HIV in Swaziland

Joy Magongo, a mother of two whose husband moved out to live with his second wife after the couple discovered they were both HIV-positive, told IRIN: "Men say, 'I've been circumcised. I don't have to wear a condom.' They get infected, and they give us HIV.

"He [my husband] was circumcised and felt he didn't have to wear a condom. When we found we had HIV after testing, he blamed me. He said, 'You brought HIV into this house.' It was because I tested first, when I was pregnant with my second child," she said.

"My husband did not believe he could be HIV-positive because he was circumcised. I did all I could to convince him to test, and he finally did. That was the end. He took another wife and left us," Magongo said. Polygamy is legally recognised in Swaziland.

All Africa

It would appear that a larger issue at hand is the fact that these men are clearly cheating on their wives. It would seem also that this unfaithfulness is expected. Even worse is that the "other wife" is about to be the next victim of this man and it is highly probable that she has no clue that she is soon dead.

I honestly do not believe that this man, or others in his situation actually believe that the wife "brought HIV into this house." Instead what we have is a serious case of denial and projection.

Technorati Tags: Africa, HIV, Pan-Africanism

HRES 194

Late to the table with this one:

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 194

Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 27, 2007

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. LEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. WATSON, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. CARSON, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. HARE, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. HODES, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HONDA, and Mr. KUCINICH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.

Whereas millions of Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and the 13 American colonies from 1619 through 1865;

Whereas slavery in America resembled no other form of involuntary servitude known in history, as Africans were captured and sold at auction like inanimate objects or animals;

Whereas Africans forced into slavery were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage;

Whereas enslaved families were torn apart after having been sold separately from one another;

Whereas the system of slavery and the visceral racism against persons of African descent upon which it depended became entrenched in the Nation's social fabric;

Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 after the end of the Civil War, which was fought over the slavery issue;

Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;

Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as `Jim Crow,' which arose in certain parts of the Nation following the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against persons of African descent engendered by slavery;

Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially existed into the 1960's--a century after the official end of slavery in America--until Congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day;

Whereas African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow--long after both systems were formally abolished--through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity;

Whereas the story of the enslavement and de jure segregation of African-Americans and the dehumanizing atrocities committed against them should not be purged from or minimized in the telling of American history;

Whereas on July 8, 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush acknowledged slavery's continuing legacy in American life and the need to confront that legacy when he stated that slavery `was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history . . . The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destiny is set: liberty and justice for all.';

Whereas President Bill Clinton also acknowledged the deep-seated problems caused by the continuing legacy of racism against African-Americans that began with slavery when he initiated a national dialogue about race;

Whereas a genuine apology is an important and necessary first step in the process of racial reconciliation;

Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help Americans confront the ghosts of their past;

Whereas the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia has recently taken the lead in adopting a resolution officially expressing appropriate remorse for slavery and other State legislatures are considering similar resolutions; and

Whereas it is important for this country, which legally recognized slavery through its Constitution and its laws, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so that it can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all of its citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;

(2) apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and

(3) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African-Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.

Lets See How This Goes Down

Back in 1994, if I recall correctly, when the World Trade Center was first bombed a blind cleric was convicted and sentanced to federal prison for giving speeches that inspired/drove that actual perpetrators to bomb the building. That was called "justice." I have long opposed that particular conviction because it criminalized speech rather than action.

Fast forward and today I find the following in regards to the recent shooting at a Unitarian church in Tennessee:

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."



Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."



Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."



Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

Not only that but Adkisson thought that he would have been killed by police. That makes him no different than a suicide bomber. Therefore, by the logic used by the justice system, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly ought to be arrested and tried for incitement to terrorism. by the legal precedent provided by the cleric's conviction, this is a clear and easy case to convict.

For reasons I don't think I need to explain here, I don't expect any such actions to be taken against those men.

Happy Birthday Baba Mandela

Just wanted to say that.

