A Failure to Understand the Nature of the Beast

The NY Times discussing the Obama administration's issues with the Morsi government in Egypt

What makes Egypt’s uncertain course so vexing for the White House is that Mr. Obama, more than any other foreign leader, has sided again and again with the Arab street in Cairo, even when it meant going expressly against the wishes of traditional allies, including the Egyptian military, the Persian Gulf states and Israel.

As recently as June, Mr. Obama was calling on the Egyptian military to quickly hand over power to the democratically elected civilian government — a move that helped Mr. Morsi, whose movement has called for greater use of Islamic law, assume power. At the same time, the administration was chastising the military, which has for 30 years served as the bulwark of a crucial American strategic interest in the Middle East: the 1979 Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

For anti-American unrest to erupt in Egypt after all that could reflect a deeper divergence of a once-staunch ally from the United States.

Well that's Obama's fault. Anyone who has any knowledge of history of the Muslim Brotherhood and "Jihadist" type Muslims knows full well that they will cooperate where necessary to get to their aims. So none of the "cooperation" at the time should be confusing. It is the same way that "Jihadist" Muslims in "free" Western countries take advantage of the liberal laws in those countries such as court rights, speech rights,association rights, etc. to further their own aims. Then when the host governments get a clue and try to step in, the 'Jihadist" in question then complains about the rights that are being violated.

There is a reason (for better or worse) why previous administrations were quite happy to deal with dictators in that part of the world. Here's my writeup from 2005's "Join the Ummah"

The modern ideology of Jihad was authored by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While imprisoned he wrote that the world is divided into two realms:

Dar Al-Islam- The abode of Islam. and Dar Al-Harb- The abode of war. He wrote that Muslims should not fight for a particular piece of land, but rather the whole Dar- Al -Islam, which we shall refer to as the Ummah. Dar Al Harb is any place that hampered the practice of Islam and/or failed to apply Sharia. Furthermore the abode of war should be combated even if one's own relatives, national group, capital and commerce are there.

Later another Egyptian, Muhammad Al-Farag, a leader in Jamaat al Jihad movement wrote in a tract entitled "The Neglected Obligation" that Jihad was the sixth pilar of Islam and that armed struggle was an imperative for all true muslims.

"There is no doubt that the first battlefield for Jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order."

Just something to keep in mind.

Andrew Levine Gets It

Even used a "fucking retard" quote like I did [well I misquoted and used "moron". Same thing.].

What Emanuel and Duncan and Obama want is what George Bush wanted: to despoil public education. Of course, this is not what they say. But it is hardly concern for kids, much less poor kids or for their families, that drives Bush-Obama efforts at reforming public education to ruin or that makes “market solutions” and privatization the order of the day. Only hapless Republicans and market theologians (to the extent there is a difference) could believe that. The Obamaites want to privatize public education, to the extent they can, for the same reason they want to privatize so much else: because there is a lot of money – local, state and federal – involved, and the corporate interests Obama and his basketball buddies work for want to get their hands on it.

How Stupid This Gets

*Beware!: Not Very Child Friendly Language ahead. Washington Post Poll:

Obama: 52% Romney: 33% Who would you like to be in command of a ship in trouble? Obama: 46% Romney: 43%

What. The. Fuck does having dinner have to do with running the fucking country? I don't want the president of the United States having dinner with me. I want the president of the United States to run shit and represent my interests. Fuck dinner! And to the second question. As far as I know Romney is the ONLY fucker in this race that has a fucking boat. There's even a picture out there

Why the FUCK would I prefer to have someone I don't even KNOW has a boat much less know how to sail or navigate one be in command of a ship in trouble? What the fuck kind of partisan bullshit is this? If I'm on a fucking troubled ship I want a mofo with boat experience to be commanding shit. That's not to smash on Obama. That's to smash on you partisan fuckers that know full well you wouldn't want anybody but the fucking CAPTAIN of a ship or somebody with, you know, SHIP EXPERIENCE commanding shit if the ship was in trouble What's wrong with you people?

No, Tell The IRS

So there's a petition going around to tell Cardinal Dolan to "Don't allow Romney endorsements in church bulletins"

In last Sunday's bulletin, a parish priest reprinted a letter from former Vatican ambassadors which concludes: "We urge our fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will, to join with us in this full-hearted effort to elect Governor Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States."

I won't be signing this because I think that if the folks behind this were serious they would instead be signing a petition to the IRS asking them to revoke the non-profit status of any Catholic church organization that distributed the endorsement. The non-profit status of any religious institution is on the condition that it does not engage in partisan politics. It cannot endorse any candidate though it may give out 'voter guides" that compare and contrast candidates. Let's get serious with these non-profit organizations that are knowingly and willingly breaking the law. Revoke their non-profit status and demand tax payment and penalties for any year they are found in violation.

Paul Ryan on Chicago teachers strike: ‘We stand with Rahm Emanuel’

Since I'm surrounded by folks who are enthralled by the concept of being a Democrat or Republican like they don't answer to the same bosses, I'll just let that headline sink in:

Paul Ryan on Chicago teachers strike: ‘We stand with Rahm Emanuel’

"Mayor Emanuel is right today in saying that this teacher's union strike is unnecessary and wrong," Ryan said in Portland, Ore., according to a pool report transcript. "We know that Rahm is not going to support our campaign, but on this issue and this day we stand with Mayor Rahm Emanuel."

