Don't you just love how we use words like "dictator", "terrorist", "mass murderer", et al? Here we are at the end of another glorious year A.D. and the biggest thing on the thoughts and pens of the world is the execution of a long marginalized former head of state. Love him or hate him, that Saddam Hussein really knew how to work a crowd.
Somebody once said if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all. So this post is just to give you a sampling of what some other folks have to say. I may wax editorial later, but I don't want to waste all my brain power on this last day of 2006 on something that I honestly feel has no real relevance to current affairs.
So let's start by saying "So Long to Our Tyrant", as we should note that the last major Republican administration, fondly remembered by some as the Reagan years, was marked by the Iran-Contra scandal, which had much more to do with U.S. support of a small time player in Iraq named Saddam who we fervently hoped would rain on the Ayatollah and his crew in Iran.
An interesting quote by Robert Scheer "This rush to execute him had the feel of a gangster silencing the key witness to a crime." Not much substance, but cuts straight to the point don't ya know.
It seems to me that most people concede that Saddam was a very bad man, for some of the things he ordered during his administration of Iraq. Our boy Bush calls the execution American Justice, but some other folks disagree.
Here is the question that I most want answered. "What about the other guilty men?" There are quite a few people still alive and in power today who helped Saddam commit the crimes he was convicted of (and several others that were conveniently not discussed during his trial). Even more troubling is the fact that the same things we vilify Saddam for are currently being perpetrated by some current world leaders. Will there be accountability for all the guilty men?
One more and I'm done, (unless of course I run across some info that's just too juicy to ignore). To sum it all up, this is just more of the same old, same old. Just some more Bush-shit to try to convince the weak minded that we are engaged in some glorious struggle for freedom, justice, and the American way. May the Farce be with you.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
OBAMA = BLACK OSAMA
Obama = Black Osama with a touch of taqiyya, all in the interests of his father's (and his) "religion" of PISS.
I've got a lot on my mind these days, and I seem to be missing some really obvious things. Like I've actually been listening to the Barak Obama for president media buzz. I've actually asked myself and others, "could he actually have a chance?" Of course myself gave me the correct answer immediately, "N-word, Please". But I understand the lure of an intellectual debate on the subject. What really had me going was the timing of the whole thing, not to mention how much mainstream press it was getting.
Then I surfed on over to the Debbie Schlussel blog and it hit me like a ton of bricks. They are setting the brother up now. Why wait until 2008 to try to bring him down? Let's get him out there now, get all the good press he could possibly get out of the way 2 YEARS BEFORE ANYBODY IS REALLY PAYING ATTENTION.
Poor Senator Obama doesn't yet realize what is going to happen to him. See all the Liberal and Progressive bloggers claim to have had a massive effect o the 2006 elections. So don't discount the power of the blogosphere.
Obama = Black Osama is a comment in response to Ms. Schlussel's diatribe against the middle name, religious leaning, and patronage of the beloved Senator from Illinois. The post she writes is off the chain by itself, for example "So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be? Is that even the man we'd want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn't turn down)?
NO WAY, JOSE . . . Or, is that, HUSSEIN?
As usual, the comments from her adoring fans are even more off the chain than she is. Poor Senator Obama is in for a lot of grief over the next two years, and there isn't a chance that he gets the Democratic nod for President.
I've got a lot on my mind these days, and I seem to be missing some really obvious things. Like I've actually been listening to the Barak Obama for president media buzz. I've actually asked myself and others, "could he actually have a chance?" Of course myself gave me the correct answer immediately, "N-word, Please". But I understand the lure of an intellectual debate on the subject. What really had me going was the timing of the whole thing, not to mention how much mainstream press it was getting.
Then I surfed on over to the Debbie Schlussel blog and it hit me like a ton of bricks. They are setting the brother up now. Why wait until 2008 to try to bring him down? Let's get him out there now, get all the good press he could possibly get out of the way 2 YEARS BEFORE ANYBODY IS REALLY PAYING ATTENTION.
Poor Senator Obama doesn't yet realize what is going to happen to him. See all the Liberal and Progressive bloggers claim to have had a massive effect o the 2006 elections. So don't discount the power of the blogosphere.
Obama = Black Osama is a comment in response to Ms. Schlussel's diatribe against the middle name, religious leaning, and patronage of the beloved Senator from Illinois. The post she writes is off the chain by itself, for example "So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be? Is that even the man we'd want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, if Hillary Clinton offers him the Vice Presidential candidacy on her ticket (which he certainly wouldn't turn down)?
NO WAY, JOSE . . . Or, is that, HUSSEIN?
As usual, the comments from her adoring fans are even more off the chain than she is. Poor Senator Obama is in for a lot of grief over the next two years, and there isn't a chance that he gets the Democratic nod for President.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Anybody But Me Notice...
I said it before, whenever there are allegations of police misconduct, you get an initial outpouring of outrage, loud cries for justice, a little marching, singing, and praying, a political press conference or three. And then there's the silence. The silence can be deafening, even more so than the noise that precedes it. That silence is the sound of the press machine, waiting for a new story to take all our minds off the old story.
I notice this because I know that it should not take weeks and months to fully investigate events that were witnessed by several people, including the police officers who were there but not actually involved. Do you know how much investigation goes into any other crime that is witnessed by anyone, especially a crime that is witnessed by police? Virtually none. It usually involves taking the witness statements, writing police incident reports, making sure there are no glaring discrepancies, and closing the case to send it on up the judicial ladder. The only time that process is interrupted is when there are conflicting witness statements, or where the statements obviously conflict with physical evidence. Or when cops are accused of wrong doing.
It should not take this long to figure out why Atlanta narcotics police busted down the burglar bar door of an elderly woman, living alone. The part about her getting shot was tragic and unfortunate, but the officers involved involved in the shooting were defending themselves, so that part of this incident doesn't even need to be debated. The only issue for deliberation here is why they were there at all. How long should it take to come to a conclusion on that most central issue?!?!?!
It may take a little longer to determine why 4 police fired 50 shots at three black men in a car. But here again, all the evidence and all the witnesses are at the scene. Investigators were there immediately and got all the physical information that there was to get. All officers involved should have filed a complete incident report before they clocked out that morning. Even if you interview every single person who was brave (or stupid) enough to stick around until the every cop in the borough showed up, that still should only take a few days. A good investigator takes them all down to the station that night, so nobody's memory gets a chance to deteriorate. Forensics on the car? Maybe that takes all of a week to determine the trajectory of the few rounds that actually struck the vehicle.