More N-words for Jackson

So apparently, true to FOX's claim, there is more on the off the record remarks by Jesse Jackson. Apparently Jackson is on tape saying "Niggas" or "Nigga." We don't know which because neither a transcript or video has been released as of this writing. Jackson has supposedly apologized for the N-word usage but I don't see why. Well I see why, but I think it's foolish. I know a lot of people, self included, who do not approve of indiscriminate usage of Nigga, particularly in public spaces. Many of those same people are not in any way opposed to the usage of said term in private or in historical context. Fact is, that until we see the context of the N-word usage, it is not a controversy at all.
Is there a double standard in the use of N-words. You damn bet there is. Deal with it. Within' all in groups are in group usages of terms not allowed for use by those outside the group. Of course Niggas always need to be told what to do, what they ought not to do and in the case of the Obama campaign, what to say as well. Of course, that may have been Jesse Jackson's point. Until we see a transcript or video we just won't know.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, N-Word, Jesse Jackson

More With the Insults

Says Obama at the NAACP convention:

Mr. Obama said that government has a responsibility to provide education, employment opportunities and tax breaks for struggling families. In return, parents have a duty to turn off the television, attend parent-teacher conferences and teach their sons to treat women with respect.

Nothing wrong with the above statement, but again, conspicuously absent would be critiques of mothers and daughters in particular. It's the same reason I refused to sign onto the R Kelly petition that went around a couple of weeks ago. I'm simply not having the "shit on black men for votes" go past without comment.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Obama

What I Learned from the New Yorker Obama Cover

1) Black folk are scared shitless that white folk won't vote for Obama.

2) Black folk don't mind Obama throwing his reverend of 20 years under the bus but do mind a magazine cover because of item one.

3) Black folk don't mind Obama's about face on the FISA legislation but do care about a magazine cover because of item one.

4) Black folk, because of item one, are ashamed of the Black Panther Party (never mind that the Black Panther Party colors were baby blue shirts under black jackets).

5) Black folk, because of item one, are ashamed of Afros and Angela Davis.

6) Black folk, generally ill-informed on the subject of African Culture, thought that the clothing in the picture on Obama was "tribal African" rather than clearly middle eastern.

7) Black folk, motivated by item one, don't even raise the question of since there are no religious tests to become president, why it should even matter if Obama was a Muslim. But then again, critical thinking has not been in abundance during this election cycle (or much of any other for that matter).

Yep, that about sums it up.

A Blow to the Head

Charles M. Blow offered a weak defence of Barack Obama in an Op Ed piece in the NY Times entitled Talking Down and Stepping Up:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson wants to do what to Barack Obama? Ouch!



And why? Because he thinks Mr. Obama’s speeches on fatherhood have been too hard on black men and not hard enough on The Man? I’m sorry, Mr. Jackson, but that’s just ... what’s another word for crazy?

Well not exactly. Here we have opinion error number one. While I'm not one to speak on behalf of Jesse Jackson, I do know that his issue with Obama predates Obamas speech in that Chicago church on Father's day. Jesse Jackson had issues with brother Barack (as Dr. West puts it) when Obama had nothing to say on the national stage about the noose hangings in Jena La., I also believe Jackson had issues with Obama's absence from the King memorial at the Lorraine Hotel in Tenn. So we see that Mr. Blow is woefully ill-informed on the origins of Jesse Jackson's issues with brother Barack.

But the problems with "brother" blow only start with his opening paragraph. As is typical of those of Mr. Blow's ilk, the stats and charts play a prominent role in his defense of Obama.

According to the United States Census Bureau, black children are the only group more likely to live with a single mother than in a two-parent household. (That’s in part because black men are the least likely to be married and most likely to be divorced or separated.) And, according to a 2002 report by Child Trends, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group, in 1997 single black mothers were the least likely to receive full child support payments (and most likely to receive none) and only about half of black children had any contact with their absent fathers in 1996.

Poor people are more likely to be on welfare. Wow imagine that. You'll note that in order to get around the glaring number charts at the head of the article, Mr. Blow, like others before him use the term "more likely." It's the same argument about blacks being more likely to commit crime, and more likely to be this, that and the other. While Mr. Blow's statement will possibly be quoted by someone somewhere, the chart above paints a different picture.

Firstly we see that 32.5 million white children live with both parents. By comparison 3.9 million black children live with both parents. Well here's the problem: these aren't percentages these are a straight up head count. By that chart, more white children live with their mothers, by a margin of 1.1 million, that black children. More white children live with their father's, by a margin of 1.5 million, than black children. And there are more than 200,000 more white children who do not live with their parents than there are black children.

