If You Are Stupid, You Should Be Taken A Slave

General Museveni on slavery:

“I have never blamed the whites for colonizing Africa: I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave.”

Michelle Alexander on the Criminal Justice [sic] System

So, what is the system designed to do? It seems designed to send people right back to prison, which is what, in fact, happens about 70% of the time. About 70% of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years and the majority of those who return to prison do so in a matter of months, because the challenges associated with mere survival on the outside are so immense. This is what we've created and we call it a system of crime control.

From her interview with Kathleen Wells

Powernomics

A few months ago I suggested that the readers watch Dr. Claude Anderson's videos on Powernomics. One of the major points on a video discussing The Black Consumer below:

He discusses how other ethnic groups consolidate control of their communities and provide the first employment for members of their communities. Today the LA Times has an article that discusses the changes in South Central LA that underscore the message of Claude Anderson and by extension Marcus Garvey. The first point of the piece is that black unemployment is worse in South Central LA now than when it was in 1992. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who is paying attention. But deeper into the article we see the issues that Dr. Anderson has pointed out repeatedly:

Now South Los Angeles is 30% African American, according to U.S. Census data, and black-owned businesses that once had a stronghold in the area have declined steadily.

So first we have the demographic shift of black populations out of South Central which took with it the entrepreneurial class.

Meanwhile, Latinos attracted by affordable housing have settled in the area and now make up about 64% of the population. Latino-owned businesses have cropped up along the main corridors. Mexican grocery stores are thriving. Immigrants flock to money-wiring outlets to send funds to relatives in Mexico and Central America. Spanish has become the language most commonly heard in the streets of South Los Angeles.

Anderson has repeatedly told us what "Hispanic" groups would do when they are able. Mind you this isn't a condemnation of that group. Rather it is a condemnation of black folks for not doing what they ought to be doing. Continuing:

Latino immigrants, he said, tend to form tight-knit job networks. "What employers learn to do, if they find workers they're content with, they ask those workers to bring any relatives or friends and become more dependent on them."

Garvey said a long time ago that the black man should not *expect* other people to provide employment for them. Rather they should create employment for themselves. Who can argue with that? That is exactly what other groups are doing. What are black folks doing? Arguing for "multi-culturalism" and anything other than black economic independence. If such an attitude continues I fully expect such findings like the one in South Central to persist. Martin Delany, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey and Claude Anderson all understood the sequential equation: +i;s;e;p;m.. (e), economics, before the (p) political. (e) economics informs and empowers the (p) political.

Ex-President of Liberia Aided War Crimes, Court Rules

Shocking. Just shocking news.

THE HAGUE — Charles G. Taylor, the former president of Liberia and once a powerful warlord, was convicted by an international tribunal on Thursday of 11 counts of planning, aiding and abetting war crimes committed in Sierra Leone during that country’s civil war in the 1990s.

I want you, the dear reader, to understand exactly what this says. Taylor is convicted of "planning", "aiding and abetting" war crimes in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Another. Country. Do you understand how this can apply to a LOT of other countries? This is not a defense of Taylor. What this whole thing means is that if a country "plans", "aides and abets" some other "rebel" group in any other country. The leader of that third party country can be held legally responsible for anything that the "rebels" do even if it cannot be shown that the third party country actually commanded such actions. What do you think the odds are of certain Europeans countries being held to the same standard?

Allegations of rape at West Point, Annapolis

When I saw this article on the CNN website I just shook my head. It was perhaps one of the clearest examples of the "all kinds of wrong" ideas presented in the common conversation that dominates the discussion of rape. As I read the piece my mind went back to my January rebut of the Ebony.com piece "Stop Telling Women How to Not Get Raped". In it I said the following which encapsulates my position on "rape advice:

I don't know about Ms. Maxwell, but I would prefer to not deal with after the fact.

"After the fact" being, the doctor visits, the trial, the emotional scars, etc. This is my overarching concern here. It is not satisfactory to me to have to comfort a woman who has been raped when I have the opportunity to help her avoid the situation all together. To that end let's look at what I pointed out in my January piece and see how it relates to the events in Annapolis:

Marquet said she got sick over a holiday weekend and stayed behind on campus. Her roommate was out of town and she was alone in her room. It was then, Marquet, said, that an upperclassman she knew showed up at her door late one night to talk "girl troubles." "I kind of felt cool that an upperclassman wanted to be friends with me and was seeking my advice," Marquet recalls.

So she's sick. Some "upperclass" male that she "doesn't know well" decides to come over to talk about "girl troubles". Not to see how she is doing. Not to offer to get her medicine. Not to simply check to see if she's feeling OK but to talk girl troubles. OK. This is the point where you say "Thanks for checking on me. I'm tired so I'm going back to bed. Call me later." Anyway...

After a drink, Marquet said, he persuaded her to go to his room. Karley Marquet became "depressed and suicidal" after the alleged incident and dropped out of West Point. "I just remember getting more and more intoxicated and my judgment really started to become impaired. ... I remember him turning off the lights and me asking, 'What are you doing?' And then he proceeded to rape me." Marquet said she woke up disoriented, in physical pain, afraid to come forward.

Sick, she decides to drink up with dude she barely knows but "trusts" because his entire claim to being trustworthy is being what? an upperclassman? She's getting more and more intoxicated with a man she does not know well at all? Why? Why hadn't someone informed her that studies:

Informs us of a group of 1,882 men out of whom 120 self reported acts that met the legal definition of rape. For you math heads out there that means of the group only 6% of the men self reported legal rape. Furthermore the report showed that the majority, 80% of these men committed rapes on women who were "incapacitated" due to drug or alcohol use

Had this young woman been educated in the ways that the vast majority of rapists behave, she would not have allowed herself to become intoxicated by a man she barely knew. Had she had this little piece of information her chances of being raped would have dropped 80 percent. If knowledge is power, who's advice, given in January of 2012 would have been more helpful? Before I deal with the perpetrator in this account let me move to the second Annapolis case:

During one of he first weekends at the academy, Kendzior was invited to a party off campus. "I was like, 'OK, cool! College, finally! I can live the college life for one night." But Kendzior said she had way too much to drink, so when a fellow midshipman offered her a place to crash, she accepted. "I was like, 'OK, you know, it will be fine. I trust you. You're an upperclass," Kendzior remembers, "Because that's what they teach you, to trust your upperclass." But Kendzior says that didn't happen. She was raped. "At one point in the middle of the night, I did come to and he was on top of me," Kendzior said. "And I remember saying 'No,' but I just passed out again.

Again we have a young women 'trusting" males she knows nothing about other than "upperclassman". I am failing to understand what parent does not educate their daughter better than that for their own protection. Secondly, notice the alcohol again. Had this young woman not gotten "passed out" drunk she would have decreased her chance of being raped by 80 percent. Let's return to my January piece:

Let's pause here for a minute. If we go back to Ms. Maxwell's position that it is "offensive" and "ineffective" to advise women to not get drunk, how do we reconcile such a position with the above fact? It seems quite clear that advising women to not get drunk or otherwise incapacitated would possibly reduce the incident of rape by 80%.

I wonder if the young women in question would rather have been "insulted" by being told not to get passed out drunk around men they do not know and not have gone through "bouts of depression" and of course the specter of an STD. I don't know about you, but I would far prefer to be "insulted" and whole of body. There are folks who left this piece a long time ago because they are of the opinion that I am "blaming the victim" and letting the rapist off the hook. That is not the case. The behaviors of these males are exactly as I discussed back in January. Serial rapists, and I am certain that these guys are in fact serial rapists have a specific M.O. Like any other criminal, if you understand how they operate then you can present a less "appealing" target. And this is what it is about: Not being an appealing target. Let's go back to my January piece. I quoted Mz. Maxwell's position in regards on how to stop rape:

We need anti-rape campaigns that target young men and boys. Campaigns that teach them from a young age how to respect women, and ultimately themselves, and to never ever be rapists. In addition, we should implore our men and boys to call out their friends, relatives, and classmates for inappropriate behavior and create systems of accountability amongst them.

