Stinking Gringo! (Updated)

update: Here's racismreview discussion, and via racismreview Information on the 1946-1948 United States Public Health Service STD Inoculation Study

Yeah, an academic article is coming out soon by Susan  M Reverby (synopsis in pdf) who found that the US infected Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea during the 1940s. Kinda like the Tuskegee experiment (update: different link via racismreview) for Latin America.

Now, don't get me wrong. This has nothing to do with AIDS in the black community and whether or not the US government invented AIDS. But the conspiracy theory doesn't sound so far fetched now.

Joke: France Is Cancelling Haiti's Current Debt to Paris

France has already said it was canceling all of Haiti's 56 million euro (US$77 million) debt to Paris. The aid package also will include reconstruction money, emergency aid and $40 million in support for the Haitian government's budget.

What's so funny?

Happy Birthday, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela!!

Disclaimer: I am by no means condoning violence. I only ask a question.



Yeah, I'm still on my Michael Jackson kick. Now, apparently no one could get him off drugs. But did anyone at least try to get him out of those tight pants? If you don't like the song, don't play it.

Today, July 18, is Nelson Mandela's birthday. A lot of people, believe it or not, hold him in low regard. I don't know how well known it is that one of the things he was jailed for was bombing government buildings. Since you can get his biography pretty much anywhere, I wanna talk about militant activities, his Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), translated Spear of the Nation.

I wanna ask you, at what point is violence okay and when does it over-reach? Here's a good introduction on just war theory. Here are two articles that ask the question I ask: what's the difference between (just) war and terror? Admittedly, the question is not new and I'm no special genius for asking.

Don't get it twi'tted. I am a special genius, but asking this question isn't why.

It's just something that gnaws at me, especially when people like Pat-B get on their white, male high horse about who's accomplished what here and around the world. I mean, think about it. Really think about it. You don't actually have to be a historian to realize the only thing the separated white men from everyone else was weaponry. Which isn't to say for fact that there were, or are, better alternatives. That's besides the point. My point is just that there are other, viable alternatives to what European patriarchy, exploration, colonialism, and slavery has begotten us.

Well . . . that's the point in response to the argument that "white men built America!" Right? Cause it's not like there was nothing here they didn't have to destroy and decimate.

So, anyway. Back to Mandela and my question about war and terror.

You know, one of the things that I find most ironic about the "war on terror" is that war itself is terror. Right? Lets ask Iraqis and Afghans and Pakistanis how they feel. Do they not feel terrified?

And what about the Palestinians? Are they not terrorized?

And what about black men? Why shouldn't black American men feel terrified when a police car starts slowing behind them, or beside them? I know Latinos in Arizona gotta live in terror.

So there's that.

I've been wondering about this for years and still don't have a clear answer. The first time the thought crystallized for me was when I learned about the Kikuyu war for Kenyan Independence against Britain. You probably know it as the Mau-Mau Rebellion.

I mean, what makes George Washington any different from the leaders of the militant wing of Hamas? What makes John Adams or Thomas Jefferson any different from Hezbollah?

Why do we so readily accept these simplistic labels like "terrorist" which only describe, at best, one side's "truth." I just think that's something we should start considering before we decide whose violence to sanction and whose violence to forbid. And we should make these judgements based on what's just and what's right, not simply what's in America's best interest.

Some claim that the actions Mandela committed took lives. Mandela says otherwise; but he is rather open and honest about having supported violence in response to government terrorism. The guy isn't a pacifist by any means. He ended up on our "terrorist watch" list because initially, our government supported South Africa's apartheid state. Any group that challenged white minority rule was a "terrorist organization," and a terrorist group for South Africa was a terrorist group for the US. In fact, the US vetoed 4 UN resolutions condemning apartheid in 1982. It wasn't until 1986 that Congress passed legislation restricting trade with South Africa; they overturned President Ronald Reagen's veto, which is but one reason black folks don't too much care for him. In 1991, President George HW Bush opened trade, even though the first fully democratic elections didn't take place until 1994.

