Check The Logic

The incredibly stupid move by Israel to attack the sovereign nation of Lebanon over the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah is only trumped by the stupid logic that the US is employing while discussing the matter. I'll get back to the logic in a second. Not to long ago I wrote that the Arab States around Israel have been publicly shown how weak they are as they sit back and watch Israel run over Gaza.
The New York Times has shown that the state of Lebanon has not responded to a direct attack on it's infrastructure, nor have they even responded to what amounts to a declaration of war by Israel:



Early on Thursday morning, Israeli warplanes fired missiles at the runways at Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut, shutting the airport and potentially stranding thousands of visitors at the peak of the tourism season. The Israeli military confirmed the strike, saying that the airport was a target because Hezbollah receives weapons shipments there. Israel also announced that its navy would blockade Lebanon’s ports to cut off such shipments.

“I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act, but an act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason,” Mr. Olmert said. “The government of Lebanon, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to shake the stability of the region.”

Now we come to the operating logic:

1) We can blow up an airport that serves as a transportation hub for civilians because we believe (and it may be a fact) that arms find their way onto planes that arrive there. Never mind the, you know, civilians. So the logic here is: If a place can or has been used by any military then it is fair game. OK. In that case, the whole kidnapping thing is fair game since clearly areas and therefore people involved with military activity are fair game. This logic merely leads to tit-for-tat strikes and counter-strikes in which the best armed does the most damage.

2) Since the persons involved in the two soldiers kidnapping are nationals of a state or acted from within that state then the "host" state is responsible. OK. If that is the case, we should expect a Cuban missile strike any minute now since the US has and is harboring persons who have committed terrorist acts against Cuba. One Mr. Posada is still in the US. I strongly doubt that such an attack is imminent because the US is far stronger than Cuba, which is really the operating logic here. Israel is attacking Gaza and now Lebanon not because some soldiers have been kidnapped. No, the reason is because Israel can do so. If the military capability of Lebanon was anywhere close to that of Israel, the airport would be quite functional right now.

The worst thing that can happen now is that the other surrounding Arab states find some backbone and take on Israel and, catch this, If OPEC nations either cease oil delivery or jack the price per barrel of oil up say, 500% and cripple the US economy until Israel chills out. I guarantee that $10+/gallon gasoline would change a whole lot of attitudes in Washington as citizens are made to decide between eating and gassing the car and the ancillary activities that cars encourage.

I wonder if as a result of this attack on Lebanon if Hezbollah (and Syria) will be "invited" if not publicly back into the country.

Technorati Tags: Leadership, Middle East, Palestine

Blade: The Series

Not since Mask of the Red Death by Edgar Allen Poe has a piece of fiction been so laced with racial symbolism. For those unfamiliar with Poe's work I'll refresh your memory. Somewhere in Europe during the "red death" plague a king or was it a prince..doesn't matter, decided to throw a party in his castle of many many rooms. There were rooms of varying colors. Of these rooms was one room that was pitch black with a large clock in it. Everyone invited to the party had to wear a mask. So the plague shows up at the party in a red mask and proceeds to kill all the guests. The king (or prince) runs (or chases) the red death into the black room where he attempts to kill the plague with his little dagger. He does not succeeds and dies in the big black room in front of the big black clock. Read the story some time.

Now the Blade series is similarly loaded. Blade a demi-vampire was born with all the powers of a vampire with non of their weaknesses. What weaknesses? Ahh. silver, garlic and, oh yes, direct sunlight. Blade of course is a black man. Now those of you familiar with the biology of melanin know that it specifically protects skin cell DNA from nasty mutations caused by ultra-violet radiation. That Blade is a "half breed" is also interesting given the history of whites to be deathly opposed to interracial breeding; especially with those of the "lowest" race. However; some white supremacists have been quick to note that certain "intelligent" black people had "x amount" of "white blood" which would account for their "intelligence". Significance: All the strengths and non of the weaknesses (except that thirst thing).

So here we have a movie where the main antagonist is a blond haired, pale white man (with accent) who's close confidant is another pale white woman (also blond). The antagonist has a mole, if you will, who is a white female (a brunette) in league with the bald black man who apparently can kill vampires (the majority of whom are white in the show) at will.

In the movie Blade, the main white protagonist manages to get Blade's attention by meeting him on the street during the day. This feat was accomplished by wearing god knows what level of sun block. Now in the series, the vamps are dead set to get themselves immune to garlic and silver (and probably the whole sun thing) but seem to never deal with the whole melanin thing. No doubt Holywood and the public isn't quite ready for the skin color as more than just skin color even if it is dead in their faces.

I'll continue to watch the series despite the clear racial overtones, much like I watch the Lord of The Rings despite it's racial overtones as well.

Denmark Vesey

I stumbled on this article regarding a proposed statue to Denmark Vesey AKA Telemaque. Those who object state:

Darby's timing for a Vesey memorial was ideal. Three books were published in 1999 about Vesey and his thwarted rebellion. But as the memorial gained notice, talk radio lines lit up, with callers referring to Vesey, said talk show host Rocky Disabato, as "the guy who wanted to kill all the white people."

The local Post and Courier newspaper was inundated with letters, many from people aghast that Vesey could be memorialized.

One called Vesey an "advocate of ethnic cleansing." Another called his scheme "a Holocaust."

"The lore passed down is he had intentions of raping and pillaging," said Robert Hutson Jr. , past president of the South Carolina Historical Society, whose family dates to Charleston's first mayor. "We don't memorialize people with intentions of that nature

There is a documentary you can get here:

http://www.innervisionsproductions.com/product/vesey/index.html

A sample is available here:

http://www.innervisionsproductions.com/product/vesey/finalweb/veseyplot.html (QuickTime required)

We don't deny that Vesey wanted to kill white people. It's not entirely surprising given the history of Charleston.

Technorati Tags: Denmark Vesey

Worker Rights in Venezuela

The LA Times has a nice article on the Venezuelan's government education of workers on their rights regarding safety:

For President Hugo Chavez's socialist government, the film is more than just entertainment: It's become a teaching tool. Since January, in a bid to expose the evils of "savage capitalism," the Labor Ministry has shown the Chaplin film to thousands of workers in places such as this rundown industrial suburb of Caracas.

When the screenings at factories or meeting halls end, Labor Ministry officials then take their cue, and use Chaplin's plight to spell out worker rights under occupational safety laws passed last year and now being applied. They are part of Chavez's sweeping reform agenda that he calls Socialism for the 21st Century.

As expected the business sector has problems with the films rendition of employers:

But the business community here is hardly applauding the film. In a formal complaint to Chavez last month, the four main employer associations in Venezuela said that showing a movie depicting the boss as a "vulgar exploiter of workers" was designed to "generate hate and resentment in the labor sector" and "demonize the employer."

