I Didn't Say It

A story in the NY Times entitled "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will" Contained the following:

A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Now a lot of people get upset when I point out some of the issues I have with the current administration. I have been consistent in my position that if it was wrong under the Bush administration it is still wrong under the Obama administration. That if it is unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional. Period. I'm not going to change positions on principle because I happen to think the current president is a cool fellow, a fellow "person of color" with a brilliant wife.

Let us be clear, If you were gnashing your teeth at Bush and upon reading the above have already formulated excuses, then you are a hypocrite. I'm not even going to mince words with you. YOU are a hypocrite.

If you'd like to reason that there are things that presidents have to do, I will accept that on a limited basis. The qualifier is that if that is the case, don't serve me with the "change" mantra. Just admit that politricks and politricks and you're willing to play the game. Just be straight up with yours.

Zimmerman, Alexander and Stand Your Ground.

A lot of fire has been directed at Florida's Stand Your Ground law that was brought to international attention due to the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A lot of this fire comes from "Liberals" who take the position that Stand Your Ground laws are "dangerous" and likely inherently racist. The problem with most of the commentary (and petitions) about Stand Your Ground is that most of it completely mis-represents what the Stand Your Ground provision is actually intended for.

In brief the Stand Your Ground law was passed in Florida in response to a situation that a homeowner found himself in after a hurricane. Under then current Florida law it was only legal for a person to use deadly force against a person if that person was in their home or vehicle. This was a part of the classic English Common law Castle Doctrine. That is, you are free to defend your home and property from harm.

The hurricane had damaged the home and so the owner parked a RV of some sort on his property and was using that for shelter. While he was in that RV a person seeking to loot the owner's property entered the RV and menaced the occupant. The occupant leveled and fired upon the intruder, killing him.

That action put him in a legal quandary. He was not in his home, nor his car, and it was questionable as to whether the RV would be viewed the same way as a home. In response to this the Florida law was enacted allowing a person to defend him or herself from an attack anywhere they had a legal right to be.

Unlike say, NYC where the law is that one is obligated to try to avoid conflict and may only use force if there are no other options available to you, the Stand Your Ground law did not place such a burden on the victim.

Since the law has been enacted it has been reported that more people have been claiming "Self defense" under Stand Your Ground for shootings that we assume would not have been covered. I say assume because since there were no trials, we cannot know for certain how many were bonifide cases of self defense and how many were cases of "dead men tell no tales". This brings us to Zimmerman and Alexander.

George Zimmerman, who is facing trial, has claimed that his actions were covered under Fl. Stand Your Ground statute because he was attacked by Trayvon. Indeed the police initially let him go based on that claim.

In stark contrast we have Marissa Alexander who has been sentenced to 20 years for simply firing a gun at a man who was attacking her, but who has killed no one.

Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.

Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment. Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."

From the Huffington Post:

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside.

The contrasts here are clear. In the case of Zimmerman the fact that he exited his vehicle to confront/follow Martin was not seen as an immediate disqualification of the Stand Your Ground defense as it was with Alexander. Clearly if Marissa Alexander was supposed to leave the scene, then Zimmerman too ought to have left the scene. If the court is consistent, the mere fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle will be enough to have him convicted of a crime (though I'm not sure if that would be murder 2).

Secondly, Rico Grey had a restraining order against him. Therefore it was clear to the courts that he was a threat. After all they *approved of the restraining order*. Alexander was in a place she had a right to be retrieving her property with the expectation that she would not confront Grey.

If we look at the origins of Florida's Stand Your Ground statute you'll see that Alexander's position most closely resembles it's original intent. She was in a place she had a right to be in. A man whom was a known threat to her, who should not have been within a certain distance of her appeared, in violation of his restraint order. That made a threat to Alexander that could be taken as a threat to her life. And most importantly, Alexander did not shoot the supposed victim. Rather her "warning shot" had the effect of securing the premises without loss of life, unlike Zimmerman.