In fact, the WMDs Suddam Hussein used against his own people are weapons he got from the US. Osama bin Laden became a hero while fighting "Charlie Wilson's War" against the Soviets. He got his "training" from the US. Fidel Castro came to power because Cubans were tired of Miquel Batista, a US supported dictator. The CONTRA's got their money from the US, not just by the Iran-CONTRA affair, but by the government willfully and knowingly allowing cocaine to flow in to South Central LA.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and other members of the ANC are heroes and heroines because he fought for freedom and justice. There's no question that the loss of life is terrible, but what other means did they have? We have to ask ourselves, still, what's the difference (just) war and terror? Why do we demand so much more of people fighting justice and freedom than we do of people who start wars? Is it the expectation that those who fight for good are good and pure themselves? That's just a simplistic way of understanding the world.

Don't get it twi'tted. I'm not suggesting that violence be the first weapon against injustice. I only ask when is violence justified, and what, exactly, should be the last weapon against injustice? The nonviolent Black Freedom Movement (or Civil Rights Movement) accomplished a great, great deal.

After all, just 40 years after Martin Luther King, Jr, symbol of the Movement in collective memory; and, after 40 years (and continuing) of white backlash; and, 8 years of George W Bush, we have our first black president! Who, by the way, faced public oppositional "Taxed enough already!" parties and talk of secession not 4 months into his presidency, and who chastises the black community publically more than he talks about racism.

I Report, You Decide

This article is by-lined from Vienna, Austria. But is this really just a way of getting more people to respond to what's happening here in America? Hmm . . .

Read the article and tell me what you think. Sorry about the Faux News referrence. Couldn't help it.

And in International News . . .

I promised awhile back to start adding more of an international flavor to my blog. I haven't kept up with international news as well as I had hoped. But then again, I haven't kept up with national news as well as I had hoped, either.

But, reading this book asking wondering just how stupid are American voters has encouraged me again to try to understand international events as well as the economy. So here we go.

First up, U.S. defender Oguchi Onyewu is suing an Anderlecht player over an alleged racial insult, hoping the case will help eradicate on-field racist abuse in European soccer. You know I'm a big sports fan. When I played basketball, one of the things I was best at was trash talk. I really didn't want to get into the dozens, though. Just more generic, "Wave to the ball. You won't be seeing it while I'm guarding you." Just thinking about it gives me shivers! But including someone's race in your trash talk is less King Jamesian than just the regular "yo mama" joke. It needs to be stopped. Racialized insults and condescension has a history and it cannot be tolerated. I understand it's hard to control the fans; but it should quite easy work to put players in check.

Next up, and last for the edition (LOL!) is: President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday threatened to sanction private banks that fail to collaborate with his government's regulations as it moves toward a socialist economy. Now, you probably think Chavez is a demagogic prick, and I'm actually leaning in that direction. But you can't really question the logic here. His issue, as I understand it, is not private banks earning a profit - that's what banks do. It's how the stay in business and "pay" depositors for use of their money. His problem, as I understand it, is banks making sick amounts of money while regular people suffer. And I think if we in the US had the same sort of courage to tell bankers not to screw us, our economy would be doing a lot better how.

I Don't Believe This!

First off, I hope I'm not breaking any laws. This is copyrighted by the AP. But, if somebody says something, I'll just take it down.

Okay. Now. I'm really happy about this decision. I'm happy for the victims of apartheid. Now, hopefully somebody can catch a clue about the victims of slavery and neo-slavery (Jim Crow).

Well. Truth be told. I'm actually a little upset that a US judge can rule in favor of the victims of racism in another country, but more than 9 out of 10 white Americans would reject reparations for the descendants of slaves. That's not even counting what's owed to the descendants and living victims of neo-slavery (Jim Crow).

But. I am happy for the victims of apartheid in South Africa. ~ No1KState

NY judge rules in favor of 1970s apartheid victims
Published: 4/8/09, 9:05 PM EDT
By LARRY NEUMEISTER


NEW YORK (AP) - Apartheid victims who accused automakers and IBM of helping the government of South Africa engage in violent repression to enforce racial segregation in the 1970s and '80s can go to trial with their claims, a judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin rejected assertions by several countries that the lawsuits should not proceed because that might harm relations between the United States and South Africa.

The written decision was related to lawsuits filed about seven years ago on behalf of victims of apartheid. The lawsuits once targeted many more U.S. corporations, including oil companies and banking institutions, but the number of defendants was decreased after the lawsuits were tossed out by one judge and an appeals court that reinstated them said allegations needed more specifics.

