Still Free

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

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Sure They Can Have E-Mail

Ars Technica

The US Treasury Department today relaxed export regulations against Iran, Sudan, and Cuba, allowing US companies to provide instant messaging, e-mail, and social networking services to those countries. The goal is to ensure that citizens can "exercise their most basic rights," said Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin.


And not because we'd like to be able to intercept internet communication that goes through US based servers of these US based companies. No. Not that.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Follow up on Nigerian Riots

In January, Rev. Kwashi argued in an essay for Christianity Today magazine — headlined, “In Jos We Are Coming Face to Face in Confrontation with Satan” — that violence in the region was not motivated by religious differences, writing: “those who have in the past used violence to settle political issues, economic issues, social matters, intertribal disagreements, or any issue for that matter, now continue to use that same path of violence and cover it up with religion.”



Islamic values have much in common with traditional African life: its emphasis on communal living, its clear roles for men and women, its tolerance of polygamy. Christianity, Muslims argue, was alien to most Africans. [...]

“The Muslims are winning — they have won,” said the Rev. Benjamin Kwashi, 46, the Anglican bishop of Jos, a city in central Nigeria where at least 500 people were killed in clashes between Muslims and Christians in September. “Islam is growing very fast. For many Africans, it makes more sense to reject America and Europe’s secular values, a culture of selfishness and half-naked women, by embracing Islam.”


Question: If Islam is supposedly more amenable to "African life" and Africans want to keep their "African lives" why not reject both Christianity AND Islam and just practice their own shit?

500 dead in Nigeria Riot

DAKAR, Senegal — Officials and human rights groups in Nigeria said Monday that about 500 people had died in weekend ethnic violence near the central city of Jos, considerably more than what had initially been reported.

A government spokesman said Sunday that the dead numbered more than 300. The victims were Christians killed by rampaging Muslim herdsmen, officials and human rights workers said, apparently in reprisal for similar attacks on Muslims in January...

Many appeared to have been cut down with machetes after being driven from homes set ablaze by attackers in the predawn darkness, said Shamaki Gad Peter of the League for Human Rights, a Nigerian group.


NY Times

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Yet Another Follow Up

Wow. Shannon has written some more. Personally I think the subject has gotten far more attention than it should have but hey it's a slow news day.

Like my cat, I'm bored. Yawning even. I suppose I can entertain myself with this some more. Again, unlike Shannon, I will respond directly to what she said, not what I tawt I taw.

So...like her previous piece Shannon starts off again with the name calling. You would think that Shannon would cease and desist with that immature behavior.

You'd think.

Let's mock this dumbass!


Oh yeah. Lets name call. Lets encourage other people to name call. Never mind that he took on my piece paragraph by paragraph. Never mind that he never named called me. Never mind that he didn't misquote me. Lets name call.

I told ya'll it's usually a bad sign when the piece starts with name calling. It's almost as if she wants to publicly verify what I said. Anyway let's proceed...again.

He blows a lot of hot air about porn, completely ignoring that porn is ACTING. A PERFORMANCE. A HUGE ASS INDUSTRY. THAT WHEN THE REST OF US GET BUSY, WE GOTTA GO AND GET FOLKS TO UNLEARN THIS BS.


Where did I say that porn is definitively not acting? Did Shanon even bother to go through my public twitter timeline and see what I actually wrote? No. Let me do this bit of elemental research for her:


Mr Tunji
12 hours ago
@drgoddess back to intimacy: A) Porn (with the exception of the homemade variety) is staged. The clueless don't get that.


So where did Shannon get the idea that I don't know that a lot of porn is in fact staged? She made it up. Why would she do that? More importantly why are her peers allowing her to do that?

Secondly you'll note that I made an exception for the "homemade" variety. Ordinary people who decided to set up a camera in their homes, hotels, cars, whatever and did whatever it is they want to do and posted it on the internet. Scary thought that people actually have the freedom to do that kind of stuff isn't it? I'd post the proof but I don't want my blog being an entry point for that material. Let's get back to Shannon.

Nobody made anyone perform in blackface, either, but I'm not going to accept that it's all cool and non problematic.


Oh! An attempted race-gender intersection. She knows kung-fu!

Here's the problem with that move. The express purpose of blackface (performed by whites or blacks) was to make a characature of black people by presenting them in a way that the do not look and by showing them behaving in a manner which they did not actually behave. In the blackface era, these were the only representations of black people and deemed the definitive representation of black folk. To summarize it was a product of a completely false constructed social universe.

Now lets look at porn. Do men and women have sex? Yes they do. Porn reflects that. Does porn reduce women to a single stereotype. No. Oh you need that explained? Sure: You have fat porn and skinny porn. Old lady porn, Young lady porn? Short people porn, tall people porn. Fake bodies porn, real bodies porn. Male as dominant porn, Male as submissive porn. There is no one single type of porn like there was archetypical black face. Black face was only black face, huge red lips, white bug eyes and broken english.

But even with that. As much as I oppose blackface and do not participate in it, I defend the right of people to make blackface movies and for people to consume it. I simply will not be one of them. I'll go even further. I think the antics of Flavor Flav in flavor of love (there's a porn take off on it) is modern day coonin' blackface without the ink. None other than Chuck D has defended Flav for having the right to go and coon. He doesn't agree with it but clearly sees that Flav has the right to "do flav". We have the right to not consume.

Back to Shannon:

I understand that some people think anything with sex in it is saved from comment. Me? No fucking way.


Some people may. But I'm not one of those "some people". It appears that Shannon can read so I'll redirect her attention back to the original piece where I objected to the proposition that black men's access to porn was a privilege. I object to that statement because it is demonstrably not true and because it passes judgment on the tastes of persons involved. We can comment all we want on people's proclivities but at the end of the day what consenting adults decide to do and consume is their business. If Shannon has a problem with that then Shannon has a problem with personal freedom.

More from the trove of "stuff I didn't say":

Just because porn depicts people performing sex acts doesn't mean that we can't be like "dude, she's faking it.


Didn't say it. SO she can't be referring to me.

And I bet she doesn't actually do that in the bedroom.


I would assume that which someone is willing to do on camera, sexually, one is willing to do away from a camera. I bet that Shannon is projecting her own objections onto other people too. She seems to be good at it.

And now onto the trove of supposition and "can't bother to spell his name correctly":

And when guys that Sonjata or whatever say that they really think this is about two people in the bedroom, that they just woke up one day and decided to make a sex tape, that creeps me out.


Did I misspell Shannon's name? Did I? Copy-Paste? Heard of it. Anyway, let me clue in Shannon. I am "on tape". And yes me and the woman I was with decided out of the blue, in the middle of the day to tape ourselves. We watched it after. Really. Stop assuming you know what and why people do things. Seriously. Shannon has absolutely no clue as to what she is saying. No clue. Not only that but who cares if she's creeped out by that? Why is Shannon so self-centered. Who cares what she thinks. Is she on the tape? No. Then back off.

You can't say don't judge people's bedrooms when the windows are wide open. If porn actors, directors and producers wanted us not to talk about their work, they'd not post it on the net, nor would they try to induce people to spend money on it.


Well actually having sex in view of the public is an arrestable offense country-wide. So that analogy is really poor. Secondly, until the internet blew up, one had to either subscribe to cable or take a trip to your local red-light district. The internet gives pretty easy access, which is definitely something that needs to be looked at and dealt with. That said, you still need to voluntarily go there. No one is enticed to view that stuff unless you cannot resist spam e-mail adverts. Take some responsibility. Bang Bros is not going to randomly show up on your TV or your computer.

In any case no one is saying we can't talk about it. Heck the whole twitter conversation on that kinda makes that whole commentary sound, well, stupid. I shall repeat for those who may be confused. I object to passing judgement on people and making assumptions on persons who perform or consume the material. Not a few "starletts" have twitter accounts. Why not pose the questions directly to them?