So what's the hold-up then? Two words.....COVER UP
FREE YOUR MIND
I notice this because I know that it should not take weeks and months to fully investigate events that were witnessed by several people, including the police officers who were there but not actually involved. Do you know how much investigation goes into any other crime that is witnessed by anyone, especially a crime that is witnessed by police? Virtually none. It usually involves taking the witness statements, writing police incident reports, making sure there are no glaring discrepancies, and closing the case to send it on up the judicial ladder. The only time that process is interrupted is when there are conflicting witness statements, or where the statements obviously conflict with physical evidence. Or when cops are accused of wrong doing.
It should not take this long to figure out why Atlanta narcotics police busted down the burglar bar door of an elderly woman, living alone. The part about her getting shot was tragic and unfortunate, but the officers involved involved in the shooting were defending themselves, so that part of this incident doesn't even need to be debated. The only issue for deliberation here is why they were there at all. How long should it take to come to a conclusion on that most central issue?!?!?!
It may take a little longer to determine why 4 police fired 50 shots at three black men in a car. But here again, all the evidence and all the witnesses are at the scene. Investigators were there immediately and got all the physical information that there was to get. All officers involved should have filed a complete incident report before they clocked out that morning. Even if you interview every single person who was brave (or stupid) enough to stick around until the every cop in the borough showed up, that still should only take a few days. A good investigator takes them all down to the station that night, so nobody's memory gets a chance to deteriorate. Forensics on the car? Maybe that takes all of a week to determine the trajectory of the few rounds that actually struck the vehicle.
So what's the hold-up then? Two words.....COVER UP
FREE YOUR MIND
Hate Crime In Long Beach?
Over on The Hutchinson Political Report there is a story that will make you go, "hhhmmmmmmmm". Juvenile, Female, Black, and accused of hate crimes? I know, I know, it just didn't sound right to me either.
I'm not quite sure about how I feel regarding Mr. Hutchinson's opinions, but it's an interesting story to follow in the coming weeks and months. I will say this. It's rather insane to think that the juvenile justice system would be any different from the adult justice system. They are both designed to control minority populations. That's why in spite of the fact that all of the reforms you suggested are available to adults, the adult system is just as screwed up, as I'm sure many who have been victims of that system would agree.
This is all the logical outgrowth of a draconian drug war that is often characterized as a failure. It is undoubtedly a failure if you believe the goal was ever to reduce any drug related crime. Now if your goal was to develop a program for the orderly oppression of an easily distiguishable minority group, through the mechanisms of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, well this would have to be the most roaring policy success of all time.
A commentor to this story mentioned that anyone/everyone is capable of a "hate crime". While I recognize the factual truth of that assertion, I must humbly disagree. That mindset indicates that you that you have fallen into their trap and it has confused you. Let me explain.
Even though Blacks and Latinos have done their fair share of banging with each other, it has NEVER really been about race. Race may come up in the conversation, but it's always peripheral. Remember the movie "Colors" about L.A. gang banging? There were all Black gangs and all Latino gangs, and there was also a mixed Latino and Black gang. The point is, while you could easily find Latinos and Blacks who once fought against the other race, who would still be willing to join a mixed gang if that's what their place of residence dictated.
Now, consider if you will, what it would take for skinheads, Neo-Nazis, KKK or name your white supremacist gang, to accept a Black, Latino, Jew, or any other undesirable into their brotherhood. I know you see the difference. That difference is what is and should always be at the core of the discussion about what is and is not a "hate" crime.
The trap is to convince you that everyone is racist, therefore no particular racism is any worse than any other, and in fact some apologists for racism actually use that logic to support their separatist/supremacist beliefs. The fact is that there is only one functional form of racism ever recorded in the history of the world. That being White Supremacy.
FREE YOUR MIND
I'm not quite sure about how I feel regarding Mr. Hutchinson's opinions, but it's an interesting story to follow in the coming weeks and months. I will say this. It's rather insane to think that the juvenile justice system would be any different from the adult justice system. They are both designed to control minority populations. That's why in spite of the fact that all of the reforms you suggested are available to adults, the adult system is just as screwed up, as I'm sure many who have been victims of that system would agree.
This is all the logical outgrowth of a draconian drug war that is often characterized as a failure. It is undoubtedly a failure if you believe the goal was ever to reduce any drug related crime. Now if your goal was to develop a program for the orderly oppression of an easily distiguishable minority group, through the mechanisms of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, well this would have to be the most roaring policy success of all time.
A commentor to this story mentioned that anyone/everyone is capable of a "hate crime". While I recognize the factual truth of that assertion, I must humbly disagree. That mindset indicates that you that you have fallen into their trap and it has confused you. Let me explain.
Even though Blacks and Latinos have done their fair share of banging with each other, it has NEVER really been about race. Race may come up in the conversation, but it's always peripheral. Remember the movie "Colors" about L.A. gang banging? There were all Black gangs and all Latino gangs, and there was also a mixed Latino and Black gang. The point is, while you could easily find Latinos and Blacks who once fought against the other race, who would still be willing to join a mixed gang if that's what their place of residence dictated.
Now, consider if you will, what it would take for skinheads, Neo-Nazis, KKK or name your white supremacist gang, to accept a Black, Latino, Jew, or any other undesirable into their brotherhood. I know you see the difference. That difference is what is and should always be at the core of the discussion about what is and is not a "hate" crime.
The trap is to convince you that everyone is racist, therefore no particular racism is any worse than any other, and in fact some apologists for racism actually use that logic to support their separatist/supremacist beliefs. The fact is that there is only one functional form of racism ever recorded in the history of the world. That being White Supremacy.
FREE YOUR MIND
Confusion About Race
I've been asked by people close to me not to let this blog take over my life. My wife sees me reading the news feeds, and she can tell from the variety of disgusted comments that I make that it's going to be a long night of blogging. Bless her heart, she's worried about my blood pressure; but before blogging all I could do was soundly cuss out the idiot viewpoints and the personalities behind those viewpoints, in absentia. (Please note that while I will not hesitate to label any particular viewpoint idiotic or worse, I do not intentionally personally attack anyone primarily because I don't know them well enough to do so.) Blogging changed all that, because not only are the purveyors of these opinions that drive me batty available to receive a personal response, but even where I am limited to 350 or fewer words, I can link back to my full unadulterated response on my own blog! I do love this information age. And I humbly accept my portion of the Time Person of the Year Award. I thank everybody, and nobody as befits such a prestigious endowment.