After Scheindlin dismissed several more companies as defendants Wednesday, the plaintiffs were left to press their claims against IBM Corp., German automaker Daimler AG, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Rheinmetall Group AG, the Swiss parent of an armaments maker.

The plaintiffs, at least thousands of people seeking unspecified damages, allege the automakers supplied military vehicles that let securities forces suppress black South Africans. IBM is accused of providing equipment used to track dissidents.

The judge noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had referenced the apartheid cases in the footnote of an earlier decision when it wrote "federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch's view of the case's impact on foreign policy" when the U.S. and a foreign government agree litigation could harm the domestic policies of a foreign nation.

But she said the footnote was only meant as guidance and the executive branch was not "owed deference on every topic."

The U.S. government had submitted a statement saying the lawsuits could become "an irritant in U.S.-South African relations" because they might interfere with South Africa's sovereign right to decide apartheid issues and might discourage investment in South Africa.

South African officials had said the efforts to compensate victims should be pursued within South Africa's political and legal processes.

Defense lawyers have said corporations shouldn't be penalized because they were encouraged to do business in South Africa during apartheid. Lawyers for the companies didn't immediately return telephone messages Wednesday.

Plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Hausfeld praised the ruling, saying it will allow his clients to begin obtaining evidence from the companies that will show what they did in relation to South Africa during apartheid.

"It's great," he said. "There's a treasure of documentation that would be disclosed for the first time ever."

Hausfeld said that besides South Africa and the United States, countries including Germany, Switzerland and England had opposed letting the litigation proceed.

He said it was significant that the judge concluded that opposition by governments was not enough to halt lawsuits brought for human rights reasons. Ruling otherwise, he said, "would have given governments a veto power over the bringing of legal claims."

Daimler is based in Stuttgart, Germany, while Ford is headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., and General Motors is based in Detroit. IBM is based in Armonk, N.Y.

Rheinmetall Group is a holding company headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany. It is the parent company of Oerlikon Contraves AG, an armaments maker headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland.




Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Brazil’s Leader Blames White People for Crisis

I didn't come up with the title. That's the title of the article. I just kept the title because it's the simple and at the same time, not what white Americans think.

Of course, I think it's hilarious!! But that's just me and my wicked sense of humor. ~ No1KState


Brazil’s leader blames white people for crisis
By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo and agencies

Published: March 27 2009 00:27 Last updated: March 27 2009 00:27

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.

Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”

He added: “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimised more than any other should pay for the crisis.”

Mr Brown appeared to distance himself from Mr Lula da Silva’s remarks. “I’m not going to attribute blame to any individuals,” he said.

Mr Brown was visiting Brazil as part of a five-day tour of Europe, the US and South America in preparation for the G20 summit to take place in London next Thursday. He made a joint appeal with Mr Lula da Silva for the world’s biggest economies to provide $100bn to boost global trade.

“I’m going to ask the G20 summit next week to support a global expansion of trade finance to reverse a slide in world trade,” Mr Brown said.

Mr Lula da Silva also spoke out strongly against raising trade barriers in response to the global crisis. “I compare protectionism to a drug,” he said. “Why do people use drugs? Because they are in crisis and they think the drug will help them. But its effects pass quickly.”

The two leaders’ remarks demonstrate the desire each will have to secure the other’s support during the G20 meeting.

Brazil – which has long campaigned unsuccessfully to be given a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council – will argue for a bigger voice for Brazil and other emerging nations in multilateral organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum, a group of central banks and national supervisory authorities established in 1999.

Brazil is one of many nations calling for increased regulation of global financial markets and greater powers for multilateral regulators.

It will also call for a resumption and conclusion of the Doha round of talks at the World Trade Organisation.

In return for supporting such initiatives, Mr Brown will expect Brazil to endorse calls for fiscal stimulus in a bid to mitigate the impact of the global crisis, such as the proposed $100bn in trade finance.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Great News for US and Africa!

First, the economic recovery package went through. Second, China-Africa trade is up 45%. Greater trade for Africa means a better economy for Africa. And with China? Africa can start throwing off the economic colonialism of the West.

Yeah!