If Alexander can be jailed for 20 years for shooting a gun in the vicinity of someone who was threatening her in a place she had a right to be in, One would expect a convicted Zimmmerman to face far more time than that.

In the end though I don't have a problem with "stand your ground" laws. I think citizens ought to maintain their right to defend themselves, their property and others against assault. What needs to happen though is that it should be crystal clear as to what constitutes self defense.

Dear Ray Kelly

Today I read your opinion piece in the NY Daily news in which you opined as to the effectiveness and supposed legality of the Stop and Frisk program used by your department. Your piece made it clear that you clearly do not understand the legal framework under which your department works, and which the city and state of NY are obligated to adhere to. Since you are clearly not getting proper advice from your advisors I offer this in hopes that you will understand why you are wrong and why eventually your position will cost you, the city and possibly the state of New York, and ultimately the taxpayers a lot of money.

In your "treatise" found in the NY Daily News you stated the following:

The statistics reinforce what crime numbers have shown for decades: that blacks in this city were disproportionately the victims of violent crime, followed by Hispanics. Their assailants were disproportionally black and Hispanic too. Last year, blacks and Hispanics represented 96% of shooting victims and 90% of murder victims. Did the New York Civil Liberties Union and certain City Council members protest or demand something be done to reduce black-on-black violence? Not at all. Instead, they have directed their animus toward the Police Department, condemning the very tactics that have saved more than 5,600 lives in New York’s poorest neighborhoods in the last decade.

While the average person would take these words as evidence that there is nothing wrong with "Stop and Frisk", I sir do not. While your point pin regards to the criminal activity of blacks in New York is correct, you failed to address the actual issue at hand, which is whether "Stop and Frisk", as currently practiced by your department has actually lead to safer streets, or that it is legal. Perhaps it is because you do not wish for the readership to look at the rest of the statistics available on the subject. Here we find that since 2002 between 82 and 90 percent of the persons stopped by the NYPD had not committed a crime, were not about to commit a crime; nor did they have any weapons on their person.

If I were a basketball player and missed my shot 90% of the time no one in their right mind would allow me near their professional team. But we are to believe that by stopping between 80,000 and 500,000 innocent people per year has somehow actually lead to the decreases in crime is laughable. Why? Because "innocent people" do not, by definition, commit crimes. Yes, I know that concept is hard to wrap your head around. Take a few minutes before moving on.

Next I'm going to address your scurrilous claim that black leadership (aside from your apparent new love Al Sharpton) have not been advocating against black on black crime.

First and foremost, Your Hip Hop infiltration squad knows that since before the crack epidemic Hip Hop artists were at the head of those calling for peace. We had the Stop the Violence movement as well as the huge hit single "Self Destruction" which directly spoke to the people in regards to the consequences of violence. Hip Hop pioneers, in fact incorporated break dancing and rap battles as a means to decrease violence by giving youth a place to express themselves and compete when school systems were underfunded and in poor shape and unemployment was high. So we can start there. And that is just the Hip Hop artists. So on that front your entire claim that "we" have not been addressing violence in our communities is simply unfounded.

Secondly, since we know that employment opportunities for jobs with living wages and decent school systems are known means of reducing crime in any neighborhood, every time you see anyone discussing the need to invest in schools or to fund job programs, you are seeing a call to end black on black crime. I know these kinds of things are hard for you to put together but please try to follow. When we ask for our tax dollars to be spent in our communities for summer jobs programs, day care for parents, and the like, we are not only protesting "black on black" crime, we are offering actual working solutions. We know full well that although marching and other public displays have their place (which often go ignored by the media) we know that "shows" of displeasure pale in comparison to actual money and programs on the ground.