Let's take a look at these two cases. As is typical of serial rapists, the first perpetrator got the victim alone. This means that no matter how many "good men" there were on campus, not a single one would have been in a position to do anything to help her. Newsflash people: most of these criminals avoid situations that would bring them to the attention of other males. Why? These criminals understand that their behavior is deemed unacceptable by the vast majority of males. The criminal knows his or her behavior is wrong but they simply do not care. No amount of educational campaigns will change this. In the second case,once again, the perpetrator removed the young woman from the gathering so as to keep his actions from being witnessed by other males who we suppose would have intervened. Think about it, some girl at a party is falling out drunk. A guy offers to take her home/his place to "crash". Even if you think something is "wrong", what do you do? Ask the guy what he's doing? Exactly what "looks" wrong about a guy who seems concerned about a woman's well being offering her a place to "sleep it off"? I don't care how "good" the set of men are in this situation, they are unlikely to step in because there is no "probable cause" to do so. In light of that overwhelming evidence that "education" would have done squat for these women. That the presence of "good men" would have done squat for these women. What are we left with? Allowing the women to be victims because the criminal should have had better morals? If you like your women to be victims I suppose that's what you could go with. Me? I prefer to tell young women in these environments to not get passed out drunk at frat(like) parties. Don't get passed out drunk with upper clansmen who are visiting you while you are vulnerable (sick) and offering you alcohol. Establish a relationship with these men so you can get to know them before letting down you guards. Reducing your chances of being raped by 80% is worth it.

Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes

In what shouldn't even be a surprise, the Guardian is reporting that the British government has been hiding and destroying documentation on it's colonial empire:

Thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments, an official review has concluded...

The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman [sic] said to have been "roasted alive";...

many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".

Way too much material to quote here. Hit the title to go to the report.

Black Woman Cake?

Swedish "Feminists" protesting FGM (clitoral cutting and/or closing of the vaginal opening) by eating a black woman cake..starting from the genitalia. Artist is a black person who sees this as "protest art".

Zimmerman's Likely Defense

So anyone who is not under a rock knows that Zimmerman is now in custody and charged with Murder 2 in the case of the killing of Trayvon Martin. What I'm going to do here is lay out my non-expert thinking as to what is likely to go down should this end up in trial and some of the pitfalls that I see in the Murder 2 charge vs. Manslaughter or some other "non-intent" non "frame of mind" charge.

I, like everyone else not in the prosecutors office, only have what has been leaked or given to the media to use to form my positions. There may be evidence that is in the possession of the prosecutor that I am not aware of that will make for a stronger case for murder 2. I offer this piece due to what happened in the Sean Bell case. In that case, I thought that the charges of murder 1 were not provable beyond a reasonable doubt. It took me a while to understand that, but it was certainly the case. The problem with the murder charges against the NYPD officers was that the police are assumed to not have malicious intent to kill anyone, but rather that anytime they shoot it is to protect themselves or others. When we looked at the testimony we saw that all the statements made by all the police in that incident kept saying how they felt threatened by Sean Bell who was "assaulting them" with his vehicle and "reaching for waistbands" and that they "heard shots".

I wrote then that I thought that the murder charges were a community set up. There was intense pressure to "get justice" and the prosecutor IMHO decided on a show trial with a charge they knew could not be proven, particularly to a judge who, in my opinion, was far more disposed to believing in the "good will" of the police than any jury taken from the local pool would have been. I will say outright that I believe that such a possibility exists here.

Let me first get the following out: Regardless of what was said by the special prosecutor, the only reason that Zimmerman has been taken into custody and charged e is due to the national backlash once the word got out that a coverup was afoot. We know that the DA had decided on the night of the shooting to take Zimmerman at his word over the concerns and recommendation of a professional homicide detective. Had there been no outcry, Zimmerman would be a free man.

I just had to get that off my chest.

So lets' look at Murder 2 under the Florida statutes:

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.[my emphasis]

Of interest is the portion that states:

perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life

Evincing a "depraved mind". This is the key here. The prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind". While the defense has no obligation at all to present any evidence that Zimmerman was not of depraved mind, they are expected to present evidence and argue against this particular point. Therefore it is important that we understand what a "depraved mind" is in legal terms.

If we look at the Florida Supreme Court in regards to Jury instructions (2008) we find the following for depraved mind:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

Did Zimmerman express "ill will"? "Hatred"? "Spite" or "evil intent" on the night in question? That is going to be the first hurdle.

It is likely that the defense is going to point to three things to refute these items:

1) They are going to point to the recent rash of break-ins in the neighborhood. They are going to say that Zimmerman was motivated not by "hate" or "ill will" but a genuine concern for the well-being of his community and neighbors. They are going to point to reports that Zimmerman had come to the aid of a break-in victim and offered all manner of help to her.

2) Zimmerman's defense is going to point to the phone calls that Zimmerman made prior to this incident and say that it shows that Zimmerman was concerned and being vigilant. And if ANY of the persons he called about are non-black, they will highlight that to deflect the racial angle.

3) Zimmerman's defense is going to point to the actual 911 call and argue that Zimmerman was again concerned for the safety of the neighborhood when he saw Trayvon who may have "fit a description" of those who previously burglarized homeowners.
They will argue that in prior break ins, the perpetrators had brandished or acted as if they had weapons so Zimmerman was reasonable to believe that when Trayvon was "eyeballing Zimmerman" as he "walked towards him" with his hands in his pocket that Trayvon was armed (just like the other burglars) and therefore Zimmerman felt that he had the right, under Florida law to stop a felony he reasonably thought was in progress.

The Defense will likely argue that when Trayvon ran he was exhibiting the same behavior as the other burglars that had terrorized the community (and I fully expect the use of the word "terrorized" to be used) and that behavior added to Zimmerman's reasonable thought that Trayvon was in fact a criminal caught in the act of committing a felony.

This point is how they are likely going to attempt to explain Zimmerman's exit from the "safety" of his vehicle. He, based on recent events had reason to believe that a crime was occurring (because Zimmerman noted so called "erratic" behavior displayed by Trayvon). This is important because not only does Florida law provide for citizens to stop a felony from occurring, but they also do not have to wait until harm is done to interfere. Think of it like this: If you see a man on the street following a woman and he's acting "oddly" and you go over to him and ask him why he's following that woman, you have not committed a crime. If that man yells at you and then throws a punch at you, you can, in fact, claim self-defense and defense of others.

The Coon Comment

What could sink this defense is the "fucking coon" comment. The 911 tapes clearly has Zimmerman stating that "they" always get away. Then under his breath he says something that many, including the author, believe to be "fucking coon". I am not clear as to whether there will be an audio forensics (if that is the proper term) expert on the stand to testify as to what was actually said on the audio. At the very least, the audio strongly suggests either "goon" or "coon". We know that linguistically it is pretty easy to confuse a G and a C. The mouth formation necessary to make either sound is very similar. I fully expect the defense to lean heavily on the "goon" interpretation arguing that goon and 'thug' and "criminal" are easily associated words. I'm not sure of the mindset of the prosecution but if they are anywhere close to my mindset they will lean heavily on the "coon" interpretation. Such an interpretation, if believed by the jury would be in my opinion enough to meet a "hate", evil or "spiteful" burden.


The Point Of Contact


After dealing with why Zimmerman left his vehicle with his alleged reasonable suspicion the argument will move to the point of contact. This is the muddiest part of the waters. First and foremost because the victim is dead and therefore cannot speak on his own behalf. Secondly there is, as far as I know, only one person, who witnessed any of the actual conflict. His commentary to the media indicates that Trayvon was on top:

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

Everyone else, as far as I can tell from the media reports, only heard the yelling and the gunshot. None of them actually took a look out of their windows or doors. Therefore at best, their calls can only serve as a means of creating or confirming a timeline of events. If this "John' is called to testify and repeats this story, the defense will say that this shows that Zimmerman was under attack and shot Trayvon to protect his life. They will no doubt show the enhanced video footage showing the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head and on his nose to show that it was a "life or death struggle".