Anyway, Back to the trove of "stuff I didn't say":

You see, when folks say they can't tell the difference between a fantasy, even a misogynistic white centric fantasy, and reality, that scares me.


I shall repost the twitter post:

Mr Tunji
12 hours ago
@drgoddess back to intimacy: A) Porn (with the exception of the homemade variety) is staged. The clueless don't get that.


Next:
Real sex doesn't come in neat boxes of anal asians,


I assure Shannon that somewhere in these United States there is an asian woman having anal sex. Maybe even in her state of residence.

black man on white girl


What's that sound? Oh I recognize that sound? It's the sounds of not a few black men with white wives and girlfriends having a hearty laugh as they retire to the bedroom.

or 'mature'


That would be the older sistas in the clubs laughing now.

Real sex isn't a performance


Given the advertisement for Viagra and that ever smiling Enzyte man I would have to agree that there are a lot of men not "performing".

And now for the big denial:


And his experience of feminists claming that looking at a woman is sexual harrassment is as phoney balony as the white folks who swear up and down, up and down, that black people stole their spot in college, or MRAs who swear up and down that women are poking holes in condoms and using turkey basters in their exhaustive drive to have screaming babies wake them up every single day for months on end. I just don't believe it.


Remeber dear reader that I said that there are feminists who feel seh that black men's experiences and positions are to be denied, ignored and ridiculed. I give you exhibit A. So in addition to calling me a "dick" and "dumbass" Shannon is calling me a liar. Never mind she has absolutely no proof that I am lying. I'm a man. I'm straight. I'm black therefore I'm a dumbass, lying dick. What more do you need?

Oh here's the justification:

I think it's because I hear so much minimization of male violence or at least male jerkassery.


I don't believe the "dumbass, lying dick" because all I pay attention to are "dumbass, lying dicks" I suggest Shannon upgrade the quality of men she interacts with.

Returning to the trove of "stuff I didn't say":

I bet once we get to the end of that story of 'just looking', we'll have guys leering on the street, folks looking at folks undressing, and video tapes of people's panties all in 'just looking'. I mean, if actual rape can be called 'having sex' by news outlets, what can we expect from dude?


ahh here we go. men leering. Personally I think men who stare at women walking along the street in an obvious manner lack class. In fact I stated that. Secondly I also stated that I object to men who do Upskirt and toilet/bathroom cameras. However; I will re-iterate for the ill-informed. Public photography of people in public is legal. Period. And it should be. And yes, as classless as it is, it includes the notorious "booty cams" that make appearances after freak week and other black street festivals.

And now Shannon doesn't like science:
If a black person with a penis identifies as a woman, I go with it.


I don't. Deal with it.

Back with the "stuff I didn't say":

The idea that if only fathers would come back and head the family, all would be fine does trivialize women's work, and makes it invisible.


I do wonder if Shannon is in fact dyslexic cause I wrote:

I said in regards to that idea that the presupposition that strong black men (whatever those are) as head of household being an absolute negative has not been proven. For the not too bright that means I'm open to the discussions of the pros and cons of Black men as head of household. Lets supply evidence for and against. Secondly though I'm sure that many in the African-American community have idealized fantasies about a great deal of things, I never made such a claim. I repeat that my claim is that Strong black men (whatever they are) as head of household has not been proven to be definitively negative.


Read it dear reader. Did I make the statement she claimed I made?

I don't think being a man or being a woman is essential to the family.


It is a truly sad state of affairs when such a thing can be said in seriousness. Massa done taught this one well.

Lastly *yawn* we have this:

Also, yes, I did call out the general male privilege of "I deserve this sort of woman". Because it annoys me. Men seem to believe they deserve the proverbial ten, when they are batting more at a one, or maybe a two. I'm not attacking all black men, just the sort of black man who says I'm not dating black women for X reason, and you look at him, and say "and you're so great, why?"


Let me assume then that Shannon cannot run a mile in under 7 minutes. Anyway. Shannon has a problem with men who have high expectations of the women they want to deal with. I say bully for them. I think black women ought to have high standards for what they want as well. Of course people who have outrageous requirements ought to be checked but seriously what does that have to do with porn? I'll ask the reader to watch my first episode of Garvey's Ghost TV where I discuss the bell curve. Perhaps ol' girl lookin' for mr. 6'5 was watching too much porn.

The Privileged Follow Up

So my post on black male privilege sparked an interesting and civil discussion last night which picked up again this morning with various people weighing in. Of course as with all things there are those who exist to prove a point. One Shannon from Tenn. was so disturbed by a portion of my writing that she needed to vent on her blog

It's never a good sign when a piece starts with:

Man, who is this dude, and why is he such a dick?


Name calling in the opening paragraph is usually a bad sign. Name calling to start the opening paragraph is usually a very bad sign. Not bothering to contact the "dick" in question is, well, poor reporting. In any case Shannon was apparently perturbed by the discussion of porn that went on last night and this morning. She opens with:

I sat quietly through the whole 'it might be circumstance' and of course, the ridic porn apology shit[I think an issue is that people equate porn with sex, and the issue is that good sex involves two people interacting in a way that both people enjoy, and porn is all about one sided performance- no personality- a black woman isn't a human being with her own preferences, likes and dislikes! she's a ghetto ho! , a race to the bottom in terms of sexual acts[I can't even imagine what could be worse than the modern state of porn and what bodily features on women will be considered gross and wrong next


Not for nothing but yeah. porn is generally speaking sex. In some cases it's putting on leather, determining "safe words", getting strapped to some wooden device and being whipped until orgasm. In some cases it's women crushing roaches. In some cases it's women stepping on testicles, slipping items into urethras. It is sometimes really huge women and really skinny men. Sometimes it's really old men and really old women. Sometimes it's really old men and really young women. It's sometimes diapers and taking a poo or piss.
porn is a LOT of things that make a LOT of people sexually aroused. None of it appeals to every consumer but it's all out there.

That I was able to even write all that shows how weak the sentance:
that people equate porn with sex


Because clearly porn is a lot of things to a lot of people. Secondly that long list also shows that the persons involved are the only people who are qualified to judge whether "both people enjoy." Not outsiders. Not me. Not Shannon. Sorry. I don't understand why people are turned on sexually by getting whipped but it's not my business. It's not Shannon's either.

The statement:
and porn is all about one sided performance- no personality


Can't be proven. How does she know this? All those people, the men and the women are not agents in their own behavior. Really? There are pages and pages of online video that will utterly disprove this statement. But most people, including a large percentage of so called "feminists" simply do not want to admit this. Why? Well that's a whole other conversation and there's a lot to cover here.

Such statements like:

a black woman isn't a human being with her own preferences, likes and dislikes!


Is absolutely without foundation. Firstly those women decide IF they will "perform". They decide whether they will accept the compensation. They decide WHO they will and will not perform with. They decide WHAT kinds of intercourse they will engage in. Feminists have a term for this: agency. I wont even discuss those women who direct and produce porn cause clearly to Shannon these people do not exist and have no agency.

Anyway that's not even the worst of it. No. Shannon's top is apparently blown by the following statement I made:

I'm leery of this one because I have come across a number of proclaimed feminist who feel that if a man so much as looks at her, it is sexual harassment. Seriously. I have actually had this discussion. Simple attempts to engage in conversation in public was deemed sexual harassment. I'm serious about that one too. What bothers me is the usual loud silence by other feminists when these things are said and posted on certain feminist websites. They call it "creating a safe place for women". I call it tolerating and allowing the promotion of BS. Fact is that among normal human males and females, the fact that we as a species are poly-estrous means that "mating season" is every day of the week. Human males and females try to get each others attention every day of the week. It is normal. There are a lot of men who go way overboard on their attention seeking. This is where culture and proper parental upbringing (particularly fathers and father figures) come into play.