I say all that because yet another perspective has earned my ire. I’ve been on Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s case quite a lot lately. He keeps saying things that an intelligent Black man should not say. It tends to render even the better portions of his particular viewpoint meaningless as they are tarnished by the general ridiculousness surrounding them. Case in point, Mr. Hutchinson, a featured opinion on the Huffington Post, has determined that there is some confusion about race. Now usually, I would blast him for even pretending like he was telling us something that we didn’t already know. But some of his points deserve even more special condemnation.
He starts out with, “City officials in Vidor, Texas screamed foul when news broke that their town was once one of America's notorious "sundown towns" for blacks. In the segregation era, that was the town fathers not so discreet way of warning blacks that they would be jailed, physically assaulted, or worse if they were caught in town after dark…They're right, sort of. Sundown towns are a part of America's disgraceful by gone racial past (emphasis mine), and Vidor has done a few things to make amends for its past.” Now I understand that Mr. Hutchinson is from California, so maybe he hasn’t heard about America’s continuing and ever-present disgraceful racial PRESENT.
I call your attention to the mid 1990’s when Hosea Williams and a small group of mostly Black people went to Forsyth county, just north of Atlanta, and were literally chased out with thrown rocks and bottles, for daring to pretend like they had a right to come to that area like a regular (white) citizen would. That incident was caught on tape, and shortly thereafter, several thousand more mostly Black people went back up there to peacefully demonstrate for their right to assemble anywhere. This time there were no rocks or bottles, perhaps because there were several hundred law enforcement officers on hand for protection.
I personally declined to participate in what I considered to be a sham stance. If I can only go to a place with a police escort for protection, what exactly am I accomplishing? I did tell them to let me know if there were any problems, and I and a select group of associates would go back later to give the rock and bottle throwers a chance to repeat their counter-protest on a group that would not be singing We Shall Overcome. We were prepared to go to war, and the white supremacists knew it. For that matter, they have always known who would allow themselves to be victimized and who would fight back, and they have always stepped lightly around those of us who were considered “crazy niggers”. So much easier to pick on those uppity, singing and marching Negros, who had already said they would not fight back no matter what.
For your edification, there are still sundown towns all over America. Of course they aren’t as blatant about it as they were even 20 years ago, for which I largely credit the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, and gangsta rap for informing white America that some of us will go to the gun just as fast as they will.
Mr. Hutchinson continues, “There are no redneck Southern cops unleashing police dogs, and turning fire hoses on, and beating hapless black demonstrators.” Now here’s where being from California should have proven useful, I just saw a recent video of some California Storm Troopers putting a pretty good imitation of a beat-down on some hapless demonstrators, and another where an “alleged suspect” (read: Brown-skinned male) gets a proper butt-whooping. So now that the police department is no longer monochromatic, it’s attitudes and activities towards the Black/Brown community in general are no longer inspired by racism? Not a position that an intelligent Black man should espouse; not even to make money.
And please stop trotting out a few Black success stories, and trying to offer that as proof of the ultimate defeat of racism. It sounds just like the Prez, with his mission accomplished fly-by. If you want to convince me that there are some well-to-do Black folks, then you wasted your time because I already knew that but, you made your point. If you are trying to convince me that this relatively infinitesimal group of successful Blacks really matter in the big scheme of things, you are going to have to do much better than that.
You want to use Oprah as an example, ask her if she felt comfortable in Forsyth County Georgia, when she took her show there to get to the bottom of that sundown town incident. Oprah and her entire crew were out of there before the streetlights came on, and she probably hasn’t been anywhere near there since.
No you did not try to use Barak Obama and his presidential aspirations as proof that America is beyond racism. That’s just plain old disingenuous, when you know that that the closest a Black man is getting to running the Oval Office was Chris Rock in “Head of State”. You must really want Barak to get murdered, if you are truly trying to convince people that he could actually win. And so what if a few white people would vote for him? A few people with guilty consciences and you want to roll out the old Mission Accomplished banner again? How do you feel about the ones who will be trying to get him lined up in their sniper rifle sights?
Last but not least, that “straw man” argument that many Blacks don’t realize that there are white people who have it bad in this country. You really try my patience with this one. There have always been poor white trash, and we have always known about them because they were always the front line for the racist regime. They were the ones in the white sheets, out in the middle of the night burning crosses and lynching outnumbered Black folks. The wealthy whites wouldn’t dirty their hands with that nonsense, not when there were always plenty of raggedy white folks, whose only joy in life was believing that no matter how bad things got, at least they were still better than those niggers.
I will give Mr. Hutchinson the courtesy of stipulating that I’m sure he has nothing but the best of intentions when he writes these things. He is, I am quite positive of this, trying to help, someway… somehow. I just fail to see how ignoring racism, the major social dynamic in the history of the world, or even worse, trying to convince people that iracism no longer exists in any meaningful form, will do anything but cause further damage, the way most lies and misrepresentations usually do.
FREE YOUR MIND
I say all that because yet another perspective has earned my ire. I’ve been on Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s case quite a lot lately. He keeps saying things that an intelligent Black man should not say. It tends to render even the better portions of his particular viewpoint meaningless as they are tarnished by the general ridiculousness surrounding them. Case in point, Mr. Hutchinson, a featured opinion on the Huffington Post, has determined that there is some confusion about race. Now usually, I would blast him for even pretending like he was telling us something that we didn’t already know. But some of his points deserve even more special condemnation.
He starts out with, “City officials in Vidor, Texas screamed foul when news broke that their town was once one of America's notorious "sundown towns" for blacks. In the segregation era, that was the town fathers not so discreet way of warning blacks that they would be jailed, physically assaulted, or worse if they were caught in town after dark…They're right, sort of. Sundown towns are a part of America's disgraceful by gone racial past (emphasis mine), and Vidor has done a few things to make amends for its past.” Now I understand that Mr. Hutchinson is from California, so maybe he hasn’t heard about America’s continuing and ever-present disgraceful racial PRESENT.
