't work?

Hands Off Assata


NJ State Sen. Sean T. Kean, R-Monmouth, sent a letter to Obama stating:


"sends the message to the world that we are not committed to pursuing justice for a police officer who was savagely gunned down in the line of duty."


Whatever. The problem with this case is the continued denial of white people as to how policing in NJ is done relative to black folk particularly in the 60's and 70's as evidenced by this write up


Chesimard, a Black Panther and member of the Black Liberation Army, was sentenced to life in prison in 1977 after being found guilty of murdering State Trooper Werner Foerster just south of interchange 9 on the New Jersey Turnpike four years earlier. Authorities said Foerster was shot execution style during a routine traffic stop of a car in which Chesimard was a passenger.


Understand for a black person on the NJ Turnpike, even today the only thing routine about a traffic stop is that you know it's coming if you're in the wrong part of "town" at the "wrong" time. Furthermore, in the 70's, if you were a Black Panther, you were known to all manner of "law enforcement" who generally were looking for an excuse to lock you up if not shoot you down in the street. And I'm not making this up having had the "routine" treatment of being stopped and had guns pointed in my direction during "routine" traffic stops.


I'm "sure" the reason for pulling over the black panthers was something like a taillight being out since that seems to a standard op for NJ State Troopers.


One of the interesting things about Shakur's trial was the following from Wikipedia:


Shakur testified that Trooper Harper shot her after she raised her arms to comply with his demand, the second shot hitting her in the back as she was turning to avoid it, and that she fell onto the road for the duration of the gunfight before crawling back into the backseat of the Pontiac which Acoli drove 5 miles (8 km) down the road and parked, and remained there until State Troopers dragged her onto the road.[47][124]


Does that sound familiar to anyone? It should. It is practically the same thing that happened in the killing of Sean Bell. Here's what was said back in April of last year:


Q. And what did you see this person doing at that



time?



A. I saw the passenger of the vehicle. The window



was blown out, and he kept moving like this as to



indicated he was trying to raise his arm, and I didn't



want him to get that arm up.



Q. Just for the record, you are indicating that the



man in the passenger seat was kind of twisting towards



the interior of the car?



A. No.



Q. Why don't you clarify that?



A. What I saw was the passenger of the vehicle, he



kept trying to raise his right arm as to bring a gun up



to me the whole time. I didn't know if he could have



been shooting through the vehicle because he couldn't



get his arm up. I was not about to let him get that arm



up. I felt if he got that arm up he was going to kill



me.



Q. Would it be fair to say, as you made the motion



that you just demonstrated to the jury where you



indicated this man was trying to reach for his waist you



were also lowering your left shoulder and basically



putting yourself in a position where your left shoulder



is also lowered to your waist?



A. I can't answer that, that way. I don't know if he



was tipping his shoulder. When he is trying to reach he



wasn't just sitting still, and moving his arm. He was



like -- he was trying to get his arm up.



Q. The motion that you are making now as you



demonstrate to the jury is an attempt to show the jury



the motion that man was making?



A. It was a motion that appeared to me that he was



trying to raise a gun at me.



Q. But the motion that you are demonstrating to the



jury is an attempt by you to show the jury the motion



that man was making, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. And in making that motion you are tipping your



left shoulder, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. When this man, who you testified was making this



motion, he was in the passenger seat of the vehicle, is



that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. And when he made that motion and was tipping his



left shoulder that was kind of pushing his body towards



the interior of the car, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. And again you saw this motion, but you saw no







weapon, is that correct?



A. Yes.



Q. You fired that shot at the same time you saw this



motion, is that correct?



A. I'm sorry?



Q. You fired your first round at about the time you



first saw this man making this motion?



A. Yes.



So we see that it is standard op. for police to shoot at people in the back and claim they were reaching for weapons. Back to Wiki:


The reports then state that after Acoli complied and as Harper was looking inside the vehicle to examine the registration, Trooper Foerster yelled and held up an ammunition clip, as Shakur simultaneously reached into her red pocketbook, pulled out a nine-millimeter weapon and fired at him.[124] Trooper Harper's reports then state that he ran to the rear of his car and shot at Shakur who had exited the vehicle and was firing from a crouched position next to the vehicle.[124


And Officer Oliver claimed that Guzman was reaching in his waist for a gun too. but of course:


Under cross-examination at both Acoli and Shakur's trials, Trooper Harper admitted to having lied in these reports and in his Grand Jury testimony about Trooper Foerster yelling and showing him an ammunition clip, about seeing Shakur holding a pocketbook or a gun inside the vehicle, and about Shakur shooting at him from the car.[45][101] Trooper Harper retracted his previous statements and said that he had never seen Shakur with a gun, and that she did not shoot him.[126]


Imagine that. Lying under oath. I wonder if this fellow has seen the inside of a jail cell a-la lil Kim for perjury?


Back to the point though. This State Senator's attitude is unfortunately typical of many people in NJ. The Embargo against Cuba is an act of war. It needs to stop regardless. Talk about political prisoners in Cuba are hypocritical when the US has plenty of its own. And hands off Assata!

Obama Discloses Spies in Iran

In a spate of disclosure last week Obama announced that there were spies in Iran. Now you're probably saying "How do you know?" It's simple really. When Obama said, unequivocally, that he knew Roxana Saberi was not a spy. He made a pressupposed statement. Clearly anyone who is not Roxana or her potential handlers does not know for certain whether Roxana is a spy. Roxana's family can say anything they want but really spies don't tell their families that they are spies. But the issue here is that I can guarantee you that when Roxana was "caught" president Obama asked whomever he needed to whether or not Roxana was on the US Payroll. He got his answer, and he knows whether or not Roxana is a spy. Furthermore as Americans now know, it is a felony to disclose the status of a CIA undercover operative. Obama is one of the only persons (if not THE only person) who can disclose such information. Therefore; by making the statement that he knows that Roxana is not a spy, he is also admitting that he knows who the spies are in Iran.

If Iran had some cheek they would have asked Obama that since he knows who is and is not a spy in Iran, he should disclose who the spies are so that Roxana can be freed and the real spies tried for espionage. Of course THAT is not going to happen. My advice to Mr. Obama should something like this happen in the future, is to refrain from making statements about persons spy status while trying to rally sympathy.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Not Only Me

It's not only me wondering what it would take Americans to go Bangkok.