An official at the Venezuelan Confederation of Industries, one of the four signatories, said that the new workplace laws were another example of Chavez punishing private industry, a process the groups say has been unrelenting since a failed 2002 coup led by businessman Pedro Carmona.

While insisting they don't oppose workplace safety improvements, business groups here say that they weren't consulted before the new laws were drafted and that now workers and their delegates have too much power to intervene in factory operations.


It is so sad that workers would have a say in the conditions in which they provide profits for business owners. So sad. I mean the workers shouldn't have a problem with 1500 of their comrads being killed in factory accidents. Instead the business owners apparently preferred that:

Largely at Picone's insistence, the film has been shown 1,000 times in 14 states and has been effective in educating workers who usually have no clue about their health and safety rights. Labor Ministry officials say it's because the most recent workplace regulations, passed in 1986, were unobserved, a "dead letter."

and they apparently have a problem with :
Inspired by the film and the talk from Labor Ministry officials, he demanded gloves and soap from his employer — and got them. But the assembly line still goes too fast, he said.

Metalworker Miguel Moreno also has seen some improvement. "We have more power because we know more," he said. "They've given me earplugs for the noise, at least."


This statement:

Critics say Chavez is merely recycling the failed protectionist economic policies that many South American nations tried to impose after World War II to keep out foreign capital and competition. The policies were largely jettisoned in the 1980s as countries began embracing free markets and foreign investment.

Makes little sense. Think of Argentina which had followed the IMF/ World Bank /US rules and saw it's economy go down the tubes. It was Venezuela that stepped in and relieved Argentina of its crushing debt. What about Mexico, another US ally, whos largest economic engine appears to be the immigrants it sends to the US to remit money to Mexico. That country, which NAFTA was supposed to provide all kinds of economic growth has resulted in...

I'm not going to say that Chevez's ideas are fool proof but given that the IMF and World Bank has head clear failures, I see no reason for critics to act like the US model is like the biblical Mannah from heaven.

But

Technorati Tags: governance, politics, Hugo Chavez

Can We Stop The Non-sense? Please?

So I'm over at CNN and read this "stuff":

YAOUNDE, Cameroon (Reuters) -- Worried that her daughters' budding breasts would expose them to the risk of sexual harassment and even rape, their mother Philomene Moungang started 'ironing' the girls' bosoms with a heated stone.

"I did it to my two girls when they were eight years old. I would take the grinding stone, heat it in the fire and press it hard on the breasts," Moungang said.

"They cried and said it was painful. But I explained that it was for their own good."

"Breast ironing" -- the use of hard or heated objects or other substances to try to stunt breast growth in girls -- is a traditional practice in West Africa, experts say.

A new survey has revealed it is shockingly widespread in Cameroon, where one in four teenagers are subjected to the traumatic process by relatives, often hoping to lessen their sexual attractiveness.



It would be pretty easy to ask the women to stop but it is not their fault for wanting to protect their daughters. This problem is caused by men. Period. The men of Africa need to wake up and grow up. I'm really getting tired of reading about the men of Africa abusing Africa and it's children and women. I'm tired of black men in Africa raping virgin girls because they think it will cure them of AIDS. I'm tired of black men in Africa finding any old excuse to put guns in the hands of black boys and teaching them to kill. I'm tired tired of black men forming "revolutionary" movements that consist mainly of buying guns blowing up shit and raping old women.

I'm tired y'all.

I'm tired of the bull.

Sondjata
-tired black man.

Arrested for Talking

Fresh from their recent takedown of a couple of black youths, who did nothing more than:

a) Take an oath to an FBI informant posing as Al-Qaeda.
b) Asked said information for shoes, a car and a camera.
c) Talking junk.

The American Press is full of glee as they report an Arrest in Lebanon of

Assem Hammoud, was a member of al-Qaeda and had confessed to the plot...to attack the transportation system in the New York and New Jersey area

Got that? Scary stuff here right? Right? Well upon reading further we find:

Mr. Hammoud and an unknown number of other people were planning to detonate a bomb in the Holland Tunnel in the hope of flooding Lower Manhattan.



Yo! I'm getting goosebumps. I USE the Lincoln tunnel! Reading further:

Mr. King and Mr. Schumer each said that the plot had been caught in its early stages. Mr. King said that he had been informed of the investigation by the F.B.I. and the New York City Police Department nine months ago.

In a televised interview on CNN, Mr. Schumer said the plot had not gotten beyond the talking stage.

"There's no evidence that anything was ever done, no purchase of explosives or even the sending of money," he said...

Mr. Schumer said the arrest in Lebanon was the result of intercepted Internet conversations. "They were caught by people talking," he said. "In this case, intelligence did its job."



Um, excuse me? Let me get this straight. Some guy was on a chat room. Said some things that he physically could not do. There was no money transfered. There were no explosives or even plane tickets purchased and this guy got arrested? Look. I'm not sympathetic with Al-Qaeda but I have a huge problem with arresting people over what they say or what they think they intend to do at a particular moment in time. You should be very concerned about this too. I know for sure that I have posted items on this blog which can be construed as "giving advice" to a terrorist organization. Having the right to write such stuff is guaranteed by the constitution. Speaking, when it does not directly and immediately threaten the lives of other people, is not a crime. So where is this whole arrested for speaking/writing coming from?

I believe that the reason "law enforcement" feels that they can arrest persons for speaking is based upon hate crimes legislation. Hate Crime legislation criminalizes thoughts or words that are shown to motivate a crime or in the recent Howard Beach case, where certain words are used during the commission of a crime (and I'm not convinced that what happened in Howard Beach was a crime, much less a hate crime, but I wasn't on the jury). In essence you are tried based on thoughts. I have a huge problem with hate crime legislation. If a person committed murder it doesn't matter to me whether they said "nigger" while doing so. So long as a jury will deliberate fairly and convict based on the evidence, then the justice has been served. I have no wish to police what someone thinks of me as a Black man. I simply require that I am not assaulted or murdered.

BUt hey, Why stop at race? Why not put on extra years for people who kill rich people because they hate how rich people act or the simple fact that they are rich?. This isn't a preposterous thought if one follows the logic of hate crime legislation. And of course if one accepts that thought is reason enough to prosecute then why not prosecute people who hate Americans? And of course, that is exactly what we are witnessing. Should anyone speak ill of Americans they can be labeled "terrorist". Should they dare utter some thoughts of killing Americans, like many Americans utter about killing their bosses, prosecute them for...ummm...talking about killing Americans.