Republican Stupidity and also, Bono and Israel

They make inane arguments, such as the one Ken Blackwell makes about the stimulus creating jobs being a bad thing for two reasons: it would create more Democratic voters in Virginia and use taxpayer money to provide jobs without putting it back in the economy.

First of all, the point is jobs not votes. And if Republicans don't like the fact that most government workers vote Democratic, they should articulate a vision that doesn't require those thick, nerb-bird glasses. Second of all, these people with these government jobs . . . don't they eat and live and drive? And don't they pay taxes on the money they make?

-I checked out the article after hearing Keith Olbermann mention Blackwell in his "3 Worst People in the World" segment. I can't believe such sheer stupidity passes as critical thought for anybody.

Oh! BTW - Did you catch Bono's shout-out to Palestine! Yeah! Israel, if you do right by Palestine, you won't have to worry about rockets coming into Israel. Now, the train has left the station when it comes to actually giving them their land back; though, if that's possible, I'm for it. But you could treat them like, oh I don't know, human beings!

Me Getting Back in the Game

I came across this while I was online.



My health took a downturn this pass month. Hopefully, this is the beginning of an upswing. It's not as though I haven't had any thoughts. I have many. Like . . . why do commentators keep questioning Obama's decisions? Didn't he win without taking their advice? And I don't know about anyone else, but I knew "change" was in the ideas and manner of governance, not necessarily the faces. Anyone can change faces and bring in people with the same old ideas. That's cosmetic. Real change occurs with leadership and ideas - ideas like the ones lined out in this video and ideas like making these vlogs.

Mostly, though, this pass month, I've been wondering about the world and my place in it. How to go about making the changes I think are necessary in the way I think is best. How to join the elite black intelligentsia that still pushes and strives for justice and equality for all.

Of course, there was Thanksgiving. I enjoyed the football games. I enjoyed the food and the family. My RN cousin had worked the night shift the previous night and warned us to call 911 if anything happened to anyone cause, as she put it, "I'm off the clock."

But it wasn't lost upon me that America was acquired by means of mass genocide and that my presence here in America represents other crimes against humanity.

Now, I'm caught between a couple of life decisions. Whether to follow the advice of my pastor, which wasn't really "advice"; or, to do what I think is right and best for me. Not that I would personally have any problem not taking his advice, I just gotta consider the impact it might have later. You know? How the people I seek to help might take such move. And then there's opportunities at another church, which may allow me the flexibility I seek and the opportunity to serve that I desire so much.

Oh, and let me not even start on my trouble with men. I could've sworn this guy liked me. Even after I explained some of my circumstances and some other things, he was still down. Then, almost 10 days past without a word from him! Was I really wrong for saying that was rude? I mean, really?

The Mumbia attacks strike me as almost inevitable and certainly foreseeable. The only question is will the West continue the cultural and economic hegemony that creates the circumstances that nurture such hate. Not that murder is ever justifiable. But I get the point they were trying to make; and, sometimes, that's the only way to get the attention of the powers that be. The problem that be often would rather continue to be powerful rather than humble.

I'm still around. Thinking and praying for guidance. And those of you who know the words of prayer, pray for me (A little shout out to the southern Black Church.)

Kill McCain! He's a Terrorist!

Yeah. That's right. I'm an Obama supporter and I'm shouting "Kill McCain" and "He's a terrorists" and "Assassinate him!"

Yeah. That's right. Soak it up conservatives. Let that marinate for a minute.

Oh. I'm not finished. He is a terrorist. And not a very good one at that. We had no just cause to go into Vietnam. In fact, from what I recall, we never declared war. We just there killing innocent Vietnamese and dying by the thousands. That makes his as much a terrorist as any "Arab." And that makes the US as much a "terrorist state" as supposedly Iran and Syria.

So chew on that conservatives. How does that feel? How does that sound?

Now, I don't actually think of McCain as a terrorist, or at least not yet, and I don't wish him to be killed or anything like that. But for McCain to say this morning that he's proud of all his supporters, even the ones who think Obama is a single-cell Arab terrorist who should be killed . . . I can't even put it into words. Honestly, I was already upset that McCain spent much of the debate last night lying. I certainly didn't like his stance on the "health" of the mother in the case of abortion. And I honestly didn't think my opinion of him could be any less. I thought it hit rock bottom last night. But this morning, when he declared his pride for all his supporters, McCain dug a hole and fell right into it.