I along with many open eyed and open eared folks (such as those at Black Agenda Report have been saying for years that the entire "school reform" is a corporate take over of the public school system. It is not being done for the benefit of the public, but for private companies who will/are seeking to profit off of education, directly or indirectly.

These corporate entities have their claws in both the Democratic and Republican parties and these entities are doing the will of these big boys. Just like with the auto industry the first thing they have to do is demonize the teachers as being lazy and incompetent. Never mind that the teachers have no say on the budgets, the locations, quality of material or student out-of-school life. These miracle workers who often deal with students from homes and environments that are anything but conducive to education are to be blamed for "school failure". No, don't look at things such as schools being funded by local property taxes therefore creating unequal funding. Lets not discuss the sky high unemployment rates in many of the communities that are "failing" (forget 8% try 16 - 20+ percent). Let's not talk underemployment, where parents need to work two or more shifts just to live. Oh no, the teachers are to blame.

That Rahm "fucking morons" Emmanuel sees eye to eye with Paul Ryan (his statements to the contrary clearly political rather than factual) is all the evidence that any clear minded person needs to know where the so called "pro-union" Democratic party stands.

But hey... Michelle Obama sure looked good in that dress.

Kinda..Sorta..No

Yes well this may be true, but Mike Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a problem trying to force his eating habits, or at least what he thinks should be your eating habits into the law. Liberals may want to think about that before making these images. Oh and Bloomberg has had the support of major NY liberals for a long time.

Hiring Slowed in August; Jobless Rate Fell to 8.1%

From the NY Times:

The economy added a total of 96,000 jobs in August, down from a revised figure of 141,000 in July and well below the 125,000 level economists had been expecting. The jobless rate fell to 8.1 percent, from 8.3 percent in July, but economists said that was a sign more unemployed workers were discouraged about the prospect of finding new jobs, rather than an indication new jobs were being created.

Not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention rather than gushing at Republican and Democratic convention speakers.

The Perfect Storm 2

So last weekend 37 people were shot. 9 died. Stop. Last weekend. 9 dead 37 shot. And folks are worried about Michelle Obama's head on a historical painting? Anyway, in 2010 I wrote a piece entitled A Perfect Storm of Pathologies about a rape that occurred in Chicago in which I noted one disturbing aspect of that crime:

That leads to my final issue. The mother of the male who was too impatient to get his rape on, who, like those "grown" men involved should have known better. Backed up her son's outrageous claim of the victim's consent. Clearly we have a failure on the part of the parent. If you are a parent and your son thinks that it's OK to engage in intercourse with someone who is unable to give consent, you have failed.

Turns out that this is not an isolated situation. In the recent report on the mass shootings in Chicago I saw the following:

Last year a Chicago mother was arrested after she allegedly drove her son and an accomplice to shoot a person they believed was a snitch.

From the original article:

Cicero Police Chief Bernard Harrison said the mother likely thought the person who allegedly told police about a drug-related incident was in Cicero when she drove her son and a friend to shoot the person. "But they ended up shooting someone else," Harrison said in an issued statement.

Again what we have here is not only a perfect storm of pathologies but a clear example of intergenerational socialization into criminal behavior. I'm going to leave it at that.

Michelle Obama + Bare Titty = Black Rage

Black folks are a sensitive bunch. While the history of black folks in the US can explain much of it some of it is plain, well, dumb. One thing that I do not like about black folks is that a segment of black folks think they are above critique. You can't say anything "negative" about black folks regardless of how factual it is without someone complaining about how we're "blaming the victim" or otherwise repeating racist material.

The other set of black folks that I find quite annoying are the ones who deem that anything they deem "offensive" must be so. furthermore, they are arbiters of what is and is not "racist". You cannot argue with them. You cannot point out that there are other more likely explanations for a given situation. If these folks declare something racist, then by God it is 'racist". And you who disagree must be racist yourself (if you're not black) or you are someone "lacking consciousness".

The latest exhibit is the now famous "Michelle Obama as Slave" magazine cover.

Original:

When I first saw the picture I recognized Michelle Obama, but did not recognize that the portrait was taken from a specific slave portrait. When I saw on Twitter that it was supposedly a slave portrait I said to myself:

Oh the artist [who I did not know was not black at the time] must be making a point about how Michelle Obama being a descendant of slaves in America is now the wife of the most powerful man in the US. Clearly this is a commentary on how far African people in America have come.

Of course this rather obvious explanation was lost on a good number of so called "conscious Negroes". What did the "conscious Negroes" see? Well they saw Michelle Obama and a titty and went nuts. We know how Americans are when it comes to Titties: If it's not in porn, it needs to be covered. I suppose the conscious negroes would have been less mad had the artist further altered the original and covered up the titty.

Anyway, last night I finally read the explanation of the piece, as printed on the magazine cover. It was exactly what I thought it was. shocking!