The one thing we, as conscious black people know, is that we struggled to get the government to recognize that people have the freedom to associate with whomever you want to. It is the actions that the individual takes (or does not take) that makes him or her a criminal. Being a member of Al-Qaeda may be a bad idea, but I'm cannot arrest someone for that association. What I can do is monitor anything that is legally permissible until I have enough evidence that the person has moved beyond verbal intent to actual actions (purchases of bomb making material for example) to then monitor him or her fully and/or make an arrest. This is how law enforcement works. Yes, it is an intelligence victory that these individuals were "caught" discussing a plot. but discussion should never be a crime in a free society and a free society does not have to make discussion or affiliation a crime in order to be secure.

Technorati Tags: critique, US Constitution

Notes On The Hamas Government

The thing that the current Israeli "incursion" into Gaza make profoundly clear is just how little power that the so called Palestinian government has. I think the term "so called" is appropriate given the complete lack of governing and defense (a basic requirement of any government) that this entity is providing. I think any reasonable person would realize that had an Egyptian national "kidnapped" an Israeli soldier, there would be far more talk going on at the moment. I would hazard to propose that there would probably be some sort of exchange being discussed. However this post is not about what should and should not be done by the Israelis or the actions (or lack thereof) of the international community(tm). This is a note on what the Palestinians need to do if they intend to do more than be a bystander or canon fodder. I wrote back in November of 2004 right after the death of Arafat:

Ultimately though, what has and will continue to stymie the PLO and the Palestinian people is their lack of an economy. That a large majority of palestinians had to depend on work in Israel to make a living is simply inviting failure. Ultimately Israel could afford to simply cut off economic ties with "Palestine" and simply watch them die off. I suspect that "the wall" is a part of that plan. When I was studying Nkrumah's and Fanon's writings I learned that it is not the struggle that is most important but the state one wishes to create. In ones struggle the group must put into practice that which is desired in the end result so that the people can see that the fight is not for the fight but for the life after the fight. In my admittedly limited understanding of this conflict, the PLO, Hammas et.al have been so focused of the removal of Israel (which will not happen so long as the US is it's military benefactor), that they have not even considered a "plan b", A Palestinian state. A state however limited geographically or economically can legally purchase arms without legal interferance. a organization with the label "terrorists" cannot. a Palestinian State, however limited can demand that Israel remove illegal settlers. In fact even a limited Palestinian state could 'deport" any settler within it's borders.
The faster the PLO understands that this anti-colonial struggle is militarily unwinable, the faster it can move to "plan b". Hopefully a part of that 'plan b" is an India type move into information technology. Until then, Palestine will contine to be the playground of the Israeli Military and a testing ground for the US military with poor women and children being the primary victims as more prosperous Palestinians move to other countries and live relatively well.

I want to reiterate this point because Israel, in its blatant and illegal show of force is doing it's best to let the Palestinians know that Israel is in control. There is no place where the Palestinians are that the Israelis cannot go, bomb or otherwise lay siege to. Palestine in Israel's "bitch" and having "gotten out of pocket", is getting corrective behavior, pimp style. I renew the call for the Palestinian government to realize that they cannot defeat Israel (the US by proxy) militarily. However, just because Israel cannot be defeated militarily does not mean that Israel is not defeatable. I propose that since Muslims all over are so concerned with the "ummah" which I would presume includes Palestinians, The Saudis and other rich Arab nations should invest in the infastructure of what we'll call "lesser palestine" (Gaza, etc.). The aim here is to create an economic situation whereby Palestinians by and large have no need to go to Israel for employment or much of anything else. I suggest that the Palestinians cease and desist from any more attacks on Israelis. After decades of fighting exactly what has the "intifada" really done for Palestine? Seriously? While many many young men have "given their lives" to the struggle, Israel is still here, has a far better economy (with much help) and is growing geographically. For every Israeli killed by a suicide bomber, how many Palestinians have been killed? When Hamas took office, the "international community(tm) threatened to turn off the aid tap, which immediatly threatened the government with bankruptcy. This is some kind of joke right? This whole resistance struggle makes for good television and probably puts more money in the hands of Time Warner subsidiaries than any Palestinian.

The second thing that needs to happen is for the other so far "loud mouthed" Muslim nations around Palestine, the ones who have much to say about the situation but apparently don't have enough faith in "Allah" to grant them a victory over Israel, or are simply just too shook, to find their backbone and:

A) develop their military to disciplined units as to not be subject to the same humiliation they were handed in the 7 days war or more recently the fly over by Israel of the president of Syria's home. On a related note: Just how sloppy is your military to even allow a jet from a hostile state to even get that close shows the simply lack of discipline and professionalism on the part of the Syrian military. I assure you that if Syria had flown a plane anywhere near Prime Minister's Olmert's residence, that plane would be in a million pieces and the pilot would now know whether there were in fact "replenishing virgins" waiting in paradise for him.

So as much as the recent incursion into Gaza has shown the clear disrespect that the Israelis have for International law, Democracy, or Palestinian civilians for that matter, so to has it shown the impotence of the Palestinian "resistance leadership" and by extension that of the Arab states around them who have taken no steps to protect their fellow Arabs. I hope that the Palestinian people are taking a long hard look at the burnt out shells of so called "government" buildings and thinking about a new direction.

Chavez: Pan-Africanist

D-sekou, the DeskRat has posted a piece on Hugo Chavez's visit to the Gambia where he stressed the importance of self reliance in Africa, A unified Africa and a for cooperation of Africa with Latin-American countries. We agree wholeheartedly and will simply point you to the posting here:

http://deskrat.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-venezuela-we-were-tired-of-all-our.html#comments

We like the opening quote from the website:

"winning most of the votes doesn't make chavez's government legitimate" --idiot whitehouse spokesperson

Mr. Williams Get's One Right

I don't usually find myself in agreement with Walter Williams but lightening has struck and I find myself on the same side as Willy. In an essay posted to the Walter Williams site at George Mason University Mr. Williams discusses the seat belt laws:

Virginia's secretary of transportation sent out a letter announcing the state's annual "Click It or Ticket" campaign May 22 through June 4. I responded to the secretary of transportation with my own letter that in part reads:

"Mr. Secretary: This is an example of the disgusting abuse of state power. Each of us owns himself, and it follows that we should have the liberty to take risks with our own lives but not that of others. That means it's a legitimate use of state power to mandate that cars have working brakes because if my car has poorly functioning brakes, I risk the lives of others and I have no right to do so. If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights. As to your statement 'Lack of safety belt use is a growing public health issue that . . . also costs us all billions of dollars every year,' that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism. No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."

