1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was also illegal. Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.
3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq. Saddam used the sanctions as an excuse to punish the Shia majority for their 1991 uprising, and help prevent a new one. The "Oil For Food" program was corrupted with the help of bribed UN officials, and mass media outlets that believed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and bribing France, Russia and China, with promises of oil contracts and debt repayments, to convince the UN to lift the sanctions.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD. Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq does not look like an Iranian victory.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe. The Moslem unrest in Europe was there before 2001, and 2003. Interviews of Islamic radicals in Europe reveals that the hatred is not motivated by Iraq, but by daily encounters with hostile natives. Blaming Islamic terrorism on Iraq is another attempt to avoid dealing with a homegrown problem.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi "work." If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia - Somalia's president agreed Tuesday to a national reconciliation conference to try to end 16 years of anarchy, under pressure from African governments considering sending peacekeepers to help him stabilize his country.
The autobiography is called Infidel, which is a term that some Muslims have called the former-Muslim-turned-atheist. The Somali-Dutch, moderate-conservative feminist and former parliamentarian who now lives in D.C. and works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, follows The Caged Virgin, which focused on Islamic sexism. Publishers Weekly states: "In this suspenseful account of her life and her internal struggle with her Muslim faith, she discusses how these views were shaped by her experiences amid the political chaos of Somalia and other African nations, where she was subjected to genital mutilation and later forced into an unwanted marriage. While in transit to her husband in Canada, she decided to seek asylum in the Netherlands, where she marveled at the polite policemen and government bureaucrats. Ali is up-front about having lied about her background in order to obtain her citizenship, which led to further controversy in early 2006, when an immigration official sought to deport her and triggered the collapse of the Dutch coalition government. Apart from feelings of guilt over van Gogh's death, her voice is forceful and unbowed—like Irshad Manji, she delivers a powerful feminist critique of Islam informed by a genuine understanding of the religion."
Excerpts from: Uncommon Knowledge host Peter Robinson looks at anti-Americanism in the Islamic world with guests Robert Higgs, Dinesh D'Souza, and author Gore Vidal
We I went to go see the much talked about "Dream Girls" we all remember when Jennifer Hudson got voted off American Idol,well she is back in the '80s Broadway musical Dreamgirls."This girl has a future she has a great voice here are some highlights from the Movie she is just amazing!
The strong bipartisan support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from the current $5.15—a 40% increase—is a sad example of how interest-group politics and the public’s ignorance of economics can combine to give us laws that manage to be both inefficient and inegalitarian.
An increase in the minimum wage raises the costs of fast foods and other goods produced with large inputs of unskilled labor. Producers adjust both by substituting capital inputs and/or high-skilled labor for minimum-wage workers and, because the substitutes are more costly (otherwise the substitutions would have been made already), by raising prices. The higher prices reduce the producers’ output and thus their demand for labor. The adjustments to the hike in the minimum wage are inefficient because they are motivated not by a higher real cost of low-skilled labor but by a government-mandated increase in the price of that labor. That increase has the same misallocative effect as monopoly pricing.
Although some workers benefit—those who were paid the old minimum wage but are worth the new, higher one to the employers—others are pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime. The losers are therefore likely to lose more than the gainers gain; they are also likely to be poorer people. And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods. And many, maybe most, of the gainers from a higher minimum wage are not poor. Most minimum-wage workers are part time, and for the majority their minimum-wage income supplements an income derived from other sources. Examples are retirees living on Social Security or private pensions who want to get out of the house part of the day and earn pin money, stay-at-home spouses who want to supplement their spouse’s earnings, and teenagers working after school. An increase in the minimum wage will thus provide a windfall to many workers who are not poor. . . .
Let’s hope that if Congress passes a stiff increase in the federal minimum wage, George Bush will emulate Mayor Richard Daley and veto it. Several months ago the Chicago City Council, by a lopsided but not veto-proof vote, passed an ordinance requiring companies that have more than $1 billion in annual sales, and own stores in Chicago having at least 90,000 square feet of floor space, to pay Chicago employees a minimum wage of $9.25 an hour plus $1.50 an hour in fringe benefits, respectively rising to $10 and $3 by 2010. About 40 stores would have been affected.
The ordinance was surpassingly foolish. The retailers that would have been most affected, such as Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot, are at best only marginally interested in placing stores in large cities because space for large stores and for the parking they require is much more expensive than in suburbs and smaller towns. Moreover, these companies could offset much of the effect of the ordinance by opening more stores in suburbs within easy reach of Chicago, or by holding their floor space to just below 90,000 square feet. Fewer jobs would be available to low-skilled workers in the city, and families with modest incomes who seek low prices rather than elaborate service would be hurt more than the affluent by the increase in prices and reduced availability of big box outlets.
Who would favor such a bad ordinance? Conventional supermarket chains and clothing stores, of course, and unions—the latter not only for the usual reasons but also because big box companies oppose unions; the ordinance sent a signal that unions have enough political clout to make life difficult for large nonunion retailers. The absence of opposition to the ordinance from low-income consumers is not surprising because they are not organized to exert political pressure. The aggressive support of the ordinance by most of the council’s black members is more difficult to understand, but the explanation may be that they are allied with unions. They may have realized that their constituents would be harmed by the ordinance, but believed that in return for taking this hit they would get the support of unions for measures that would help low-income families.
There have been 158 homicides in Philadelphia this year. Of them, the days with the largest numbers of homicides have been Friday and Tuesday. The rest of the days are about even. According to a professor at Haverford College, there is some significance to these figures.
Decades ago, killings tended to happen on the weekend, after paydays, when people had the time and money to get drunk and/or focus on personal or domestic disputes. No more.
"To people who aren't legitimately employed, one night of the week isn't much different from another," Lane said. "I think what we're seeing in Philadelphia reflects the high level of poverty and unemployment among younger, black males who, in large part, are both the perpetrators and the victims of these crimes." In the Bible it says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." In this case, the lack of vision is probably two-fold. THere is the inability to see the future, but I also think a lot of the people involved in these situations don't have an accurate perception of the present, either.
"The besnijdenis of little girls must be prohibited. Also they must be examined to see if prohibition [against female genital mutilation] is also observed. Schoolgirls can no longer veiled to school. Arranging marriages must become illegal, subsidies to religious schools to have to be stopped and immigrants must learn the language go and to the work. Nyamko Sabuni (37), minister for integration and gender equality in Stockhom, is not for nothing called the Swedish Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is controversial.
"She is the most incompetent minister for integration ever because she lacks both empathy and experience"" says Kurdo Baksi, a Turkish scientist and columnist in Sweden. Baksi has been disappointed that Sweden has a minister "who adopts negative positions concerning Islam. Sabuni was appointed in October by center-right Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. Sabuni was born in Burundi, and at age 12 came to to Sweden. In 1980, her father got asylum in Sweden after he had been condemned in then Zaïre (current Congo-Kinshasa) because he was in opposition to Mobuto Sese Seko."The piece continues: "For Nyamko Sabuni, whose career is rapidly on the rise, she rejects the harsh Baksi's harsh judgments: "My aim is that immigrants incorporate. And that their children grow up such like other children in Sweden.
" Thus she argues that immigrants must learn to speak fluent Swedish - just like she had to learn starting at age 12 - as she argues that language and work are the most important matters to integration. Sabuni, married and the mother of 5-year-old twins, studied at the University of Uppsala. In 2002, she joined Parliament under the center-right Liberal People's Party [note: in Europe, "liberal" often means something similar to what Americans would call libertarian or classical liberalism]. She says that her appointment is proof "that Sweden has developed into a society of equal chances."....Three years, Sabuni said on television that she would like to become Sweden's first female prime minister. "That is not something that I think of daily, but my eventual aim is the premiership."
Casey Lartigue, a black libertarian blogger, writes: "I was listening to talk show host Joe Madison a few days ago, he was bragging that he had a list of 'chicken hawks' who had not served in the military but supported the war in Iraq. He has been critical of the war in Iraq and has mentioned, on several occasions, that some major supporters themselves did not serve in the military. Madison is a member of the Save Darfur Coalition trying to end genocide and slavery in the Sudan. When it becomes clear that their petition and push for peace talks won't end the bloodshed, the coalition is bound to support U.S. military action in the Sudan....will Madison ask supporters of the Coalition whether they have ever served in the military? * * *I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday, a caller mockingly noted that Limbaugh had not served in the military, yet he supports the war in Iraq. When people say, for example, that we need to have a war on crime, does anyone ever ask: were you ever a police officer?"
Over at BlackProf.com, a liberal blog, Professor Sherrilynn Ifill highlights a noteworthy program: "I was recently trying to list the 10 most encouraging initiatives by black people in 2006 and I thought I’d share one with you. It’s the Baltimore Algebra Project, a group of African American inner-city teens who’ve evolved from tutors to activists in an effort to force change in the failing Baltimore City School system. The Algebra Project, many of you may know, was created by the brilliant soft-spoken civil rights activist and organizer Robert Moses, who left the U.S. to live in Africa, in the 1960s. When Moses returned to the U.S., he became convinced that the abysmal performance of African American students in math and science are a major barrier to full citizenship and empowerment. He created a program designed to help African American students excel in math in science. There are Algebra Projects in several U.S. cities. The Baltimore Algebra Project began as a tutoring program, but the young people in the project – students at many of the city’s struggling schools – have become increasingly more activist over the past 3 years. Finally, frustrated at continuing inequities in the school system, the Project announced the launch of 'Freedom Fall' this past September. They marched on the headquarters of the school board, and in a stroke of courage and brilliance created an alternative school board, called the Freedom Board. (Sound familiar? Remember the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party’s challenge to the 'regular' racially exclusionary Mississippi Democratic Party?) . The students found language in the Maryland constitution they believe authorizes the creation of an alternative board. Although traditional civil rights groups, like the local NAACP chapter, have offered their support to the Algebra Project (marching with the group at their autumn rally), the young people have remained in control of the Project, conceiving of and leading their own initiatives. The Baltimore City Council voted last October to recognize the legitimacy of the Freedom Board."