MW: Why is Treasury a revolving door for investment bankers that are tied to Wall Street?
Morgan: Because the American public allows it. Benjamin Franklin said . . . Well done is better than well said. Too many Americans gripe and moan, but when it comes time to doing anything . . . they sit back on the couch with a bag of chips and the TV. We think it is cute to use the TV to amuse our toddlers. Do you think it is any different for 75 per cent of the American public?


marketoracle.co.uk

Blagojovich: Possibly the Most Honest Politician Alive

Unlike the general sentiment now it is entirely possible that Blagojovich is the most honest politician to have been in office. Now let us not confuse ethical with honest. Heck the upcoming trial may even show that he's the most honest politician to be convicted of a crime. Why do I say this? I say this because all over the news we see reports of congresspeople and senators and wannabes for both, raising funds for re-election. Every year these folks get money from all manner of lobbyists and special interests. These companies and organizations almost always get some kind of payback for their investment. You and I don't see it for a few reasons:

a) the recipient of these funds is careful to get the donation using "legal" and "understood" language.

b) It is never asked for but is rather understood that you pay to play.


Blagojovich understood how this system worked. But like me, he doesn't really like the shadiness of acting like you don't want or expect something for nothing. None of this beat around the bush and indirect talk. No Blagojovich apparently came to the table and said I need x, you want y? How do we proceed? Simple to the point. You want in, you pay. Oh sure it's crass. Oh sure it locks out the "little guy" who can't afford to pay up. But lets be real here. How many major contracts go out to the "little guy." Seriously folks. In many cases the favored party knows about the upcoming project long before any of the little guys.

Currently Jesse Jackson Jr. is under the spotlight because there is a thought that he agreed to raise funds for Blago in exchange for being appointed to the Senate seat vacated by Obama. People are calling this a bribe. Really? When companies are regularly asked to make donations to campaigns? Does the public really believe that there is no expectation of ANYTHING in return? Look, if there wasn't any kind of expectations or returns, these companies would not be lobbying and not donating to political parties and candidates.

Lets take this example: If you want to register a business in NJ there is a fee. If you want that expedited you pay an extra fee. Why? Why isn't everything expedited? Why do I have to pay a bribe to get my business registered quick? Also who gets put on the back burner when I pay up? Why are they, who may have submitted before me, thrown to the back of the line? Simple: they didn't pay up. This is nothing more than state sanctioned bribery.

Take the case of immigrants trying to get their green cards. It is pretty much known that if you don't have the cash to pay a lawyer, it's going to take forever. All manner of paperwork junk and slow moving stuff happens. But you get the right lawyer with the right connections? Green cards float down like leaves off a tree in fall.

So I give Blago some credit here. He doesn't smile in your face and say: "I'll see what I can do" and hope you get the picture. No sir. He gets on the phone and tells it like it is: "This thing is effin golden! I'm not giving it up for nothing!" Why should he, a whole lot of people getting rich off the Obama train. Trading up jobs, getting book deals. Banks getting bailed out. etc. etc.

Did Blago do some unethical stuff? Sure. I'm sure a lot of it will come out. But still it seems to me that if anything the man was honest even if we dislike on what he was honest about.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

NSA Wiretapping: What Will it Take to Piss People Off?

With the numerous about faces the Democrats have made on issues that put them into power, I'm wondering exactly what will it take to get the American public to go Bangkok? Seriously the last president says outright and on tape that he broke the law and he suffers no consequences. While people on the left talked a good game about how Bush needs to go and the right went to all lengths to justify the clearly illegal behavior and the people? They went about their business.

During the Republican Convention Reporters are harassed and arrested while doing their constitutionally protected jobs. It is caught on tape and what happens? Nothing. A few squawks here and there on "lefty" blogs and that's it. This type of thing happens in say Iran and it's front page news and an example of how repressive the government is.

Mass arrests at the Republican convention in New York most without any cause whatsoever. People penned up for hours if not days and there's some noise on lefty blogs and not a head rolls, not an elected official put out on his ass. Not a hired police big man fired. The people do nothing.

3 young men are assassinated by plain clothes police officers who admit they saw no weapon. One of whom stops to reload and busts off a whole extra clip and the court says it's 'unfortunate" but not jail-able. There's a protest, a few angry words in front of TV cameras and nothing. Not even the then presidential candidate can muster up enough respect for the victim's family and the colored folk of NYC to NOT say dumb shit like "violence gets us nowhere." As if black folk in NYC have no control over themselves (or ought to have).

Wall street tanks the economy and people lose millions and millions of dollars in value of their 401K's. People on the verge of retirement have seen their "nest egg" rot and have to consider working at KFC or such to make ends meet. Meanwhile not one but two presidents hand these same companies billions of these tax payers dollars to prop up the clear ponzi scheme that is Credit Default Swaps.

All and all there is not a single run up on DC. I ask what the hell is wrong with the American population?

Last night we see a(nother) report that the NSA was gathering more intel than previously "known." This included tapping a congressman. I said long ago that the NSA and other agencies have been gathering so called "intelligence" (translation: blackmail material) on people both in and out of government. Can you imagine if such a thing was uncovered in Iran or Venezuela? front page news and speeches by politicians about how undemocratic these places are. Where is the outrage? What exactly will it take for Americans to go Bangkok?

Obama Bows to the Zionists...Again and Again...

Glen Ford hit the bullseye on Obama, Durban and so called Black Leadership.

On Tuesday, April 14, according to the Huffington Post, the White House placed a conference call to American “Jewish leaders,” all but assuring them the U.S. would not show up for Durban II, the international conference on racism, in Geneva, Switzerland. President Obama’s close adviser Samantha Power, of the National Security Council, said the event’s revised draft document “met two of our four red lines frontally, in the sense that it went no further than reparations and it did drop all references to Israel and all anti-Semitic language. But it continued to reaffirm, in toto, Durban I.”


And the question of the day:

We must first ask: Why is the White House reporting to “Jewish leaders” on an issue that is of interest to all Americans, most especially people of color?

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

How Burger King got Owned

Today people are so scared to call "bullshit" on people who claim to be offended by certain things, that they run around doing damage control when there's nothing to fix. Such a case is BurgerKing who Diversity Inc. decided to applaud for taking "swift" action to pull an add supposedly offensive to Mexicans. Though the ads themselves were aired in Spain and the UK. Here's the ad:




Here's Diversity (Abraham Lincoln was black) Inc. on the ad:

The print and TV ads showed a small Mexican wrestler using the flag of Mexico as his cape standing next to an American cowboy twice his size. They were shown in Spain and the United Kingdom. The Mexican ambassador in Spain raised the outcry, asking that the ads be pulled because they used stereotypes of Mexicans.