Mr. Williams discussion here is extremely persuasive. I am of the opinion that the inside of one's vehicle is one's private property and the police have no business looking into said property without my permission or a warrant. The reason police can look inside your vehicle without my permission is because you need to be able to look outside. Hence laws on the books that prohibit tinting not because of any public safety issues but because police can't see in the vehicle are particularly odius to me. But that's not the genius behind Willy's remarks. No, the genius behind his remarks which is highly relevant to the actions of President Bush is that the state enforces seat belt laws (and even has them) because the state wishes to regulate your personal activity which does not have any detrimental effects on anyone else. If there is anything more definitive of a "victimless crime" it is the non-use of seat belts. In fact the lack of seat belt use cannot cost us "billions of dollars in medical expenses every year' because if one does not wear a seat belt then during an accident, one is either killed outright or suffers various injuries. An insured person would be a "burden" to his or her insurance company, not the state. If the person is not insured then we have an issue with health insurance not of seat belt use or non-use. Of course this is where Willy and I part ways. I have no problem with "socialized" healthcare. Nor do I mind being taxed for it. I do have a problem when the state hands these tax dollars to so called "medical management companies" that apparently specialize in telling doctors what not to do for patients. It is also arguable that like the prison industry accidents, like crime, provides jobs for people in a wide variety of fields such as trauma, fire, ems, police, etc.

There is another reason for this problem with the concept of "protecting us from ourselves" reasoning for government intrusion: Speeding. There is simply no evidence to prove that speeding, in and of itself is the cause of an accident. Yet the states in an orgy of "road taxing" citizens set up elaborate traps and impose astronomical fines for doing something that is "victimless." Lets be clear, I'm not talking about the fool doing 50 on a local street. I'm talking about doing 80+ mph on an interstate with little traffic. The use of cell phones actually causes accidents. People blocking the passing lane, leading to people having to use their brakes on interstates causes more accidents than any speeding. Yet blocking a lane or obstructing the flow of traffic results in a lower fine and lower points on a license (if any) than speeding.

Anyway, the whole "I know best for you" syndrome has also given us President Bush who has the opinion that he can decide which laws he will and will not abide by. It is the same philosophy of "We're looking out for you" or what the Republicans have called "Big Government (tm)", but with this presidency has become what we have called "American Big Man".

Another clear example o government overreach into the personal liberty of citizens was the Terry Shiavo case. That was another example of certain lawmakers telling citiens how they should live and die mostly based on some religious faith.

All in all we should be careful over why we enact certain laws. Government should be enacting laws that protect us from each other not from ourselves.

Technorati Tags: critique, Leadership, governance, Religion

Sistas in Space

Following in the footsteps of Mae Jemmison we want to wish Stephanie Wilson a safe trip on the Shuttle Discovery.

Faith, Religion and Politics

Barak Obama gave a presentation in which he says that Democrats need to "embrace faith". Says Obama:

"I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death," Obama said. "It is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope."

"At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that--regardless of our personal beliefs--constitutional principles tie our hands," the first-term senator said.

"At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word `Christian' describes one's political opponents, not people of faith,"

as a Democrat, he has fallen into the same trap as many in his party who have come before him, remaining quiet about the role faith has played in his life for fear of engaging in the conversation on religious values.

Obama said that while America's religious gap has been manipulated by the likes of such evangelical conservative leaders as Rev. Jerry Falwell and broadcaster Pat Robertson, Democrats have remained on the sidelines. And that, he said, has to end.

"Over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy," Obama said.

"And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal," Obama said.

"No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and belittle and divide," he said.


I think that Obama is mistaken in his analysis here. I think this speech is a clear pandering to a group of people he probably wants or needs should he wish to run for higher office. It is also a strategy that the Democratic Party is going to use in order to attempt to "retake" the House and Senate. The problem here is that there is a mixup between organized religion and faith. People have faith in all kinds of things and people. We have faith that our vehicles will not break down on us while we are driving. We have faith in people to do the things they are expected to do. No one has an issue with faith. What people like myself have problems with is organized religion and it's input into governance. Some of us have issues with organized religion itself. I am not one of those people. Organized religion is the codification of particular faiths, For example the belief there is a devil or not. The belief in a "returning" God or not and other things that cannot be substantiated but some people decide to organize their thinking around. The problem with most organized religion is that they are often replete with contradiction. For example Christians and Muslims believe that killing is wrong but most will make exceptions for whatever thing they deem is necessary. The other problem with many religions is the co-option of common sense social contract issues. For example a Christian may say that stealing is wrong because God says so. A person who does not believe in God will say that regardless to what any religion says, stealing is wrong because it is deprives a person of their goods. A Christian and an Atheist may agree on the fact that stealing is wrong but some Christians will insist on adding that God says so. The Atheist may argue that such addition is unnecessary and the Christian side will argue that such an objection is oppressing their beliefs. Hence a part of the conflict.

The other part of the conflict is painfully obvious. There are so many different organized religions that it is simply impossible to acomodate them all. This is the primary reason why "progressives" should not stoop to pandering to so called "people of faith". Nor should "progressives" who categorize themselves as "people of faith" insist on the inclusion of "faith" in the role of politics. Furthermore; "Faith" in America is usually synonymous with "Christian" which in a multi-religious country is simply discriminatory. Many Christians mistakenly think that as the majority religion in the country that they get to define what will be legitimate "faith". Of course if the government were to take sides then it is endorsing and establishing a de-facto religion in violation of the Constitution. The proof of this is that if school prayer were to be introduced in public schools and the prayer was going to be in the form of Buddhist meditation, I know many many Christians who would object. How do we know this? In Michigan there is a town where there is a large Muslim community. They have petitioned to have their call to prayer broadcast by the Mosques and the Christians object. Now how can one object to a call to prayer if you are a "person of faith"? The town wanted to pass and ordinance to prevent the call but ran into problems because it was clearly discriminatory in that church bells would be exempted.

All in all I think the Democratic Party and so called "progressives" ought to push the logic behind the separation of church and state as a defense against discrimination and religious tyranny. They should stress that separation of church and state is not an encroachment on the personal lives of any religious group (except that which conflicts with the law).

Privacy

So I was over at Wired and stumbled across an article that discusses the NSA IP tapping. As a matter of disclosure you can find out if your traffic is going over an At&T network and therefore is subject to NSA snooping. Read below:

If you're a Windows user, fire up an MS-DOS command prompt. Now type tracert followed by the domain name of the website, e-mail host, VoIP switch, or whatever destination you're interested in. Watch as the program spits out your route, line by line.

C:\> tracert nsa.gov



1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 12.110.110.204

[...]

