Not Resegregation.

So today I read that the Supreme Court of the US has decided that race cannot be the sole factor in assigning students to public schools.
Yay.

Really. This is good news. It is unfortunate that the decision was due to two white parents in Kentucky and Washington who were upset that they could not move their children to another school. However; this is a great decision and underscores my long standing position that the 1954 Brown V. Board of Ed of Topeka Kansas was fatally flawed. For those unfamiliar with the Brown V. Ed. decision, it basically ruled that legal segregation, that is having laws on the books that says blacks can't go to school here, or there, was unconstitutional. No problem with that. The problem was that the wording of the text was SO obnoxious that any self respecting black person ought to wretch upon reading it. In that decision it was claimed that black children were mentally damaged by not being able to share a school room with white children.

Bullshit.

That commentary was nothing less than the usual White Supremacy talk that holds that black people are in need of white people in order to make it. That our ability to strive was dependent upon the good influence of white people.

Right.

So that was my love hate relationship with Brown V. Board. Glad the whole legal thing was taken apart, but hated the language. This brings us to the current decision. Talking heads of various Head Negroes in Charge organizations are grabbing microphones and standing in front of waiting TV cameras to wail and moan about the return of segregation. Ummm..No. The decision says that school boards/districts cannot use race as the sole reason to send a student off on a two hour bus ride to another school. There's nothing in the decision that says where students cannot go based on their race. Important distinction.

Most importantly though, the Head Negroes in Charge and their white counterparts, have not been caught on camera noting that so called "segregated" schools all ready exist. The fact is that by having assigned school zones, the local schools are already reflective of the demographics of a given community. Therefore if said community is 99% white such as, oh Upper Saddle River, NJ, then you can bet that the student population there is, yes you guessed it, white. Similarly in say, Bushwick Brooklyn, NY, you will find that 90% of the students are black, same as the neighborhood.

The problem, which I have said to anyone who would listen was not who was sitting in the seats it was the funding of the schools. Schools are funded based on the property taxes generated by the neighborhood. Clearly a flawed system, since the poorer the neighborhood the worse the funding for a school. Therefore, this decision is a great opportunity for concerned black folks to speak out for a change in the funding system for schooling. If greedy white suburbanites don't want their taxes going to other school districts, then they ought to be reminded of the cost to the taxpayer to house those who the educational system fails, read: jail.

So don't pay attention to the talking heads wailing about the return to the plantation. Not happening. If only because corporate agriculture has been importing new slave labour from Mexico. Black folk in America have been trained to think that greater education is directly proportional to the proximity of white people. No doubt that there has been truth to that, but now is an opportunity to break that chain.

Technorati Tags: Black Education, critique, governance, Supreme Court, US Constitution

I'm a Mac

This has been stewing in me for a while now. I was tempted to start another blog for my non-political/religious stuff, but decided against it for reasons I don't quite remember. When I feel strongly enough about something technical I usually post a comment on some of the other tech websites such as Macintouch, MacNN, ArsTechnica, etc. If you can't tell, I use a Macintosh and yes, I own an iPod; two actually. But something has been bothering me about Apple ads of late and I need to let it out. I'm not entirely sure if this is "accidental" or research based, but I'm pretty annoyed at the presence of black folk in Apple advertising.

I've been listening to Talaam Acey's "Market 4 Niggaz" remix track and the general theme has been reverberating in my mind. That theme is that so long as black folks are entertaining everything is cool. I've been mentally going over the Mac ads I have seen and I'm seeing a pattern. See there are recognizable black folk in the iPod advertising. First we had the Black Eye Peas, and then the silhouetted iPod dancers, who I'm sure are of various races, but feature folks who you "know" are black. We've even had Wynton Marsalis do a piece. Then we had an Apple event where Kanye West made an appearance at the end of the show doing his then chart topping "Gold digger" track (I hesitate to call it a song but...). There was some buzz on the net about his performance but when the web video showed up, Kanye was removed. That annoyed me. Invisible, silhouetted blacks= good, actual real life black MC's on stage= Bad. Alllrighty then.

Then the infamous "I'm a Mac" advertising came out. I enjoy most of them really I do. At first it was just white man PC and white man Mac. BUt then came the extra characters such as the lovely Asian camera, The white female Mac Genius. The serious white male security guard who stated "You are having a sad realization". Yes folks, black silhouetted dancers = Good. Now there WAS a black character at the "Vista" party, a minor character, oh yes there was the black dead PC guy. Yeah OK.

Now we have iPhone commercials abound and yet again not a Negro to be found. Now given that in large parts of the markets where Apple does its sales, there are HUGE "minority" populations why is there such a lack of lead black, latin or Asian characters in Apple advertising? I can't think this is accidental since whenever I see pictures of Apple's core team of decision makers there isn't a black face to be found. Now that means that either there aren't enough black executives to go around, or black people just aren't bright enough to work at Apple or the marketing departments of both Apple and TBWA \ Chiat \ Day have come to the conclusion that white faces sell better than black ones and therefore black faces (or hands) are bad for Apple marketing. I kinda hope it's the latter since it would make economic sense (not agreeing with it but it's logical). It could also be possible that no one thought of it, though I seriously doubt that not a single black person auditioned for either part.

Now personally I thought that with the advent of the black Macbook, that a nice I'm a Mac ad with a black character would have been forthcoming. I mean there are SOOOOO many directions that ad could go in, and on a side note I'm a huge fan of the Geico caveman ads.
Any way you cut it, I think there is a serious issue with Apple's advertising, which may or may not reflect the company or it's dealing with the social reality in America, but I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Greetings From Charleston South Carolina

Today we are in Charleston South Carolina, home of the infamous Telemaque (Denmark Vesey) and Gullah Jack. get up on your Denmark Vesey history, get the DVD

Report From Jamestown

So today the temperatures in Williamsburg VA reached 100 degrees. Heat index is somewhere about 104. Not fun. Glad I decided to stay. It will be much cooler tomorrow when we get to......Charleston South Carolina. I haven't gone to the Colonial Williamsburg because something told my spirit to go to Jamestown. The museum out here has a heavy African presence. It appears that Africans, commonly referred to as "slaves" were from the Kongo region of Africa. At first I was somewhat annoyed at the fixation on the Kongo, After all there were far more "advanced" states in Africa at that time, but realized that it had historical reference. The other thing that annoyed me was the presentation on the Kongo and Nzinga. By the presentation you would think that the Africans had no belief system until the Europeans arrived. There was a lot of discussion of Christianity's influence on art etc. yet no discussion on the Kongolese beliefs themselves. They mentioned that Nzinga became a Christian but then reverted back to.. Oh yes not mentioned. There is a lot of information on the Religion of the Kongo people so I was disappointed to not see it, though not entirely surprised. This stands in stark contrast to the Native American museum where the traditional beliefs of the various nations were discussed and highlighted. I really think this has much to do with the shame that Africans in America have towards traditional African religions.