This was in reference to a point of black male privilege made in the article I referenced that said:

94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.



What does Shannon have to say about that?
first:

I enjoy the idea that men will magically come in and save everyone. This is a common fantasy in the black community, that if only a STRONG BLACK MAN would HEAD THE FAMILY, everything would be alright. Of course, there's not really anything we can do to make individual men do this, and if they do, there's still the real issues of poverty and racism to tackle. It also makes it seem that black women doing tons of work don't count just because we don't have penises[yes, a few black women have penises, but they aren't accepted by this crowd]. And the whole I WAS JUST GETTING HER ATTENTION mess. Really, dude, don't apologize for those assholes.


Notice that Shannon does not address my experience of self proclaimed "feminists" who have made the claim that merely looking at a woman is harassment. I would think that Shannon would want to make sure that the reader knows in no uncertain terms that she does not co-sign such a position. But no. I suppose that Shannon has no problem with that.

Does Shannon also disclaim the outrageous claims by some feminists that speaking to a woman one does not know in public is harassment? No. That's not important to her either. So half of the paragraph that she quoted goes uncommented on. Not so much as an "I've never heard that before". But I suppose that I am a straight black male "oppressor" (and a dick at that) my experiences and observations don't count. Anyway enough about me right?

So Shannon's sore point is the "Strong black man as head of household". Which was actually a critique of an earlier point of contention. I said in regards to that idea that the presupposition that strong black men (whatever those are) as head of household being an absolute negative has not been proven. For the not too bright that means I'm open to the discussions of the pros and cons of Black men as head of household. Lets supply evidence for and against. Secondly though I'm sure that many in the African-American community have idealized fantasies about a great deal of things, I never made such a claim. I repeat that my claim is that Strong black men (whatever they are) as head of household has not been proven to be definitively negative.

Shannon wanders on with:

Of course, there's not really anything we can do to make individual men do this, and if they do, there's still the real issues of poverty and racism to tackle.


In my experience and readings the idea of strong black men as head of household is a (not the) proposed plan to address poverty and racism since employed black men making wages that are enough to support a family addresses the issue of poverty (however imperfectly) and the resulting stable family units are safe spaces for black people to protect themselves from WS as practiced in the areas of people activity.

It is our job as academics, leaders, writers, etc to create and implement plans that create win-win situations for black men and women. That requires give and take and neither black men or black women get to dictate the terms unilaterally.

Finally with Shannons next to last sentence in that paragraph:
It also makes it seem that black women doing tons of work don't count just because we don't have penises[yes, a few black women have penises, but they aren't accepted by this crowd].


My, I do believe that is the second penis reference in this piece. Hmmmmmmm.....
Anyway, I don't know who's writing she is conjuring up, but it's not mine. Nowhere in my piece, or twitter conversation did I say or imply that black women's contributions don't count. I said that there are things that men, being males, contribute that cannot be replaced by a woman. And to correct Shannon's last point: Females with penises and men with breasts and other female apparati are called hermaphrodites/intersex. They are neither male or female and are therefore not men or women. And I'm not referring to those who underwent surgical changes. That's an entirely different conversation; and by the way, there's porn for that.


Shannon then decides to go further down the rabbit hole:

Assholes ruin it for everybody. You can't have it both ways. Either men can go and 'get a woman's attention' by following her down the street, making crude remarks, and touching a woman in an unwanted manner[really, would you want some dude who smelled like he took a bath in shit water doing that to you? then why is it OK for women to be attacked?] or you can nut up and say, hey, that's not cool.


I invite the reader to back up to the paragraph she quoted and look for where I excuse or accept crude public behavior by men towards women or said that attacking women in public was acceptable. I'll wait here.

Done.

Can't find it can you?

Exactly. So what is Shannon's problem? This is typical of many so called feminists. They will chuck other peoples arguments and attitudes on other people. They think that's acceptable because God forbid a straight male has the gall to:

a) Be right.
b) State something that makes absolute sense.
c) Defends everyone's right to speak to (not harass) anyone in public.

Shocking I know.

So far we have a total of three paragraphs that generally critique me for writing stuff I never wrote. Three paragraphs. Look I'm not he best writer in the world. My stuff has all kinds of grammar and structural errors but at least I have the decency to not ascribe arguments and statements to people that they have not made.

Now here comes the rant:

And talking smack about black women seems to be a special black male privilege. It's a shit sandwich! You work hard, get educated, and dude who ain't graduated from high school complain about how you're too fat!


I WOUlD have co-signed that first sentence. Cause in general I think black men get away with saying a lot of things about black women. But in this particular case Shannon is talking massive shit and I'm calling her on it. Secondly it's not clear from the language but is Shannon trying to imply something about my education or is she making gross negative generalizations about black men? And if so, why does she think doing so is acceptable?

While you're looking at his ass, and it's not exactly super fit!


I will have Shannon know that my ass is super fit. If she wants I'll send her a photo of it. I will say though that if she runs a mile in more that 7 minutes she can talk to the hand.

Anyway, Shannon's concluding statements are her own thoughts about stuff I didn't say or even remotely related to the topic at hand so I'll leave it alone. My suggestion for Shannon: If you're going to start a piece with name calling you better bring the pain in the form of verifiable facts and accurate arguments.

Ting and ting and ting.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Black Male Priviledge

[Updated 10:30 PM EST for grammatical errors and clarified points]

So I got this link via Twitter about Black male privilege. I'm usually skeptical when I see such writings particularly when they come from males. So called "Feminist" men can be very annoying. They, like much of their female counterparts, often assume that any male that challenges what they have to say are misogynist and have no clue about sexism. On more than a few occasions I've had give a verbal beat down to these "men" for making such assumptions. So it was with great skepticism that I read this piece entitled "Black Male Privilege". This piece gives a rather lengthy list of things that the author believes Black men benefit from at the detriment of black women (his definition of privilege). So how is this definition constructed?


Privileges that have nothing to do with what a person has earned, but rather are based entirely on who a person is, or what color they are.

Male privilege...is based on attitudes or actions that come at the expense of women.


So taking the above we would conclude that the author believes that Black Male Privilege are attitudes and actions that benefit them and come at the expense of women that are not eared but based entirely on who they are.

The author hedges his position by aptly pointing out that his list may contain material that is applicable to all men rather than black men in particular. There's no problem with that except that in my mind if we're going to talk about black male privilege then one ought to focus entirely on those which is extended to black men in particular. But that's my bag others may disagree and ultimately it may not matter. Anyway, on to the list. I won't highlight all 94 items generally due to my agreement with them but I will discuss the ones I have particular issues with:

1. I don't have to choose my race over my sex in political matters.


Well that's not necessarily true. But my position is that black women have allowed themselves to be put in a position where they are being asked to assert gender over race. I believe that to be a setup by the larger white feminist movement that sought to align themselves with "women of color" as a political means of expanding their base. We could also easily ask "which" political matters? This question can only arise IF one defines issues of race as being EXCLUSIVE of issues of gender. If one does not buy into such an exclusion then such a position then such choices as presented above do not exist. Thus it is my position that instead of being a privilege of men it is a self-imposed burden black women have taken on at the behest of white feminists.

2. When I read African American History textbooks, I will learn mainly about black men.


That may be true but I don't see how this is a privilege and not an accident of circumstance. Circumstantially Black Men have been afforded the privilege of public leadership within Anti-Slavery movements and Black women were not by the circumstances of slavery. Secondly as with any "Celebrity" culture of history people not at the center of attention are often left out of the picture. For example Harriet Tubman is THE icon of the underground railroad. How many of us know of the men and women who helped maintain that system? That's the point. I'm not prepared to accept accident of circumstance as privilege. Furthermore this privilege depends entirely upon who's history book is being used. Many such books are not created by black people. Thus this supposed privilege is perhaps really something that does not benefit black men or women and is arguably a tool of oppression of both.