This will go to the argument of "indifference to human life" and Zimmerman's "act of defense" may be believed by the jury/judge. Once they "establish" that Zimmerman was acting in defense of his community and a "reasonable" belief that Trayvon presented a danger to it (which is why he left his vehicle), they will add that even if one wanted to believe that Zimmerman should not have left his vehicle, that since he was confronted after he gave up catching Trayvon, that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself at the point of alleged "aggressive contact" initiated by Trayvon. I call this the "disjoint" argument, where they will attempt to disjoin the leaving the vehicle from the "fight" which they will unlikely describe as a "fight" but rather as an "ambush" or something to that effect (anything to make Zimmerman look to be the victim).

The kink in this argument would be the phone call from Trayvon's girlfriend. Her comments to the media indicate that Zimmerman initiated contact with Trayvon. The defense will certainly grill this young woman. They will say that she did not hear the entire conversation and that when she heard Zimmerman say "what are you doing here?" it was in response to Trayvon's "do you have a problem?" question at point of contact. The defense will likely get the jury/judge to believe that this young woman has a reason to distort the truth (it's her boyfriend, community pressure, etc.) and perhaps even lie. That she could not have possibly heard everything that happened and that any "scuffling" she heard does not prove that Zimmerman initiated aggressive contact with Trayvon. They will attempt to get her to admit that it is "possible" that the noises she heard were actually the result of Trayvon's actions.

The Closing Argument

The defenses closing argument to the jury would probably be something along the lines of: Zimmerman was concerned for his neighborhood after a rash of burglaries that involved African-American males. Zimmerman prior to this had called the police numerous times about suspicious people, but they often got away. On the fateful night Zimmerman happened upon a person who was acting in a suspicious manner, much like criminals usually do. Zimmerman called the police. Trayvon ran away, Zimmerman pursued, putting himself at risk for the protection of his community. He was confronted by Travon after losing sight of him and returning to his vehicle. Trayvon beat on Zimmerman who in self defense, shot Trayvon. It is a tragedy. A Trajedy that would not have happened if Trayvon had not beat on Zimmerman.

Understand that an "unbiased" jury is going to enter deliberations with the idea that Zimmerman is not a "murderer" in the way that we typically associate the word. He certainly will not "look" like a murderer when he is in court. The prosecution will no doubt try to enter into evidence about Zimmerman's past arrests and behavior. The defense will likely counter that while it may show Zimmerman to be zealous it does not make him "depraved".


The above summation is why I think a lesser charge of manslaughter should have been levied against Zimmerman. I think the depraved indifference borden is going to be a high bar to hurdle. As noted before, it is entirely possible that the prosecution has evidence that leads them to believe that they can meet the burden, but allegedly so did the prosecution of the Sean Bell shooting.

Strip Search

[Updated 1:58 PM]

Yesterday it was reported that the Supreme Court ruled that strip searches of people taken jail under any circumstances by police are constitutional. Despite much noise from a lot of people, the ruling made 100% sense. The problem is not whether strip searches are constitutional (they are) it is what we as a society have allowed the police to jail people for.

As the justices in the majority decision pointed out, strip searches are done for the protection of those who work with inmates and for the safety of other inmates. Unless you have worked in "corrections" you have no idea the kinds of people that enter the system and the violence that some of them are capable of. Throw in gang members and you'll be very happy to know that you are unlikely to be on the cutting end of a razor that was under someone's tongue or some other implement that was in someone's ass.

Trust.

Say for instance that a gang member is stopped for a bench warrant from a speeding ticket. Say that person is carrying a weapon on his body. Say that because the court ruled that he cannot be searched because the bench warrant was "petty" this gang member enters a holding facility and is not "thoroughly" searched and the weapon is not found. Say that upon entering the holding cell, he comes across YOU who were also held from a bench warrant. Say the gang member decides that YOU are today's meal and picks a fight with you and brandishes the weapon that was not found. Sucks to be you eh? Well at least you weren't searched.

Sucks to be you.

Hopefully this decision will move people to reconsider their support of legislation that allows for people to be arrested for civil offenses. It was the people who elected people, repeatedly, who made it legal to arrest people for past due speeding tickets. It is certain segments of society who wish to criminalize certain speech. It is a certain segment of society that has created "zero tolerance" rules for school children to the point where police are arresting minors for dumb shit. How did these people not think that these rules would eventually lead to such a thing as being stripped searched? You allow minor BS to lead to arrests, exactly what did they think would happen once the person was arrested? Did they not know the process of being processed?

Take the previous gang member example. If the police could not jail people for bench warrants arising from speeding tickets but rather could only cite you again or at worst impound the vehicle. Neither the gang member or you would have been in a holding cell in the first place. Life and limb spared.

Don't get mad at the Supreme Court for deciding that the people running a jail are generally in the best position to judge what actions are in the best safety interest of those that work under such circumstances. Get mad at yourself for allowing legislatures to write laws that jail people for petty nonsense. There are other means to get people who have committed "petty" things to be accountable without sending them to jails.

[update]

So while I was working out I thought about this some more. I considered that a lot of people, when they see particular laws being passed like to say "well if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." I'm sure the people that passed laws that made it OK to arrest and hold people in jail for minor civil offenses thought the same thing. I'm sure not a few of them are in a position where now they see how such "minor" inconveniences and minor nicks in the Constitution can end up having you bent over and spreading your cheeks because you had the gall to go over 65 MPH.

Too Short and Trayvon: The Criminalization of Black Men

When Too Short was invited by XXL to give "fatherly" advice to school age boys (I suppose) on how to "take it to the next level" with a girl that they were "running around trying to get kisses from" a lot of people got upset with him. It was understandable given the aggressive nature of the advice and the culture of misogyny that is in Hip Hop. I caught a lot of flack from people, mainly women, for saying that the mistake here was not so much what Too Short said, but who it was targeted to. I expected nothing different from Too Short, who made and continues to make his money off of sexually explicit material. I expected nothing different from a Hip Hop magazine that trades in artists that trade in the same material. Therefore; I was not shocked by the statements in the least bit. Matter of fact I was quite puzzled at why people were surprised by any of it. I personally have bought 1 (one) Too Short track in my life (The Ghetto), so my money is and has been where my mouth is. But that Too Short said wasn't really what bothered me about the entire fiasco that was the Too Short incident.

What bothered me more than what was said was that even though there was absolutely no mention of consent by Too Short, not a few people were saying that Too Short was advocating criminal actions such as sexual assault and rape. While I agreed that the "advice" was certainly aggressive in nature, my position was that there was certainly a way to take the "advice" in a non-criminal manner. In fact I assumed consent was implied in the statement since I don't assume that men set out to sexually assault women (an assumption that the data supports). To that end I posted a number of pictures of men "holding" women "against walls" (as was suggested by Too Short)that certainly could NOT be construed as assault or rape. I heard nothing in response to such photographs.

Not a peep.

I pointed out that "spitting" on one's finger/hand for lubrication also does not indicate sexual assault or intention to commit such an assault because it's no secret that KY, ID Lube, Trojan, Lifestyles and a number of companies are making millions of dollars in the sexual lubricant market. So clearly even folks who consent to sexual behavior see a need to use such items.

These items showed that it was certainly premature to assume that Too Short meant anything other than what he actually said and if there was a question about consent , then someone should have asked him directly such as: "what if the girl in question does not want to be touched "down there"?

I pointed out that while Too Short may have given distasteful advice, there were two movies, one of which was shown twice the same week that Too Short was being drug through the wringer, where actual depictions of rape (marital and acquaintance) were shown, without legal consequence, which not a single person going in on Too Short mentioned.

In A History of Violence, Vigo Mortensen's character rapes his wife. Yes, because she put up a fight before finally giving in to a fuck on the stairs. This movie is seen by impressionable people all over the US and the world. How is Too Short the picture of rape, when his material is not on TV or in movie theaters?

In the film Infidelity the cheating wife is raped by her soon to be lover in their first sexual encounter. She hits him. She pushes him and he insists until she gives it up. How can Too Short be the poster boy of advocating sexual assault when this movie is played on Cable as it was the very same weekend that the Too Short controversy broke?

Similarly Fiat, in it's commercial for its new hot shot 500, depicts a man who is drooling over the car, as personified by a leggy white woman who is bent over adjusting her shoe. She proceeds to slap the man (assault) and then make sexual overtures to the man ( I suppose she Took Too Short's advice). This commercial, first aired during the Super Bowl, appeared no less than 4 times during the showing of Rambo on Spike TV. To this day, I have not heard a single person who was offended by Too Short's dubious advice even utter a peep about this blatant display of assault. And let us be clear, had the commercial been cast where the man was slapping a woman for looking at his ass and then pushing up on her suggestively, we would have heard many many comments about it.