With that covered, let me point out that your own policy of "Stop and Frisk" is also contributing to "black on black" crime. The website Alternet posted a report back in June of 2011 where we find that due to your "Stop and Frisk" program. Black men are getting police records over possession of marijuana :

The vast majority of arrests in New York City are for low-level offenses, such as misdemeanors like possessing a small amount of marijuana or violations like selling umbrellas or flowers on the street without a license. Last year, for example, the city’s police made over 370,000 arrests. Most of these arrests occurred in New York’s low-income communities of color -- for example, although the majority of people who use marijuana are white, 86 percent of the individuals arrested for marijuana possession last year were black or Latino.

Let me stop here for a moment Mr. Kelly. How is it possible that your department manages to stop and frisk so many black people and yet it is white New Yorkers who are most likely to be walking around with contraband on them? Clearly by the data presented, most of the black people your department stop have committed no crime and have no contraband on them, and of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, the vast majority only have a joint? Really Mr. Kelly? This is what constitutes proper use of taxpayer money? But let us continue:

Many individuals subjected to aggressive arrest-driven police practices and subsequently charged with marijuana possession are coming forward with testimony that their arresting officers engaged in illegal search and seizure methods. According to these accounts heard over and over from people in different communities and who do not know each other, police often stop individuals, usually young black or brown men, for no apparent reason -- the persons involved are not engaged in what could be considered furtive or suspicious activity; they may have been walking to or from their school or workplace or been on a personal errand.... In another clear violation of their rights, the police conduct an aggressive search without asking permission and without any evident indication that the persons detained are carrying a weapon or contraband. The police reach into people’s pockets and crotch areas and/or tell them to remove their shoes. The police then confiscate the hidden marijuana and later claim to the court that the substance was open to public view,

So not only do your officers blatantly disregard the 4th and 14th Amendment rights of these individuals they are routinely committing perjury. Is it the policy of the NYPD to have officers commit perjury? Are you aware that such behavior endangers the successful prosecution of actual criminals? Are you aware that such actions lead to juries who do not believe the testimony of your officers and the district attorneys who depend on such testimony for trial? Does it not bother you or the Mayor or the Governor that your officers are undermining the very system you claim to believe in?

Continuing:

Criminal justice contact can also limit an individual’s job prospects, especially in New York where over 100 professions, ranging from barber to attorney, require licenses obtained from state authorities. Studies have shown that arrests alone can be an obstacle or even a bar to employment. New York City’s school system, for instance, mandates that an employee report any arrest, even for a violation, and will frequently suspend or reassign a teacher while a case is pending. Even where arrests do not legally or technically prohibit employment, employers will always prefer job candidates who have had no contact with the criminal justice system. The damage done in depriving people of jobs extends, of course, to the families who will suffer undue hardship when their breadwinners cannot find gainful employment

So not only is "Stop And Frisk" a violation of the constitutional rights of those being stopped, but the illegal searches and perjury committed by your officers lead to arrest records. It is well known that black males with arrest records are less likely to find employment than even white males with actual felony convictions. So not only have the actions of the NYPD violated the rights of citizens but due to illegal searches and perjury your officer's actions have decreased the employability of countless young men who may be more tempted to say "fuck it" and commit a major crime. That doesn't excuse the decision, but why are tax payer's dollars going to activities that would decrease the ability of a citizen to be productive?

Lastly, allow me to re-aquaint you with the US Constitution, which you failed to mention once which is binding on the state of New York and well as the city and all of it's agents. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In case your seeing this for the first time in years allow me to highlight the relevant portions as it relates to "Stop and Frisk": The people (that would be the people your department is supposed to be protecting and serving) SHALL NOT search or seize anything or any person unless there is probable cause. I know this seems quaint and old fashioned but it is the law of the land. If you do not have a warrant or probable cause there can be no search. Walking down the street, even a street where crimes have occurred is not "probable cause". Tossing a person's clothes to find a thing is not permissible. Your officers know this. That is why they lie in court. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I suppose this amendment was written for people like you, who apparently do not understand that black folks are in fact citizens of the US and are to be afforded all the benefits and protections of all the other citizens of this country. So to be clear, neither the city or the state of New York can pass a law or program or whatever else that abridges the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

So let us review:
1) between 82 and 90% of the persons stopped by NYPD were innocent. They were not committing a crime, had not committed a crime and were not engaged in any behavior other than walking to and from wherever they had a right to go to or from perhaps with other people.