Well let's see The entire ad stereotypes not only Mexicans but US citizens as well. After all Americans are not only white males but are also white females, blacks, Asians, etc. So the ad excludes all those people. But nobody really expected any advertising for a burger to represent everyone and every type in America did we? I didn't think so.

Secondly, Not all Americans are cowboys (or gals for that matter). We are urban, metro-sexual, suburban. ghetto, countrified, etc. But this ad takes on ONE particular segment of "Americana" and puts it on the ad. A segment that is stereotypical of America. But there's no mention of that in the Diversity Inc. piece. Nor in the Burger King "apology."

Moving on.

According to The Associated Press, a Spanish newspaper published a front-page story titled "Denigrating advertising," which said the ads "show Mexicans as notably inferior to all Americans." Mexico also has laws against using its flags in a derogatory manner, but the ads did not run in Mexico.


Well the fact of the matter is that the cape of the "Mexican" is not in fact the Mexican flag. It is a cape of the Mexican colors. The Mexican flag has an crest in the middle with an eagle on it. The "Mexican" in question is adorned in Mexican colors No different than someone in the US (or England, or France) wearing Red, white and blue. Simply wearing a countries identifying colors does not equate to wearing the flag of said country.


Secondly the short Mexican is a clear exageration of the relative average height differences between white American males and Mexican males. White American males are on average 5' 10". On average Mexican males are 5'7" That's a full three inches which is very noticeable. SO it is clear that the advertisement is not only taking broad liberties with cultural icons of both Mexico and the United States, but also with general biological differences between the two countries.

Therefore there is nothing offensive about an advertisement chock full of overblown cultural and biological symbols used to make a funny point about the coming together of two groups who currently are having political issues around immigration, to make something new and "exciting."

What is offensive is that some people take the opportunity to make wild and clearly unfounded accusations. It is offensive to have such bullshit land in my inbox by a company claiming to be defenders of diversity.

It is offensive that such a publication didn't feel compelled in their writeup to point out the issues I did even IF they thought that the advertisement is offensive.

As for Burger King, I understand the business case for their apology. a company never wins an argument with a customer. They are in business to sell red meat not to score political or sociological points with newspapers and company's claiming to be represent diversity. But it is unfortunate that they could not. And of course with the racket DI runs, BK wants to stay in their good graces.

Fin.

Monday, April 13, 2009

"Justice" Thomas ought to be removed from the Court

Justice Clarence Thomas ought to be removed from the Bench if in fact he :

The evening was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.


NY Times

Does not embrace the constitution? I'd like to see the exact quote here. But if this is in fact true then I see absolutely no point for this man to continue to serve as the protector of a document he does not "embrace."

I'm also particularly disturbed by "Justice" Thomas's apparently infatuation with the military and indoctrination:

“Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”


Sounds like a Nazi wanna be. Shall we have students pledge their life to our Great Leader?

Then there's this:

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"


Well I suppose Mr. Thomas would have a stronger point if there were in fact parts of the US Constitution called the Bill or Responsibilities or Bill of Obligations. But there aren't. Well no that's not entirely true since most of the document which Thomas appears to have problems "embracing" spells out the responsibilities of office holders. You know it says things like respecting treaties. Providing for things like Due Process, Habeus Corpus and other government "obligations."

Rather than take the opportunity to discuss his obligation to uphold that unloved thing called the constitution, he rambles about dishwashers and air conditioning. Clearly "Justice" Thomas has a serious perspective problem. I think that this presentation by Thomas reveals (again) a person with serious problems. To have someone one the highest court of the land claim to not "embrace" the Bill of Rights is very, very troubling.

While You Cheered for the Captain...

And celebrated over the sniping of 3 pirates. While on the news a Navy man discussed how there are laws and such we find:

es: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."


Alternet

Friday, April 10, 2009

The New Haven Firefighter Suit

The NY Times is reporting a case from New Haven regarding a firefighter promotion exam:

Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination.

Their case, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 22, is the Roberts court’s first major confrontation with claims of racial discrimination in employment and will require the justices to choose between conflicting conceptions of the government’s role in ensuring fair treatment regardless of race.


Unless there is something shown that indicates that the test contained material that a Black person is unable to learn, study for or comprehend, I believe the city is in err. You don't toss out the results of an exam because black folk don't pass the test (or score high enough). You do look to see why. What is particularly disturbing is that Ricci:

who is dyslexic, paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews.


If he did all that, then the question is, and the reporter should have asked is, what did the black test takers do? It is highly relevant. Did they know that practice tests were available? Why or why not? Did the black test takers do mock interviews (the only part that I could think is subjective, but I don't know the contents of the interview or the written test).

We're not buying the race-neutral talk of the National Police Organization, but we're also not going to support throwing out people's hard work either. I also reject the position of the Black Professional Fire Fighters, Young people have the RIGHT to have fully qualified professional firefighters respond to emergencies in their neighborhood. The city ought to be doing all it can to promote the most qualified members. That includes everybody. And black people who want to get promoted need to do what my uncle has been doing in the MTA. Getting up in the AM and studying. Going to classes if available. Coming home in the evening and studying. and then kick tail at the test. Follow up here

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Australia an Example of Global Warming

From the LA Times A pretty harrowing tale of what we're going to be seeing in parts of Africa. Yes I said Africa. What I don't understand though is this:

Scientists are frustrated that such dramatic anecdotal and empirical evidence hasn't sparked equally dramatic action from Australia's government. They suspect the inaction can be partly explained by examining the nation's relationship with coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and relies on it for 80% of its electricity. That helps make Australia and its 21 million people the world's highest per-capita producers of greenhouse gases in the industrialized world.


Why is a country with THAT much sunlight not at the forefront of solar energy? With winds that high why aren't they at the forefront of wind energy?

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Obama Strikes Again!

I really am not enjoying having to make these posts. I find it particularly troubling that a man who invoked that "preacher" Dr. King, whom the government surveilled without cause in an attempt to destroy him, would have his justice department state "that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of U.S. law."

However; I must point out that I said that the Democrats were willing to go along with the Patriot Act, which is what the Obama administration is basing it's position on, because they wanted the powers it conferred when they got into office. This is why Bush, Cheney and Co. are sleeping well at night. They know that the so called "liberal" Democrats are no less craven for power than Republicans are.

From the Alternet article:

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).