There was a replica of a "slave quarter" which stood in stark contrast to what the colonists were living, even though by today's standards the colonists weren't exactly living large. But the contrast is very apparent. Now the reason I suppose that I was drawn to Jamestown was pretty clear when I got on one of the ships. They had full size replicas of three ships that landed in Jamestown. What's pretty important about this, at least to me, was that these ships were also reflective of what it was like to be in a hold. I was pretty overwhelmed when I got below deck and saw just how small a space and how hot it was down there. The experience made it pretty clear to me that our ancestors who survived the trip across the Atlantic without dying or losing their minds were truly the strongest of the strong. If, as a black person you've ever been ashamed of the slave trade (and there are many people who are), you take in a sight like the hold of a ship and realize you are the descendants of the toughest of the tough. So that's what I needed to see.


Ok so onto other things. Over at Planet Grenada we have a link to a fatwah on pan-arab racism by ex Black Panther Dhoruba Bin-Wahad, which is an interesting read and provides more data on my issue of Islam and Africa.

he historical high water mark of Arab penetration of Africa after the middle-ages is today an East – West fault line of genocide, violence, brutal skirmishes committed by Arabized Muslims (from the north) against non-Arabized African Muslims, and Black Africans (from the central and Southeast regions of the continent). Never before has the contrast and conflict between Arabized North Africa and Sub-Saharan Black Africa been so sharp and clear. Across the face of Africa Arabized militias and Roving Rebel Bands kill, rape, and slaughter entire villages, population centers, and lay waste to Black African lands supported by governments who are members of the Pan-Arabist organizations like the “Arab League," nations such as Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, and especially Saudi Arabia, quietly acquiesce to the Arab dominated government of Sudan's slaughter of Black African's while passing numerous resolutions and proposals to world bodies on the Palestinian – Israeli conflict or resoluion of the Lebonese crisis.

I have a few issues with Bin-Wahad, but can't argue too much with the general sentiments.

Garvey's Ghost from Colonial Williamsburg

Yes folks, Sondjata is making a road trip! Garvey's Ghost will be travelling from the New Jeru (That's New Jersey) to Miami Florida. Right now we are in a hotel room in Colonial Williamsburg. It is 97 Degrees as of 4:23 PM and we've been driving top down. I fully expect to lose 10 pound from the heat alone this trip. But enough about the driving. Why are we in Colonial Williamsburg? Well I keep seeing ads for the place with clean, happy looking Negroes. So I wanted to see why the Negroes were so happy in Colonial Williamsburg. After all VA is home to one of the "bloodiest" African uprisings in American history. So perhaps I'll see some monument to Nat Turner. Not. But really, I did want to see what the deal was and I'll report on the goods tomorrow.

Today however; I stopped at the Native American museum in Washington DC. Let me say at the outset that the architecture of the building is excellent. When they said no squares they meant it. The place is curvaliscious (not a word). For those who have not been, there are two floors of exhibits and a few theatres. You can park on the street for 3 hours for no charge, should you be able to find a parking spot. Olodumare and the Ancestors were kind to me and I got a spot straight away (musta known I was on a time crunch). One can definitely see how Africans and Native Americans would have gotten along. Many of the worldviews are complementary. In fact a couple of nations have color schemes in common with the Yoruba.

Off the trip tip, I must continue with my commentary on the Palestinian situation. It is now public knowledge that the US and Europe are looking to back the Fatah government while simultaneously doing all they can to make the Hamas government on the strip fail. When people ask why fools fly planes into buildings and such, these things must be brought up. The US, Europe and Israel have no business trying to topple governemnts. If all Hamas wants to do is gun play, then the people of Palestine will deal with them appropriately. But as it stands Fatah will be seen as a puppet government of "The West" and rightfully so. They will get things done not because they are demonstrably better than Hamas, but because the US, Europe and Israel have decided to support it.

Oh yeah, I must comment on another thing. This trip has fully reminded me as to why obesity is a problem in the US. I'm trying to find a meal here in Williamsburg and decided to go to a buffet place. Now, every buffet place I've been too has had Chinese food, so I can eat well but not heavy. This joint had "southern" food. Grease galore. I swear that I had to be the slimmest black person in the place. Well of the few that were there. In fact, I'll say that I was one of the few slim people in the building. So the food is "well seasoned" and the folks next to me who were apparently from North Carolina, were busy putting MORE salt on the food. Now since I felt that I had paid way too much for what I considered to be glorified junk food, I had two helpings of food ( I found some nice dirty rice, grilled chicken and veggies in the back). Would you know that the waitress, who was very, very nice to me, kept putting out new plates. I think she wants me to gain weight. Then when I got up to leave, the NC folks felt the need to urge to let me know that I had neglected to have dessert. I actually had 2 chocolate chip cookies. But I'm saying though, Folks can't be eating like that and expect to be healthy. Seriously.

Chaos in Palestine

I must point out to all watchers that while the direct actors in the latest "civil war" in Palestine are Hamas and Fatah, the blame for sparking this event lies squarely with Israel and the United States. The US, who claims that they want "Democracy" in Palestine and elsewhere (something we're just not going to discuss at this time), decided that it was not acceptable that the Palestinian people would, in a free and fair election, vote in Hamas. Perhaps it is the Bush administration's confusion about the actual voted for winner actually taking office, that makes such an event in Palestine so distasteful. The US along with Israel decided (you know, that whole "decider" thing) that the Palestinians cannot vote for Hamas and therefor lead a campaign of economic and political terrorism against the Palestinian people by asking world governments to not recognize the new government and by withholding funds from the Palestinian government.

It would have been better if Hamas had taken it's rightful place in the Palestinian government and been forced to deal with being an insider actually responsible for providing services to the Palestinians. The whole "must accept Israel's right to exist" thing is way over blown. There's so much to be done in Palestine that such a platform is all but useless anyway.