"Our esteemed leaders have uttered not word one about the rising tide of anti-black racism among Latinos in Los Angeles, but perhaps it’s because they have more important issues on their plates. Let’s see, there’s restoring voting rights to black felons, Hurricane Katrina, keeping racial preferences intact at the University of Michigan, Katrina, perceived racial disparity in the death penalty, Katrina, bashing President Bush, Katrina and perceived racial disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine possession vs. powdered cocaine possession. Oh, did I mention Katrina? When civil rights workers Mickey Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman were killed in Mississippi in 1964, the Revs. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph Abernathy made it a point to visit the county where they were killed. That shows the kind of leaders they were. The absence of 'leaders' like Jackson, Sharpton, Gordon and NAACP board chairman Julian Bond from the march protesting [Cheryl] Greene’s death [at the hands of a Latino gang, who targeted her because she was black] -- as well as their disgusting silence -- shows what kind of leaders they are."
"Allegations of double-standards and racism stem from white-run gay organizations ignoring complaints by the Black gay community regarding Charles Knipp, a 'black face' minstrel known as Shirley Q. Liquor, who perpetuates stereotypes of Black women and mocks Black culture such as Kwanzaa. I happen to agree with Ms. Cannick that there is a serious appearance of double-standards by organizations - including GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) - the lead organization pursuing action against Washington. These same white-run gay organizations have not attacked Knipp - despite the fact concern has been consistently expressed by Black gays and Black gay activists, like Cannick- with the same vigor as they have Washington.....Although some people see the Washington and Knipp controversies as separate issues, the lingering question pertaining to double-standards, apathy and possible racism by white-run gay advocacy organizations is not, in my opinion. While Washington has apologized and is supposed to meet with GLAAD to atone for his misguided slur, meanwhile, Charles Knipp has continuously rationalized his black face Jim Crow-era antics with absolutely no remorse. GLAAD is nowhere to be found....Washington ultimately reaps what he sows, and from my perspective as a Black gay man, he made a bad decision to use the word. Since then, however, he has apologized, and now it is time to move on. He should not lose his job because some bitter, hypocritical gays can't let it go.
My Reply
First Isiah Thomas is an idiot for using that word it is hurtful and he should no better. On the other hand this blogger Terrence makes some great points I also have my own opinions about this issue.
I have often been amazed that gay white institutions receives so much money and grants from the government yet this money never makes it to the thousands of gay black men who are homeless with out a family. This group of who many are making up the largest growing number of new HIV cases. About three years ago I volunteered at a DC outreach called Us Helping Us this group was doing great work but surviving on pennies to keep afloat. I saw so many of the men we were working with on drugs or homeless.
The gay community like many communities needs to have a real talk about race.I recall while volunteering seeing Gay publications that were notorious for putting gay black men on the HIV ads but attractive white males on there latest model sections. I often wondered how this could affect the self esteem of young black men who saw these publications. It gave the impression that if you are black you're future is HIV if you are white and gay you re future is Will and Grace. I also believe that is these and other things perpetuate the false image that gay=white in the black community.
The Democrat party is constantly scaring its voter base about the religious right but what it often fails to make know is that Evangelicals represent its largest voting bloc the problem is they just do not know it! The truth is that 84% of African American evangelicals identify themselves as Democrats or lean Democrat. The Democrats would like to admit it but not to long ago in American history there party was the party of Evangelicals.
In truth the Evangelicals are in many ways Democrats they just do'nt know it. It was the evangelical and southern Baptist Sunday school teacher peanut famer Jimmy Carter that beat Ford in the popular vote 50.06% to 48.00%, and in the electoral college 297 to 240. Jimmy Carter won election because of the Southern Baptist vote and this was this was in the late 70's after the so called 'Nixon" southern strategy.
My foucus on this weeks blog post is to bring attention to the religious experince of African Americans inside the Democrat Party and through this lense sehd some light into the evangelical Democrats. According to a combined poll done on African Americans about social issues African Americans are the Democrats Evangelicals base. The polls done in 2004 by Black Entertainment Television and CBS poll show that on every issue the left likes to attack white Evangelicals votes there own party base believes. So when democrats talk about the religious right they are talking in many ways to themselves and in truth are hypocrites for condemning views held in there own party So what did the polling find when it came African Americans an faith.
The poll found that on these issues
Gay marriage: 64% oppose, 26% support, 10%
Abortion:56% oppose abortion in most cases, 20% oppose in all cases
Death penalty:49% oppose, 44% favor, 7% no opinion. For minors: 80% oppose, 16% favor
What would help most to get illegal drugs out of black communities: 35% say law enforcement crackdowns, 28% more drug treatment programs, 25% more anti-drug programs
48%blame child poverty on parents' individual failures
73%believe race relations have somewhat or greatly improved
78%say they prefer to live in racially mixed neighborhoods
44%believe immigration should be decreased
49% say amnesty for illegal immigrants is bad or very bad
48% say immigrants should adopt U.S. culture
Embryonic stem-cell research:44% oppose
Prohibit people under 18 from buying explicit music:59% favor
71% Favor requiring Arabs, including U.S. citizens, to undergo security checks before boarding airplanes
64% favor special identification cards for Arabs
School vouchers:57% support
School prayer: 79% support, 20% oppose, 1% don't know
The relationship between blacks and Jews has deteriorated since the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Although black anti-Semitism was present before that time, it has grown in recent decades. The Nation of Islam, led by Louis Farrakhan, is one source of this anti-Semitism. Various factors contribute to black anti-Semitism, including the fact that Jews are more vulnerable than white gentiles to verbal attacks, making them a preferred target for blacks’ anger.
As the controversy surrounding the role of Louis Farrakhan in the Million Man March underscored once again, the greatest story of unrequited love in American political life may be the relationship between blacks and Jews.
Jews in the civil-rights movement
When the civil-rights revolution broke out in the late 1950’s and early 60’s, the front-line troops in the Montgomery bus boycott and then in the lunch-counter sit-ins were all blacks, but among the whites who soon rallied to the cause, a large share—a disproportionate share—were Jews. The Freedom Riders rode in integrated detachments; among the whites, Murray Friedman notes in his recent book, What Went Wrong": The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance, two-thirds were Jews. A few years later came the “Mississippi Summer,” a project dreamed up and organized by a Jew, Allard Lowenstein; according to Friedman’s estimate, Jews made up from one-third to one-half of the white volunteers who took part. Of the three martyrs of the Mississippi Summer, two, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, were Jews; James Chaney, the local activist who shared their fate, was black.
In another new book, Blacks and Jews, Paul Berman reports that Jews contributed one-half to three-quarters of the financial support received by civil-rights groups in that era. The organizational support they provided was equally pronounced. The Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, the lobbying coalition that helped muscle all modern civil-rights legislation through Congress, was chaired by Clarence Mitchell of the NAACP, but its director was Arnold Aronson, seconded from the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council. This pattern was by no means confined to the upper echelons of the movement; all over the country, Jewish organizations assigned staffers to work on civil rights. In those days, writes Berman, “it was almost as if to be Jewish and liberal were, by definition, to fly a flag for black America.”
The American Jewish community and the Civil Rights movement
Many in the American Jewish community supported the Civil Rights Movement. The Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald funded dozens of primary schools, secondary schools and colleges for black youth. He gave, and led the Jewish community in giving to, some 2,000 schools for black Americans. This list includes Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities. At one time some forty percent of southern blacks were learning at these schools.[citation needed] Fifty percent of the civil rights lawyers who worked in the south were Jewish.[citation needed] Jewish leaders were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. Abraham Joshua Heschel, a writer, rabbi and professor of theology at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America was outspoken on the subject of civil rights and marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in the 1965 March on Selma.
Brandeis University, the only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored college university in the world, created the Transitional Year Program in 1968, in part response to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination. The Transitional Year Program (TYP) at Brandeis was founded in 1968 following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, this event compelled members of the faculty to find a means for renewing the University's commitment to social justice. Recognizing Brandeis as a university with a commitment to academic excellence, these faculty members thought it only right to extend the opportunity to participate in an empowering educational experience to students from communities that offered limited educational options.
It began by only admitting 20 black males to ensue the obvious disenfranchisement of the African American Community in the United States. The progam has developed into The TYP selects students from two broad categories with respect to background that in many cases overlap. The first group is comprised of students whose secondary schooling experiences and/or home communities may have lacked the resources to foster adequate preparation for success at elite colleges like Brandeis. Many times, their high schools do not offer AP or honors courses nor high quality laboratory experiences. Despite the absence of such opportunities, students have excelled in the curricula offered by their schools.
The second group of students contains those whose life circumstances have created formidable challenges that required focus, energy, and skills that otherwise would have been devoted to academic pursuits. Some have served as heads of their households, others have worked full-time while attending high school full-time, and others have shown leadership in other ways. The PBS television show From Swastika to Jim Crow explores Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement. Jewish professors, refugees from the Holocaust came to teach at Southern Black Colleges in the 1930s and '40s. There came to be empathy and collaboration between Blacks and Jews. Professor Ernst Borinski organized dinners at which blacks and whites sat next to each other, a simple act that challenged segregation. Black students empathized with the cruelty these scholars had endured in Europe.
James Baldwin (August 2, 1924 – November 30, 1987) was a novelist, short story writer, playwright, poet, and essayist, best known for his novel Go Tell It on the Mountain. Most of Baldwin's work deals with racial and sexual issues in the mid-20th century United States. His novels are notable for the personal way in which they explore questions of identity as well as for the way in which they mine complex social and psychological pressures related to being black and homosexual, well before the social, cultural or political equality of these groups could be assumed.
Quotes By James Baldwin
I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor
Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law.
He may be a very nice man. But I haven't got the time to figure that out. All I know is, he's got a uniform and a gun and I have to relate to him that way. That's the only way to relate to him because one of us may have to die.
I am what time, circumstance, history, have made of me, certainly, but I am also, much more than that. So are we all.
Youtube Video of "Jay Z Slapping a Woman In South Africa"
~Jigga what? How would he feel if his mother/sister/or his precious Beyonce were treated in this fashion? A room full of "men" and nobody does anything!? This is surel y going to taint his image. They said that he tried to pay the lady off quickly so that it didn't get out...Guess they were too late...Maybe he had a good reason... I dont think so!
Sharon Stone Joins Songwriter Denise Rich, Producers/Songwriters Mark Feist & Damon Sharpe to Announce the Release and Preview of Charity Song and Video about Hurricane Katrina
'Come Together Now' is an all-star collaboration with internationally acclaimed artists to benefit Hurricane Disaster Relief. Celebrities participating in the collaboration include: Celine Dion, Natalie Cole, Nick Carter, Joss Stone, Jesse McCartney, Patti LaBelle, Wyclef Jean, Chingy, Gavin DeGraw, Anthony Hamilton, The Game, JoJo, John Legend, Kimberley Locke, Brian McKnight, AJ McLean, Mya, Aaron Carter, Stacie Orrico, Kelly Price, Lee Ryan, Angie Stone, Garu, Glenn Lewis, Tren'l, R.L. Huggar, and Ruben Studdard
Sadly Coming Together was not what the black left in American choose to do instead they choose to gear up for an elction cylce and blame Bush on the Hurricane.