So in light of these blatant examples of "mainstream" acceptance of depictions of sexual assault and rape, not a single person who was going in on Too Short could even muster the effort to bring these issues to the table. Furthermore; no one until about week later decided to actually ask Too Short himself. So rather than ask Too Short directly about questions they had about his statements many women and men decided that Too Short MUST be advocating sexual assault. I said it then as I am saying it now: It is dangerous for black men to have people, particularly our own, to use us as poster children for criminal behavior. It is troubling, in a white supremacist society for so called "conscious" people, to allow ourselves, even when engaging in righteous critique of each other, to allow ourselves to assume criminal intentions of each other. Why? because the larger society already does this and we know what happens.

So I will say with all seriousness that the thoughts that went through Zimmerman's head that fateful night is not much different than what happened with Too Short. In both cases each party took a look at a black man and decided that his actions confirmed our deepest held prejudices about black men and both parties acted upon it. No, no one shot Too Short, but by saying that he advocated rape is no different than Zimmerman saying "this guy looks like he's up to no good".

In each case, neither party checked their own prejudices at the door and said, I'm going to give this black man the benefit of the doubt. Each party decided that the black man "fit the description" of what they felt was a "bad man" and acted on it.

So I will re-iterate: Be very careful about the language you use when discussing various issues within the African community. You just may be adding to the climate of fear and hate that is out there. Too Short was fortunate, he was facing words and not an armed man.

APNS Editorial: America Needs Social Justice, Not ‘Soul Searching’

The Aboriginal Press Journal goes in on the broader meaning of the Trayvon Martin murder. Usually I can quote a part of a piece that best summarizes the main point of the piece but this time the author has made so many points that to highlight one would do the piece an injustice. Click the title (or here)and set aside some time to read. It's worth it.

The Choices

Yesterday I was bothered by a comment made by both Justice Ginsberg and Sotomayor in regards to the health care law currently under review. Both justices made comments to the effect that because the law seeks to do good by covering people who are without insurance that such a sentiment makes it constitutional. Furthermore since everyone will need medical treatment at some point in their lives that makes it "OK" for the government to act as an enforcer for the insurance industry. This, because it is "good" to cover people.

First and foremost, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to decide things based on what they feel is or is not "good". The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if a law is constitutional. Does the Congress or whatever legislative body have the power to make the law in question? Does that law conflict with any constitutional guarantees of the various states and of the people? These are the questions that the Justices are to be considering FIRST and FOREMOST. Only after having determined the constitutionality of the law(s) in question can they, if they so chose, opine on the "goodness" of a law or whether the state has an interest in whatever activity it is injecting itself into.

I am a huge fan of the Matrix series. In particular I am of the opinion that the Merovingian in that series had THE most proper ideology in the entire trilogy (well he was only in two parts). His position was that those with power determine the choices for those without power. Ultimately by giving "choices" to the masses, those with power determine the general direction of the population. Think of it was water flowing through a hose. The water will go from one end of the hose to the other. There is no escaping that fact. The water MUST flow from one end to the other. When we study fluid dynamics though, we see that there is something called "turbulence". Even though water must flow from one end to the other does not mean that the path of any one molecule of water is set. It may bounce off of another molecule of water. It may bounce off the wall of the tube. It may spin around. It may do any number of "micro-motions". But in the end the water WILL end up at the other end of the tube.

We see this in the final chapter of the Matrix. Neo, for all his 'free choice" had no choice but to face Smith and die. Facing smith was his "tube's exit". Similarly when we look at the health care law we must understand that many people are stuck in the false choices being given by those with power. Either this healthcare law works or people die. And it is problematic that the justices appear to be falling for this trap.

Mind you, I am not against covering everybody. I am a pro- single payer system. Specifically I am for an expansion of medicare to cover all. Period. That is the other choice. The justices should recognize that they are being handed a false bill of choices here. They can, if they so chose, toss the entire legislation out and direct the congress to try again with a specific suggestion that medicare for all would cover all constitutional bases.

People may be of the opinion that the Congress cannot pass Single Payer because there isn't enough support for it. That may be true but that does not excuse unconstitutional laws.

When It's Not Obama

Glenn Greenwald brings up a point that I have made a number of times, beginning with the Bush presidency. Whatever it is you agree to let your favorite president, political party or whatever do, understand that at some point the opposition will get power and when they do, all those rules and laws that you passed gleefully, handing power to your favorite president or whomever, will be in new hands. The question is simple: Would you trust your adversary to use those rules in a manner that did not threaten you? Would you trust your adversary with those laws when they could use them in such manner that you did not foresee or even think anyone would do?

Greenwald's comments were in respect to the extra-judicial (as in there was no trial) killing of Anwar Awlaki, a US citizen and Al Qaeda Sympathizer who was living in Yemen at the time of his execution via a drone aircraft.

“If for whatever reason you trust Barack Obama, the benevolent constitutional scholar… do you trust that power when it is vested in Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin?”

I said long ago when the Congress refused to impeach Bush for his blatant violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment that the reasons this was being done was because the Democrats really didn't mind. They knew that once that power was given to the office of the presidency, that once they got their man or woman in the seat, they too could use that power. You will note that the Obama administration has often used the same arguments and legal reasoning as the Bush administration in regards to "anti-terrorism" policy. This is proof of this concern.

On non-presidential matters, I point to my objections to so called "hate crimes" legislation. Hate crimes legislation amounts to punishment for thinking. Laws are not supposed to be written, at least in the US, to punish people's thinking regardless to how offensive that thought may be. This includes speech that is not: 1) defamatory 2) pose an immediate threat to the general population.

In NJ we have already seen what happens when a "well meaning" law is put in the books (Bias Intimidation) that is used in a manner not meant or foreseen by it's supporters (some of whom are actually quite happy about it and wish to go even further).

I have seen a case in NJ where such laws were abused for the purpose of a politically connected professor who happened to be in the more "sympathetic" and "popular" protected class who was up against another person of a protected class. It is never pretty when the legal system can be used for bruised egos.

Partisans on either side of the general political spectrum need to be aware of these issues. If you put a certain law in the hands of someone or a group of people that you do not trust, would you still want it passed.

Wade Concedes

Wade conceded election defeat and congratulated Sall, as preliminary results gave an overwhelming lead to his runoff rival.

"My dear compatriots, at the end of the second round of the vote... the current results indicate that Macky Sall has won," Wade said in a statement.

Thanks for setting the example.

Dar Kush: Ten Thought on Trayvon

I have literally, in my entire life, never heard a police representative more concerned for the safety of a criminal than the life of the child he killed. Never.

U.S. Relaxes Limits on Use of Data in Terror Analysis

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Thursday signed new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center, which was created in 2004 to foster intelligence sharing and serve as a terrorism threat clearinghouse.

The guidelines will lengthen to five years — from 180 days — the amount of time the center can retain private information about Americans when there is no suspicion that they are tied to terrorism, intelligence officials said.

Total Information Awareness by any other name. You have not committed crime but the government will be storing information on you. Information that you were compelled to give up to sign up for credit cards, online purchases, cell phones, automobile purchases, bank account opening.

As the US (and much of the world) becomes cashless, all of your economic transactions become traceable. Any habit that you'd rather not have public, will be stored in these databases and at some point in your life, should you become a "problem" such information will be used to blackmail you or ruin your career.

Of course, under far worse scenarios, false information about you could be planted into these databases, which you have no control over, which could result in you being declared a "terrorist" and indefinitely detained.

Too far out? Consider how the "traffic cams" that are all over the nation are being looked at as a means of "law enforcement" even though when they were first proposed it was always just for "information about congestion" or the like. Then the ticket comes in the mail and you understand.

White Sheets Surrounding Florida Teen’s Slaying

In March 1799 authorities in North Carolina found no fault in a teen fatally shooting a black man after confronting that man about his being on a public road.

