The Democratic Afrosphere

Obama and Axelrod Living in a Dream World of Political Plenty

2011-09-18T06:26:00.000-07:00

David Axelrod, President Obama's chief political adviser, has achieve the seemingly impossible, by navegating to elect the US's first Black president and by ending the 43-term white male monopoly of the United States presidency. However, he seems to be living in a fantasy world as President Obama's first term plays out and his re-election campaign gets going, like a car that has been up on cinder blocks for three years.

The Washington Post reported:

Obama campaign officials have rejected descriptions of wholesale disenchantment on the left, but they are following a two-pronged strategy: Play down the disappointment in the media, and pay added attention to the groups that are complaining. In a memo Friday, senior strategist David Axelrod said Obama’s support among key groups remains solid.

Here is a quote from Axelrod, followed by my bullet points of disagreement. Axelrod told the Washington Post:

“Despite what you hear in elite commentary, the president’s support among base voters and in key demographic groups has stayed strong,” he said. “The base is mobilized behind the president.”

Axelrod is smart, perhaps to say this, but a fool if he believes it.

Blacks' unemployment rate and the poverty rate, led by Blacks, has increased to a fifty-year high under Obama's presidency, which leads to the conclusion that, whether with a Democratic Congress or a Republican one, President Obama simply isn't up to the job for which this base constituency sent him to Washington. The President says that he will not direct programs toward Blacks, but rather toward everyone who is "hurting." Everyone who is unemployed and living in poverty is hurting and President Obama has done nothing prevent the chasm he found when he came to office from turning into an abyss.
President Obama's base has not been mobilized since Election Day 2008. On issue after issue when he could have called his supporters into the streets to bang on pots and pans, he instead "negotiated" with Republicans and the right-wing of the Democratic Party, and then capitulated on issues of central importance to the American Left and Blacks. He capitulated to the insurance companies by not insisting on a Government Option insurance plan that all in America could participate. In doing so, he effectively left the cash register, credit card swiper and insurance bureaucrat entrenched in the interface between the public and health care providers. That's not change you can believe in. That's buggery that only insurance executives and their hand maidens in the US Congress can believe in.
President Obama was elected with a strong mandate for change. Although there have been some technical changes, like rights for gays in the military and for women to sue employers when they have been short-changed based on their sex, most of Obama's changes have been . . . forgetable.
By announcing that he is mobilizing his base, Obama is tacitly conceding that he ignored and sidelined his base for three years. He still has a Rolodex, but it has been gathering dust, while many of the names in it represent people who are disillusioned and not motivated, much less mobilized. President Obama won the Office with massive campaign rallies, but he seems not to have organized any behind the Public Option or behind any of this other initiatives. For example, Obama may find that many of the students who voted for him from their college dorms are now back living with their parents and not even registered to vote. With the high unemployment among the young and particularly Blacks, and with Obama unable to offer a credible solution, these voters may not have the energy to vote in 2012.
The Left is disenchanted. We are tired of the endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and with the list seemingly growing by the day. We are concerned that if the President can send drones and fighter jets to Libya without consultations, then maybe he will secretly do the same thing in Venezuela. If not, then why does he need seven new military bases in neighboring Columbia?
The first bank bail-out organized under George W. Bush, was arguably not Obama's fault, although he could easily have opposed it. But the hundreds of billions of dollars that flowed afterward are squarely on Obama's shoulders as he meets the voters who lost their houses while the banks were being bailed out.
Inexcusably, Obama has billions of dollars already allocated by Congress to bail out those whose houses have been in foreclosure since Obama took office. Instead of helping those people, Obama listened to the most punitive of right-wing moralists who argued that people who took bad risks shouldn't get help from people who took good risks. Apply the same principle to auto insurance and no one gets their damages repaired by their own insurance company or anyone else's if they were arguably (but not demonstrably) at fault when their bad luck befell them.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of President Obama and his banking and finance economic guru-zillas. I wish Hillary would challenge him, arguing that she could do what he failed to do. But, Blacks would probably still support Obama, perhaps with even greater energy and Hillary might fail, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars that the Democrats need for the General Election.

So, those of us who intend to vote at all will be forced to support Obama as the alternative to his even worse Republican opponent. But, one has to ask himself the following:

Would a Republican president have or continued as many wars as Obama? It's hard to imagine how any of them could.
Would a Republican president have effectively pardoned the war crimes of George W. Bush, his vice president and those in the Defense Department and CIA who participated in war crimes committed by a Democratic Administration?
Would any other administration see such rampant fraud in the mortgage industry and trading, without massive investigations, a federal grand jury and some indictments?
The Left wanted at least some truth and justice commissions and what we got instead were blanket defenses of unpardonable sub-prime mortgage fraud and torture, here and there, under color of law.
Would a Republican Administration have fired someone with the creativity, energy and acuity of Van Jones, just because Democrats were grumbling about a chief Republican strategist? Karl Rove stayed on even though he was reviled by Democrats and feared by Republicans, and hadn't graduated from college?

In 2012, I will vote against Obama's opponent, but I'm not sure that others will bother to do so and I'm not sure it makes any difference. Could the poverty rate have been higher under a Republican administration? It never has been since the Great Depression.

Mr. President, Get Your Veto Pen

2011-08-29T18:12:00.000-07:00

Today, I received a frank e-mail from Democrats Abroad/Guatemala, saying:

The Tea Party capture of the Republican majority in the House has led to an endless series of efforts to emasculate the Federal Government. And, this warfare against constructive Federal Government is certain to resume as soon as the Congress returns to Washington at the end of the month.

Remind me if I'm wrong, but the Tea Party and the Republican Party have not passed a bill that the President didn't subsequently sign. It seems that there is no bill too ridiculous for the President to put his name on it. Likewise, there is no bill so obscene that the President would consider vetoing it.

The President should ignore what the Congress does, except to say that he will veto anything obscene (e.g. cuts in Social Security benefits, medical safety net programs and pensions for those who have served in the military. The President must announce that, by virtue of the US Constitution, it is HIS obligation to make sure that harmful, dangerous or obscene bill turn into law, by virtue of his veto pen. If there is nothing that President Obama cannot accept, then President Obama stands for nothing at all.

Is the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation Excluding HBCU’s From Research?

2011-08-29T16:53:00.001-07:00

August 29, 2011 06:13 AM

by L.N. Rock

According to the American Diabetes Association, African Americans are disproportionately affected by diabetes as 3.7 million or 14.7 percent of all African Americans aged 20 years or older have diabetes. In addition:

-African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as non Hispanic whites
-25 percent of African Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 have diabetes.
-1 in 4 African American women over 55 years of age has diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association (the Association) is a not-for-profit voluntary health agency that works to prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes. In October 1994, the Association’s Board of Directors established the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation, Inc. (the Foundation), as a subsidiary of the Association. The objective of the Foundation is to fund diabetes-related research leading to the prevention and cure of diabetes, the prevention and cure of the complications of diabetes, and new and improved therapies for individuals affected by diabetes.

Get this, the Foundation is exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and charitable contributions to the Foundation qualify for charitable tax deductions as described in the code. The Foundation has been classified as an organization that is not a private foundation under Section 509(a) of the code. Even though they appear to have a bias against HBCU’s and black researchers. More on this later…

Research grants awarded by the Foundation generally extend over a period of one to three years, subject to renewal on an annual basis.

Upon investigation and review of the financial reports and records, this writer has found that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been totally left out of the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation, Inc ward process as selected grantees.

Compared to the general population, African American researchers and HBCU’s are not receiving grant research dollars from the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation.

As an example, the Foundation provided over $33 million in research grants in 2010 without one gong to a HBCU. If one looks at their annual reports for ADA 2009 Research Foundation Financials and 2009 IRS Form 990 you will see the same challenge in the 2008 IRS Form 990, (check out the grantee database for information on ADA-funded research grant awardees), 2007 IRS Form 990 and 2006 IRS Form 990, no black awardees, no HBCU’s researchers

In other words the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation, Inc has not awarded not one research grant to HBCUs, even with the high incidence of black Americans with diabetes.

It is clear to this writer that the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation is saying that it has no interest in developing a strong research relationship with HBCU’s in relationship to issues of research related to the prevention and cure of diabetes, the prevention and cure of the complications of diabetes, and the development of new and improved therapies for individuals affected by diabetes.”

Although the ADA Research Foundation asks Americans to make a donation to the American Diabetes Association to help fund leading-edge research that affects the health and well-being of millions of people living with diabetes. It’s clear that funds are being awarded to friends and pals of the Board of ADA, and HBCU’s are being left out of the grant awards.

This should be no surprise. Rob Stein over at The Washington Post just reported on how Black scientists are significantly less likely than white researchers to win grants from the National Institutes of Health, according to an audit released Thursday that confirmed disturbing suspicions inside the agency about a lingering bias against African Americans.

Who said education is the great equalizer? When it comes to color aroused bigotry, it makes no difference if it’s NIH or the American Diabetes Association Foundation; color continues to play a factor in the way we address research of diseases in this country, particularly as it relates to African Americans.

It’s too bad for America, too bad for those with diabetes, and too bad for HBCU’s and black researchers.

L. N. Rock is a management consultant, Democratic strategist, and 2008 credentialed blogger at the Democratic National Convention. He blogs at African American Pundit.

Obama's CIA Efforts Wildly Successful in Middle East and Africa, but He Still Can't Be Re-Elected

2011-08-21T22:54:00.000-07:00

With rebels entering and apparently capturing Tripoli, the capital of Libya, (on the south side of the Mediterranean Sea, and on the north coast of Africa, President Obama will have one more notch on his belt when he debates Republicans over foreign policy. President Obama can (probably quite truthfully) assert that his Central Intelligence Agency's efforts were essential to regime change in Libya, but it was not possible to publicize these efforts at the time, lest Quaddafi use US interference to undermine Libyan public support for the "freedom fighters" (oops, "rebels").

President Obama can tick off a list of countries in which regime change has occurred or is the process of occurring. I, frankly, cannot remember them all, so long is the list. If President Obama is smart, and I believe that he is, he will neutralize and even win over some Independent and Republican foreign policy hawks by pointing to the success at Middle East and Africa regime change that Obama has presided over during his presidency. Arguably, these changes are second only in importance to fall of the Soviet Union during Ronald Reagan's watch, and Obama will surely point that out.

President W. Bush (and candidate John McCain and his advisers) made no secret of their desire for regime change in various in the Middle East and Africa. Neo-conservative foreign policy visionaries (once believed to be hallucinatory) can only be ecstatic with the "Freedom Spring" in the Middle East and North Africa, or whatever the US-supported and trained "freedom fighters" (excuse me, "rebels") are calling it.

So, even as Republican Presidential and Congressional candidates criticize Obama on domestic economic policy, they will be compelled to acknowledge the dramatic and (to them) highly desirable change in regimes in various countries in the Middle East and Africa.

For example, if the President of Syria leaves office, Obama can claim a major behind-the-scenes role. If he doesn't leave office President Obama can insist that it's only a matter of time, and recently history makes this claim credible.

In spite of the likelihood of a number of failed states as a result, considerable violence and some civil wars in which "regime derailment" has occurred but "regime-change" (to another solid regime) has faltered, (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, and what was the other recent one?), Obama can claim that democracy (otherwise known as the US's unfettered access to oil, supply routes and markets) has been achieved in an astounding array of countries under Obama's watchful manipulation of CIA assets in the various countries.

(In fact, a lot of people are checking with the Truth About Kos blog to see if Warren Weinstein, who worked with US-AID, and was a US contractor in Pakistan when kidnapped recently, might also be a CIA agent or asset.)

It is well-known that the US Government and USA "democracy-oriented" non-government organizations have been training citizens in countries across the Middle East and Africa to take part in just the sort of non-violent civil resistance (followed by violent challenges to governments) that has been occurring. As US Election Day 2012 draws near, Obama's CIA spokespersons will speak out proudly about some of the CIA/USAID dots that only conspiracy observers such as myself have seen as highly probable or obvious all along.

And hasn't Obama attacked Libya with drones and then direct air strikes, under the cover of NATO? Obama may have presided over a lousy and worsening economy that will be at its lowest point on Election Day 2012, with the largest transfer of wealth from the population and the people's Government to the banks and brokerage houses of the rich in the history of America, but no one can doubt his willingness to use force in ways that minimize US soldiers' exposure and also minimize the overt appearance of meddling in foreign countries' internal politics, in order to achieve neoconservative foreign policy goals, but without being seen within these countries as the rebels' puppet master, even when the US is the rebellion puppet master.

Give Obama a "ten" on regime change and expert use of US forces in the Middle East and Africa. I am unalterably opposed to all that he has done, and I do not agree that he and other unseen US forces and organizations have the right to do as they have. But, they have succeeded at the neoconservatives' expressed foreign policy goals, and that is what counts in American foreign policy debates.

However, let's recall that George H. W. Bush (the first Bush) won the first Gulf War and then lost the 1992 Election (in far less seriously economically disastrous times), because people just didn't believe G.H.W.B. had the awareness and determination to deal with America's economic malaise that Bill Clinton did.

Don't compare Obama with Jimmy Carter, because Obama has been far more successful in foreign policy. Instead, compare Obama to George H.W. Bush, who lost his 2002 re-election campaign because Americans just didn't feel confident about G.H.W.B's awareness of the need to improve the economy and his ability to do it, as compared to the proposals and energy of Bill Clinton.

If President Obama is fortunate and tends to his international interventions carefully, he will still be a "war president" on Election Day 2012. With an abominably lousy opponent who embarrasses the Republican Party (as McCain and Palin did in 2008), Obama could win.

Personally, I would prefer that he bow out and bring Vice President Hillary Clinton to the fore as the Democratic Party's candidate. Victories in the Middle East do not pay our mortgages, save our homes or put hot dogs and beans on the table. We need victories in the unemployment rate and in mortgage re-negotiations with the banks that only exist today because of the largess they received in multiple Bush/Obama bail-outs. We need to stabilize and "grow the economy" in ways that the Republican Congress will absolutely not permit while Obama would receive the credit. We need a new and different president, without turning the White House over to the Republicans.

I personally no longer believe in Obama's commitment to basic Democratic Party policies, such as the maintenance of Social Security and safety-net programs. I suspect that he has allowed or even suggested debacles like the debate over the debt ceiling so that he could accede to Republican demands that no Democratic voter can accept otherwise.

I simply do not trust President Obama anymore. I have no confidence in his ability and determination to defend programs that the middle class and working poor depend upon and hold dear. With each day, my concern increases over the aspects of the New Deal contract with America that President Obama may reluctantly throw overboard while blaming the Republicans for having made him do it. I am afraid that Obama may be a Republican in Democratic bunting.

So, I would welcome a situation in which the vice president steps down, Obama nominates Hillary Clinton, and then Obama exits the national stage, leaving Hillary Clinton as the incumbent on Election Day, with her promise not to do what Obama has done in domestic economic policy. It would not be constructive for a Democrat to challenge Obama, as Ted Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter in 1980. But arguably it didn't make any difference then and it won't make any difference now.

I prefer that Obama acknowledge defeat in terms of domestic economic policy, and then clear his desk for Vice President Hillary Clinton to hold onto through and beyond Election Day 2012. In a close race, we chose Obama over Clinton in 2008. He has turned out to be a bitter disappointment, even to many Black bloggers such as me, the African American Pundit and Black Agenda Report.

As Rebecca Traister points out in today's New York Times, we cannot know that a Clinton presidency would have been different or better. What we DO know is that voters will be looking for change in the 2012 presidential race. We should give them a way to opt for change without opting for the Republican presidential candidate.

Brazil is Half Brown, But Has No Brown-Skinned Women Among 27 Miss Brazil 2011 Candidates

2011-08-18T22:43:00.001-07:00

Look at this year's candidates for Ms. Brasil. Of approximately 27 from each state and the Federal District in the country, not a single one has brown skin, even though the population of Brazil includes 50% of Brazilians with brown or tan Afro-descendent skin (see statistics below).

Fonte: IBGE * 2005 , ** Censo 2010

Etnias (Ethnicities) no Brasil

Pardos: 42,6% (means brown skin, like e.g. Francis L. Holland)
Brancos: 49,7%
Negros: 6,9% (means brown or black skin)
Indígenas: 0,3%
Amarelos: 0,5%

The population of the state of Bahia, where I live, has a ratio of ten brown-skinned people for every three white-skinned people, and yet the state's representative at the Miss Brazil contest will be white-skinned, whatever her heritage may be. And for at least the last two years, Ms. Bahia has been white.

In all fairness and reality, if you carefully study the faces of each of the women in the above video, specialist in who has recent African ancestry may be able to identify three or four women whose noses and lips are of a shape often associated with brown skin, even though their skin is not brown. And some of these women may proudly state that they are Black. However, the skin color test is quite evident here, as it is in many other parts of Brazilian society.

Miss. Amapá, Miss Ceará, Miss Espiritu Santo, Miss Maranhão, Miss Mato Grosso, Miss Paraíba, Miss Paraná, Miss Sergipe and Miss Tocantins' skin colors represent the outer limits of brownness for those seeking employment as dancers, guests and actors on many television soap operas and variety shows. Any darker and they become invisible.

Just look at the all-white cast of a recent miniseries, called "Tí, Tí, Tí, to confirm that only three out of seventy-six characters have unambiguously brown skin, and one of the two Black women plays a maid. In a country that is half brown, a television series has whites out-numbering Blacks by a ratio of 25 to 1. Color-determined roles are worse on Brazilian television than politics South Africa's historical apartheid regimes.

The Ms. Brazil website foresees the controversy over an all-white competition and so it points out, in a special section entitled "Black Beauty," that one of the candidates for Ms. Brasil in 2010, Ms. Ceará, had copper-toned skin. So, if you wait until next year, you may discover that a 50% brown and black-skinned country has at least one brown or black skinned contestant for Miss Brazil. This year, the contest might as well be for Miss Switzerland.

I do not refer to "race" above, because it is entirely possible in Brazil that one or more of the women in the video has a brown-skinned parent or grandparent. So, it would be arbitrary and speculative to say that all of these women with white skin are from the "white race."

Instead, it is entirely possible that one or more of the women shown here considers herself to be Black. But NONE of them, out of approximately 27, has brown skin. (There are 26 states and the Federal District in Brazil, each with a contestant for Miss Brazil.)

I would mention something like this to my beige-skin step-daughters, but they wouldn't understand how it was relevant that they had virtually zero percent chance of becoming Ms. Brazil, simply because their skin is too dark.

My obsession with realities such as these is one of the reasons I could not get along with my wife's daughters (e.g. I felt disgusted at the smell and the reality of their hot irons burning their hair straight, and their inability to understand why all-white institutions bothered me so), and so we split up. You might well say that my family was a victim of color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior, at the individual, familial and societal levels.

Their mother would understand. She has Rasta Locks, unlike the entire herd of Ms. Brazil candidates, all with straight and/or straightened hair.

2011-08-09T18:02:00.000-07:00

Suspected Police Assassination of Black Father of Three Catalyzes Riots in British Cities and Towns

The Great Britain website, The Guardian, reports that the, Mark Duggan, a "29-year-old father-of-four was shot by police during an attempted arrest in Tottenham, north London, on Thursday," but there is suspicion that the police had decided to execute Duggan before the stopped him, or made that decision at the scene. The Guardian also ran a story today whose title and subtitle say:

Mark Duggan did not shoot at police, says IPCC. [Independent Police Complaints Commission]. IPCC releases initial findings of ballistics tests in police shooting of Mark Duggan, whose death sparked London riots."

Explaining the initials and role of the IPCC, the agency's website says:

The IPCC was established by the Police Reform Act and became operational in April 2004. Its primary statutory purpose is to increase public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales.

The IPCC also investigates the most serious complaints and allegations of misconduct against the police in England and Wales, as well as handling appeals from people who are not satisfied with the way police have dealt with their complaint.

Just as some of the rioters must have believed during the riots before the IPCC report was released today, Mr. Duggan may not have been shot in the chest by police for any justifiable reason.

The BBC says:

Mr. Duggan was killed in Ferry Lane, Tottenham Hale, by Metropolitan Police officers working for Operation Trident, which investigates gun crime in the black community.

The same BBC article says:

Speculation that Mr Duggan was "assassinated" in an execution style involving a number of shots to the head was "categorically untrue", the commission added.

Mr Duggan's brother Shaun Hall told Sky News that the family was "devastated" by his death and dismissed as "utter rubbish" claims he had shot at police.

Certainly, the suspicion that Mark Duggan was assassinated by police might be fueling riots, just as shooting such as this one triggered riots in the United States in the 1960's and early 1970's. One white female British blogger, whose blog is called "Penny Red," describes the riots that seem to have taken over Great Britain in recent days:

I’m huddled in the front room with some shell-shocked friends, watching my city burn. The BBC is interchanging footage of blazing cars and running street battles in Hackney, of police horses lining up in Lewisham, of roiling infernos that were once shops and houses in Croydon and in Peckham. Last night, Enfield, Walthamstow, Brixton and Wood Green were looted; there have been hundreds of arrests and dozens of serious injuries, and it will be a miracle if nobody dies tonight. This is the third consecutive night of rioting in London, and the disorder has now spread to Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Birmingham. Politicians and police officers who only hours ago were making stony-faced statements about criminality are now simply begging the young people of Britain’s inner cities to go home. Britain is a tinderbox, and on Friday, somebody lit a match. How the hell did this happen? And what are we going to do now?

The Guardian provides additional details showing that the police vigilance and killing of Mark Duggan was not an ordinary traffic stop, but a well-planned confrontation:

A father of three died instantly after an apparent exchange of fire when police attempted to arrest him in north London, it emerged on Friday.

A police marksman escaped with his life when a bullet lodged in his radio during the confrontation that ended in the death of Mark Duggan, 29. The Scotland Yard firearms officer was taken to hospital and later released.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating the fatal shooting, said the bullet and a non-police-issue handgun found at the scene had been sent for forensic tests.

IPCC investigators believe two shots were fired by an armed officer. A spokesman for the IPCC said that at around 6.15pm on Thursday officers from Operation Trident, the Metropolitan police unit that deals with gun crime in London's black communities, with officers from the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), stopped a minicab to carry out a pre-planned arrest. (Emphasis added.)

How did a pre-planned arrest of a man believed to be armed nonetheless result in a "shoot-out"? The perception, and the belief among rioters that police should not execute members of the public, might be the simple explanation of why Blacks and others are rioting in Great Britain. Now that an official agency reports that the victim didn't fire at police, the riots could continue and even spread.

Penny Red says:

As I write, the looting and arson attacks have spread to at least fifty different areas across the UK, including dozens in London, and communities are now turning on each other, with the Guardian reporting on rival gangs forming battle lines. It has become clear to the disenfranchised young people of Britain, who feel that they have no stake in society and nothing to lose, that they can do what they like tonight, and the police are utterly unable to stop them. That is what riots are all about.

Two Black US Senators May Be Elected from Vermont

2011-07-27T17:25:00.000-07:00

There is not a single Black representative in the US Senate, and this is unlikely to change significantly because US Senators are elected state-wide and Blacks are not the voting majority in any US state.

If slightly in excess of four hundred and twenty thousand voting age Blacks moved across the border from New York into Vermont, from the relatively close cities of Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester and Poughkipsee, with reinforcements from the boroughs of New York, then these Blacks could become the voting majority of the state of Vermont. The successful organizers of this effort would be in line for campaigns to represent Vermont in the US Senate and House, as well as assuming the roles of Governor and the many other elected and appointed governmental roles in Vermont.

Is is worth it for 425,000 Blacks to move to Vermont in order to regularly elect two Black US Senators for the first time since Reconstruction. Given the tens of millions of dollars that whites and Blacks spend to win (and lose) US Senate seats, whites clearly believe that winning even one is very important. Is it less important for Blacks to win TWO seat?

In election campaigns, it is typical of candidates to ask supporters for many kind of support, from donating money to talking to their friends, to holding events. In the Black Vermont effort, the only thing that would asked of Blacks is that they move to Vermont and vote for the candidate who most represents our needs and aspirations as a group.

Naturally, I have heard a lot of reasons why the above might not work, but those reasons are unconvincing. It is true that the weather is cold in Vermont and Vermont receives a lot of snow, but so do cities like Chicago, Boston, and Detroit. How could cold weather dissuade a person living in Chicago or Albany from moving to Brattleboro?

Although many Blacks would prefer warmer weather, we left the South in the 1940's, in spite of the cold weather in the North, with political, economic and social mootives. If all of the Black in the US moved to Vermont from cities that are as cold or colder than Vermont, the Black would elect two Black US Senators without the need for raising millions of dollars and convincing whites to go along.

My brain was not created to travel the ruts that others travel unquestioningly. Working, as we have a few times, to elect Black US Senators from white majority states, works sometimes (about five times in the last hundred years), but Blacks must take over a state if we are to determine who will represent that state in the US Congress.