The results were obvious to anyone with 2 functioning brain cells. Clearly by rejecting the results of the free election, the US and Israel played it's hand (like we didn't know it already). That hand was that it wasn't about elections it was about US and Israeli interests. So by Hamas deciding to take over is a clear rejection of US interference in Palestinian affairs. It is a clear, we did it your way, now we do it ours. On the other hand I'm concerned about this fighting. For a people that have been fighting for what seems to be generation now, there is the danger of fighting becoming a way of life.

We shall see.

Technorati Tags: critique, governance, Palestine

Death of Black Politics As We Know It?

Over at the Black Agenda Report we find an article entitled: Why Barack Obama Needs a Whuppin’: Honest Abe, He Ain’t

While I'm in agreement on the general thesis of the article, I must disagree with the following statement:

Barack Obama is the antithesis of Black Power, a man who promises with every word he speaks, with every nuance of phrase and body language, and through his voting record as a U.S. Senator, that he personifies the definitive end of Black organized struggle in the United States - a unilateral surrender to white racism.

If one wants to keep the focus on the black struggle within the US. then I would say that the most recent nail in the coffin of black politics was the demonization and abandonment of Cynthia McKinney. While Don Imus got ejected for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "Nappy Headed Hos." We must remember that Cynthia McKinney was called "Bitch" on the floor of the US Congress. The perp in that case was Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC). The CBC was dead ass silent on that event. It was pretty clear that calling black women out of their names, in a public forum was acceptable.

Next, shortly after the DC police incident which was purportedly caused by McKinney's then new hairdo, Radio pundit Neal Boortz, said, on air that McKinney looked like a "Ghetto Slut." This too went without so much as a peep out of the CBC or other so called Black leaders. I have no doubt that since McKinney has the infamous "Black woman backbone" the spineless black men inhabiting the CBC were unable to muster up the guts to put these crackers in line.

Since it was OK to publicly insult and degrade a strong, outspoken black woman such as Cynthia McKinney, it should have come as no surprise to any of us that the women of the Rutgers team would receive "equal treatment". After the defeat of McKinney (which she and her colleagues has a serious hand in), I wrote that her defeat represented the death of black oppositional and protest politics. The current generation of the black middle class, which incidentally are the early edges of the Hip Hop generation, is only interested in a few things: money and access. As with the rest of us in this generation, we learned all to well that rocking the boat and talking that "black shit" was an expressway to being marginalized and a "promotion killer". If we can't go natural, speak our minds and wear "um-foo-foo" shit, then no way we are going to allow McKinney to mess us up.*

Much of Obama's institutional money comes out of the black middle and upper class. Our wealthy, talented tenth, many of whom would probably lynch Al Sharpton for the Klan if they could make a business deal out of it. They want to see a black president that represents them and their values. Their value is in anything that de-racializes their existences. They are professionals who "happen to be black" rather than black professionals. And believe me, by mind and by culture the descriptor "happen to be black" is very relevant. This is what the white population wants from a "black candidate". Black enough to appease white guilt, but not black enough to bring up those fears.

So no, I disagree that Obama is the definitive end of black organized struggle. I believe that Obama represents the results of an already ended organized black struggle. Obama is the result of a compromised movement from decades ago.

Anthony Martin Retiring

I just read what I assume to be the latest issue of Diverse Issues in Higher Education and found out that Dr. Anthony Martin the author of Race First (required reading on our list) will be retiring from his position at Wellesley College at the end of this month. I attempted to e-mail him, but apparently Dr. Martin has not been keeping up with his e-mail and his mailbox is full. He has a new book on Amy Ashwood Garvey, Marcus Garvey's first wife which I need to pick up. So if you get a chance, try and send Martin a line thanking him for his excellent scholarship on Marcus Garvey.

Technorati Tags: Tony Martin

"Western Religions"

Brother Abdul Halim from Planet Grenada posted a question in my blog entry that was in response to a post he made on his blog. Specifically he asked whether I considered Christianity to be a European religion. It was a good question which I thought deserved it's own blog post.

If I took a stroll down memory lane I will recall the first time a "Dr. Ben" book landed in my lap. The book was the infamous "African Origins of the Major Western Religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam)." That book was true to Dr. Ben form: repetitive and chock full of information and intimidatingly long. But being the somewhat social outcast that I was, finished that book, among many others that summer, in no time at all.

Of course it hadn't quite dawned on me that the title of the book was in fact very misleading. While it did in fact place ancient Khemet in it's proper place as the mother of these religions, it was mistaken to refer to these religions as "Western". Indeed it would be completely wrong to say that Islam is a western religion. It would be equally wrong to refer to Judaism as "western" as well. I do understand that in terms of Judaism, the prevailing face of the religion is that of a European, but that wouldn't make Judaism itself a "Western" religion. Similarly, though Asians make up the largest body of Muslims, it would be incorrect to say that Islam is an "Asian" religion.

This "face of" issue is pretty important when confronting religion in terms of Nationalism and Pan-Africanism and specifically when answering the question posed. I am on record, with supporting data, showing that the "big three" religions are derived in large part from Khemet. The operative word being "derived." I freely admit and allow space for the fact that cultures embrace religions within their own historical and cultural context. So while Allat became Allah and the Ka'aba move from the 'pagan' realm and into the "holy" of the new religion, all the while ending prayers in reference to Amen-Ra, or the great "I am" becomes the Yahweh, as former Haribu declare themselves the chosen people, while building temples based on the temples of Egypt and rebuilding Arks of Covenants, they each formulate their specific religion to address the wants and needs of that group.

The single important thing that the "big three" have in common that is most relevant to this blog enntry is the nationalist element that each co-opting group developed. for Judaism, it became a means of separating out themselves from the people around them, and religiously justifying warfare on other groups (who, no doubt, used their own religions for the same purposes), in order to establish the Jewish nation. Islam was similarly used in such a manner. Christianity which really ought to be referred to as Christendom, was similarly appropriated by the Roman empire and later the rest of Europe. Christianity, outside of Ethiopia and the Middle-East, would be the new organizing and unifying thought behind Europe as Islam would be later among Arabs. Specifically dealing with Mr. Halim's question though, Christianity became Europeanized when did things such as canonizing Latin as the "official" language of the "holy scripture". When it placed Rome at it's center of authority and decided to mess with the texts (an issue Muslims often bring up in criticism of Christianity/Christendom). In essence, under European "tuteledge", Christianity became a European religion. Of course all the splinters that happened with the protestant "reformation" continued to put a European stamp on the religion.