From Counterpunch

Aboriginal Radyo Justice for Trayvon Martin

Excellent commentary via The Angry Indian

The Dangers of the Commerce Clause

As litigation in regards to Obama's health care law moves to the Supreme Court an old case comes to the fore to support both pro and con arguments. Wickard v. Filburn is the case that both the Obama administration and those against the individual mandate are using to argue their positions. While I tend to side with those who oppose the individual mandate, the Wickard decision troubles me a great deal.

Mr. Filburn sued to overturn a 1938 federal law that told him how much wheat he could grow on his family farm and made him pay a penalty for every extra bushel...

To hear the Obama administration tell it, the Filburn decision illustrates just how much leeway the federal government has under the Constitution’s commerce clause to regulate the choices individuals make in matters affecting the national economy. If the government can make farmers choose between growing crops on their own land and paying a penalty, the administration’s lawyers have said, it can surely tell people that they must obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

I think that the Obama administration is correct in it's position that if it was constitutional to tell a private citizen what it can or cannot grow on his or her private land on the simple presumption that it somehow "affects the national economy" then certainly the administration can tell a private citizen to purchase health insurance. The operative word being "purchase". If you are "purchasing" a product, then the commerce clause comes into effect.

But here's my problem: I think the Wicker decision was wrong. Here is a part of the decision from Wickard:

The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption, and to keep the rest for the following seeding. The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated.

In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for the appellee's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. He was given notice of such allotment in July of 1940, before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested. He sowed, however, 23 acres, and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess acreage 239 bushels, which, under the terms of the Act as amended on May 26, 1941, constituted farm [p115] marketing excess, subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11 in all. The appellee has not paid the penalty, and he has not postponed or avoided it by storing the excess under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, or by delivering it up to the Secretary. The Committee, therefore, refused him a marketing card, which was, under the terms of Regulations promulgated by the Secretary, necessary to protect a buyer from liability to the penalty and upon its protecting lien. [n4]...

Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty, but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as "available for marketing" as so defined, and the penalty is imposed thereon. [n14] Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat, either within or without the quota, is sold or intended to be sold. The sum of this is that the Federal Government fixes a quota including all that the farmer may harvest for sale or for his own farm needs, and declares that wheat produced on excess acreage may neither be disposed of nor used except upon payment of the penalty, or except it is stored as required by the Act or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture.

In essence this decision declared that the US Congress has the power to regulate what you grow on your private property regardless of whether you intend to sell it or us it for your own consumption. Think about that for a minute. Under this decision the government can decide that you cannot, for example, put a solar panel on your property without paying a fine because you would no longer be paying the local electric company (commerce). Or that because you were feeding electricity into the grid you were depreciating the market value of electricity (commerce).

As some people have discovered the government could decide that you cannot collect rain water that falls on your property because you are no longer using the water supplied by the government approved supplier (commerce) or buying water from Poland Spring (commerce). Another water related argument which has actually been used, is that the water is actually not yours and that the government actually owns all water that falls in it's jurisdiction

This isn't to say that the Congress does not in fact have the power to regulate interstate commerce. It does. But that power must be limited and certainly should not extend to what people do on their private property without extreme deference to the citizen.

In this case, my position on Wickard doesn't much matter. Wickard, in my opinion supports the Obama administration. However my position is different than that taken in Wickard. My position is that the health care law forces the people to purchase a product from a private party rather than offering the service itself as is the case with Medicare. Wickard wasn't about the purchasing of wheat by Filburn (or anyone else). Wickard is about Filburn selling and/or using his own product without the interference of government. Filburn wasn't being penalized for not growing wheat. He is penalized for his participation in growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption.

In comparison, the state, which already has a program in which citizens are covered under health insurance by the state (medicare and medicaid) in which the government pays 3rd parties for services rendered, wishes to tell those under the age of 65 that they must go into business with a 3rd party or the state will punish them. It is like the state telling you that you must do business with Burger King or else. That may be absurd but think of all the laws on the books now that were considered impossible and absurd just 50 years ago. Take the long view people. The long view.

That Wonderful New Government in Libya

Nicholas Davies-Jones, a correspondent for Iran’s Press TV, and Gareth Montgomery-Johnson, his cameraman, were arrested on Feb. 21 by members of the Swehli militia from the city of Misurata. As Britain’s Channel 4 News reported, the men were detained shortly after they produced a video report on the militia’s revenge attacks on black Libyans they accused of supporting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces during the war...

...Reporting on postwar Libya, the two British journalists focused on news that no doubt made the former rebels now in power uncomfortable. In September, they showed the excavation of a mass grave of Qaddafi loyalists...

...In February, two weeks before they were detained, they reported on the plight of refugees from the town of Tawerga who had been driven out of their homes by the Misurata militia

War crimes? Genocide? Hunting and killing black Libyans? Hmmmmm......

Carolyn Edgar Writes on Who was acting in Self Defense

This was going to be a blog entry but Carolyn Edgar, an actual lawyer, has posted exactly what I was going to say.

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who gunned down 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in his family’s gated community in Sanford, is relying on Florida’s self-defense statute to escape prosecution. Because Florida’s self-defense law affords immunity from prosecution for those who use justifiable force, Sanford Police Department have determined they have no basis to prosecute Zimmerman.

However, as more facts come to light, it seems that Martin, not Zimmerman, was exercising his statutory right to defend himself against a reasonable apprehension of unlawful force.

And this analysis is clear to anyone who looks at the facts as we have them.

You Have No Rights

So having ruminated on the subject of Trayvon Martin's murder by a White Citizen's Council member calling himself a "Community Watchman", I just had to write a commentary on the general climate in America as it pertains to the black man.

As I've noted in various discussions, the role of white terrorist groups like the Klan was not to explicitly kill black people. Rather the intention was to keep niggers in their place. Their place being wherever those whites in power decided it should be. If you read any of the insider reports of policing in any urban area today, you will see that such attitudes are still common among those who are charged with "keeping the peace".

While John White of Long Island was arrested, tried and convicted of killing a white teenager who, in a drunken rage, showed up on John White's property threatening to kill both his son and wife, the murderer of Trayvon has so far escaped so much as being arrested.

True to the American spirit, Zimmerman, like many a white man before him, claimed to be defending himself. This is the typical excuse given by entitled white men who have taken the life of a black man. Those who killed and maimed Emmett Till were "defending" the white race and the honor of white women. Indeed, in many places in America, killing black males who were in the wrong place after sundown, was a common practice.

And so the tradition continues. A jury failed to convict those police officers who, while in "fear of their lives", shot and killed Diallo who was fishing for his keys while entering his place of residence. A jury apparently thought that an unarmed black man entering his residence with his keys is enough proof of "mortal fear" among supposedly highly trained undercover police officers.

Similarly, Sean Bell who at worst was drunk, presented such a fear to the officers of an NYPD under cover unit that they saw fit to follow this man, who had committed and who had not threatened to commit a crime. Sean Bell, having started up his vehicle saw men with guns pointed at his car yelling. Sean Bell was the only person on the scene acting in self defense as any of us would if someone with a gun pointed at our vehicle would do.

There we have officer Michael Oliver who emptied two full clips into Bell and Guzman, who were, I remind you, unarmed and trying to get away from armed men. His excuse? He was firing in self defense against Guzman who was "raising his arms".

Oscar Grant, laying face down and handcuffed on a train platform. An officer shot him in the back. His excuse? That Oscar Grant was being threatening. The officer intended to only tase Oscar Grant. A jury convicted this fellow but he received less time for his crimes, than Michael Vick caught for dog fighting.

Just this past Febrary members of the NYPD ran up into a home and shot Ramarley Graham. There was no legal reason for officers to enter the home much less shoot Ramarley who was, like all the other cases, unarmed. Also, like all the other cases, the white aggressors made claims of self defense citing weapons that were never present.

And so we see that the case of Trayvon is not in the least bit unusual. It is not surprising that yet another white male has been, so far, allowed to walk around after killing a black man who supposedly had a gun. When the system allows the killers of innocent, unarmed black men to go unpunished, then what is to stop any other "concerned citizen" from making the same claim?