Whites already have this advantage because white candidates are virtually always elected from white majority states. The simple difference between their success and ours may be that Senate seats must be won at-large, by the entire voting majority of each states' (white) majorities. If US senators were elected in two districts of each state instead of electing both of them at-large, Blacks would have a better change of winning US Senate elections in a number of states.

However, that would require whites to willingly give up US Senate seats to Blacks. That is only slightly less likely than restitution to Black's wages and interest from the days of American slavery. If a revolutionary solution that takes power from whites also depends upon the support of whites, as would two-district US Senate elections in the several states, then Blacks will wait and until every one of our dead Black skeletons are black with the dirt of the ages.

Whites need not change states to be from among the voting majority. That's why they have not made any effort to be the white majority of a state, although they make very intense efforts to create districts in which whites will win city council, school committe and Congressional seats. We cannot copy whites' path into the US Senate because we do not have the demographic advantage with which whites start in every US Senate election.

The only solution is to band together and CREATE the demographic advantage that whites have always taken for granted.

When I told Blacks and whites that 2008 must mark the end of the white male monopoly of the US Senate, many Blacks seemed disinterested, while others thought it could not come to pass. Some Blacks were willing to their hopes in laughable and risible John Edwards rather than bet on the end of the white male monopoly of the presidency.

Just as Blacks realized that a Black man could be president, Blacks will eventually realize that Vermont can send two Black US Senators to Washington. Our imaginations and conceptualizations may not yet have realized the opportunity, but Blacks aren't stupid and whites cannot hide the Easter Eggs from us through Election Day.

Of course many whites would snort angrily and inveigh against the new version of Black nationalism, but Vermont is not a nation. It is a state in a federal system of government whose Constitution gives Blacks the right to travel, including to Vermont. Let the white snorters stand at the borders of Vermont, trying to intimidate Blacks who are moving to create political power just as white parents move from town to town in order to put their kids is the best school districts.

There is nothing illegal about moving to Vermont in order to vote there, and the plan does not require any approvals from a majority-white US Congress or from the majority white and ultra-conservative US Supreme Court. No, this is a plan that we Black can implement on our own. That causes whites who voted for John McCain shiver in their boots. The more white talking heads and politicians inveigh against Blacks move to take over New Hampshire, the more they will publicize the concept and convince Blacks that it must be good for us if Fox News is so unalterably against the idea.

Field Negro Targets "Color-Arousal" and "Color-Aroused" Behavior

2011-06-19T15:07:00.000-07:00

Field Negro (AKA Wayne Bennett), recently cited by the Washington Post's "The Root" Black blog as among "Thirty Black Bloggers You Should Know," is informing the Black public about "color-arousal" and "color-aroused" ideation, emotion and behavior.

On June 15, he wrote, for example:

For all of you wondering how much the wingnuts and the folks in the GOP will play on white folks "color arousal" issues this upcoming election season, please note that it has already started.

He was referring to the above YouTube video, using blatant color arousing imagery, whose voice over says,

To reduce gang violence, Janice Hahn [California candidate for the US House] hired hard-core gang members with tax-payer money to be "gang intervention specialists." She even helped them get out of jail, so they could rape and kill again. Congress has enough gangsters. Janice Hahn. Bad for LA. Bad for America.

Then Black men in ghetto garb sing,

Give me your cash! Bit so we can shoot up the street! Give me your cash, girl so we can buy some more wheat.

The Urban Dictionary confirms my immediate suspicion that "wheat" is slang for "marijuana."

The Republican candidate says, in essence the ad is not "racist" but is admittedly color-aroused.

Meanwhile, the advertisement shows vulgar images of a white woman candidate consorting with what it presents as the prison and pre-prison population, with a white woman's barely covered ass shaking in front of a stripper's polc, while Black men put money in her skimpy tights.

Janice Hahn seems to have the support of virtually everyone who is anyone among Democrats, so the video appears to be an act of desperation. However, Congressional District 36 is only 7% Black, 14% Asian, 29% Hispanic, 49% White, so the promoters of the YouTube video are not concerned about offending Black voters.

However, the District gave 60% of its vote to Obama in 2008, so it seems just as likely that this video will offend white voters as attract them. The Republicans hope for a heavier color-aroused antagonist white turnout as a result of this dog-whistle anti-Black hatred YouTube video.

As for the video, here are the color-aroused and antagonistic stereotypes, in order of appearance:

That Black men desperately want sex with white women and see them strictly as sex objects (the black booty tights and the stripper's pole and the money in the tights in exchange for sexual behavior;
That white men are at risk of losing white women to Black men and therefore Black men present a profound threat, even when we are doing nothing illegal, and have no intention of doing anything illegal;
That donations to the white woman candidate are effectively supporting the lurid and emotionally color-arousing behavior seen in the video;
That white people's precious tax dollars are being paid to reprehensible Black men gang-bangers;
That Black men are all gang-bangers who do not deserve any representation in Congress;
That Black men and machine guns are synonymous and so Black men present a threat to our very lives.
That addressing the issue of the color-aroused antagonistic prison-industrial complex is not a worthy goal for a Congressperson;
That Black men are inherently criminal and incorrigible.

Klan Master David Duke could have made a more color-arousing presentation, but the question is whether such ugly and vile characterizations both of the white woman candidate and of Black men will rally white voters or nauseate and alienate them.

In another article, Field Negro says:

There are no bigger race baiters in the news business than the folks over at FOX. There is good money in scaring those red state folks about the black "boogeyman" around every corner. That color arousal (thanks for the word Francis) will stir their passions every time.

As Field Negro says, "color arousal" is about using skin color to "stir passions". We all know that white people (and Black people) have come to experience intense emotions (fear, anger, rage, resentment, envy, jealousy) when we are presented (or confronted) with skin color-associated verbal or physical presentations and advertisements (speech), ideation (thoughts) and behavior (verbal or physical acts).

Since politicians know just how powerful these skin-color-cues (calls to thoughts, emotions and action) can be, precisely because they are so ancient and well-worn into our society, starting during slavery and continuing in the mainstream media through the present, therefore white politicians often try to use antagonistic color-arousal "cues" to their political benefit. These messages send a potent message against Black people just by reminding white people of what they already fear and believe.

These messages also endeavor to demoralize and dehumanize Black people and hurt our self-esteem and identities, trying with force of their will and societal power to turn us into the very kind of people they say they so despise.

However, some white people are tired of being manipulated in this way and so they vote for candidates like President Obama and AGAINST the white candidate precisely because the white candidate is trying to "arouse" and manipulate people using skin color-cues and stereotypes.

Is the above YouTube video "racist." Please forget about that paleolithic "racism" nonsense. Ask yourself, "Does the ad intend to arouse ideation, emotion and voting behavior based on skin color?" Obviously it does. Case closed, as my friend African American Pundit as well as Sojourners Place would say.

Unfortunately, too many Black people use the jargon of "racism" and "racists" that let's color-aroused white antagonists off the hook. These Blacks will jump into the public forum to claim that the producers of the above video are "racists." However, to prove what someone "is," you have to demonstrate that they have engaged in the same type of behavior over a period of months or years.

No one is sure how many acts of color-aroused antagonism are required in order to declare that someone is a "racist." Likewise, no one is sure how much anti-Black stereotyping and negative images are necessary to declare and prove that a video is "racist." And, once having determined, based on more evidence that should ever be gathered in any case, that a person "is a racist," then it remains unclear what to do about it, if anything. It is obviously far easier to change people's behavior than to change what they "are." When you say someone "is a racist," you are effectively saying that they should be punished for what they are instead of for what they did.

It is far easier to ask whether this advertisement shows color-aroused ideation (Black men are the primary characters in this video) and the the voice over specifically presents assertions about gang-bangers, rape and murder while showing Black men's faces. Using skin-color to send a message is color-arousing, even if it only happens once.

As lawyers, Field and I know that when you increase the burden of proof, you reduce the likelihood of a conviction. When we have to prove that a person "is a racist" before we confront a specific act of color-aroused antagonism, we set our burden of proof far too high, and much higher than white people set the burden of proof for criminal and civil convictions in general.

For example, imagine rape statutes required proof that a man had raped several women over a period of time and therefore he is a "rapist." If he "only" demonstrably raped one woman, then we could not punish him for being "a rapist" and he would go free. By analogy, insisting that multiple and repeated acts of "racism" are necessary to prove that someone is a "racist" and deserves punishment is an absurdly high burden.

In our society, we don't decide what someone "is." We decide what someone did. If they are convicted for what they did, then they have earned the name associated with the crime they committed. For example, when a man is convicted of ONE act of rape, then he is a "convicted rapist."   He is a rapist.

When we assert that someone is a "racist," we put the car before the horse. The question is, 'Did this person commit one act of color-aroused antagonism?' If they did, then they have shown that, in that instance, they were a color-aroused antagonist.

Here's another critical question about the burden of proof. If instead of proving that a person committed a rape, you had to prove that he "is a rapist," then how many rapes would he have to commit before he could be punished or at least receive state intervention? Would we have to prove that he committed six or eight rapes, before concluding that he is a rapist and should go to jail?
Well, how many instances of rape individual instances of rape must be proved to prove that an individual "is a rapist?"

White people resolve this issue by charging people with having committed, in ONE instance, an action that is illegal. If the person is convicted of ONE act of murder, then he is a murderer by definition, and for all time.

So, why should we Blacks have to prove several or hundreds of acts of color-aroused antagonistic behavior? It's because we assert that a person "is a racist" instead of asserting that they committed an ONE act of color-aroused antagonism.

Instead, we should be focusing on the question, "Did this person commit ONE physical act or speech act that was color-aroused and antagonistic?   If the act of speech or behavior was color-aroused and antagonistic, then the person has engaged in one act of color-aroused antagonism, which is unacceptable.

Here's an analogy: Imagine a rape statute that says that rape is "involuntary penetration with pregnancy resulting." Most rapes could not be prosecuted under that statute. The burden of proof is too high, because it includes "with pregnancy resulting." So, why would we increase the burden of proof by inserting "with pregnancy resulting" in the criminal statute? The answer is that we never would include such a clause that heightened the burden of proof to the point where virtually no one could be convicted of rape. Rapists could wear condoms and rape women all day long.

When we try to prove that a person "is a racist," we have to prove a series of color-aroused antagonistic acts over an undefinite period of time. That burden of a series of acts is like is like the "with pregnancy resulting" burden of proof for rape. When Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama got where he is because he is Black, who has the time to look for a series of such acts in her past before confronting her about what she has said today? The burden of proof is too high.

The question should always be, has the individual committed ONE (or more) act(s) of color-aroused antagonism in this particular instance?

How many rapes do you have to commit to be a rapist? Isn't a conviction on one rape count enough? In our system it is. If you are convicted of ONE rape then you are a "convicted rapist."

This is how our system of justice works in the United States. The question in criminal courts, except in complex cases, is "did the person commit each the crime on ONE occasion? If so, the person is convicted.

Let's stop trying to figure who who "is a racist" and focus on the question, "Has Sam committed an act of color-aroused antagonism today?"

Latinos and Blacks Could Stay Home in 2012 Presidential Election

2011-06-19T03:24:00.000-07:00

Cross-filched from African American Pundit, comments and all.

Are Latinos and Blacks Being Taken for Granted
in Terms of Our Substantive Issues?

Just finished reading an article in WaPo about Latinos' voters and how Hispanics loom as key bloc for Obama.

The article notes how Hispanics were in love with Obama when he was elected — even more than other demographics — but they moved towards Republicans a little in 2010. They’ve also shown a willingness to vote for the right kind of Republican, as George W. Bush was able to take 45 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

They will be very important to Obama for two reasons.
One: They don’t view him nearly as favorably as they used to.
And two: They are entirely willing to stay home.

AAP says: "The President should also be concerned about black voters for two reasons as well.

One: The folks are hurting, African Americans have double the jobless rate of whites and the Obama administration has failed to support National Urban league plans to address the urban unemployment crisis.

Take for example, the recent Clarence Lusane article in the Huffington Post highlighting how joblessness continues to rise -- above 16.5% among blacks, as opposed to 8% amongst whites -- housing foreclosures devastate black families, and criminal justice practices continue to disintegrate black family structures and prosperity, black America is openly struggling against a potentially historic social and economic collapse during the very time that the first black president is in office.

As Clarence notes, "There seems to be little doubt, at least as Obama's first term comes to an end, that African Americans will have fared worse than when he came into office. For Obama's opponents, black and otherwise, that data will be the central theme for judging his administration." Two: Black folks like Latinos are entirely willing to stay home," if they have a home.

2 comments:

Francis L. Holland said...: I would expect lower turn-out for Obama, except for one factor that we haven't seen mature yet: ugly color-aroused campaigning by the Republican Party and their surrogates. Just as Hillary Clinton's color-arousing campaigning and that of her surrogates pushed Blacks into supporting Obama, the same will happen in 2012. White candidates will have their "macaca moments," embarrassing those voters who had intended to support the white Republican candidate. A vote against the alternative is never as enthusiastic or positive as a vote for the candidate of our choice. That's where Obama risks losing. His ability to win in states like Florida will depend on voter turnout. If he can get Blacks and Latinos to the polls, then he can win. If we're busted and disgusted, then he loses. Obama still has great popularity among Blacks, and may support him because he fought his way into a job that no Black person had held before. That counts for something, in the same way that ten cents counts toward the price of a hamburger at Burger King. I think we'd better just hope the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin. She's not in the race yet, but I'm sure she will be. I feel sure.; June 15, 2011 8:11 PM
Constructive Feedback said...: [quote]ugly color-aroused campaigning by the Republican Party and their surrogates.[/quote] Mr Hollland: Is an "Ugly Color-Aroused Campaign by WHITE REPUBLICANS" functionally any better than a coordinated campaign between White Liberal Snarling Foxes who keep an eye on what their White Brothers are doing and keep pumping it into the CONSCIOUS AWARENESS of Black people (Media Matters) with the goal of promoting RACIAL DEFENSIVENESS upon Black people - so that we VOTE OUR "PERMANENT INTERESTS" but those interests are THE SURVIVAL INSTINCT rather than: * Quality Education * Safe Streets * Thriving Local Economies DON"T YOU SEE - the challenge IS NOT "Black People Staying Home" and not voting for OBAMA. The real threat is that yet another election cycle will be conducted in America and Black folks will be ensnared into the 'AMERICAN POLITICAL DOMAIN', investing our EQUAL BLACK BALLOTS into the process - while failing to develop our INTERNAL ORGANIC INSTITUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY UPLIFT. Our Community Consciousness is FUSED TO the "American Political Domain". Our biorhythm is linked to the Democratic Party's success. Unfortunately Mr Holland - even in the places where DEMOCRATS RUN EVERYTHING (Chicago and Philly - where your buddy Field lives) our FATE AS A PEOPLE is just as BAD. WHO should be held accountable for the HIJACKING OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS in ways that MALCOLM X WARNED US ABOUT? How Do You Get Black People To Do What You Want Them To? http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2011/06/question-how-do-you-manipulate-black.html; June 16, 2011 3:10 AM

There's Black Political Power in Iowa

2011-06-19T03:11:00.000-07:00

Cross-filched from African American Pundit.

Black Political Power in Iowa

I'm not sure how many black folks are in Iowa or for that matter the state of Vermont but one thing is for sure unlike Vermont there is real black political power in Iowa. Oh, and Yes, Black people do live in Iowa. Infact a black woman is running for Mayor (again) in an Iowa city. You see, Lameta Wynn was first elected mayor in 1995 and was the first black woman elected mayor of an Iowa city. She served three terms until deciding not to seek re-election in 2007.

LaMetta Wynn

Wynn told a small group of supporters and family she had been asked by several residents, business leaders and city officials to seek a return to the mayor's office and said she was "humbled" by their support and encouragement. Congratulations to Lametta Wynn, and good luck on the election.

1 comments:

Francis L. Holland said...: Good for her! According to US Census Quick Facts, there are only 3.7% Black people in Iowa City, so LaMetta Wynn has surely shown white people that she is the best woman for the job. I wish her well.

Mitt Romney Jokes about the Unemployed

2011-06-19T03:07:00.000-07:00

Cross-filched from African American Pundit.

Mitt Romney got jokes: The Unemployed

Multi-millionaire, Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney got jokes: The Unemployed

After listening to a group of out-of-work Floridians tell their stories, Romney started this way: “I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed.”

AAP says: Yes, Mitt Romney got jokes: The unemployed are a big joke to him. Read more HERE

With All His Wars, It Must be Hell Being President Obama

2011-06-19T03:04:00.000-07:00

It must be hell to be President Obama, with a perceived responsibility to direct or at least manipulate and influence the so-called "democracy movements" in so many countries simultaneously. I admit that I haven't researched any of these countries enough to provide convincing back-stories to the chaos that is breaking out all over the Middle East and North Africa.

As African Americans, we certainly should be concerned that three countries--Tunisia, Libya and Egypt--are in some state of chaos as we speak, while the pink and purple revolutions driven by conservative US think tanks and facilitated by Facebook and Twitter are setting snowballs in motion, in the US' arrogant belief that chaos is better than the strong and stable leaders of the present.

As CNN says,

Nearly four months ago, longtime Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak finally yielded to political reality and stepped down from power. Mubarak's fall -- coming on the heels of the ouster of neighboring Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali -- was seen by many as part of a domino effect.

The Arab world, it seemed, was finally on the brink of a peaceful democratic transition that had eluded the troubled region for generations.

Today, however, the promise of a peaceful Arab Spring appears to be yielding to the reality of a long, violent summer as dictators across the Middle East and North Africa draw a line in the sand and fight to maintain control of their countries.

In fact, CNN has a round-up of the many "powder kegs" where CIA and neo-conservative "democracy movements" that are really just destabilization movements are taking their tolls

What in the world could ever have made conservative American think tanks and the Government believe that strong and well-established leaders in these countries would go without a fight? Would President Obama leave office because NATO and the UN said he should?

The truth is that, with the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing, it should have been obvious to all that dictatorial regimes maintained peace and order, while destroying these regimes in the absence of a clear alternative just leads to chaos and mass deaths, refugee movements and . . . chaos.

And yet there are those neo-conservatives in Washington and Virginia who have been yearning for "regime change" in these countries for decades. They seem finally to have gotten close to their wishes in a number of countries, but the CIA and Defense Department cannot control what fills the voids when these regimes are changed. Before you ask your daughter to go change her clothes before she goes to a party, shouldn't you have some way to predict and influence what she changes into? What if she changes a skimpy dress for a bra and panties?

That's the problem the US is facing right now, from--let's look at the map--from Tunisia (in African) west to Pakistan and from Syria south to Yemen (in Africa). Will all of these countries adopt western-style democracies, or will they end up like Iraq and Afghanistan: failed states unable to control their borders and impossible to contain warring factions, some or all of which are supported financially and sometimes militarily by the US Government.

When you consider that the very existence of the European Union is in doubt because of the world banking crisis whose architects hailed from the USA, and add that to chaos potentially throughout northern Africa and the Middle East, Obama may be creating an election strategy that he hasn't yet perceived: turn the entire world into a war zone or an economic basket case, and then say:

'I'm a "war president" and no one has faced (created) as many crises as I have, while successfully preventing them from reaching our borders. The potential for regime change in every country that annoys us has never been better, but the challenges are so complex that there is no time for a governor with no foreign policy experience to get up to speed on all of this mayhem.

There is a method to our map-changing madness, but I am the only candidate who knows what that method is. Not everyone can play sixteen dimensional chess the way I can."

I'm sure that's true. People who have worked on far simpler political campaigns have felt more overwhelmed than the President does in the midst of all of this madness. Obama is steady at the wheel, even when the wheel spins out of control.

Meanwhile, the CIA and Defense Department know that the best result in all of these countries is for the competing factions to kill each other off entirely, so that the US can have unfettered access to all of the oil and other raw materials, with no local populations to get in the way.

Who ever imagined that the US would go to war again Libya this year. But it is!

Who imagined that the US would be firing missiles into Pakistan? But it is!

Who imagined that Obama, who said he would have voted agains the war in Iraq, would nevertheless create and amplify more wars than George W. Bush? But he has!

I think I can see a way to support Obama for President in 2012. Like it or not, President Obama has created, catalyzed and/or meddled in more intra-national and international wars than any other Black President in the history of the United States and even the history of the world. That has to stand and be counted for something, even if nothing good comes of it. At least it's one for the history books.

Can Blacks Elect Two US Senators from Vermont?

2011-06-11T16:59:00.000-07:00

There's something missing from this article entitled, ". . .Alabama Set to be US Whitest State, over at Rippa's blog. What's missing is proof that Alabama is "about to become the nation's whitest state."US Census Quick Facts says that whites are 68.5 percent of Alabama, while Blacks are 26.2% and Latinos are 3.9%.

I know the article title, "Alabama Set to Be Whitest State" is intended as an exaggerated criticism of the State of Alabama, but the assertion risks misleading and misinforming people, like foreigners, children and people who don't use US Census Quick Facts.

The question of which state has more Black people is vitally important because it figures into the question of what state we should move to in order to become a majority and gain two Senators in the US Congress (instead of ZERO now), as well as gaining House seats, a governorship and many other elected officials in the one Black state in the United States of America.

For example, if six hundred thousand voting age Black people moved to Vermont, Blacks would become the voting majority in Vermont and we would politically take over a state and its political apparatus and representation in Washington, with two Black US Senators from Vermont.

Does this sound like a crazy idea? If anyone can come up with a more reliable way of having two Black US Senators instead of none, then I am all ears.

Quick Facts says there are approximately three million Black people in the state of New York. On average 75% of the state of New York is of voting age, which would mean that there are about somewhere around 2,250,000 Blacks of voting age in the State of New York.

If about one third of the voting-age Blacks in the state of New York moved across the border to the contiguous state of Vermont, then Vermont would become a majority Blacks state and send two and send two Black US Senators and a couple (?) of House member to Washington, as well as elect a Black Governor.

If anyone asks you why there are no Blacks in the US Senate, tell them the real reason: Blacks in New York have not realized how important it is that one in four of their voting age population move across the border into Vermont.

Now, readers will demand to know how Blacks could find jobs and housing in Vermont. I Black seniors with Social Security Insurance (SSI) moved, then would have to work in Vermont at all to support themselves, just as they do not work in New York at all to support themselves today. Their income comes from an entirely mobile sources and changing their state of residence would have no effect on their income.

Likewise, Blacks who receive Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and private pension could move to Vermont with no need to work and only positive effects on their cash flow. Real estate, bought or rented, is less expensive in Vermont, and so Blacks would see their incomes stretch further by moving to Vermont than by staying in New York.

Based on past patterns, it is reasonable to assume that some Vermonters, who have never seen Black people up close, would be spooked into selling their homes to escape neighborhoods that became increasingly Black. This would actually help Blacks because the increased available housing on the market for purchase would drive down housing prices and enable Blacks to purchase housing in Vermont for a fraction of what the same house would cost in New York State. By moving out, whites would make it less expensive for Blacks to move in.

So, be careful how you characterize demographic information. The only reason we won't have two Black US Senators is that Black in New York state have not studied the census numbers in New York and Vermont, and so they haven't realized the national impact they could have by moving across the border into Vermont.

White people don't seem to care that we have no representation in the US Senate. But, when we start moving to take over a state and turn its politics brown, they will take a strong new interest in our franchise behavior.

Our perfectly legal but revolutionary voting strategy would drive SOME white people completely out of their minds. That alone is a good reason for doing what the Census numbers recommend: Make Vermont the only majority Black state in the entire country and win the electoral benefits that come along with that demographic change.

"Enough of Weinergate," Says Field Negro, to a Metaphorical Round of Deafening Applause

2011-06-10T01:45:00.000-07:00

A photograph of Atty. Francis L. Holland's pubic area, in which his sexual organs would be entirely exposed, in a public fountain, no less, but for his use of his skimpy $20.00 swimming trunks.

Francis 90% naked in a Brazilian Fountain.

I have exposed one photograph of me ninety percent nude and another in which my sexual organs are covered only by a little black and white swim suit. Should I be stoned in public, or in the halls of the US Congress?

Gratuitous photograph of anonymous woman's glutinous maximus (buttocks), covered only by a shoe-string bathing suit.

I also confess that I have posted a photograph of an anonymous woman's remarkably full buttocks at my blog, for no other reason than to show that people sometimes engage in this behavior and it is not inherently evil, although entire blogs ought not be devoted to objectifying women's body parts.

I have not hidden the series of twenty (20) photographs of this woman (all of her behind) from my wife, but I have explained that they were taken by a close friend using my camera and, although I find the photographs amusing, but I wouldn't have taken these pictures, (unless the woman also had brown skin and long natural Braids or Rasta locks).

Times are changing and we are acknowledging the images that we entertain sometimes and even sharing illustrative photographs. Some of us are learning that women don't want to receive these photos by e-mail and that public revelation of them can be embarrassing.

If Congressman Anthony Weiner used his elected official position to compel women to submit to sexual harassment, then he should be expelled from the Congress if he broke a law. The reality seems to be that he used a personal Twitter account for some playful sex-related foolishness, and now everyone wants to hang him as if none of us has done the same thing at some point.