2) Of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, 86 percent of them were arrested or fined for having marijuana. And most of that was found after an illegal search (after the illegal stop). Your officers then willingly committed perjury in order to give these persons arrest records which would have a negative impact on their education and employment opportunities, therefore increasing the likelihood that those persons would commit "major" crimes. Smart.

3) The remaining 5% or so, actually had contraband or something warranting an arrest. And you as a professional cannot figure out a means of getting to these persons without blatant and gross violations of the constitutional rights of the massive number of people stopped.

Hopefully you understand how ridiculous your prop piece for your illegal program is. Hopefully the NY Taxpayer will not have to suffer paying out for your obstinate nature and blatant disregard of the rights of the citizenry that your officers have violated.

Five Reasons Drone Assassinations are Illegal...Plus One.

From Counterpunch

One.  Assassination by the US government has been illegal since 1976 Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder.  Premeditated murder is a crime in all fifty states and under federal criminal law.  These murders are also the textbook definition of assassination, which is murder by sudden or secret attack for political reasons.

In 1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g), which states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation.  No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”  This ban on assassination still stands.

The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the CIA was involved in attempts to assassinate national leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces sought to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.

That was one of the five reasons offered by author Bill Quigley. Quigley was only focusing on drone attacks. However if we look at the law as cited by the author we would also conclude that the war in Libya that resulted in the killing of Kaddaffi  by what appears to be members of the "new regime" who could not have gotten to Khaddaffi without the direct intervention of NATO; can and may also fall under the same rubric. This is because if both direct and indirect assassination is illegal under US law (among other laws) and the war in Libya was, as far as I've researched, an indirect assassination of Khaddaffi, then the president of the United States did in fact break federal law (or at least whatever legal standing an executive order has).

For those confused about how I came to this conclusion they should revisit my earlier writings on the subject, (US admits to "Setting the Course" in Libya and The White House Libya Explanation Falls Short) There I explain in detail how all the rationalizations presented to the public do not stand up to law nor the claim that the US was somehow not "significantly involved".

Mind you. Had this been an act by Bush and co. we would be hearing it all day every day from certain quarters.

"Universal Jurisdiction"?

From an article in the NY Times

Under South African law, the police are obliged to investigate evidence of a crime against humanity, wherever it occurs, if the rule of law does not exist there, as is the case in Zimbabwe. he ruling has profound implications. It could cement South Africa’s commitment to protecting human rights and broaden the application of universal jurisdiction, which is the ability of countries to prosecute people who committed certain egregious crimes outside its borders.

So the basis of this "universal jurisdiction" is absence of presence of "rule of law"? And exactly how does this mesh with sovereignty? Continuing:

Unfortunately, the South African authorities want to sidestep it and are reportedly preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which oversees the High Courts.

I'm wondering if these are "liberals" who are apparently OK with a country up and deciding that it can essentially enforce it's own laws on someone else's land. You would think that a country that was a colony, essentially under the laws of the "mother" country, would even consider being the police force of some other country. Why not just invade, take over and engage in regime change as well? I mean so long as the intentions are good right? But I tell you what? How about South Africa take up the issue of torture by Europeans? Investigate their crimes? I suggest they investigate and indict the Sanford Police department as well as the NYPD. How about they do that? Or is it that they are more interested in being proxy's for Europe?