And for all that guy on Hardball said, John McCain has not corrected people shouting "kill him!" and "he's a terrorist!" concerning Barack Obama. And like the guy on Hardball is saying now, John Lewis is absolutely right: it only takes one crazy person to assassinate someone. So, McCain pride is just repulsive.

And that reminds me of something else. Let's drop this illusion that Ronald Regan is such a good president for having ended the Cold War without spilling blood. That's a lie. Maybe he "ended" the Cold War. But he personally called for the spilling of Grenadian blood as part of the "Cold War." The Vietnam Conflict was about the "Cold War." Osama bin Laden earned his bonafide as a mujahudeen fighting for Afghanistan in the "Cold War." The Congo is in the mess it's in partly because the US assassinated Patrice Lumumba, helped support the cleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. And now, over 5, maybe even 10 million people have died and millions of women are raped daily over a conflict that started because of the "Cold War."

The notion that the Cold War ended without blood shed is not only a lie - tens of thousands of Americans died - it's racists - millions of people of color died.

Oh, Dear Lord

I had a post in mind about black racism, and indeed, I will get to that.

But first, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr and Zionists. Rev. Jackson is quoted as having said "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House. There's even more about it in an Israeli newspaper.

Now, while I promised more international flavor, I certainly didn't intend this to be it. But, you know what? It is, and it's important to discuss. So here's my opinion.

I strongly disagree with the Zionists. I can understand why any religious Jew longs to see the reconstruction of the Temple. I understand that, and I think it's important that it be rebuilt if possible. Not necessarily on the same site, but I have no idea how Jews observe what I read of the Torah without a Temple. And I think it's important that people of other beliefs, even if I disagree, are allowed to follow their faith.

That said, I do not agree that Israel has some inherent right to exist. If we accord territory by who fought to obtain and maintain it, then certainly Israel has proven that land belongs to them. But I disagree with the underlying idea. If I had my druthers, Amerindians would still be in control of both North and South America. Are, at least, there'd be equality of power. Palestinians would still be in charge of what's now Israel.

But, now, it is what it is. And what we face is an Israel that kills and murders as many Palestinians as they claim Hamas kills Israelis. What we face is an Israel that is breaking the Accords by extending it's reach and settlements more and more into Palestinians lands. They do this and get away with it because the US backs them. And it is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

It's wrong for a few reasons. I'll go through a few.

• Israel's presence and our support for Israel is behind much of the terror and killings in the Middle East, our war in Afghanistan and illegal invasion of Iraq notwithstanding.
• The Holocaust, as terrible and horrible as it was, and it happened - 12 million dead - does not entitled Israel to land that's not theirs and wasn't given to them by the previous occupants. And it certainly doesn't excuse their oppression, suppression and repression of the Palestinian people. I'm a Christian. Our Holy Book includes much of the Jewish Holy Book. I know of God's promises to Israel. But, Israel broke their end of the promise. Israel broke their end of the Covenant. That's how they ended up under the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Persians, and the Romans. And until they make right with God . . .
• And one thing I also know about the Covenant between God and Israel is that they aren't allowed to have any alliances with other nations. So, even though Zionist Christians think they're helping Israel but pressuring the US government to support Israel through groups like AIPAC, they're actually helping Israel continue to break their Covenant with Jehovah.
• And even if such alliances were allowed, God certainly doesn't approve of what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people.

I think what Rev. Jackson is pointing out is that up till now, the US has always been an broker with a conflict of interest. Hopefully, under an Obama administration, the Palestinians will have a more influential voice. Maybe they can get justice. I agree that Rev. Jackson is coming at this from an African-American standpoint. Just because Israel has the power and might to do something, doesn't mean it's right.

Which, interestingly enough helps bring me to the topic of "black racism." Ha! Just the idea of "black racism" makes me laugh. Like we've been calling the shots for the past 100 years or so. It's as ridiculous as the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats fighting Republican attempts to regulate the sub prime loans is what has gotten us in the trouble. Anyone who believes that hasn't taken the time to find out the truth, or is just an outright idiot to believe that Republicans fought for regulation of industry. Republicans fighting for regulation? Are you kidding me?