Weiner's adolescent children already understand perfectly well what he did, and it's up to Weiner to apologize to his wife and promise not to get caught doing it again, even as millions of other people continue to do what he did every single day.

Field Negro addressed the Weiner weenie "issue" so I might as well do so as well, even though I could immerse myself in news about Brazil, where I am resident, and never hear about this petty and pathetic entirely personal faux pax at all.

Yahoo News says:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Pursed lips. Frosty glares. Polite demurrals. Icy silence. Women in politics are grappling with the distinctly unfunny choice of restraining themselves or letting rip what they really think about Rep. Anthony Weiner's X-rated online conduct and whether he belongs in Congress.

Field Negro says, and I agree whole-heartedly:

. . . I wish these phony dumbocrats would stop calling for Weiner's head. Unless he broke a law he should stay right where he is. His constituents like him, and from the looks of the latest polls they want him back. So Mr. Weiner, screw those phonies in Washington and focus on the people who sent you there.

They previously supported law breakers and Bubba when the chubby brunette was wetting his whistle, they should support you.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says there should be a House Ethics Committee investigation to determine whether any laws or House rules were broken.

Rep. Anthony Weiner should not look to fellow Democrats to be understanding about his widening Twitter scandal.

Shortly after Weiner fessed up during an emotional New York City press conference that he lied about sending one lewd photo to a Seattle college student, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for the House Ethics Committee to immediately launch an investigation into Weiner's conduct.

"I am deeply disappointed and saddened about this situation; for Anthony's wife, Huma, his family, his staff and his constituents," Pelosi said in a written statement. "I am calling for an Ethics Committee investigation to determine whether any official resources were used or any other violation of House rules occurred."

Congressman Weiner shouldn't have lied about this, but lies about things that are irrelevant to the case at hand don't usually constitute perjury, even in a court of law. The case at hand is whether sending photographs of his groin makes Weiner unfit for Congress. I think that's something his constituents should decide, since obscenity is a subjective matter to be decided according to a local community's standards.

While Pelosi's call is a call for public embarrassment, which is inevitable and is already occurring, these House investigations almost never proceed to a decision by the House to unseat the miscreant. Only convictions for violating laws lead to that result, and it seems like a stretch at this point to say that Tweeting a picture of a clothed groin is a criminal act.

I think President Bill Clinton realized after his Lewinsky ordeal that he had made a big mistake by appointing a special prosecutor to examine the semen stains under his desk. When Democrats call for investigations, the whole Party sometimes gets wound up in nonsense while the business of law-making is put off, or proceeds with a Republican public image advantage.

No one American should get a letter or e-mail from a Congressional e-mail account that is filthy or illegal. Anyone who does receive such a letter can out the Congressperson involved and let the process of evaluating the behavior and our attitudes toward the behavior take its embarrassing but sometimes elucidating course.

For example, we learned through Newt Gingrich's Lewinsky prosecution that nobody really gave a damn, but America was angry that valuable time and money had been wasted on the non-issue.

People can call for Weiner to step down if they want to, but I think he should ignore them, unless he sees an overwhelming outrage erupt against him in his own district. And even then, he can wait until a recall movement starts or he is thrown out in next year's Congressional election.

Sylvia Harris: "My Bipolar Life, and the Horses Who Saved Me"

2011-06-05T17:47:00.001-07:00

Can Blacks have mental illnesses?

I am certain that my older brother, Danny, died of bipolar/manic-depressive illness and the psychosis that so often accompanies the illness. I, too, have been diagnosed as manic-depressive or "hypo-manic" (kind of manic but not all the way out there).

"Danny" was last seen alive in 1989. When I think of him, I wish I had learned earlier what I see mirrored in the book I review today.

Sylvia Harris, with an amazing autobiography just out, is a Black woman who achieved her dream of riding a winning horse in a nationally famous derby, in spite of (and perhaps partially because of) her bipolar/manic depression. She outlines her struggle in the two preface pages below, but her entire autobiography holds details and experiences that can help all Americans better understand bipolar/manic-depressive illness.

I've been diagnosed with bipolar illness, but I've learned (as Sylvia Harris did) to be suspicious of my flights of fancy, my whims and grandiosity, and to be sure that I do not outrageously exaggerate my abilities to myself and others.

Like Harris, I've also learned to have a healthy doubt of the voices in my head that tell me that I'm worse than not worth anything at all, and that I would be less unhappy if I were dead.

The author and I have both learned that the appropriate medication can be as crucial as the steering wheel in your car: It's no guarantee against accidents, but your a lot safer having it than not.

Sylvia Harris autobiography is a road map of bipolar illness, but it signals the way clearly so that other bipolars, their families and friends need not spend Sylvia's forty years learning what they could learn by reading her autobiography in a couple of afternoons.

Some people are so fortunate as to learn by reading of others' experiences, and thereby avoid some of the hurt and pain that they would otherwise cause to themselves and others. If you are one of those who can learn from others, then this book is for you and for the bipolar people you love.

Palin's Big Lies Strike Big Targets While Her Assurances are Reminiscent of (Election-Winning) "Compassionate Conservatism"

2011-06-05T15:31:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is the kind of Republican candidate who drives the press insane, because she keeps making statements that are barely true or completely false, but her supporters eat it up and there's nothing the press can do about it. They try to juxtapose her with assertions with their realities, but she has become smart enough not to lie and exaggerate about things that are easily fact checked.

She goes for the high-profile issues about which neither the public nor the politicians are sure and honest, and she makes signature statements that defame the opposition while crystalizing her in the minds of her supporters as someone who tells the truths that the politicians refuse to hear.

For example, The Root says that:

The Republican mischief maker is at it again, and this time her target is the Treasury secretary.

Earlier this week, Sarah Palin demonstrated why certain stars should never dabble in politics when she said the Republican Party platform is "best for America" because "[i]t's all about respecting equality." Never mind the document calls for etching discrimination into the Constitution with an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Well, yesterday, Palin was at it again.

This is precisely how Ronald Reagan won the presidency: by conjuring Black welfare queens who were at the heart of all of America's problems, while promising that America (not the Republican Party) was a land of liberty and freedom. Likewise, Sarah Palin knows how to tell the big lies with a straight and even enthusiastic face, insisting that the Republican platform is about "respecting equality" even though it specifically singles out gays for unequal treatment.

Likewise, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan said America had equality for all, while winking to his color-aroused antagonist supporters that, if necessary, he would send US troops to South Africa to maintain the "normalcy" (of apartheid). When Reagan refused to acknowledge the contradictions inherent in his pro-American but anti-Black nonsense, there was nothing the press or Black politicians could do to turn the truth against him. Americans wanted to believe his nonsense, and they weren't going to let mere human beings from the media spoil their party.

More substantively and truthfully, Sarah Palin (let's start calling her Governor Palin, lest we underestimate her) points out that Treasury Secretary Geithner has issued deadline after deadline on the debt ceiling, without any obvious proof that missing his deadlines had any clear effect on anything in the nation. She has a point when she asks why we should be hurried into something like the bank bailouts that were far more expensive than necessary and haven't proved to fix the mortgage crisis or high unemployment.

The Root continues:

This time sputtering nonsense about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's warnings about the danger of not raising the national debt limit.

Palin took time out from stomping all over Mitt Romney's announcement in New Hampshire that he is running for president to cast aspersions on Geithner while she was at a clambake in New Hampshire.

"If the debt ceiling were to be increased based on what I believe to be Timothy Geithner's false statements to the American public -- that a catastrophe would befall us all if the debt ceiling isn't raised -- a failure of leadership in the House would be if we were to cave and believe that."

And what did Palin mean by "false statements"? The half-term governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee explained that Geithner has "given us now four different due dates where catastrophe would befall us if the debt ceiling is not raised. ... Well, once bitten, twice shy. How many more times are we going to have to hear this date change?"

I've always been against Obama's white guy economists and bankers; they showed no concern for Blacks and homeowners or the lower and middle class when they were raking in the dough as bankers, so why should we believe that they have our best interests at heart now. Nothing they have done has benefited much of anyone but themselves and their collegial banking cronies.

This is a serious weakness for the Obama Administration and Palin can't be faulted for pointing it out. There are billions of dollars left in program coffers to help the people losing their homes, and Geithner can't be bothered to work out a populist program to spend the money that has already been approved by Congress.

Obama's upper-crust banking friends are a liability for him today and in the future, just as they were when they came on board. The tone was set publicly when Obama chose Lawrence H. Summers as his chief economic adviser, even though as President of Harvard University Summers had very publicly, in a speech to a women's forum, doubted the relative intelligence of women and Blacks.

I'd hate to see the Republicans win in 2012, but the Summers/Geithner axis is as good a reason for change as any. I wish I could argue that Palin's advisers would be even worse, but with extensions for tax cuts for the richest and a full-on Government refusal to help those whose mortgages are under water, it's harder to imagine (at the moment) how the Republicans will be considerably worse.

Palin might be the Republican nominee. I'm saying so again today, and I said it on July 30, 2009, as Palin resigned the Alaska Governor's Office:

Some blogs are saying her resignation speech was terrible and will exclude her from contention for the Republican nomination in 2012, but I think they're probably wrong.

In spite of the fact that I don't like Sarah Palin anymore than I would have wanted McCain for president (see my Truth About McCain Blog), I think Sarah Palin's speech was actually pretty good.

She mentioned the troops and the military several times. She described the state of Alaska in glowing and engaging terms that would make people less resistant to having a president from Alaska.

Palin talked about her commitment to all of the issues are seen as most important by the extreme right voters who decide the Republican presidential nominee: small government, low taxes, helping and respecting small businesses, opposition to abortion, commitment to family (she said that was part of the reason she was resigning).

I actually think that, for what she was trying to accomplish, which was to announce her candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, the speech was very effective. Remember: She's not trying to convince liberals, leftists or the media. She's trying to create a coalition of right-wing hate groups who will support her candidacy in 2012, and I think she's doing that. At least, I think her speech was a successful run at it.

Don't count Palin out. The very fact that she is known all over the Internet for disparaging Blacks and Native Americans will HELP HER with the Republicans who vote in Republican primaries.

She's got an entire dead bear in her office in Alaska, which gives her the 100% support of the NRA going in.

The press ridiculed Ronald Reagan because he got his facts wrong. The Republican right-wing extremists adored Reagan because he was willing to tell such big lies in the defense of right-wing interests. In Massachusetts, Palin invented gunfire and ringing bells to go along with her comments about the Ride of Paul Revere.

Listen closely to the last phrase of her comments, to the effect that, "the Revolution was fought with guns and we're not giving up our guns". In other words, 'Revolt against the present Government (led by President Obama) and Sarah Palin supports your right to keep and bear arms.' If that wrong-facts sound-bite gets her the support of the gun rights lobbies, then it was worth it no matter how badly she garbled the facts of Paul Revere.

Pay attention! Paul Revere is more "American" with guns blaring and bells ringing than without them, even if these details are more Star Wars than reality.

Palin has never taken an official action that was manifestly liberal or non-conservative. She showed the appropriate Republican disrespect for Native Americans as Governor of Alaska and she was as ruthless as Karl Rove when dealing with those who crossed her, even accidentally.

The only reason for Republicans not to nominate Palin is that she's a woman, but then they nominated her once in spite of that, and the sitting President is a Black man. If Republicans come to feel that Palin is the heir to Reagan's legacy of telling big lies and making the media and liberals apoplectic, then Republicans will nominate Sarah Palin.

The only question is whether she can stick to Republican generalities (support for guns; robust imperialism; anti-abortion; love for the middle class combined with opposition to policies that would help the middle and lower-class), then Sarah Palin could be a formidable candidate for the presidency. "Morning in American" platitudes will get you everywhere with 51% of America, in the middle of a recession.

What is the Future of Black Journalism and Blacks in Journalism in the Electronic Media Internet Age?

2011-05-28T07:53:00.000-07:00

African American Political Pundit is concerned about the effect that large corporate-owned Black sections of white newspapers (like The Root) and also Black-owned big-box blogs could have on

(a) Black readership migrating to white-owned outlets and leaving Black independent blogs behind, and

(b) Blacks leaving the white-news news rooms that they fought so hard to get into and migrating to Black blogs where they can finally write in their own voices about issues of unique interest to Black people.

He asks,

Are Corporate Black Blogs Destroying Black Employment In Mainstream Media?
Earlier this month I wondered out loud about Corporate black blogs like The Root (WAPO) and The Grio (NBC) Working To Control Black political and social opinion.

Ok, Now I'm wondering: Are Corporate Black Blogs Destroying Black Employment In Mainstream Media? Danielle Wright over at BET.com is making me wonder out loud based on the article "Black Reporters are Leaving Mainstream Media for Black News Outlets."

The article cited, "Black Reporters are Leaving . . .", says

Between 2001 and 2011, the number of African-Americans in the newsrooms of mainstream newspapers dropped 34 percent, according to a 2010 survey by the American Society of News Editors. In 2010, 4.68 percent of US mainstream print-newsroom-jobs were held by African-Americans, a drop from 5.5 percent in 2006.

( . . . )

Kathy Times, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, calls the drop in minorities at major outlets “devastating.” During a visit to the Houston Chronicle, which caters to a city proper that is almost 63 percent African-American, she saw zero Blacks among the sixteen editors in a news meeting she attended.

Though the increase in Black news outlets is great, let’s hope that it’s not at the cost of sharing diverse issues with the general public through a mainstream platform.

While I think this is horrible for Black America and Black journalists, I don't think it's entirely due to Black journalists' preferences. Some white newspapers have shut down and others have drastically reduced their staffs in recent years, and Blacks are typically "last-hired and first-fired." That, alone, explains some of the dramatic loss of Blacks at white-news papers.

I suspect that, knowing that they could lose their jobs at any moment anyway, as the corporate media amalgamates and downsizes, Blacks might even feel more professionally and financially secure at Black media outlets. In any case, Black reporters, writers and journalists background and identity as Black people is more likely to be a key asset at a Black blog. I am never surprised that Blacks are lacking in any field of US corporate or public sector endeavor. Aggrieved, yes. Surprised, no.

On the one hand, it seems like Blacks are just as likely to be lawyers and doctors as they are to write for white-news papers. This is a fact that has angered me since childhood, particularly when I read white-skinned reporters' reviews of Black movies and these reports were almost always negative. I remember reading in a white paper that "The Color Purple" was 'preachy, too long and not very funny.'

"Preachy" means that white journalists are challenged to look at their role as whites and they hadn't expected or wanted to have that experience at the theatre. "Long" means it focuses too much and too profoundly on Black characters' lives; and "not funny" means there were jokes that only Black people would understand and find ironic and funny. Even if white journalists understand the joke they are angry rather than amused, because the joke is at their whiteist expense.

So, it makes perfect sense to me that Black journalists who aren't forced out of the white-news media by downsizing are choosing to move to Black-focused outlets where they don't feel like the only Black person at a Klan meeting. They can write pieces to people like themselves, based on their sense of what is interesting to Blacks and what Blacks need to know. That's never been the forte or purpose of white-news outlets, so it's encouraging to me that new Internet ventures have created an opportunity for Blacks to write to and about Blacks.

I sense African American Pundits concern about where all of this will leave Black America and Black journalists, but we have to remember where we came from. In the 1980's Blacks were rare in newsrooms and being progressively down-sized out of their professions, with no ready alternatives. The acknowledgment that Blacks are a big audience with significant buying power and we want content written and for us, at the big white-news papers and by entrepreneurial Black outlets, has only helped Black America, in my opinion.

Each day I get an e-mail of the Black-related stories from the Washington Post, which are now collected together at a separate entity called, "The Root," but with the backing of the Washington Post. I honestly could never have imagined in 1970 that that could happen using white capital at a white-news paper.

And now with the entrepreneurial talents of Blacks creating organs for Black thought and community, I've never felt better as a Black consumer of Black news and opinion. Where this will go is anyone's bet, but for the moment I see Blacks earning salaries or equity in the media and I see Black audiences better served.

Let us also not forget that there are issues involving Black people that can never be adequately addressed in the white-news corporate media, and perhaps not even in Black online outlets with a profit motive. Each day brings more Black bloggers who refuse to accept advertisements at their blogs, so that they can write the whole truth unencumbered by white money and white sensibilities or the fear of losing advertisers and access to capital.

This last category of bloggers--the independent self-financed bloggers with day-jobs--are serving the purpose that the Black Panther Paper once served in the Black community: telling us the raw news as it is, and making us doubt our role in America while redoubling our efforts to keep one step ahead of white America's (in)justice system. Until whites change their attitudes radically toward Blacks, there will always be a place for independent Black bloggers because the police will never stop profiling, targeting, harassing, arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning Blacks at rates "inexplicably" higher that those of whites.

These are the bloggers who are developing and engaging in action plans to confront white-news, white-politics, and white-justice. Whatever the range of white print on the Web, we should expect that and more of Black Internet communication, which means that we will all have a role as time progresses.

Are White Women with Naturally Straight Hair as Attractive as Black Women With Natural Braids and Rasta Locks?

2011-05-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

My Wife, Teresa Francisco Holland,
Does Not Straighten, Iron or Otherwise Mutilate Her African Hair,
Letting Her Dreads Swing Naturally.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

We need to study our own culture, including traditional African hairstyles throughout the Diaspora, and prefer our own hair culture to that of whites. This is about esteeming ourselves, but it also has some very practical advantages.

Failing at Whiteness

I told my Afro-Brazilian wife about the hairstyle/culture/self-esteem concerns expressed by Bronze Trinity and in the video: that although whites constantly wave their hair about like horses wave their manes, natural Black hair does not wave about in the wind like white hair can. An afro stays put. In response to this, my wife tossed her head to and fro and her beautiful long dreadlocks flew in the wind around her, just like white hair does, but better for us, because my wife's hair is not the product of harmful chemicals, hot irons or money spent at white-people stores, making white people wealthy and us poorer.

Braids are ideal hair styling options for all-year round action like swimming, camping, or sports. Opting to braid your hair is a perfect choice when transitioning from chemically straightened tresses to au natural tresses. They give your hair a rest from styling aids like chemicals and hot irons while protecting your natural tresses. Bivi.Net

There are so many stunningly beautiful ways for us to wear our hair in Braids. Long, flowing, beautifully organized and maintained braids and dreadlocks, on the other hand, are an ancient African cultural art form that highlights our beauty, history and culture all at once, without making an new industry for "the man". One Black man said, "If God had wanted us to have straight hair, we would have been born that way. I accept me as I am."

When we braid our hair, all of the money generated stays within the Black community because whites don't care to learn to braid and because no fancy chemicals, machines or treatments are needed for beautiful braids. Just as African women braided their hair before the invention of electricity, during the time of the construction of the Pyramids we can do so today, with great beauty and tremendous longevity.

A Black person with straightened hair is like Cinderella, who is out of her element and waiting for her horse and carriage to turn into a pumpkin at midnight. If our hair has been straightened and then gets wet, there is no fairy prince who is going to save us from the embarrassment that comes when the forces of nature denounce us as cheap immitations of traditional whiteness. Unless our hair is Braided, it returns to its natural curls when wet, like nature telling us to "just be ourselves" and refusing to play along with our attempts at white identity appropriation.

Although they complement our straightened hair to our faces, whites secretly laugh at us for spending so much of our time and money trying to look like them.
When I was single, I couldn't let a woman with Braids walk by without at least learning her name and complimenting her hairstyle. Braids are THAT compelling.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Girl, those Braids are sexy!

I once went out with a woman who had long, beautiful braids when I met her. I found her irresistable and I told her so, because she had the uniquely beautiful curves of an African woman and long flowing braids that reminded me of our culture and our ancestors.

But, then she straightened her hair. She became afraid to come with me to the beach or get near ocean-spray, because the forces of nature would make her chemically-treated hair would revert to its natural curls. She no longer wanted to learn to swim or take long walks on rainy days. We broke up, because she was no longer the woman I had met.

Book Review: Sylvia Harris' Autobiography of Bipolar Disorser and Salvation at the Horse Tracks

2011-05-21T21:53:00.000-07:00

The new book, "Long Shot: My Bipolar Life and the Horses Who Saved Me," is a must-read for those like me who struggle with bipolar illness, as well as for professionals caregivers and family members who want to understand Bipolar patients and have a sincere desire to help. As someone who has seen this process from the inside, I can and do vouch for the anguish it causes in the patient, family and career.

The author, Sylvia Harris, describes exactly what it was like to be somewhat manic, floridly manic, psychotically manic and depressed. She recalls a time when she cycled through these stages with no idea of what has happening to her, clueless as to the exit from the perpetual emotional roller coaster.

Through her painfully honest autobiography, she gives readers an inside view of her manic-depressive problem and how she overcame its worst aspects by striving for meaning and healthy excitement. Desiring to become a horse trainer and eventually a jockey, she demonstrates that we need not achieve all that we want in order to benefit from the pursuit of our dreams.

Without specifically saying so, she demonstrates the similarities between Bipolar illness, alcoholism and drug addiction, in which many sufferers, their families, circle of friends and employers must often acknowledge the illness and their personal powerlessness over it, before they can find relief and redemption.

Harris courageously describes learning to realize when an attack of mania was beginning and what--for her--triggered those attacks.

Not all readers (including myself) will identify with Harris' love for horses and the essential role they came to have in Harris' rehabilitation. But, everyone perceives that having a personally meaningful goal toward which we strive helps us to find meaning in life when our lives would otherwise seem to us to be meaningless.

Essentially, Bipolars often have a necessity for a goal and aspiration larger than life, lest we be overcome by depression and the conviction that our lives are meaningless.

As in any worthwhile autobiography, Sylvia Harris brings the reader along on the trail to overcoming the worst her difficulties, while acknowledging that some "wreckage of the past" is inevitable but not utterly insoluble.

I personally do not read prefaces or introductions to autobiographies, because of their tendency to remove the mystery and discovery process from the narrative itself. Sylvia Harris's "Long Shot: My Bipolar Life and the Horses Who Saved Me" ends realistically, in a manner with which we may all be able to identify.

If you enjoy the thrill of discovering what happens at the end of Sylvia Harris' autobiography, then don't read the introduction and preface at the beginning.

Read the whole autobiography and learn what happens just as Sylvia Harris did: one day and one experience at a time.

You can't be of help to a Bipolar person or patient unless you understand their world from their perspective, as well as from your own (probably) vastly different perspective on the patient and the illness. This is maddeningly frustrating, but true nonetheless.

This book provides a heartfelt, and searingly honest account of life for those like me who struggle with bipolar illness, as well as for professionals, caregivers and family members who want to understand
Bipolar patients and who have a sincere desire to help.

"Race" and Blood Types, Superstition and Science

2011-05-16T17:39:00.000-07:00

Would you rather have a blood transfusion from someone who shares your skin color or from someone who shares your blood type? It is my belief that transfusing blood from one person to another based on skin color would be a extraordinarily dangerous practice. The American Red Cross, which maintains blood banks, says:

Although all blood is made of the same basic elements, not all blood is alike. In fact, there are eight different common blood types, which are determined by the presence or absence of certain antigens – substances that can trigger an immune response if they are foreign to the body. Since some antigens can trigger a patient's immune system to attack the transfused blood, safe blood transfusions depend on careful blood typing and cross-matching.

The blood table below, broken out by "race," shows that blood types do not obey superstitious sociological and cultural notions of "race". The following chart from the American Red Cross shows that if all Caucasians received O+ blood transfusions on the logic that O+ is most common among Caucasians, then sixty-three percent of white people would receive the WRONG blood type during transfusions.

Most white people would have a higher chance of receiving the proper blood type from an Hispanic person (53%O+) than they would from another white person, since the most common blood type among whites is (O+ 37%) and is also most common among Hispanics (O+53%) of Hispanics have that blood type.

If a white person with type O+ blood needs a battle-field transfusion and medics don't know the blood types of another white person available and an Hispanic person available, the best bet (53% O+) would be to give the white person a transfusion from a Hispanic person--NOT another white person.

All white people have a lesser chance of having O+ blood than do Hispanics (O+53).

	Caucasians	African American	Hispanic	Asian
O +	37%	47%	53%	39%
O -	8%	4%	4%	1%
A +	33%	24%	29%	27%
A -	7%	2%	2%	0.5%
B +	9%	18%	9%	25%
B -	2%	1%	1%	0.4%
AB +	3%	4%	2%	7%
AB -	1%	0.3%	0.2%	0.1%

Dr. Dennis O'Neil Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California writes:

. . . patterns of ABO, Rh, and Diego blood type distributions are not similar to those for skin color or other so-called "racial" traits. The implication is that the specific causes responsible for the distribution of human blood types have been different than those for other traits that have been commonly employed to categorize people into "races." Since it would be possible to divide up humanity into radically different groupings using blood typing instead of other genetically inherited traits such as skin color, we have more conclusive evidence that the commonly used typological model for understanding human variation is scientifically unsound.