So in essence I consider "lay Christianity" as a European religion in that it centers it's thoughts and ideas from Europe, via the latin. It centralizes Greco-Roman culture and language as it's root (see all the discussion of "Agape") and sees it's foundation at Judaism, itself a derivative of Khemetic religion. In order for Christianity to return to it's true roots it would have to move beyond it's lock into the Judeo-Roman, ideas and return to it's Khemetic roots. But doing so would upset much of what is "common sense" among common Christians such as the demonizing of Egypt, a complete rejection of the Exodus and the complete re-understanding of the Christ figure. Most, but not all Christians are not willing to do this necessary reconfiguration, and their institutions, modeled on European model of Christianity, are also not interested in such changes.

So as a matter of history and of intellectual discussion I can say that Christianity is an African based religion, much as how Dr. Ben. says. But in terms of its current functional practiced state, it is very much a "Western" Europe based religion.

Technorati Tags: Africa, Christianity, critique, Islam, Pan-Africanism, Religion

Discussing Darfur

Over at the The Bro log we find a good writeup and link to Minister Faust's radio show, on Darfur.

The popularity of the “Save Darfur” campaign among groups traditionally indifferent to Afrikan suffering is more easily understood when scanning for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias among the organisers. By their own descriptions, Sudan is a struggle of so-called Arabs against what they describe as “Black Africans."

Yet 99% of Sudanese would be called “Black” or “Africans” if they stepped foot in North America. When spoken by Sudanese, the term “Arab” may mean “Arabic-speaker,” “influenced by Arab culture,” or even “affluent.” And even though anti-Muslim bias is clear among many of the Darfur activists in the West, both sides in the Darfur conflict are Muslim.

Isn’t it strange that organisations and activists with limited or zero history in campaigns designed to end Sudanese or Muslim suffering have taken such a strong interest in Sudan now? After all, Afrikan suffering is far greater in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the suffering of Afrikan Muslims includes actual slavery in Mauritania.

Check it out.

Technorati Tags: Africa, Pan-Africanism, Sudan

The Alien Nature of Islam in Africa

Yesterday I happened upon a posting on Planet Grenada (see link on side) entitled: sufi mujahideen . It is a wonderful thing to expose oneself to people who hold ideologies that are different from your own. Mr. Halim and myself have gone back and forth on the subject of Afrocentricity and Islam, of which there are a number of blog entries dealing with the subject. One of his bone's of contention with me is that I, among others, hold that by and large Islam is "alien" to Africa. That is Islam has it's general origins outside of Africa. Specifically though the argument is best made in relation to West Africa, which is practically the farthest west one can go from the geographic origins of Islam, without crossing water.

I use the terms "general" in reference to Islam's origins because as detailed in my blog post "Abrahamic What?" I show that Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all have a common ancestor in the Khemetic "mystery system" Therefore the specific "alien" nature to which I refer is the Arabic cultural phenom that gave rise to the specific religious expression we refer to as Islam. That said, I want to get back to the blog post that inspired this post. In his piece, Mr. Halim writes (quoting scholars):

In Morocco, the Shadhili tariqa was the forefront opponent of the Portuguese in the 15th century, the most notable of the Sufis being al-Jazuli.33 Shaykh ‘Uthman Dan Fodio (1754 – 1817) was a Maliki scholar of the Qadiri order who vigorously spoke out against the innovations that had become dominant in his time, particularly the mixing of Islamic and pagan beliefs. He eventually performed hegira, established an Islamic state, and engaged in jihad to unite the region under the Shariah.34

Now I found this statement to be "interesting" to say the least. Morocco is where? Yes that's right. And why would Uthman Dan Fodio be concerned with the "mixing of Islamic and Pagan" beliefs? and Why the judgement of native religions as being of lesser value than Islam? Ifg this sounds all too familiar then you are not nuts. This "concern" is no different from the concerns of Christian missionaries who shared the same disdain for the native religions of the peoples that they came into contact with.

But what is more interesting, is how this paragraph underscores a second point made in the "Afrocentricity and Islam" series, which was that Muslim rulers were engaging in warfare against their non-Muslim neighbors and that conflict weakened West Africa and fueled the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It also undermines the entire argument of peaceful conversion of the natives.

If we continue we read:

Al-Hajj ‘Umar Tal was a Tijani sheikh from northern Senegal who fought jihad against both the French and pagans of Guinea, Senegal, and Mali. After performing his second pilgrimage, he traveled across various cities in Africa starting in Cairo and eventually coming to Sokoto, Nigeria, where he studied with Muhammad Bello, the son of Shaykh ‘Uthman Dan Fodio, in the field of military sciences and administration. Upon his return to his homeland, he fought mainly against the pagans of Karta and Segu. ‘Umar was a staunch advocate of the Shariah and after one victory against the polytheists, he destroyed the idols of the pagans with his own hands using an iron mace.35

What can I say? I don't think the "Idolators" were none to happy to have been waged war against, nor having their religious symbols broken. But then again, this all sounds pretty familiar doesn't it? Of course, those of us familiar with the history of Christianity in Africa, know that the Christian missionaries, and their converts did the same thing; disrespecting and destroying religious icons of the "idolators".

In a comment sent to Planet Grenada I mistakenly accorded the text to Mr. Halim, but his post was an excerpt of an article he had read. WHat is important here is that the article itself lends support to the claims made by Afrocentric scholars in that:
a) Islam is in fact "alien" to Africa.
b) The Jihads in Africa served to destabilize West Africa.
and lastly:
c) The introduction of Islam in Africa was not entirely peaceful as is presented by certain Muslims.

The truth always comes up to the surface.

Technorati Tags: Africa, critique, Islam, Religion

Religion and Education

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom
-Proverbs

I recall reading that proverb when I was "gifted" the book of proverbs for a birthday sometime in my early teens. Of everything I read, that one verse stood out in my mind because of all I had witnessed up to that point and since then, was a lot of people with much fear of God but lacking seriously in the wisdom department. It's not to say these were stupid people, but as my knowledge grew and I became more inquisitive, the constant, "because of faith" answers became bothersome. It seemed to be a nice way out for trying to find out why a thing was as it was. There appeared to be this whole conspiracy to not give answers to questions that may contradict "biblical wisdom".

This especially held true for the specific evil ideology commonly referred to as "Evil-ution". Early on I was pretty ill equipped to even hold a conversation on evolution, and to be honest most of the people in the congregation were not equipped to have the conversation either. My interest in African history lead me to study human evolution and the origins of humanity which pretty much blew the whole lid off the Genesis account. Further study of the ancient Khemetic religion, further eroded the authority of the Bible. Education had irrevocably changed my understanding of God, what I then referred to as the "creative force of the universe", religion and religious institutions.