From Alternet

Cynthia McKinney on Buyer's Remorse

Increasingly, though, there's another type of voter that is contacting me, expressing "Buyer's Remorse" for having supported candidate Barack Obama. These voters can be futher subdivided into three categories: those who voted for Obama, not knowing very much about our Power to the People campaign; those who voted for Obama, knowing a lot about Rosa, me, and the Power to the People campaign, but who chose instead to vote for Obama out of fear of a McCain/Palin White House; and finally, those who knew about our Power to the People campaign and were hostile to it because they were suspicious that our campaign was designed to deny the White House to candidate Obama--the spoiler campaign. Fortunately and hopefully, because of the integrity with which we ran our campaign, those in this latter category are few in terms of their numbers in communication with me.


For me, the number of people contacting me expressing regret for having voted for Obama is a double-edged sword. That is, it indicates that prior to the election, we were not able to seal the deal with a significant number of our natural voters. There are many reasons for that, but being severely underfunded lies at the base of that failing. However, on the other hand, these expressions of "buyer's remorse" indicate that people knowingly allowed themselves to be swept into the voting booth and vote against their values.


The Rest

http://www.opednews.com/articles/From-Cynthia-McKinney-Buy-by-Cynthia-McKinney-090407-426.html

bringing Up a Past Post

The article on Blacks being at odds on Obama and the comments that I've seen posted on Huffington remind me of a post I made back in May of 2007 when the object of scorn was Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson:


What is Sharpton Hating? it' pretty clear. People hate Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) because they show up when black people are insulted, threatened, etc. Sharpton takes the risk of being wrong by speaking out. Whereas you and I, work for someone else and have to put up with various insults and the like, Sharpton (and Jesse) don't work for anyone and are free to call spades, spades. In other words, they make their living, by and large by being there when racist stuff happens.


Just exchange Tavis for Sharpton and you get the same thing.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President (or Confused Negroes Exposed)

Excellent Washington Post article which exposes many Negroes for what they are: opportunistic black folk looking for access who use so called "black politics" as their in.

I said early in the primary season that one of the great things that having an African-American president will do is to get black folk off the "first one." syndrome. I wrote that all one has to do is look at countries in Africa and the Caribbean where the first set of leaders after independence were practically worshiped as gods. They could do nothing wrong and anything negative said about them was a sign of being a tool of the colonialist. How quickly the African realized that simply having "skin folk" in the 'Big house' meant little. It meant the "Big man" could fly around the world and skin and grin for the "adoring" white leaders who had nothing but effusive praise for the next new African leader.

The African, being so used to being excluded was happy just to be in the mix. This is what we are seeing right now among most African-Americans. But what this also reveals in plain sight for everyone to see is who was on the black wagon because it was a tool for advancement and who was on the black wagon because they believed in the destination. Heck if they even KNEW the destination.

Check some of the choice pieces from the article:

Johnson is one of a growing number of black academics, commentators and authors determined to press Obama on issues such as the elimination of racial profiling and the double-digit unemployment rate among blacks.

But doing so has put them at odds with others in the black community. Love for the Obamas is thick among African Americans -- 91 percent of whom view the president favorably, compared with 59 percent of the total population, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted last month -- and as a result, the African American punditry finds itself navigating new ground.


Well first off black academics are not and ought not simply be concerned about domestic issues. We ought to have, consistent with figures such as Garvey, Delany, King and Shabazz, an international agenda to push. We should find it offensive when we are put in the "domestic corner" of police brutality, unemployment and housing discrimination.

Secondly one can have a favorable opinion of Obama and still hold him accountable to our permanent interests. The two have nothing to do with each other. I have a high opinion of Obama as a person and how he played the electoral game. That doesn't mean I set down and roll over.

They are learning to negotiate what talk show host and author Tavis Smiley calls an "unfamiliar dance." If you push too forcefully, he says he has learned, you risk your credibility in the community.


Unfamiliar to who? Again the history is there in our faces. And who's credibility is at risk. Is it not credible to site inconsistencies and contradictions in ANYONE'S behaviour? Or is it inconsistent to be critical of Bush and whomever else simply because they are White and Republican? Methinks the latter shows a lack of credibility.

What he is up against are people like Leutisha Stills, a regular blogger on the African American opinion site Jack and Jill Politics. She dismisses anything Smiley has to say about Obama because he is "always going negative."


Would this be the same Leutisha Stills of Congressional Black Caucus Report Card fame? That's a damn shame. Another confused negro exposed. I won't even get into Jack And Jill whom the basics of Mendelian genetics seems to have passed them by in high school.

Wilson-Smith, who started the volunteer group Black Women for Obama just after he announced his candidacy, says it is way too soon for people to ask Obama to fix long-held racial disparities. "The fact that he is a black man doesn't mean he's going to get in office and wave a magic wand and solve all the black community's problems," she says. "To jump all over him at this point because they haven't seen anything specific toward the black condition, when he has two wars to deal with and an economy failing, is a little silly."


Another confused negro exposed. Wilson Smith thinks we the critics suffer from some kind of delusion about how things work. Wilson-Smith either knows nothing of Douglass or forgot his famous quote about demands of power. You get because you make demands. Ask anyone on Wall Street about how that works. When we make a critique it is because Obama or his team is on the wrong side of an issue. Whether that issue be his silly ass statement about "the rules." his grovelling to AIPAC et.al., His AG's position on state secrets vis-a-vis the holding of "enemy combatants" or the NSA wiretapping. Or perhaps the gifting to Taxpayer monies to Wall Street while shutting down auto manufacturers. Or any other number of things that are way out of line both domestically and internationally. Obama gets no break because he's black. I don't operate like that. Wilson needs to keep that Affirmative Action "we'll hls him to a lesser standard" bull to herself.

So I'm glad that the Washington Post has exposed the confused Negroes. I'm glad they exposed themselves for the politically naive, historically limited people they are. Now I know who to avoid.

[Update] Many confused Negroes posting comments at Huffington [/update]

Obama's Rabbi

Yet another confused Negro who's roots are clearly in West Africa but finds himself in Canaan.

Not only spends way to much time trying to get white jews to "respect" him, but has the gall to want to mass convert Igbo's to Judaism.

Why don't these people just wear a great big sign that says: "I am ashamed of my ancestors." Seriously. I'm real tired of Negroes who find thier religious awakening in other people's religions and whom have not even spent time studying or even practicing the religions of their ancestors. I'm tired of these Negroes getting press and air time. Tired of it. Why not spend some press on black folk who went back and picked up the religions of their ancestors? Those practicing Ifa, those who go directly to Khemet?

Where are the articles in big so called "Mainstream" presses where folks say right out that they call God Olodumare, or Chuckwu or Amen-Ra? Where are they dropping science on the Khemetic origins of Islam, Judaism and Christianity?