Let's make it plain. Trayvon was walking home minding his own business. Zimmerman took it upon himself to declare that Trayvon had no business walking in his neighborhood. Zimmerman, despite being told to wait for actual law enforcement who supposedly have more and better training (I've already established that this cannot be assumed), decided to hop out of his car and threaten Trayvon. You'll note that I did not write "confront". I wrote "threaten" because if a man pops out of his car demanding you ID yourself and whatnot, while you are minding your own business, you are being threatened. Trayvon, in defense of himself, perhaps told Zimmerman to step off. He probably told Zimmerman to get out of his way. He probably tld ZImmerman he wasn't identifying SHIT. He probably asked Zimmerman who the fuck he thought he was. AND Trayvon would have been completely right to be offended that some random white man was challenging his right to walk down the street in peace.

At some point there was a physical struggle. Remember, it is Trayvon, who was minding his own business and walking down the street who was being threatened by Zimmerman. Only Trayvon is defending himself. Zimmerman is the aggressor here. Zimmerman, perhaps losing the fight, decides to shoot Trayvon "in self -defense". This is bullshit. This would be like a man grabbing a woman's handbag and when she grabs it back, he shoots her claiming to defend himself. No sir. The aggressor is not acting in self-defense.

Perhaps the State Attorney will see fit to charge Zimmerman for the crimes that he committed but the damage is done. That Zimmerman is walking around free with a bloody dead body is in a morgue, no evidence of a weapon and clear evidence of disregarding the instructions of 911, is yet another example of the continued Dred Scott law that operates in America.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

When You Don't Have Power

Dr. Boyce Watkins on being an independent scholar:

I also knew that you can’t go into someone else’s house and expect to move around the furniture. When you don’t have the power to get your own food, you have only earned the right to sit your black ass down quietly and say “thank you” for the scraps that you’ve been given.

There it is.

American Reality

This morning I saw a report in regards to the revelation that the NYPD was doing undercover (secret) surveillance of various Muslim organizations. This included mosques, student organizations and businesses. The report underscored some trends that I have noticed in regards to newcomers to the US and their [mis]understanding of what actually goes on here.

The piece has the following:

the news is having side effects: prompting some Muslims to stop frequenting places out of fear of being monitored, or avoiding discussion of politically sensitive topics...

"A lot of families are pressuring their sons and daughters to either not be involved in anything to do with the Islamic Center at NYU, to not pray there, to not go, to not hang out with other members,"

Hunter College Muslim Students Association posted a sign asking students to refrain from having political discussions when initial reports of NYPD surveillance surfaced last year.

Imam Al-Hajj Talib Abdul Rashid, president of the Islamic Leadership Council of Metropolitan New York, says that while African American Muslims haven't changed their patterns of worship at mosques, Muslim immigrants have. [my emphasis]

I believe that the emphasized text is very important here. African-American muslims, like most all other African-Americans (those being the descendants of the slave trade, not the new arrivals) are well aware of how the government, on all levels, act towards certain "minority" groups. We know that the government, from the very top was involved in infiltrating and disrupting our organizations who's ONLY purpose was toe secure ourselves against racism and certain elements of White Supremacy.

We have read the FBI files on Martin Luther King Jr. We read the FBI files on Malcolm X. We know of the stated purpose of COINTELPRO to disrupt these organizations by various means . We know that any of us who have said, written or so much as viewed something considered "radical" or "pro black" that someone somewhere has a file with our name on it.

We know that the government on every level was convinced that the Black struggle in America was a Communist plot using "Dumb negros" (their words not mine) to further it's aims.

With this knowledge none of us should have been surprised when it was announced that the NYPD was doing surveillance on Muslims in America. As a matter of fact I would hazard to guess that most of us would have been surprised if the NYPD was not engaged in such behavior.

The problem is that many recent immigrants, particularly those coming from countries with oppressive regimes, have bought into some fairy tail fantasy version of America where the government is benign. This mistaken assumption that "America doesn't do this" is why so many of these "new" Americans are so shocked at the news and reacted just like many African-Americans did (and do) when their children or other loved ones became interested in "the black struggle": Telling them to not hang out with those potential radical organizations and people because as to not "catch the eye of the government".


Welcome to America.

What these new immigrants are going to learn is that so long as some members of their group are seen as threats, the entire community is liable to have COINTELPRO type actions made against them. The real difference between the secret police of the regimes that many of the recent immigrants have left and the one they are currently under is that the here it is far more sophisticated and done in a "respectable" way. Citizens here have far more leeway to critique the ruling government which is generally pacifies the general public. However make no mistake, the US has "secret police" just like every other nation that is interested in maintaining institutional power.

This kind of willful ignorance is how we have a civil war going on in Syria and the US talking about who is a war criminal and how the government should stand down, when back in the 90's the government sent in tanks and bombed a compound of religious nut after attempting to serve them with a warrant for allegedly stockpiling "illegal" arms (That's Waco for those who do not know). So how the US can straight faced tell the Syrians what to do to challenges to their authority is beyond hypocritical (this does not serve as an endorsement of the Syrian government's actions).

I would say it would be of great benefit of recent immigrants to learn of the actual history of the United States so they fully understand how this particular system works.

More On That Union Busting Bill

To appreciate what that means, try to imagine a Republican president and Republican Senate majority leader signing off on a bill with pro-union language despite thundering objections from most big businesses. Your imagination may not be good enough to picture that, which tells you everything you need to know about the asymmetry between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to labor.

Just had this conversation. Obama is able to pass things that couldn't have been done without major noise from "liberals" had a Republican president tried it.

On another note is anyone else bothered by a rule about union voting being a part of an FAA Reauthorization Act? What does a rule on how unions vote, or do anything a part of FAA authorization?

Hypocrisy in Syria

I neglected to post a link to this when I first read it but it deserves a look:

In 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, federal agents launched an armed assault on a religious group in a compound outside Waco, Texas. The Feds deemed the compound and the Branch Davidians therein, headed by David Koresh, an affront to their authority. After seven weeks, Attorney General Janet Reno concluded that negotiation with the besieged Christian fundamentalists was useless and ordered an assault. Seventy-six Branch Davidians were burned alive. Autopsies showed that five children were among those shot to death by federal agents. The outcome was widely endorsed by the national press and Attorney General Reno commended for her resolve.

No one could doubt that determined separatist activity or armed challenges to the government of the United States are always met with immediate, overwhelming and lethal ferocity. For further historical illustration I recommend an interview with any moderately informed American Indian or black.

I said the same thing when I wrote about the goings on in Libya. Does anyone really think that the US govt (inc.) would allow folks to simply up and rebel with arms and sit back and allow it to happen?

Barack Obama Deals Crippling Blow to Unions, Black Economic Self-Help

A single 3 day strike by the black led New York City transit workers in 2005 protected the homes, the medical care, retirement security, college educations and living standards of more black families than the half-dozen wealthiest black Americans – that would be Oprah, Puffy, Bob Johnson, Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby and some real estate guy have employed or helped in their entire careers.

Think about that.

Santorum on Income Inequality

Charles M. Blow quotes Rick Santorum in his recent opinion piece in the NY Times:

Santorum said, “I’m not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be.”

Unbelievable. Maybe not, but stunning all the same.

Unbelievable? Maybe. If you are in denial that statement is probably shocking to you. If you are not in denial then when you read that statement your response would have been something along the lines of: "And?"

I have found it to be the case that not a few people in America are under the impression that they are somehow owed equal outcomes. It comes as a shock to them that there is no such thing. The only thing one may have a right to is equal opportunity, but outcome? Nope.

Certainly this is not something you generally say to the public during a campaign, but that says more about the American public than it says about the candidate.

Certainly Blow is right in his concern about Detroit but that doesn't excuse him for painting Santorum's statement as out of line.

Of Contraception and Constitution

There is a lot of back and forth on the recent back and forth between the Council of Catholic Bishops and the Obama administration over the mandate that all businesses, including those that are run by religious organizations provide coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans. The issue has been framed by interested parties in the most inflammatory ways possible. On the right we have claims that the Obama administration is waging an all out war against religion and on the left we have claims that the Republicans are trying to control women's bodies and specifically ban contraception. While there is truth in both claims, neither of them are actually relevant to the specific topic at hand but only serve to cloud the actual relevant issues that should be discussed.