Fast forward and I would find myself posting on religion on this blog and making the comment that there was a correlation between education and certain religious expression. I caught some offline flack for that statement, but I stuck to my guns because in each case, I could demonstrate that there was a correlation between what a person didn't know and the specific belief they were espousing. Worse though, I found a rather strong desire for willfull ignorance. Not only did many of the individuals I was talking with, not know certain things they sincerely did not want to know any different.

Anyway, Gallup has done a poll which "staticises" (I made up a word there) what I have been discussing.

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

I have no doubt that such a thing is why we have these "Bible colleges" springing up around the US. College is not somewhere you go to become enlightened, it's somewhere where you get your ideas re-affirmed while being trained to be a good employee.

The relevant chart can be seen here:



Personally I'm pretty interested in the fact that of the people interviewed over 50% of people with post graduate degrees would say that the Bible is in fact the inspired word of God. But then again, post graduate covers a lot of fields that have little to do with information that would blow that idea out the water. But there is no doubt that as education increases, fundamentalism drops precipitously. It goes to show that a good secular education based on the "scientific" method is extremely useful in combating religious extremism.

Technorati Tags: Black Education, Christianity, creationism, critique, Religion , science

Gas Prices High On Purpose

Many weeks ago I received an e-mail that suggested a one day boycott of gasoline purchases, exempting emergencies of course. I deleted the e-mail. I did so because I knew that the outcome would be nothing. I knew this for two reasons. First and foremost since many people depend on their vehicles to go to work or to do work, even IF they were to not purchase gas as usual the monday (or whatever day it was), they would be right back on Tuesday and therefore the total economic cost to the gas station would be zed. Nothing. Secondly, the gas stations are generally the low man on the totem pole. Yes there are price gougers out there but by and large the gas station has very little influence on the actual cost of gasoline at the pump. Fact is they already paid for the gasoline, so the providers of the gasoline already got paid, will get paid again and won't even feel the one day boycott.

Instead I have oft said that the best means for citizens to send a message to the oil companies is to pick a single outlet, Exxon for example and simply not purchase gasoline from them at all. I call this the Texaco effect. For those who don't remember, Texaco executives were exposed for the racist bums they were and as a result people avoided Texaco gas stations like the plague. As a result, of the event the local Texaco by my residence went under and was replaced by one of it's "competitors". So my thinking here was that if consumers put the target on the back of a company such as Exxon, all exxon franchises, nationwide would be threatened with going out of business and since the whole oil industry is one big cartel anyway, there would HAVE to be a change in policy in order to save that company AND the jobs that would be lost by it going under. The problem is that Americans are simply too lazy to do stuff like that. So I will assume I'm the only person who has an ongoing boycott of Exxon-Mobile, BP and Shell.

So today in the NY Times, we get a report that states flat out that the so called "shortage" of gasoline is no accident. In a totally misleadingly titled article Oil Industry Says Biofuel Push May Hurt at Pump, The oil executives said what is known by now by anyone paying attention:

In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels, along with some improvement in automobile fuel efficiency to reduce America’s use of gasoline by 20 percent within 10 years. Congress is considering legislation calling for a nearly fivefold increase in the use of ethanol.

That has forced many oil companies to reconsider or scale back their plans for constructing new refinery capacity.

In hearings before Congress last year, oil executives outlined plans to increase fuel production by expanding existing refineries. Those plans would add capacity of 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day over the next five years, for an increase of 10 percent, according to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Did you get that? companies are "reconsidering or scaling back" plans for new refinery capacity? reconsidering? I would have bought the argument if they said that the announcement devalued the current construction of refineries. But no, the plans for increased capacity were scaled back? Why is there planning? going on? What these executives want you and I to believe is that they do not have any research departments that foresee and project consumption based on different market indicators. They want you and I to believe that they had no clue that gasoline consumption would not increase. Got that? These multi-billion dollar companies with record profits know less than you and I about gasoline consumption forecasting.

Even worse is that by their statement it takes 5 years to increase capacity by 1.6 million barrels a day. Which means had they had intended to meet forecast demand without the huge increase in prices (enough of this silly inflation adjusted crap, ask someone who's making 30 grand a year or less if inflation adjusted $1.45 price means squat when filling up is 30 bucks a pop), they had to have started at 2002. 2002 folks.

Now read this:

Refineries are a choke point in the nation’s supply of fuel. Because they have not invested enough in refineries to increase gasoline supplies, oil companies have been unable to meet the country’s growing demand in recent years. That has forced them to rely on imports, which are more expensive than fuel refined domestically.

More expensive why? Well if we've been paying attention to the news coming out of say Venezuela, then we know that not only do the oil companies own the domestic refineries they are usually the majority stakeholders in the drilling and refineries abroad. In other words, these oil execs are complaining about purchasing import oil that they already own! This is some real racket we have going on here.

More:

Until the mid-1990s, the United States had significant spare refining capacity. But because of consolidation in the industry, the number of refineries declined while unprofitable operations were shut. As demand grew, however, and capacity remained flat, the picture changed. In recent years, refineries in the United States have been running at or close to full capacity.

Get it. back in the mid 90's you could purchase a gallon of regular unleaded for 99c. I remember 5 bucks giving 5 gallons. But most important to this post is the admitting that the oil industry is "consolidated" which is another word for "monopoly" or "cartel". They admit that refineries were shut down for not being profitable.

Well thanks to Google we can find out just how "unprofitable" $1 gas was:

Gas prices boost Exxon, Shell profits

IRVING (AP) - Higher natural gas and crude prices helped Exxon Corp. and Shell Oil Co. increase profits by about 50 percent in the final three months of the year.

Exxon, the nation's largest oil company, reported Tuesday that net income was $2.49 billion, or $2 a share, on revenue of $37.62 billion in the fourth quarter. That's an increase of 49 percent over the $1.68 billion, or $1.35 per share, on revenue of $31.5 billion in the same quarter in 1995.

For the full year, Exxon reported net income of $7.51 billion, or $6.02 per share, on revenues of $134.36 billion. In 1995, the company earned $6.5 billion, or $5.18 per share, on revenues of $124 billion.

Exxon stock rose 87.5 cents to $103.37« per share on the New York Stock Exchange Tuesday morning.