Even though President Bush signed a $10.5 billion relief package within four days of the hurricane,and National Guard troops arriving with relief of food, water, and medicine, as well as to partake in security and rescue operations within 1-2 days of the hurricane, the left concern complained that the relief efforts were slow because most of the areas were poor.
What they often fail to mention is that a sitting president does not assume control over state National Guard unless a specific request originates from a governor. No such request originated from Blanco's office in the aftermath of Katrina. In fact, shortly before midnight on Friday, September 2, the Bush administration sent governor Blanco a request to take over command of law enforcement and the state National Guard, but this request was rejected by Blanco. Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi also rejected a similar request.
Blanco later acknowledged that she should have called for more troops sooner, and she should have activated a compact with other states that would have allowed her to bypass the requirement to route the request through Washington. The facts of that week still stand and that is local and state governments, not the Federal goverment have primary responsibility for local disasters.
An ABC News Poll conducted on September 2, 2005, showed slightly more blame is being directed at state and local governments (75 percent) than at the Federal government (67 percent), with 44 percent blaming President Bush's leadership directly.
A later CNN/USATODAY/GALLUP poll showed that respondents disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane — 13 percent said Bush, 18% said federal agencies, 25% blamed state or local officials and 38% said no one was to blame.
-Last month in Georgia, Genarlow Wilson stood trial on sexual assault charges stemming from a party in 2004 at which a group of teens got drunk and videotaped themselves having sex. The jury took less than an hour to acquit Wilson of a rape charge (as unsavory as the whole scenario was, the video showed there was no force involved) but was required under the law to convict him of aggravated child molestation for receiving consensual oral sex from an apparently sober 15-year-old (Wilson was 17 at the time).
It was only after the verdict was read that the jury learned the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of 10 years, followed by lifetime registration as a sex offender. As a result, Wilson, an honor student who'd had a clean record and several offers to play college football, sits in prison.
By Wright Thompson
It rests on the floor of his empty closet, near the deflated football and basketball. It's filled with things he needed in his old life. Mostly, it's overflowing with recruiting letters, from schools big and small. A "Good luck on the SAT" postcard from the coaches at Columbia. From another Ivy League college, Brown, a note from the football coach: "You have been recommended to me as one of the top scholar-athletes in your area."
There's a questionnaire from the Citadel. A brochure from Elon. An envelope from Sewanee. College after college, all wanting the undersized but overachieving Genarlow Wilson to consider their football programs. One open letter, dated three months before everything in this box became a reminder of a life derailed, invites him to take a campus visit. It begins:
Dear Genarlow,
Here you stand, on the threshold of four of the most influential, challenging, and rewarding years of your life.
Being Inmate No. 1187055 Genarlow Wilson is standing on a threshold all right, at the end of the last hall of Burruss Correctional Training Center, an hour and a half south of Atlanta. He's just a few feet from the mechanical door that closes with a goosebump-raising whurr and clang. Three and a half years after he received that letter, he's wearing a blue jacket with big, white block letters. They read: STATE PRISONER.
He's 20 now. Just two years into a 10-year sentence without possibility of parole, he peers through the thick glass and bars, trying to catch a glimpse of freedom. Outside, guard towers and rolls of coiled barbed wire remind him of who he is.
Once, he was the homecoming king at Douglas County High. Now he's Georgia inmate No. 1187055, convicted of aggravated child molestation.
When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works. The case has drawn national condemnation, from the "Free Genarlow Wilson Now" editorial in The New York Times to a feature on Mark Cuban's HDNet.
"It's disgusting," Cuban wrote to ESPN in an e-mail. "I can not see any way, shape or form that the interests of the state of Georgia are served by throwing away Genarlow's youth and opportunity to become a vibrant contributor to the state. All his situation does is reinforce some unfortunate stereotypes that the state is backward and misgoverned. No one with a conscience can look at this case and conclude that justice has been served."
Wilson's mother, Juanessa Bennett, certainly doesn't understand. She has just bought a new house the next county over, hoping that a change of scenery might do her good. The past few years have been hard on her.
"You think, what in the world could I have done to God to make him punish me like this?" she says. "Am I that terrible a person?"
Her home feels empty without her son in it. He's not there to enjoy the five burgers for five bucks on Tuesday at the Sonic Drive-In, or chatting away on his telephone late at night. Now, she can only think about the past three years of their lives, and how everything is so different from before.
She points to a picture above her fireplace. There's a grinning 3-year-old boy in the frame, posing with big alphabet blocks.
"He was cute, huh?" she says, quietly.
She looks at the picture, but doesn't cry. There aren't many tears left. After it first happened, she says she cried so much she got an eye infection. Bumps broke out on her face, brought on by worry and grief.
"You need to stop stressing," the doctor told her.
She asked him how exactly she might do that.
"He didn't have an answer," Bennett says.
Now, she's numb. Now, she can only remember the boy he was and pray that when his ordeal is finally over, some of that boy will remain.
The image of a bright future dimming with each passing day is what infuriates so many people. Wilson should be held up as an example of a kid who was making it. His life should be protected by society, not destroyed. He was a good student, with a 3.2 grade point average. He was popular, the school's homecoming king, liked by students and teachers. He never got into any trouble with the law. He was a track and football star. His last two years, he was the defensive back assigned to cover Calvin Johnson, the former Sandy Creek High star who went on to Georgia Tech and is now projected as a top pick in the NFL draft. Wilson studied film, trying to figure out how to outsmart a better and taller athlete. He did well, coaches remember, limiting Johnson to four catches in two games.
Three years later, sitting in their office overlooking the field, finishing up another workday, Wilson's old coaches also remember a good but not great high school player who would have played college ball. They remember his last game, in the playoffs, way down in south Georgia. He got hit so hard on a kickoff return that he ended up spitting up blood on the sideline. The trainer shined a flashlight in his eye, figuring he had a concussion. Wilson grabbed his helmet, determined to go back in the game. He went to the hospital instead.
He admits he wasn't perfect. Far from it. He drank. He smoked pot. He'd been sexually active since he was 13. And a month or so after that final playoff game, he and some buddies were plotting a New Year's Eve bash. His mama heard them whispering in his bedroom that afternoon. She knew kids whispering usually meant trouble, so she went in and looked those boys up and down.
"Don't do anything stupid," she warned.
Something Stupid Genarlow Wilson and his friends checked into the Days Inn right off Interstate 20. At some point in the night, according to court documents and evidence presented at trial, some girls came over to party with them. Bourbon and marijuana were consumed. One of the young men turned on a video camera.
Later in the evening, a 17-year-old girl began to have sex with the young men, first in the bathroom, then on the bed. Genarlow is captured on tape appearing to have sex with the girl from behind. Her hand is clearly visible on the floor supporting herself. Witnesses said she was a willing participant.
The next morning, the girl awoke in a stupor, wearing nothing but her socks. She called her mother and said she had been raped. Police came to the room after sunrise and took the revelers in for questioning. Genarlow had already gone home -- he didn't want to miss curfew -- but the video camera remained.
On tape, the cops saw a 15-year-old girl, a 10th-grader, performing oral sex on a partygoer and, after finishing with him, turning and performing the act on Genarlow. She was the instigator, according to her mother's testimony. Problem was, the girl was a year under the age of consent. Local prosecutors called the act aggravated child molestation, following the letter and not the spirit of the law, which was designed to prosecute pedophiles.
A week later, on the first day of the second semester of his senior year, the police went to the school and arrested the boys. Wilson was charged with four felonies and taken from the building in handcuffs. Not long before, he'd been in the newspaper for being all-conference in football. Now, he was on the front page, branded a rapist and child molester.
"It was like I had everything one day," he says, "and the next day I didn't have anything."
For the next eight months, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, who likes to wear an American flag on his lapel and play to his law-and-order-loving base, dangled plea bargains. The other boys didn't want to risk a jury, and one by one each took an offer and went to prison, including the other football player arrested, Narada Williams, who accepted five years with the possibility of parole.
In Douglas County, according to law professors following the case, admitting sins and begging forgiveness -- not insisting on your innocence -- is the road to mercy. Williams is already out of jail, in part because McDade wrote a letter to the parole board, praising Williams for being the first to plead guilty and "take his medicine." As for Wilson, McDade called him a "martyr" in the media.
Wilson refused to admit to being a child molester. If he pled to or was convicted of any charge that put him on the sex offender registry, he couldn't live at home with his younger sister. He wouldn't accept that, so he waited for his trial.
The Saturday before it began, his last weekend as a free man, Wilson tried out for a local semi-pro football team. He wanted to be that other person once more, the one who could outrun all of life's problems. For two glorious hours, he sprinted and jumped and dived. When it was over, the coaches were impressed. They traded cell phone numbers, just another opportunity that would soon pass him by.
Two days later, in February 2005, Genarlow Wilson walked into a courtroom. Two charges already had been dropped, and it was clear from the first witness that the rape charge wouldn't stick either. The aggravated child molestation, though, was on tape. Genarlow tried to defend himself against the assigned prosecutor, Eddie Barker.
"Sir," Wilson told him, "you don't even know me. I understand you're just doing your job, sure, but I mean, how would you feel if you were my age and you were put on the stand with these serious charges at this young age? I have a little sister. Why would I molest anyone, sir?"
"I'm not on trial here, Mr. Wilson," Barker said. "You're the one who did these acts, not me."
The day before the trial was expected to end, in the last night he'd ever spend at his home, Wilson went to a church down the street and asked the preacher to pray with him. He awoke early the next morning. He knotted his tie carefully and went to the courthouse. The trial finished that afternoon, and the jury came back with "not guilty" on the rape but "guilty" on the aggravated child molestation.
He looked at the forewoman. She was crying, seeming to understand they'd just undone a promising future. Indeed, when the jurors found out there was a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, several were incensed. The prosecution told them to write a letter, then moved on to the next case.
Genarlow Wilson put his head in his hands and wept.