As a matter of science, Dr. Dennis O'Neil concludes that the belief in "race" has less basis in science than other more medically useful groupings. He concludes that:

The more we study the precise details of human variation, the more we understand how complex are the patterns. They cannot be easily summarized or understood. Yet, this hard-earned scientific knowledge is generally ignored in most countries because of more demanding social and political concerns. As a result, discrimination based on presumed "racial" groups still continues. It is important to keep in mind that this "racial" classification often has more to do with cultural and historical distinctions than it does with biology. In a very real sense, "race" is a distinction that is created by culture not biology.

"Obama Working to Rebuild [Rusty and Dry-Rotted] Grassroots Army (AP)"

2011-05-16T04:27:00.000-07:00

Every time I read a headline like ,"Obama working to rebuild grassroots army (AP)," I feel angry at President Obama. Why did Obama let the grassroots army go fallow in the first place? Maybe it was because he was going to capitulate on the public option and didn't want his supporters to vocally tell the media that Obama had lost his mind?

President Obama is an intelligent man, and so I can't understand why he hasn't run the "permanent campaign" of Bill Clinton instead of winning the race and then effectively, passively, telling all of his supporters that the war was over and they could go home?

This idiotic strategy was Obama's "Mission Accomplished". He should have known that people supported him because he gave them something to do to make the country better, and those same people were waiting for marching orders that would keep them busy until the next presidential election. NOTHING had been accomplished with the election of President Obama, except his election. All of the work lay ahead of the Obama forces, yet Obama ignored his student cadres, his union supporters, and even his war room to beat back Republican attacks on Democratic priorities. There is a strong argument to be made that Obama lost the Congress in 2010 because he ignored his ground troops in 2008 after the Election, and in 2009 and 2010.

There is a significant difference between working on your supporters' priorities and getting your supporters working and active to push their priorities through Congress. When Obama went silent for months on national health care in 2009, he failed to provide the leadership that his own supporters needed in order to push a common agenda.

The radios went silent, the requests for help (even financial help) disappeared, and Obama seems to have believed he had to turn his attention (and his political machine's attention) toward making the sausage in Washington that nobody wanted to eat.

OK, that's not fair. Obama has done a lot of important things in office, so would someone kindly remind me what they were? That's the first part of getting Obama's most ardent supporters to vote themselves in 2012, never mind organizing them to get their friends, families and communities to vote. Like the aftermath to the bombing of the Twin Towers, Obama's comportment since he was elected has been a missed opportunity to bring his forces to the fore, to fight together for a common agenda.

"Obama working to rebuild grassroots army (AP)" is a polite way of saying, "Obama built a grass roots army for 2008, forgot about it and neglected it for two years, and only now realizes that the same army that he ignored for two years will be now be necessary for his re-election in 2012. There's something weird going on in Obama-land.

Why didn't Obama call out this army to fight for national health care? Why didn't Obama call out this army to avoid losing the US House in 2010? Why didn't Obama call out this army to insist on immediately building wind power and solar energy resources when the Democrats had the US Congress, so that Republicans would have to tear them down to get rid of them?

Why did brilliant Obama act so arrogant and self-sufficient for two years when arrogance and self-sufficiency and autocracy were do bloody dumb? It's not too late for Obama to win in 2012, but it's too late to prevent two years of a Republican House and it's too late to prevent the demise of the public option.

Look at the bright side: "Obama (is) working to rebuild [Rusty and Dry-Rotted] grassroots army (AP)". If he hadn't left his car in a ditch for the last two years, then he wouldn't need to rebuild it in or to get it running again.

Electrocution Victim's Family Routed in California Taser Death Case

2011-05-10T19:02:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip to Eddie G. Griffin (BASG).

Unfortunately, it seems that the estate of Robert Heston, and his family, have been routed so far in the electrocution device suit they first filed and was first heard in San Jose District Court and then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Perhaps the family and their lawyers will petition for en banc (full court) review of the three-judge panel opinion, although their is no inherent right to en banc review and it is mostly granted in cases considered to be of great importance.

With so many District Court appointments to be made and affirmed by the US Senate still, this case was heard by a three judge panel, composed RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and "The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation."

Bloomberg reported in June 2008 that:

A San Jose, California, jury yesterday said Taser had failed to warn police in Salinas, California, that prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages to the estate of Robert Heston, 40, and his parents. The jury cleared the police officers of any liability.

However, the District Court judge immediately threw out the punitive damages, while affirming the jury's compensatory damages finding.

Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the lower court's denial of punitive damages AND thrown out the compensatory damages as well.

In overturning the compensatory damages, the Ninth Circuit said:

4. However, the district court abused its discretion when it affirmed the jury’s compensatory damages award to the estate. While the estate presented evidence suggesting that Heston was treated by emergency medical technicians, transported to the hospital, and received continuing medical treatment, it presented no evidence at trial showing compensable “loss or damage that the decedentsustained or incurred before death, . . . not includ[ing] any damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement.’” County of L.A. v. Superior Court, 981 P.2d 68, 70 (Cal. 1999) (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.34; emphasis altered). Thus, although the trial judge had discretion to “weigh the evidence” when it considered TASER’s motion for a new trial, it abused that discretion by denying the motion where there was simply no evidence to weigh in support of the jury award. See Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 190 (9th Cir. 1989). We accordingly reverse and vacate the compensatory damages award.

In affirming the denial of punitive damages, the Court of Appeals found that:

Under California law, punitive damages may be awarded when a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with “such a

7

conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may
be called willful or wanton.” Taylor v. Superior Court, 598 P.2d 854, 856
(Cal. 1979) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Cal. Civ. Code
§ 3294(a). Here, TASER made efforts, albeit insufficiently, to warn its customers
about the risks posed by prolonged TASER deployment. While this may amount to negligence, it does not rise to the level “willful or wanton” conduct. Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433, 444 n.14 (Ct. App. 1994) (such conduct must be “inconsistent with the hypothesis that [it] . . . was the result of . . . mere negligence or other such noniniquitous human failing.”). Moreover, although the jury found that a “reasonable manufacturer” would have known that prolonged TASER deployment may cause cardiac arrest, it answered “No” to the question asking whether TASER actually “knew” of that risk. We accordingly affirm the district court’s order vacating the punitive damages award to the estate.

The only victory for the plaintiff's lawyers and the public is that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a requested by Taser International that the plaintiffs pay Taser's legal fees.

The Ninth Circuit Appeals judges said,

"Each party will bear its own costs."

because there was sufficient merit to the case that plaintiffs should not be penalized for having brought the case in the first place.

Had the plaintiffs been ordered to pay legal fees it would have dissuaded families across the country from filing complaints against Taser International.

Overall, this is a particularly bad case result for Taser petitioners, even though the presiding judges said,

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Black Agenda Report Reveals Obama and Imperialism

2011-05-07T08:45:00.001-07:00

What has changed, other than the face?

"The killing of Bin Laden, if that's what it was, and the celebrations around it only ratify and affirm the lies that war, torture and empire are good and necessary, especially when carried out by Democrats." -- Black Agenda Report's "Osama, Obama and Bush: Apt Comparisons, Missed Opportunities", with illustration by Leon Kuhn.

Obama Was Prescient on Bin Laden, but In a Way that is Mostly Irrelevant to American Blacks

2011-05-04T15:19:00.000-07:00

First posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

I had hoped that people in the US and elsewhere would quickly forget about Bin Laden and refocus on 15% unemployment among Black American adults, but it doesn't seem like that refocusing is going to happen. President Obama and the "intelligence" agencies now have an endless supply of Osama Bin Laden mementos and goodies with which to regale the media and the public, and the story will be dragged out like the equally inconsequential death of Princess Diana.

A comment by TheEvilOne prompts me to address the Bin Laden case again, only with respect to its political lessons and implications in the United States.

What strikes me is that, if indeed Bin Laden was killed, Obama had a pretty good idea of what country he was in. Readers may remember that when Senators Clinton and Obama were running for Democratic nomination, Obama successfully avoided being called "anti-war" by promising to attack targets in PAKISTAN to 'get the terrorists," with or without Pakistan's permission. Hillary Clinton said Obama's plan was immature and illegal, but Obama stuck to his drones and won the nomination.

Today, if anything that the CIA operatives are telling us on the news is true, Osama Bin Laden was, in fact, in PAKISTAN. Had it been known during the Democratic nomination primaries that Bin Laden was in Pakistan and Pakistan was refusing to cooperate with Bin Laden's capture, then both Clinton and Obama would have been compelled to talk tough about going into Pakistan. Obama promised to do it and kept his promise, while Clinton promised NOT to do it and lost the nomination to Obama.

How was Obama so fortunate as to promise to effectively invade the very country where Bin Laden was hiding? It makes Obama seem pretty smart in retrospect, but in an irrelevant sort of way, from the perspective of Black Americans and their homes in foreclosure, or already living out of their cars.

Of course, Obama has been invading foreign oil-producing countries at the average rate of one per year (Pakistan and then Libya), so we can expect him to invade six more oil-producing countries by the end of his second term. None of it will help Black people in the United States one bit.

Black people are far more afraid of their local police and the all-white juries than they are of anyone in the Middle East or Africa, and with good reason: "TheEvilOne" pointed to the following article, entitled, "The Failed Drug War Has Created a Human Rights Nightmare," with strikingly similar facts and metaphors, like the fact that Obama-Land is not the "Promised Land," which is still out of reach, in large measure because white America targeted Black America for imprisonment and the loss of many of the rights of citizenship:

We declared a war known as the War on Drugs. The war has driven the quintupling of our prison population in a few short decades. The vast majority of the startling increase in incarceration in America is traceable to the arrest and imprisonment of poor people of color for non-violent, drug-related offenses. Families have been torn apart, young lives shattered, as parents grieve the loss of loved ones to the system, often hiding their grief under a cloak of shame. Politicians claim that the enemy in this war in is a thing -- "drugs" -- not a group of people, but the facts prove otherwise.

African Americans have been admitted to prison on drug charges at a rate up to 57 times higher than whites. In some states, 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison have been African American. The rate of Latino imprisonment has been staggering as well. Although the majority of illegal drug users and dealers are white, three-fourths of all people imprisoned for drug offenses have been black and Latino.

In my opinion, one million Blacks in US jails and prisons is a far more important statistic than 3,000 killed at Ground Zero. "Ground Zero" for Black people is the state prisons in the fifty states, and the felony convictions:

Millions of people in the United States, primarily poor people of color, are denied the very rights supposedly won in the Civil Rights Movement: the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, and the right to be free from discrimination in employment, housing, access to education, and public benefits. They have been branded "criminals" and "felons" and now find themselves relegated to a permanent, second-class status for the rest of their lives.

We feel as if we are under siege, because we are under siege. Every Black kid knows it and every Black parent and adult has fought it, but we are a minority--marginalized, repressed and imprisoned.

Afrosphere Bloggers Compel White-News Media to Focus on Black Thought and Action

2011-05-02T00:44:00.000-07:00

When Black bloggers of the afrosphere got together in January to March of 2007 and formed the AfroSpear, a black self-determination membership group, it was never our desire to compel white-news media outlets to increase their coverage of Blacks' news. In fact, we got together precisely because we assumed there was nothing we could do about the white-news media's willful ignorance of Blacks' news and important events.

Now, in addition to building the number of Black blogs more than tenfold, we have proved that Black people do read and write blogs, even though it was initially believed or disingenuously asserted by whites that Blacks didn't blog and wouldn't read blogs. We have proved that concept to have been no more than arrogant white supremacist color-aroused nonsense.

Equally importantly, by reporting on Blacks' news and opinions and building a giant international audience we have taken Black market share from white-news outlets and thereby compelled white-news corporations to introduce corporate competition for Blacks' news eyes and keystrokes. They now have to compete with Black bloggers or cede the power of a force that elects the president, senators and congresspeople, in addition to other lower offices nationwide.

When we decide at our blogs whom we will support, we move with a unity that changes election results, just as we do by not voting at all. (I hope President Obama's staff will hear this warning louder than Hillary heard my warning not to ridicule Senator Obama on the basis of his skin color.)

The Jena Six March proved that Blacks online, across America and internationally, can aggregate tens of thousands of Blacks to act on a particular day, for a particularly galling reason. We proved that we had political pull to actually DO things that exceeded the pull of the whitosphere blogs that had rejected our opinions and participation.

Now, it seems, the white-news media is as likely to write about Black bloggers' opinions as they are to white about white bloggers opinions, if not more so. (Of course my perspective may be skewed since I don't read white-news blogs.) But, I do read white-news newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post daily.

As the African American Pundit has pointed out, the Washington Post has been compelled by Black bloggers to start The Root (with Dr. Henry Louis Gates) , and NBC has been compelled to start The Grio, to avoid losing Black market share to Black blog writers. These two corporate blogs represent the hiring or contracting with dozens or hundreds of Black bloggers, when the white-news media was previously firing Black voices as part of an effort to cut expenses.

The Black national reporters group (whose name escapes me at the moment) was under siege, with its members losing jobs, but now Black bloggers' strength has put Black bloggers at the front of the movement to inform the public through blogs, in order to avoid losing market share of Blacks, and losing control of our political focus, they are hiring and publishing Black bloggers' for a unique opinion that has finally been recognized as essential to the American conversation.

What we have proven is that the best way to change all-white news organizations is not to complain about them, as African American Pundit is doing today, but rather to compete with them and force them to improve their game, just as Venus and Serena Williams forced white women tennis players to increase their serve velocity by as much as twenty percent. Likewise, if the white-news organizations let up for one moment in their competition with afrosphere blog, Black voters and readers will increase their consumption of afrosphere Black self-determination blogs.

We have guaranteed the participation of Blacks within white-news papers. Now, we should do the same thing with white-news television news, and African American Political Pundit has started doing that through his radio program at Blog Talk Radio and the BBC on Election Day.

In summary, Black bloggers have forced the white-news outlets to cover Black issues from a Black perspective or lose Black readers completely to independent Black blogs and bloggers. Competition from corporate "black" blogs is the natural result of the success of the legitimate independent afrosphere. The Black bloggers working for the white-news media outlets will never replace the afrosphere, because their goal is to define and report or purposefully ignore Black political movements. Meanwhile, the afrosphere is the author of Black political action with Black self-determination and liberation strategies.

Working for the Washington Post with brown skin is not a Black self-determination strategy. It's a job, but not a Black self-determination political strategy.

Independent afrosphere blogs will remain relevant to the extent that we continue to define the world in terms that reflect our experience, and to the extent that we offer political strategies that the Root and the Grio cannot and will not offer, because they ultimately work for white corporate interests rather than Black self-determination motives.

The real risk is the ongoing infiltration and intentional disorientation of the afrosphere by outside-directed agents working within our afrosphere community. Some agents have come to join our group and been sent directly by the US Government and other entities.

But the corporate bloggers pose a danger as well. In essence, by blogging for corporate interests within the four corners of corporate permission, brown-skinned bloggers become part of the blackosphere, but NOT part of Black self-determination afrosphere bloggers. This will become more evident as Blacks assess the contribution of President Obama to Blacks as a group, and we assess whether the President has done anything at all to help Blacks, aside from giving one Black man (Obama) face-time on the nightly news.

Agents of the Government and corporate American media must not be allowed to prevent us from achieving genuine Black consensus and unified political campaigns, defining and confronting Blacks' political, economic, cultural, educational and even spiritual challenges by, for and about the Black People. -- Francis Lloyd Holland, Esq.

Dr. Aryn Bush and "A Woman's NationTakes on Alzheimers"

2011-04-27T19:34:00.000-07:00

March 15, 2010

Lakeland, Fla.

Dr. Aryn Bush

"Dr. Aryn Bush of the University of South Florida Polytechnic has been elected to the Alzheimer's Association - Florida Gulf Coast Chapter Board of Directors.

"I am truly honored to be elected," says Bush, a cognitive aging specialist and visiting instructor at USF Polytechnic. "Individuals with mild cognitive impairment and dementia have influenced my life profoundly both professionally and personally. I have strong hope this new role will provide another avenue through which their voices may be heard.

Within the 17 counties that comprise the Florida Gulf Coast Chapter, an estimated 189,032 people live with Alzheimer's disease. Nationally, one in every 57 people of all ages has Alzheimer's disease. In Florida it is one in every 38 people. In the areas the Florida Gulf Coast Chapter serves it is 1 in every 30, and in two of the Chapter's counties 1 in every 19 people has Alzheimer's disease."

Donate online now
Donate by phone: 1.800.272.3900
Donate by mail:
Send a check to: Alzheimer's Association
P.O. Box 96011
Washington, DC 20090-6011

http://alz-news.org/

Email: info@alz.org
Phone: 800.272.3900
Alzheimer's Association
Public Policy Division
1212 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-6105

Obama has Been Lacking at Community Organizing and Mobilizing His Base

2011-03-07T19:39:00.001-08:00

During the 2008 Democratic primaries and the General Election campaigns, the Obama people told us that community organizing was of maximal importance and that their Administration would rely community organizing and mobilization principles just as much as it did during the campaign.

That hasn't happened. Rather than rally the public and his campaign base in support of public option health care, Obama capitulated to the Republicans, the insurance industry and the Chamber of Commerce, without ever really trying to mobilize his troops.

Obama might have correctly calculated that even with the support of those who worked for his election, it would be impossible to pass insurance reform that offered an alternative to insurance companies. I don't know what was going on in the Administration's calculus, but I know that the troops most interested in Public Option health care were never called back into the streets to canvass their neighbors about it.

When Obama and the Congress were debating whether to extend tax cuts for the rich as well as estate tax cuts for the rich, and then compensate for the lost income by gutting Government programs intended for the poor, such as home heating aid and programmed increases in pay for Federal workers, Obama never used his e-mail list to mobilize his supporters against those tax cuts, benefits cuts and salary cuts.

Instead, he has been supine, behaving as if only the Democrats in Congress could help him to fight tax cuts for the rich. It does not seem ever to have occurred to him to contact his mailing list and ask for specific help, like money for an ad campaign against those tax cuts.

In fact, I have received far more e-mails from Color of Change over the last two years than I have received from the Obama Administration. To judge by Obama's failure to even try to mobilize his base (probably resulting in the massive losses in Congress in the 2010 election), Obama only real reason for his organizing efforts is to assure his own reelection. This is neither we were promised would be our role after the 2008 General Election nor is it a logical or legitimate way to maintain a well-oiled campaign operation.

America doesn't change for the better simply by putting better candidates in office. America changes in response to social pressure and public insistence. We on the Left have been cheated out of two years of Administration and associated-organization's community-organizing efforts. They just want us for our votes in 2012.

It's worth noting, however, that the T-Party disagrees, perhaps only for the purposes of fundraising. They said in an e-mail today,

We can't afford to lose this fight - and let Gov. Walker (Wisconsin) down. Barack Obama's "Organizing for America" is putting everything they've got into their efforts to win this fight in Wisconsin [over whether state workers will be able allowed to can unionize tonot, and we must respond by giving it everything we've got!

Maybe President Obama really is collaborating and organizing, at least in this case.

I regret to have to say so, but I still feel used. In many ways, I feel disappointed, even as I recognize the victories of Obama in the Leadbetter case; in open gay participation in the military; in cutting out the middleman bankers from the student loan process . . . Obama has not made efforts to enlist the public generally in actions to move his agenda forward. He has engaged only discrete parts of the electorate to fight for discrete changes in Government behavior, like building upon the influence of gays and supporters to win gay participating in the military.

I hope that now that Obama is organizing for 2012, he will organize around specific issues rather than merely asking voters to show up on Election Day.

T-Party Apologizes for Incessant $$$ Solicitations

2011-03-07T18:17:00.000-08:00

The T-Party seems to be admitting that the battle in Wisconsin might be lost. They have been sending daily e-mails begging for money for ad buys, but many participants are chafing at the number of e-mails rather than sending more money. Here's what they said in a letter to members today.

As the Executive Director of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, I am writing to tell let you know that I am very sorry for the heavy volume of emails we have sent the past few days. We even sent an email with the word "loses" spelled incorrectly. (We wrote "losses" - which was not the correct word we were seeking to use).

I apologize for the inconvenience I know this heavy rate of emails can be - but I want you to understand what we're up against right now in Wisconsin.

We have only a few days to act to ensure that fiscal sanity wins, and ensure that Barack Obama, the labor union bosses, Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson lose.

Apparently, they believe that stripping unionized worker rights will help them to defeat Barack Obama.

They also believe that taking away the right to vote from college students will help to defeat Obama. Here's what Speaker of the New Hampshire House O'Brien had to say about students' voting rights, as reported in the WaPost:

Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group . . . composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."

Their "youthful idealism," he added, "is focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government."

So the purpose of the Republican pushes to limit voting opportunities and kill unions is all part of an organized strategy to remove voters from the roles or deny them votes on Election Day 2012, by changing and tightening the rules regarding the votes of people who would be most likely to vote for Obama. If they are successful in this effort, they might defeat Obama by keeping his voters out of the voting booths.

Was Star Black MS High School Football Player Billy Joe Johnson Murdered By a Sheriff's Deputy Because Johnson's Girlfriend Had White Skin?

2011-02-26T14:44:00.001-08:00

African American Pundit (AAP) asks how and why a seventeen year-old star high school football player Billy Joe Johnson died on the road, shot with a shotgun, in the presence of a George County, Mississippi sheriff's deputy? The police say Billy Joe Johnson had tried to break into the house of his white girlfriend (he had the admiration of girls of every skin color), but the police also say that Billy Joe Johnson died in a typical traffic stop, after he ran a red light.

The police say that the sheriff's deputy went o radio from his car when all of a sudden Billy Joe shot himself in the mouth with a shot gun, and the shotgun was found laying on top of him. I wish the late Johnny Cochran were alive, such was his ability to show the absurdity of police testimony before a jury. But, Johnny Cochran has gone on to greener pastures, leaving his his legacy for the rest of us to emulate. 'If the story doesn't fit, it must be bullshit.'

So which of the police's two stories is true, if any of them is true. Did he die because his white girlfriend called the police after he allegedly tried to break into her house? Did he die because he ran a red light in a typical traffic stop? Or did he die because he was the most famous and renowned member of his community, beloved by all except those who viscerally hate Black men, and particularly Black men who "usurp" white men's "rights" by dating white women?

This case shows the poverty of the word "racism". If the sheriff's deputy was responsible in some way, was it because he was envious, jealous, color-aroused to envy, jealousy and fury by Johnson's bi-chromatic relationships, or did he die because white policemen believe that all Black males deserve to be in prison or dead? Did Billy Joe die because he didn't bow and scrape in the face of the sheriff's deputy?

It seems to me that the white girlfriend whose home was allegedly the target of a break-in attempt by Johnson that night is a valuable witness in this case. Did she call the police? Was she afraid of her boyfriend? Or is this alleged detail just another piece of propaganda invented by the George County, MS Sheriff's Department in a bold attempt to legitimize the execution of a star football player who had not even allegedly committed a capital or criminal offense, and where it is not even alleged that he threatened an officer?

Don't the police ALWAYS come forward with some unrelated and alleged act of wrongdoing in a young Black man's history in an attempt to demonstrate that police probably made the right decision when they decided to execute a Black man during a traffic stop?

This case stinks like rat that died in a hidden corner of the House of America.

There is so much that we don't know. That's why we call on Attorney General Eric Holder to visit the family in Mississippi and comfort them in the knowledge that the Justice Department is doing everything possible to find and disseminate the facts in this case. If President Obama can meet on the White House lawn with a police officer whose feelings have been hurt, then certainly Attorney General Eric Holder can meet in Mississippi with the grieving and anguished family of the late Billy Joe Johnson, promising them as much action is legally warranted after a full investigation.

It cannot and must not be a capital crime for a Black teenager to be a star football player and to date women regardless of their skin color. And Black young men must not die at random at the hands of sheriffs' deputies in the States of Mississippi in the year 2011.

I call on Attorney General Eric Holder to personally meet with the family, and to order the questioning of the sheriff's deputy and the white girlfriend, and gather others evidence as the facts warrant, before deciding what action is appropriate to vindicate the right to be alive, even if you are a star high school Black football player with a white girlfriend in Mississippi.

Ms. Recy Taylor: A Fight for Justice First Started by Rosa Parks

2011-02-19T20:06:00.000-08:00

This is a very compelling guest post by African American Pundit.

As the story of Recy Taylor gets told through the Internet by The Root, Field Negro, and other African American and progressive bloggers, so does the need to fight for justice. Across the nation, African Americans, infact, all Americans are reading and learning about the horror experienced by Recy Taylor.

Recy Taylor at 90, standing tall and still waiting for justice.

As Reported by The Root, Cynthia Gordy, “Sept. 3, 1944: It's a damp evening in the Alabama black belt, nearly midnight, but services at Rock Hill Holiness Church in the small town of Abbeville have just let out.

Painting of Rock Hill Holiness Church

Source: at the dark end of the street.com

Recy Taylor, a 24-year-old sharecropper, sets out along the town's fertile peanut plantations, accompanied for the walk home by two other worshippers from the African-American congregation. Moments later, a green Chevrolet rolls by -- and their routine journey takes a horrifying turn.