3. When I learn about the Civil Rights Movement & the Black Power Movements, most of the leaders that I will learn about will be black men.


I believe this position falls in the same trap as item 2. In fact IMHO there are more visible women of the Civil Rights era than there are from any previous era in African-American hostory. Is it equitable (not equal there is a difference)? Probably not but I see scholars posting a lot of material on a lot of "in the shadows" people of either gender.

5. I will be taken more seriously as a political leader than black women.


I'm 50/50 on this one. Might be my own bias but I take the value of political leadership based on the soundness of the arguments a person puts forth and the strength of their program. I see a lot of female political leaders who IMHO are more serious than many if not most of the men. That may be my own bias though. What I do think is important here is that males are by nature far more aggressive than females. Most people don't like hearing that but it's the truth. So a lot of that "seriousness" is a result of acknowledging powerful presences. That's a sociological argument that could be had. I'm willing to have it hence my 50/50 position.

6. Despite the substantial role that black women played in the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement, currently there is no black female that is considered a "race leader".


There are a number of reasons for this. First is purely circumstantial. Since the author pointed out the lack of women in positions of visible leadership in the past it would make sense that as race became neutered as a leadership roll that the last remaining "race leaders" would be male. Secondly though, African-Americans have themselves to blame. We have collectively decided to neuter race arguments and race advocacy in general in favor of "diversity" and other wishy-washy, kumby-ya ideologies. Is it any shock then that race leadership of any kind is a dying breed? That said, in the more "radical" commmunities there are many females who are considered leaders. It's all in where you look.

7. I can live my life without ever having read black feminist authors, or knowing about black women's history, or black women's issues.


I agree you can go without reading black feminist authors, but the last two points are completely false today. Will the average Jamaal know black women's history in and out? Will they know every black women's issues in and out. No. But they also will not know black history in and out. The advent of mass media and the internet all but guarantees that black men well have some women's issues brought to their attention be it HIV, breast cancer, family leave, etc.

8. I can be a part of a black liberation organization like the Black Panther Party where an "out" rapist Eldridge Cleaver can assume leadership position.


What year is this?

11. I have the ability to define black women's beauty by European standards in terms of skin tone, hair, and body size. In comparison, black women rarely define me by European standards of beauty in terms of skin tone, hair, or body size.


Oh special pet peeve of mine. I hate, hate, hate the fact that black "Feminists" are on this "It's cool to be obese" trip. It is so out of line. This fellow needs to get off this wagon. It is totally unacceptable to buy into the fashion mag argument. The fashion industry with it's plethora of gay males appear to love underdeveloped women. If the author was not so fixated on white folks he would notice that the average straight black man loves him some thick. And let me be clear: thick not obese. We can argue the cultural implications of that but for the purposes of this piece anybody male or female who sets up the fit= European argument ought to be taken out back and caned.

Onto the other points. I'm not clear that judging a black woman (or any woman for that matter) based on the traits of another race of people is a privilege. I'd say it's a sign of self-hate if anything. Secondly since my experience shows the opposite to the author in regards to how black men are measured, I think he's wrong.I mean I've heard enough about black men who are "too black". I've heard enough about light skinned "pretty boys" and how some men are not suitable for reproduction cause the child may come out too dark and with "bad hair". Seriously. This point is so out of order.

12. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of having my hair conforming to any standard image of beauty the way black women do.


No sir. I just cut most of it off. Try climbing that corporate ladder with natty dreds or a huge 'fro. Anyone see that CEO of Xerox? Black woman with *gasp* natural hair. So I think this point fails the priv. test simply due to the fact that black men do in fact have to live up to hair standards. The fact is though is that men and women are different. Different is good. Different is OK. Black women don't have to shave their faces. I could moan about that but I don't. How about we accept that men and women have different grooming requirements and it is what it is.

13. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of being terrorized by the fear of gaining weight. In fact, in many instances bigger is better for my sex.

14. My looks will not be the central standard by which my worth is valued by members of the opposite sex.


I covered this before. I brook no excuses for men and women who are lazy and lack the will power to not eat junk and not exercise. I will repeat this for the hard of understanding: Men are visual creatures. It is hard wired that men respond to the physical first. Since we live in a monogamous society (yes I'm laughing too), that means it is the woman's job to keep that physical right. Deal with it. This is nature. Not privilege. Nature. Stop fighting nature.

Now we get to my absolute favorite part, sex. It is par for the course in most feminist commentary to discuss porn and to cast aspersion on other peoples sexual practices (except oddly those of gay men and women). The author goes in here as well:

15. I can purchase pornography that typically shows men defile women by the common practice of the "money shot.”
16. I can believe that causing pain during sex is connected with a woman's pleasure without ever asking her.


And this author knows the above how? Did he ask the specific women with semen on their faces? I know women who do not like "money shots" and other women who enjoy it. Secondly do the women have no agency here? Really was the woman involved have a gun held to her head to perform? What about all the amateur home made porn out there with wives, girlfriends and One Night Stands with semen on their faces? Were they coerced?

In the same light in regards to "pain". I know women that like pain. To give and take. There are women that enjoy being strapped up and beat. There are men that like being strapped up, beat and have their testicles stepped on. Seriously why is author even allowing himself to pass judgment on the sex lives of people he neither knows OR is involved in a consensual sexual relationship with? But this is common among feminists. You cannot judge what they do or say, but they are free to dictate how heterosexual men should enjoy themselves.

18. When it comes to sex if I say "No", chances are that it will not be mistaken for “Yes".


I think experience would show the author to be incorrect. I think it is unspoken but if a man says no to a woman who has decided that she wants him, that "no" is not taken seriously.

19. If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.


I'm not so sure about this one. Clearly the man is not going to be questioned about how he was dressed, but I have heard on multiple occasions men who were accused of rape being told what they ought not to have done (or who they ought not to have done). In fact men, if raped (yes it happens) are usually not believed or ridiculed for being gay. Men who are accused of rape can be and often are arrested and jailed simply on a woman's say so. So in this case I think the "privilege" here is largely moot. A woman may be questioned about her "judgment" but the legal system is particularly good at protecting her and her identity.

20. I can use sexist language like bonin’, laying the pipe, hittin-it, and banging that convey images of sexual acts based on dominance and performance.


Sexist by who's judgement? Here we go again with the dictation of other people's (usually straight men's) speech. Sorry I don't buy that. Cause clearly then if a woman tells me to F**K HER GOOD. she's being sexist right?

21. I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.


First: What year is this? Polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Second: Why is Polygamy sexist? Who made that determination? Oh right. If certain women don't like something, there it is.

22. In general, I prefer being involved with younger women socially and sexually

Lets see.. By nature women are in their prime breeding years in their late teens and early 20's. So the problem with this is what? Oh that's right we don't like nature. Nature's privilege. I'm going to agree with the author it is a male priv. And I don't see a problem with it. It would behoove women to understand nature and snag their desired male early the way nature intended. Failing that, they know the consequences. The choice is theirs. Don't you love a society with free choice? Hey look. I'm 'Old". I deal with the fact that certain women are now "off limits". I don't whine about it.

24. I have easy access to pornography that involves virtually any category of sex where men degrade women, often young women...26. When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.


More with the porn BS. Again the author clearly is not aware of the length a breadth of the available material out there in which men and women are on the giving and receiving end of what most of us would consider degrading experiences. It's not the position of any of us to pass judgment on what consenting adults decide to do, record and make available to other consenting adults.

27. I come from a tradition of humor that is based largely on insulting and disrespecting women; especially mothers.
28. I have the privilege of not having black women, dress up and play funny characters- often overweight- that are supposed to look like me for the entire nation to laugh.
29. When I go to the movies, I know that most of the leads in black films are men. I also know that all of the action heroes in black film are men.