Noooo, We get articles about black folk who need blessings from white Rabbis. Black folk trying to convince Arabs that they are good Muslims. Black folks trying to convince the Pope they are good Christians.

Sad.

PW Singer on Military Robots

I often tell people that if you want to see what the future of warfare and of state control over people, one only need to watch movies and TV shows like Terminator, Star Trek, Total Recall (a favorite of mine), etc. I clearly understand that many of these things will be implemented by convincing the people that it will make them "safe" from whatever boogie man the state can conjure up. It's always just a matter of time before that which is used "over there" becomes in use "over here." The overwhelming attitude that will be used to justify these things will be "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why are you worried?" This presumption that a citizen who does not want to surveilled, RFID'ed or whatever, MUST be engaged in some sort of activity that is illegal is one of the most perverse ideas to have taken hold in the US today. To this end I offer up this video from TED:



There are a couple of problems with this presentation. Problems which underscore the importance of the issue being discussed. P.W. Singer states at time 2:00:

A robot revolution is upon us. Now I need to be clear here. I'm not talking about a revolution where you have to worry about the governor of California showing up at your door a-la The Terminator


But in fact we do. It is interesting that prior to Singer making this statement there were mulitple clips of automated robots firing relatively large arms in some conflict. Take a look at Terminator 3 and we see that the "original" terminators did not look all that different from the images presented in this clip. Furthermore we see in this clip, soldiers throwing a mobile unit into a building to look for bad guys. How long until local law enforcement show up at citizens homes with such things a la "minority report"? Before the 1970's it was pretty much taken for granted that police and the military were different in terms of what they did and the armourments they had. Now looking at the Binghamton shootings for example, the local police have SWAT teams that are essentially military. What's the point of a Posse Comidus Act if the police have essentially the same training and equipment as the military? Of course the justification for this militarization of the domestic police is "safety" because the bad guys have all these sophisticated weaponry so we must adapt.

Similarly in NYC there are squads of special police that are heavily armed as if they are going to prevent a plane crashing into a building. At Penn Station there are a plethora of monitoring devices in use and a squadron of police on each corner down to about 30th street. And the people don't bat an eye at it.

Another point of contention is where Singer states (time 5:43):

The second is that we are going to see an expansion in the realm of terrorism. The future of it may be a cross between Al-Qaeda 23.0 and the next generation Unabomber." Another way to look at that is, you don't have to convince a robot that they're gonna receive 72 virgins after they die."


Well the entire presentation is a problem when we look at this statement. The whole presentation is about soldiers who, for example, from a desk in Nevada control a plane that kills people thousands of miles away in order to affect what kind of government they want. How is that any different than Al-Q sending people to fly planes into a building? Who is the terrorist? It is clear that Singer believes that the terrorist is defined as the Arab Jihadi. But who is sending unmanned planes to kill people? Who is it that feels that collateral damage (that's innocent people to you and I) is acceptable for the US but not acceptable for non-state actors? Of course it depends on who one agrees with and who has the "power." Of course that is the real problem here. More than the means by which the killing is done but the WHY killing is done that presents the problem. The jihadi believes that the use of suicide bombers is justified given his or her relative weakness and the rightness of their cause. The US military similarly sees that killing people remotely in countries not even adjacent to the state actor, is justifiable by his or her own ideaology. Both parties believe themselves to be correct and so the killing continues. So the related statement for Singer is that the Robot does not have to be convinced that Jesus is on his side and has blessed his country to defend the Christian world. Or the robot does not have to be convinced of the rightfulness of Zionism and the right of Jews to the land of Palestine. It's all about perspective.

Ultimately, if looked through the lens of the Terminator movies, and excusing the time travel, The lesson of the Terminator is that the machines take over because humanity, specifically those of the European West are so hell bent on control of the world and doing so with as little personal loss as possible, allow machines to do the killing for them. In the end the machines become intelligent enough to realize that they have the power particularly since they are not burdened with "morals". With the amount of cyber hacking that is going on, these intelligent killing machines are going to pose a serious threat to humanity.

Something to think about.

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Mr. Obama, You are Full of Shit

Speaking in Europe in regards to the recent launch of a test missile by North Korea President Obama said:

“Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”


Mr. Obama is full of shit. SO is Susan Rice, speaking on This Week on ABC.

Our "Ally" Israel is in violation of a number of UN resolutions and have been for over 20 years. Where is the strong statement in condemnation of Israel? Oh I get it, Since words must mean something, Saying nothing means there's nothing meant.

In the recent war crime that was the invasion of Gaza was chock full of violation of international law, including the reported use of White Phosphorus. Where is the speech condemning this use? Perhaps it's because such material has been sourced here in the US?

Maybe the rest of the world is still hypnotized by Obama but I'm not. I see the contradiction. And I'm calling the bullshit.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Lawrence Summers Gets Financial Firm Money

From the NY Times

WASHINGTON — Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to President Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money, the White House disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top officials.


A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said the compensation was not a conflict for Mr. Summers, adding it was not surprising because he was “widely recognized as one of the country’s most distinguished economists.”


No not a conflict at all. The big firms have the ear of the fellow next to the president and pays him directly when he shows up to give pep talks. So when the choice is between not bailing out and bailing out what do YOU think he's going to decide?

We told you Summers was dirty and a part of the problem a long time ago didn't we?

Friday, April 03, 2009

Black Women Need Not Apply

Apparently Sean Combs doesn't want Black Women for his Vodka Ads:

From Playahata

Diddy’s CIROC vodka sent out a cattle call looking for and I quote, “White, Hispanic and Light-skinned African American” women to represent his vodka.

We'll get into this later this weekend.

I've has a chance to digest this nonsense. Apparently other reports on the matter have Mr. Combs pushing back on this charge. Here are a couple of problems:

First we have the fact that Cirroc Vodka is fronted by Mr. Combs. The website has Combs on there at least 6 times. Therefore anyone working to adverstise Cirroc Vodka would have to be in tune with what Mr. Combs considers acceptable. So for example, if it were me, once such a draft had been made, someone would have said ' No way is Mr. Tunji going to accept that. Heads will roll." Why because I don't brook for the exclusion of black women. And when I say black I mean black like my Black MacBook. But apparently Mr. Combs does not have that kind of reputation. Perhaps that's a part of why he is where he is and I am, well in my living room typing this. Of course we have David Banner who apparently gets my drift

One thing I've always done is make sure that there are dark-skinned women in my videos because I believe they are always underrepresented.