Wielding knives and guns, seven white men get out of the car, according to Taylor and witnesses from a state investigation of the case.

One shoves Taylor in the backseat; the rest squeeze in after her and ride off. Her panicked friends run to tell the sheriff. After parking in a deserted grove of pecan trees, the men order the young wife and mother out at gunpoint, shouting at her to undress. Six of them rape Taylor that night. Once finished, they drive her back to the road, ordering her out again before roaring off into the darkness.

Days after the brutal attack, Taylor's story traveled through word of mouth, catching the attention of a Montgomery NAACP activist named Rosa Parks. A seasoned anti-rape crusader, who focused on the sexual assaults of black women that were commonplace in the segregated South, Parks would eventually help bring the case international notice. Despite her efforts, however, in Jim Crow-era Alabama, Taylor's assailants were never punished.” More HERE

Fast forward to today, days after The Root’s report on the brutal attack, Taylor's story still travels, this time not only by word of mouth, but also through the internet, through black bloggers, and then through word of mouth, catching the attention of thousands of bloggers and readers throughout the U.S. and around the world.

Today it’s not only the Montgomery NAACP activist named Rosa Parks who would eventually help bring the case international notice, today it is the internet and blogs New Black Woman, Marians Blog, Black Femme blog, Black Buzz, New Black Man, Damn Theory in of 2010, African American News and Commentary and many other Black and progressive blogs.

Family supports Recy Taylor from a distance.

Enter Tracey, who resides in New York state with her mother (Mrs M), who at one time lived in… yes you guessed it, Abbeville, Alabama.

Tracey, in an inclusive Interview with African American Pundit shares more information on this continuing story of Recy Taylor: A Symbol of Jim Crow's Forgotten Horror

AAP: So Tracey, What is your involvement in the Recy Taylor Story?

Tracey : Well Pundit, I first read about the Recy Taylor story on The Root and The Field Negro.

After talking with my mom and family I decided to write the Field Negro asking how I could help make this story come to life throughout the afrosphere/afrospear and blogosphere. I guess you and he talked about it, and that’s how I’m here now talking with you.

AAP: So walk us through what happened when you read the story:

Tracey: “As I was reading the story I thought hmm… Alabama. Then I read Abbeville, Alabama; wait a minute, Abbeville, that were my mom is from, it’s a very small town and literally, everyone knows everybody, so I said, let me call my mom (Mrs M) and ask her if she was familiar with Ms. Taylor and her story.”

AAP: So what happened?

Tracey: “Well Pundit, I lot of things were going through my head at the time. First off, I knew I had to be careful with questions that I asked my mom, I have always been sensitive about that, because I know her experiences back in Alabama during that time could bring back good memories, but also horrible memories of Jim Crow...” So, at first I asked my mom if she heard about this gang rape that took place in the forties in Abbeville, Alabama.

My mom asked the woman's name… Then there was silence… and after a 15 or 20 seconds she said that is my Uncle Virgil's daughter. At that point, I thought to myself… wow that makes her my cousin… Well, to say I was stunned would be an understatement. I then went on to ask her many questions about the incident and the more my mom talked, I just could not believe what was happening.”

AAP: So Your Mom and dad were in the movement?

Tracey: “My mom and dad grew up in Alabama and were active participants in what we now call "The Civil Rights Movement"; sometimes I believe people think of it as some glorious movement, but instead these were people who were sick and very tired of the treatment they were receiving and decided to take part in civil disobedience. I was always reluctant to ask my mom or my dad about their experiences in Alabama, due to what bad memories my questions would dredge up. And here I was asking about an incident that happened in her hometown and I found out about it on a national blog. I was talking to another younger cousin of mine and we cannot believe that we both had learned about Ms. Recy's this way.”

The rapist may have been a Federal workers son and his friends

AAP: So what more do you know, or can share at this time?

Tracey: “My mom shared with me that when this happened she was a girl, she learned about what happened from hearing "the old folks" talk. Allegedly one of the participants was my mom's and Ms. Recy's mailman son and his friends. Everyone knew who did it, but the sheriff wouldn't arrest anyone. My mom also said she was left on the side of the road like trash after they were done. My mom's sister, my Aunt X, (she still lives in Abbeville, Alabama so I will use X for now) told her that in 1991, Ms. Recy's brother tried to get the authorities to investigate the case, but he refused saying that those involved were dead. Not true.”

AAP: Is your mom available for an interview?

Tracey: Yes she and my Aunt are available to assist in any way they can to bring this chapter of Ms. Recy Taylor into the open and provide closure for her as she sees fit. Since Ms. Recy only wants an apology from the state of Alabama; I support her in that request. It would be wonderful if the Governor would ensure that would happen. It's the very least he could do.

AAP: Thank You Tracey. I look forward to further discussing this situation with you, your mom, and your aunt in the upcoming days.

Sidebar: Tracey, her mother Mrs. M, and Aunt X, all family to Recy Taylor, are eager to continue the Fight for Justice in support of Recy Taylor. These strong Black women want justice to be served in Abbeville, (Henry County) Alabama. They have all gone from disbelief, anger, shock to a place in which they want to right a wrong.

As The Root reports, “It's unclear what legal options the family has today, but because Alabama has no statute of limitations on rape, McGuire posts that Taylor's case could potentially be reopened if the assailants are still alive. "There may be a possibility that they could sue the county or sheriff's department for obstruction of justice, given the cover-up," she said. "A creative attorney could certainly find a way." Tracey agrees with her Cousin Recy Taylor who recently said in The Root, "It was a long time ago," she says finally. "But I still think something should have been done about it."

This is part 1 of a 3 part interview. Part 2, Recy Taylor A Fight for Justice on Monday… Here on this blog.

Bloggers, please repost or link to this post. Let's get the word out that Recy Taylor deserves true justice.

Cross posted on MYDD, African American Pundit's BlogtTalkRadio Blog, Francis Holland Blog, Democratic Afrosphere, TheLoop21 and Now Public

Noose Found in Locker of Black Man Suing NYFD for Discrimination

2011-02-09T13:45:00.000-08:00

The Root says a New York Fire Department electrician found a three foot noose hanging in front of his locker after he and other electricians alleged discrimination in provision of overtime and promotions within the Department.

Gregory Seabrook, an FDNY communications electrician for nearly 20 years, found the noose Thursday at the FDNY facility at 87 Union St. in Brooklyn, his lawyers said yesterday.

It appears that there still is some extreme color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior within the NYFD. I says "extreme" because hanging a noose in an office is an offense that could lead to dismissal. Only a person with extreme color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior would risk losing his job and public standing by hanging a noose in front of a co-worker's locker.

Joan Rivers Calls First Lady "Blackie O.", but is Rivers a Racist?

2011-01-27T17:15:00.000-08:00

Joan Rivers showing failed plastic surgery around her mouth and nose.

It is an obviously color-aroused statement (she specifically references the color "black")
and it obviously takes an antagonistic stand with respect to Black people in general.

The Root says Joan Rivers called the First Lady "Blackie O". Is it "racism" when Joan Rivers goes on the Howard Stern radio show and calls Michelle Obama "Blackie O."?

"We used to have Jackie O," and "now we have Blackie O!" Joan Rivers proclaimed on the Howard Stern radio show today in her commentary about first lady Michelle Obama's style. Rivers said she was going to tell the joke onstage, but held back because she knew it could offend African Americans. But it didn't take much urging from Stern for her to share it on the radio.

While others argue endlessly about that question, I'm going ask a few very different questions: For example, 'Was Joan Rivers' comment color-aroused? Did she perceive the color of Michelle Obama's skin and then did that skin color-cue prompt Rivers to make a skin-color aroused insult? It's obvious that Joan Rivers only made the "joke" and the joke could only have meaning because Michelle Obama's skin is brown. The joke was color-aroused.

As far as the emotions that aroused and follow the"joke," we really don't know whether they include humor/mirth, anger, envy, and/or some combination of these and other feelings. What makes one child want to hurt another?

If Rivers or Stern laughed or smiled, I think we can at least identify skin color-aroused mirth and mordant and lacerating humor there. The humor is not in the eyes of the beholder, but rather in what Rivers experiences as she says things like this, and what all those who laugh and thinks it's funny are feeling, as well as those who feel what they perceive to be Rivers' e.g. anger, bitterness and envy.

As far as the ideation in Joan Rivers' mind, I don't think I need to understand that to realize that Rivers engaged in color-aroused antagonist speech, even at the obvious risk that all Black people who hear of her joke will feel hurt and angry at Rivers while she encourages the public to color-aroused speech, emotions, hate and color-aroused behavior. I think this gives us some insight into Rivers' mind. How many people is she willing to alienate at one time by her color-aroused behavior?

Ultimately, I simply don't need to know whether Joan Rivers is "racist" or whether her "joke" is racist. Her "joke" is an obviously color-aroused statement (she specifically referenced the color "black") and it obviously takes an antagonistic stand with respect to Black people in general. Joan Rivers committed an act of color-aroused antagonism.

So, is Joan River a "racist" because she has made one color-aroused comment while speaking over the radio to potentially hundreds and thousands of people. Can you tell whether a book is "racist" by opening it randomly and reading one page? Can this one statement demonstrate that Rivers believes that there are multiple races within the human species and she is, therefore, a "racist"?

That approach assumes that a book is not "racist" until and unless a color-aroused antagonist statement is found within it. It gives the book and the author the benefit of the doubt, even though most Black people do not and cannot give white people the benefit of the doubt. Does the book have to be "racist" through and through to oppose it's distribution, e.g. to children in school districts, or do we have enough information when we simply demonstrate an instance of color-aroused antagonism within the text? Should the "Blackie O" statement be republished in a school district simply because it is the only such statement that has been found to date?

Leaving aside the structured analysis of color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior for a moment, it seems to me that comparing Michelle Obama to Jackie Onassis is a compliment, even if the compliment was intended as lacerating color-aroused insult. The effect of the joke is to state the obvious. We've come from being a nation in which Black people couldn't vote we have become a nation in which a Black person becomes President of the Unites states and his Black wife becomes First Lady. It seems that Rivers may fear and resent that fact (or feel some other complex set of emotions), but she announces the power and reality of change even as she decries it.

Rivers' willingness and/or determination to insult as many Black people as possible at once, while also seeking to arouse color-aroused mirth and anger in her audience, demonstrates that Rivers is prone to public acts of color-aroused antagonist behavior. That is enough for me to know. Any person who is prone to public color-aroused antagonist speech ought not hold a position in our government and, to the degree that their speech occurs in public, it is appropriate to take such lawful steps as necessary to assure that the public color-aroused antagonist speech does not occur again. It is appropriate to demonstrate to her and to others that making public color-aroused antagonist statements may cause her to lose whatever employment puts her in the public eye.

So now you know: I don't care if Joan Rivers is a "racist"; it is enough for me to know that she has proved herself to be prone to public color-aroused antagonism and she has proved that she seeks to arouse color-aroused mirth and perhaps anger and resentment among both the Blacks and the whites in her audience. That makes her dangerous whether she is a "racist" or not.

PRESS RELEASE - Jamie Scott Has Been Hospitalized

2011-01-26T14:17:00.000-08:00

From: Nancy Lockhart <thewrongfulconviction@gmail.com>
Date: January 25, 2011 11:43:53 AM EST
To: ActionForScottSisters@groups.facebook.com
Subject: PRESS RELEASE - Jamie Scott Has Been Hospitalized

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MRS EVELYN RASCO
CONTACT: MRS EVELYN RASCO
850-375-4336

E-Mail: thewrongfulconviction@gmail.com

JAMIE SCOTT HOSPITALIZED - BROTHER IN AFGHANISTAN NEEDS TO COME HOME

(Pensacola), FL – 12/25/11 – Jamie Scott has been hospitalized with an excessively high potassium level. The sisters were released from prison to serve life on parole and have had a very rough time adjusting with little funds to support themselves. Their mother is on a fixed income and unable to make necessary repairs as a result of storm damage to the house. These repairs require immediate attention to accommodate Jamie upon her release from the hospital.

Currently, their brother serving in Afghanistan owns the home and is the only person who is able to conduct business regarding the house -- the insurance company will not comply with Mrs. Rasco. Willie James Scott Jr., is in need of your assistance to get home. Please contact all media outlets and make this information public.

--
Nancy Lockhart, M.J.
http://nancylockhart.blogspot.com
843.217.4649

Slate Focuses on Elizabeth Edwards' Duplicity

2011-01-23T20:57:00.000-08:00

I didn't know that Elizabeth Edwards has died, but I have to say that I perceived the lies inherent in her and her husband's personal stories very early on. Slate says of Elizabeth Edwards,

But defending Edwards' choice to soldier on in politics got a lot more complicated when it became clear that she'd known of her husband's affair and yet continued to campaign for him. Women who had lionized her were crestfallen to find that she had believed (or that she'd pretended to believe) the affair was a mere one-night stand. Who was this credulous Elizabeth? Where had the straight-talking pragmatist gone? The revelation, as Rebecca Traister put it when Edwards appeared on Oprah in 2009 and let it be known that her husband had persuaded her he should stay in the race, was "crushing to anyone with an idealized view of Elizabeth Edwards."

In 2004, I respected John Edwards for his rags to riches story about successfully suing large corporations on behalf of the little guy. But, when I read that his "two Americas" theme was hatched over a weekend as he brainstormed how to appeal to voters, I was astounded by his assertion that this was the "battle of his life". In fact, after never having engaged in any such battle before, this was merely the battle of his the near future, during his presidential nomination bid. That wasn't courage; it was opportunism, and eventually voters said so in the clearest way they could: by discounting his lies at the polls.

I wrote this about Elizabeth and John Edwards on August 27, 2007 and I believe that I was prescient in my analysis:

Elizabeth Edwards says of her husband John, "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars."

Here's a message to John Edwards: Even if you were Black, you wouldn't be Barack Obama. Even if you were a woman, you still would be no match for Hillary Clinton!

I didn't know that being a woman or being Black were automatic tickets to press attention and campaign contributions. I thought it took being a compelling candidate with a great message and a great organization. But Elizabeth Edwards is saying that only gender and color are winning for Clinton and Obama the attention and donations they have received.

Why have we gone 43 consecutive . . . white male presidential terms without any Black[s]or women taking advantage of The Edwards Insight?

With the best candidates being the woman and the Black man this time around, the tables are turned in the presidential race, and that's making Elizabeth Edwards envious, angry, bitter and resentful.

Slant Truth said at the time,

Damn. Did you just read what I just read? Elizabeth Edwards just played the “what about teh menz” and the “what about teh white folks” card in a single hand. And she did so in reference to a medium that is supposed to help democratize political participation in the U.S.. Does she really expect anyone to believe that her husband is at a political disadvantage because he is a white male?

Yeah, I suspect she (and her husband) does. Nice strategy there. Play up to the anti-affirmative action crowd. It’s obvious that the history of the U.S. Presidency shows blatant discrimination toward white males, so let’s play up how good the women and the Black men have it.

Oh wait. Maybe’s she’s been spending too much time at DailyKos. Those damn Special Interests GroupsTeh Revolution, according to Kos and the majority of his followers. So yeah, let’s find ways to bypass those bothersome Black folks and women and get down to what really matters: maintaining the status quo and keeping the Presidency in the hands of wealthy white men.

My mother died of liver cancer and that hurt me deeply. But she didn't engage in a campaign lying to and insulting the American public in her last days. Instead, my mother endeavored to leave positive relationships and memories with all of those who were closest to her.

Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand, fought a presidential nomination campaign that compelled her to lie to the public about her husband's infidelity while eventually Elizabeth Edwards became 'envious, angry, bitter and resentful' toward Blacks and women who refused to support her husband's candidacy. She wanted to make her sociopath husband President, even if he was secretly more like Richard Nixon than he was like John F. Kennedy.

We now know that if we had supported John Edwards, as Elizabeth Edwards begged us to do, then John McCain would now be President. The Republican negative background research campaign against Edwards' extra-marital affair, while his wife was dying of cancer, would have been leaked to the press, a day at a time, during an election campaign in which even Democrats might have called for John Edwards to get out of the race. This is the outcome to which Elizabeth Edwards spent half of her remaining days on Earth. If her last political wish had been granted, the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate would have been destroyed at the polls.

I'm sorry that Elizabeth Edwards died of cancer, because I know, based on personal experience, of the seemingly endless pain involved for her and her family. I think it would have been much better for her to be hit by a tour bus while crossing Pennsylvania Avenue.

George F. "Macaca" Allen Running for Virginia US Senate Seat Again

2011-01-23T20:52:00.000-08:00

That color-aroused antagonist idiot who lost his senate bid after he called a brown-skinned man "macaca" (monkey) is back again and running for the US Senate.

Former Republican Senator George F. Allen of Virginia will announce Monday that he will seek to avenge his narrow loss in 2006 at the hands of Senator Jim Webb, two senior Republicans in Virginia told The Caucus.

“He’s calling himself the original Tea Partier,” said one senior Republican, who asked not to be named because Mr. Allen has not yet made his plans public. “A lot of the old gang is helping.”

That was all the way back in 2006, according to the WaPost, and the same US Senate seat will be disputed next year. Maybe some of the "old gang" can keep Mr. Allen from calling people "macaca" and other color-aroused antagonist epithets from now until the November 2012 election.

Rep. Barney Frank to Vote Against Obama/Republican "Compromise" Tax Bill

2011-01-12T20:48:00.000-08:00

I received an e-mail from my Congressman Barney Frank today, explaining why he will vote against President Obama's tax "compromise" with the Republicans. I could not express Congressman Frank's reaasoning any better than he has, and so here it is:

January 12, 2011

Dear Attorney Holland,
I am voting no on the tax deal agreed to by President Obama and the Republicans. I do not think it is consistent with the focus that we should have on reducing the deficit in ways that are economically responsible; and I think that it is motivated in part by people who profess to be concerned about the deficit but in fact are hostile instead to efforts to improve the environment, enhance transportation, and provide important support for state and local government functions.

I voted for the bill that came forward that would have continued the 36% tax rate for people making less than $250 thousand, and would have raised it to 39% for that part of income above $250 thousand – it is of course the case that the first $250 thousand for anybody's income would have stayed at 36%. I voted for the 39% rate for higher income people in 1993 when Bill Clinton asked us to do so, and the evidence is very clear: predictions that this would be economically disastrous were simply untrue. The economy in the years following that increase at the upper levels of an amount of less than 10% of the tax owed on that income was followed by one of the best economic periods in our history.

Even if people do not believe that the one caused the other, although I think it contributed by allowing us to do more expansive monetary policy, the fact is that the increase to 39% from 36% had no negative impact. I believe that that would be the case if we were to have done the same this year. That is, I do not think that telling people who are making $400 thousand or $500 thousand a year that they will be taxed an additional $3 thousand per $100 thousand of income above $250 thousand will have any measurable effect on their spending habits. And the price we pay for this is a substantial reduction in government revenues -- $700 billion over a ten year period.

I know there are those who argue that reducing taxes will reap more government revenue. My view on that was best expressed by Alan Greenspan – who told a Member of Congress who asked him if it wasn't true that reducing rates would mean higher revenues that "this is theoretically possible, but it has never happened in my (Greenspan's) lifetime." In fact, when President Reagan persuaded Congress to make a very substantial reduction in taxes in 1981, he partially reversed himself by supporting a tax increase in 1982, and as David Stockman, then Budget Director, has acknowledged, the notion that the drastic rate reduction would cause an increase in revenues was not borne out.

I also disagreed with the estate tax compromise. I voted for a bill that would have raised the $1 million exemption that had previously existed to $3.5 million per person, that is $7 million for a couple, and had a maximum rate of 45%. Instead this compromise makes $5 million the cutoff point and has a maximum rate of 35%. This affects only a tiny handful of estates, but costs the government significant revenues because it is estates in the hundreds of millions that will benefit enormously from this and it is there that significant revenue loss will happen.

Because I believe that it adds substantially to the deficit without any consequent economic improvement, I opposed allowing a continuation of the 36% rate and I favored allowing current law to stay in effect, which would have been to bring it to 39%. That is why I voted against the package.

As to the unemployment, I believe it is a complete disgrace that right-wing Republican ideologues have blocked extension of this vital compensation. I will continue to support legislative efforts to extend unemployment benefits until we are successful.

I believe that President Obama ought to promise a veto of any tax bill that would drive the Federal deficit up (including a tax bill extending tax breaks to the rich), because a few hundred dollars just doesn't make that much difference when you're driving a Mercedes and have a undocumented immigration cleaning your house and raising your children for you.

It's clear as day that the Republicans want to create massive Federal deficits so that they can have a reason to cut social programs, like Social Security, medical assistance and even help for veterans of the Iraq/Iran/Pakistan war.

If, as they old white men in the US Congress insist, the country is spending itself into a hole, then why not increase taxes on the richest Americans in order to get out of that hole? The Republicans and too many of the Democratic Party Republicrats are not being honest with the public. They want to blow a hole in the budget by giving tax breaks to the rich and then "fix" the hole by discontinuing life support benefits from the 15 or 40% of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed right now.

Once again, I believe Obama should veto any tax bill that does not include added taxes on the rich. The uncertainty around continued unemployment benefits and other Govenment programs would put pressure on the Republicans to explain compellingly why they want to give money to the rich while taking it from the poor.

Evelyn Rasco and her "Free the Scott Sisters Blog" Criticized NAACP's Actions

2011-01-01T07:41:00.000-08:00

The NAACP already has a bad reputation for trying to take political credit and solicit financial contributions from the public in cases that the NAACP ignored until the national press moved in. In the case of the Jena Six, it was discovered that most of the contributions the NAACP received when it sprang on the scene were spent not mostly on the legal defense for the Jena Six, but rather half of the money was spent on NAACP internal administration. So, public giving to the NAACP did not help the Jena Six directly as much as it helped the NAACP.

Jack and Jill Politics said at that time, quoting Yobachi's TheJena6Blog,

Yobachi’s got all the facts at The Jena Six Blog. The NAACP has finally released a report on their Jena 6 activities and fundraising. As a member, I’m disgusted. Color of Change raised $200,000, mostly from individual donors, and gave 90% of the funds to the lawyers representing the Jena 6 families and to the families themselves. That’s quite a contrast.
I’m an NAACP member and I’m offended by the NAACP’s inefficiency and also by their taking advantage of one of the biggest civil rights events in recent memory to fill their own coffers. That doesn’t represent my values, nor do I think that most members would be impressed by their sad performance.

Here’s a snippet from the report with Yobachi’s notes in bold and brackets.
Contributions received by the NAACP in response to the Jena Campaign include:
Internet Contributions: $ 8,782.00
Mail Contributions: $11,112.00
Total: $19,894.00 Mail contributions of $11,112.00 include a $10,000.00 donation from celebrity musician David Bowie.[So more than half their donation money came from one rich individual. Sorry, but that's not very effective fund raising by the old guard there]
Expenses related to support to the LaSalle Parrish Branch (travel, meetings and web cast) associated with the September 20, 2007 march and streaming video of the town hall meeting total:
$10,283.00 [I don't recall that site, which I viewed a few times back in the summer and fall of last year, notifying donors that there money would go towards support of branches and for meetings. The industry standard for over head is about 35% and many think that's too high.]
Excess of revenue over expense $ 9,611.00
The NAACP will provide a check in the amount of $10,000.00 in pro rata shares, to the attorneys providing legal services to the Jena defendants. [So they took in 19,894 and spent 10,283 on themselves. That's 52% overhead. Even if you give the NAACP credit for the $389 they added to the pot, that's still 50% overhead]

Knowing that many young men and women of color outside Jena face discrimination in the criminal justice system, the NAACP has declared a State Of Emergency to call attention to the problem of unequal justice nationwide. We welcome the support and assistance of all likeminded individuals and organizations seeking systematic change and broad based solutions to racial injustice.
The NAACP and its members thank you for your continuing support and dedication to justice.

So, why does the NAACP always show up on the scene at the last minute and ask the public to contribute money to the NAACP, instead of doing what others groups do: ask the public to contribute to the defendant(s)' legal defense account?

Evelyn Rasko, who has co-published a blog about this case at least since 2009, tells us that the NAACP is at it again, profiteering for publicity and dollars off the work that others did before they arrived and making political decisions that local activists find to be incomprehensible. On April 25, 2010, the blog was critical of the NAACP presence, saying:

MDOC [Mississippi Department of Corrections] Commissioner Christopher Epps, whom we've been contacting for months regarding the disastrous level of Jamie's care and who's been steadily misinforming people that she's not as sick as we've regularly documented, even after she had to be hospitalized several times for high toxicity and infections that almost took her life, is being HONORED as the KEYNOTE SPEAKER by the Jackson County, MS NAACP at their upcoming banquet on April 30, 2010!