Here’s a roughly translated description of the article “Michelle Tataranieta De Esclava, Dueña De América” (Michelle, Granddaughter Of A Slave. Lady Of America): “…(The phrase) Behind every great man there is a great woman describes the Obama marriage. In the shadow of the U.S. President is a person whose popularity ratings exceed those of Barack’s own. This person is none other than his wife Michelle.”

Now there is a time and a place for black folks to be up in arms. The Black Woman Cake was one such moment. Folks engaging in mock cannibalism of a "Black body" while the artist screams along with the gross "black face like" characteristics, while the white guests laugh and socialize was certainly wrong on many levels. But this piece here, in my opinion is actually very good art. It should only offend those who are or wish to forget about the real circumstances that Michelle Obama came to be who she is and where she is. It is an important piece of artwork and done with fidelity to the original and with taste.

Complaining Negroes need to have a seat.

Sometimes....

Sometimes you just read headlines and wonder "WTF?"

Legitimate Analysis

Analyzing the Aikin comment without the politics Legitimate: 1) According to law. 2) in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. Rape: 1) the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2) any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. Legitimate Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that in accordance with established law is deemed unlawful due to being compelled through physical force or duress.

In all the hoopla surrounding Akins commentary about "legitimate rape" I lost sight of my purpose as a writer concerned with fact, which is to be fair and look at all the angles before jumping to conclusions. In this politicized environment jumping to conclusions and public shows of outrage particularly when it concerns a group one does not care much if anything for, is easy to do. Knowing that most of the US population does not read much above high school level (if that) it is understandable how most of the population would have lost their mind at the idea of "legitimate rape". However; upon further examination the term is actually not offensive in the least bit.

The reason for this is because the term"legitimate" has been confused with "actual" or "real". The latter two terms used by those who attempt to distinguish between things such as "date rape" or "acquaintance rape", which is the most common form of rape and forcible "stranger jump out of the bush rape" which is in the statistical minority. Many, particularly those on the "right" have been attempting to use these qualifiers in order to make an attack on abortion. I'm not addressing this particular angle here. This piece is only in regards to the actual statement and the actual facts

So then having seen how the term "legitimate rape" can, in fact be used without any nefarious intent we have to ask the next question: if there is such a thing as "legitimate rape" then what exactly is an "illegitimate rape"? Taken from the above definition of legitimate we could assume that illegitimate rape would be a sexual act that falls outside the legal definition of rape. for example, in some states rape requires that a penis actually enter a vagina. In such a case anal intercourse may not be legally considered rape. Rather it would be considered sexual assault or Sodomy. Another example would be if in said state a person was a victim where a broom handle was inserted into their vagina. That may also be considered "Sodomy" or "sexual assault" but not a rape.

Therefore it is clear that one must be careful when discussing rape because persons, usually emotional about the subject, will be put off when one says "actual rape" meaning "by the book".

But that still presents a problem. If rape is definitively an "illegitimate" act, then how can we even define an "illegitimate rape"? My position would be that the proper phrase, given the definition of legitimate, would be an illegitimate *accusation* of rape. Note the difference. I'm asserting that a *claim* of rape may be found to be illegitimate (which happens more frequently than people believe). That is, someone may claim to be raped but the evidence shows that such a claim is illegitimate ie "not in accordance to law" because either the alleged victim lied about the encounter or the person he or she fingered did not actually commit the crime in question.

This brings me to another point. I have had many discussions with women who are of the opinion that any and every rape claim should be taken as truth. I could see those persons not living in America or unaware of American history to make such a mistake but I do not see how any person who lives in a country where a person is presumed innocent under the law, to take such a position. I also cannot fathom how black women (and men) could be of such an opinion given the history of false rape claims that have ended up with black men hanging from various trees and being parted with certain body parts.

With that little commentary out of the way let me move on to the other part of the Akins comment. Akins made the claim that " "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy".

Yet through all the hoopla surrounding the comment, I saw very little in the way of "fact checking". Yesterday while suffering through Bourne Legacy, I stumbled across the following piece on Google which stated:

A previous study found that five percent of rape incidents result in a pregnancy among women of reproductive age and estimated that rape causes more than 32,000 pregnancies in the United States every year.

So 95% of rape incidences do not result in pregnancy. So let's return to Akins comment along with the above definition of "legitimate rape":

5% of those persons subject any act of sexual intercourse that in accordance with established law is deemed unlawful due to being compelled through physical force or duress, have a pregnancy as a result.

Therefore Akin's comment in regards to the frequency of pregnancy via rape is actually correct. So where did he go wrong? The erroneous part of Akins statement was the whole "the woman's body can shut things down" in response to being raped. Certainly those 5% are certainly not going to want to be told that their so called "anti-rape" biological defense mechanism failed to kick in. And certainly no one should be telling any victim of rape such a thing. That is indeed offensive. However that does not change the fact that under stressful conditions the human female body will have problems conceiving and carrying to term, a child. There certainly is not an on/off switch as Akins claimed there was, but rather a set of responses that may be triggered after a rape (or any traumatic event). But let's not take my word for it. Let's look at the literature on the subject. Here's the NCBLI (National Center for Biotechnology Information ) on the subject: Stress reduces conception probabilities across the fertile window: evidence in support of relaxation

CONCLUSION(S): Stress significantly reduced the probability of conception each day during the fertile window, possibly exerting its effect through the sympathetic medullar pathway

Another article Stress and other environmental factors affecting fertility in men and women: overview says:

A close association between stress and eating disorders is frequently found in female patients presenting with anovulation and amenorrhea. This is not surprising since both conditions lead to a slow-down of the LHRH pulse generator and consequently, of gonadotropin secretion and gonadal function.