As is usually the case, while certain things seem to be disproportionately affect black folk in America, it is usually the case, as is here, that the raw numbers show that white folks lead by far in the numbers. Don't expect Mr. Blow to get this though.

Mr. Blow's next blunder is here:

Are there social ills, racial injustices and economic hardships in the black community? Of course there are. Are there biased judges, outmoded laws and difficult exes? Yes, some. Do these issues excuse child support not paid, time not spent, hugs not given, foreheads not kissed, “attaboys” and “big girls” not spoken? Absolutely not.

Mr. Blow shows absolutely no evidence that the fathers, even those who are not married to the mother of their children or living with the mother does not have contact with their children. Yet there he is blowing off hot air about what he thinks they are or are not doing. But lets go back to the chart on the NY Times page. You'll note the clear disparity of child support payments made and not made but damn, they went as far back as 1997 for this data? Is this some kind of joke? I'm just going to point out NY as an example. The black unemployment rate in NYC in 2003, the same year that the charts in question was published, was 48.2%. by comparison, white men had an unemployment rate of 25%. In 2006 the unemployment rate of black men fell to 40% In some states the rate of unemployment is three times the state average and nationally upwards of 8 times, so Mr. Blow needs to explain how men who aren't working who have reproduced are supposed to magically come up with child support payments. I'm sure Mr. Blow would say that they ought not to have reproduced. Fine. However that fails to address the current problem and we are here to solve current problems aren't we? Or are we here simply to get press for talking junk about black folk (again)?

So really what we have here is a man who clearly knows not what he speaks of. Unfortunately this "dumb in the light of Obama" disease afflicts a great many voter, as discussed in my last blog posting. So let me set Mr. Blow straight here. It is usually bad for a politician to go to a group of people for whom he or she wants votes, to get up and insult them. Obama doesn't go to Appalachia and talk this way to poor white folk who dropped out of High School and are on welfare. He hinted at them being bitter and had his head served back to him on a platter.

You don't go to Texas and tell Hispanics about their illegal immigrant family members and how they ought to stop taking citizen jobs and using fraudulent Social Security numbers and the like. No you don't do that. If black folk had any kind of self-respect, they would have put Obama on notice the first time he insulted them on national tv ( That would be the charges of anti-Semitism, homo-phobia, and racism) that he would not receive our votes if he continued. He would have stopped. But black folk, like Mr. Blow, who clearly have not an iota of self-respect will make excuses for Mr. Obama using Father's day to beat up on black men (calling them boys no less) in order to make a national appeal for white votes.

Anyway, As for the proverbial nuts that Jackson claimed to have wanted to cut off, he would find that those nuts have long since been in the possession of AIPAC. Mr. Blow has another piece of Obama's anatomy in his mouth and I suggest he remove the offending organ from his mouth prior to writing another trash piece for the NY Times.

Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections, Obama

Why Does Barack Obama Hate My Family?

How would people respond if John McCain (or any person of a different race, nationality or ethnicity) threw out stereotypes like these? What would we say if a white person had stood in the pulpit of a black church, or anywhere else for that matter, and referred to black men as “boys,” in any context?

But since it’s Obama, sounding like Bill Clinton before his fall from black grace, or Bill Cosby speaking out of his own personal pain, the change candidate’s remarks were met with hosannas mostly by a vapid, racist, white-dominated corporate media, the black people who say what their white bosses want to hear, and blacks and whites alike who shout amen even when Obama’s saying something plainly contradicted by their own life experiences.

It was no big surprise that after the speech those critical of Obama were dismissed “as out touch” with the new “post-racial” illusion. Bob Herbert of The New York Times appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball went so far as to say that anyone who disagreed with Obama’s Father’s Day admonition to black men was living in a racial “fog” of the past. Newspapers across the county affirmed the smear with headlines like “Obama tells black men to shape up” or “Obama speaks ‘inconvenient truth’ to black men” or “Obama calls black men irresponsible” or “He's saying things people don’t want to hear” - with the inference that truth was flowing from his tongue.

I saw no headline lead with the word "some" black men.