Deputies yanked him from his seat. Not long after, Prisoner 1187055 found himself in the predawn darkness, riding in a bus, surrounded not by his teammates but by murderers, thieves and rapists. Some were headed to the penitentiary for the second or third time.
A scared kid looked out the window as the bus chewed up pavement. He didn't know what it was going to be like, only that he didn't want to go.
Doing Hard Time Wilson moves to the rhythm of the prison now, up early with the shift change, tidying his cell, sitting down to rest before chow, wearing white pants with a blue stripe. It has been 23 months.
These walls and bars haven't taken his youth, though. Not yet. When he smiles, it's the same one from that old photo on his mom's mantel. Bennett wonders how her son has managed to keep that light in such a dark place and how much longer he can hold out.
With nothing but time, he has taken stock of his old life. He doesn't like the person he was back then, the cocky star athlete with the world as his yo-yo. When he thinks about the kid on that videotape, with a Pittsburgh Pirates hat cocked just so, he cringes.
"It's embarrassing to me," he says. "You see yourself. ... 'Man, I acted like that?' "
He has followed his appeals from behind bars. He watched as the state legislature changed the law that put him there, then declined to make it retroactive, for reasons that still boggle the mind. That was a dark day.
He watched as B.J. Bernstein, his new attorney, filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking the Georgia Supreme Court to review the case. The petition was denied, then set aside, then denied again, then appealed, then denied again. Those were darker days.
The first time the Supreme Court voted on Genarlow's case, it was 4-3. The four judges who voted against the black teen were white. The three judges who voted for him were black.
"I don't understand the Supreme Court," Bennett says. "Do these people not have hearts? Can they not look and see this isn't right?"
In its written decision, the Supreme Court called Wilson a "promising young man," a paragraph that he has read a thousand times. All the e-mails Bernstein gets in support of him, he has those, too. He reads them over and over, reminding himself that he once had a future and, one day, might have it again. It's not easy.
Other people's lives have moved on.
He has corresponded with Williams, his co-defendant and old high school teammate. Williams is enrolled in college now.
Wilson sat in prison and watched Calvin Johnson, the guy he once covered, become the best college receiver in the country and a soon-to-be millionaire.
"That has made my ambitions higher," Wilson says. "That makes me want to succeed even more because I don't want to be left behind."
The Halls of Power In Atlanta, Bernstein makes her rounds at the state capitol. It's the first day of the legislative session and men in power ties click their wingtips over marble floors, lobbyists back-slapping each other in their little groups.
"He's sitting in jail," she says. "He's in jail every day they're sitting around chatting."
When Bernstein met Wilson, who had a different attorney for the trial, she saw that light in his eyes and didn't want prison to extinguish it. Truth is, she's a rescuer. One of her cats she found on the interstate. She stopped her car in the rain on a six-lane highway to save it. In her heart, she wants to save the world, starting with Genarlow Wilson. That means working pro bono, even as every small check the firm earns goes straight into the operating account. That means figuring out this strange power-brokers' dance.
It's frustrating work. No one involved believes Wilson should be in jail for 10 years.
The prosecutors don't.
The Supreme Court doesn't.
The legislature doesn't.
The 15-year-old "victim" doesn't.
The forewoman of the jury doesn't.
Privately, even prison officials don't.
Yet no one will do anything to free him, passing responsibility around like a hot potato. The prosecutors say they were just doing their job. The Supreme Court says it couldn't free him because the state legislature decreed the new law didn't apply to old cases, even though this case was the entire reason the new law was passed. One possible explanation is that Bernstein, an admitted neophyte at backroom dealing, simply didn't know enough politics to insist on the provision. That haunts her.
The legislature still could pass a new law that would secure Wilson's freedom, so Bernstein is pushing hard for that. One such bipartisan bill was introduced this week, pushed by state Sens. Emanuel Jones, Dan Weber and Kasim Reed. This is Wilson's best shot.
"I understand the injustice in the justice system," Jones says, "and when I heard about Genarlow and started studying what had happened, I said, 'This is a wrong that must be righted.' Everyone agrees that justice is not being served."
Afterward, Bernstein can file a writ of habeas corpus, which could get him out of jail, but those are legal Hail Marys. She's a true believer, but if the legislature denies this latest attempt, she knows she might not be able to save Genarlow Wilson. Until it's over, nothing's off the table. Not even simple positive thinking. Sitting at a midtown-Atlanta Chinese restaurant on a lunch break from all the political wrangling, she picked up her fortune cookie, smiled thinly and said, "Gimme a good one: Genarlow will be free."
She's still working every angle, from the capital to cookies, riding up an elevator to the 53rd floor of an Atlanta high-rise to see David Balser, the attorney who got Marcus Dixon out of jail. The Dixon case was similar: As an 18-year-old, he had sex with a 15-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years before the conviction was overturned.
Sitting in a conference room overlooking Stone Mountain, Balser listens. The light shines off his gold cufflinks, the high-thread-count shirt hanging perfectly off his shoulders. He's got a little salt in his pepper and a Virgin Islands tan. They talk media strategy. They talk last-ditch plans, including a constitutional amendment returning pardon power to the governor. When they're done, Balser walks Bernstein to the elevator.
"I think less is more, B.J.," he says. "You've got to get him out and solve the world's problems after that. Just get him out."
"I'm trying," she says.
"I have faith in you," he says.
Letter of the Law Every story needs a villain, and in this one, the villain's hat has been placed squarely on the head of Barker, the prosecutor and a former college baseball player. Barker doesn't write the laws in the books to the left of his desk. He simply punishes those who break them.
"We didn't want him to get the 10 years," he says. "We understand there's an element out there scratching their heads, saying, 'How does a kid get 10 years under these facts?' "
In Barker's eyes, Wilson should have taken the same plea agreement as the others. Maintaining innocence in the face of the crushing wheels of justice is the ultimate act of vanity, he believes.
"I understand what he's saying," Barker says. "I think he's making a bad decision in the long run. Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two? Is it worth sitting in prison for eight more years, and you're still gonna be a sex offender when you get out?"
Barker is quick to point out that he offered Wilson a plea after he'd been found guilty -- the first time he has ever done that. Of course, the plea was the same five years he'd offered before the trial -- not taking into account the rape acquittal. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate. None of the other defendants insisted on a jury trial. Wilson did. He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, "took their medicine."
While Bernstein works on every possible legal solution, the Douglas County District Attorney's Office has the power to get Wilson out of prison. If the prosecution wanted, this could all end tomorrow. The D.A.'s office says Bernstein hasn't asked. Bernstein says she has. Not that any legal he said/she said matters. Only the prosecutors' opinion does, and according to at least one legal expert, prosecutorial ego is more of a factor in this case than race. The folks in Douglas County are playing god with Genarlow Wilson's life.
"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."
The position of Barker and the district attorney, McDade, who refused to comment, is that Wilson is guilty under the law and there is no room for mercy, though the facts seem to say they simply chose not to give it to Wilson. At the same time this trial was under way, a local high school teacher, a white female, was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a student -- a true case of child molestation. The teacher received 90 days. Wilson received 3,650 days.
Now, if Wilson wants a shot at getting out, he must throw himself at the prosecutors' feet and ask for mercy, which he might or might not receive. Joseph Heller would love this. If Wilson would only admit to being a child molester, he could stop receiving the punishment of one. Maybe.
"Well," Barker says, "the one person who can change things at this point is Genarlow. The ball's in his court."
Hanging On To Hope Back at Burruss, Genarlow Wilson is standing against the wall, looking out through the glass of the control room, peering between the bars, watching his attorney and another visitor leave. He has had plenty of people who want to talk to him, including a group of concerned legislators who plan on visiting this week, which finally feels like a real step toward freedom. Problem is, they always go home after an hour or two. He stays behind.
The worst is when his mom comes. She visited on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, bringing him news of the outside world and a smile. She told him about the new house she bought, just over the Cobb County line, finally out of Douglas. She doesn't want him moving back there when he's released. Saying goodbye, though, kills him. He watches her go and is taken back to his cell, where he can just imagine her in her car, imagining him in this prison.
Hope is all he has left. He believes in a system that has failed him. He believes in those powerful men in Atlanta. He believes in the kindness of others, and in the skills of Bernstein. He lets her work, spending most of his days in the prison library, reading all the books he can. Sometimes, he pretends he's a character, living in a fantasy world, not in a cellblock.
When the weather's nice, he can run laps around the yard, as if he's still on a football field, chasing down future first-round picks. The burn in his lungs feels like a time long past. It feels like freedom.
He looks through the windows just a moment more, sadness in his eyes, then turns around. Wilson stares down the hall of his prison, waiting on a day when he can go home.
"I've got a real good feeling about what's going on," he says. "I feel like 2007 is it. This is my year."
His mom has the house ready for him because any day now, her baby's coming back. She just knows it. Over past the dryer, that's his new bedroom. She picked it because it's close to the garage, so he could come and go as he pleases. She thought he deserved that.
Everything's set, in case it's tomorrow. She left the rapper posters rolled up, figuring a man would be coming home. She set out his football trophies and his high school diploma, to remind him what he used to be. She hooked up a television and a stereo. An alarm clock is on the nightstand, so he can get himself up for school. Even the bed is made.
The only thing missing is her son.
Wright Thompson is a senior writer for ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine. He can be reached at wrightespn@gmail.com.
Having profaned a street in a suburb of France the pro-Jamal zealots have now decided to repeat their "success" here in the United States by having a street in New York City, named after the convicted cop-killer. Pursuant to this goal, the Mumia devotees have started a petition and have even gone so far as to raise money for T.V. commercial spots as a means of bringing attention to their cause.
To name a street after a confirmed killer, cult apologist, and virulent anti-American fanatic like Jamal would be a vile testament to the power of propaganda and an ugly reminder that ignorance has again triumphed over common sense and human decency. In order to counter the Jamal supporters efforts a petition has been launched that I encourage everyone to sign and circulate amongst your family and friends.
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers
Steve Watson
You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction onfree speech in Communist China. But it isn't. The U.S. Governmentwants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to registerand regularly report their activities to Congress in the latestastounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.
Each election cycle for the last 20 years, Republicans have been hoping to increase their tiny share of the black vote. The November midterm was no exception. But despite having three solid black candidates in Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, and Lynn Swann, the GOP’s nationwide share of the black vote failed to register any notable improvement. An article in the Washington Post a few days after the election suggested that one of the reasons Republicans didn’t post any gains is that blacks voted their self-interests. But there isn’t always a linear or readily identifiable correlation between votes and the perceived self-interests of voters.