I call your attention to the mid 1990’s when Hosea Williams and a small group of mostly Black people went to Forsyth county, just north of Atlanta, and were literally chased out with thrown rocks and bottles, for daring to pretend like they had a right to come to that area like a regular (white) citizen would. That incident was caught on tape, and shortly thereafter, several thousand more mostly Black people went back up there to peacefully demonstrate for their right to assemble anywhere. This time there were no rocks or bottles, perhaps because there were several hundred law enforcement officers on hand for protection.
I personally declined to participate in what I considered to be a sham stance. If I can only go to a place with a police escort for protection, what exactly am I accomplishing? I did tell them to let me know if there were any problems, and I and a select group of associates would go back later to give the rock and bottle throwers a chance to repeat their counter-protest on a group that would not be singing We Shall Overcome. We were prepared to go to war, and the white supremacists knew it. For that matter, they have always known who would allow themselves to be victimized and who would fight back, and they have always stepped lightly around those of us who were considered “crazy niggers”. So much easier to pick on those uppity, singing and marching Negros, who had already said they would not fight back no matter what.
For your edification, there are still sundown towns all over America. Of course they aren’t as blatant about it as they were even 20 years ago, for which I largely credit the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, and gangsta rap for informing white America that some of us will go to the gun just as fast as they will.
Mr. Hutchinson continues, “There are no redneck Southern cops unleashing police dogs, and turning fire hoses on, and beating hapless black demonstrators.” Now here’s where being from California should have proven useful, I just saw a recent video of some California Storm Troopers putting a pretty good imitation of a beat-down on some hapless demonstrators, and another where an “alleged suspect” (read: Brown-skinned male) gets a proper butt-whooping. So now that the police department is no longer monochromatic, it’s attitudes and activities towards the Black/Brown community in general are no longer inspired by racism? Not a position that an intelligent Black man should espouse; not even to make money.
And please stop trotting out a few Black success stories, and trying to offer that as proof of the ultimate defeat of racism. It sounds just like the Prez, with his mission accomplished fly-by. If you want to convince me that there are some well-to-do Black folks, then you wasted your time because I already knew that but, you made your point. If you are trying to convince me that this relatively infinitesimal group of successful Blacks really matter in the big scheme of things, you are going to have to do much better than that.
You want to use Oprah as an example, ask her if she felt comfortable in Forsyth County Georgia, when she took her show there to get to the bottom of that sundown town incident. Oprah and her entire crew were out of there before the streetlights came on, and she probably hasn’t been anywhere near there since.
No you did not try to use Barak Obama and his presidential aspirations as proof that America is beyond racism. That’s just plain old disingenuous, when you know that that the closest a Black man is getting to running the Oval Office was Chris Rock in “Head of State”. You must really want Barak to get murdered, if you are truly trying to convince people that he could actually win. And so what if a few white people would vote for him? A few people with guilty consciences and you want to roll out the old Mission Accomplished banner again? How do you feel about the ones who will be trying to get him lined up in their sniper rifle sights?
Last but not least, that “straw man” argument that many Blacks don’t realize that there are white people who have it bad in this country. You really try my patience with this one. There have always been poor white trash, and we have always known about them because they were always the front line for the racist regime. They were the ones in the white sheets, out in the middle of the night burning crosses and lynching outnumbered Black folks. The wealthy whites wouldn’t dirty their hands with that nonsense, not when there were always plenty of raggedy white folks, whose only joy in life was believing that no matter how bad things got, at least they were still better than those niggers.
I will give Mr. Hutchinson the courtesy of stipulating that I’m sure he has nothing but the best of intentions when he writes these things. He is, I am quite positive of this, trying to help, someway… somehow. I just fail to see how ignoring racism, the major social dynamic in the history of the world, or even worse, trying to convince people that iracism no longer exists in any meaningful form, will do anything but cause further damage, the way most lies and misrepresentations usually do.
FREE YOUR MIND
Friday, December 15, 2006
Employment A Cure-All for Poverty?
Thursday, December 14, 2006 on Townhall.com
THE SURE-FIRE STRATEGY FOR AVOIDING POVERTY
Posted by: Michael Medved at 7:43 PM
According to a new poll sponsored by the LA Times, some 74% of respondents feel concerned or very concerned about the gap between rich and poor. As a result, Congressman Barney Frank, incoming Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, promises February hearings to explore why some Americans are not reaping the benefits of a mostly healthy economy.
In this context, it's not popular to make the point that poverty (especially long-term poverty) predictably flows from an inability or unwillingness to work.
As a matter of fact, there's a brilliant, top-secret, sure-fire strategy that can empower virtually anyone to avoid a life of poverty: get a job (yes, even a low paying job) and keep working and there's very little chance that you'll stay poor.
Simple enough theory, and total cop-out, all at the same time. This article is a testament to the obliviousness of some people. This guy needs to talk to some poor people who got a job thinking it would keep them out of poverty. There are plenty of them out there. Instead he talks to an economist and gets some statistics (which even when not completely fabricated can usually be manipulated to fit any side of the debate).
How about this? Recall the last time there was total employment for all persons of African descent in America; the employed class then was poor, and history will repeat itself in that regard. The idea that the wealthy in this country actually engage in gainful employment that is commiserate to their over abundance of wealth, is very nearly funny, if it weren't so criminally negligent.
Then there is the idea that everyone should get paid based on some artificial assessment of the value of the work being done. This is a ridiculous convention that was a natural outgrowth of industrialization and economic development. But just because that's the way it is, doesn't make it right. In fact I think anyone would agree that if no one is ill, then the doctor's work is less valuable than a carpenter where there is a need for shelter. Furthermore, in a world where judicious use of the resources could allow for the perpetual feeding, sheltering, clothing, and the general welfare and advancement of the entire human race, poverty is morally reprehensible. It is not a blight on the individual, it is a blight on society as a whole. Tell me if you can, exactly where should one child be allowed to starve?
Free Your MInd
THE SURE-FIRE STRATEGY FOR AVOIDING POVERTY
Posted by: Michael Medved at 7:43 PM
According to a new poll sponsored by the LA Times, some 74% of respondents feel concerned or very concerned about the gap between rich and poor. As a result, Congressman Barney Frank, incoming Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, promises February hearings to explore why some Americans are not reaping the benefits of a mostly healthy economy.