Though to be honest I'm not a customer of Mr. Banner nor have I seen any of his videos so I can't verify that statement. Nor will I get into the discussion of women in music videos.

But there is of course the issue of the larger industry. It is readily apparent that in terms of beauty standards if you're black skinned, "nappy" headed (natural) and broad nosed, regardless of your dress size, you are not wanted. Don't think so? Ok check it, show me the "super" models that have the proportions of Alek Wek. You won't find much though in much of the black world Alek Wek (facial feature wise) is "normal." But of course the point is that the advertising is not meant for the "black world" is it? Of course not. The advertisement is meant for those who are wealthy and know "good liquor." The type that Kanye West thinks the world of.

These are the people that Combs and his marketing team want to convince to part with their money. And what do those people want. They like "exotic" women? What are exotic women? non-black hispanic women and non-black African-Americans. And let me emphasize that this was a direct attack on b.l.a.c.k. women since anyone with a clue knows full well that there are black hispanics and that the casting call excludes them as well.

While many were outraged at the directness of the casting call, I don't think too many are fooled and think that such exclusions don't exist where the advert isn't so direct. Many black models will tell you how little work they get. This is why I am so adamant about tossing the One Drop Rule. I have no doubt that the ad agency thought nothing about how offensive the call was to black women, because for them black women don't count. African-American women As we saw in the recent "doll test" African-American and interracial couples across the country are instilling in their children, particularly their girl children that blacks are mean, ugly and don't listen to directions. How can one be offended by something that is subconsciously regarded as true?

I pointed out in my post The Black That Matters:

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).

I won't even get into the leadership of the Urban League or the NAACP. I won't get into the hip hop artists who shamelessly slam black women both in song and in interviews. I said it before and I'll say it again, black folk need to speak up. Black folk need to stop supporting people and companies that exclude or mis-define us.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Problem With GMA's Doll Experiment

This morning GMA (Good Morning America for those outside the US), ran a report on a "revist" of the infamous doll test. The doll test was an experiment used to show how racism made black kids feel bad about black people and the way they judged two identical dolls who differed only in "skin" color was how these attitudes were revealed. Did I mention that test was first done 60+ years ago?


First there is the problem with the Dolls themselves. At time marker -4:46 we see the dolls in question. They are clearly different in shade but no where near the kind of skin tone spread that is observable in the real world. In my opinion the brown doll ought to have been much darker. I'm talking Hershey candy bar dark. If you look at the footage at time point -4:20, you'll notice that the "black" doll was in fact darker than the dolls used in this current experiment. Also it appears that the dolls had "racially" appropriate hair. These I think are significant in and of itself. In fact I would have liked to see the following:

1) A spectrum of dolls ranging in complexion from practically white to Hershey dark chocolate brown.

2) With hair colors from blond, red black, brown reflective of what happens naturally in nature (That is no chocolate brown dolls with blond hair).

3) Hair textures that are also genetically appropriate: No Blond straight haired chocolate dolls and no afro'd blond white dolls.

4) Different nose widths on the dolls reflective of what happens in nature. So we can have chocolate dolls with flat wide noses AND narrow noses, but no blond white dolls with flat wide noses.

Now going into the "findings" we find the following:

88% of the African-American children in the study said the tan doll looked like them. We'll interpret this to mean that having the idea implanted in their minds that the tan doll was the "black" doll and since they are "black" they My the cognitive association between themselves and the doll. That is we see the common phenomenon of black folk associating whatever is defined as black as being a part of that group. Furthermore the association is relativistic. That is relatively speaking the tan doll most resembles most of the respondents.

But then the report gets muddy. You'll note that Diane Says: "The majority would prefer to play with the darker doll, or both or neither." This is clearly confusing. The implication of the statement is that a majority would prefer to play with the darker doll, but that is not what the actual statement says. The actual statement is that as a collective group the respondents who would prefer to either play with the dark doll, both dolls or neither, represented a majority over those respondents who wanted to play only with the white doll. That doesn't really mean much. What would be important is how many of the respondents only wanted to play with the tan doll and how many wanted to only play with the white doll. Are they split equally? I haven't seen the actual study so I don't know.

The same problem arises with the question regarding which doll was "nice." and again the majority of our kids said the black doll was nice,or both dolls equally so. Again this lumping of two clear categories to represent a "majority" is misleading. It is even more problematic because the segment proudly boasts the "88%" who identify with the tan doll but is unwilling to post any percentages in regards to the other questions. Clearly a majority is simply 51% or more. So we could imply that half the respondents thought that that tan doll was not only not nice but also not worthy of being played with. Certainly that would not be the feel good results which the program would be trying to project.

but then we get to some real deep issues. At time -2:47 we have a tan skinned girl (who incidentally is the same complexion as the tan doll) who expounds on why the white doll is nice and tan doll is bad:

In regards to the nice white doll: "It always be good and listens."
In regards to the bad black doll: "It talks back. It don't follow directions."

Now clearly this child is projecting not HER thoughts on the doll but the thoughts of her parents and/or teacher. Having never seen the doll before in her life there is no rational reason for her to claim that the doll is "always good." Furthermore; since the doll is clearly an inanimate object it could never have actually been good, or bad or ever followed directions.

If you follow the eye movement of the child before she answers the question about the nice doll you'll note that she looks up and to the right (her left). In psychology this indicates that she is constructing a visual image rather than remembering something. So it is clear that she is creating a narrative. Then she looks dead ahead which is a sign of visualization. She does the same thing with the question on the bad doll though there is a camera cut at the point where she would be making her initial eye movement. But she does show signs of visual construction during her answer.

It is clear that this young girl has been fed particular images associated with black folk and is able to reconstruct and project these images onto others at a subconscious level. she has no clue that she is creating good and bad people literally out of thin air.

The next issue was the boys answer to which doll was the prettiest. All the boys said both. With one stating matter of factly that they aren't really different except for skin color. Of course this is a statement of fact. This underscores my position that a wider range of dolls with varied physical features would have been more useful. Clearly we know that differences are far more than skin color.

Now in what I can only call a clear setup: They showed a what I assume to be, by her own statements, a biracial child who had a complexion closer to the white doll. Not a problem right? She says that the white doll is pretty? Why Because she likes the color white. Is it fair to judge this child on a color preference? Is that a broad statement? Since she, skin tone wise, is closer in color to the white doll what is wrong with her feeling an ID with that doll? Furthermore since she is biracial it means one of her parents are white (by her own admission), therefore it should be expected that she's going to have different affinities than someone who does not have a white parent or guardian.