In his 2004 book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?,Thomas Frank explores the phenomenon of working class Kansans who regularly vote against their apparent economic self-interests by voting for Republicans, whose policies ostensibly favor the wealthy and privileged. The underlying assumption is that the policies supported by Democrats better advance the economic interests of the poor and working class. Therefore, absent other (viz., cultural) factors affecting the electoral judgment of these voters they should, by all logic, vote for Democrats.
Presumably, Frank would find the voting habits of blacks more logical. A large percentage of blacks are poor or working class and blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. If the Democrats’ policies are, in fact, better for blacks than those of the Republicans then blacks clearly are voting their self-interests. And emphatically so.
Blacks have been the Democrats’ most reliable voting block for nearly 50 years. In the November midterm, 89 percent of black voters cast ballots for Democrats. This is typical. In 2000 Al Gore received 92 percent of the black vote. In 2004 John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote.
These percentages aren’t just impressive; for Democrats they’re imperative. Since 1980 the percentage of white votes received by the Democrats’ candidate for president usually has hovered around 39 percent or less. Unless they maintain a vice grip on at least 90 percent of the black vote, Democrats’ presidential prospects fade into oblivion.
Both parties know this. If the GOP peeled off just 5–10 percent more of the black vote, Democrats would be in perpetual electoral jeopardy. But it wasn’t until the 2000 presidential election that Republicans began pursuing the black vote vigorously. President Bush received a mere 8 percent of the black vote that year, but after dedicating unprecedented attention to expanding the number of black GOP voters the percentage increased to 12 in 2004. That might not seem like much, but because of increased voter turnout President Bush’s black vote count rose by nearly 100 percent.
The lesson is that the GOP can make a consequential dent in the black Democrat monolith — a lesson not lost on former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose indefatigable efforts to enlarge the gains were blunted by Katrina (and the racial demagoguery that surrounded it) as well as other issues that resulted in general voter disenchantment with Republicans.
Michael Steele ran an outstanding campaign to capture a larger than usual GOP share of the black vote and received the endorsement of a number of black Democrats, including six prominent Prince George’s County council members. But their support generated a controversy that goes to the issue of whether a black vote for Democrats is, perforce, a vote for black self-interests. The Post reported that several black Prince George’s County voters excoriated the black council members for supporting Steele. At one civic meeting a black voter confronted the council’s black vice chairman, stating, “When I vote for someone, I vote the issues. Did you agree with the Republican on the issues?”
The theme of the confrontation was that blacks agree with Democrats, not Republicans, on the issues. The solid support given by blacks to Democrats strongly indicates that’s true. But in providing such support are blacks voting their self-interests? Consider the effect upon blacks of Democrats’ positions on just the following few issues.
Minimum-wage increase The new Democrat-controlled House passed an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15/hr. to $7.25/hr. The late Milton Friedman once stated that “We regard the minimum wage as one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books” (A good argument could be made that the minimum wage vies for this title with the Davis-Bacon Act—supported uniformly by Democrats—mandating that prevailing wages be paid on government construction projects and passed for the express purpose of preventing blacks from competing with whites for public-works jobs). Thomas Sowell has been equally contemptuous of the minimum wage.
Sharp increases in the minimum wage price unskilled workers out of the labor market, a dislocation that falls most heavily on young black males. Such increases impair the ability of unskilled workers to get the entry-level jobs that are the first rungs on the ladder of upward job mobility. Walter Williams has noted that in 1948, before sizeable increases in the minimum wage, the unemployment rate for black teenagers was 9.4 percent— actually lower than that for white teens. Today, black youth unemployment is at 32 percent—double the rate for white teens. This isn’t to suggest an unalloyed cause-and-effect, but to note that the Democrats’ panacea of a “living wage” isn’t helping its intended beneficiaries as advertised. As someone once said, a wage, minimum or otherwise, presumes a job.
Public education and School Choice Millions of black kids are trapped in medieval public schools that are insulated from competition and consequently have insufficient incentive to deliver a quality education. Yet Democrats resist providing meaningful choice, insisting instead on that infallible remedy, “full funding.” They’re encouraged, apparently, by how well this solution has worked in places like Newark, New Jersey, which spends nearly $18,000 per student—the most of any major public school system in the nation—but where only 30 percent of 8th graders can pass the annual proficiency test in math. Or perhaps they’re brightened by the example of the Washington, D.C., public school system, which also has among the highest per-pupil expenditures in the country yet perennially returns among the lowest test scores.
As Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom have noted, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, “the nation’s report card”, less than 25 percent of black 17-year-olds can read as well as the average white 17-year-old. Nearly 90 percent of black 17-year-olds score below the average white 17-year-old in math. More than 90 percent of black 17-year-olds score below the average white 17-year-old in science. The average black high-school graduate has the academic skills of the average white 8th grader.
These figures have proven impervious to increased spending. In fact, in some cases the gap has widened at the same time public-school spending has gone up. But Democrats continue to oppose choice, consigning another generation of black kids to educational purgatory.
Affirmative Action Democrats are the champions of affirmative action. (Ward Connerly would remind that some elite Republicans are complicit also.) Since racial preferences in college admissions most heavily favor blacks, it would appear, at first blush, that black votes for Democrats are self-interested indeed. But evidence continues to accumulate that affirmative action may be one of the greatest scams perpetrated on blacks.
Studies by, for example, the Center for Equal Opportunity show that the racial preferences employed by some college-admissions offices boost a black applicant’s odds of admission over a similarly-situated white comparative by a factor of 200, often much more. This results in what UCLA law professor Richard Sander calls the “mismatch effect” — i.e., black students being admitted at schools in which they’re poorly qualified to compete. Consequently, black students are more likely to perform poorly and flunk out. For example, professor Sander found that 50 percent of black law students settle in the bottom 10 percent of their respective classes. Black law students are two and a half times more likely than whites not to graduate. Blacks are four times more likely to fail the bar exam.
The benefits to blacks of racial preferences in government contracting also have proven illusory. A common pattern in many regions is for just one or two (often politically-favored) black companies to be the dominant beneficiaries of preferential contracting and for white female, Asian Indian or other “disadvantaged” businesses to leapfrog the remainder of the black contractors bidding for the work. At least one analysis shows that black-owned companies that rely on minority-contracting preferences are more likely to go out of business than those that don’t go after such contracts.
Welfare and the war on poverty Were this a shooting war, the Democrats would have redeployed in 1965. As it stands, after 40 years and a couple of trillion dollars, misguided, if well-intended, policies have contributed to a toxic culture of grievance and dependency that, while not confined to a particular race, has been especially damaging to the black underclass.
The list of issue conflicts between the Democrats’ policy positions and the interests of black voters goes on: illegal immigration, abortion, and Social Security reform, to name a few. But don’t expect any noteworthy changes in black-voter allegiance in the short term. A comment made by a black law student after an affirmative-action debate in which I participated illustrates one of the obstacles faced by the GOP. The student candidly acknowledged that affirmative action often harms its purported beneficiaries and that its proponents are, as he put it “condescending and insulting.” Even so, he asked, “How can we (blacks) support Republicans given the Republicans’ history toward blacks in this country?”
I pointed out that it wasn’t the GOP that had opposed Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was it Republicans who opposed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection or the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing voting rights. It wasn’t Republicans who opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-lynching legislation, or that filibustered or otherwise opposed more than a dozen anti-lynching bills during the last century. Republicans didn’t institutionalize Jim Crow or implement school segregation or institute poll taxes or literacy tests to keep blacks from voting. Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, and George Wallace weren’t Republicans. In fact, Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act in higher percentages than did Democrats.
The student and a group of other black law students who had gathered around after the debate looked somewhat surprised. One student confessed that she would’ve bet that “Democrats” should be substituted for “Republicans” in each of the examples I cited. (This isn’t to disparage the student. If you’re wondering how someone can make it to law school without knowing the forgoing facts, see “Public Education and School Choice” above.)
Certainly, the GOP’s record concerning blacks is far from unassailable, but that doesn’t explain a 50-year black allegiance to Democrats. So what does explain it? Well, as Mark Steyn might say “Never underestimate the seductive power of inertia.”
There are several more substantive reasons, obviously. But that’s for another article.
— Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He is also a member of the National Labor Relations Board. These comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of either organization.
Christopher Hitchens nails the fortunate son of the former President with the facts on Iraq on his own show. Debate occured after the London bombings on 7/7
To be Young, Gifted and Black was written 1969 Nina Simone and Weldon Irvine, Jr., but it was inspired by Lorraine Hansberry's play with the same title.
"To be Young, Gifted and Black" was a song I use to play alot while growing up, many people have said the song was racist!In truth the song is not racist but reflected a genuine interest in uplifting through music black young children in the 60's who often felt bad the color of there skin something that white children did not feel. It should be a song for any onw white or black who suffers for being a minority. If I were an Armenian in Turkey I could say to be young gifted and Armenian, or after the Holocaust I coul see these lyrics being sung by poor Jewish chidlren as well. -Richie
To be young, gifted and black, Oh what a lovely precious dream To be young, gifted and black, Open your heart to what I mean
In the whole world you know There are billion boys and girls Who are young, gifted and black, And that's a fact!
Young, gifted and black We must begin to tell our young There's a world waiting for you This is a quest that's just begun
When you feel really low Yeah, there's a great truth you should know When you're young, gifted and black Your soul's intact
Young, gifted and black How I long to know the truth There are times when I look back And I am haunted by my youth
Oh but my joy of today Is that we can all be proud to say To be young, gifted and black Is where it's at
Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background
Insightmag.com Excerpt:
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.
"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."
When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama's press secretary said he would consult with "his boss" and call back. He did not.
Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.
"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."
-To me this is very interesting and reminds me of Senator George Allen. But is this tactic by Hilary's camp a little underhanded?
Lola is black and is from Nottinghamshire Country: UK She is 20 years old from and a proud member of the Conservative Tory Party
A group of hip Republican boys up in the East Hamptons have started a small record company out of East Hampton, CT. There main feature act is an up-and-coming artist named Sacrifice. Sacrifice can be described best as a Conservative hip-hop artist, not a rapper, who is tackling an approach that has never been taken before. There press kit contains information pertaining to Sacrifice's mission, which is to support our troops and nation, while battling the associated media bias.
As you will see from there press kit, Sacrifice is using the "traditional" hip-hop style of MCing and lyricism, to show the world what he truly stands for and believes in. This is not you typical hip-hop, using the current radio play-list definition.