7 11 ms 14 ms 10 ms as-0-0.bbr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [64.159.0.218]

8 13 12 19 ms ae-23-56.car3.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.173]

9 18 ms 16 ms 16 ms 192.205.33.17

10 88 ms 92 ms 91 ms tbr2-p012201.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.186]

11 88 ms 90 ms 88 ms tbr1-cl2.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.10.41]

12 89 ms 97 ms 89 ms tbr1-cl4.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.10.29]

13 89 ms 88 ms 88 ms ar2-a3120s6.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.123.8.65]

14 102 ms 93 ms 112 ms 12.127.209.214

15 94 ms 94 ms 93 ms 12.110.110.13

16 * * *

17 * * *

18 * *


In the above example, my traffic is jumping from Level 3 Communications to AT&T's network in San Francisco, presumably over the OC-48 circuit that AT&T tapped on February 20th, 2003, according to the Klein docs.

The magic string you're looking for is sffca.ip.att.net. If it's present immediately above or below a non-att.net entry, then -- by Klein's allegations -- your packets are being copied into room 641A, and from there, illegally, to the NSA.

Of course, if Marcus is correct and AT&T has installed these secret rooms all around the country, then any att.net entry in your route is a bad sign.

if you are on a Mac you can open the terminal.app and type the same thing as above.

The bolded entry is the AT&T "tap room".

If you see that entry you have just had your privacy invaded by the US government. If you are a US citizen then the tapping of your communication without a warrant is against the law as:

a) you have not committed a crime.
b) you are making a domestic communique which cannot by law be intercepted without a warrant.

You may want to consider hiring a lawyer.

original Wired posting:
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/#1510938

Technorati Tags: privacy, US Constitution

The Hypocracy of the Israelis

Today after a massive build up, the Israelis have started their own little "Desert Storm" operation in the Gaza Strip. Let us be very clear here that this is in fact a war. The Israelis have bombed three bridges and have outed electricity and possibly water in the Gaza Strip. All of this because a group supposedly affiliated with Hamas "kidnapped" an Israeli soldier. In what alternate universe is the leadership in Israel in that it thinks that going to [official] war with the Palestinians will actually result in the release of the soldier? If I were one of the people that kidnapped the soldier, I would have killed him already. Since I think that the Israeli leadership knows quite well that this is a likely scenario why are they waging war and foolishly buzzing over the president of Syria's home?

This is nothing but a cover for what the Israelis have wanted to do since Hamas was brought to power. All efforts to provoke Hamas has been made from the witholding of monies (which is an entirely OTHER issue altogether) to the bombing of the palestinian beach (regardless of what the Israeli military says). Israel is using it's clear military superiority (thanks to the US) to provoke an all out war with Hamas which Hamas cannot win militarily.

What is worse is that had this been in reverse, the Palestinians taking military revenge on Israelis for a captured or killed Palestinian soldier, there would be all kinds of charges of terrorism. If that is the case then where is the cry of terrorism here? It is not to be found in the Times, LA Times, CNN or other news outlets because apparently only Arab states (and a few Asian ones) are capable of "state sponsored terrorism".

So when next we have a threat against the US, don't act all surprised.

[edit 10:24 P.M.]

I have just read on the BBC website that Israel is holding members of the Palestinian government. 4 cabinet members and a deputy Prime Minister. Also the Mayor of Qalqiliya (a Hamas party member) has been "detained".

There is simply no excuse for the inaction of the UN. Can you imagine members of Hamas or Korea kidnapping, oh sorry, detaining members of another government and NOT having to deal with immediate Security Council action?

Israel has warned of serious military action should the kidnapped soldier not be returned. Exactly how serious are they talking? And given the number of Palestinians killed by Israel how can the media claim this to be anything other than state terrorism as it would if the tables were reversed?

Technorati Tags: Middle East, Palestine

Say What?

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SOME BAD LANGUAGE

*Start Rant*

Why hasn't anyone told President George W. Bush to SHUT
Tha
FUCK
UP?

Why?

This fool stood up on national television and admitted to breaking the law. Which law? The FISA statute that requires warrants to spy on American Citizens. By doing so he also broke his oath of Office to uphold the constitution. It is so clear that he broke the law that Republicans are trying to change the law after the fact. So where DA FUCK does George Bush get off telling anyone that the reporting done by the NY Times is "Disgracefull"?

FUCK YOU!

Where are the reporters with actual back bones and things called testicles (or ovaries) to point out the CLEAR ASS CONTRADICTION of the law breaking president attempting to scold the NY Times over reporting on government spying by a government already caught illegally spying on US citizens?

SHUT
THA
FUCK
UP

Oh and representative Peter King of New York:

SHUT
THA
FUCK
UP

WHere was your big ass mouth when Bush was on national TV admitting to breaking the law?

SHUT
THA
FUCK
UP!

If the NY Times committed treason as Mr. King suggests then what about George Bush who admitted to doing so on national televisions and who YOUR PARTY is attempting to rewrite law for?

SHUT
THA
FUCK
UP!

Where is your call for an investigation of all parties involved?

SHUT
THA
FUCK
UP!

*End Rant*
OK I'm done.

Technorati Tags: critique, Leadership, politics, US Constitution

Seas Of David?

So we have reports of a "black terrorist" group called the "Seas of David". They were immediately labeled Muslims though I doubt that. this link:

CAIR: Miami Cult not Muslims has a good report on why this is doubtful:

It seems pretty obvious that they are just a local African-American cult which mixed Judaism, Christianity and (a little bit of) Islam. It seems to be a of vague offshoot of the Moors group founded by Dwight York. I heard on CNN that one of them talked of being Moors. And Batiste, the leader, called whites "devils" in the tradition of the original Nation of Islam and York's Moors. Now CNN is saying one member said they practiced witchcraft [likely meaning Haitian voodoo or perhaps Santeria-like rituals]. One former member is called Levi-El, suggesting he might be associated with the Black Hebrew movement or an offshoot. Now a relative of one of the members, Phanor, said that they wore black uniforms with a star of David arm patch and considered themselves of the Order of Melchizadek. I wonder if it is "Seas of David" or "C's of David", with "c" meaning commando or some such?

but this is really not the biggest of the problems with this particular arrest. The problem, to me, is that they had in fact committed no crime. The informant represented himself as a member of A-Q and the "main man" of the Seas of David apparently took him at his word and proceeded to ask for guns and such.

note: just how dumb are you to believe someone is A-Q just because they said so? Dumb enough to think they were going to take down the Sears tower among other buildings. It would seem that the "Seas" would have had a better time had they gone to the local gun runner and bought some guns as apparently the FBI and Justice Department can spot and take down "threats" to national security but apparently can't stop guns from being sold and used in poor black neighborhoods.