Arab Militants Attack and Burn Timbuktu’s Holy Sites

From the African Globe:

Reports over the weekend stated that Ansar Dine rebels attacked and burned a holy shrine and threatened Muslim worshippers on their way to observe Friday prayers...Haidara told reporters that the Arab attackers damaged “doors, windows and wooden gates”. AFP reported an anonymous source saying that the tomb of Saint Sidi (Mahmoud Ben) Amar was set alight. Haidara appealed to UNESCO to help protect Timbuktu’s heritage sites, saying that the attackers promised to return to destroy other tombs. Ahmed Ibrahim, a resident who witnessed the incident, said that an armed man condemned the praising of holy saints, saying that three men desecrated the tomb in front of onlookers.

Ever since the coup I thought that it was only a matter of time before something along these lines happened.

Black Women And Fat

On May 5th the NY Times posted an opinion piece entitled "Black Women and Fat" which took the issue of "size" in the African-American community head on.

 I am certain there are folks who saw the piece as yet another attack on black women along the lines of "we can't get married, we can't do what we want with our hair and now we're fat". I have found there to be a general discomfort of discussing, in public largely white forums, about "certain" issues. I find it odd, given that a great deal of the same people have no problem with "integration" and "diversity". Did they not think that such diversity would somehow act as a cover for issues? But that's a side commentary.

 The author, Alice Randall, took a look at some of the cultural "imperatives" that inform African-Americans to explain that black women aren't overweight by some happenstance (or that it is a claim of "big bones" the poorest excuse in the book. We can possibly by big muscled but big boned? No.). Rather Ms. Randall discusses the cultural imperative to "thickness".

The black poet Lucille Clifton’s 1987 poem “Homage to My Hips” begins with the boast, “These hips are big hips.” She establishes big black hips as something a woman would want to have and a man would desire. She wasn’t the first or the only one to reflect this community knowledge. Twenty years before, in 1967, Joe Tex, a black Texan, dominated the radio airwaves across black America with a song he wrote and recorded, “Skinny Legs and All.” One of his lines haunts me to this day: “some man, somewhere who’ll take you baby, skinny legs and all.” For me, it still seems almost an impossibility.

As any person who listens to Hip Hop or R&B will attest to, "thick" women are very much the ideal of "urban" blackness. Sir Mix-A-Lot is probably the most well known the genre, but anyone familiar with Hip Hop knows that there are far more explicit admonitions to be thick. What is of importance is that even within African-American culture there is an aversion to "fat" by the males. However "fat" is culturally defined much differently than the mainstream. There are many women who are thick by African-American cultural standards who would be considered obese or at least well overweight in the mainstream. That said, in an effort to be more "counter-culture" with thickness (discussed later)some women who would have been considered "fat" 20 years ago are calling themselves "thick".

 There is a larger issue within the mainstream that the author did not discuss: the "waif" standard pushed by many in the fashion industry. I have long said that the fashion industry needs to be examined for it's numerous homosexual males that dictate standards of female beauty. Though I have no direct proof of the matter, I believe it is them, and their desire for male bodies that has given us the white woman of no shape as the standard. Even the black women who are considered "model types" by their "boyish" standards are relatively shapeless rather than a reflection of a "black" prototype. I do not believe it to be an accident at all that these women look like made up boys. I simply cannot conceive of straight men preferring women with barely there breasts and lack of buttocks. Honestly; while I can appreciate a leggy woman, I have never understood the fashion industry's use of women with no curves to speak of to model clothes that will not drape the average woman anywhere close to what is shown on the runway. It makes no sense to me. While we are at it let us be clear most white women do have some kind of curve to them. They are simply excluded from the fashion world.

 While the author discusses American references to body types we would do well to look at the cultural link that goes back to Africa. A recent report about obesity in west Africa showed that the men in Mauritania had/have a thing for large women. They reported on a man that was very proud of the fact that he needed a wheel barrow to cart his wife around. They reported on the phenomenon whereas young girls as they reach marriage age to undergo fattening sessions .

The preference originated centuries ago among the Moors, nomadic Muslims of Arabic and Berber stock who make up two-thirds of Mauritania's 3.1 million people. To the ancient Moors, a fat wife (much like fat livestock) was a symbol of a man's wealth, proof that he had enough riches to feed her generously while others perished in the drought-prone terrain.