Its great to see some patriot boys turning hip hop into a force for good! Good job you guys!
If you would like to review the entire album, please let him know and he can mail a copy to you. below are videos that he and his crew have made of live shows.
"The Last King Of Scotland" Is The First Film You Want To See Next
Asserts NebraskaStatePaper.com: "How a successful drama could be made of Amin’s reign as a Ugandan dictator, a period that stands with the bloodiest of the modern world’s horrors, might puzzle anyone. It was nonetheless accomplished, mostly via an Academy Award-worthy performance by Forest Whitaker, in The Last King of Scotland.....Director Kevin MacDonald, an accomplished documentarian, brought Amin to life – from ascension to dementia – through an adaptation of the novel by Giles Foden.
Actually, MacDonald brought him to the screen; it was Whitaker who brought him to life in a performance that earned him a Golden Globe as best actor. Released last September, the film has enjoyed international buzz and mostly rave reviews – although criticized for 'turning conventional' at the end. When Whitaker sits there as Amin, doing that full-body laugh that makes him shake like pudding from his oversized waist to his expansive shoulders, he simultaneously captures just a bit of the infamous, insane glint in Amin’s eyes.
It isn’t hard to believe that this was the guy who – during just ten years – tortured and massacred millions of his countrymen. Amin was an accomplished soldier, a big fellow with wide interests (particularly a ridiculous fascination with Scotland, in case you hadn’t guessed) before he became a nightmare that stunned the world with his brutal dictatorship, and descent into madness. Some have criticized MacDonald's approach to the story, insofar as it is an African story, told through the eyes of a white guy - a doctor who is preposterously and arrogantly naive - who becomes Amin's personal physician. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of films - Hollywood, independent or otherwise - aren't worth seeing. This one is."
There is really nothing that can't be accomplished when people work together. Here is a a highly viewed video at You Tube. It is a great feel good story about turning a school around and getting business involved in the lives of kids. I particularly like the tutoring aspect. It is something that anyone can do. I mean if you can read, help someone who can't.
Well in case you hadn't heard, Barack Obama announced his intention to run for President in 2008. To which I say "Good luck brother". Personally I wouldn't vote for him even if he were a Republican. Bottom line is he lacks experience. But he is claiming that as an asset instead of a shortcoming.
"Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way," Obama said in a video posted on his Web site. "Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first."The MSM seems to be equating Obama with the phrase "A new kind of politics".
Obama himself claims it is something we need and oddly he fails to mention how he plans to pull it off. But he has the charisma and right now he has a following. It will be interesting to see how well he does and how the Republicans plan to counter the Obama machine.
The Los Angeles Times has an article on how Bunche Elementary School in the Compton Unified School District is doing what many thought impossible:
Bunche students have responded with remarkable gains, defying the conventional wisdom that poor and minority students are virtually destined to land on the downside of the achievement gap. And Bunche did this without the help of the state’s two major intervention programs for low-performing schools….
At this school, the primary mover has been first-time Principal Mikara Solomon Davis, who arrived in mid-2000. Some would say she’s done the near impossible.
Bunche has blown past the target score of 800 on the state’s Academic Performance Index. Its 868 compares favorably to the scores at schools in Beverly Hills and San Marino. A school would score 875 if every student scored “proficient” on standardized tests.
Visually, the school sparkles as well, with clean, recently modernized classrooms, well-tended grass and rose bushes.
The campus sits in what looks to be a solidly middle-class minority neighborhood in the city of Carson. But a closer look suggests the classic profile of a school with poor achievement: The student body is about half black and half Latino, most of the students speak limited English, and the entire student body qualifies for free lunches. Some students come from the surrounding neighborhood, but most are bused from Compton.
In 1999, the first year of the state’s current testing and improvement regimen, the school ranked in the lowest 10% of schools statewide.
So starting in 1999, the school was where all Compton schools tend to be, at the lowest 10% of schools statewide. So what changed? The article continues:
With qualified, experienced principals in short supply, the school system hired a smart, hardworking prospect.
Solomon Davis, in her late 20s, had just earned a master’s degree in education at Columbia University, which followed three years of teaching in Compton. There she impressed her own principal as one of the most gifted teachers she’d ever supervised.
Tireless, idealistic, demanding and at the time single, Solomon Davis critiqued daily the individual lessons of her teachers, including the veteran ones to whom she made clear: “It’s not an 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. job. And you’re going to be asked to do a lot of work.”
Only two of 21 teachers remain from before her arrival. About eight departed, she said, because they disliked the new regimen. Another half dozen or so made a strong transition but have since retired. Solomon Davis’ hires tended to match her own profile: young, energetic and relatively inexperienced. There’s been substantial turnover in these ranks as well.
Several, including Solomon Davis, were affiliated with Teach for America, which places virtually untrained recent graduates from top colleges in urban classrooms.
So what does the Bunche example say about the widely accepted notion that it’s experience that matters most in teaching effectively?
Solomon Davis has kept the academic rise going by hiring carefully and by developing, in essence, her own monitoring and training system. Her ongoing accountability measures are the state standards for each grade level, which specify what students are supposed to know. Top grades for students, she said, have to equal mastery of these standards…
There’s a sense that the staff knows it’s playing catch-up. Solomon Davis recounted a recent discussion with the principal of Vista Grande Elementary in Rancho Palos Verdes — where parents assume and demand academic excellence.
“There ‘the machine’ pushes her,” said Solomon Davis. “Here, you have to push it.”
And that means pushing parents, who adjusted to a principal who in her first year issued more than 100 suspensions in a school of 467 students.
“There was such an issue with discipline that you couldn’t teach. Disrespect for teachers and adults was the norm,” said Solomon Davis. When parents confront her over a suspension, “I begin by saying, ‘Our goal is college for your child. We’re not here to punish,’ ” Solomon Davis said.
Charter schools and some remarkable schools like Bunche Elementary School continue to prove what voucher proponents have said all along: even in a bad neighborhood, with low income minority students, a school can do remarkable things. The full article can be found here.
To be honest, I do not know what to think about Oprah's generosity regarding her newly minted Leadership Academy for Girls located in South Africa. There are a myriad of opinions pertaining to her gift-most are positive but none without criticism. For the record, anyone who decides to put their money where their mouth is, as it relates to education should surely be applauded.
And I have been a supporter of Ms. Winfrey (not that she needs my help, but you never know) of late regarding certain factions from the hip hop community (as the above video can attest to) who feel that she doesn't rep the ghetto or refuses to show love for minstrel music-who is she to have a problem with half-naked, gyrating women in videos?.....go figure. My only qualm with Oprah is not her gift but the statement(s) she made regarding her decision to bestow the gift to South African children as opposed to kids in the U.S.
To paraphrase Winfrey, she felt that kids in America valued ipods over education and that not only are South African girls in greater need but they would also be more grateful. No doubt that there is a kernel of truth to Oprah's sentiments but there is the adage of "charity begins at home." And I'm sure that there are some inner city youths that would be appreciative of a similar endowment that Winfrey may not be aware of. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Gates do not seem to have this same problem as they have recently committed their considerable resources to improving education in the States. But on the other side of the equation-if African-Americans did not have such a disconnect from the continent of their origin, perhaps this matter would be moot. Another angle to note, is the fact that this academy ignores little Black boys that are equally in need of educational resources however I do hear that a co-ed school is forthcoming.
All in all, I must commend Oprah for her efforts-let's see if Fitty builds a school....I just won't hold my breath. Check out the links below for more criticism pertaining to Oprah's South African gift and info on Oprah's academy:Freedom Rider: Oprah and Bad Samaritans
Nina Simone doing a very lovely cover of the Beatles' Here Comes the Sun. The piano lends a carefree, uplifting tone to the song, and is probably my favorite version.
Tyler Cowen a Libertarian is posting on how prostitutes may be safer with pimps. But according to the blogger hiphoplibertarianthe data sample he uses for evidence is small though.
Eritrea has deployed some two thousand troops to fight alongside Somalia’s al-Qaeda linked Islamic Courts Union, Pajamas Media has learned.
Thus, Ethiopia and the United States are not the only foreign countries with troops on the ground in Somalia. To prevent Somalia’s transitional government from being crushed in its final stronghold in the south-central Somali city of Baidoa, Ethiopia dispatched thousands of troops as well as aircraft in a major campaign that began on Christmas day.
The Ethiopian campaign has been successful to date, with Ethiopian troops capturing Mogadishu and scattering the ICU’s fighters. Ethiopia’s longtime rival, Eritrea, had troops in the country for about four months prior to that. A confidential UN report drafted by the Monitoring Group on Somalia in late 2006 says that “2000 fully equipped combat troops from Eritrea” arrived to the north of Mogadishu in late August, and redeployed to different areas held by the ICU. According to high-level sources in Somalia’s transitional government and U.S. intelligence, these Eritrean troops never left the country—a development unknown to American policymakers until today.
Eritrea, an African nation found between the Red Sea and Ethiopia, has a history of violence with its larger neighbor. Eritrea fought a bloody campaign for independence from Ethiopia, which had annexed it in the early 1960s, and has since fought a border war with Ethiopia from 1998 until December 2000.
Eritrea supported the ICU as a proxy intended to destabilize Ethiopia, said Dahir Jibreel, the permanent secretary in charge of international cooperation for Somalia’s transitional government.
Pajamas Media spoke with Ismael “Buubba” Hurreh, the minister of foreign affairs and international cooperation for the transitional government of Somlia. He said that Eritrean soldiers have been fighting on the front lines alongside the ICU, and that hundreds of Eritreans have been killed since Ethiopia’s incursion.
This revelation sheds further light on how Eritrea has actively helped the ICU try to topple Somalia’s secular government. While the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia’s report makes clear that Eritrea provided a great deal of assistance to the Islamic Courts prior to the outbreak of the conflict with Ethiopia, this is the first confirmation that Eritrean troops have assumed an active combat role.
A senior U.S. military intelligence officer confirmed that Eritrean troops were killed during the initial fighting in Somalia. He said that the Eritreans were “assisting and facilitating,” essentially in a military advisor role, rather than taking the kind of active role that the Ethiopians have on the side of the transitional government. He declined to specify what kind of assistance the Eritreans have provided.
But Jibreel, who is in constant contact with transitional government leaders who are conducting the military campaign, told Pajamas Media that the Eritreans “were in full combat” alongside the Islamic Courts, including firing on Ethiopian and Somali forces. Jibreel called for sanctions against the Eritrean government, saying, “I think they should be sanctioned because they were helping terrorists.”