Another article from the journal Human Reproduction (subscription required) :Should fertilization treatment start with reducing stress? tells us:

There is substantial initial evidence that the psychological disposition of the parents-to-be influences their fertility and thus the outcome of fertilization techniques.

There is ample evidence that lower stress levels mean better female and male natural fertility, though there is as yet no conclusive experimental evidence that lower stress levels result in better fertility treatment outcome. However, first reducing stress may diminish the number of treatment cycles needed before pregnancy is obtained, may prepare the couple for an initial failure of treatment or even make the more invasive techniques unnecessary.

the follicular levels of glucocorticoid hormones, especially lower follicular cortisone and a higher cortisol/cortisone ratio have shown to have a significant effect on pregnancy rates in IVF.

The female reproductive tract contains catecholamine receptors (Moran, 1975); thus, catecholamines—which are related to stress, see Table I—may affect fertility, for example, by interfering with the transport of gametes through the Fallopian tube or by altering uterine blood flow (Schenker et al., 1992). A substantial number of studies found that anticipatory anxiety and high anticipatory cortisol levels prior to oocyte retrieval (OR) and embryo transfer (ET) result in lower pregnancy rates, as do depression, high active coping, high avoidance and high expression of emotion

I would humbly suggest that the act of being raped is stressful. I would suggest that the aftermath: worrying about life ending diseases, court dates that can go on for months, possibly facing the perpetrator, or not having the perp caught and at large, are all long term stressors that would qualify as things that could have an adverse effect on possible ovulation or carrying to term of a fertilized egg.

Given the report above that the vast majority of rape incidents do not result in pregnancy (32,000 is less than .01% of the total US population) it is clear that a variety of factors, known to many couples who have had a hard time conceiving, can and probably do act to prevent conception or the carrying to term of a human child.

So given this and far more information available, it is flat out wrong for certain "news" outlets to claim that Akins was presenting "junk science" nor were the claims of the "rarity" of pregnancy resulting from rape statistically incorrect. Akins may not have understood the science. But the science is not "junk".

So Akins actual faulty language was the suggestion that women somehow have an on/off switch that they can/do/must activate in order to prevent pregnancy. That is offensive and deserves to be pointed out as such. However; he rest of the statement, on it's face is actually accurate. However to see that we must take off our political blinders and our ideological glasses and turn off our "immediate outrage" switch.

The Root Cause?

So I am currently reading The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker. In a nutshell this is a book that wishes to explain that today's world, particularly the "western world" is far less violent than the world of antiquity (including the old "West") or even the recent past. While I will reserve commentary on the overall summary until I've finished reading the entire 1007 page tome, I will take the time to comment on one aspect that I've noticed from the first 200 pages.

Pinker generally asserts that as humanity moved from "nature" to settled civilizations with stable governments which featured a monopoly on violence, the levels of violence in those societies (measured in the book by the rates of homicide expressed as x per 100,000 persons) decreased. His data shows that Western Europe enjoys the lowest levels of violence (less that 1/100,000) and America, while relatively safe is at a "shocking" 10/100,000 or thereabouts.

When we look closer at the American data presented we are shown that in early American history violence by European-Americans and African-Americans (blacks) were about equal but as you moved through time the levels of violence among African-Americans increased (or failed to decrease) while that of European-Americans declined. Of note was that both Southern blacks and whites were and are both more violent than their northern counterparts but that is not the focus of this entry. So what is the focus? If Pinker's data is correct then the violence seen by the African in America cannot be explained by culture or lack thereof. Nor can it be explained by "inherent" predispositions on the part of the African. Clearly the "fact" that Europeans and Africans of America's early history exhibited the same level of violence means something else is at fault. We are forced to ask why Black violence in America is so high. Pinker, prior to disclosing the data explains that the success of the Leviathan lies in the ability of the state to not only foster an environment where people can conduct profitable business but where the state is trusted to mete out fair justice to all parties. The ability to provide justice (and protection) would be the means by which interpersonal violence is prevented in a society. Any somewhat bright person would see that in the case of the African in America the state totally failed on both grounds.

While we can agree that the American state became very efficient at creating a safe environment for it's white subjects, It is clear that it did not do so for it's African ones. While the state encouraged business creation and ownership among it's European citizenry as well as providing "justice" and "safety"; when it was not making it's black subjects into property, it was allowing African persons to be killed with impunity and stripping them of so called "god given rights of man".

If Pinker is correct that the reduction in violence among white citizens of the United States was a result of a more effective and "fair" state apparatus, then it can also be argued that the 500+ years of a state apparatus that acted to dispossess the African and clearly disfavor him in the courts is directly responsible for the levels of violence seen in African-American communities.

If we cannot make this argument then Pinker's entire thesis is worthless, no?