If one looks at the common commentary given by random "liberals" you will see a very anti-religion, specifically anti-Christian strain in the commentary. This cannot be denied by anyone who is honest. Even if you agree with the general critique of "The Church" you must admit that not a few liberals would love to dictate the religious liberties of certain religious people (if not ship them out the country as soon and as fast as possible).

On the right there is a concerted effort to ban abortion and other reproductive choices of women. This is undeniable. Due to this fact it is easy, if you are against these efforts, to be alarmed at anything the right is for. As easy as it is to fall into these two camps, the problem with taking sides in this particular case is that neither concerns are relevant. What no one is talking about much, if at all, is what the relevant law is on this matter. In this entry I'm going to lay it out.


The Constitution

Nowhere in the popular discussion of this recent controversy have I seen from my friends on the left is any mention whatsoever of the U.S. Constitution. This is particularly bothering because it seems to me that they, just like their counterparts on the right are fully prepared to trash the Constitution if it serves their own purposes. These same folks were very quick to point to the Constitution when the issue was so called "anchor babies" or "voter ID laws", but suddenly they are all mute on the Constitution. So let us look at the relevant passages.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress cannot pass a law (and since the executive cannot pass laws, they cannot make rules either) respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What does this mean?

Firstly this means that the Congress cannot establish a church. For those familiar with the history (which should be anyone moving their lips on the subject), the reason that the English first came here was due to religious persecution by the king of England who was also the head of the officially established Church of England.

So first and foremost the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a "Church of the United States".

Secondly the Congress cannot pass any law; none whatsoever; that prohibits the free exercise thereof. Now I'm not clear as to whether this means that say human sacrifice could not be outlawed (it is illegal to kill) but I'm going to err on the side that the intention here was not to allow for what would be considered criminal behavior being covered by religion. So for the sake of argument the Congress cannot tell any adherent of a religion what it's precepts are, what books,if any, are or are not valid, etc.

There is only one breech of this that I can think of. The admission of Utah into the Union came with the stipulation that polygamy be outlawed. Polygamy was a tenet of the Mormon faith and was clearly abridged (and continues to be abridged).

So generally speaking there is no law congress can pass that forces a religious person to do something against their faith. Quakers cannot be forced to join the military and kill for example. This concept extends to church organizations. This is clear.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964


As a result of the struggles of African people to secure their citizenship rights the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The Act contains Title VII section 702 which states:

Exemption:

This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

A religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society....to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, education institution, or society of its activities.

Therefore if a church opens up a hospital and considers it a part of it's "ministry" and employs persons, it can not only discriminate against those person on whatever religious grounds it likes but due to the first amendment the Congress cannot pass a law to prevent it from doing so.

I became familiar with this concept in October of 2005 when I discussed a ruling on the Salvation Army

But the judge's 48-page opinion upheld the principle that a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds. That principle is at the heart of the Bush administration's policy.

"It's huge," H. James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said of the decision. "It's certainly a vindication of what President Bush has been saying from Day One -- that religious groups do not have to sell their soul, compromise their hiring practices, in order to partner with government in providing social services."

At the time I was against this ruling because I took the position that the receipt of government funds preempted the right of discrimination found in the Civil Rights Act. I noted this conflict writing:

So we see that there is a conflict of interest here. The government cannot by law give funds directly to organizations that discriminate, yet "faith based" organizations are free to discriminate.

I was wrong then in thinking that the state could preempt the First Amendment right of a religious group to essentially do whatever they please in the name of religion. I have changed my position due to seeing over the seven years that passed, the danger of passing laws that abridge constitutional rights. It is a slippery slope that I gleefully jumped on at the time.

But what is worse for those on the left is that this 2005 decision underscores the correctness of the Republican position on this matter and provides precedence.

The Contraception Issue

With the law on this matter now in hand, we can properly look at the whole contraception issue. The Catholic Church (and possibly other religious organizations) have a religious objection to contraception. It does not matter whether we the general public like it. It does not matter if 90% of American Catholics don't listen to the church about contraception. It is the constitutional right of citizens to use or not use contraception. It is also, as we showed, the constitutional right of the church organization to have it's policy and to not be burdened by the Congress with any law that prohibits the free exercise of that policy. That is the law. There is no way around that without trashing the First Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Viagra Argument

It does not matter one bit, under the law, whether the Catholic church provides for Viagra. In fact, putting the law aside, it is NOT contradictory for the Catholic church to provide coverage for Viagra (if it does) and not contraception. The Catholic church, as I understand it, is pro reproduction. If Viagra helps a catholic couple to reproduce, then it makes sense that the Catholic church would cover it. We should ask then what would be the equivalent male contraceptive coverage?

If the Catholic church provided coverage for say condoms and vasectomies and whatever other means for preventing a male from inseminating a woman while denying women equal access then we would have an actual case of contradiction, even though legally it wouldn't matter.

But Contraception Can Be Used for Things Other Than Contraception

This is a common argument I am seeing on this matter. I would guess that the prescription of contraceptives for reasons other than contraception is what we would call "off label use". I do not know the Catholic church's policy on the off label use of contraceptives. I would hope that if a woman is prescribed the chemicals used in contraception for treatment of a disease (pregnancy is not a disease), that such use is covered by the Catholic church. But even if it does, that does not mean that those who want contraceptives because they simply do not want to get pregnant have a leg to stand on because the church has a problem with the purposed use of the chemicals (as far as I know) and not the chemicals themselves.

It's About Who Pays

I've seen way too much commentary that this particular issue is about controlling women's vaginas, ovaries and whatever. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lets be clear the Catholic church may want to control a woman's vagina. Republicans may want to control a woman's vagina. However this issue is about the constitutional right of religious organizations to have their religious precepts and principles and their right not to pay for something that is against those precepts and principles.

The Catholic Church does not [now] have the power to deny women the right to contraception. I submit that the Catholic Church in the US has never had such power. It does however have the right to not pay for providing it. The women employed by the Catholic Church have the right to purchase contraception and, as far as I know the Catholic Church cannot prevent them from doing so while they are employed by the church.

The risk to this current prohibition against the church being able to dictate the private lives of it's employees are these precedents of employers being able to hire, discipline and fire people based on their non-work activities. I have also warned people about that issue and the danger such actions have on the rights of citizens. However; too many people are not paying attention to the long term threats posed by things that are not a part of their pet issues.

In the end, providing coverage for contraception equals providing contraception. The Catholic church does not approve of or provide contraception. The Congress cannot pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. By mandating that the Catholic church provide contraception via insurance policies is congress prohibiting the free exercise of the Catholic church. The legal ground is clear. This shouldn't be up for debate because the entire proposal is unconstitutional on its face.

The president and the Congress is duty bound to protect and defend the Constitution. If they want to change it they ought to do so by the means provided by the Constitution.

Ex “Love Connection” Host Chuck Woolery Bashes Civil Rights, Gay Rights

Negroes are just so predictable. You can predict what will come out of their mouths, almost to the word, if you mention the phrase "Civil Rights" "State Rights" or things of that nature. Your Black World writes in that vein:

Ex-”Love Connection” host Chuck Woolery came out from under whatever rock he’s been hiding under for the past 20 years to disavow civil rights and gay rights.

“Majority rules,” he said, referring to the Proposition 8 vote in 2008. “We were born with national rights. We don’t need civil rights. [African-Americans] don’t need civil rights. They don’t need them. They have inalienable rights granted by God in the Constitution. I mean, I’m discriminated against all the time. I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me. [I'm discriminated against] because I’m old.”

I've already covered the legal grounds of Prop. 8 so I won't cover it again. Essentially California law never recognized same sex marriage and operated under the definition of husband, wife and marriage as understood under English Common law so Prop 8 should never have been proposed, much less passed. It was unnecessary.

But the point about "national rights" is right on the money and I don't think Chuck Woolery meant "natural rights" as suggested by the writer. Chuck Woolery covered "natural rights" in his "inalienable rights" part of his commentary (which in reality was not meant to include those persons deemed "savages").