Unprofitable? Really? Not good enough for you? Check this out:

For Shell and for the industry, analysts said they expected profits to rise on increasing demand for petroleum products now that all major industrialized regions are in a recovery. Many analysts predicted crude oil prices would average around $18 a barrel this year, up from just under $17 last year. In the chemicals sector, the turnaround will be even more dramatic, with some analysts predicting triple-digit percentage gains in profits for 1995.

I mean what are these oil companies taking us for? Complete idiots? Yes. Yes they are. We, sorry, y'all elect people who don't have the stones to put the brakes on these oil companies. Y'all put people in officer who work(ed) for Oil companies. Ya'll let the US Government get taken over by corporate lobbies and have turned public office into the place that goes to the highest bidder. So don't be shocked when not even the vaunted NY Times can't do basic research and challenge to Oil industry line.

Plainly put the gas prices are what they are because the Oil companies want it that way. If there are capacity issues it is quite intentional and they have admitted as such. So until the consumer puts one or more of these companies into the ground by simply not purchasing refined gasoline from them, we, the consumer will continue to be reaching for the soap on the ground.

Technorati Tags: critique, governance, Oil Prices, Exxon

Pew Make Stupid "Muslim Violence" Poll

So this morning I had Good Morning America on to get my daily dose of Non-news. So there is this "news piece" that discusses a Pew poll that indicates that Muslims agree with violence. That was the lead. 1 in 4 American Muslims agree with violence. So I'm thinkin' "And". Now before going into the actual poll, we really have to see the actual purpose of the "news piece" was to simply slander American Muslims. Lets be serious here upwards of 1 in 2 American Christians agree with violence. Why isn't that news? Why isn't that news since Christians claim to follow a man that was non-violent? Shouldn't THAT particular fact be "news"?

But back to the "1 in 4 American Muslims agree with violence" claim. So they didn't really say what Muslims they contacted for this particular poll. This is important because last I checked African-Americans make up a HUGE portion of the American Muslim population. Given that a large portion of this group are influenced by "any means necessary" Malcolm X, it wouldn't be at all surprising that African-American Muslims may not be averse to "violence." Of course one has to define what "violence" means.

The "news" report went on to "clarify" that the question was whether American Muslims agreed with violence in defense of Islam. That statement can be taken many ways. Someone can take the comment to mean that one should kill or harm someone who "defames" Islam or it could be taken as self-defense or defense of another Muslim who his or herself is being threatened or even the defense of one's Mosque. While I personally have issues with the first suggestion, the latter are pretty much a given.

Overall, the "news piece" was simply a piece of propaganda because it reported on nothing that a thinking person could not have figured out on their own. Nor did it put the question in any real perspective. Given the violence that American Christians are quite willing to visit on Muslims, I'd think that the 1 in 4 is a pretty small number and the real news would be in questioning why American Christians not only "agree" with violence against non-Christians, but why they actually commit this violence on a pretty regular basis.

Technorati Tags: critique, Islam, Christianity

Police Shooting in the Bronx

Just coming up 6 months since Sean Bell was shot and killed by the NYPD, we have yet another shooting of an unarmed black man by a police officer. What is more egregious about this particular shooting is NOT that the officer in question is black. After all we know that black men can and will devalue the life of another black man and have done so since before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (Maafa). No what is the most problematic thing here was that the officer ran out his house, confronted the would be hit and run driver and effectively decided on his own that the would be hit and run driver ought to be executed.

As we pointed out in our discussion of the Sean Bell case as well as the white boy shot in North Carolina, there is an increasing sense of impunity growing in law enforcement, emboldened by Head of State Bush. Since we know that Fermin Arzu was not armed, we know that the off duty police officer was not threatened with immediate mortal danger. Since Fermin Arzu was shot in the back, we know, beyond doubt that the officer, unlike the claims of the Sean Bell case, could not have been about to be rammed by a moving vehicle. The officer shot at the van at least 5 times. It is pretty clear to me, that given that Fermin Arzu was unarmed and the officer in question was wearing a hoody and claims to have been wearing his badge around his neck (Sean Bell's killers said the same thing). Perhaps it was Arzu who felt threatened. Not to excuse the fact that he mashed up two vehicles, but who's to say that the officer didn't brandish HIS weapon during the apparent argument and Arzu, fearing for his life attempted to get away? We'll never know will we.

And that is the point. It is not the job of the police anywhere to administer deadly force where an officer's life in not in jeopardy. I'm not understanding how this is simply not understood. Furthermore, this situation has a clear alternative resolution. Once the officer came out of his house to confront Fermin Arzu all he had to do was take down the license plate and get a good look at the man. He then could have used his cell phone, assuming he had one, and called in the plate and description and let his uniformed and on-duty coworkers deal with the situation. A clear, non-violent, no dead people way of dealing with the situation. I thought this up and I'm not even in law enforcement. How hard can it be for a trained professional police officer to come to the same resolution?

I said it before and I'm going to say it again, when police shoot and kill people in their own homes because they mistake a play-station controller for a gun there is a problem with tactics. When police kill people who's homes they've barged into by "mistake" and the owner defends her home, there is a problem with tactics. When this stuff happens not only are the officers involved at fault, but there is a serious problem with the leadership who are clearly NOT setting the example that killing civilians in the course of ones duty is NOT acceptable unless under very specific circumstances.

Don't expect to hear the usual Sharpton haters discuss this. NO. expect the usual about how Sharpton, etc. are exploiting Fermin Arzu's death for personal gain. Expect the same lame excuses about how the police put their lives on the lines every day. etc. etc. Expect someone to bring up the idiot in Manhattan that murdered two auxiliary police officers as if it is even relevant to this situation.

God forbid, that here during Allergy season I should have a sneezing fit and run into someone in a clear accident and end up with a hooded officer yelling at me with his gun out and I get my head blown off because I may not understand what he is saying but will try to take my chances by getting away from the man, in the hood, with the gun (not saying that is what went down).

Technorati Tags: Fermin Arzu, Police Tactics, Sean Bell

World N!gg@ Law.

When you travel abroad, they got world nigga law.
some folks get on a plane to go where they please,
but I go overseas and I get over sees!

-Mos Def
"Mr. Nigga."

So reading the Toronto Star from a link from Black Electorate, I find that Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party has been blocked from entering Canada because of a "five-year-old misdemeanour offence."

Now I'm going to be "fair" and note that Canada and the US have laws on the books that will bar the entry of persons with certain criminal backgrounds. Just the other day I was reading about some white professor who had tried LSD during research at a college and was barred entry into the US (or Canada) because the border agent googled his name and found an article in which he discussed his LSD use. Never mind that it was 30 years ago. The man was refused entry. Since 9-11 stuff like this has been going down. I'm not clear as to what the misdemeanour is and none of the reports that I've read so far have said what it is.