Playin’ folk on any day is bad enough. But, as a father, grandfather and a black person, I see playin’ black men on Father's Day as even more repulsive. The day is for honoring fathers. We don’t honor the vets on Veteran’s Day by pointing out those who choose not to fight, or the cowards, or even the enemy.

http://counterpunch.org/gray07112008.html

Welcome To Waterville/Blue Rapids

About 2 a.m., the defendants found J.L. asleep on the ground and put him in a lawn chair. He was tied, the defendants directed racial slurs at him and urinated on him. They used a can of spray paint to paint the victim’s arms and legs white.

They told the victim he should “go back home” and go back where he came from before he moved to the Waterville and Blue Rapids area.

Capitol Journal Online

Zimbabwe

Documentary on Yoruba Child Naming

If you watch carefully you'll find the meaning of my last name.

No Words for This

I can't even comment
New forms of African pornography

Ten minutes later they arrive at a magnificent uninhabited looking building. A sixty something year old white male and his wife, also white and much younger, welcome the girls. The dim lights at the far end of the house reveals a tennis court. A gaze at the poolside of a large swimming pool in the garden area; nine black girls and six well built black men chat away happily. They all move into the building. Introductions are made by the white couple in a spacious hall in their basement which has its walls covered in wine coloured tapestry. To the right is a grand bar displaying bottles of champagne and assorted whiskies accompanied by delicious smoked salmon finger food. The floor of the room lays a thick mattress, same colour as the walls. A cameraman and his two technicians enter the room and start installing their equipment. The boss claps his hands and no sooner had a handler accompanied by six german shepherds entered than the zoophilia scenes begun, starring africans. The film titled “Black Bitches” sold out in specialised shops in europe shortly after its release.

I'll Pass on That R. Kelly Petition

I first saw the petition on a posting at Feministing.com. I read the petition and decided not to sign it. I don't think anyone else ought to sign it either. There are a couple of reasons for this.

Firstly, I'm still pissed off that Obama used his return to church/father's day speech to talk shit about black men. Yes I'm well aware of, and have often commented on the absent fathers in the Black community. But Obama's speech was clearly a political ploy to get white support by showing that he's willing to "get tough" on black folk. What made that extra insulting was that he didn't seem to feel that he should have shat on black women on Mother's day, as if black women as a group have never done anything wrong at all. Ever. Yeah, OK.

Second: I was pretty much put off by the whole "black men need to...." tone of the title and resulting text. First of all I'm not responsible for R-Kelly. I don't produce his records. I don't buy his records. I don't pay the man millions to perform world wide. The fact of the matter is that a whole lot of black women love R-Kelly. In fact I would hazard to guess that black women are one of R-Kelly's primary audiences. It would seem to me then, that the onus for putting R-Kelly in his proverbial place, is on those black women who have been throwing their panties at him for all these years. But you know how it is. Always a [n-word]'s fault so I don't expect the so-called "feminist" crowd to exactly get in other women's asses for purchasing R-Kelly's music.

Third: This part probably bothered me most. There was this whole The jury ought to have convicted him because the crime was so immoral, tone to the piece I simply cannot get with the whole lets put aside jury rules attitude. If the people writing the petition are so OK with juries or jurist deciding cases regardless to the evidence (or lack thereof), then I expect them to post a petition supporting Judge Cooperman for finding that "attitude" of Sean Bell's friends, justifies ignoring the evidence that none of the officers involved in the Sean Bell shooting, were in any danger of gun fire, since they admitted a few times that they saw no gun.

This slippery, forget the law, logic raised it's head in the Duke case. All over the black female blogosphere I read material which basically said, the suspects were guilty simply because they were white, male, rich, said some really "racist" stuff and happened to be accused.

Even after evidence came to light that put one of the accused in a car, far away from the scene, one of these bloggers made a post giving the alleged victim an award for her bravery? Excuse me? I suppose then that it's OK then for black men to be judged guilty of whatever is sent their way simply because they are black, male, poor (and you KNOW how much crime poor people commit), and perhaps under-educated.

Other blog posts I have read have discussed how the rich get off because they are rich. Well no, the rich get off for a variety of reasons one of which is that they can afford adequate council. I would think that the public would be bright enough to wish that all citizens, regardless of income could get adequate council. In the R-Kelly case, Kelly had adequate council and plenty of reasonable doubt. Does that mean the man is a moral compass for black youth? No. It does mean that unlike numerous black men who have landed in prison or death row because they were simply black, R- kelly received what is commonly known as "justice." People should be happy that a jury was able to evaluate the evidence rather than make some up.