I, Robot Revisited

Back in 2004 I wrote a piece that was inspired by my viewing of the movie "I, Robot" (one of my top sci-fi movies in terms of futurism). I wrote then:

Specifically I was struck by the displacement of humans in many jobs. I, robot takes place in 2035, when yours truly will be in his 60's. at that time it appears that robots are rubbish collectors, babysitters, cooks, janitors even bartenders. My question was, what happened to the people who usually do these jobs? It is presumed that those persons are enjoying life, free from the mundane work of life and can go about their business. The problem with that assumption is that the movie clearly shows that there are classes of people. Smith's character rides in an Audi. The CEO of USR is clearly well off and Smith's character, Audi notwithstanding seems to live in a less than upscale apartment relative to the female lead. It is quite clear that some people made more than others and lived different lives. Therefore there still must be some means of making money. As we know, all throughout human history, where there is class there are those who are deprived. Clearly, everyone cannot be an accountant or a programmer and clearly even if they could, there would not be enough jobs to go around. So where are these people in this 2035 Chicago? Is there some huge welfare state going on?

Today I read in the NY Times about the push to automate factories in both the US, China and elsewhere:

Yet in the state-of-the-art plant, where the assembly line runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are robots everywhere and few human workers. All of the heavy lifting and almost all of the precise work is done by robots that string together solar cells and seal them under glass. The human workers do things like trimming excess material, threading wires and screwing a handful of fasteners into a simple frame for each panel.

China already has a problem in which it graduates a huge number of college graduates but does not have the capacity to employ them. Many of these persons go to work in factories. As these factories are increasingly automated this critical pressure relief valve will no longer be available and unemployment will be rampant along with the social issues that follow.

On the other side, businesses without customers cannot long stay in business. People must have currency in order to purchase goods (and services). Clearly the top dollars are not being paid to those connecting fasteners and screwing in screws. As I suggested in 2004, unless there is a massive welfare state in which citizens are paid to "pursue happiness" rather than "employment" the automation of the workplace will lead to a lot of problems.

50 Shades of Nazism

From the NY Times

The winds of isolation and narrowness are blowing through Israel. Rude and arrogant power brokers, some of whom hold senior positions in government, exclude non-Jews from Israeli public spaces. Graffiti in the streets demonstrates their hidden dreams: a pure Israel with “no Arabs” and “no gentiles.” They do not notice what their exclusionary ideas are doing to Israel, to Judaism and to Jews in the diaspora. In the absence of a binding constitution, Israel has no real protection for its minorities or for their freedom of worship and expression.

We can see that the "leadership" of Israel has indeed learned much from Fuhrer. Did not the Nazis believe that Germany was an "Aryan" state where "lesser" humans (if considered that) were to be excluded and were eventually excluded?

Did not the Nazis decide that they could kill off those who were "not German"?

Did not the Nazis decide that going to war with it's neighbors was a proper means for protecting the fatherland and purging Europe of the "vermin"?

Of course there will be those reading this that will say "oh he goes too far". I say to let history speak.

The Purpose of Foreign Trade

foreign trade and economic development have been used to concentrate economic power in the hands of dominant nations. What is really going on is covered up with do-good verbiage and formal models. In reality, trade and development are ways to colonize countries that think they are independent.

I believe brother Nkrumah called this "Neo-colonialism".

from Counterpunch

Kinds of Slaves

‘Chains are for the slave who has just become a slave, who has… just been brought across the Atlantic,’ Boubacar said. ‘But the multigenerational slave, the slave descending from many generations, he is a slave even in his own head. ‘And he is totally submissive. He is ready to sacrifice himself, even for his master.

From the Daily Mail

"Misspoke?"

It was reported that Mitt Romney offended Palestinians when he made yet another "Anglo-Saxon values" type of speech in Israel. Stating:

As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,"...

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence."

Ahh the "hand of providence" otherwise known as The White Man's Burden. Not that I expect much different from a Republican, but that isn't really a story. Why? Because it is actually the opinion of those in power in Israel.

Meanwhile on Sunday, Israeli daily Maariv published an interview with Interior Minister Eli Yishai, in which he stated that most of the "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man."

So if this is the actual opinion of those in Israel and it is on the record then what has Saeb Erekat Been reading that had him make the following statement:

"It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people," Erekat added. "He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority."

There are a couple of possibilities. Number one is that he simply does not know of the statement. If he doesn't I would find that pretty shocking. It's not every day that government ministers go on record with some White Man's burden commentary.

Surely those in charge of intelligence gathering in Palestine keep an eye out for such statements. The second possibility is that Saeb Erekat may consider himself "white". In which case he identifies the same way as the Israeli's as it pertains to the African migrants, the presence of whom was the subject of the linked quote. It would explain why he apparently missed the not too long ago statement made by an Israeli government minister.

Constitution-Fil-A

I've sat in amazement as I've watched people, particularly those on the left, talk about Chik Fil-A's founder's position on marriage and the subsequent threats that have been directed at potential franchisees of said business. And while there has been much outrage over the position of Chik-Fil-A's founder, there has been far less commentary devoted to the reactions of certain mayors in regards to the threats they have posed to US democracy.