Link: http://www.gulflive.com/sendthispage/sendthispage.ssf?http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-living/2010/04/christopher_epps_to_speak_at_freedom_fund_banquet.html

How could this branch, which is actually portrayed as an activist branch that has courageously taken on the police dept. and most recently the fire dept., completely ignore the sickeningly outrageous case of the Scott Sisters! And to add insult to injury, laud Christopher Epps, who covers up the low-budget, some-timey care that denies Jamie Scott regular medications, regular dialysis, and the specific diet she has been told repeatedly that she needs to maintain any semblance of health. The medical care is said by inmates there to be abysmal on every level, and particularly so for Jamie Scott, with end stage kidney failure!

On December 30, 2010, the Free Scott Sisters Blog announced that the Scott sisters were free and that the arrival of the national NAACP had been useful to the case. The question is, with the sisters in jail for sixteen years, what took the NAACP so long? The answer seems to be that national NAACP executives only engage in high profile cases, where they are able to request that checks for the victims be sent to the NAACP instead, and where the media spotlight will be present before the NAACP arrives.

On Saturday, September 18, 2010, the The Free the Scott Sister Blog announced with amazement and jubilation, "MSNBC gave coverage to this case! Featur[ing] Mrs. Rasco and NAACP Prez,
Ben Jealous". Back on April 25, 2010, the blog was critical of the NAACP presence, saying:

This is a smack in the face to Mrs. Rasco, to whom Epps made false promises of relief for Jamie, as well as Jamie and Gladys Scott, their supporters, and the community at large! This organization should be fighting on the front lines for justice for the Scott Sisters and not inviting Christopher Epps to some banquet! And what of the national NAACP, why are they NOT responding to the many requests that have been made of them for the past 15 years to become involved in this case!

This is the final indignity and must not go unchallenged. This bureaucrat should not pompously sit up there picking his teeth and pontificating while Jamie Scott lay suffering in one of the very prison cells that he oversees, a prison cell that she (nor her sister) should even be in!

Please contact the president of the Jackson County, Mississippi NAACP, Curly Clark, and ask him:

* Why is the NAACP distinguishing a man who would allow a woman to deteriorate in a prison on his watch until she is now at end stage of kidney failure?

* Why does the NAACP want to hear from a man that won't permit this same, very seriously ill woman to be housed in the Medical Bldg. on the grounds of that facility so that she can be cared for by her sister and instead has her housed in a mold-infested, damp, breeding ground for the infections which have repeatedly threatened her life?

Ask Jackson County NAACP President, Curly Clark, and State President, Derrick Johnson, why they are not involved in the fight for justice for the Mississippi Scott Sisters, a shocking and internationally known atrocity occurring right in their own backyard!

This entire event should be protested if Epps remains on the program and attendees given refunds for their $30 tickets!

Curly Clark, President, Jackson County NAACP
228-762-9692

Derrick Johnson, State President
Mississippi State Conference NAACP
1072 West J.R. Lynch Street
Jackson, MS 39203
Phone: 601.353.6906
Fax: 601.353.1565
Website: http://www.naacpms.org

Was inviting the MDOC (Mississippi Department of Corrections) Commissioner Christopher Epps to a banquet a cynical political gambit on the part of the NAACP, to gain Commissioner Epps' access, attention and assistance (in which case it was acceptable way to open and improve the lines of communication), or was this just another example of the NAACP's policy of giving off-color and ill-timed banquets as a solution for America's troubles?

NAACP Finally Follows Media Spotlight in Mississippi Scott Sister's Case

2010-12-31T18:06:00.000-08:00

After 16 years, NAACP Joins the Fight and Asks Public for Cash

As soon as I saw the NAACP mentioned in the Washington Post article about the Scott sisters, I smelled that the NAACP would try to take credit for the outcome, even though I've never heard their name associated with the Scott sisters' case before. I know with certainty that, although I read blogs and newspapers every day, the NAACP is NOT where I found out about this case. And now, Benjamin Jealous plans to hold a joint press conference with arch-conservative Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to celebrate this long-fought victory which then NAACP has so recently joined.

I imagine that if the case had occurred in Louisiana, Jealous would hold a press conference with David Duke.

In fact, although the Scott sisters have been in jail for sixteen years, while the NAACP's President Ben Jealous may have first mentioned the case to the media on September 15, 2010. "NAACP backs pardon for Miss. sisters serving life", USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-14-scott-sisters_N.htm. "The president of the N.A.A.C.P., is seeking a pardon from the Governor of Mississippi, announced the Red Mountain Post on October 15, 2010. When the NAACP announces its support in a nationally-known case of injustice that has been advocated at blogs and community groups for years, and the NAACP's freshly-painted involvement becomes national news, you know that organization has lost its way. It has gone from political leader to political opportunist, just as occurred in the Jena Six case, where "NAACP Spent More on Internal Jena Six Activities Than on Youths’ Defense Funds."

I think the current role of the NAACP is to show up at our victory parties and grab the microphone before anyone else has a chance to speak, so they can ask for donations that ultimately pay for NAACP overhead instead of being used to help the named victims of injustice.

Scotty Reid of BlackTalkMedia says that the NAACP ignored the Scott sisters' case until it became a media magnet, and then the NAACP jumped into the media fray as a "Johnny come lately," opening a financial donations account from which the Scott sisters allegedly have not received a dime. "The NAACP has not contributed one dime to the legal expenses of the Scott sisters and nor has it stated that it will do so. . . " alleges Scotty Reid.

Leave it to the NAACP to announce a joint press conference with Haley Barbour, defender of the White Citizens Councils, and thereby putting the NAACP seal of Black approval on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. , in the eyes of white people who thing the NAACP is a respected organization with real constituents. Here's Haley Barbour's resume, in reverse chronological order, which facts Ben Jealous apparently has not read, or has dismissed in the rush for the media spotlight:

Governor of Mississippi (Jan-2004 to present)
National Policy Forum Founder (1993)
Republican National Committee Chairman (1993-97)
American Success PAC
Americans for a Republican Majority
America's Foundation
Bayou Leader PAC
Bluegrass Committee
Bush-Cheney '04
Bush-Quayle '92
Campaign America Inc.
Cantor for Congress
Committee for the Preservation of Capitalism
Defend America PAC
Elizabeth Dole Committee
Elizabeth Dole for President
The Freedom Project
FreedomWorks
Friends of Giuliani Exploratory Committee
Friends of Katherine Harris
Friends of Phil Gramm PAC
Friends of Roy Blunt
George W. Bush for President
Keep Our Mission PAC
JD Hayworth for Congress
John McCain 2008
Leadership PAC 2006
Lindsey Graham for Senate
McCain 2000
McCain for Senate '98
National Council for a New America Founding Member
National Republican Senatorial Committee
New Republican Majority Fund
Northern Lights PAC
Rely on Your Beliefs Fund
Republicans Abroad Advisory Committee
Restoring the American Dream Board of Directors
Resurgent Republic Advisory Board
Santorum 2000
Senate Victory Fund PAC
Spirit of America
Washington Legal Foundation Legal Policy Advisory Board
Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity
Microsoft Washington lobbyist
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers Founder, President, CEO (1991-99)
Member of the Board of Amtrak
Bush Pioneer 2000

The only thing missing so far is Barbour's conceivable involvement in the White Citizens Councils. Now, I'd like to have one good reason why Ben Jealous wants to shake Haley Barbor's hand, if not for selfish fundraising goals and publicity after the fact. See "Haley Barbour's Praise For Racist Group Gets Noticed" on NPR.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is getting much more national attention than he usually does this week following a Weekly Standard profile in which the Republican with presidential aspirations lauds a group that was part of the racist reaction to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s.

Haley Barbour has tried to rehabilitate the imagine of the White Citizens Councils, but Amanda Terkel at Huffington Post says:

In a 1956 article in Commentary David Halberstam describes the White Citizens Council as an organization determined to "not just oppose integration in the public schools but to stop or at least postpone it. In most of the the Deep South, where hostility to integration is nearly universal, it is this militancy and dedication that make the Council member stand out. Despite occasional efforts by supporters to build the Councils up into a movement of broad conservatism, their only serious purpose is to fight the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Not only do they contest the NAACP's desegregation suits, but they seek to cancel much else that the Negro has gained over the last half-century by keeping him out of the voting booth."

Even Haley Barbour now recognizes that the hateful and pro-segregation work of the White Citizens Councils. His state governor website says, apologetically:

GOV. BARBOUR'S STATEMENT REGARDING WEEKLY STANDARD ARTICLE
"When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns' integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn't tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the 'Citizens Council,' is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African Americans who were persecuted in that time."

I personally believe that Haley Barbour is trying to disassociate and immunize himself against attacks on his color-aroused background, perhaps because he was a member or collaborator of the White Citizens Council himself, or because his family members were. That's just a hunch, but it's worth looking into it, because I believe Haley Barbour is running for president in 2012.

This is why I find it incredibly idiotic that Ben Jealous of the NAACP is planning to hold a joint press conference with Barbour. He unwittingly or intentionally is helping to inoculate Barbour against charges of color aroused politics and helping to distract attention from Barbour's roles and affiliations in the Republican presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Ben Jealous wants to get on television, pretending that his NAACP is still relevant, even though they didn't have a meaningful website during any of the days of the George W. Bush presidential administration.

Ben Jealous is prominently meeting with one of President Obama's most likely opponents for 2012, undercutting the obvious anti-Barbour opinion that Barbour is a color-aroused man from one of America's most color-aroused states. I don't know who's worse: The NAACP's Ben Jealous for helping Haley Barbour or Haley Barbour for being Haley Barbour.

Haley Barbour's motive is obvious, and Ben Jealous is seems blind to the political realities, except as they effect his own publicity and opportunities for an NAACP fundraising drive.

New Black Leaders, Old Civil Rights Groups Conflict in Net Neutrality Debate

2010-12-07T21:57:00.000-08:00

RE: Net Neutrality Issue Heats Up

Please remember that the First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the US Government and the states from abridging our right to free speech, but it does not oblige huge communications corporations like newspapers and Internet providers to carry our content. It does not prevent corporate giants from limiting or discontinuing our speech.

francislholland's Channel

This account is currently under review

I was an active participant at Now Public, with my articles drawing hundreds of reads, until Now Public was bought by a Phillip Anschutz, a billionaire Republican who donated to people like Senator "Wide Stance" Larry Craig, John McCain and state Republican parties. (See my article entitled, "Billionaire Republican Campaign Donor Buys "Now Public" Site".

About three days after this Republican billionaire bought the Now Public, my posting privileges were withdrawn and placed "under review" and have remained withdrawn and "under review" for over a year now.

I understand what happens when billionaire pro-Republican individuals and groups get control over Internet content, and I don't want to see that happen to the entire Internet.

If they do get content control over the Internet, then I think you can kiss groups like BlackNetAction and Color of Change goodbye. Since we do not agree with large Republican Corporations about many things, we may find that our groups' accounts are "under review" as well.
I am no expert on Net Neutrality or the proposals before the Federal Trade Commission, but I do understand major corporations trying to gain monopoly control over the Internet and then use it to squelch Black people's and Democrats' communication with each other. Why should they carry our content if we are disagreeing with them at every turn?

At this point, cable corporations control the speed of each of our Internet connections, but not the content. What I have read is that a few big cable corporations want the green light to, for example, charge the public one price if we want access only to commercial sites, but charge more if we want access to send or receive messages from non-profit groups like Color of Change and Black Net Action. Or charge Color of Change more if it wants access to e.g. send and receive e-mails from people in the 50 states.

Although I haven't heard these specific proposal, I can well imagine it happening, particularly if groups like ours continue to challenge these major corporations, as we do when we see color-aroused antagonistic and anti-Black commercials on television and in print.

The entire Internet could become like a privately-owned newspaper, where the editorial board decides what will be published and what will not.

Over the last two decades, "letters to the editor" have become practically irrelevant compared to the power of our communications over the Internet, our blogs and websites. But, if corporate giants get editorial control over our Internet content, then we will effectively be back to writing letters to the editor and hoping the publisher agrees with our message enough to publish it.

That would be a gargantuan defeat for us and our communities and it is a battle that we must fight to our last breath.

Francis

"Civil Rights" Groups Being Used to Limit Blacks' Access to Internet

2010-12-06T16:17:00.000-08:00

A Key, Unknown Player in Civil Rights Groups' Attack on the Open Internet

By James Rucker, Color of Change

Last Wednesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed Network Neutrality rules that he claims will save the open Internet.

As another FCC commissioner has attested, these ruleswill do no such thing. Instead, they will allow the big broadband companies, like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, to erect toll booths on the Internet that will result in segregated online communities where wealthy content and application providers will pay a premium for carriage, with everyone else discarded to a secondary, lower quality tier.

Such a policy would be disastrous for the Black community. Today, the Internet — unlike cable television, broadcast radio, or print — is the sole medium where we can communicate with each other nationally and globally, pushing back on the political and social status quo without the interference of corporate gatekeepers.

If Chairman Genachowski succeeds in letting the big phone and cable players carve up the Internet, the day will come when many in the civil rights community will realize and regret their role in making it happen.

Net neutrality is a core principle that is largely responsible for the Internet being such a powerful and transformative tool. It requires that content gets carried by Internet service providers with the same priority and speed regardless of the sender. It's the way the Internet has worked since the beginning. Those who are arguing for net neutrality are simply trying to maintain the status quo — a status quo that has enabled the Internet to flourish in a way that no other communications technology has.

Without net neutrality, Google, Facebook, the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org would not exist; neither would Barack Obama be President. And it's an open Internet that has made the campaigns that we've run at ColorOfChange possible — everything from holding Fox News accountable for the likes of Glenn Beck, to stripping away Beck's advertisers, to telling the story of the Jena 6, or advocating for the rights of Katrina survivors.

For over a year, several of the most prominent civil rights groups have been aligned with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast — whether knowingly or not — in those companies' efforts to end net neutrality. But they have not acted alone. In my conversations with many groups and individuals inside the Beltway, one man emerges as the nerve center for much of the action we've seen on the part of the civil rights groups. His name is David Honig.

David is the executive director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). He is in many ways the face and voice for Black America in Washington, D.C. on Internet issues, and perhaps the most influential person from the civil rights community representing our interests on media and telecom policy.

For years, national civil rights groups have relied on his counsel on what positions to take on key communications issues. And for years, he has been regarded as an honest and helpful broker when it came to addressing broadcasting issues.

But when it comes to Internet policy, David is writing a new and different chapter. Over the past couple of years, Honig's positions and statements seem to align him with the phone and cable companies who are set on undermining the open nature of the Internet. And those statements repeatedly appear in filings endorsed by the major civil rights groups. In my opinion, Honig is leading many of the respected civil rights groups he is advising off of the digital cliff.

Two weeks ago, I made a fact-based argument in a letter to House Majority Leader Pelosi about my concerns regarding a Black member of Congress, who has been aligned with AT&T and Comcast in opposing net neutrality and is vying for a subcommittee post with oversight over the Internet. The Congressman's response was to attack me personally, and to side-step my arguments.

Shortly thereafter, Honig and his organization appeared on a letter with every civil rights and black legislative group you can imagine to counter my letter with their own letter to Pelosi (Honig has organized groups around letters and FCC filings in the past; I presume this time is no different).

Did they engage any of the arguments I put forth? No. Not one.

After personally attacking me for allegedly being "uncivil," Honig then asserted that the Congressman's "position is on all fours with the Open Internet policy endorsed by the labor unions, all the minority intergovernmental organizations and virtually every national civil rights organization except ColorofChange."

Honig doesn't mention that he himself has been a driving force in getting these organizations to sign on to letters of support for the policy he mentions, and, in my opinion, using weak and debunked arguments. He also doesn't mention that the groups to which he's referring have been recipients of millions of dollars from AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast (I don't know if MMTC has received financial support from AT&T, Verizon or Comcast, but if it has, it should disclose that as well). While one can argue that these dollars don't have influence, the disclosure is important when making such statements, as is providing a characterization of an organization's funding picture and any other evidence to show how these dollars don't introduce influence.

Along with many others, I have written pieces here and elsewhere that have described the relationship between corporate dollars from AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, advocacy groups, and Black members of Congress. And I've deconstructed the core, faulty logic in the arguments carried by these messengers: that if we let these large corporations have their way and do away with net neutrality, they'll take their increased profits and suddenly invest in our communities where they traditionally haven't (historically they simply haven't done so, despite already seeing profit margins as high as 80 percent). It's a cynical trickle-down argument that defies the basic logic of how businesses operate. And it's the core sentiment that seems to anchor the anti-net neutrality statements in the filings and statements authored by Honig.

Some in Honig's camp also like to say that net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. To say that, or to defend someone else's doing so, is to ignore statements made by the major players expressing their desire for a tiered system; instances where they've been caught attempting to censor or control content and applications on the Internet; and the obvious business incentives the companies have for doing so.

I'm interested in an honest debate and discussion about this issue but I still can't find, after almost a year of trying, arguments that hold water or that justify the civil rights groups' opposition to net neutrality. I've also had the good fortune of talking with David Honig directly and will continue to do so, but none of the arguments he has presented to me thus far have altered my perspective on the core issues I've raised here and elsewhere. In the meantime, I hope to get as much sunlight as possible on the dynamics I see in play.

Let's give Hillary a chance in 2012!

2010-11-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

I am disgusted with President Obama for his supply-side, help-the-banks solutions to Black America (and everyone else's) loss of equity in homes and high unemployment. As Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich pointed out this week,

Last Friday’s jobs report showed 159,000 new private-sector jobs in October. That’s better than previous months. But 125,000 net new jobs are needed just to keep up with the growth of the American labor force. So another way of expressing what happened to jobs in October is to say 24,000 were added over what we need just to stay even.

Yet the American economy has lost 15 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession. And if you add in the growth of the labor force – including everyone too discouraged to look for a job – we’re down about 22 million.

Or to put it another way, we’re still getting nowhere on jobs.

One out of eight breadwinners is still out of work. Most families in the Average Worker economy rely on two breadwinners. So if one out of eight isn’t working, chances are high that family incomes are down compared to what they were three years ago.

And that means the bills aren’t getting paid.

According to a recent Washington Post poll, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — are worried about making their mortgage payments. This is many more than were worried two years ago, when the Great Recession hit bottom. Then, 37 percent expressed worry.

Delinquency rates on home loans are rising. Distressed sales are up as a percent of total sales.

Most people in the Average Worker economy own few shares of stock, if any. Their equity is in their homes. But with all the delinquencies and distressed sales, the housing market has a glut of homes for sale. As a result, home prices are still dropping. So the net worth of most Americans is still dropping.

Admittedly, Republicans blocked much of what Obama attempted to do in this area, such as funding the states and cities to maintain public employees and, e.g., creating a national public works project that would employ workers while fixing roads and bridges. Republicans blocked these programs, but the President was too accommodating and docile to strongly criticize Republican resistance, which arguably contributed to Republican Congressional gains.

Now, if President Obama moves to the right to collaborate with Republicans, Obama will become even more of the right hand of the Republican Party and the super-rich, which is utterly unacceptable.

I am disgusted with President Obama's supply-side approach to medical reform, rather than a public option. President Obama has incomprehensibly accepted using the same medical insurance companies that screwed us in the past to deliver our health care in the future, with no public option directed toward our care. Our only option continues to be health care denials by health care giants, and with no national public option that provides us care wherever we go.

President Obama inexplicably allowed his health care programs to go into effect only in 2013--after his re-election campaign and TWO Congressional election campaigns. It ought to be clear by now that the Republicans will demagogue this issue right through the 2012 elections, requesting a public mandate to abort President Obama's health care "victory" and his Administration before they can even be seen up and running.

And so, I'm ready to give Hillary Clinton a go at the presidency. At least she knows a greedy, callous and inherently untrustworthy insurance company when she sees one, and she and Bill know instinctively that such companies will not be the solution to health care denials or to the utter lack of real health options, aside from the supply-side alternatives that President Obama invested with omnipotence when he caved in on the matter of the Public Option.

Yes, Bill and Hillary insulted and endeavored to marginalize all Black people mightily in the 2008 Primaries, trying to color-arouse the electorate for political gain, but she has since joined the President's administration and been loyal to the President, at least to the extent of not criticizing him, even when it is obvious that his Administration's anti-insurgent campaigns in Afghanistan and now Pakistan are utterly out of control and are serving neoconservatives more than they are serving the Democratic Party base's basic values of less war and more humility in international affairs.

Plus, as regards Hillary, she and Bill were punished mightily for first taking the Black vote for granted and then trying to win the presidency by appealing to whites while insulting Blacks.

Bill Clinton deserved a Nobel peace prize for his work in Bosnia/Herzegovina, while it is now clearer than ever that Obama should rip up his Nobel Peace Prize and throw it in the toilet. The only thing he has done for peace is to demonstrate a way that a Black person could reach the pinnacle of apparent power and stay there for two years without having without an armed rebellion by Blacks or whites. That's a great accomplishment in a campaign for the presidency and even in his two years as president, but it's utterly inadequate to the tasks in terms of substance in government like health care, home foreclosures and war, more war.

Let's give Hillary a chance. In 2012, she can promise to fix all that is bad with Obama Care, just as President Bill Clinton said about affirmative action, "fix it, don't end it." With the economy in 2012 no better than it is right now, and perhaps dramatically worse, Hillary can promise a change from Obama's supply-side pusillanimity and offer solutions aimed directly at the public pain, rather than seeking to use and virtually begging corporations to do that which they are utterly unable and unwilling to do: focus on the public good.

Sometime in the near future, Obama should install Hillary as his vice president (a first), and then free her to form cogent Democratic Party criticisms of Obama's mistakes. Then Obama should bail out and let Hillary run as the incumbent in 2012. Of course Republicans would attack her mightily, but that would divert their attention from trying to undo what little President Obama has accomplished.

African American Pundit: DNC Triples Effort Reaching Out To Black Voters

2010-10-14T20:02:00.000-07:00

African American Pundit: DNC Triples Effort Reaching Out To Black Voters

Americans Might Benefit from Successful Court Challenges to ObamaCare

2010-10-14T17:13:00.000-07:00

President Obama has Given us a New Form of Buggery
that all Americans Can Get Behind

Courts across the United States are being asked to consider whether ObamaCare is constitutional. I think it might actually be helpful for the US Supreme Court to determine that ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it compels people to pay for medical coverage that they do not want.

Here's my reasoning: There would be nothing unconstitutional about Obama and the US Congress making Medicaid, Medicare, the Veterans Administration hospitals and/or the US Public Health Service into universal access entitlement programs. That would be true health care reform.

I think it OUGHT to be legally unacceptable for Obama to compel Americans to pay money to medical insurance companies that are hardly any less incorrigibly greedy and callous than the banks and brokers who have turned the nation's mortgage market into utter chaos and contributed to a fall of the value of the dollar by 50% over the last seven years.

Insurance companies simply cannot be trusted to offer affordable health care, and President Obama himself cannot be trusted when he tries to compel us to trust medical insurance companies. (The same can be true of the Obamian supply-side economic fixes that always give more money to banks and other classes of corporations while stingily and callously letting individual American families lose their homes, live out of their cars be blown in the wind like US flags during a hurricane.)

It's quite obvious by now that President Obama sees the failure of the banks as a more serious problem than 10% unemployment (an official 15% among Blacks), and the highest rate of mortgage foreclosures that the nation's citizens have suffered since the Great Depression.

Even now, he is more concerned about the effects that a moratorium on foreclosures would have for banks and markets than he is about the effects that lawless and fraudulent systemic banking practices have had on the individual homeowner's ability to know which bank (or which set of mortgage bundlers) has the legal authority to file foreclosure actions against individual American families.

American right-wingers need not concern themselves that President Obama could be a socialist when, in fact, his supply-side policies are almost as stringent toward working people as were those of Ronald Reagan. The difference is that Reagan endeavored to remove every bit of safety-net that working Americans had, while Obama has passively sat by and watched as Americans lose every bit of safety that middle class Americans have. But, he's been there for the bankers, the automobile manufacturers, and has created a program with 40 million new obligatory consumers of often-worthless health care insurance.

I don't think I'll cry if Obama is not re-elected in 2012, although I would be very chagrined to see the US Congress turned over to the Republicans now, partly as a result of Obama's insanely unpopular legislative pizzas. (In Brazil they call massively unconscionable screw-ups and multi-party political train wrecks "pizza".)

I used to argue that Americans should prefer Democratic Party presidents because even if we don't care about what Republicans do within our borders, we should not be callous about the wars and suffering that Republican presidents and legislatures cause overseas. President Obama has taken that abstract political argument away from me.

President Obama is at war in Iraq; at war in Afghanistan; turning Pakistan into an Afghanistan at war; looking at military options with Iran; and even building 7 new military bases in Columbia as a staging area for an invasion of Venezuela. President Obama is just as warful as his Republican predecessors and considerably more warful than any Democratic Party president since President Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War.

And yet, the Vietnam war was officially limited on one country, which Obama's mental genius has been able to multiply six-fold while still calling himself a Democrat. No, admittedly Obama has not instituted a draft as President Johnson did, yet.