It appears that the members wanted to "kill as many devils as possible". I can understand that sentiment. I have sentiments like that from time to time. In fact I had one not too long ago. But such sentiments are not crimes and people should not be jailed for being outraged at the actions (or inactions) of Europeans. On the other hand, there are quite a few so-called "Black revolutionaries" who are so fixated on "the man" that they lose all sense. For example, did any of the members of the "kill the devils" movement even ask what exactly that would do to change the day to day situation in their neighborhoods? No? Thought not. Or perhaps they never actually thought of all those black "devils" that have heaped much misery on other blacks. Are they gunning for them too? To quote Amiri Baraka:

The devil is the one that does the evil.

Of course, like those persons who flew into the Twin Towers, I'm sure the "Seas" didn't think too much about the black folk that would die in the building from their attack. Bad enough black lives aren't worth to much to "devils" so sad that so called "revolutionary" brothers also view black lives that way.

But all this presumes that the "Seas" were actually going to do anything. And that is a huge assumption given that the only person who really committed a crime was the informant who offered to procure weapons. That is gun running an illegal activity if I recall. I have long said that one should not be arrested and detained for things you said you may do rather you should be arrested for actively trying to do what you say. In this case the group, if it was serious should have been watched until they had procured some bomb making material (which they would have had to do) and then such material would have been probable cause for a warrant and perhaps a tap on phones, etc. Having an informant meant that as soon as the bomb was being built the police could have come in and arrested the group for committing an actual crime. That is law enforcement. What we got from Alberto was grandstanding.

But let us be clear, I do not believe for one minute that this has anything to do with "terrorism". Rather it is a clear signal for those who have not been paying attention that the 'new era" in "law enforcement" is upon us. Those tactics used on so called "enemy combatants" are going to become a staple of domestic "law enforcement". Citizens are now subject to be arrested for things that the govvernment deems "dangerous" or indicative of intent. This should be cause for concern by people in the face of a government willing to break the law to do "law enforcement".

Technorati Tags: Pan-Africanism, politics

Bill Gates' Philanthropy: So What.

Last week we got news that Bill and Melinda Gates would be working full time on their foundation. The media fawned over Mr. Gates, worth billions, for his getting medicine to disease racked Africans (and others). Hooray for Gates.

I don't care.

Let me tell you why I don't care. Africans have been living in Africa since humans have been on the planet. None of the diseases killing them now are new with the possible exception of the HIV virus. How on earth did all these Africans survive all this time without nary a white man in sight much less philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation or Doctors without Borders? The answer to that question is the same answer as this one:

What is missing in most places where disease is killing off people: Government. Good government.

The only thing Doctor with Borders or other groups do when they "cure" preventable diseases in Africa is address the symptom of a bigger problem. So long as the bigger problem is not dealt with, there will always be sick Africans for white people to make themselves feel good about helping. I'm not saying that the people are not sincere but it is a waste of donor's money to constantly deal with problems that are not only preventable but also recurrent.

In a post on Niger I noted that the government of Niger actually has a policy that the UN and other NGO's will take care of the poor and destitute. It's actually a national plan to have outsiders do the governments job. This is what needs to be addressed. Bill Gates could have say paid off the debt of a country that is "doing the right thing". Mr. Gates could fund the African Union so that they can be more effective. Mr. Gates could fund organizations the promote good governance. These things aren't as glamorous as starving children and emaciated adults but in the long term the aforementioned ideas would do more to prevent preventable and treatable diseases than Doctors Without Borders.

But there is another issue. Europe ad America are sucking the continent dry of trained medical staff. Mr. Gates could fund hospitals in Africa that could provide doctors with a financial incentive to stay in Africa. This lack of adequate medical personnel is possibly as great a problem as the issue of good governance. Even if the government was running adequately, it would be a very very long time before most countries in Africa would have the economic clout to match wages and quality of life desired by the 'educated', so there would have to be some sort of incentive to keep these individuals even with good governance.

So yeah, I'm not really impressed by Gates' work in Africa because it keeps Africa as the object of pity and dependence.

Technorati Tags: Africa, Black Employment, critique, Leadership, Pan-Africanism

String Theory

So I was watching PBS last night and they had a re-run of the Nova program on string theory. For those unfamiliar with it, it is the idea of the unifying theory of "everything". That is, the one equation that combines quantum and mechanical physics. In essence we have gravitation, electromagnetism, atomic energy and weak forces. String theory unifies theses energies by being the root of all of them.

The issues with combining these forces was illustrated in the following manner:

Gravitational forces is that which we see all over. It is "orderly". At the subatomic level though, there is a lot of uncertainty and apparent chaos. Hence the rules governing the macro level appear to conflict with those on the micro level. String theory suggests that these "strings." are at the core of all things and act to make both the quantum scale and the macro scale "orderly". What I found interesting about the theory is that these strings are claimed to exist in multiple dimensions and have various shapes or frequencies.

This idea struck me as very familiar.

A long while back I wrote a poem in which I stated:
Biology is Chemistry is Physics and is describable my Mathematics
and that right there is what confused pythagorus...

Indeed this whole discussion of strings reminded me of biology. Think of it this way: Muscles appear as smooth and striated. however, the proteins that make up muscles don't look anything like the smooth muscle we see at the macro level. The same is true for most of our body parts, what we see at the macro level looks nothing like or even behaves like that which is seen on the micro level. This is much like the differences discussed between gravitation and the small forces.

However; this wasn't what really struck me, what did strike me was the descriptions of strings: strands, sometimes looped, bends in different directions and vibrates at different frequencies, much like the proteins that make up our bodies. It was said that the way strings are bent and the way they vibrate determines what kind of force they will be come and on a macro level, what kind of matter they will become. Similarly, the shape that a protein takes (which is very convoluted) determines it's final function or if it will function at all. Hence the human body, indeed the bodies of all living things may be macro sized representations of string theory.

If that is the case then looking back on Khemetic religious systems, we can see that they were perhaps on the path to some cosmic discoveries. For example, the Khemites had a habit of representing the Neters as humans with animal heads. These heads represented the various natures of humanity and therefore by extension the various natures of creation. In other words, nature was a representation of the cosmic forces we wish to understand. We can understand the universe if we understand the various representations of the universe that exist all around us.

Technorati Tags: string theory, Religion , science

Ghana Commentary

For those of you who do not keep up with Black Electorate you should check the June 20th article on Ghana's trade pact with China by Kwaku A. Danso which applies equally to other areas in Africa as well as the diaspora.

Sample:
"Additionally they agreed to work together to tap the potential in their economic and trade relations and to set up co-operation in infrastructure, construction, telecommunications and human resource development."