[Update] I don't follow Hip Hop concerts but as at least 2003, the Canadian Government saw fit to allow 50 Cent into canada to perform. I don't need to remind the readership that 50 has a criminal record. Furthermore it is written that:

Volpe's spokesman, Steven Heckbert, said permits allowing those with criminal records to enter Canada are issued regularly.

"It's permission that's granted typically about 12,000 times a year," Heckbert told the Canadian Press.


So I would presume that Negroes talkin' guns, bitches and hos are OK by Canada.

[/update]

What has gotten attention are statements made by the group that had arranged for Dr. Shabazz's appearance:

"What is to blame is the power of the Jewish lobby to influence politicians, to influence media, to influence whatever," said Nkem Anizor, president of the radical new Toronto group Black Youth Taking Action.

This statement illicited a response from one Jewish organization:

"The attempt to blame the Jews speaks volumes," Canadian Jewish Congress chief executive Bernie Farber said of Anizor's remarks.

"It is clear to us now that this was not just an invitation given out without thinking," he said in an interview. "This (Toronto) group, we believe sadly, makes common cause with the anti-Semitic views of Mr. Shabazz."

This of course is par for the course. You'll note that Bernie Farber claimed that the Black Youth Taking Action group attempted to blame Jewish people, en masse when the statement was pretty clear that it was directed at the "Jewish lobby" which any intelligent person knows:

a) does not represent all Jewish people and can be questioned as to whether they represent the majority of Jews anywhere and therefore:
b) The Jewish lobby cannot be synonymous with all Jewish people.

But small details such as that aren't important to the media.

The Toronto Sun also had an article in which we find the following:

black activist mob yesterday.

It's a "Jewish conspiracy," was one of the many anti-Semitic slurs.

It's the result of "white supremacy," was another common theme.

They are "enslaved by the enslavers' children" and "to hell with diversity." Do you want to hear more nonsense from a group claiming to be running an Education not Incarceration campaign?


I love how the relatively small gathering was referred to as a "mob". It's always "nice" to see white folk throw the word "mob" around when it comes to black people gathering. I mean really now, I'm pretty well read. I understand that mob can be used in "benign" ways such as "flash mob" which is a large group of people who converge on a location from a cell phone call to do something and then disperse. But we know full well that mob was used here in it's most negative connotation of "irresponsible" and potentially "dangerous" black people.

The next piece of foolishness is the supposed "slur" of "Jewish Conspiracy". I mean we all know that to claim that there is a Jewish lobby of any sort with any kind of power is a "slur". Unless of course it is the Prime Minister of Israel saying it. Right.

Moving along, we find this nice piece:

"It serves only as a divisive force limiting our effectiveness to fight the real and pressing issues of systemic racism, black on black violence, and the lack of economic opportunities plaguing the black community," said Rev. Don Meredith of the GTA Faith Alliance in a statement put out by B'nai Brith Canada.

"As responsible black community leaders we join with B'nai Brith in urging our federal and provincial leaders to work in tandem to ensure New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz does not have opportunity to spew hatred in Canada."

So what we have here are "responsible" black leaders. We know where THAT term comes from, but for those not in the know, whenever the white power structure needed a black face to cool out the "angry black mobs" they found someone, usually a Reverend, to be the black face that told everyone to cool out and how the "outside agitators" are only bringing discord into the peaceable community and upsetting the good white folk who have and are doing so much to help us "cullud folks". Different time, Different country, Same junk. Had the "responsible negroes" up in Toronto, been real black men and women, they would have first and foremost been upset that it is possible that legal excuses were made in order to stifle free speech. They would also have had an issue with outside, non-black organizations feeling that they can dictate what black folk should and should not listen too. Them days supposed to be done.

But most curiously, the above quotation makes it pretty clear that there is a plan or determination by at least one Jewish-identified organization to use it's influence in the government to stiffle the free association of black people thereby confirming the supposed "anti-semetic" comment made by the Toronto youth group.

Now I have my disagreements with Dr. Shabazz and I may not have been so moved to attend his presentation, but I damn sure am not going to have outside groups tell me what I can and cannot listen to. Furthermore, I will not allow Jewish organizations dictate to me what is and is not "anti-semetic" and I defintely will not be getting up on stage with such a group to lay a blanket condemnation on another black person committed to uplifting black people and the use of legal means to do so.

I hope that Minister Faust over at the Bro-Log will post some reports from other media sources.

Technorati Tags: Black Crime, Black Panther Party, Canada, governance, politics

Hating Sharpton

I've been feeling this for a while now. It reared it's head during the last presidential election and since the Imus situation and the acquital of the Duke Lacrosse players it has shown up again: Sharpton Hating (tm).

What is Sharpton Hating? it' pretty clear. People hate Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) because they show up when black people are insulted, threatened, etc. Sharpton takes the risk of being wrong by speaking out. Whereas you and I, work for someone else and have to put up with various insults and the like, Sharpton (and Jesse) don't work for anyone and are free to call spades, spades. In other words, they make their living, by and large by being there when racist stuff happens.

The Sharpton Haters feel that since Sharpton makes his living in such a manner that he the the reason racism is alive and well in America. By their logic, the reason racism exists in America today is because Sharpton and Jesse create it in order to make their living. Good one right? Now I'm not dumb enough to think that there aren't people who are so pathological as to want to make up slights for their own benefit. It happens. But I'm not feelin' that about Sharpton at all.

It bothers me that someone who made his living running up and down a wooden court and is on record making seriously derogatory remarks about black women, would even be considered a credible critic of someone who has been standing up for black people. it bothers me that sports writers, who make their living writing about people who make their living entertaining people by throwing, dribbling and hitting balls, feel they have something credible to say on what Sharpton is or is not doing. It especially bothers me because should any one of these types of people were to get shot at, or discriminated against, Sharpton would be the first person there to back them up.

It really is the case of most of these Sharpton Haters, that they are mad because relatively speaking, Sharpton is a free man. By a free man, I mean he can say what is on his mind about the state of America, without much fear of reprisal. He doesn't have to call anyone
"nappy headed hos" or hire people to make "race jokes". He doesn't have to trade on stereotypes or anything like that. Say what you want about Sharpton. Say anything you like, but the one thing that cannot be said is that he's a liar (We can debate the merits of the Tawana Brawley thing elsewhere). I have never seen Sharpton, in a debate where he has been caught lying.