In this context, it's not popular to make the point that poverty (especially long-term poverty) predictably flows from an inability or unwillingness to work.
As a matter of fact, there's a brilliant, top-secret, sure-fire strategy that can empower virtually anyone to avoid a life of poverty: get a job (yes, even a low paying job) and keep working and there's very little chance that you'll stay poor.
Simple enough theory, and total cop-out, all at the same time. This article is a testament to the obliviousness of some people. This guy needs to talk to some poor people who got a job thinking it would keep them out of poverty. There are plenty of them out there. Instead he talks to an economist and gets some statistics (which even when not completely fabricated can usually be manipulated to fit any side of the debate).
How about this? Recall the last time there was total employment for all persons of African descent in America; the employed class then was poor, and history will repeat itself in that regard. The idea that the wealthy in this country actually engage in gainful employment that is commiserate to their over abundance of wealth, is very nearly funny, if it weren't so criminally negligent.
Then there is the idea that everyone should get paid based on some artificial assessment of the value of the work being done. This is a ridiculous convention that was a natural outgrowth of industrialization and economic development. But just because that's the way it is, doesn't make it right. In fact I think anyone would agree that if no one is ill, then the doctor's work is less valuable than a carpenter where there is a need for shelter. Furthermore, in a world where judicious use of the resources could allow for the perpetual feeding, sheltering, clothing, and the general welfare and advancement of the entire human race, poverty is morally reprehensible. It is not a blight on the individual, it is a blight on society as a whole. Tell me if you can, exactly where should one child be allowed to starve?
Free Your MInd
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Is the Bible "America's Book"?
Is the Bible America's Book? That's the question asked by Anthony Asadullah Samad, a columnist over on BlackCommentator.com
A big debate was sparked last week, when Minnesota Democratic Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (also the nation's first avowed Muslim elected to national office) publicly announced that he would be taking his oath of office with his hand on the Holy Quron (or Koran for some of you who don't know any better). A lot of the Christian conservatives are really distressed because it seems like someone wants the Bible to take a second seat to some other religious text. Dennis Prager, a conservative radio talk show host, started it all with this column on Townhall.com. He then followed it up with this column, and a slew of statements on his own radio shows and other media forums that were only too happy to bring him on.
Now it just so happens that Prager is Jewish. But Jews play homage to the same religious texts, they just pick and choose a little bit more. He tries to conceal his faith based position behind a flimsy argument of "American culture and tradition". There are a lot of things that our founding fathers were fond of that I for one am happy are no longer part of our great culture and tradition. Slavery is the first that comes to mind. Archaic attitudes regarding race and gender come in a close second. I could go on but I don't want to step on too many more toes. I also think it's rather cheap to say that he only brought all this up because Keith Ellison mentioned that he would have his Quron at his ceremonial swearing in. It either matters or it doesn't, and in this case it shouldn't but it does for Mr. Prager and others who take offense at this imaginary assault on the bible or force that same bible on those unwilling to invest their faith in it.
The insane claim that our values come from the Bible seems to totally disregard the fact that there are historical writings much older than the bible that promote the same values. Of course it's possible that Mr. Prager is one of those who believes that the earth is only about 10,000 years old.
The values we have come to us courtesy of the higher order thinking that allows us to assess future consequences; the humanity vested in all of us, even those who are never exposed to the Bible. It's the selective application of those values that cause us problems. The values themselves would continue to exist even if every copy of the bible was to suddenly get raptured.
You read all the columns and form your own opinion. I will simply ask, as I always do, that you think about what you believe in, consider who else believes as you claim to believe, and then ask yourself, is this what you really intended to associate yourself with? I know many of you will say that you believe in and serve God, not his many "messengers" or any particular self-proclaimed member of his flock. As true as that may be, it is no less true that the edifice upon which your faith is built, the teachings of the Holy Bible, old or new testaments, are being used to promote a lot of ideology that you would probably not appreciate. I'm absolutely positive that God, his son , and everything else that is holy don't appreciate the things that are constantly being done in his name.
A big debate was sparked last week, when Minnesota Democratic Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (also the nation's first avowed Muslim elected to national office) publicly announced that he would be taking his oath of office with his hand on the Holy Quron (or Koran for some of you who don't know any better). A lot of the Christian conservatives are really distressed because it seems like someone wants the Bible to take a second seat to some other religious text. Dennis Prager, a conservative radio talk show host, started it all with this column on Townhall.com. He then followed it up with this column, and a slew of statements on his own radio shows and other media forums that were only too happy to bring him on.
Now it just so happens that Prager is Jewish. But Jews play homage to the same religious texts, they just pick and choose a little bit more. He tries to conceal his faith based position behind a flimsy argument of "American culture and tradition". There are a lot of things that our founding fathers were fond of that I for one am happy are no longer part of our great culture and tradition. Slavery is the first that comes to mind. Archaic attitudes regarding race and gender come in a close second. I could go on but I don't want to step on too many more toes. I also think it's rather cheap to say that he only brought all this up because Keith Ellison mentioned that he would have his Quron at his ceremonial swearing in. It either matters or it doesn't, and in this case it shouldn't but it does for Mr. Prager and others who take offense at this imaginary assault on the bible or force that same bible on those unwilling to invest their faith in it.
The insane claim that our values come from the Bible seems to totally disregard the fact that there are historical writings much older than the bible that promote the same values. Of course it's possible that Mr. Prager is one of those who believes that the earth is only about 10,000 years old.
The values we have come to us courtesy of the higher order thinking that allows us to assess future consequences; the humanity vested in all of us, even those who are never exposed to the Bible. It's the selective application of those values that cause us problems. The values themselves would continue to exist even if every copy of the bible was to suddenly get raptured.
You read all the columns and form your own opinion. I will simply ask, as I always do, that you think about what you believe in, consider who else believes as you claim to believe, and then ask yourself, is this what you really intended to associate yourself with? I know many of you will say that you believe in and serve God, not his many "messengers" or any particular self-proclaimed member of his flock. As true as that may be, it is no less true that the edifice upon which your faith is built, the teachings of the Holy Bible, old or new testaments, are being used to promote a lot of ideology that you would probably not appreciate. I'm absolutely positive that God, his son , and everything else that is holy don't appreciate the things that are constantly being done in his name.
McKinney Impeachment Bill - Is It Just Sour Grapes?