I don't quite get how 27 and 28 are privileges. Someone will need to explain those to me. I see how they are degrading to black women I just don't see how they are privileges to the sons of said women. On 29 all I can say is that not all leads are created equal. I have major issues with the characters that many black men play on TV.

36. Many of my favorite movies include images of strength that do not include members of the opposite sex and often are based on violence.

37. Many of my favorite genres of films, such as martial arts, are based on violence.


I'm split here. I don't see the problem with men seeking out and "fetishising" movies and other images that re-enforce their self images (real, perceived or desired) as alpha males. That is natural. Just as I would not have a problem with women seeking out and fetishising movies that affirm themselves in whatever means they see fit. I'll agree with the author in regards to violence, but again it should be understood that by nature the male of the species is aggressive and seeks out aggressive displays in order to promote himself to women and establish himself among other males. I don't think there is a problem with that because I don't believe in fighting nature. Should women be shown being violent and aggressive? That's a discussion I'm willing to have but I believe that by and large you'll find a widespread distaste for that. So I'm split on this one.

38. I have the privilege of popularizing or consuming the idea of a thug, which is based on the violence and victimization of others with virtually no opposition from other men.


I don't see this as a privilege. I see this as a cold calculated hit against the black male to lead to jail and a means to trick black women into devaluing true black manhood.

39. I have the privilege to define black women as having "an attitude" without referencing the range of attitudes that black women have.
40. I have the privilege of defining black women's attitudes without defining my attitudes as a black man.


Maybe it's a summary statement but I think the author knows exactly what is meant by "attitude." Yes it's a generalization, but I believe it is a generalization within' cultural context.

41. I can believe that the success of the black family is dependent on returning men to their historical place within the family, rather than in promoting policies that strengthen black women's independence, or that provide social benefits to black children.


Not sure how this is a privilege but I'll go with it. The problem here is twofold:

1) A feminist journal recently showed that African-American men (who they interviewed) were most likely to hold egalitarian attitudes towards gender. Shocking I know.

2) The author's position presupposes that the argument for men to have this "historical position" is bad. It pre-supposes that "black women's independence" is "good" and presupposes that such a "historical position" does not provide social benefits to black children. Those are a lot of unproven suppositions.

42. I have the privilege of believing that a woman cannot raise a son to be a man.


As a man raised by a single mother I hold the above statement to be true. I love my mother and she did a lot for me, but I missed a LOT of things by not having a man in the house. I had to learn a lot from imitating other non-familiar men, reading, trial and error and the good fortune to have been exposed to stand up black men. That does not mean that having a father in the house guarantees success or some miracle child. I hold that the acceptance of father as "weekend playmate" and "wallet" is a serious blow to black manhood.

44. I have the privilege of believing that before slavery gender relationships between black men and women were perfect.


That would be the general privilege that all African-Americans have to fantasize about Africa and Africans in general. I see no gender privilege here just all around confusion.

45. I have the privilege of believing that feminism is anti-black.


Maybe not, but there are many feminists who are in fact anti-male, anti-Black, Anti-Black male and anti-straight male.

48. I have the privilege of believing that black women are different sexually than other women and judging them negatively based on this belief.


Different how? Seriously I'm confused by this one.

49. I will make significantly more money as a professional athlete than members of the opposite sex will.


Business really. In business professional athletics the salaries are directly related to the money an organization pulls in. Female athletics do not currently pull in the same money as their male counterparts (unless we want to discuss NASCAR where there are no "female races"). So salaries are going to be different. If female athletes in say basketball were to compete on the same teams as men, they would be crushed. I don't say this to be smug. It's just known that males, particularly when we are dealing with those in tip top shape, are taller and stronger than females, Females would be warming the benches. So again this is about nature. I'm not one for fighting or arguing about nature. In situations such as NASCAR we can ask whether Danica Patrick is paid equitably. That is does she make the kind of money someone with her experience, wins, etc would get paid?

54. I can touch, hug, or be emotionally expressive with other men while watching sports without observers perceiving this behavior as sexual.


I'm confused here. Really. E-mail me the explanation of this.

58. I can rest assured that most of the coaches -even in predominately-female sports within my race are male.


Is this true? The few times I have watched WNBA games I have not seen male coaches. For the record I do not follow baseball, basketball or football so my position is based on limited observation.

59. I am able to play sports outside without my shirt on and it not be considered a problem.
60. I am essentially able to do anything inside or outside without my shirt on, whereas women are always required to cover up.


I am TOTALLY for a no shirt rule for women. Totally. Pass the petition and the pen.

61. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where the mutilation and disfigurement of a girl’s genitalia is used to deny her sexual sensations or to protect her virginity for males.


This would not be a privilege of men. Burden on those women, yes but not a privilege of men. Why? Men in those societies are generally circumsised as well. Not defending the practice at all but the point it out here.

63. I have the privilege of not being able to name one female leader in Africa or Asia, past or present, that I pay homage to the way I do male leaders in Africa and/or Asia.


Really? Really? I'm not even going to comment on that. No I will. Ellen Sirleaf, Yaa Assantewa, the unnamed black woman who teamed up with a black king in a slave ship to overthrow the slaver. We're done. And I'm not including the Caribbean or South America.

66. In college, I will have the opportunity to date outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women will.


That's a privilege and not a choice available to both genders? Really?

68. I know that the further I go in education the more success I will have with women.


Privilege or burden? The male of the species usually has to prove that he is:

1) Verile 2) Able to protect 3) Provide shelter. In our society in which straight physicality as indicators of "fitness to breed" has been eclipsed by ability to make money by non-physical means a higher educated male USUALLY is indicative of the last two "requirements". Of course that means a male must spend an inordinate amount of time collecting money and the like to get that status. On the flip side females ONLY have to show that they are fertile and "look good" to snag a man. Seems that the privilege here is on the female as she generally has to "do less" to successfully snag a mate.

71. In college, I will experience a level of status and prestige that is not offered to black women even though black women may outnumber me and out perform me academically.


First I've heard this one. Of course if the latter part of the statement is true, that black women will outnumber me, then it stands to reason that my elevated status as college man is warranted. If it is in fact warranted due to the "great odds" against me, then it's not a privilege is it? Well at least not an unearned one.

73. What is defined as "News" in Black America is defined by men.

More specifically,White men. Ask yourself reader how many black blogs regularly and normally report news and opinion originating in black press other black bloggers or other black sources generally not deemed "acceptable" by white press?

75. I can dismissively refer to another persons grievances as ^*ing.

And when it is then what is it?

77. I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry


Again with the personal choices. Statistics don't necessarily confer privilege. There is nothing other than the willingness of adults to prevent anyone from breeding with and marrying whoever they please. I'm not encouraging this behavior but I won't join this particular camp of policing peoples personal sexual behavior.

78. My "strength" as a man is never connected with the failure of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is routinely associated with the failure of the black family.


Question: Is a strong black man (whatever that is) ever defined by his ability to be without the mother of his children? Is he defined by him declaring his non desire to "need/want some woman."? I ask this because the "strong black men" I know (not speaking of the so called "thugs") all have as a shared characteristic the desire to have a "strong" woman by his side and to provide for his children. On the flip side I see a common thread among self declared "Strong black woman" a theme of "don't need no man." The proverbial "attitude" alluded to in an earlier point.

80. Chances are I will be defined as a "good man" by things I do not do as much as what I do. If I don't beat, cheat, or lie, then I am a considered a "good man". In comparison, women are rarely defined as "good women" based on what they do not do.


Really? In what universe? Sarcasm aside I do think that the author has stumbled across an issue of language usage. I think the deeper issue that he has alluded to is our propensity to define other black people by the absence of negative traits rather than the presence of positive ones.

That said though I still fail to see how this is a privilege. After all who wants to be sized up by a set of negatives?