To be honest I'd be very afraid to have some of these people sit on a jury that I may end up on. In the end, the petition does nothing but lay blame for disrespect of black women in general on black men. I'm not having it. This problem did not start with only black men and it wont end with blame shifting or scapegoating.

Obama on the White Hand Side

Since black folk are by and large on Crack in their support of Obama, the following will make little difference but still needs, ummm.. recordification...:

Obama Backs White Blue Dog over Progressive Black Woman

It appears there is no white Democrat so far to the Right that Obama will not lend him support - even in a race against a progressive Black challenger. Obama recently cut a campaign radio commercial for U.S. Rep. John Barrow (D-GA), a "Bush Democrat" if there ever was one. Barrow, a Blue Dog Democrat whose fulsome praise for Bush should be an embarrassment to his party, faces challenger Regina Thomas, a state lawmaker from Savannah, in a district where Blacks make up 70 percent of Democratic primary voters. Thomas has no money, but she is backed by progressive bloggers like Matt Stoller of Open Left, who says: "I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats is a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi endorsing Al Wynn" - the corporate-backed incumbent defeated by progressive challenger Donna Edwards, in Maryland, this year.

More on Zimbabwe

Horace Campbell and Eusi Kwayana write some good stuff on Zimbabwe.

“We fought for this country, and a lot of blood was shed…We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?”

This kind of talk is dangerous and should be condemned by pan Africanists and decent persons everywhere.

ZIMBABWE AND THE QUESTION OF IMPERIALISM

First, there should be an attempt to clear the landscape of certain obstacles. Zimbabwe was in growing trouble before the sanctions imposed by the governments of Britain and the United States. Still, the attempt to bully a small country’s ruler who was in turn bullying his compatriots draped Robert Mugabe in the role of a hero against imperialism. The attempt encouraged a blundering ruler to stay on course. The ZANU-PF forces and sympathizers have blamed the disastrous economic situation on the sanctions. Yet, the political leaders have accumulated wealth in such a conspicuous manner that their consumption of luxury goods stands out in a country where more than 80 per cent of the eligible workers are unemployed. Millions more Zimbabweans have been rendered as economic refugees in Africa and beyond.

Garvey's Ghost been saying this.

Obama Continues to Disappoint

Obama has been, since his defeat of Hillary Clinton, letting his "realness" come out and play. The candidate of change, who's spots we peeped long ago, has been doing a lot of status quo of late. The latest of his transgressions has been his support of the Telecom bill that we discussed last week.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.



It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people

I've long said that the reason that Democrats have not impeached Bush or done anything opposition like, is because they want the same power when they get into power. In any case, Obama is full of the infamous Toro... when he states:

It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does no such thing. Democrats, including Obama have one way of making it clear that the president cannot circumvent the law: Impeachment and criminal proceedings. They have not done so, and therefore they are all full of the "toro." Also, as expected, the progressives, who have been hanging off Obama's left nut, and who have had all manner of vitrol for Republicans and other Democrats about caving into the administration, have nothing to say on Obama's statement. Move On? Not a word. ACLU, from whom I get damn near daily e-mails? Nada. Silence on nearly all fronts.

"Only God, who appointed me, will remove me"

Says President, for life apparently, Mugabe. Don't worry man, time soon come.

Wiretap Fiasco

So the NY Times has reported that:

WASHINGTON — After months of wrangling, Democratic and Republican leaders reached a deal Thursday that would re-write the rules for the government’s wiretapping powers, and would provide what amounts to limited immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The deal would expand the government’s powers in some key respects. It would allow intelligence officials to use broad warrants to eavesdrop on foreign targets, and to conduct emergency wiretaps on American targets without warrants if it is determined that important national security information would be lost otherwise.

The deal would also make the phone companies involved in the post-Sept. 11 program immune from legal liability if a district court determines that they received valid requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.

Never mind the fact that the FISA statute already allows the government to do "emergency" wiretaps with after the fact justification. What is the purpose of legislation that restates what's already on the books? Oh that's right, the immunity thing.

What exactly constitutes a "valid request from the government?" I'll tell you what constitutes a valid request. It's a fucking warrant that's what. it's a court order. They didn't receive one of those. So what exactly is the point of the whole district court proceeding? Oh I know!! The appearance of some kind of "due process."