What does this imply? Questions: Does Ghana have any major companies that can go to China and help them in infrastructural development, such as building telecommunications and HR development? Does Ghana have anything that can benefit the Chinese economically? In construction?

Read further:

"In line with this, the two Governments would encourage their companies to expand business ties and cooperation to create favourable conditions for boosting bilateral trade and investment. The Communique said China promised to provide assistance to Ghana to the best of its ability and to contribute to its economic and social development."

What do these words imply? Questions: Is Ghana shipping some more goods to China that we may not be aware of? What does "favorable conditions" in international talk mean? Anybody who knows about globalization should be familiar with such words. It simply means "make it easy for me to sell my goods in your country." Despite America's flowery language to third world countries, have they agreed to stop subsidies on their agricultural products and have they given our products an equal chance on their markets? Have you seen Ghana Pineapple lately at an American shop? And if you were to go beyond raw material, have you seen any American company looking at Ghana to set up their next expanded electronic assembly line or software development factory? Has America agreed to some of the treaties that are not favorable to their interests?

I see no real need to comment since I believe the author to be on point.

Technorati Tags: Africa, Blackanomics, Pan-Africanism, Ghana, puppy

Dear Mr. Cosby

Hello sir.

You don't know me which is a bad thing. Why? Well because I'm the kind of person who would give you excellent advice in the execution of your "Call Out" tour. First let me say that since it's inception at the NAACP Brown V. Board celebration dinner, I have been an ardent supporter. Unlike many of your critics who were judging you based on hearsay rather than the actual speech, I stood by most of your comments, except the "name" thing. When I got a hold of a transcript of your speech I discovered that you were improperly quoted on the issue of names and recanted my critique of that issue. I watched you on Like It Is with Gil Noble. I downloaded and listened to your defense your positions on NPR. I watched video of a presentation you gave in Newark, NJ. Overall, I knew that those who said that you were being vicious and unkind were simply mad because this material was being put out in public and that unlike many of our leaders it spoke out on a culture of mental poverty and slavery that permeates many black people who find themselves in economic poverty. I recognized this difference and I heard many people who at first had problems with you come around to understand what you were talking about.

However, I was very, very, very disappointed when I read the following at The Black Commentator which was a reprint of a piece that showed up at Playahata.com:

The day that I published the piece, Dr. Cosby made a call to the dean of my college. To be fair, the Coz explicitly stated that he didn’t want the dean to do anything to me. Instead, he wanted to express his concern that I was undermining his project. Still, I’m sure that he understood the significance of the school’s most famous and coveted alumnus/donor making a call about a young, untenured professor.



and

I didn’t bother to ask how Bill Cosby, who I was sure wasn’t in Atlanta, knew that I was on the radio discussing him. Instead, I asked what he was saying about me. He replied, “He’s calling you a liar and a hustler. He’s saying that you have a ‘hip-hop website’ and that you can’t be trying to help Black people with a ‘hip-hop website.’”

and
Me: Hello. Dr. Cosby this isn’t [my friend]. This is actually Marc Lamont Hill. You were talking about me so I figured I’d call back so that we could talk.

Cosby [clearly shocked and uncomfortable]: Yes?

Me: I don’t understand why you have to call me a liar and a hustler. Why can’t my response be just as sincere and principled as yours?

Cosby never answered my question. Instead, he proceeded to grill me about my job, my affiliations, and my “hip-hop web site.” I attempted to explain the nature of my work–although he referenced the site, I doubt that he actually read anything – and the substance of my critique. Unfortunately, he insisted on talking over me and trying to “son” me. Unintimidated, I continued to attempt to offer my side of the story.

After 10 minutes or so, Cosby says “Mr. Hill. You’re a smart man. You’re a good writer. You’ve called here twice. You’ve had enough to say.”


Sir, if this is true and I have every reason to believe it to be, then you were out of order, rude and served a great disservice to your tour. Though I support your message I am not a blind supporter nor am I a "yes person" which is what you apparently have as your major advisors. If you go to my posting entitledNotes To So Called POC Revolutionaries you will find a list of pitfalls which you have apparently fallen into. Let me point out the most relevant ones to you:

4) Name calling: Oh I think a lot of people fall down here. Most times conscious people are seen as being mad all the time. They are probably right. Often times I notice that persons who cannot defend their positions (even when they have the right one), end up name calling. Oh yes, your buddies will probably love you for “telling that cracker off” or whatever the opposition happens to be. Problem is, a lot of people who may have been with you may be turned off by your mouth (pen or keyboard). You simply never know who is in the audience and what they will respond too. Since even the most sailor mouthed person can understand to an intelligent and coherent argument, there is no need for the name calling. Worst yet, your opposition will use your sudden lack of vocabulary to smear you in the eyes of the audience. People will look at you and think that the foulness coming out of your mouth is indicative of what you stand for. Hey, I understand how easy it is. On occasion I’ve even fallen off that wagon. But be sure, you are being watched and listened to. Watch. Your. Mouth.

As someone who has fallen into this pit now and again I know how easy it is, but for real, you have a whole lot more attention than I do so you need to be a whole lot more careful of what you say. Furthermore:

4) Lose the “Yes Friends”: Boy are these people a drag on your development. “Yes friends” are like crack or worse, chocolate chip cookies. Like said cookies, these people exist simply to comiserate and/or inflate your ego. They often have self-esteem issues and need for you to park where they are mentally locate so that they don’t feel so alone having long been left alone by those who have matured in their views. President Bush is surrounded by “Yes People.” Much of the Republican Party in America is a big “Yes people club.” Many of the corrupt leaders in various African countries are still around because of “Yes People.” How do you know when you are surrounded by “yes people.” I’ll admit that it’s a whole lot easier to spot yes people from the outside then it is to spot them from the inside. Let me offer this test. Are you God (5 Percenter ideologies aside)? OK having established that, you are not infalible. If you are in fact falible then you have no doubt made a mistake. I’ll venture to guess you’ve made many mistakes. Now think of a point where you made a particular mistake that was pretty obvious after the fact. Was it pointed out to you? If so, was it pointed out to you by your “buddies” or by an “outsider” If it was pointed out by an outsider, your buddies are likely “yes friends.” They may be “I don’t want to hurt your feelings” friends. These are the ones that did know you goofed but didn’t want to hurt your feelings by saying so so they said nothing. They are just about as bad as the yes people. What you choose to do with these people are up to you but my suggestion is to cut ‘em loose.

What is perhaps the worst thing about this event was that you lost an opportunity to perhaps win over a potential ally. Why burn a bridge unnecessarily? We need allies and we need not make our own adversaries when outsiders will make plenty for us.