Indeed in places like Ghana and Nigeria one would note how the traditional dress of women does emphasize the curviness of women and is deemed very desirable. I have no doubt that some of these same traditions came with Africans into the new world.

 At the same time we should shatter this myth that Euro-centric body image, as commonly discussed among African-Americans, were always slim and "flat". This was not the case. In Europe there was a time when "large" women (and men I suppose) were seen as a marker of high social cast not much different from it's time in Europe. If one could afford to eat the amounts that it took to become large (and the non-exerition of non-manual labor) then one would naturally become overweight. In the 1850's High status European women were known to wear corsettes and bodice's that would emphasize the breasts and the buttocks. Even in the early 1900's women were to have an "s-shape" that today are often reserved for material usually deemed "pornographic", which is interesting in and of itself.

 So it's clear that within a cultural context even European "ideals" for their women have changed. Of course African-Americans being a minority group within a larger framework are subject to the same pressures and changes via mass media. That can be both good and bad. Let me touch on the slavery issue that Ms. Randall brought up via a quite because I think it was incorrectly presented:

By contextualizing fatness within the African diaspora, she invites us to notice that the fat black woman can be a rounded opposite of the fit black slave, that the fatness of black women has often functioned as both explicit political statement and active political resistance.

The slave trade had a definite mark on those Africans who survived the journey. Clearly those with the physical and mental capacity to survive the travel were the survival of the "fittest". In addition those who were able to deal with the insect born diseases and the climate of the cotton and tobacco plantation also acted as a culling agent for those "unfit" for duty. So we have to taken into account the unique environmental stresses that formed the African-American populations including a preference for metabolisms that can store as much energy as possible (usually as fat) and that can go without what we would consider proper hydration.


 The second issue with the history of slavery is that up until the slave trade was abolished, there was no basis for looking out for a strong slave (in terms of length of life) particularly for the female. Many slaves were literally worked to death. Once the slave trade was abolished, the necessity of having slaves survive became important as a dead slave was not only lost productivity but also literally irreplaceable with new stock. Females became objects of breeding as well as work. Though I cannot say what the emphasis was but we should also take into consideration that knowing that male slave owners (and later employers) had a penchant for "tipping out" with their servants/property, having women around who were allegedly "not attractive" may have worked to the favor of the women of the homes. But that is argumentative as I'm not prepared to actually provide evidence of that. But I do believe the concept of the Mammy is also a strong theme for women who worked in close proximity with white males who may attempt sexual liaisons with or without permission


 But let's suppose that the obese black body is somehow a political statement of "resistance" against the larger society. Isn't that, at this day and age immature? Would it not reek of "I'll show you even if it kills me" stupidity? Certainly the black body that was necessary to survive the plantations and the middle passage is not necessary or perhaps even desirable for survival in a largely sedentary society. br />
 One of the things that goes unspoken in many quarters is the sexual harassment of women and the "don't look like a crack head or AIDS victim" mentality that is in the black community. When crack hit the scene in black communities one of the common ideas that took hold was that if you were on crack then you didn't eat and therefore got skinny. Favoring a world class marathoner would likely result in a person being assumed to be abusing drugs of some sort.


 The issue of diet is also important. Indeed when Africans were involved in a high level of physical labour a high caloric intake made sense. The problem is that now in the 21st century such a diet is not only unnecessary for the vast majority of the population but is actually deadly. Simply put, old cultural habits are causing all kinds of medical issues for African-Americans. This has serious economic implications as money spent on insulin and other medications for avoidable diseases robs the next generation of wealth as well as the spending power of the diseased population.


 In the end though while we should be striving to more healthy bodies we should recognize that body variability exists and exists for a reason. Not everyone is going to have the shape of a world class runner or swimmer. That fact though is not a good reason to do nothing.

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.