Whatever her motivation, some people think impeachment is just a bad idea. Earl Ofari Hutchinson has an article on AlterNet, McKinney’s (And Any Other) Bush Impeachment Bill Is a Bad Idea
Hutchinson's position, "The bill is nothing more than a McKinney nose thumb at House Democrats whom she’s pissed off at for making her a party pariah..." , and "House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly made it clear that she and top House Democrats won’t spend a minute of legislative time debating whether Bush should go or stay. And they’re right..."
My position? Glad you asked... Cynthia's mistake was not making this stand before the elections. She might have removed my utter skepticism that an individual can make a difference and effect change in government. Instead, she thought she would be better off (that is more likely to get re-elected) if she made fewer waves; but that's exactly what she should have been doing from the time we sent her back to congress.
In 2004, even though I am now and have always been thoroughly disgusted with the entire political mechanism that is the U.S. government, I decided that Cynthia was a candidate worth supporting. She had lost the previous election primarily because she had the guts to stand up and say what a lot of us were feeling, at a point in time where it was the most unpopular thing to say. How could the government not know about 9/11; they can find every dime bag dealer in Southwest Atlanta, but they can't figure out that a whole gang of long-suspected individuals were about to pull off the biggest air-jacking in history? And every possible counter measure is conveniently out-of-place, removed for dubious reasons, and/or excruciatingly slow to respond to the emergency?
Cynthia appeared as though she would go back to Congress the same fire-brand that she left it. We thought if nothing else, she would be the voice crying out in the wilderness. But even before the most publicized Capital police incident (not the first time that has happened to her, I assure you), Cynthia had apparently made the conscious decision to tone done her criticisms of people in high places. She betrayed the trust I had placed in her as my representative; to say the things that both she and I, and much of the rest of America, knew needed to be said.
The obvious rationale for this action on her part was fear that she could not rock the boat again, or her return to congress would be short-lived. What she didn't realize is that, just like the constituency that keeps sending William Jefferson back to Congress, there were enough people who respected her stance against the power structure, to get her back no matter what the Democratic "leadership" or anybody else thought about her. We did it in 2004 and we would have done it again. But she let herself get played, and it cost her the past election. None of us think her successor, Hank Johnson, is going to be anything other than another pliant Black vote for all things Democratic. We just were disappointed that the Cynthia we thought we sent to Congress never really showed up.
Mr Hutchinson, as many of the comments to his article have pointed out, has no valid rationale whatsoever for speaking against investigating and impeaching the entire Executive Branch. In fact, many of the arguments are completely specious; not one Democratic officeholder would admit to any complicity in the President's obviously illegal and unconstitutional activities, and the idea that Bush being bad makes the Democratic Party look better should be too sophomoric for any serious commentator to entertain. This is the type of thinking from our supposed intellectual and journalistic minds that contributes to the sad state of affairs in American governance today.
Hutchinson's position, "The bill is nothing more than a McKinney nose thumb at House Democrats whom she’s pissed off at for making her a party pariah..." , and "House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly made it clear that she and top House Democrats won’t spend a minute of legislative time debating whether Bush should go or stay. And they’re right..."
My position? Glad you asked... Cynthia's mistake was not making this stand before the elections. She might have removed my utter skepticism that an individual can make a difference and effect change in government. Instead, she thought she would be better off (that is more likely to get re-elected) if she made fewer waves; but that's exactly what she should have been doing from the time we sent her back to congress.
In 2004, even though I am now and have always been thoroughly disgusted with the entire political mechanism that is the U.S. government, I decided that Cynthia was a candidate worth supporting. She had lost the previous election primarily because she had the guts to stand up and say what a lot of us were feeling, at a point in time where it was the most unpopular thing to say. How could the government not know about 9/11; they can find every dime bag dealer in Southwest Atlanta, but they can't figure out that a whole gang of long-suspected individuals were about to pull off the biggest air-jacking in history? And every possible counter measure is conveniently out-of-place, removed for dubious reasons, and/or excruciatingly slow to respond to the emergency?
Cynthia appeared as though she would go back to Congress the same fire-brand that she left it. We thought if nothing else, she would be the voice crying out in the wilderness. But even before the most publicized Capital police incident (not the first time that has happened to her, I assure you), Cynthia had apparently made the conscious decision to tone done her criticisms of people in high places. She betrayed the trust I had placed in her as my representative; to say the things that both she and I, and much of the rest of America, knew needed to be said.
The obvious rationale for this action on her part was fear that she could not rock the boat again, or her return to congress would be short-lived. What she didn't realize is that, just like the constituency that keeps sending William Jefferson back to Congress, there were enough people who respected her stance against the power structure, to get her back no matter what the Democratic "leadership" or anybody else thought about her. We did it in 2004 and we would have done it again. But she let herself get played, and it cost her the past election. None of us think her successor, Hank Johnson, is going to be anything other than another pliant Black vote for all things Democratic. We just were disappointed that the Cynthia we thought we sent to Congress never really showed up.
Mr Hutchinson, as many of the comments to his article have pointed out, has no valid rationale whatsoever for speaking against investigating and impeaching the entire Executive Branch. In fact, many of the arguments are completely specious; not one Democratic officeholder would admit to any complicity in the President's obviously illegal and unconstitutional activities, and the idea that Bush being bad makes the Democratic Party look better should be too sophomoric for any serious commentator to entertain. This is the type of thinking from our supposed intellectual and journalistic minds that contributes to the sad state of affairs in American governance today.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Behind the Game we find...
Here's and interesting take fro Salon Magazine
Think about what you believe and what you will do for your beliefs. Now think about all the powerful people who say they believe the same as you, and they've got the power to make it happen.
The point isn't that all these leaders are part of some kind of right-wing Illuminati. It's simply that the seemingly wacky ideology promulgated in the Left Behind books is one that important people in America are quite comfortable with.
Political attitudes and actions that make no practical or moral sense to secularists become comprehensible when viewed through Christian pop culture's eschatological looking glass. At a time when America is flagrantly flouting international law, spurning the U.N. and tacitly supporting the land grabs of Israeli maximalists, surely it's significant that the most popular fiction in the country creates a gripping narrative that pits American Christians against a conspiracy of Satan-worshipping, abortion-promoting, gun-controlling globalists -- all of it revolving around the sovereignty of Israel.