83. In the Black Church, the majority of the pastoral leadership is male.
84. In the Black Church Tradition, most of the theology has a male point of view. For example, most will assume that the man is the head of household.


Two points here:

1) You take on the slave master's religion so don't be mad when it marginalizes you.
2) Even in black original religions males are generally seen as head of household even if not seen as head of lineage. That goes back to the natural state of males as natures protectors. He is the gateway because he is first line of defense. This point goes back to my question in regards to the presupposition that man as head of household is definitively bad.

85. I do not have to worry about being considered a traitor to my race if I call the police on a member of the opposite sex.

86. I have the privilege of knowing men who are physically or sexually abusive to women and yet I still call them friends.


a dubious privilege if there was one. Black men rarely call the police on black women because it is generally shameful to admit one is being abused by a female even though it happens as frequently as male on female abuse (if not in severity). I'm not sure what research the author is using but I would wonder exactly how widespread the idea of police calling as race traitor is and how much of this is out of legitimate concern over the common railroading of black males through the "justice" system for relatively minor offenses.

In regards to point 86. I don't know how widespread that is either. The vast majority of men do not engage in sexually or physically abusive behavior towards women so we're talking about a small population and it is HIGHLY likely that those who befriend such people are abusers themselves. I would hesitate to extend blanket "Black male privilege" over the actions of a few.

87. I can video tape women in public- often without their consent - with male complicity.


Again with the policing behavior. Unless we're talking about up-skirt cameras, anyone in public is in the public domain. Most people do not realize this but when you are out in public ANYONE can take your picture and you have NO rights to stop them. That's how gossip magazines and websites work. That men, who are visual by nature, tend to take pictures of women who catch their notice more than women do is not a privilege. It is a right. Deal with it.

88. I can be courteous to a person of the opposite sex that I do not know and say "Hello" or "Hi" and not fear that it will be taken as a come-on or fear being stalked because of it.


50/50 here. Nothing against "hitting on people" in public spaces.People have the right to attempt to strike up a conversation with whomever they please. Everyone has the right to decline an invite to conversation. Deal with it. The latter part is definitely a concern and a privilege.

89. I can use physical violence or the threat of physical violence to get what I want when other tactics fail in a relationship.


It should read: "I can TRY to use physical violence or the threat of physical violence..." Cause if the woman involved has enough sense she'll leave any man that first tries that. Again though I'm not prepared to lay blanket "privilege" status to something a small minority of men engage in. I want to be clear here that I object to the extension of criminal behavior to black men in general. Criminal behavior is never a privilege and ought not be framed as such.

94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.



I'm leery of this one because I have come across a number of proclaimed feminist who feel that if a man so much as looks at her, it is sexual harassment. Seriously. I have actually had this discussion. Simple attempts to engage in conversation in public was deemed sexual harassment. I'm serious about that one too. What bothers me is the usual loud silence by other feminists when these things are said and posted on certain feminist websites. They call it "creating a safe place for women". I call it tolerating and allowing the promotion of BS. Fact is that among normal human males and females, the fact that we as a species are poly-estrous means that "mating season" is every day of the week. Human males and females try to get each others attention every day of the week. It is normal. There are a lot of men who go way overboard on their attention seeking. This is where culture and proper parental upbringing (particularly fathers and father figures) come into play.

Let me give an example from another member of the animal kingdom, the elephant. A documentary on some African elephants showed that there was a bunch of male calves who were acting out. They would fight and in general engage in destructive behaviors. The keepers discovered that in this particular preserve there were not a lot of (if any) mature male elephants. They introduced a number of mature males from another preserve. Within a few months the once rampaging young male elephants stopped their bad behavior due to the interference of and training by the newly introduced mature males. The lesson is clear. Young men are best trained in proper behavior by [relatively] dominant older males. It is not surprising that we have a generation of males who are generally fatherless running around in such a way that makes females fear them. Males who into their early adulthood dress and act in immature manners.

To conclude I want to re-iterate that the linked piece definitely has it's points. Black males enjoy privileges that extend from simply being male. To deny that would be dishonest. However; we must not fall into the general feminist trap of wading into anti-male territory. A lot of feminists actually have issues with being a woman much like many so called "pro-black" people have issues with being black. Instead of dealing with their personal issues and failures as women (or as black persons) they project their issues onto their perceived oppressor. They idealize themselves by projecting all negatives on their opposite. Things are rarely that cut and dry. Lastly we need to consider that to everything there is a positive and a negative. Everything can't be all good or all bad. Sometimes things are exactly what they are because that is the way it should be.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The True Evangelical Face

Police said a pastor urged followers to attack the ceremony, resulting in a crowd of people throwing rocks at the voodoo followers.

Beauvoir claimed the Protestant Evangelicals attacked the ceremony along with other people they hired, causing a number of injuries.


He also accused Evangelical denominations of using post-quake aid supplies such as food and medicine to try to "buy souls."


Yahoo News

Friday, February 26, 2010

Cornel West

I may be late on this but here's Dr. West saying the same thing I've been saying for many months.

That’s why you never hear Barack Obama or President Obama go to the corporate world and say, “I am a president of all America and not corporate America.” You never hear him say that when he goes to the Catholic world — they have a culture of life — “I am not a president of Catholics; I am a president of all Americans.” He would never go there in the Jewish world. He doesn’t go to a Jewish context and say, “I’m president of all Americans; I’m not president of Jewish America.” But when it comes to black people, he thinks he can get away with that. That’s ridiculous. We’re not putting up with it.


Alternet

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Martin Delany


Delany
Of late I've been having some discussions in regards to Marcus Garvey. It made my mind run back upon Martin Delany who is arguably one of if not THE first Black Nationalist in the US. His book The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, And Destiny of the Colored People of the United States is a must read for anyone studying Black Nationalism, Black Emigration ideology and Pan-Africanism, particularly Garveyism.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Necessity and Invention


The women we met were growing vegetables on what they call “vertical farms/gardens.” But instead of skyscrapers, these farms are in tall, recycled sacks filled with soil, and the women grow crops in them on different levels by poking holes in the bags. They mainly plant seeds and seedlings of spinach, kale, sweet pepper and spring onions.


All Africa

Thursday, February 18, 2010

How is this not Terrorism?

Man flies plane into government building because he was mad at said government. How is it not terrorism?
Explain that to me. Under law passed under the Bush administration and carried on under the Obama administration terrorism is defined as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.


Now it's not that I agree with the above definition but as it stands the flying of the plane into the IRS building was clearly a violent act, intended on instilling fear with a generally political/ideological goal (the IRS sucks).

The ONLY reason that I can see that this is not being called terrorism is because the person who committed this act was a white christian male. Lets keep it real. If the man was a US citizen named, Abdul and had a beard, there would be extensive talk about what terror cell he must have belonged to.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Expected Bell Decision.

Citing insufficient evidence, federal authorities said Tuesday that they would not bring a civil rights case against the New York City police officers involved in the killing of Sean Bell, a 23-year-old black man who was shot by the police outside a strip club in Queens on his wedding day...officials from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not find enough evidence to prove that the officers had willfully acted to deny the men their constitutional rights, according to a statement from the Justice Department.

“Neither accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation,” the statement said.


NY Times

I say this is expected due to my analysis of the verdict where I wrote:

If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent.


Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman.


It would be foolhardy to think that the lawyers here did not have Civil Rights law in mind as they defended their clients. As the US attorney pointed out, unless you can show intent, there is no violation.

let you and I do something that "accidentally" cause someone's death and see how we fare.

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

White Supremacist Speaks

It is always "amusing" to see White Supremacist literature find it's way into the "gray lady" and today was one of those days. Hot on the heels of Ishmael Reed's take on Precious, the Op-Ed page offers an example of why white supremacy is alive and well in the US.:

a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


Oh It's so nice and convenient to shrug off US responsibility for the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It's the Autocratic leaders responsibility. And "nuclear umbrella"? Someone has been playing too much Missile Command.

Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.


Demand? Of course! The west gets to demand all manner of stuff from other people. It's a nice arrangement isn't it?

Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.


Break? Oh those pesky sand niggers! Hoarding all that oil and having the gall, the unmitigated GALL to demand we pay for it. Don't these A-rabs know that we take what we want? That old gunboat diplomacy. You will sell oil at this price or we'll let Iran slip a few nukes through that umbrella.

Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.


I've said it before. Only a person who's drinking the Vodka laced Kool Aid actually thinks that Iran would drop a nuke on Palestine. The nukes they want are the nukes that keeps idiots like GWB from being dumb enough to send troops into Iran or otherwise implement "regime change". Trust me. The day Iran announces a working nuclear missile capable of reaching middle America a whole lot of things will change.

In any case what will change the situation in Israel is for the US to stop selling arms to that country. You can't seriously be upset about Iran's actions after the election there and then let the Gaza invasion go by with a Kanye shrug(tm).

Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.


More money for "defense"? Yeah that should deal with unemployment.

Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.


Yeah they can have the real share cause, you know, people getting blown to bits while going about their business and having streets filled with bomb craters and shot up or bombed out buildings isn't cost enough.

Personally I think if they're going to let this kind of nonsense end up in the Op-Ed, then Farrakhan or Rev. Wright ought to get a piece of Op-Ed action.

Rape in the DRC

In 2004, DWB treated 270 rape victims over the course of the year in North Kivu. Today, they treat that many victims of rape on average every month. While nearly 54 percent of those affected are ages 19 to 45, a startling 40 percent of victims are girls under the age of 18. Women are targets working in the fields. Women are targets walking home. Women are targets virtually everywhere.


It's why I call them "So called freedom fighters"

Alternet

Monday, February 08, 2010

Ismael Reed NYT Op-Ed

This use of movies and books to cast collective shame upon an entire community doesn’t happen with works about white dysfunctional families. It wasn’t done, for instance, with “Requiem for a Dream,” starring the great Ellen Burstyn, about a white family dealing with drug addiction, or with “The Kiss,” a memoir about incest — in that case, a relationship between a white father and his adult daughter.


Reed is my hero.

NYT

Obey the Rules, Get Sanctioned

PARIS — Officials from the United States, France and Russia called Monday for stronger measures against Tehran after Iran told the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that it would begin enriching its stockpile of uranium to power a medical reactor in Tehran. In Paris, the visiting United States defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told a news conference that “the only path that is left to us at this point” was to exert greater pressure on the Iranian authorities, Reuters reported.


Let's get this straight. Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty has done what it is required of it and reported to the UNAE that it will be enriching uranium for it's medical nuclear reactor (for the dense, that's peaceable use) which is fully within the scope of rules of NPT signatories, and the "West" is threatening sanctions.

Why is anyone not on the Security Council even taking the UN seriously anymore? The UN is a joke. If Ban-Ki-Moon had any backbone; any firmness in his pants. He would have told the representatives of the countries prattling on about Iran to shut up.

I have no doubt that the Obama administration will say some dumb BS in order for Obama to look "presidential".

NY Times

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-8-2010

Monday, February 01, 2010

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-1-2010

Two parts. First one "content claim" video so I can't embed it from YouTube here:
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOig90PGLTo

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F9_SzJi5gw

Warning: there is some "salty language" in this video.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Upright Man



He opposed foreign aid, saying that ‘he who feeds you, controls you.’ Decades before talk of cancellation of Africa’s debt became acceptable in world banking circles, Sankara called for a united front of African nations to repudiate their foreign debt. He argued that the poor and exploited did not have an obligation to repay money to the rich and exploiting.


Website: http://adiama.com/ancestralconnections/2010/01/23/thomas-sankara-the-upright-man/

Website to order: http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0205&s=Sankara

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Boojum Hunting in the Caribbean

"However, away from the glare of the international media, a team of Cuban doctors has been working among the quake-affected. The Cuban government offered its medical expertise to the governments of Pakistan and India immediately after the magnitude of the destruction caused by the quake was known. The Indian government did not even acknowledge the offer. Pakistan, where the scale of disaster was humongous, was quick to accept the offer. The first Cuban medical team was in Pakistan on October 14, six days after the earthquake." (Frontline December 17, 2005)
In short order the Cubans had established 19 field hospitals staffed by more than 700 doctors – half of them women – working 12 hour shifts.
This was in Pakistan in 2005.
Pakistan is 14,000 miles from Cuba and the Cubans were working in foreign conditions, in fierce cold, in a country with whom Cuba had no diplomatic relations.
There are now more than 25,000 Cuban doctors working outside their country and an almost equal number of teachers
If you think that boojums are a figment of my imagination, consider this: Three weeks ago the US government identified Cuba as one of the countries exporting terrorism.
After 200 years, the heirs of Jefferson are still hunting boojums in the Caribbean


Black Agenda Report

Another Black Man shot down by Police

Friday, January 29, 2010

Fun Facts about New Orleans

Despite widely publicized advance warning, a "secret shopper" audit of the Quarter found rampant discrimination in local businesses. Bars had different dress codes, admission charges and drink prices—all based on whether the patron was Black or white.



That's pretty bold.

Counterpunch

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Racial threat puts Ohio college on alert, on edge

"We'd be sitting at a lunch table and some guys would be sitting across the room, and they'd be screaming, like, 'n----- lover' across the table," Marengo said. "I had enough of it one day and I got up and I just started yelling at them and telling them, like, 'There is no reason for you to treat someone like that.'"


I'm askin' What exactly kind of punk black students attend this school? Seriously. Teeth would be lost when I was in school if somebody were so "bold" to talk that shit in the caf.

All I got to say to these black students. You need to get your Black Panther/Deacons for defense on. I'd be walking around on campus with a machette and any university official who gave me junk would be shown a picture of the threat. Serious I would be The Book Of Eli. Quick with the blade.



Washington Post

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Comment Money Shot

From the Comments on Roger Cohen's piece on China:

It is interesting to compare China and US. Both have a single-party democracy, that is both are ruled by a single group of elites. The difference is that in China these elites join the Chinese Communist Party, but in US these elites all work for Wall Street.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Security Fools

Paul Craig Roberts latest:

One Obama appointee, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, advocates that the U.S. government create a cadre of covert agents to infiltrate anti-war groups and groups opposed to U.S.government policies in order to provoke them into actions or statements for which they can be discredited and even arrested.

Sunstein defines those who criticize the government’s increasingly lawless behavior as “extremists,” which, to the general public, sounds much like “terrorists.” In essence, Sunstein wants to generalize the F.B.I.’s practice of infiltrating dissidents and organizing them around a “terrorist plot” in order to arrest them. That this proposal comes from a Harvard Law School professor demonstrates the collapse of respect for law among American law professors themselves, ranging from John Yoo at Berkeley, the advocate of torture, to Sunstein at Harvard, a totalitarian who advocates war on the First Amendment.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Herbert: "Blacks in Retreat"

Some decades ago, you would have heard a sustained outcry against such dire conditions among blacks, and there would have been loud demands for policy changes designed to bring more black Americans into the economic mainstream. You don’t hear much of that now. Too many so-called black leaders are much more interested in invitations to the White House and positive profiles in mainstream publications than in raising any kind of ruckus that might benefit people in real trouble.


And he's to my right.

NY Times

Monday, January 18, 2010

Real Deal on Yele

But tax experts say it's routine for individuals to charge their own charities, so long as services are being provided in return. "The tax rules do not prohibit related party transactions," said Marcus Owen, former chief of the IRS unit that oversees non-profits.

And the filing also stated that the charges were "below market." This is an important distinction supporting legitimacy, according to Owen, who said that rules require that they be at no more than market value.