With U.S. forces on the ground in Somalia, have American troops killed Eritreans in combat? So far, Pajamas Media’s sources have refused to comment.
The New York Times the paper that likes to tell the world our secret was apparently startled to find out that a Pentagon official exposed a network of top American law firms defending terrorist in court.
The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation's top firms were representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.
The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
"This is prejudicial to the administration of justice," said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. "It's possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.
"We have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests, and he even names the firms, giving a target to corporate America."
- If the truth be told what we have is an American patriot who told the American public the truth, you know the type of investigative reporting that the Times selectively overlooks. If the left wants Americans' to know the facts about this war we should be informed as to who these corporations are. They always want us to know what Haliburton is doing but want us to ignore the legal industrial complex.Is it possible that the left in America only wants to reveal information that it sees as appropropriate; information like telling the terrorist the location of our solders in Iraq.The truth is that you can not have it both ways we must know as an informed public who is helping our enemies and we must blog about it to ad nauseam.
The song derives from a gospel song, possibly a 1903 song by Rev. Charles Tindley of Philadelphia containing the repeated line "I'll overcome some day", but more likely a later gospel song containing the line "Deep in my heart, I do believe / I'll overcome some day."
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1946, striking employees of the American Tobacco Company, mostly African American women, were singing hymns on the picket line. A woman named Lucille Simmons sang a slow "long meter style" version of the song, as "We'll Overcome". Zilphia Horton, a white woman and the wife of the co-founder of the Highlander Folk School (later Highlander Research and Education Center) learned it from her. The next year she taught it to Pete Seeger. [Dunaway, 1990, 222-223], [Seeger, 1993, 32]
Pete Seeger (or someone else, he himself isn't sure and writes that it may have been Highlander's Septima Clark) changed "We will overcome" to "We shall overcome"; Seeger added some verses ("We'll walk hand in hand", "The whole wide world around") and taught it to Californian singer Frank Hamilton, who taught it to Guy Carawan, who re-introduced it to Highlander in 1959. From there, it spread orally and became an anthem of southern African American labor union and civil rights activism. [Dunaway, 1990, 222-223], [Seeger, 1993, 32] Seeger has, on occasion, credited Carawan with authorship.
From 1963 on, the song was associated with Joan Baez, who recorded it and performed it at a number of Civil Rights marches and years later at the 1969 Woodstock festival.
On March 16, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson used the phrase "We shall overcome" in a speech before Congress [1]. Only a few days before, "Bloody Sunday" had occurred on the Selma to Montgomery marches.
Farmworkers in the United States sang the song in Spanish during the strikes and grape boycotts of the late 1960s.
Bruce Springsteen re-interpreted the song, which has been included on Where Have All the Flowers Gone: A Tribute to Pete Seeger, and his 2006 album We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions.
The song later found its way to South Africa in the later years of the anti-apartheid movement. [Dunaway, 1990, 243]
In India, its literal translation in Hindi "Hum Honge Kaamyab / Ek Din" became a patriotic/spiritual song during the 1980s, particularly in schools, and the song's popularity has continued to endure.
In the Bengali-speaking region of India and in Bangladesh there are actually two versions, both of which are incredibly popular among school-children and political activists. "Amra Karbo Joy" (a literal translation) was translated by the Bengali folk singer Hemanga Biswas and re-recorded by Bhupen Hazarika. Another version, translated by Shibdas Bandyopadhyay, "Ek Din Surjyer Bhor" (literally translated as "One Day The Sun Will Rise") was recorded by the Calcutta Youth Choir during the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence and became one of the largest selling Bengali records of all time. It was a particular favourite song of Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and regularly sung at public events after Bangladesh gained independence.
In the Indian State of Kerala, the traditional Communist stronghold, the song became popular in college campuses in late 1970s. It was the struggle song of the Students Federation of India SFI, the largest student organisation in the country. The song translated to the regional language Malayalam as Njangal Vijayikkum...... Oru Nal by N. P. Chandrasekharan, then activist of SFI, in 1980. The translation followed the same tune of the original song. Later it was published in Student, the monthly of SFI in Malayalam, in September 2006. It was in connection with the Diamond Jubilee of the rebirth of the song as a protest song through the lips of Lucille Simmons.
External links
Susanne´s Folksong-Notizen, excerpts from various articles, liner notes, etc. about "We Shall Overcome". Musical Transcription of "We Shall Overcome". Based on recording of SNCC Freedom Singers with Pete Seeger. NPR news article including full streaming versions of Pete Seeger's classic Carnegie hall live recording and Bruce Springsteen's tribute version. "Something about that song haunts you" essay on the history of "We Shall Overcome," Complicated Fun, June 9, 2006
2004 Black Entertainment Television/CBS poll, 2002 JCPES survey, June 2003 BAMPAC poll, U.S. Census Bureau
voter breakdown: 60% female, 40% male
15.3 million registered voters (2000). 13 million voted in 2000 election: 84.2% registered voter turnout
56.8% of all eligible blacks voted in 2000, 68% of all eligible blacks were registered to vote (2000)
10% of the U.S. electorate in 2000. Voted for George W. Bush (Republican): 9%. Voted for Al Gore (Democratic): 91%
Self-identification: 33% liberal, 40% moderate, 27% conservative Overall party affiliation: 63% Democratic, 10% Republican, 24% independent Ages 18-25: 54% Democratic, 9% Republican, 34% independent Ages 26-35: 56% Democratic, 15% Republican, 29% independent Ages 36-50: 65% Democratic, 12% Republican, 21% independent Ages 51-64: 70% Democratic, 5% Republican, 21% independent Ages 65+: 75% Democratic, 7% Republican, 16% independent Democratic Party: 80% favorable opinion, 11% unfavorable Republican Party: 48% unfavorable opinion, 37% favorable 36% of black voters are military family members is USA on the right track: 92% say no, 6% yes, 2% unsure is President Bush’s presidency legitimate? 85% say no, 11% say yes, 4% unsure 64% believe the Republican Party ignores black voters 35% believe the Democratic Party takes black votes for granted. Among black independents: 49% most important national black leader: 46% say no one or don’t know, 21% say Rev. Jesse Jackson, Secretary Colin Powell 13%, Rev. Al Sharpton 4%, Kweisi Mfume 3%, Min. Louis Farrakhan 2%, Condoleezza Rice 2%
The full version of Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech
As we set to remember the life of Martin Luther Kings life let us remember that King belonged to God and not to the right or the left.
"I have a dream"
by Martin Luther King
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check; a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.
Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?"
We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.
We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.
We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.
We can never be satisfied as long as our chlidren are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only."
We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.
No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, that one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exhalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning, "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that; let freedom ring from the Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
White House Blasts Sen. Boxer's Exchange With Secretary Rice
WASHINGTON — The White House fired back Friday at Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's verbal slap at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calling the California Democrat's caustic comments about Rice's family life "outrageous."
Boxer lit into Rice on Thursday with bitter diatribe during a heated line of questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking into Iraq policies. At one point, Boxer turned to the broad question of who pays the ultimate price for war. Rice has never married and has no children. "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young," Boxer said. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."
-So according to the congresswoman or senator who doesn't have children like Barney Frank shouldn't speak about the war or education, for that matter, because they can't possibly relate to the situation. Seantor Boxer is a classless idiot who hates Condi Rice everytime Rice goes before she gets nasty!Who knows maybe she is a racist. How come no one has said anything about this?
"Standing before the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., addressing the throng gathered there to hear him, called for equality of opportunity. He rightly said, 'When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the 'unalienable Rights' of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'....With the passage of the Voting and Civil Rights Acts this nation finally lived up to its promise. Certainly there were and continue to be remnants of pre-1965 America but the march of progress has been inexorable if unduly deliberate on some fronts. But why has relative economic progress been so slow?
Many would argue that some nebulous corporate influence is to blame ('the good ole’ boy network'). I think that when Dr. King died, many who were accustomed to being led and acting collectively, looked to apply the success of that movement to all other aspects of political life in America, especially economics.
It was the wrong lesson.....Some day, we will see through populism and collectivism to realize that the ability to live the dream is ours. Individual choices, effort and determination can produce far more than any government program. I’m optimistic though. I see signs that like the children of Israel who wandered in the desert for 40 years (as we near the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s death) before taking Canaan, we have sent out scouts and some are bringing back a faithful report. We will have to subdue the land by effort, it will not be given to us. I can almost hear the choir tuning up to sing Free at Last."
It was quite witty of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to short-circuit the hostility of those who criticized him for taking his oath on the Quran and to ask the Library of Congress for the loan of Thomas Jefferson's copy of that holy book.
But the irony of this, which certainly made his stupid Christian fundamentalist critics look even stupider, ought to be partly at his own expense as well. In the first place, concern over Ellison's political and religious background has little to do with his formal adherence to Islam.
In his student days and subsequently, he was a supporter of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, a racist and crackpot cult organization that is in schism with the Muslim faith and even with the Sunni orthodoxy now preached by the son of the NOI's popularizer Elijah Muhammad. Farrakhan's sect explicitly describes a large part of the human species—the so-called white part—as an invention of the devil and has issued tirades against the Jews that exceed what even the most fanatical Islamists have said. Farrakhan himself has boasted of the "punishment" meted out to Malcolm X by armed gangsters of the NOI (see the brilliant documentary Brother Minister: The Assassination of Malcolm X, which catches him in the act of doing this).
If Ellison now wants to use his faith to justify an appeal to pluralism and inclusiveness and diversity, he needs to repudiate the Nation of Islam, and in much more unambivalent terms than any I have yet heard from him.
As to the invocation of Jefferson, we know that when he and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free." Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words "Jesus Christ" for "Almighty God" in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia's representatives wanted the law "to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." Quite right, too, and so far so good, even if the term Mahomedan would not be used today, and even if Jefferson's own private sympathies were with the last named in that list.
A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery.
The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen."
This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.
Jefferson did not demand regime change of the Barbary states, only policy change. And as far as I can find, he avoided any comment on the religious dimension of the war. But then, he avoided public comment on faith whenever possible. It was not until long after his death that we became able to read most of his scornful writings on revelation and redemption (recently cited with great clarity by Brooke Allen in her book Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers).