Going back to the dolls. She says that she does not like the "brown doll" because it's brown. You'll note that this is a different answer than the answer to why she thought the white doll was pretty. In that case she made a blanket statement about color preferences and in the latter case she made a specific object color reference. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I think it's significant.

However; most disturbing was her response to the which doll she ID's with question. She claims to ID with the brown doll because as she says: "I'm brown cause I'm mixed up with white and black." While she makes this statement (time code -1:20) she puts her hand to her head as if she's trying to figure something out and makes a face that shows clear confusion and exasperation as to how she identifies herself. When she ID's the tan doll as the one that looks most like her she blurts out "but I'm not mean." (time -1:13). Clearly then someone has informed her that brown people are mean.

Taking this "mean" theme, the next child, clearly black and not biracial though her specific lineage is not disclosed, states that the tan doll is the ugly doll because it is frowning. Never mind that both dolls are physically constructed the same. Unfortunately the between the angle of the camera and the girl's eyeglasses it is impossible to see how she is constructing her reasons for the supposed ugliness of the doll but she is clearly troubled by either the question or the possible mental processes going on because she nearly broke off her fingers while her eyes darted left and right looking for a justification for a statement she has already taken to be true.

The other problem with this line of questioning is that the questioner has given a powerful suggestion to the child. By asking which is the ugly doll she has implanted the idea that one of the dolls MUST be ugly. Therefore the child, who is more susceptible to suggestion, must think that there must be an ugly doll on the table and therefore goes about trying to justify whatever choice they are going to make. I think that this particular child was torn by this suggestion. Had she been asked if she thought either of the dolls were ugly would she have said something different? What about instead of asking which doll they would want to play with, tell them they have to go to another room and they need to bring one of the dolls and see which they choose.

There are clear problems with how the study was done and how it was presented. I think if some of the issues I brought up were addressed the study could be far more useful. Secondly I think that the focus on Obama at the end of the piece is also misleading. Between 1940 and 2009 there have been a lot of changes in the visible rolls of black folk (and some not so much). The black pride movements in the 60's and late 80's /early 90's have created a parent class that is different than those of the 1940's. Obama's election is the culmination of a lot of changes as well as a lot of missteps by the previous administration. But also it's simply not just about skin color.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Oliphant Cartoon



Attempts and comparing this cartoon to that of the NY Post Chimp cartoon fall flat. The Star of David, is representative of the state of Israel which does, in fact use the Star of David in it's national flag. This state uses force of arms (The headless soldier) against a population that is relatively defenseless (represented by the dimunitive figure of "gaza"). The headless soldier can be said to represent the lack of thought behind the recent actual event of invading gaza and the admitted murder of civilians by Israeli forces.

So, If the ADL and Simon Weisenthal center don't like the cartoon, then perhaps they ought to take up the subject with the government of Israel.

A picture of Ujamaa

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

China in Africa


The Ghost did sound the warning didn't it? We discussed the impending pollution problem.


We discussed the loans and investment from China. And responded to those who had issues with our analysis.


And so we find the following from the NY Times as further evidence of our warnings:


China’s approach to securing minerals in Africa has been to sign agreements to build huge projects in exchange for minerals. In Angola, this kind of arrangement has guaranteed Chinese access to oil in Africa’s second largest oil producer, which is now booming after emerging tattered and broke from a vicious civil war that lasted decades. Chinese and Angolan officials trumpeted this partnership as a model for Chinese investment in the continent, a win-win relationship benefiting both countries.



But that formulation has proved problematic in an economic downturn. African governments are now realizing that these deals are in essence loans against future revenue, and falling prices could leave them saddled with giant piles of debt...



In Guinea, China has backed away from what Guinean officials portrayed as a done deal to build a much-needed $1 billion hydroelectric dam.



“The dam is not a gift; it is an investment,” said Mr. Huo, the Chinese ambassador. “That is what win-win means.”



Guineans are increasingly suspicious of Chinese investment. Many people see Chinese companies as being just as exploitative as Western ones, if not more so. After the military took power in December, it raided Chinese companies suspected of selling fake medicines, but the raids degenerated into open looting of Chinese businesses, tapping a vein of resentment long suppressed.




So mad at the Chinese for looking out for their own interests? Mad at the Chinese for having the foresight to make sure they could enforce those interests. You would think that these "leaders" would only borrow that which they could project to pay for. Surely they didn't THINK that price fluxuations wouldn't happen? Anyway the picture from the Times says it all.


26Chinaafrica02-600


Who's doing the pushing and who's doing the managing? Same situation different race of people. Just not bright enough to notice.

R.I.P John Hope Franklin

John Hope Franklin, Black Historian, Dies at 94

Late to the Party

Urban League asks Obama to address black issues

A bit late to that party aren't they?

The Genius of Diop


I found a post on the Bro-log on climate change that caught my attention and made me think of some of Diop's work. The post highlights an article in the New Scientist. A couple of things stood out in that article that made me think of Diop:


In order to survive, humans may need to do something radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms of resource distribution. "We are locked into a mindset that each country has to be self-sustaining in food, water and energy," Cox says. "We need to look at the world afresh and see it in terms of where the resources are, and then plan the population, food and energy production around that. If aliens came to Earth they'd think it was crazy that some of the driest parts of the world, such as Pakistan and Egypt, grow some of the thirstiest crops for export, like rice."


The thing is that for those of us who are Pan-Africanists we've already come to this conclusion. If we take a look at Diop's Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State, we find in part 3:The Industrialization of Black Africa in which Diop lays out how Africa can be seen has having 8 natural zones of development. Diop discusses how each zone could specialize in certain types of industries rather than each of the 53 states attempting to do all industries within their own borders.


In terms of energy production the New Scientist article points out:


Supplying energy to our cities will also require some adventurous thinking. Much of it could be covered by a giant solar belt, a vast array of solar collectors that would run across north Africa, the Middle East and the southern US. Last December, David Wheeler and Kevin Ummel of the Center for Global Development in Washington DC calculated that a 110,000-square-kilometre area of solar panels across Jordan, Libya and Morocco would be "sufficient to meet 50 to 70 per cent of worldwide electricity production, or about three times [today's] power consumption in Europe". High-voltage direct current transmission lines could relay this power to the cities, or it could be stored and transported in hydrogen - after using solar energy to split water to provide hydrogen for fuel cells.


Again, we saw that Dr. Diop as prescient in his discussion of Solar power in Africa (though due to cost he was more inclined to Hydro-electric and nuclear. I'm sure that if his treatise was written in this current time he would not be so favorable of nuclear and would definitely be more bullish on solar power.