This isn't the first time this year that so called 'pro gay rights" folks have completely dropped the Civil Rights ball in their quest for so called "equality". Earlier this year Manny Pacquiao expressed his religion based position on homosexuality by quoting a verse in the Bible that generally states that such persons should be stoned. Not that I personally agree with such a position but it's supposed to be "America" where two things are supposedly sacrosanct: speech and religion. The owners of The Grove in LA said that due to Pacquiao's comments he would be banned from the LA mall. While many people went on and on about Manny's statement, nobody, not a single person from the "gay rights" crowd or the so called "equal protection" crowd expressed alarm over a place of public accommodation blatantly violating the law and in particular the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, the one people like to beat over your head when there are threats of racial discrimination.

See; as is usual around these parts of late, the Civil Rights of certain people, usually those of an unpopular opinion or religion (often one and the same) are up for grabs when they apparently conflict with the morals (or lack thereof) of another more popular group. Let us be clear on the law: no place of public accommodation may prevent a member of the public access based on their race, religion, color, creed or sexual orientation. Period. What the Grove did was no different at all than the public threats and actions of Bull Conner. Yes, I said it and it's a fact. And that is bad company to be keeping. Unless Manny Pacquiao had made a threat to the public such as threatening to stone or otherwise harm anyone he saw in The Grove that he considered homosexual or was disturbing the peace, or any other immediate and present danger to the public at large or patrons of The Grove then The Grove has no legal basis to deny him access. Enter Chik-Fil-A. Anyone who has been paying attention (apparently that would be few of us) knows that Chik-Fil-A was founded by what we would call conservative Christians. The stores are not open on Sundays in order to observe the Protestant/Catholic Sabbath. In light of this to be surprised about the founder's position on marriage amounts to a whole lot of wishful thinking on the part of those so disposed. But in reality the position of the founder is of little relevance because the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, protects his right to his position as well as his right to open up any legal enterprise that meets all municipal codes and adheres to the rules laid out by the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it pertains to public accommodation

Apparently this little legal issue was forgotten by certain elected officials who oddly took some sort of oath to uphold the constitutions of both their state's and the country's. Shocking I know. Just like with The Grove, these persons completely lost sight of their obligations under the law and threatened local franchisees with denied permits to do business based on the religious based opinion of the franchise founder. Imagine that? Would you like to have your employment based upon your association with someone who you are connected to in some weak way who has an opinion that your potential employer doesn't agree with? Are we going there now?

What was conspicuously absent from the threats agains Chik Fil-A was any charge of discriminatory practices in it's corporate HQ or at any one of it's local franchises. Not one of the talking bobble heads could point to any case where a homosexual, black, Hindu, Muslim or disabled person was discriminated against in any of the franchise locations. Not. A. One. Think about that. A store being threatened with denial of service by local governments for not discriminating against its customers. That's some bullshit. You may think that this is preposterous but it isn't. By threatening local franchisees with an illegal and unconstitutional denial of permits and the like based on some third party's opinion is exactly what is being proposed. That these mayors have to be reminded of this rather than they (except Bloomberg) didn't brush such idiocy aside from the beginning shows exactly what these people are about.

The way I see it, the mayors who proposed such nonsense should be out on their asses come the next election based on this single issue (and I'm not given to single issue voting). Why? Because it is clear that they do not understand what their primary job is and it is clear where their priorities lie. A head of government who is willing to break the law to punish a business with the resources to fight is definitely willing to break the law to punish the "little person" who does not have such resources. That should concern the citizenship. As for Chik-Fil-A the options are clear. If you the potential customer does not agree with the opinion of the founder then by all means avoid spending your money in that place. If you don't like that the corporate entity has donated to a cause you disagree with, by all means, Do not shop their. It is really that simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money with people or entities with whom they have a moral issue with. However a bright line is crossed when the government steps in to police the free speech and free exercise of religion and association of citizens. That should bother you far more than what the folks at Chik-fil-A are going on with.

Money Vs. conferences

Yesterday Negroes were esctatic that Obama made an executive order to "study" African-American education. I read the piece and noted that there were no, zero, zilch new monies directed at Black schools, school districts, teachers therein or anything of the sort.

Today the NY times reports that Obama signed a $70 million for the defense of the state of Israel.

No new money for African-americans. CITIZENS who are tax payers. But $70 million for Israel.

Who's the damn fool here?

So Mugabe Had it Right?

The NY Times on the results of the "land grabs" by Mugabe:

Before Zimbabwe’s government began the violent and chaotic seizure of white-owned farms in 2000, fewer than 2,000 farmers were growing tobacco, the country’s most lucrative crop, and most were white. Today, 60,000 farmers grow tobacco here, the vast majority of them black and many of them working small plots that were allotted to them in the land upheavals. Most had no tobacco farming experience yet managed to produce a hefty crop, rebounding from a low of 105 million pounds in 2008 to more than 330 million pounds this year.

The success of these small-scale farmers has led some experts to reassess the legacy of Zimbabwe’s forced land redistribution, even as they condemn its violence and destruction.

But amid that pain, tens of thousands of people got small farm plots under land reform, and in recent years many of these new farmers overcame early struggles to fare pretty well. With little choice but to work the land, the small-scale farmers have made a go of it, producing yields that do not match those of the white farmers whose land they were given, but are far from the disaster many anticipated, some analysts and scholars say.