I have long argued that actual citizens do not need a civil rights act because actual citizens have their rights protected under law. case in point, The litigation that happened around Jim Crow was not to secure the rights of white citizens. Why? They were citizens and were accorded all the rights and privileges of citizens. Blacks were being denied their rights as citizens. That is, when the 14th Amendment stated that the States could not pass any laws that abridged the rights of US Citizens, which the 13th Amendment included those of African descent, the States were in clear violation of the Constitution. Each and every law they passed were violation of stated "national rights" of blacks. It was the failure of the courts and other government bodies to enforce the constitutional rights of blacks that was the problem.


So to anyone who can actually read (which yes, I failed at yesterday...ha ha haaaa) it is clear that Chuck Woolery does not mean that African-Americans did not have or should not have civil rights. Rather Chuck Woolery is dead on that if you are a citizen you are ALREADY covered.

But trust the Negroes to get this wrong.

Revisiting that Ebony.com Piece on Bobby and Whitney

So yesterday I scored a big F on my reading of Ebony.com's piece on Bobby and Whitney. It happens. I usually catch such glaring errors before they are posted but not this time so I deleted the piece. Those of you who are subscribed to the Blog had it land in your inbox for all posterity (Ha!). I deleted it because I made claims that were unsupported by the text I quoted. However; this morning after sleeping on it I have come to the conclusion that though the text did not say what I claimed it did, the underlying sentiment that perceived is still worthy of examination.


The original piece and object of my scorn said the following:

Fifteen years ago, none of us would have guessed that in 2012, Bobby would be remarried, the father to a young child and (allegedly) sober for years and that Whitney would die alone in the Beverly Hills Hotel with Xanax and an uneaten turkey sandwich by her side. Many had hoped that the end of what seemed to be the toxic Bobby and Whitney marriage would signal the rebirth of the latter's career and her health. That was not to be the case.

I'm still bothered by this. Starting from the opening "None of us". None of us would have guessed that Bobby would be remarried, a father and allegedly sober? If "none of us" expected Bobby to be all of those positive things then what exactly did "all of us" expect? This is a serious question. I'm even putting aside the gross generalization of "none of us" because I certainly was not "expecting" Bobby Brown to have done anything because frankly I wasn't really paying attention to Bobby. Or Whitney for that matter. I still think that this is a case of low expectations of Bobby as a man, a black man at that. We "expect" black men to crash and burn *cough* DMX *cough*.

Now someone is saying that's a pretty hard charge to make. Sure it is but I think the next few sentences of that piece provides support for this. Supposedly "many", a far cry from the "none" had hoped that the break up with toxic Bobby would have been a rebirth of Whitney's career. Really? I suppose we could ask given the evidence presented in the opening sentence, WHO was toxic for who? If it was Bobby who, after getting the divorce, straightened up and flew right, can't we theorize that it was perhaps Whitney who was toxic for Bobby and that Bobby was the one who needed to get away so he could have a "rebirth"?

Of course we can't make such a suggestion in this environment because it is expected that the man must be the toxic one, the source of all the ills befalling a woman, because men are simply evil creatures and women are passive victims of them. I call this the "non agency argument.

Why couldn't "we" have hoped that when Whitney and Bobby got divorced that it would be an opportunity for rebirth for both of them since by not being together neither one of them could enable the toxic behaviors of the other.

But beating on Bobby is far easier to do than to place the responsibility of Whitney's behavior on Whitney. Such an ideology allows us to "expect" Bobby Brown (or any other man who has been deemed "bad") to not straighten up while hoping for the best for Whitney or any other woman who has been deemed the victim of a man.

So yes, I misread the piece originally and claimed it made statements that it did not, but the underlying ideology is there; and it should bother us.

Israel Blames Iran for Attacks in India and Georgia

Tensions between Israel and Iran rose sharply on Monday when bombers struck at Israeli Embassy personnel in the capitals of India and Georgia. Israel accused the Tehran government of being behind the attacks, which Iran denied.

All we need now is for an Iranian military person to say:

I don’t know who took revenge on the Israeli scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear,

Men Lie, Women Lie – Numbers Don’t: The Financial State of African America

I was recently suggesting a viewing of Dr. Claude Anderson's speeches to some people. In line with that is this piece.

It appears that many of us simply just don’t know how BAD things are. We get blinded by a few and I do mean a few success stories and start confusing the exception to the rule as the rule. There is also the purveying confusion of many of us between wealth and income. That someone who makes millions is indeed a millionaire – even though MC Hammer & Mike Tyson remind us otherwise. So let’s take a look at some of the hard numbers when it comes to the state of African America’s financials.

The numbers that follow are truly sobering.

Prop 8 Follow Up

After posting my original piece on the recent Prop 8 decision. It was pointed out that the 1849 California constitution was superseded by the later 1869 constitution. This is absolutely correct and was a serious oversight on my part. However; the main argument that I had still stands. Let me elaborate.

The 1879 California constitution is a greatly expanded document which includes a great deal of detail as to the form of government who is and is not a citizen, legislative limits, and a great deal of copy from the US Constitution. As was correctly pointed out, the word "her" does not exist in the 1879 document as it does in the 1849 document. This is explainable and also does not change the meaning of "wife" as referenced in either document.

The original 1849 document had 2 references as pointed out in my original piece:

ec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.

and

Sec. 14. All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as to that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife's separate property.

Section 12 remained in the new constitution as Section 7 of Article 20
Section 14 was completely removed.One can guess why but the most likely reason for this is that section 14 was a placeholder for laws that were anticipated to be passed in regards to the rights of women and wives. Between 1849 and 1879 it can be assumed (or researched if you like) that the laws anticipated in 1849 were dealt with and that the framers no longer saw the need for that section. Hence it's removal. To suggest though that the removal of section 17 was because the framers actually meant to remove "her" in reference to "wife" is laughable and untenable.

Why do I say that? There are few reasons:

1) The explicitly sexist (by our standards) definition of citizen found in the 1879. Citizenship was explicitly male. The same constitution blatantly discriminated against "Chinese" by name. To even suggest that the same people who saw citizenship as male and non-Chinese and non-Mongolian thought that wife and husband were anything other than a pairing of female and male is ludicrous.

2) Besides this clear lingual evidence we also have the fact that the 1879 constitution also has the following:

‎"SEC. 11. All laws relative to the present judicial system of the State shall be applicable to the jUdicial system created by this Constitution until changed by legislation."

This means that before the 1879 constitution went into effect there were a set of laws on the books. There was no expectation that the laws that were passed under the old constitution would be null and void. Rather they were to be considered just as valid as anything passed after the ratification of the 1879 constitution unless they were changed via legislative process. This means that if the courts already considered wife as "her" or female gender, it was still the operating assumption. Since it is demonstrable that wife was indeed considered "her" and "she" prior to the 1879 constitution then it also applies post 1879 constitution.

3) The California Civil code, under which marriage falls, contains a number of bits that supports the assumption of male- female marriage:

California Civil Code Section 22.2 "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State."

Furthermore:

California Civil Code Section 5: "The provisions of this Code, so far as they are substantially
the same as existing statutes or the common law, must be construed as
continuations thereof, and not as new enactments."

What this means is that the California civil code, the common law of England is considered to be the rulefor all courts in the state so long as it was consistent with the US Constitution. This means that the California court used English common law understanding of marriage when discussing husband and wife. So of course we must ask what is the Engish common law understanding of matrimony?

The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

Clearly then, under English common law thought of marriage as between a man and woman and therefore wife as "she" and "her" and husband as "he" and "him"

Even Stonwall UK, notes on it's website that English common law did not recognize homosexuality as valid.

1290

First mention in English common law of a punishment for homosexuality

1300

Treatise in England prescribed that sodomites should be burned alive

It is clear then that English common law is and was the basis of California civil law. It is clear that English common law did not 'approve of" or recognize as valid any sort of homosexual activity. It is clear that the framers of the California constitution understood wife and husband as "she" and 'he" respectively and that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Since all of this is clear and understandable by anyone who can comprehend the texts as plainly written. How did the justices come to the conclusion that at no time before November 2008 that were homosexuals denied the privilege of marriage? In addition why was Proposition 8 even written and passed since it was clearly unnecessary due to a plain reading of the relevant law?

I think this ought to go to the Supreme Court and that these issues should be dealt with. The way I see it, if the legislature of California wishes to extend the franchise then it should be free to do so. But it should be clear that it is a change in status rather than some misreading of the relevant law.