It's just like the misleading news and advertisements that somehow, ACORN is engaged in voter fraud. I guess, Americans don't take time to think. So, let me help you work this out logically. Let's say a false registration reaches the County Board of Election. The B of E is gonna reject it and the person won't get to vote. Problem solved. What CNN and Lou Dobbs should really be investigating and screaming bloody murder over is the widespread, national, Republican attempts to have people illegally removed from the voter rolls. I mean, in some states, they're actually trying to argue that people who've houses have been foreclosed on shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have no address. But, you can read more of that in some of my previous posts.

So, "black anti-white racism." According to lots of people, including Pat "When will they finally fire him?" Buchanan, it is a real phenomenon. And I think this myth is also something we'll need to work through logically and slowly. Follow me now, and don't be afraid to interrupt and ask questions.

First of all, somehow, the popular connotation of "racism" has morphed from the idea that people of color are inferior to white people, the idea that one group of people are inferior or superior to another group, to the idea that someone hates another person simply because of the color of the skin.

Well. Let's see. Here's one definition from American Psychological Association (APA):

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races
determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that
one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine;
discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The problem is that white Americans ignore the destructive power of the first two and amplify the last one. That way they can deny being racist because they don't hate blacks. Even though our system of government and white Americans' beliefs is underlied by the idea that they are superior.

On the flip side, when blacks express anger and frustration at the racism inherent in our society, when white hear the Dr. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, white Americans here that anger and frustration, equate it to hate, then accuse African Americans of hating whites and therefore being racist.

Which goes to prove what angers blacks so much - that anytime you criticize the country, white Americans take it as a racist attack - that shows that they do, in fact, equate themselves with the system and that the system is indeed biased in their favor.

URG!!!!!!!!

So is their hatred in the black community? "You betcha." Do we teach it to our children? Do we preach it in our churches? Yeah. But it's not hatred of white people. You silly, silly white people. It's the hate of a system built against us. It's the frustration that even when we're twice as good as any white job applicant for example, sometimes we're still not considered equal to a whites. Yes, we hate injustice.

Then there's the fact that whites hate the fact that blacks don't trust them. Oh! their indignation at our questioning their motives behind the attacks and smears and reasons for not voting for Obama. They get so self-righteous when we point out that clearly they're not considering a black person equal to a white person even though said black person is far superior.

You wanna know why all that indignation and red-faced umbraged fall of nonlistening ears? It's because you first of all don't know, or do a good job or pretending not to know, what racism is. You excuse yourself of racism, point of fact, Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett still have jobs. But when we speak out about it, you accuse us of racism when we're just fighting for justice.

And here's the other reason we don't trust you. Well, most of us don't trust most of you, especially white Christians. Why are you ignoring our outcry against the injustice of racism as defined in the first 2 sections? Why do you so easily accept the injustice of white supremacy?

Here I'm Is

Yeah, I don't mean that sentence literally. It's not acceptable in any form of English. It's just something I heard my little cousin say when she was 2-years old.

Again, today. Some stream of consciousness about the world around me.

Let me start by saying that Americans, especially those who lack the melanin content of others, need to get over ourselves. We're not God's gift to the world. Right at this very moment, while we claim to support democracy and are willing to occupy a country that posed no danger to us, we're undermining a democracy in South America. Quite possibly just because Evo Morales and his left-leaning government doesn't dance to our tune.

No, America. We're not the greatest place on earth. We're not the the Disney Land of the world. Get over it!

We claim to be a land of religious tolerance. Not true. Ask the Muslim in your neighborhood. There aren't any? Try your job. Still none? Find someone who looks Arab, promise you're not wired, and ask them their truest thoughts of America.

We claim to be a Christian nation. That's not true, either. Oh, I know how candidates for president have to profess a belief in Christ. I know how we treat the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, etc, etc, so on and so forth. All of which leads me to the conclusion that we got a bunch of people who're crying, "Lord, Lord!" and ain't nowhere near heaven.