Think about what you believe and what you will do for your beliefs. Now think about all the powerful people who say they believe the same as you, and they've got the power to make it happen.
The point isn't that all these leaders are part of some kind of right-wing Illuminati. It's simply that the seemingly wacky ideology promulgated in the Left Behind books is one that important people in America are quite comfortable with.
Political attitudes and actions that make no practical or moral sense to secularists become comprehensible when viewed through Christian pop culture's eschatological looking glass. At a time when America is flagrantly flouting international law, spurning the U.N. and tacitly supporting the land grabs of Israeli maximalists, surely it's significant that the most popular fiction in the country creates a gripping narrative that pits American Christians against a conspiracy of Satan-worshipping, abortion-promoting, gun-controlling globalists -- all of it revolving around the sovereignty of Israel.
Those Kooky Christians are at it Again
Saw this over on Prometheus6. I gotta applaud the people who find this information from points all over the globe. I do my share of surfing, and there's always so much good stuff that I miss. Prometheus6 is a good informative blog.
'Convert or die' game divides Christians Some ask Wal-Mart to drop Left Behind - Ilene Lelchuk, Chronicle Staff Writer.
It’ the holiday season and people have enough bad things to worry about. I could just continue to share my day-to-day thoughts with you, but it’s really the same old thing. Yes, Iraq is a terrible mess, Yes, our government really sucks, Yep, there’s still some racism in the World. It’s true, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
But that’s too depressing for this joyous time of year. People got enough to worry about just trying to keep up with the Joneses this Christmas. Gotta buy a lot of stuff. That can be stressful.
So rather than stress you out, I’m going to piss you off. Give you a chance to work up some good righteous holiday fervor.
It’s not my fault that the Religious Kooks all come out of the closet (sometimes literally) this time of year. Building up to that big New Year’s Eve shakedown, I guess.
So forgive me my blasphemy, as I dedicate a few moments to religious wackiness everywhere.
Don’t take it personal, free your mind
'Convert or die' game divides Christians Some ask Wal-Mart to drop Left Behind - Ilene Lelchuk, Chronicle Staff Writer.
It’ the holiday season and people have enough bad things to worry about. I could just continue to share my day-to-day thoughts with you, but it’s really the same old thing. Yes, Iraq is a terrible mess, Yes, our government really sucks, Yep, there’s still some racism in the World. It’s true, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
But that’s too depressing for this joyous time of year. People got enough to worry about just trying to keep up with the Joneses this Christmas. Gotta buy a lot of stuff. That can be stressful.
So rather than stress you out, I’m going to piss you off. Give you a chance to work up some good righteous holiday fervor.
It’s not my fault that the Religious Kooks all come out of the closet (sometimes literally) this time of year. Building up to that big New Year’s Eve shakedown, I guess.
So forgive me my blasphemy, as I dedicate a few moments to religious wackiness everywhere.
Don’t take it personal, free your mind
Friday, December 08, 2006
Mississippi Mayor Too Tough On Crime?
Law Enforcement: Jackson, Mississippi's Mad Mayor Melton Indicted for Drug Enforcement Crimes
Mayor walks free
This has been going on for a while, but I am just hearing about it, even though I spend a lot of time searching for news and currrent events. Sometimes it's significant when a story isn't widely reported...
Mayor walks free
This has been going on for a while, but I am just hearing about it, even though I spend a lot of time searching for news and currrent events. Sometimes it's significant when a story isn't widely reported...
More Law Enforcement Lunacy
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2006/12/08/Informant911call.html
OK. So you are running from the police. You need some help. Who you gonna call? 911, of course.
I don't know how long this link will be active, but if you want to hear a ridiculous 911 tape, this is it. The confidential informant (not anymore), who says police asked him to lie to cover up the killing of an elderly Atlanta woman during a tragic narcotics search warrant police action, says he is running from the dirty undercover cops and he wants some more cops to come help him. Even the 911 operator thinks this is the dumbest thing she has ever heard.
Fact is, we will never know what really happened that day. The events that led up to the death of Kathryn Johnson have been so confused by contradiction that there will never be a satisfactory resolution to the so-called investigation. It's going to boil down to the cops word versus a known criminal's word, so you know how that will play out. Every new "detail' that is released just serves to add more uncertainty and more ways for the officers to involved shape events to paint themselves in the best possible light. I am beginning to think the media is part of the cover-up.
OK. So you are running from the police. You need some help. Who you gonna call? 911, of course.
I don't know how long this link will be active, but if you want to hear a ridiculous 911 tape, this is it. The confidential informant (not anymore), who says police asked him to lie to cover up the killing of an elderly Atlanta woman during a tragic narcotics search warrant police action, says he is running from the dirty undercover cops and he wants some more cops to come help him. Even the 911 operator thinks this is the dumbest thing she has ever heard.
Fact is, we will never know what really happened that day. The events that led up to the death of Kathryn Johnson have been so confused by contradiction that there will never be a satisfactory resolution to the so-called investigation. It's going to boil down to the cops word versus a known criminal's word, so you know how that will play out. Every new "detail' that is released just serves to add more uncertainty and more ways for the officers to involved shape events to paint themselves in the best possible light. I am beginning to think the media is part of the cover-up.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Homeland Security Hard at Work
You just can't make this shit up. Thankfully in today's loony world, you don't have to.
Flatulence forces plane to land
Flatulence forces plane to land
Mississippi Mayor Too Tough On Crime?
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Fear and Distrust of Muslims
From Yahoo
In U.S., fear and distrust of Muslims runs deep
WASHINGTON (Reuters)- When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band, the phone lines jammed instantly.
The first caller to the station in Washington said that Klein must be "off his rocker." The second congratulated him and added: "Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their forehead but you ship them out of this country ... they are here to kill us."
Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans."
At the end of the one-hour show, rich with arguments on why visual identification of "the threat in our midst" would alleviate the public's fears, Klein revealed that he had staged a hoax. It drew out reactions that are not uncommon in post-9/11 America.
"I can't believe any of you are sick enough to have agreed for one second with anything I said," he told his audience on the AM station 630 WMAL (http://www.wmal.com/), which covers Washington, Northern Virginia and Maryland
The statement below was written by an observer of what happened in Nazi Germany during WWII. It's still true today. Substitue whatever groups you want to, but when they come for you, who will be left?