Lastly, I'd like to point out that many of the people who agree with you grew up on Hip Hop and while we abhor much of what has happened to it, we love the artform like you love Jazz. You should be more considerate of the music of our generation. Playahata.com among other websites are places where a lot of what you discuss are discussed among members. You would be surprised at the level of some of the discussions that go on there. I can't vouch for every Hip Hop site out there but you'd be better served by being careful about blanket statements about websites you probably don't read. It's really bad form.

I hope this note has found you in good health and I hope that the tour is a success by whatever measure that you are using. Please be careful of the motives of those that both critique and support you and use your power and celebrity with a little more discretion (IE: calling a dean of a university about a professor is a bad idea).

Yours in struggle

Sondjata
Garvey's Ghost
garveys-ghost.blogspot.com

Technorati Tags: Bill Cosby, Black Education, critique, Leadership

Bad Talking Black Power

Black America Web has an article that highlights the recent mangling of Black Power ideology by George Will with the aid of Shelby Steele. George Will's article can be found here As pointed out by Gregory Kane Mr. Will bases is comments on Black Power not on the seminal work by Kwame Toure. Nor does Mr. Will look at the writings of Marcus or Amy Garvey. Instead he bases his point on a recent book by Shelby Steele entitled "White Guilt". Mr. Will focuses in on this particular passage:


“By the mid-60s, white guilt was eliciting an entirely new kind of black leadership, not selfless men like King who appealed to the nation’s moral character but smaller men, bargainers, bluffers and haranguers -- not moralists but specialists in moral indignation -- who could set up a trade in white guilt.”

What exactly does the above have to do with "Black Power"? I mean, in the very definitive sense of the word power, Black Power would have to be an idea that promotes the ability to determine outcome for Black people or Black peoples ability to determine the outcome or in Kwanzaa Kujichagulia. Given this, the above quotation cannot even be referring to Black Power or those who advocate black power. Since the above quotation cannot be about black power or it's advocates then who exactly does this quote refer to?

If we look further into Will's reading of Steele we find this:

The big invention by these small men was what Steele calls "globalized racism." That idea presumes that "racism is not so much an event in black lives as a condition of black life," a product of "impersonal" and "structural" forces. The very invisibility of those forces proved their sinister pervasiveness.

Say what? Where does Steele pull this definition from? That is how did the phenomenon of "globalized racism" better referred to as The White Supremacy System and Culture become defined as "a condition of black life? Those who study white supremacy understand it to be a system and culture that generally describes the actions and thoughts of white people vis-a-vis non-white people. it is these actions and thoughts that whites ought to feel shame and guilt. That persons such as George Will, fail to recognize this is an inherent part of the "globalized" racial system. We also ought to remind Mr. Will that it was the English with their visions of global conquest that pronounced to the world the ideology of worldwide white domination as "The White Man's Burden". Clearly then, if George Will has an issue with "Global racism" as an ideology he ought to go back and question the British on the matter and no so-called "small men", "bluffers", and "haranguers".

Indeed our critical examination of Dr. Welsing's important book, demonstrates that as exists in the laws of physics, there are effects to the cause of global racism. Through Dr. Welsing's Etiology we find the numerous ways that many black people act in self destructive ways in reaction to the White Supremacy System. In fact, had George Will done any sort of research rather than picking at the brown nose near his anus, he would find that black power advocates, who existed before the 60's and 70's, have always had a critical word for those blacks who act in ways contrary to their best interests irrespective of Global White Supremacy.


Hence when Mr. Will writes:

The theory makes the absence of identifiable adverse events in the lives of individual blacks irrelevant to blacks' claims to victimhood.

We know he is full of feces. Of course the feces with which he is full of has a name in Shelby Steele who writes:

Black students who have never suffered discrimination can, Steele says, enjoy affirmative action "with a new sense of entitlement." As a result, Steele says, "We blacks always experience white guilt as an incentive, almost a command, to somehow exhibit racial woundedness and animus." The result for blacks is "a political identity with no real purpose beyond the manipulation of white guilt."

Interestingly, for him black as an identity is merely a political tool, never mind the very real general cultural differences between whites, blacks, Asians, etc. Secondly, where does Steele get the fact that students have never suffered discrimination? What study did he conduct to determine this? OF course he has none other than anecdotal evidence, but his real bugaboo is Affirmative Action. I have my issues with the program as it is implementedbut understand that since AA was meant to reverse long standing effects of past discrimination, even if not a single student ever was discriminated against in his or her lifetime, the program would still be justifiable. It is only blacks with severe inferiority complexes who have problems with AA. They spend all their time trashing AA while not addressing the other means that white students get into universities and jobs. It is the pernicious racism of white persons that assumes that Affirmative Action is a sign of "less able" rather than "remedy". I simply refuse to engage in the therapy of white persons afflicted with this ailment. it is too bad that such persons have dingleberries at the ready for picking.

Mr. Will continues in Steele blackface:

Black "militants" are actually preaching militant dependency. They have defined justice as making whites feel so guilty that they will take responsibility for black advancement. One casualty of this, Steele says, has been education: "We got remedies pitched at injustices rather than at black academic excellence—school busing, black role models as teachers, black history courses, 'diverse' reading lists, 'Ebonics,' multiculturalism, culturally 'inclusive' classes, standardized tests corrected for racial bias, and so on." Reading, writing and arithmetic? Later. Maybe.

Really? I will place a bet that neither Will or Steele know any actual "black militants". By "black militant" I'm not talking about the loud mouth on the Mic at a poetry slam. Granted there are persons ad groups who's entire program is based on the hoped eventual mass benevolence of white people and the corporate power structure. Unfortunately for Mr. Will and Steele, they are not "Black Power" organizations. Those organizations are what are referred to in true "Black Power" circles as Integrationist. True Black Power advocates have independent schools; they have philanthropic organizations and Businesses.

Real, actual-factual, Black Power advocates had no hand in bussing. Black Power advocates did not create the corporate friendly "multiculturalism" either. Of course Both Will and Steele have no respect for and therefore see no point to black history or corrections to tests. Also Garveyites are against such things as "Ebonics" as a teaching tool. Garveyites teach the importance of mastery of the language of the country in which one resides (even if we fall short..ha!). Therefore Mr. Will and Mr. Steele are wrong in saddling Black Power advocates with these things.

I could go on picking Mr Steele and Mr. Wills weak argument but it would be a waste of my time. Anyone who reads Mr. Will's article and takes it as truth, doesn't know anything about Black Power advocates or ideology. It's just the blind leading the blind.

Technorati Tags: critique, Pan-Africanism, politics, Shelby Steele, puppy