We claim to be a racially tolerant nation. Well, I'm black so I know that's a load of crap. In fact, that's what the previously mentioned male friend added to my list of traits I want in a husband. He's anti-assimilation. Which is odd if you knew him. But, that's what I heard him say. And, well, I like that. I'm anti-assimilation, too. Yes, I can speak standard American English with the best of'em. I have my "white" voice. I can "act white" when necessary. But ultimately, I feel as though I'm being deceptive when I do those things. And I am indeed deceiving the audience of my "white" performance into accepting me for the person they would like me to be, and not the person I really am. I do that to get what I want. Studies have shown that the average person responds more positively to whiteness than blackness. So, I get what I want and go on with life.

I mean, take a look at the most liberal site you can find. Huffington Post. Alternet.org. Read the articles, then read the comments.

Which further proves my point that we're not a Christian nation. Over 30% of our citizens, in order to be successful, have to put on a performance. We 30% have to spend at least 8 hours of our day lying about who we really are. Um, yeah, any religious leader who spent more time with the so-called "sinners and tax-collecters" than he did high priests and scribes would not force others to be anything but who they are in order to be successful.

Now, granted, I'm kinda down right now. My football fantasy teams aren't performing as well as I had hoped. You'd think I'd be able to just shake that off, but no.

So, here I'm is with a few of my general complaints about America.

And when I mention our lack of religious tolerance, I'm including dogmatic atheists and agnostics as well. It bothers me that these intellectuals who understandably demand rational proof of God can't separate religious teachings from religious people and their most demonstrably religious actions. I once can across someone who was trying to make the barb that in Christianity, a man dies to receive 10 virgins while at least Islam gives him 72. The guy was referencing a parable, a story Jesus told to help explain how the Kingdom of God works. The fact that he couldn't tell the difference between a parable and actual promises led me to the conclusion that he's not the genius atheist he thinks he is.

Which brings me to another point. We claim to be a sexually tolerant nation. We're not. Whether or not your sexuality and sexual activity is accepted depends on your race, your gender, and the particular group you're in at the moment. We have a healthy margin of people who believe whole-heartedly in sexual purity - at least for females - and who decry the relatively high amount of sexual content on TV. As though they can't turn the channel. Then there're those who think waiting until you're married to have sex is a terrible idea. No, no one's actually explained to me why that is, but whoa! Just find yourself someone who's "sexually liberated" and find out just how uptight they are.

Yes. I'm a virgin. Oh, believe me. It's by choice. If at this moment right now, I decided to have sex, I could change my networking-site status and find at least 10 sexual partners available tonight. And another 10 who'd be willing to fly in or fly me out by tomorrow.

And, as promised, I suppose I should list some general complaints about the world at large.

Okay. Let me first start with America's international affairs. We went to war with the Taliban if Afganistan, illegally invaded Iraq, talking tough about Iran and Russia. Meanwhile, there's a genocide in the Darfur region of the country of Sudan on the continent of Africa and what have we done? At least 5 million people have died in the war(s) in Congo on the same continent and what have we done? . . . Oh, I should be clear. I mean, what have we done to promote peace? Cause the fact that we're selling weapons in these regions does count for doing something, just not something constructive. And before you fault "those people" as though we American are above such destructive actions, interview some Iraqis and also, some women in our military.

And as far as international affairs apart from America, Georgia needs to stop their illegal, genocidal actions in South Ossetia.

Okay. I gotta go now. But I'll be back. And I'm not promising a better mood.

I was very sad, and I felt like I was a slave.

That's probably cause in some ways, you were a slave.

You must read this editorial from the New York Times, " 'The Jungle,' Again." I'm usually only focusing on the racial disparities facing African Americans. But, my aim and goal is equality and justice for all. Including those who "legally" shouldn't be here. And I mean to use "legally" cynically. Yes, I understand a nation has the right and duty to protect its borders. It's just that I also understand that thirst and hunger and poverty know no borders. And when I see undocumented workers from Europe, most especially northern and western Europe, being attacked with the zeal as the undocumented workers from Latin America are attacked, I feel like the issue really is about borders and not skin color.

That said, here're two paragraphs from the must-read editorial:

The conditions at the Agriprocessors plant cry out for the cautious and deliberative application of justice.

In May, the government swoops in and arrests ... the workers, hundreds of them, for having false identity papers. The raid’s catch is so huge that the detainees are bused from little Postville to the National Cattle Congress fairgrounds in Waterloo. The defendants, mostly immigrants from Guatemala, are not charged with the usual administrative violations, but with “aggravated identity theft,” a serious crime.