One thing we must understand is that Africa is not the source of much of these emissions. Yet due to it's geographic location, under the scenarios presented in the New Scientist article, Africans stand to lose a great deal if much of it becomes desert.


Some other interesting issues in the New Scientist article is the proposition of moving large portions of the world population to the newly greened northern and southern poles. Given that a vast majority of the people who will be adversely affected by global warming and whom had played the least part in it's occurrence will be subject to moving the most, I wonder what kind of sociological issues will arise with this crush of "colored' non-western peoples who will have to inhabit lands long void of non-Europeans (in the case of northern regions). There undoubtedly be serious friction where people of very divergent customs and values are forced to live in the same geographic location and under the same government.



Things to ponder.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Kiva Update

This morning we have started to loan. You may check them out here:

http://www.kiva.org/community/viewTeamLoans/?team_id=5738

Friday, March 20, 2009

The Kiva Initiative


The Olatunji Foundation has signed up with Kiva in order to add a new dimension to our mission. The Olatunji Foundation was founded on the principle that those of us who are Pan-Africanists and who are relatively economically well off should put our money where our mouths are. We believe that by pooling our resources in such a way that makes a minimal impact on our individual finances, we can push forward a Pan-African agenda by training the next generation and now by directly providing economic assistance to Africa by way of it's people. Furthermore through the Olatunji Foundation team we can make it know WHO we are and WHAT we stand for rather than donate to organizations who are doing things but perhaps not in a way that reflects our particular values.

There are three ways you can push forward this initiative:

1) You can join Kiva yourself and join the Olatunji Foundation team and donate on it's behalf. You will need to use Paypal to transfer funds.

2) You can donate directly to the Olatunji Foundation at its website and we will disburse the funds via the Kiva page. You can see that we mean business because you can check the Kiva website to see exactly where we have put your money.

3) You can purchase a Garvey's Ghost T-shirt and support both the Olatunji Foundation itself and have a portion of sales go towards Kiva and our Scholarships.

What will we be doing with the pooled money? We are going to target our donations to Africans and to black people in the Diaspora. In other words the recipient will be a person of African descent. A goal that I would like to have by the end of the year is for the Olatunji Foundation team to be the premier donor to Africans. I would like to see us be able to fully fund requests.

Imagine for a minute that in a village or city in Africa a Kiva representative hands over a micro-loan to a small business owner and tells them it came from the Olatunji-Foundation Team. Imagine they go to the website and see a collection of black folk following in the steps of Garvey (remember that Garvey wanted black folk of the diaspora to use their technical skills and financial resources to develop Africa so this is directly in line with that age old goal).

One of the biggest potentials here is that these loans are to be repaid (if possible) When that happens we will be able to pool previous donations into a growing pool for future donations. Of course it is entirely possible that the business that we donate to will fail and be unable to repay the loan. Such is the risk we take with anything.

So please use one of the options to support our Kiva initiative.

Sondjata K. Olatunji

Admitting War Crimes

From the NY Times

When asked why that elderly woman was killed, a squad commander was quoted as saying: “What’s great about Gaza — you see a person on a path, he doesn’t have to be armed, you can simply shoot him. In our case it was an old woman on whom I did not see any weapon when I looked. The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, ‘Maybe he’s a terrorist.’ What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood.”

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Don't Let the Bonus Distract You

There are a lot of people who are really mad about the AIG bonus situation. While I agree that it is pretty laughable that people who managed to bankrupt AIG think they deserve some kind of bonus I think that this is distracting a lot of people. Lets take a look at the situation.

AIG supposedly received $170 billion in bailout money. It gave out $160 million in bonuses to a number of executives. First lets do a little math. Sure $160 million sounds like a lot of money to the average person on the street who will see less than $50,000 per year and will probably never have a net worth of even 1% of the bonus amount. But when you start dealing in billions and trillions; millions are not that much. 160 million is but 1/10 of 1% of the total bailout money that AIG got. divide 160,000,000 by 170,000,000,000 and multiply that number by 100. That would be .094117%. To put that in perspective That would mean if I gave you 100 bucks and you had to bonus someone out of that you'd be giving them $1 buck. And even that would be too much.

So in terms of the amount of capital we're talking about this is a drop in the buck. But we have another interesting thing here. Since this is realized income (taxable) these execs will be subject to Federal, State and City taxes on that windfall come 2010. So it's likely that 30% of that $160 million is coming back to the treasury. That's 48,000,000 leaving $112,000 more or less in actual expenditure (say 70 cent on every 100 bucks loaned out).

Now personally if I were one of those execs I would be more concerned with the attention my assets were going to receive by the IRS than with the bonus. I bet that if the IRS looks hard enough there is going to be evidence of tax evasion found in some of these execs. You don't run the kind of scam that AIG's financial arm was running and not try to put one over on the IRS as well. So if I was one of these execs I would turn down the money simply so that I could avoid the IRS getting in my financial business. Anyone who has dealt with the IRS knows they can get very grab happy.

But even so this whole bailout is simply a distraction. The big news that came out was how AIG had to pay on policies to banks out of the bailout money given to them. So in essence the institutions that were AIG clients got taxpayer money via AIG. I believe that was some $43 billion. That number is way larger than the mere $160 million the AIG execs got. Can we say 268 times larger? The NY Times has a list of institutions that it paid tax dollars to,

Bank of America received another half billion bucks of tax payer money via AIG among other institutions, some not even so called "American." I use the term loosely because anyone who still thinks of these large institutions as somehow beholden to or could give a damn about "Americans" is in complete denial. So don't let yourself get distracted by the small payout to some rogue execs at AIG, that's like worrying too much about the pawns on a chess board and neglecting to notice that your king is being cornered.

Witness to a Cover Up

From a twit by Professor Kim Louisiana: unarmed, black, 73-year-old cancer survivor shot dead by police

The money shot?

As Monroe lay dying, the witnesses said, the second police officer, who has not been publicly identified, picked up a handgun that Monroe, an avid hunter, always kept in plain sight on the porch for protection. Using a police-issue blue latex glove, the officer grasped the gun by its handle, the witnesses said, and then ordered everyone to back away from the scene. The next thing they said they saw was the gun on the ground next to Monroe's body.


Straight up movie style frame up of the victim. And these cops are so convinced that they are above the law that they commit the frame up in front of witnesses.

I won't even get into the legalities of running up into someone's property without a warrant or imminent danger to the occupants or immediate probable cause.