The other component to this Sharpton Hating, is that many of those who are hating on Sharpton are doing so based on the reports by the same people that he exposes. How often is it that I hear black commentators talking about how Sharpton is a hypocrite for not going after MC's for using profane language. Anyone who has followed Sharpton knows full well he has been speaking out about such language, yet the same commentators are nowhere near the events where these things happens. There is no news in Sharpton talking about those things.

Certain black commentators have also tried to say that Sharpton has not addressed black on black crime. This is another completely false critique. I expect these kinds of critiques from white people. But the growing number of black talking heads and writing hands, have engaged in the Sharpton Hating. I can only surmise that these ill-informed people are acting, as usual, at the behest of some white "cheque writer" somewhere up the food chain. After all, as pointed out in the sound track below. Denigrating other black people will surely get you paid. Apparently there is a market for toms too.

Apparently to these Sharpton Haters, Red lining, mass unemployment of black men in places like NYC, predatory lending and corporate control and prostitution of Hip Hop is all the work of Sharpton. Yes, Sharpton is to blame for the Duke Lacross players waving brooms at strippers. Sharpton is responsible for the marginalization of conscious Hip Hop (which is not always clean Hip Hop). Yes, Sharpton is responsible for police misconduct and the drug dealers on your corner. Sharpton is why there's so many murders in Newark. Heck, while we're at it, why not blame the whole Iraq war on Sharpton.

So when you start seeing the Sharpton Haters running off at the mouth, or keyboard, recall who they work for, worked for or where their larger interests lay. Doesn't mean Sharpton is above critique, but the blatant hating directed his way: Suspect as hell.

Technorati Tags: Al Sharpton

Market 4 N!gg@z

For those unawares there is a video over on YouTube by Talaam Acey entitled "Market 4 Niggaz". I enjoy Talaam Acey's work and decided to do a remix of that piece. hear it below:

Market 4 Niggaz
Poem: Talaam Acey
Music Arrangement: Sondjata "Mista" Olatunji

Justices Gone Wild

Recently the US Supreme Court has made some decisions that I have found to be so disturbing that I have come to believe that the mental affliction that President George Bush has, is in fact highly contagious. The first decision was the one in which the Justices, none of whom are medical doctors or experts in the field decided that so called "partial birth abortions" are illegal. Well no, actually that a state ban on such actions are constitutional. Now this should bother everyone and in my opinion should not be framed as an abortion issue. Prior to this event, we have the Terri Shiavo case in which members of the US congress sought to pass a law based on their opinion that Terri Shiavo should not be taken off of life support. Much of this clear meddling in the personal medical life of both Terri and her rightful guardian, was based on the religious moral values of the members of congress that came out. If nothing else serves as a shining example of the reason for a separation of religion and the state, the Terri Shiavo case was it.

It was unfortunate that the Iraq war became the center of focus for much of the election news during the last election. Even though the Iraq war is a very important issue, I thought that this feeling that congressmen and women thought they could invade the private life of a citizen in order to determine what medical procedure should or should not be performed was a gross violation of the constitutional rights of US Citizens by one of the very bodies responsible for upholding said constitution.

So it came as little surprise to me that the Supreme Court would get in on the action. Reports said that the courts majority decision was that the Congress has the right to pass laws that they saw fit and to ban procedures they find reprehensible. There are a lot of things people don't agree with. For example I have no wish to be a vegetable. I have no wish to be live paralyzed from the neck down. I would like for my loved ones to be able to end life support under those circumstances. There are people who do not agree with that. I say that is perfectly fine for them. THEY shouldn't make such decisions but they do not have the right to dictate to me what manner of life I should live or what medical conditions I should be forced to "live through". In the case of the partial abortion ban, the justices put their personal, religious, etc. opinions over that of the medical establishment (with it's own faults) and experts in the field. While partial birth abortions may be rare, the fact of the matter is that some situation may arise where it may need to be done as the best procedure to protect the life of the mother. By using the language the court is reported to have used, it is only a matter of time before other abortive acts become "reprehensible" and therefore subject to congressional banning. Eventually we will see a situation where doctors would be unable to induce an abortion to save a mother until some other medical threat appears (often worse than the initial reason the woman showed up in the hospital). The NY Times had an article on that very situation in a South American country last year.

The next dumb decision made by the court was in regard to police chases. When they reported on it, ABC News noted that 30% of the victims of vehicle chases are innocent civilians. The issue at hand was the danger that such cases pose to the general public.. That 30% number clearly showed that police chases are a danger to the public. What I haven't seen is a report that shows how often criminals that escape car chases are caught later. Nor have I seen the percentages of captures when there is no chase involved. In other words what is the clearance rate for crimes that involved vehicles but not police pursuits. Is it possible to catch the criminal without the initial pursuit? If so shouldn't, for the safety of the public, there be restrictions on the conditions under which a pursuit will be undertaken? After all, given that most criminals in vehicles do not want to bring attention to themselves and want to survive to enjoy the spoils of their crime; wouldn't they be more likely to not speed, crash, dodge and weave and do those things that can get civilians killed? And if the ultimate purpose of policing is to keep the public safe, then why is a 30% civilian casualty rate acceptable but not a rarely performed abortion procedure?

Shiavo posts:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-kicking-horse-some-more-i-was.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/insanity-of-it-all-today-i-read-op-ed.html
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/03/teri-shiavo-and-you-even-though-most.html

Technorati Tags: critique, privacy, Supreme Court, US Constitution

Ishamel Reed Breaks it D.O.W.N

Yesterday I read Ishmael Reed's excellent take down of white and black media pundits who have been trying to big themselves up by attacking black people via Hip Hop and the repeated slander of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I usually take key quotes from articles and comment on them but the piece was so HARD, so TIGHT that all I can do is point you to it. Well OK ONE quote:

Imus also set himself up as the arbiter about whom black men should date. Of course, the majority of blacks have some European heritage--my mother has Irish-American ancestors on both her mother and father's side. But black people didn't become a Creole nation as a result of black men and white women having sex. Indeed, the first deadbeat dad of an African-American household was almost certainly English, Irish, or Scots-Irish. Both Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington's white slave-owning fathers had nothing to do with them. And though some black men are abusive to their families, I don't know of any who have sold their own children for profit.

What whaaaat!!



Go here:http://counterpunch.org/reed04242007.html

Technorati Tags: Al Sharpton, Conservatism, critique