It's About Time!

First, a quick note concerning my opinion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe needs to hold free and fair elections. Yes, he'd probably lose. In that case, he'd need to allow the democratically elected officials come to power. Yes, he and his supporters in government would probably also lose the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. That's where the IMF and World Bank come in - quit giving lend countries these bogus loans with the economic terms that promote the sort of corruption we've seen arise in the developing countries were you lend money. Considering the years of slavery and colonialism, I can hardly see how any country in Africa doesn't have a budget surplus due to the reparations owed by the West. That aside, if the point is to grow a prosperous and dynamic economy that can support the country, you can't lend the money only to those in power. You have to do macro-lending and allow countries to develop more than one cash-crop.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of African countries and their business relations to the West, if Big Oil would pay Nigeria and the people in the Delta their fair due, and treat the workers with due respect, so-called extremists wouldn't disrupt oil production.

Oh, and a note about Condoleeza Rice: When are you going to turn you humanitarianism on your boss, George "W is for War-Lord" Bush?

U.N. Security Council Says Sexual Violence Akin to War Crimes

By Maggie Farley, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 20, 2008
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council affirmed Thursday that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, and called for measures to combat such attacks.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced the U.S.-sponsored resolution at a special session attended by diplomats from 60 nations.

Rice said the resolution brought an end to a debate about whether sexual violence was a security issue and belonged on the council's agenda. A similar resolution last year failed to pass, with several members disputing the need for it.

"I am proud that today we respond to that lingering question with a resounding yes," she told the Security Council. "This world body now acknowledges that sexual violence in conflict zones is indeed a security concern."

We affirm that sexual violence profoundly affects not only the health and safety of women, but the economic and social stability of their nations."

The resolution established U.N. procedures to monitor sexual violence in armed conflicts and called for the secretary-general to report in one year on their implementation. It also urges the U.N. to impose sanctions on violators.

Advocacy groups pushed the issue back onto the council agenda after China, Russia and South Africa said last year that sexual violence was an unfortunate byproduct of war and one that was addressed by a number of U.N. agencies, but was not a matter of international peace and security.

The resolution also urged the secretary-general to clamp down on peacekeepers who prey on vulnerable women and children instead of protecting them.

Despite an attempt by the U.N. to revamp the regulations and culture among peacekeepers and staffers after incidents of sexual exploitation over the last few years in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, reports of further abuses surfaced last year in several countries.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the council that he was committed to "zero tolerance" and "zero impunity" for sexual abuse by U.N. personnel and urged countries that provide troops to follow through with prosecution because the U.N. has no authority to try the perpetrators.

He pledged to strengthen the world body's code of conduct and hold supervisors accountable for assaults committed by soldiers and staffers.

The presence of high-level female officials at Thursday's meeting was deliberate. Rice chaired the gathering. France's secretary of state for human rights, Rama Yade, called for the prosecution of sexual violence at the International Criminal Court. British Atty. Gen. Patricia Scotland denounced recent attacks on women in Zimbabwe, especially the killing Wednesday of the mayor's wife in the capital, Harare.

The wives of the U.S. and British ambassadors to the United Nations also have worked to raise awareness that rape is a deliberate war tactic meant to intimidate and destroy communities, as seen in the former Yugoslav federation, Sudan's Darfur region and Congo.

After adopting the resolution, the council held an informal session to condemn increasing violence in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the June 27 presidential runoff election.

Next week, the Security Council will have its first formal meeting on the violence there and will be briefed by U.N. envoy Haile Menkerios, who was in Zimbabwe on Thursday.

South Africa, China and Russia have blocked official discussion so far, saying it would be interfering in a nation's internal affairs.

Rice cited concern among council members that "free and fair elections cannot possibly be held" in Zimbabwe because of the increasing intimidation of and violence against the opposition by the government of President Robert Mugabe, who is seeking reelection.

"I think that the mood in the room was one of extraordinary concern and a desire for President Mugabe to hear that there is tremendous international concern about what is happening in his country," the secretary of State told reporters after the meeting.

"I don't see anything that President Mugabe has done that has been helpful to Zimbabwean people, so maybe it's time for international pressure."