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
In U.S., fear and distrust of Muslims runs deep
WASHINGTON (Reuters)- When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band, the phone lines jammed instantly.
The first caller to the station in Washington said that Klein must be "off his rocker." The second congratulated him and added: "Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their forehead but you ship them out of this country ... they are here to kill us."
Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans."
At the end of the one-hour show, rich with arguments on why visual identification of "the threat in our midst" would alleviate the public's fears, Klein revealed that he had staged a hoax. It drew out reactions that are not uncommon in post-9/11 America.
"I can't believe any of you are sick enough to have agreed for one second with anything I said," he told his audience on the AM station 630 WMAL (http://www.wmal.com/), which covers Washington, Northern Virginia and Maryland
The statement below was written by an observer of what happened in Nazi Germany during WWII. It's still true today. Substitue whatever groups you want to, but when they come for you, who will be left?
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Another Thought on "THE WORD"
Over on AlterNet, the N-Word is getting tossed around again. Prometheus6 likes what Derek Jennings has to say.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Beating a Dead Horse? Or Beating a Horse to Death?
People often tell me that all this time spent on Michael Richardson's use of "THE WORD", and the subsequent discussions about "THE WORD" in general, is much ado about nothing. I disagree.
“THE WORD” IS NOT THE ISSUE
Mr. Jennings is insightful, his analysis is extremely well written, and the comments thus inspired show that there are indeed people of conscience left in the world. But unfortunately, the article and ALL of the subsequent comments miss the true point.
Ever since Michael Richards orchestrated his return to media prominence (never assume they don't have an underlying purpose for their actions) there have been reams of opinions proliferated regarding "THE WORD". In response to another well written essay by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, I was moved to pen my own brief diatribe regarding "THE WORD". RESPONSE
I rarely use "THE WORD", although sometimes, it's the only word that fits the circumstances. However in an effort to inform, rather than antagonize, I shall refrain from using it, so as to not deflect attention from the real issue.
"THE WORD" IS NOT THE ISSUE. All of this dialogue about that word actually deflects attention from the true issue. The word we should be discussing is RACISM. Many people refer to racism when they discuss the use of "THE WORD", however I submit to you that there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding racism. As commonly defined, the term racism has been diffused to suggest that any and all people are capable of racism or being racist. The term "reverse racism" is a prime example of this fundamental misunderstanding. I submit to you that there is only one functional and factual definition of "racism" and that is WHITE SUPREMACY. I will not presume to adequately summarize this fact in such a limited forum. Instead, I implore all people of good intent to please take the time to read "The Cress Theory of Color Confrontation" written by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing. It can be found, along with a collection of her essays, in "The Isis Papers". In that essay, she demonstrates quite conclusively that there is only one true definition of racism and that is "WHITE SUPREMACY". And the most profound pronouncement she makes is that if you understand that racism is and can only be white supremacy, then you understand all you need to know about racism. If you do not understand that one critical point, everything else that you think you know will only confuse you.
I fully expect to be marginalized as some sort of "Black Supremacist" for having the unmitigated gall to present such a theory as scholarly or as having any merit. I am aware of the myriad writings and analysis that claim to put such nonsense in it's proper place . I stand by my position and even invite further discussion as I am more than willing to engage the pseudo-erudition that attacks the fringes of this theory, rather than address its more salient points of fact. First we are ignored, then ridiculed, then violently opposed, and finally accepted as wisdom.
Suffice it to say, that you can remove "THE WORD", and all it's derivations from the vocabulary, and even the thought processes of the entire world, and it will change NOTHING. I can appreciate that the discussions about that one word serve to foster intelligent reasoned dialogue about race relations. But unless and until the human race is willing to engage in honest, open debate about the true nature of color confrontation throughout world history we will continue to suffer through our ignorance and apply band-aids where much deeper intervention is required.
“THE WORD” IS NOT THE ISSUE
Mr. Jennings is insightful, his analysis is extremely well written, and the comments thus inspired show that there are indeed people of conscience left in the world. But unfortunately, the article and ALL of the subsequent comments miss the true point.
Ever since Michael Richards orchestrated his return to media prominence (never assume they don't have an underlying purpose for their actions) there have been reams of opinions proliferated regarding "THE WORD". In response to another well written essay by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, I was moved to pen my own brief diatribe regarding "THE WORD". RESPONSE
I rarely use "THE WORD", although sometimes, it's the only word that fits the circumstances. However in an effort to inform, rather than antagonize, I shall refrain from using it, so as to not deflect attention from the real issue.
"THE WORD" IS NOT THE ISSUE. All of this dialogue about that word actually deflects attention from the true issue. The word we should be discussing is RACISM. Many people refer to racism when they discuss the use of "THE WORD", however I submit to you that there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding racism. As commonly defined, the term racism has been diffused to suggest that any and all people are capable of racism or being racist. The term "reverse racism" is a prime example of this fundamental misunderstanding. I submit to you that there is only one functional and factual definition of "racism" and that is WHITE SUPREMACY. I will not presume to adequately summarize this fact in such a limited forum. Instead, I implore all people of good intent to please take the time to read "The Cress Theory of Color Confrontation" written by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing. It can be found, along with a collection of her essays, in "The Isis Papers". In that essay, she demonstrates quite conclusively that there is only one true definition of racism and that is "WHITE SUPREMACY". And the most profound pronouncement she makes is that if you understand that racism is and can only be white supremacy, then you understand all you need to know about racism. If you do not understand that one critical point, everything else that you think you know will only confuse you.
I fully expect to be marginalized as some sort of "Black Supremacist" for having the unmitigated gall to present such a theory as scholarly or as having any merit. I am aware of the myriad writings and analysis that claim to put such nonsense in it's proper place . I stand by my position and even invite further discussion as I am more than willing to engage the pseudo-erudition that attacks the fringes of this theory, rather than address its more salient points of fact. First we are ignored, then ridiculed, then violently opposed, and finally accepted as wisdom.
Suffice it to say, that you can remove "THE WORD", and all it's derivations from the vocabulary, and even the thought processes of the entire world, and it will change NOTHING. I can appreciate that the discussions about that one word serve to foster intelligent reasoned dialogue about race relations. But unless and until the human race is willing to engage in honest, open debate about the true nature of color confrontation throughout world history we will continue to suffer through our ignorance and apply band-aids where much deeper intervention is required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