See the congress doesn't want to do it's job. The Judiciary committe doesn't want to do it's job and the Justice Department doesn't want to do it's job, so they pawn the clearly illegal activity onto a district judge who they can then point fingers at when the inevitable "AT&T is in the clear" decision comes down.

Obama's Father's Day Speech

This is a particularly hard post for me to make. Indeed it even kept me from having a good night's sleep. In fact, it has placed me at a particular crossroads. A crossroad I never really thought I would get to. I've always told myself that my biggest problem, and perhaps in another light my biggest asset, is that I really take this stuff seriously. When I say "this stuff" I mean justice for and the independence and self-respect of black people everywhere. And I mean everywhere. I'm not the kind of person who goes with the crowd whether that crowd be the so called revolutionary one or the reactionary one. I sit, read, evaluate, think on, and then apply whatever principles I have across the board. It's not easy.

So then, when Bill Cosby was catapulted onto the scene by the white media when he made his infamous 'pound cake" speech. I didn't have a problem with it. That put me at odds with many of my colleagues on the left, who felt that Cosby was unfairly beating up on the black poor. My argument to them was that the problem I had was that the media was:

a) taking bits and pieces of his speech and using it out of context.
b) Cosby wasn't lying and as a comedian I'm going to give him "artistic latitude."
c) He has been putting his money where his mouth is for a very long time.

and lastly, relative to Obama,

d) He hasn't to my knowledge talked shit about other "radical" black leadership like Farrakhan. In fact he went out of his way to compliment the NOI.
e) Hasn't gone on record saying that Black America doesn't exist.
f) Isn't using black folk to advance his political career.

During the Obama campaign, I have been particularly disturbed by previously "radical" black writers and thinkers (I suppose), who prior to Obama's win in Iowa, were known for thier sharp critiques of presidential candidates, mayoral candidates, senate seat candidates, US policy, and just about anything that came out of any politician's mouth. Suddenly now, they can't say a thing about Obama other than to vote for him. If Bush kisses AIPAC's ass, these writers are all over him. Obama does the same thing and it's: "well a brother's got to do...." Where's the principle? Where are the principles that says I have issues with anyone who's kissing AIPAC's ass?

When Obama talks about defending Israel against Iran, who poses no threat to Israel, nor will they be dropping a nuke on Palestinians or one of Islam's holy sites, where are these writers? Where are these writers who constantly talk about Dr. King and his opposition to war? They are off writing: "A brother's got to do what..." Where are the principles?

Now I wait to see if these same writers who had all manner of things to say about Bill Cosby will, get to tapping on their keyboards and spew the same condemnation at Obama that they did at Bill Cosby? I'm not holding my breath though. I fully expect these same men and women to find some "brother's got to do.." angle to peddle this time around.

Does this mean that I disagree with what Obama had to say? Absolutely not. Like he said, Any fool can make a baby. But unlike Mr. Cosby, Obama has previously disrespected his former pastor who has said many of the same things in the past. In fact, I will lay odds, that Rev. Wright has said more about Black fatherhood or lack thereof than any sermon on Israel, Iraq or God Damn America. It is blatant disrespect that knowing full well that the media was going to show and report, to stand up in one's first black church appearance since the whole Rev. Wright incident, and run with that kind of speech. I don't recall Obama rollin' in a church on Mothers day and attacking the black women who are doing shit jobs raising their kids, that they decided to have. I don't recall that speech being aired on international TV.

There are a lot of reasons for the rate of single parenthood in the black community but I'm not going into all that right now. My issue is the blatant political opportunism that was on display Sunday. I've been saying for months that black folk would be used as the whipping boy for Obama to seal his "not too black" and "keep them in line" credentials with white voters. Black folk are so desperate to have a black face as POTUS, that all semblance of self-respect has been lost. It has finally occurred to me that the vast majority of black Americans are not in it for Dr. King Justice not Malcolm X justice or for that matter any kind of real justice. It is becoming clear to me that it is about simply getting that piece of the pie. That seat of power. A seat at the table to do the same things that everyone else has been doing.

You know what? I didn't sign on for that. If this is the direction black folk want to go in then I'm going to have to re-evaluate my advocacy on behalf of said group.