How am I supposed to argue that the US Government would be more bellicose under a Republican administration? Obama is bellicose in six foreign countries simultaneously. All he has to do now is start dropping white phosphorous on one of these battlefields and we can declare that we have a Republican foreign policy president elected by the Democratic Party.

Obamian health care is as welcomed as universal syphilis.

Back to the point of this screed. If the Supreme Court finds that it is unconstitutional to make individual Americans give their money to insurance companies, then the only alternative will be what most Americans wanted in the first place: a Public Option.

If utter defeat in the US Supreme Court comes soon enough, there might still be time in Obama's one-term presidency for the legislation and implementation of a national government-sponsored program of Public Option health care that will not be a huge Government privatization of a health care vacuum, and giveaway to greedy, venal and callous insurance companies.

Obama has not created more Government insurance. He has simply privatized the market for insurance for the 40 million people who capitalist medicine was previously ignoring.

Obama sees Americans being financially raped by the unhealthy grasp of insurance companies and what does he do? He says he believes it will be fairer if all of us are financially raped by medical insurers, so that some of us will not get financially raped twice or thrice while others of us are not raped at all. Thanks President Obama! You've given us a new national form of buggery that we can all get behind.

This is one instance where the conservatives on the US Supreme Court could create Public Option medical care by finding that privatization of obligatory medical insurance is an unconstitutional "taking."

It's time for Obama to let the Congress go back to the drawing board and give us a Public Option in the US that is at least as good as the one I now have in Brazil.

How Much is President Obama's Presidency Similar to Jimmy Carter's?

2010-10-09T14:02:00.000-07:00

In order to figure out what chances President Obama has of being reelected in 2012, we have to look back to the last Democratic Party president who presided over intractable economic troubles and foreign policy crises, neither of which he was able to contain.

Jimmy Carter had the misfortune of Iran taking American hostages, which left the media and the public wondering what Jimmy Carter would do about it. Ultimately, Jimmy Carter was able to do little at all about this problem that the country came to see as a top priority:

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking more than sixty Americans hostage. "From the moment the hostages were seized until they were released minutes after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office as president 444 days later," wrote historian Gaddis Smith, "the crisis absorbed more concentrated effort by American officials and had more extensive coverage on television and in the press than any other event since World War II."

If Jimmy Carter had bombed and Iranian city to ruins and promised more mayhem unless the hostages were released, this would probably have been perceived as a strong response, "not negotiating with terrorists" as Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, so often explained his overt public policy. However, Jimmy Carter did not want to see senseless deaths on either side and was unwilling to lose thousands of US soldiers to save two-dozen US hostages. His unwillingness to do anything other than negotiate made him seem week and prepared the way for the election of Ronald Reagan.

No one doubted that Jimmy Carter was intelligent, well-intentioned and Christian, but they ultimately concluded that he was ineffective and his policies were ineffectual. Likewise, few people doubt that Obama is intelligent, well intentioned and Christian, but his policies are proving bureaucratic, incomprehensible and he seems to be biting off far more wars than he will be able to chew.

Like President Johnson, President Obama now sees himself in the middle of too many unpopular wars--in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, potentially Iran, as well as Columbia, where US troops have built bases and are setting up fighting positions. When it became apparent that President Johnson was unable to achieve his goals in Vietnam, Nixon was elected. When it became obvious that Carter had no more ideas for saving the hostages in Iran, then Ronald Reagan was elected. And when it becomes apparent that President Obama has no end game for his wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and covertly in Iran and overtly in preparations for Columbia vs. Venezuela, then any Democrat or Republican who claims to have a better plan might be nominated and elected.

Obama is similar to Jimmy Carter in another way. Both Obama and Carter faced intractable and insufferably high unemployment rates; Blacks were substantially more unemployed than whites, costing the support and enthusiasm of the one group whose fidelity to the Democrats most makes it essential that that Blacks see a clear-cut reason to go to the polls on Election Day. There seems to be a strong likelihood that many Blacks will be unemployed in 2012, having also lost their homes to mortgage foreclosures. It is not clear how Obama will demonstrate to Blacks that his presidency has done us substantial rather than merely symbolic good.

While Obama faces negative economic statistics on virtually ever side, Jimmy Carter faced unprecedented inflation as well as high gas prices and rationing at the pumps. If intractable economic and military problems show that a president has lost control and can assure neither domestic economic security nor national security as he has defined it, then Obama might find himself like Jimmy Carter did in 1980--first facing a challenge from within the Democratic Party, and then facing a Republican opponent who can convince the public that she is more resolute and more determined to do what needs to be done, domestically and internationally.

If President Obama's efforts to help people save their homes is any harbinger of his health plan, the health plan will have been proved useless to most people even before many of its provision take effect in 2014. In fact, one of the poorest decisions Obama may have made as president was to provide health care relief only after his first term ends. He seems to have assumed that he would get a second term during which he would implement this plan rather than see a Republican Congress and president undo all of the change that Obama hopes will someday come.

President Obama had better "check himself." The people whom I know of who have homes in foreclosure, seeking relief, are not getting that relief from any of the programs the Obama Administration put in place. The only things guaranteed by Obama's mortgage legislation has been bank and bank executive lucre, as well as overwhelming bureaucracy and hesitance from banks to reformulate mortgages, even when paid to do so by the Federal Government.

Obama privatized the response to the banking crisis by giving individual corporations money in the hopes that they would subsequently take actions that have not been forthcoming. Obama privatized the Gulf Oil Spill by depending upon BP to fix their machinery and clean up the coasts, as well as indemnify those who lost income. Those who have lost income say they face daunting bureaucracy. And Obama privatized the response to individual home-owners with mortgage problems when Obama left the banks themselves to make the crucial decisions in these cases.

Obama might ultimately find that he is a right-leaning Democrat for whom the Democratic base has no respect or desire, but his ineffectual policies leave him indefensible across the political spectrum.

Lawrence A. Summers and Timothy Geithner Have Taken the Country Out of Rut and Into a Mudslide

2010-09-08T12:47:00.000-07:00

Do Blacks and Whites Benefit Equally from the Word and Concept of "Race"?

2010-09-02T23:29:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following to Professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D., W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University, challenging his use of the word "race":

Professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D.
W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences
Harvard University

Dear Professor Bobo:

I am a Black blogger from the American Journal of Color Arousal (AMJCA), researching the use of the word "race" among America's Blacks. I would like to pose a question regarding your use of the word "race" in an article at The Root entitled, "Time to End the Criminal-Punishment Binge."

I concur with the position of your article. However, in your sentence as follows, what difference would it make if you removed the word "race" and inserted the term "skin color" instead?

Let us be the generation that undoes the connection between race and who populates our jails and prison.

I ask this question because if there is one thing that white supremacists and Black intellectuals can agree upon, it is the continued fundamental nature and necessity of the word and concept of "race." For example, here's what the white supremacist "Nationalist Party USA" says about "race:"

The Nationalist Party embraces the differences in Cultures and races, and allows for each group to embrace their own heritage -- while recognizing the right to live separately, if we choose; and to preserve our unique Culture and heritage. Nationalist Party USA (Emphasis added.)

Clearly the Nationalist Party's belief in different "races" rationalizes, in their minds, their belief in and advocacy for segregation and white supremacy. And why not? Do we not segregate the dog species from the cat species at the dog pound?

It seems to me that as soon as we concede that we and whites are from different "races," we supply intellectual and moral support for white supremacists' belief in segregation, with separate and unequal roles for whites, Blacks and Latinos in society.

Here's another quote from the same website:

"The question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal, but why anyone would believe them equal."

As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: "To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal." For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways." Nationalist Party USA (Emphasis Added.)

There you have it. White supremacists agree with many Black intellectuals, including Harvard University professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D., that Blacks and whites are from separate "races." With white supremacists and Black intellectuals in agreement on this point, why should we even bother to consult the relatively new and opposite findings of the U.S. Department of Energy's Human Genome Program which says:

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Human Genome Program devoted 3% of its annual Human Genome Project (HGP) budget toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding the availability of genetic information. Some of these projects studied potential effects of ELSI, and others sought to educate professionals through literature, conferences, workshops, and multimedia. Among the programs funded by DOE ELSI were educational materials for physicians, educators, students, clergy, and judges and other legal professionals.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

Ari Patrinos, Director for Biological and Environmental Research, Office of Science, US Department of Energy, says on behalf of the DOE, in 'Race' and the Human Genome,

With very rare exceptions, all of us in the US are immigrants. We bring with us a subset of genes from our homelands, and for many Americans, often first-generation but more commonly second-generation, the plural noun 'homelands' is appropriate. From this perspective, the most immediately obvious characteristic of 'race' is that describing most of us as Caucasian, Asian or African is far too simple. Despite attempts by the US Census Bureau to expand its definitions, the term 'race' does not describe most of us with the subtlety and complexity required to capture and appreciate our genetic diversity. Unfortunately, this oversimplification has had many tragic effects. Therefore, we need to start with the science

( . . . )

In the end, each person must be treated as an individual with his or her own medical issues, rather than as an exemplar of a race. We anticipate a future in which accurate predictive medicine, based on one's individual genetic profile, will promote longer and healthier lives and a better ability to manage interactions with our environment and the challenges it constantly presents, be they allergens, diseases or environmental hazards. If nothing else, among so many potential benefits, the kind of solid science presented and discussed in this issue and at the Howard conference is providing proof that oversimplified concepts of race simply don't work in any objective realm. It's bad medicine, and it's bad science. 'Race' and the Human Genome,

Clearly what we have called "race" does not exist as a matter of science, yet the premise of "race" continues to be the single most fundamental commonality between white supremacists' arguments and those of Black intellectuals. Do white supremacists and Blacks benefit equally from the ubiquitous use of the word "race'? Historically, did we all benefit equally from the "N" word, whose use is just about as old as the word and concept of "race"?

Words and concepts can empower and disempower whole classes of people. We must either believe that whites gave Blacks the word "race" to empower us, or whites gave themselves the word "race" to empower whites.

I propose that we Blacks challenge white supremacists, as well as journalists, newspapers and websites of all skin colors to cease and desist using the word "race," based on the new Human Genome Project declarations. Rather than agree with white supremacists about "race," our strongest political high ground comes from insisting, based on new genomic science, that the word "race" be must be dropped from all public discussion of skin color, because the word "race" is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific and highly controversial political synonym for "skin-color group."

Those who insist on continuing to use of the word "race" are "racists."

Sincerely,

Atty. Francis L. Holland
Brazil

Four Black US Senators from Vermont and South Carolina??!!

2010-06-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

Cross-posted almost verbatim from the Francis L. Holland Blog.

At present Black America has only one Black US senator (appointed) and has no guarantee and perhaps no hope of having even one Black US Senator after this fall's elections.

It doesn't have to be this way. If less than one million Black people moved across the border from New York into Vermont (whose population is less than one million) then Black people could send two US Senators to the US Senate from the state of Vermont!

According to the US Census Department's Quick Facts, Vermont, with a population of 621,760, (0.9% Black) is a state that could reliably elect two Black US Senators if 650,000 Blacks of votin age moved there and registered to vote, creating a Black voting majority. It might take even less Blacks if the influx of Blacks led to white flight, which Blacks would benefit from but would be powerless to discourage.

Inevitably, with the news that the State of Vermont would soon have a Black majority, white real estate agents would begin blockbusting tactics, convincing whites to sell their homes and farms (to Blacks) for a song, rather than remain in what was quickly becoming a Black majority Vermont.

Once Blacks announced our intention to become the majority in Vermont and proved to the public the numerical likelihood of our success, some whites would flee Vermont and Blacks could buy their houses and other properties a depressed prices in a buyers' market.

Other whites would leave Vermont while renting or leasing their property to Blacks. Whether Blacks rented, leased or bought the property in Vermont (where rents and other prices are dramatically cheaper than in the boroughs of New York City), our financial arrangements would have only indirect effects on our demographic takeover of the state of Vermont.

Many color-aroused whites would be inclined to leave Vermont and South Carolina when the Blacks in Black majority areas made African-American history a requirement in grade school and state university curricula, while making other courses more relevant to Blacks' academic, professional and occupational needs.

Here, I have to thank African American Political Pundit for pointing out, in a private exchange of e-mails and Skype calls, that taking over South Carolina demographically and politically might be more consistent with preexisting demographic and cultural patterns among Blacks. Blacks are now moving back to Southern states, after fleeing in the Jim Crow era. We have already reached a critical mass in South Carolina, such that our votes determine the winner of the Democratic state-wide elections and of the state's position in the Democratic Party's presidential primaries.

Again, according to US Census Department Quick Facts, South Carolina, with a population of 4,011,832 of which 28.5% (1,143,000 are Black), would have a majority Black voting population if two million more Black people of voting age moved there. The elderly might be the best bet as political migrants to Vermont, because elderly people vote more reliably and can count on income from Government and other retirement programs. That income makes it easier for them to move than for someone who has to find a job in a state whose population is quickly becoming saturated with a new Black influx.

To my way of thinking, this would be a much easier and more reliable and sustainable strategy to get two or four Black US Senators than the strategy of trying to convince majority white states to elect Black leaders to the US Congress. How many whites would be elected to the US Senate if they had to run in majority Black districts?

As Stu Piddy is fond of saying, 'this is not rocket science' or fanciful. It's simply a matter of whether we Blacks want to elect two or four Black US Senators enough to congregate ourselves in two states where we can form a majority, such as whites have the majority or plurality in every state of the union at this time.
White US Senators are not universally elected because they are the best relative to Black alternatives. They are elected because whites are the majority demographically and are reluctant to elect Black alternatives, no matter how effective Black candidates would be at representing these states.

It might be considerably easier than it would seem for Blacks to form the majority in the states mentioned. If Blacks moved to Vermont or South Carolina in significant numbers, then it might engender a new "white flight" from those states that would make it even easier to take over state politics and send four US senators to Washington from Vermont and South Carolina.

Where would Blacks find work in these states and how would they survive? Just as whites move to Florida to retire on their retirement income, with no need to work there, Blacks who depend on SSI and SSDI and other pension programs, and Blacks who are self-employed, (particularly in industries where their work is done over the Internet or telephone from home) are Blacks who could move to Vermont and have no dependence on the local economy. The same is true of South Carolina. Of course that many elderly or disabled and self-employed or mobile Black people moving to either of these states would create many new jobs in health care, etc.

So, there you have it! I've been thinking about it and have proposed a feasible and financially sustainable way to guarantee that Blacks have four Black US Senators within six years, even though we have never before had two elected Blacks in the US Senate simultaneously (to my knowledge). Since we are just about to have NO Blacks in the US Senate, this is really quite urgent.

Will it Blacks' lives change meaningfully to have two or four more Black US Senators? I don't know, but white people seem to think it's worth spending up to tens of millions of dollars to get into the US Senate. And Barack Obama made it a path to the presidency of the United States.

Let's not forget that, in addition to gaining four US senators, we would gain two Black governorships, a number of House seats, mayors, city councilors, state and local assessors, state representatives, police officers and appointed officials is these states. In many cases, the Blacks moving to Vermont and South Carolina would be coming from states in which Blacks had no statewide representation at all and where we had little or no effect on the nomination and election of candidates from town councilors up to the US presidential nominating process.

Losing "Whites Only" Swimming Club Case Animates Rand Paul, Other Color-Aroused Antagonists

2010-05-23T21:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Colleagues:

Please support Color of Change's initiative.

The high-profile Huntingdon Valley, whites-only Pennsylvania, swimming club case, in which whites lost their club to bankruptcy after discriminating against Black children, is the news that has color-aroused Republicans like Rand Paul animated and eager to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The result in the swimming pool case has reminded color-aroused white antagonists of just how much they resent having to serve Blacks and eat next to us. Now Fox News is using this issue to drive up ratings while color-arousing the electorate.

They don't want to live in fear that they will discriminate against us and then be forced to pay financially for it while Blacks cheer that our rights have been vindicated. That is what is animating them.

Rand was/is saying that he doesn't agree with the result in the swimming pool case and he believes the public accommodations part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be repealed. The 29% of America that supported George W. Bush to the very end are probably among those who agree with Rand. It is they whom Rand and Fox News are trying to mobilize for election turnout this November and in 2012, when the Black President's name will be on the ballot.

It's like Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. Republicans first and last choice of weapons against us is the color of our skin.

Francis L. Holland

Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong Side of Net Neutrality?

2010-01-28T20:16:00.000-08:00

I've received the communication below from Color of Change, wondering why so many minority groups have lined up against Net Neutrality. There is a link to the groups that signed a letter opposing Net Neutrality, but the only group name on the list that I recognize is the NAACP.

I suspect that the opponents of Net Neutrality have set up some of astroturf fake minority groups, because I'm not familiar with ANY of the supposed minority groups on the list. Actually, I have heard of 100 Black Men of America, and I would like to know why for what purpose and benefit their name is on the list. The meaningful national groups I am familiar with do not have their names on the list, with the exception of one signature from the NAACP and that 100 Black Men group.

The opponents of Net Neutrality apparently hope that the public and Congress will see words like "Latino" and believe that Latinos oppose Net Neutrality, when in fact the group may have been created by the Neutrality opponents exclusively for the purpose using the group name against Net Neutrality.

A little bit of research into the groups on the list will tell whether there are any cases in which this was true. In any case, I don't see on this list the names of any REAL groups that I would recognize as legitimate groups representing these minorities. I could be wrong. Look at the LIST. If any of these groups are real, then they need to be challenged by their constituents.

"[S]everal Congressional Black Caucus members were among 72 Democrats to write the FCC last fall questioning the need for Net Neutrality rules"? Each of them should explain their position, so we can evaluate the effect their stand should have on their political futures.

"We [Color of Change] just posted this at JackandJillPolitics, Daily Kos, HuffPo, FireDogLake, and OpenLeft."

From: William Winters
ColorOfChange.org

Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong Side of Net Neutrality?

It’s said that politics creates strange bedfellows. I was reminded how true this can be when I traveled to D.C. in recent weeks to figure out why several advocacy groups and legislators with histories of advocating for minority interests are lining up with big telecom companies in opposition to the FCC’s efforts to pass “Net Neutrality” rules.

Net Neutrality is the principle that prevents Internet Service Providers from controlling what kind of content or applications you can access online. It sounds wonky, but for Black and other communities, an open Internet offers a transformative opportunity to truly control our own voice and image, while reaching the largest number of people possible. This dynamic is one major reason why Barack Obama was elected president and why organizations like ColorOfChange.org exist.

So I was troubled to learn that several Congressional Black Caucus members were among 72 Democrats to write the FCC last fall questioning the need for Net Neutrality rules. I was further troubled that a number of our nation’s leading civil rights groups had also taken positions questioning or against Net Neutrality, using arguments that were in step with those of the big phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast, which are determined to water down any new FCC rules.

Most unsettling about their position is the argument that maintaining Net Neutrality could widen the digital divide.

First, let’s be clear: the problem of the broadband digital divide is real. Already, getting a job, accessing services, managing one’s medical care—just to mention a few examples—are all facilitated online. Those who aren’t connected face a huge disadvantage in so many aspects of our society. Broadband access is a big problem — but that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with Net Neutrality.

Yet some in the civil rights community will tell you differently. They claim that if broadband providers can earn greater profits by charging content providers for access to the Internet “fast lane,” then they will lower prices to underserved areas. In other words, if Comcast — which already earns 80 percent profit margins on its broadband services — can increase its profits under a system without Net Neutrality, then they’ll all of a sudden invest in our communities. You don’t have to be a historian or economist to know that this type of trickle-down economics never works and has always failed communities of color.

Whether the phone and cable companies can make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with whether they will invest in increased deployment of broadband. If these companies think investing in low-income communities makes good business sense, they will make the investment. Benevolence doesn’t factor into the equation.

On my trips to Washington, I met with some of the groups and congressional offices questioning or opposing Net Neutrality. I asked them what evidence they had to back up claims that undermining Net Neutrality would lead to an expansion of broadband to under-served communities, or that preserving Net Neutrality would thwart expansion. Not one could answer my question. Some CBC members hadn’t yet been presented with a counter to the industry’s arguments; others told stories about pressure from telecom companies or from other members of congress. As one CBC staffer told me, many CBC members have willingly supported the business agenda of telecom companies because the industry can be counted on to make campaign contributions, and they face no political backlash.

I also heard from people who don’t consider themselves against Net Neutrality, but who say their issue is prioritizing broadband expansion over maintaining Net Neutrality—as if the two have some intrinsic competitive relationship. When I’ve asked about the relationship, again, no one could provide anything concrete.

To those taking positions against Net Neutrality, I ask what sense it makes to undermine the very power of the Internet, especially for our communities, in order to provide access to everyone, presuming for a second the two were even connected. It’s like what we have with cable — our communities are saturated with programming that they cannot control, with no benefit of empowerment for anyone. Again, no one with whom I talked had an answer to this point.

Thankfully, there are an array of grassroots, media and social justice organizations that have not followed this line of reasoning and are actively supporting Network Neutrality, such as the Center for Media Justice and the Applied Research Center. Black and brown journalists and media groups who understand the need for unconstrained expression on the part of our communities are on the same page as well: the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, UNITY: Journalists of Color, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, the National Association of Black Journalists, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition have all been vocal supporters of Net Neutrality.

Prominent lawmakers, including CBC members Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Donna Edwards are vocal supporters, as are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama — who has pledged to “take a back seat to no one” on the issue. And last week, Mignon Clyburn, a commissioner at the FCC, called out advocacy groups entrusted by many to represent our communities, for making half-baked arguments that completely miss the boat on the importance of Net Neutrality to our communities.

As Clyburn pointed out, far from being just a concern of the digital elite, Net Neutrality is essential to what makes the Internet a place where people of color and marginalized communities can speak for ourselves without first asking for permission from gatekeepers, and where small blogs, businesses, and organizations operate on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Net Neutrality regulations are needed to protect the status quo, because the telecom industry sees an opportunity for profit in fundamentally altering this basic aspect of the Internet.

In the coming weeks I plan to head back to DC to continue to fight for Net Neutrality. I’m hoping that on my next trip some of the anti-Net Neutrality civil rights groups or CBC members will heed my call and explain their position. I would like to believe that there is more to the “civil rights” opposition to Net Neutrality than money, politics, relationships, or just plain lack of understanding. For now, I’m doing my best to keep an open mind. But I don’t think it will stay that way for much longer.

95% of Blacks View Obama Favorably, Says Pew Poll

2010-01-12T13:05:00.000-08:00

Citing a Pew Poll that's 112 pages long, the WaPost says:

Thirty-nine percent of blacks -- nearly twice as many as in 2007 -- say that the "situation of black people in this country" is better than it was five years earlier. That view holds among blacks of all age groups and income levels. Similarly, 56 percent of blacks and nearly two-thirds of whites say the standard-of-living gap between whites and blacks has narrowed in the past decade. Still, when asked about the problems facing black families, a majority said there were not enough jobs and there were too many problems with drugs and alcoholism, crime and poor public education.

Meanwhile, there is a clear difference between the poll numbers and what Black bloggers are saying online, as reported by the WaPost:

Don Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment, asked, "Where do we go from here?" on the blog Booker Rising. "Skin color aside, which within the Black community has perennially been a controversial topic, Senator Reid's apology . . . only confirms the unsaid feeling among many liberals who think they own everything related to civil rights and that the black community should be forever grateful yet [they] appear incredulous that an African American can speak proper English and actually embody what are regarded as white attributes even better than some of 'them'. "

Jill Tubman, a blogger on the liberal African American political site Jack and Jill Politics, said Reid's comments won't get a full airing because it is not a topic Obama wants to discuss. "I don't know what serenity prayer Obama says each day or what zen meditation allows him to breathe deeply with confronted with this kind of thing but he's going to need to share it with the rest of us African-Americans if he expects us to go along to get along like he does," wrote Tubman, who pronounced herself "deeply disappointed" by Reid.

If you read the WaPost article, Pew reports that 36% of voters say "race relations" have improved since Obama's election (and so 64 percent DON'T say that skin-color-associated issues have changed). Over the last year, there's been a twenty percent drop in Black's belief that Obama's election would improve color-associated American issues.

Only 13 percent of whites said Obama is paying too much attention to the concerns of blacks, and most blacks said Obama was paying the right amount of attention to their concerns. WaPost

Obama's got to be happy about that, because it means he's been successful in talking and doing sufficiently little specifically about Blacks that whites don't think we've been a focus of his attention. That bodes well for his re-election efforts, at least among whites.

Still, support for Obama among African Americans is even higher: 95 percent view him favorably. Among whites, 56 percent have a favorable view of the president and 38 percent of whites say their opinion of him is unfavorable, including 21 percent with a very unfavorable view. Last year at this time, 76 percent of whites gave Obama positive ratings. Pew's study attributed Obama's downward slide among whites to partisanship. Among white Democrats, nearly nine in 10 have a favorable view of Obama.