So essentially, had the British lived up to their obligations to "compensate" white farmers so that the land resettlement could have gone peacefully there would have been a better outcome. However; because the British did not live up to their obligations and instead sought to demonize Mugabe, Mugabe lived up to his promises to *his* people and now after the forecasts of doom and gloom and all manner of "western" interference, the people are actually benefiting from the decision of one Robert Mugabe.

And mind you this is just Tobacco.

San Diego Reader Magazine Headline: “No One Likes Black Girls”

From the San Diego Reader

Do note that the picture they used is of a black child with clear European or other non-African ancestry. The purpose is not to nit pick at what "black" child is presented but you would think that if one is going to write a piece in which one discusses how people do not like black girls, one would put a black girl on the cover. Particularly one with "motherland" black hair that "naps up" into little beads when allowed to grow naturally.

For those who don't know of what I speak of, see below:

You will note the texture of the hair. I know some o' y'all haven't seen such a thing up close and personal.

[update] apparently the actual piece: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2012/jul/11/cover-afro-puffs/ Is about something ENTIRELY different. Fell for the click bait. [/update]

Independence? What Independence?

From the NY Times this morning.

On Wednesday, a Kenyan oil official told Reuters that the country was canceling an agreement to import up to 80,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran after Britain warned Kenya that it could run afoul of the sanctions.

Exactly how does a former exploitative colonizer (is there any other type) have the gall to tell it's former victim whom they can do business with and what "sanctions" they are going to impose if they do? That's pure bullshit.

Here I thought Kenya was an independent nation. An independent Kenya would have been able to tell Britain what cliff to jump off of and do business with whomever it pleased.

Israel: Jihadist Example?

But many former jihadis here say they have put their faith in elections, starting with a vote for a Libyan national assembly expected next month. “We want our politics to be like Israel,” said Mosab Benkamaial, 25, referring to the Jewish state’s melding of religious identity and electoral democracy.

Who would have thought Israel as a model for an Islamic state.

More CIA

This is either the leakiest US administration ever, or the powers of imperialism have simply decided that operating under silence and denying everything is no longer necessary. In any case it is pretty clear that the more we see events unfold in the Middle East, the more Iranian president Ahmadinejad with his claims of US intervention in it's internal affairs is made to be, well, true. The latest: Admission that the CIA is aiding the rebels in Syria.

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

Now I'd like to remind the reader of many Democrats who in the run-up to the 2008 election loved to talk about how we didn't want "McSame" in office. I suppose because it was better to have a Democrat in office than yet another Republican. I'll point out to the reader that it was just this week that McCain was blasting the Obama administration for not taking action in Syria, such as arming the rebels. Shall I assume then that "McSame" is OK with Democrats now?

Anyway. What pray tell are our tax dollars being spent on?

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

Wait wait wait. So the CIA is sending RPG's and the like to the Muslim Brotherhood? Does ANY of this sounds remotely familiar? Paid for by Turkey? *laughing out loud* Sure. If you say so.

Oh The Irony

Back in the 30's a certain person named Hitler decided that the Jews were a "problem". He felt that they were not in keeping with what he considered the true "German character". He felt that the Jews were not really German, not really white and perhaps not so human. What did Hitler do? He rounded them up, put them in camps and eventually decided that it would just be better to kill them off.

As a result millions of Jews died. The "western" powers decided to give a piece of land, inhabited by Palestinians (among others) to the Jews as some sort of recompense for ignoring their plight for a while and the state of Israel was born.

You would think that the descendants of folks who had gone through such horrors would know better than to do certain things but their behavior never ceases to amaze those familiar with their history. The latest? African immigrants being rounded up, put in detention centers and eventually deported because they are not white and not Jewish.

At a recent protest fanned by right-wing politicians, one lawmaker described the Africans, known here as “infiltrators,” as “a cancer in our body.” Later, Africans’ stores and apartments were attacked...

The interior minister, Eli Yishai, has vowed to clear the country of all illegal immigrants within three years....

Mr. Netanyahu told his cabinet that Israel was “building holding facilities to house tens of thousands of infiltrators until they can be sent out of the country.”

Oh the irony.

Israeli White Supremacy

Every now and then, white supremacists who inhabit "official" positions. Those who are granted a level of acceptability and title, forget that they aren't supposed to say what is clear to anyone who is paying attention. But they, in their hubris, in their sheer unshakable belief in their own rightness, their own supremacy, do. Latest example: Israel (friend of Apartheid era South Africa):

Meanwhile on Sunday, Israeli daily Maariv published an interview with Interior Minister Eli Yishai, in which he stated that most of the "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man."

Now given that "Muslim" is not a racial categorization and therefore not the equivalent to the concept of "white man", we understand that what is actually being said here is that Israel is a "white man's country" and all the non-whites (AKAL Niggers of various hues and faiths) can be there only as white folks, most of whom emigrated from other countries, deem appropriate.< p/> Mind you, as I've written earlier I don't have a blanket objection to the "white man's country" theme. I believe Europe to be the "white man's country". If they don't want non-whites among them, I think it's fair. What I find objectionable is when white men colonize other people's land and start talking that "white man's country" nonsense.