CNN Money


Yeah, they tried and succeeded on this same tip with Garvey.

Garvey's Ghost TV 1-18-2010

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Senegal offers land to Haitians

President Abdoulaye Wade said Haitians were sons and daughters of Africa since Haiti was founded by slaves, including some thought to be from Senegal.


BBC

Friday, January 15, 2010

A Message from Marcus Garvey


Fellow Citizens of Africa.

I once trod the earth. I looked around and saw the conditions of my fellow Africans and I asked: Where is the Black man's great nations? Where are his captains of industry? Where are his big thinkers? Not seeing these, I set about to address these deficiencies. I set about to organize the millions of black men and women into a unified force for the liberation and build up of Africa. I set about to create a steamship company to impress upon the African the importance of being economically independent.

I called upon Negroes everywhere that regardless of their citizenship, that we have a common interest in the development of Africa and to connect up with our brothers and sisters in the Caribbean and central and south America. For this I was ridiculed and framed up. So called "leaders" in America and Jamaica conspired with government agents to discredit me and the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League. They aimed to discredit and thwart the Black Star Line. They said that my "scheme" was only a means to part people with their money. They said that it was a waste of time and effort.

Now I look upon the world and I see the destruction of Haiti. Our first independent Black nation in the Western Hemisphere. I see the island that scared Thomas Jefferson and the slave holders in North America. I see the people who inspired revolution in South America. And again I am forced to ask: Where is the black man?

Where is his red Cross? His red Ankh? His red Ako-Ben? Where is his big ship carrying supplies under the Black Star of Ghana? Where is his big plane carrying loads of food and supplies from our lands where there are three growing seasons? Where is his organized search and rescue? Where is his heavy equipment? Where is his medicine and floating hospitals?

Today the African living in the west is richer than any generation of African than any other time. Today Africa with it's so called independence is no less a slave to the colonial powers than it was during my time on earth. It has been nearly one hundred years since I last trod the earth and still we are dependent upon non-Africans for basic things. We import clothes from China and then wonder why we have high unemployment. We import food and wonder why our farmers are poor. We import transportation and wonder why we have no expertise in design. So when we import rather than produce and purchase for ourselves, we find that we lack the finances, we lack the intellectual resources to develop for ourselves and therefore leave ourselves vulnerable to such tragedies. And then
our representatives must go, hat in hand to our former colonizers, with sad eyes and a smile, for help.

Yours, in spirit

Marcus Garvey

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Follow up on Prop 8 Arguments (response to e-mail)

A reader asked me the following in regards to my opinion on the Prop. 8 arguments as presented by the LA Times (they have a video here):

think you make a compelling case about the Utah precedent, however I am
curious about what you think about Brown v Board 1. SpecifIcally, I am
inclined to compare the Prop 8 couple's testimony thus far to the "Doll
experiment" used in Brown. Where African American children were given a
choice between a black doll and white doll and asked which is better. They
consistently chose the white doll, the experiment was meant to underscore
the psychological ramifications of de jure racism. It was one of the most
compelling arguments of that case.


I have written my position on the Brown decision.

As discussed in the linked text, I believe the reader to have lost focus on the legal girding of Brown V. Board. Brown v. Board is an upholding of the 14th Amendment right of equal protection under the law. As discussed in the text, the discussion of feelings of inferiority are so much nonsense used to "grease the wheel" and make a sympathetic case. Furthermore I show how even in the decision there is a clear focus on the supposed damages done to "negroes" while there is an implied statement that white students suffer no ill effects from segregation. Negroes need whites around in order to feel good about themselves while whites thrive in the presence or absence of Negroes. Thus while the court may have been inclined to make a statement on racism legally it has no grounds to base law or legal rulings on the "feelings" of the plaintiffs or defendants.

In reference to the Doll experiment, I have also weighed in on this subject. Of interest in the latest rendition of the Doll experiment as conducted by GMA, was that all the students are in "integrated" schools and one of the students I discussed was biracial and many of them, particularly the girls, still had negative attitudes towards the black dolls. From that, it can be argued that Brown V. Board was an total failure in addressing the "feelings of inferiority" among "Negroes".

As stated earlier, such legal arguments were legal greasing but did not address the actual legal foundation of the Brown V. Board decision and therefore while they pay be emotionally swaying, such emotional arguments ought be completely disregarded in regards to Prop. 8.

What I see in the Anti-Prop. 8 movement and indeed within the larger movement is to have homosexuality psychologically acceptable in the larger society. It proposes the normalization of such behavior. That is their business. The problem is that as a legal strategy I think such emotional arguments will fall flat. If they want to use the example of Brown V. Board then they are going to have to stick to Equal Protection argument. IE: we do not get x,y.z government benefits.

Although unlikely, it is entirely possible that the govt. may decide to restructure such benefits (I'm having a hard time with the term "rights" for much of what I've seen discussed) in such a way that they only apply to the individual and the individual opts to cover whomever they want. For example, had single payer been passed by the government, the entire health benefit argument would be tossed out, because everyone is covered regardless of marital status.

Another example would be SS benefits that are passed from a deceased spouse to the surviving spouse. SS could be restructured such that blood relatives or any designated non-blood person would receive benefits. In that way the government does not make any provision for married couples but married couples AND single, co-habitating, common law, or whatever are ALL free to designate who they want their govt. benefits to go to.


In my opinion the only equitable means of dealing with this issue that does not run afoul of religious liberties, is to have all levels of government get out of the marriage business. No city hall ceremonies. Marriage remains the social institution it is and would be performed by any religious or social group that the people involved wish to deal with.

The states can do what they do when people form legal businesses. The submit an application to form a "domestic partnership" with as many or few people as they want. The state simply certifies the declaration of this domestic entity. That is all. Everybody has a domestic partnership regardless of what genders are involved or how many people are involved. This would legally help hospitals with privacy laws that prevent non-relatives from access to or making decisions for patients. Show your certificate and that's taken care of.

I think the above is the best way to address the legal "equal protection" issue, without running into the sociology and cultural issue of what is and who should be recognized as "married".

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Dear Pat Robertson (and the chick standing next to him)

The Vile Pat Robertson

VIDEO- Pat Robertson: Haiti disaster due to Haiti's "pact at the Devil.

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/01/video-pat-robertson-haiti-disaster-due.html

Some donation Ideas for Haiti

For those who are contemplating sending stuff to Haiti you should consider a few things. Send toiletries. Think about it. Homes are destroyed and the bowels do not wait for construction. People need to relieve themselves and will need to clean up after themselves. donating toiletries will help to prevent waterborne and contact diseases that spread due to unsanitary conditions.

If you have the means, portable generators AND portable solar chargers are a good idea. People are without power. Haiti is blessed to be somewhere with much sunshine. people with cell phones and radios are going to need power in order to get news in and out of Haiti. Solar chargers can keep communication devices up and running. The ability to communicate is important. Generators are obvious but need fuel to run which could limit their effectiveness. long term though they will be needed once the initial triage is done and construction starts up.

Water purifiers. I'm not an expert in this field and I don't know much more than the Brita filters I use. But potable water is in need and who knows how much of the water is not purified. Non-purified water can lead to a number of gastro-intestinal diseases that are easily transmitted and are the second wave after the earthquake.

Of course there is a need for non-perishable food items (canned food). Food has been a serious issue in Haiti for a long time and no doubt is going to be worse now. While you or I may not indulge in many canned foods for health reasons. fact is that this is a survival issue for many Canned food is beats no food.

[update] I forgot to mention tents. It's near 90 degrees F over there as a daytime high. People need shelter and tents.

Really these things are more important than clothes right now. You can wear clothes for many days without much ill effects but being exposed to the elements is not good.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Haiti

YELE HAITI EARTHQUAKE FUND (www.yele.org): Text YELE to 501501 to donate $5 via your cell