Taser Advisory to Cops: 'Our Guns May Cause Heart Attack'

2009-12-04T05:43:00.000-08:00

Electronic Village reports today,

Taser International, the maker of taser guns is advising police officers to avoid shooting suspects in the chest with the 50,000-volt weapon, saying that it could pose an extremely low risk of an "adverse cardiac event."

The advisory, issued in an Oct. 12 training bulletin, marks the first time that Taser has suggested any risk of ill effects on the heart from the use of its 50,000-volt taser guns.

Critics, including civil-rights lawyers and human-rights advocates, called the training bulletin an admission by Taser that its guns could cause cardiac arrest.

It seems as though the cracks in the wall of electrocution ignorance are beginning to appear, and perhaps the waters of change are seeping through. As African American Political Pundit has said,

Many police departments are using tasers to torture even nonviolent people who are often those who are incoherent, hallucinating, wheelchair bound, suicidal, unarmed, deaf, handcuffed, blind, pregnant, students, or just didnt move fast enough for an officers liking. Taser torture in America is continuously growing not only in volume, but in the level of how liberally, unwarrantedly, and excessively tasering is being used across the U.S and many other countries. In America, some police departments are even now torturing 10 year old children.

The following blogs are calling for a moratorium on the pre-trial, extra-judicial electrocution of members of the public, at least until it can be demonstrated that these electrocutions are not potentially lethal, are not being used to torture subjects in custody, and are not being used disproportionately and gratuitously on Black people as a form of modern-day lynching.

The Francis L. Holland Blog
The Police Brutality (and Atrocity) Blog
Electrocuted While Black
Democratic Afrosphere

Day of Blogging Against Police Pre-Trial, Extra-Judicial Taser Electrocutions, 12/4/2009

2009-12-02T15:44:00.000-08:00

For_Immediate_Release:

(Free-Press-Release.com) December 2, 2009 --

On December 4, 2009, bloggers from across America are joining together for "A Day of Blogging for Justice - Blogging To Stop Taser Torture and the Pre-Trial, Extra-Judicial Electrocution of Americans by police".

Several dozen bloggers from diverse communities nationally and internationally are participating thus far.

See the linked list of participating bloggers here: http://stoptasertorture.blogspot.com/

The use of tasering on even nonviolent persons who are often those who are incoherent, hallucinating, wheelchair bound, suicidal, unarmed, deaf, handcuffed, blind, pregnant, students, foreign non-English speakers, or just didnt move fast enough for an officers liking; is continuously growing not only in volume, but in the level of how liberally, unwarrantedly, and excessively tasering is being used across the country. We are now torturing 10 year old children.

Both Black and White, poor and middle-class, & others have been subject to such abuse, and sentenced to death on the street. Yet, we cannot let go unnoticed that Black and the disadvantaged are even most subject to electrocute first, ask questions later.

The blogs Excited-Delirium, Electronic Village, Truth Not Tasers, Tasered While Black, Pams House Blend, Electrocuted While Black, and other bloggers have been tracking the issue of taser torture in America for some time now.

African American political Pundit, one of the organizers of the event has called it a campaign against "on the spot pre-trial electrocution" of members of the American public. He went on to say, even 10 year old little girls are not safe from taser torture.

Francis L. Holland, Esq., a blogger at the blog Electrocuted While black says,

The Francis L. Holland Blog is calling for a moratorium on the pre-trial, extra-judicial electrocution of members of the public, at least until it can be demonstrated that these electrocutions are not potentially lethal, are not being used to torture subjects in custody, and are not being used disproportionately and gratuitously on Black people as a form of modern-day lynching.
Tasers, tasered, tasing by police, police, Police Brutality, stop taser torture, taser electrocution

###

For more information:

StopTaserTorture@gmail.com, blog@elecvillage.com http://stoptasertorture.blogspot.com

Color of Change Calls for Pressure on Anti-Obama Murdoch and Fox News

2009-11-11T17:01:00.000-08:00

Dear friends,

Last week, when asked about Glenn Beck calling President Obama "racist," Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox News Channel's parent company (News Corp) said "if you actually assess what he was talking about, |Beck| was right."^[1]

On Tuesday, after his endorsement of Beck's race-baiting started to draw attention, Murdoch claimed, through a spokesperson, that he didn't mean he agrees with Beck.^[2] It's ridiculous -- what else could he have possibly meant?

Murdoch calls the shots at Fox News, and he's just made it clear that Fox's problem with race starts in his office. Now that he's been caught, he's trying to play dumb -- he doesn't want to be held accountable for Beck's rhetoric, but he won't denounce or stop it either.

It won't work, if we stand up. Join me in telling Murdoch he has a choice -- he can stand by the fact that he agrees with Glenn Beck; or he can tell us why he doesn't and what he's going to do about it. If enough of us call him out, we can create a powerful conversation about Fox's race-baiting that will help us hold them accountable at the highest level.

Please join me in signing the petition to Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=1780-175369

While Beck is the worst offender on the Fox News Channel, the network has a long, deep history of engaging in inflammatory racial rhetoric: attacking Black leaders, Black culture, and Black institutions.^[3,4,5] And a number of Murdoch's recent business decisions suggest that he is consciously building a media empire -- at Fox News and elsewhere -- that attracts viewers by appealing to racial fear and paranoia.

A month ago, Murdoch put Don Imus (fired from MSNBC for his infamous "nappy headed hos" comment)^[6] back on television on the Fox Business Network. And a few weeks ago, Murdoch personally fired Marc Lamont Hill -- one of Fox News' few black commentators -- in response to a racially charged smear campaign led by a News Corp shareholder, who said Hill has "reputation of defending cop killers and racists."^[7]

Holding Murdoch, Beck and Fox News accountable

When Murdoch publicly endorsed some of Glenn Beck's most inflammatory comments, it seemed he was making it very clear that he approves of Fox's race-baiting. Now, apparently after realizing how damaging it would be for him to publicly support the rhetoric that cost Glenn Beck 80 advertisers, he's trying to backpedal. But Murdoch is not willing to distance himself from Beck either. He knows that he could face a backlash from Fox's viewers if he appears critical of the racially charged programming that attracts many of them to the network in the first place.

So Murdoch wants to have it both ways -- he wants to build a network that makes money by pandering to racial fear and paranoia, but he doesn't want Fox to be seen as cable's home for race-baiting.

We can't let him get away with it. Murdoch made a mistake by speaking too openly about what he and his media organizations stand for. He rarely makes mistakes like this, and we need to seize the opportunity to expose Fox's problem with race.

It starts by demanding that Murdoch explain what he meant, and be clear about whether or not race-baiting is part of the program at Fox. He may or may not respond, but if enough of us speak out, we can create a conversation that makes it clear who is ultimately responsible for Fox's race-baiting. It's just one step in starting to bring some accountability to the leadership of Fox News and News Corp -- but it's an important one.

Join me in calling out Rupert Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same. It just takes a minute:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=1780-175369

Thank you.

References:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsboAwzj7aY
2. http://tinyurl.com/y8fhg4n
3. http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230012
4. http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090003
5. http://mediamatters.org/items/200510030005
6. http://tinyurl.com/mdtn4x
7. http://tinyurl.com/yzx7xyd

Other Resources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnNyEKAZIO4
http://tinyurl.com/y964vmb

Ft. Worth, TX March Against Electric Execution Guns is Model for Nationwide Protests

2009-11-09T22:41:00.001-08:00

Eddie G. Griffin (BASG) in Fort Worth, Texas tells me that the Saturday, November 7, 2009 protest against the electrocution of Michael Jacobs Jr. received excellent media coverage that serves as a model for protests nationwide:

LIVE RADIO: KKDA

33 NEWS

http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-march-for-dignity-story,0,5385639.story

FW STAR-TELEGRAM
http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/1745279.html

I contend, as does Eddie, "that Michael Jacobs, Jr. was fried on the inside out in ONE MINUTE."

"We Charge Genocide" was a document presented to the United Nations in 1951 by William L. Patterson of the Civil Rights Congress, arguing that the U.S. federal government, by its failure to act against lynching in the United States, was guilty of genocide under Article II of the UN Genocide Convention.

Pre-trial, extra-judicial electrocution and execution is quite simply lynching by another mechanical means, but now it is under color of law rather than under cover of Klu Klux Klan suits. The result is the same. Black people who have not been convicted or even tried for any crime are dying and frying daily across the United States, while many others pretend that this is normal. Instead, Klansmen have traded their white suits and hats for blue suits and bronze badges.

Posted by: Francis L. Holland Blog

Fort Worth residents marched calling for police to stop using Tasers

2009-11-08T08:38:00.001-08:00

Enough is enough!

By African American Political Pundit at Tasered While Black.

As reported by Traci Shurley at The Star-Telegram.com more than 50 people marched through downtown Fort Worth on Saturday calling for police to stop using Tasers and punish an officer involved in the April death of a mentally ill man. The protest was organized by supporters of the family of Michael Jacobs, 24, who died after a Fort Worth police officer shot him twice with a Taser to subdue him. Jacobs’ death was ruled a homicide by the Tarrant County medical examiner and will be reviewed by a grand jury.

"I’m really grateful to this big old crowd for speaking on behalf of my son," said Charlotte Jacobs, Michael’s mother.The protesters walked from the Fort Worth municipal building to the Tarrant County Courthouse carrying U.S. flags and signs, some of which read "Lazy Cops Taser" and "Tasers trample the Constitution."

The death occurred after police responded to a call from Jacobs’ parents that he was being disruptive. Police said the officer used the Taser after Jacobs became combative.

In his report, Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani found that Officer Stephanie A. Phillips shocked Jacobs twice with a Taser — once for 49 seconds and once for five seconds. According to the report, the officer told a detective that the first jolt was longer because "she unknowingly kept the Taser trigger engaged." She remains on active duty.

Jacobs’ family has filed a wrongful-death suit. Last month, an attorney for the family said witnesses have disputed claims that he fought with police. On Oct. 16, Police Chief Jeff Halstead announced that his department had finished its investigation of Jacobs’ death and provided copies of the report to the FBI and Justice Department. He said officers would get more training in how to deal with mentally ill people and in the use of force. The Rev. Kyev Tatum, president of the Tarrant County chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and organizer of Saturday’s march, said that Tasers inflict cruel and unusual punishment on the community and that their use must stop. More HERE

US House Passes National Health Care Bill

2009-11-08T07:54:00.000-08:00

I admit that I haven't read the 1029-page bill, but (or perhaps therefore) I'm very happy with the vote in the US House last night in favor of this national health care bill. It's "national" in the sense that it effects the entire nation and endeavors to provide for health "insurance" for the vast majority of people, through a variety of mechanism and mandates:

Creating a public insurance option to compete with the private vultures;
Perhaps best of all, increasing taxes by a little more than five percent on those individuals earning more than $500,000 annually or $1,000,000 annually for a family as the mechanism for paying for this plan;
Prohibiting insurance companies from excluding persons based on pre-existing conditions;
Prohibiting the sudden rescission of insurance, just as the insured is incurring medical expenses;
Slowly closing the "donut hole" in which the elderly on Medicare lack coverage for prescription medication;
Creating a new Secretary of Insurance (or something of the sort) to approve or reject proposed insurance plans and fees offered by the existing insurance companies, with the authority to govern insurance companies in multiple other ways;
Requiring employers to contribute to health care for their employees or pay a significant fine;
Requiring individuals to seek to participate one way or another, or pay a fine of up to $250,000 and spend five years in jail, which effectively gives this new system the same obligatory nature of paying the IRS and Social Security withholding, with virtually everyone participating;
Subsidies for those unable to pay for insurance, which effectively forces the Government to make insurance for the poor financially feasible or put them (us) all in jail;
Any new law that provides for imprisonment has to be viewed from a uniquely Black point of view and we have to wonder whether it wasn't created to increase the number of Black people in jail. For example, will police demand to see our insurance cards and then arrest us and hold us over for trial if we have failed to enroll, as might easily happen with poor, indigent, substance abusing and homeless people? Will all Black people follow the mandate, or will some fail to do so and end up as insurance prisoners?

Of course there are at least two things in the bill that are outrageous, one of which is absolutely outrageous:

The approved an amendment that prevents anyone whose subsidized from using the subsidy for to pay for plans that provide for abortions, and prohibits plans that provide abortion from participating in the health care marketplace, which has the effect of banning all abortions except the ones that women pay for themselves, effectively banning a type of coverage that some women already have through their employers;
The bill forbids undocumented immigrants from participating receiving subsidies to participate in any of the plans that will be offered, and may even (I'm not sure) forbid them from participating even with their own money. This is something we need to be sure about, since undocumented immigrants can be disease vectors just as easily as our own children can be.
Undocumented immigrant children, the US Supreme Court has decided, have a constitutional right to receive a free public education, which puts children who have no access to medical care (e.g. vaccinations) next to those who do. The obvious solution is to recognize the obvious fact that everyone must be vaccinated and provide for this vaccination for everyone, regardless of their immigration status.
At the same time, the right to go to school seems somewhat empty if you lack the right to receive medical care that will make school attendance possible. As a matter of fact, hospital emergency rooms will inevitably continue to treat undocumented immigrants, but only when the care they need has progressed to the point of being an emergency whose treatment is many times more costly than it would have been had they gone to a doctor earlier.

This recognition of the Government's obligation to provide a mechanism for everyone in the country (except the undocumented) to receive medical care is a massive step forward for the United States of America. Although some of the details will inevitably turn out to be flawed and need to be revisited, the commitment brings the US into the community of civilized nations that recognize that health care is not an individual challenge but rather a national responsibility.

The US Senate still has to pass a bill and then that bill and the House bill have to go to conference committee, where anything can happen. And unfortunately many of the provisions of the bill that people most need now will not take effect until after the 2010 elections, when it will be too late for the benefits of the bill to help Democrats running for re-election to the US Congress.

I do understand however, that the ban on pre-existing conditions clauses will take effect sometime next year.

Fortunately, the Democratic Congress realized that there was no way whatsoever that they would get more than one Republican vote on this bill, so they pushed through a bill that had fewer compromises than if the Republicans had cooperated.

Man Tased While His Kent, OH Home Burns

2009-11-07T03:25:00.000-08:00

Police use taser on Kent resident.

Abstract: Police used a Taser gun to restrain a resident outside of his home on Crain Avenue as it burned at about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.

The resident, Mike Bartlett, said he was returning from downtown for his cell phone when he noticed his sister's room on fire. He ran in to make sure she was not there and continued to find his friends in the basement and alert them of the fire....

By Sarah Steimer, KentNewsNet.Com

Police used a Taser gun to restrain a resident outside of his home on Crain Avenue as it burned at about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.

The resident, Mike Bartlett, said he was returning from downtown for his cell phone when he noticed his sister's room on fire. He ran in to make sure she was not there and continued to find his friends in the basement and alert them of the fire. He said his cousin's girlfriend was sleeping upstairs so he went back in the house to retrieve her.

"As I was running downstairs, I could hear the window glass popping because of the heat," Bartlett said.

When he went got outside, Bartlett said police officers were at the end of the driveway. He said he approached them for help, but they dismissed him. As he walked toward one of his friends, he said the officers tackled and restrained him with the Taser gun, giving them no reason for their force.

According to the Kent City Police levels of resistance report, Bartlett used psychological and physical active resistance to avoid arrest. The report stated he was both combative and intoxicated. No one from the Police Department was available for comment.

Bartlett said he was not offered medical attention by the officers. Instead, he was taken directly to the police station. Bartlett went to the hospital following his court appearance Sunday. He said he was treated for first- and second-degree burns.

Bartlett's trial is set for December. The Red Cross helped the displaced family of four, which does not include any Kent State students. The cause of the fire is still being investigated.

Contact public affairs reporter Sarah Steimer at ssteimer@kent.edu.

One reader who commented on the above story said,

Farmer WIlson

posted 11/04/09 @ 6:00 AM EST

Originally posted by
WOW ,,, just wow
I mean come the f*** on!!! How many of these events have to happen till people learn?? It's bloody obvious something needs to be done and it needs to be done FAST! These moron cops seem to be nothing short of 'Gunslinging Sherifs' which are causing nothing but havoc and have this idea that they rule the world. Bushe's term in the office is over we don't want a f***ing Police State, thank you.

Moreover, tasers should be permanently removed from use across all states, it's obviously being misused by the police not to apprehend uncooperative persons but more precisely to torture them for what ever reason even if they maybe innocent *points to this story*.

But what's the bloody point this story will just be another of many more to come ...

Dec. 7 March Against Police Summary Electrocution ("Taser") Targets City of Fort Worth, Texas

2009-11-07T03:16:00.000-08:00

STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FROM: Eddie G. Griffin 817-721-7439

March Against Tasers Targets City

FORT WORTH, Texas – On Saturday, November 7, people will march from downtown City Hall to the uptown County Courthouse, starting at noon, to highlight the increasing number of deaths related to tasing. The march dubbed as a March for Dignity is part of a growing movement around the country and the world to end the use of tasers deployed by law enforcement.

The Fort Worth demonstration is aimed to make a statement to city leaders and law enforcement.

The controversy arises at the same time the number of taser related fatalities approaches 500. At the same time, however, Taser International, the maker of the electronic control device (ECD), continually insists the weapon is non-lethal.

In Fort Worth, when Carolyn Daniels (#138) was died on the floor in the county jail after being tasered on June 24, 2005, hardly anyone paid notice. They said she had crack cocaine in her system. Had she not, we were led to believe, she would have survived the shocking.

But Michael Jacobs Jr. (#424) had no such foreign substance in his system when he was tasered and died on April 18, 2009.

As an emissary who stood over the coffin of the 24-year old young man, I delivered a Resolution to the family on behalf of the international community, and a network of supporters. From Amnesty International to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and bloggers around the world, we raised our voices against this form of torture and death.

I shed a tear for Michael. I shed a tear for Carolyn. I shed a tear for Deacon Fredrick William (#56) whose video electrocution was shown all over the internet, shocked repeatedly in the neck until dead. The remaining 22 minutes of the video was devoted to trying to bring him back to life, and the egg-look on the face of the officers.

But I shed more tears for the living and the unborn. When Valreca Redden was tasered by Trotwood police, she was pregnant. No one can imagine the trauma to the unborn fetus as his mother was being electrocuted with 50,000 volts of electricity. She was guilty of nothing except being distraught. The baby was completely innocent.

We are just now realizing some the lingering after-effects of tasing. Some who have been tasered in the past are now beginning to show signs of involuntary neuromuscular convulsions, what we otherwise would call the “twitches”.

Imagine, if you will, the last minute of Michael Junior’s life, for that is just about how long it took Officer Stephanie Phillips to summarily electrocute him and terminate his life.

For one minute, hold your breath, and close your eyes, and imagine sticking your finger into a light socket. Hold it there for one minute, while 240 volts of electricity race through your body. Are you still holding your breath?

That is what happened to Michael Jacobs Jr. But instead of 240 volts, it is 50,000 volts, blazing inside his body, for one whole minute. At the first jolt, the muscles contract and hold, and hold, and hold, until there is a release. If there is no release, the organ muscles shut down and organs began to pop.

Michael could not breathe, even if he wanted to. The lung muscles shut down. The heart muscle shut down. The bile burst, and the organs fried like chicken, for one eternity of a minute. Thus, what the coroner saw was ruled a homicide.

Consider the Poem by Willie Jolley:

I have only just a minute, only sixty seconds in it
Forced upon me, can't refuse it
Didn't seek it, didn't choose it,
But it's up to me to use it
I must suffer if I abuse it.
Just a tiny little minute
But Eternity is in it.

In memory of Michael Jacobs Jr.

By Eddie G. Griffin (BASG)

The Democratic Afrosphere

Obama and Axelrod Living in a Dream World of Political Plenty

Mr. President, Get Your Veto Pen

Is the American Diabetes Association Research Foundation Excluding HBCU’s From Research?

Obama's CIA Efforts Wildly Successful in Middle East and Africa, but He Still Can't Be Re-Elected

Brazil is Half Brown, But Has No Brown-Skinned Women Among 27 Miss Brazil 2011 Candidates

Suspected Police Assassination of Black Father of Three Catalyzes Riots in British Cities and Towns

Two Black US Senators May Be Elected from Vermont

Field Negro Targets "Color-Arousal" and "Color-Aroused" Behavior

Latinos and Blacks Could Stay Home in 2012 Presidential Election

Cross-filched from African American Pundit, comments and all.

Are Latinos and Blacks Being Taken for Grantedin Terms of Our Substantive Issues?

2 comments:

There's Black Political Power in Iowa

Black Political Power in Iowa

Mitt Romney Jokes about the Unemployed

Cross-filched from African American Pundit.

Mitt Romney got jokes: The Unemployed

With All His Wars, It Must be Hell Being President Obama

Can Blacks Elect Two US Senators from Vermont?

"Enough of Weinergate," Says Field Negro, to a Metaphorical Round of Deafening Applause

Sylvia Harris: "My Bipolar Life, and the Horses Who Saved Me"

Palin's Big Lies Strike Big Targets While Her Assurances are Reminiscent of (Election-Winning) "Compassionate Conservatism"

What is the Future of Black Journalism and Blacks in Journalism in the Electronic Media Internet Age?

Are Corporate Black Blogs Destroying Black Employment In Mainstream Media?

Are White Women with Naturally Straight Hair as Attractive as Black Women With Natural Braids and Rasta Locks?

Book Review: Sylvia Harris' Autobiography of Bipolar Disorser and Salvation at the Horse Tracks

"Race" and Blood Types, Superstition and Science

"Obama Working to Rebuild [Rusty and Dry-Rotted] Grassroots Army (AP)"

Electrocution Victim's Family Routed in California Taser Death Case

Black Agenda Report Reveals Obama and Imperialism

Obama Was Prescient on Bin Laden, but In a Way that is Mostly Irrelevant to American Blacks

Afrosphere Bloggers Compel White-News Media to Focus on Black Thought and Action

Dr. Aryn Bush and "A Woman's NationTakes on Alzheimers"

Obama has Been Lacking at Community Organizing and Mobilizing His Base

T-Party Apologizes for Incessant $$$ Solicitations

Was Star Black MS High School Football Player Billy Joe Johnson Murdered By a Sheriff's Deputy Because Johnson's Girlfriend Had White Skin?

Ms. Recy Taylor: A Fight for Justice First Started by Rosa Parks

Noose Found in Locker of Black Man Suing NYFD for Discrimination

Joan Rivers Calls First Lady "Blackie O.", but is Rivers a Racist?

PRESS RELEASE - Jamie Scott Has Been Hospitalized

Slate Focuses on Elizabeth Edwards' Duplicity

George F. "Macaca" Allen Running for Virginia US Senate Seat Again

Rep. Barney Frank to Vote Against Obama/Republican "Compromise" Tax Bill

Evelyn Rasco and her "Free the Scott Sisters Blog" Criticized NAACP's Actions

Jack and Jill Politics said at that time, quoting Yobachi's TheJena6Blog,

So, why does the NAACP always show up on the scene at the last minute and ask the public to contribute money to the NAACP, instead of doing what others groups do: ask the public to contribute to the defendant(s)' legal defense account?

NAACP Finally Follows Media Spotlight in Mississippi Scott Sister's Case

Haley Barbour has tried to rehabilitate the imagine of the White Citizens Councils, but Amanda Terkel at Huffington Post says:

New Black Leaders, Old Civil Rights Groups Conflict in Net Neutrality Debate

francislholland's Channel

"Civil Rights" Groups Being Used to Limit Blacks' Access to Internet

Let's give Hillary a chance in 2012!

African American Pundit: DNC Triples Effort Reaching Out To Black Voters

Americans Might Benefit from Successful Court Challenges to ObamaCare

How Much is President Obama's Presidency Similar to Jimmy Carter's?

Lawrence A. Summers and Timothy Geithner Have Taken the Country Out of Rut and Into a Mudslide

Do Blacks and Whites Benefit Equally from the Word and Concept of "Race"?

Four Black US Senators from Vermont and South Carolina??!!

Losing "Whites Only" Swimming Club Case Animates Rand Paul, Other Color-Aroused Antagonists

Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong Side of Net Neutrality?

Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong Side of Net Neutrality?

95% of Blacks View Obama Favorably, Says Pew Poll

Taser Advisory to Cops: 'Our Guns May Cause Heart Attack'

Day of Blogging Against Police Pre-Trial, Extra-Judicial Taser Electrocutions, 12/4/2009

Color of Change Calls for Pressure on Anti-Obama Murdoch and Fox News

Ft. Worth, TX March Against Electric Execution Guns is Model for Nationwide Protests

Fort Worth residents marched calling for police to stop using Tasers

US House Passes National Health Care Bill

Man Tased While His Kent, OH Home Burns

By Sarah Steimer, KentNewsNet.Com

Farmer WIlson

posted 11/04/09 @ 6:00 AM EST

WOW ,,, just wow

Dec. 7 March Against Police Summary Electrocution ("Taser") Targets City of Fort Worth, Texas

Are Latinos and Blacks Being Taken for Granted
in Terms of Our Substantive Issues?