Israel is but one example of this phenomenon. The current president of Iran highlighted this contradiction quite well but because of how the US/"Western" media works, his words have been mistranslated (on purpose as far as I'm concerned).

This is something that folks should think about when none other than "non white" Obama goes in front of AIPAC pledging undying support for Israel. But then again why would this president stick up for Africans. It's not like he is one or related to one.

Wait.....

Never mind.

Africans don't vote or put together $40,000 ticket fundraisers.

Back to the story though.

Every now and then it happens. Take note.

Double Standard

It seems this week the NY Times is really putting out information on how much the Obama administration is like the Bush administration. Today's piece is on cyber warfare against Iran

From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

A good commenter pointed out the obvious problem:

B2BNV FLAG An article in the NY Times one year ago: "Pentagon to Consider Cyberattacks Acts of War" By David Sanger and Elisabeth Bumiller Published: May 31, 2011 WASHINGTON — "The Pentagon, trying to create a formal strategy to deter cyberattacks on the United States, plans to issue a new strategy soon declaring that a computer attack from a foreign nation can be considered an act of war that may result in a military response."

Yup. So if Iran were to Cyber Attack the US, it is an act of war worthy of a military response but if the US does so to Iran and they retaliate militarily, Iran is the bad guy. I'm sure such logic works well for Americans, even the so called "pro black" ones who up until 2008 had a problem with such things. Don't expect a peep from most of them now. They'll be too busy talking junk about Booker, West and Smiley.

What Obama and Ray Kelly Have In Common

I was very disturbed by the "kill list" article I posted about yesterday. While that quote I posted served to show one of the main points I have made about the current administration, further reading showed some other disturbing policies.

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

When I read that I thought of the NYPD Stop and frisk policy. This Find and Kill policy is essentially the NYPD tactic on a global scale. In NY, if you are black, live in a high crime area, you are assumed by the authorities to be a criminal. On the global scale if you are 'Muslim", male and live in an area where Al-Qaeda (or the Taliban, they are not the same) runs things or has a base, then you are assumed to be a terrorist. Innnocent? Too bad, so sad.< p/> When we consider the video of an Al-Qaeda stronghold in Yemen That it is clear that not everybody "of military age" is a member of Al-Q. If Al-Q has taken over a city what options does any male have? Does that mean that simply being under rule of Al-Qaeda make you a terrorist?

What if we applied such logic to 9-11. What if Bin Laden had said, Well since the WTC housed a segment of govt. authority (Port Authority) anyone in the vicinity or under their control who are "of military age" are valid targets? No? Yes?

It would seem that US policy is essentially: You are all the enemy.

How Far We Have Fallen

Last night I was very disturbed to watch NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Walcott make an announcement in regards to teachers who have been accused of sexual assault or inappropriate behavior. From the NY Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Tuesday that the city should have the final say on whether teachers accused of sexual misconduct should be fired, even if hearings determined that they should keep their jobs.

So the city, meaning the Mayor or the Chancellor should be able to overrule the "due process" procedure which would have found a particular teacher should keep their job (likely due to the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim of misconduct).

This is like saying that a judge should simply overrule a jury decision simply because the judge thinks the defendant ought to go to jail anyway.

How is it that a mayor of a city on the United States presumes that due process has no place in a country where citizens are guaranteed due process rights?

Mr. Bloomberg, arguing that the union wants to protect its members more than it does students, proposed a new state law that would give the city’s schools chancellor, or any school superintendent in New York State, the ability to override an arbitrator’s decision and fire or penalize a teacher in a sex-misconduct case.

Read that again. Bloomberg actually went on record that he is opposed to the concept of due process. Furthermore, rather than the teacher's union being praised for standing up for the due process rights of it's membership, they are being painted by Bloomberg and the media as "protect members more than students". That is absolute bunk. Supposedly in the United States, a person who is accused of a crime must be proven guilty. Sexual misconduct with a student (minor) is a crime. Why are persons who are supposed to uphold the state and federal constitutions seeking to publicly eviscerate them? Why aren't they being called to task for it?

“There is simply no reason that teachers accused of sexual misconduct should have greater job security than other city employees,” said Mr. Bloomberg, who was joined by several state superintendents’ groups at a news conference at Gracie Mansion. “The fact that they currently do is wrong; it is dangerous; it is indefensible.”

Really? No reason? It is "wrong" for the accused to be proven guilty? It is wrong for the accused to have a vigorous defense? This is wrong? I get it. We wish to protect children. I agree with that. If the city wishes to remove a teacher from the classroom when a report is made, I can understand that. Better to be safe than sorry. However; there must be due process that is binding on all parties. If such conduct is proven then the teacher ought to be fired and appropriate criminal actions taken. If there is so much concern about teacher student behavior, put cameras in all the classrooms and other places where teachers and students are. But to have a situation where someone who is accused faces just about all the penalties of being found guilty of a crime, without due process and despite due process is a total disregard for the letter and spirit of the law of the land. Such changes to the law would make it very easy for students who do not like a teacher (for any number of reasons, bad grades come immediately to mind) to report him or her for 'sexual misconduct".

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