And it was not until long after his death that The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was publishable. Sometimes known as "the Jefferson Bible" for short, this consists of the four gospels of the New Testament as redacted by our third president with (literally) a razor blade in his hand. With this blade, he excised every verse dealing with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and other puerile superstition, thus leaving him (and us) with a very much shorter book. In 1904 (those were the days), the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body. Here's a tradition worth reviving: Why not ask all new members of Congress to swear on that?
And here's a tradition worth inaugurating: The Quran repeats and plagiarizes many passages of the New Testament, including some of the most fantastic and mythical ones. Is it not time to apply the razor and produce a reasonable Quran as well? What could be more inclusive? What could be a better application of Jeffersonian original intent?
African American father blogs about disciplining his three-year-old son
"Trying to discipline my little terror is often quite a challenge. In fact it’s down right hard. Timeout isn’t always a place that he goes willingly, which is a shame because I would mame puppy for a few minutes of quite time. I wish someone would put me in a corner and tell me not to come out until I’m told to do so. I’d even take a pow-pow on the hand before being sent to the naughty chair. But alas a three year old has no way of understanding the value of meditation time. So we (my wife and I) are left with the task of dragging a flailing, crying, bundle of crazy bent on not giving up without a fight to his punishment.
Here’s how the last incident went down between the wife and Devin:
'You’re hitting? I think you need a timeout' 'Noooooooooooooo! I don’t want a timeout!'
'Well you need one because you were hitting. Let’s go.' 'Noooooooooooooo! I don’t want to! I hate you mommy!' 'That’s not nice Devin. Now sit down, and shut your mouth.' By this point the super-sized tears are flowing and the fake coughing has started. My wife walked away after setting the timer. The coughing continues and the tears are like rivers. The coughing is a warning sign.
I look at the wife, she looks at me, then on cue the Devil pukes. Yes, when he gets riled up he pukes. This time we were lucky because he caught it in his hand, and it wasn’t too much. Other times we are not so lucky and we end up having to change sheets or scrub carpet. The problem with this is that you never feel like you got your point across when in the middle of disciplining your kid you end up cleaning up puke. It’s like you lost a battle that you were sure you were going to win. Parenting can be so nasty sometimes."
"Most aldermen, most politicians are hos." Arenda Troutman, Chicago City Council member and liberal Democrat, reportedly caught on FBI tape making a reference to politics and prostitution which has outraged her Council colleagues. Troutman was arrested - after FBI agents had to break her window - on Monday for allegedly taking a $5,000 bribe to grease the way for a fictitious real estate development that turns out is across the street from the borders of her ward, and other alleged bribes and ties to the Black Disciples gang
Europe will never be like America. Europe is a product of history. America is a product of philosophy.
-Margaret Thatcher
“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”
~Joseph Story
America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.
~Dinesh D'Souza
“I think the most un-American thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.'”
~ Garrison Keillor
“America makes prodigious mistakes, America has colossal faults, but one thing cannot be denied: America is always on the move. She may be going to Hell, of course, but at least she isn't standing still.”
~E. E. Cummings
“We [Americans] are the lavishest and showiest and most luxury-loving people on the earth; and at our masthead we fly one true and honest symbol, the gaudiest flag the world has ever seen."
~Mark Twain
“America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good", but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes”
~Ayn Rand
“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
~ James Arthur Baldwin
“What the people want is very simple - they want an America as good as its promise.”
~ Barbara Jordan
“Americanism means the virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity, and hardihood—the virtues that made America. The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”
~Theodore Roosevelt
There are three social classes in America: upper middle class, middle class, and lower middle class.
~Judith Martin
America is a country that doesn't know where it is going but is determined to set a speed record getting there.
~Laurence J. Peter
America is not merely a nation but a nation of nations.
~Lyndon B. Johnson
I don't measure America by its achievement but by its potential.
~Shirley Chisholm
Intellectually, I know that America is no better than any other country; emotionally I know she is better than every other country.
~Sinclair Lewis
I just want to say this. I want to say it gently but I want to say it firmly: There is a tendency for the world to say to America, "the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out," and then to worry when America wants to sort them out.
~Tony Blair
America lives in the heart of every man everywhere who wishes to find a region where he will be free to work out his destiny as he chooses.
~Woodrow Wilson
Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American.
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them.
-Colin Powell
(Black moderate Republican and the highest ranking African-American in the history of the United States military)
George W Bush I believe was just too optimistic when it came to Iraq. He thought you could take a dictator led country and make them a democracy in 3 months. This is a country that had the same form of governement for over hundreds of years. To believe theyd have little resistance to an an entire change of govenrment is not very realistic.
All the problems of Iraq stem from this, because Americans thought itd be a quick and easy war to win and be out. What Bush did was change the strategy from merely taking out Saddam Hussein which would require 135, 0o0 troops, to a strategy that would require more like 250, 000 troops. Maybe even more. This is not an anti Iraq War message as much as a wrong startegy. Hindsight is 20/20 so I am not trying to act like it was all stuff easy to see. But I think trying to change a country from what it has always been is hard to do.
However, their GDP growth has been around 14-17% in three years, not too bad for a war torn country considering most of europe's GDP growth is around 1-2%. They've got a working judiciary system, independent media outlets (I think 3500 newspapers/television networks) and 12 million of them voted for the first time in their lives. So you've got to take the good with the bad.
Iran/Syria are operating within Iraq and doing their best to make sure the country stays war torn. Iran is funding independent terrorist groups and supplying them with artillery. Saudi Arabians are funneling money to Sunnis. What you have is this crazy proxy activity that undermines everything and I hope when Bush succeds with his new plan , it would seem that it addresses some most of these concerns.
-Bret
Bret is a Republican who is 23 and comes from Alexandria Virginia
Fox News/AP ^ Wednesday, January 10, 2007 MOGADISHU, Somalia — A senior Al Qaeda suspect wanted for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa was killed by U.S. airstrikes, a Somali official said Wednesday as witnesses said U.S forces launched a third day of strikes. Also Wednesday, Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister said American troops were needed on the ground to root extremists from his troubled country, and he expected the troops soon.
The death of Al Qaeda suspect Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was detailed in an American intelligence report passed on to the Somali authorities. Mohammed, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists who has evaded capture for eight years. was allegedly harbored by a Somali Islamic movement that had challenged this country's Ethiopian-backed government for power.
"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, told the AP. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead." In Washington, a U.S. intelligence official said Tuesday the U.S. killed five to 10 people believed to be associated with Al Qaeda. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the operation's sensitivity, said a small number of others present, perhaps four or five, were wounded.
Mohammed, 32, joined Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and trained there with Usama bin Laden, the terror network's leader, according to the transcript of an FBI interrogation of a known associate. He has a US$5 million price on his head for allegedly planning the 1998 attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people.
He is also suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the near simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002. (Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-For heavensake another dead terrorist. Will Bush ever stop and learn? This should be breaking news but the folks at CNN are waiting for the '100" days of legislative bills coming from the Democrats, in which they pretend to pass a fake minimum wage bill.
National Public Radio reports that U.S. helicopter gunships have launched a second day of attacks in Somalia, targeting suspected leaders of al-Qaida in East Africa. Dozens of people have reportedly been killed. The Pentagon is not saying yet whether or not the attacks have been a success. The focus of the airstrikes is thought to be an al-Qaida leader, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed. Fazul is wanted for his alleged involvement in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
My response: if only African leaders had been taking care of business in stemming Arab Muslim imperialism in Africa. Instead we've got some black Muslims doing the bidding of Arab Muslims, as they expand their 'Arabization' and 'Islamicization' campaigns against black cultures on our ancestral continent. Yet you will see and hear virtually no criticism of this mess.
Was American slavery (white-on-black) uniquely wicked in world history?
Typical of this line of thought is the following passage from Randall Robinson’s reparations manifesto, The Debt (2000): “While King Affonso [of Kongo] was no stranger to slavery, which was practiced throughout most of the known world, he had understood slavery as a condition befalling prisoners of war, criminals, and debtors, out of which slaves could earn, or even marry, their way. This was nothing like seeing this wholly new and brutal commercial practice of slavery where tens of thousands of his subjects were dragged off in chains.”
Dorothy Benton-Lewis, head of the National Coalition for Reparations against Blacks, claims that only white slavers were racist and brutal: “It is American slavery that put a color on slavery. And American slavery is not like the slavery of Africa or ancient times. This was dehumanizing, brutal and barbaric slavery that subjugated people and turned them into a profit.”
The claims of Robinson and Benton-Lewis are widely believed but are simply not true. Orlando Patterson studied 55 slave societies for his 1982 book Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (1982). He writes:
“It has often been remarked that slavery in the Americas is unique in the primary role of race as a factor in determining the condition and treatment of slaves. This statement betrays an appalling ignorance of the comparative data on slave societies. . . . Throughout the Islamic world, for instance, race was a vital issue. The light-skinned Tuareg and related groups had decidedly racist attitudes towards the Negroes they conquered. Throughout the Islamic empires, European and Turkish slaves were treated quite differently from slaves south of the Sahara Desert. . . . Slavery [in Africa] was more than simply “subordination”; it was considered a degraded condition, reinforced by racist attitudes among the Arab slave owners.”
Writing on African slavery before 1600, the historian Paul Lovejoy notes: “For those who were enslaved, the dangers involved forced marches, inadequate food, sexual abuse, and death on the road.”
In his book on the reparations battle, Uncivil Wars (2002) Horowitz adds: “In fact Africa’s internal slave trade, which did not involve the United States or any European power, not only extended over the entire 500 years mentioned by Robinson, but also preceded it by nearly 1,000 years.
In the period between 650 and 1600, before any Western involvement, somewhere between 3 million and 10 million Africans were bought by Muslim slavers for use in Saharan societies and in the trade in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea. By contrast, the enslavement of blacks in the United States lasted 89 years, from 1776 until 1865. The combined slave trade to the British colonies in North America and later to the United States accounted for less than 3 percent of the global trade in African slaves.
The total number of slaves imported to North America was 800,000, less than the slave trade to the island of Cuba alone. If the internal African slave trade-which began in the seventh century and persists to this day in the Sudan, Mauritania and other sub-Saharan states-is taken into account, the responsibility of American traders shrinks to a fraction of 1 percent of the slavery problem.”
African tribes were some of the fiercest defenders of slavery when whites tried to outlaw the practice in the 19th century. Blacks in present-day Ghana rioted against the British as they destroyed the slave ports along Africa’s western coast.
In 1808, the King of Bonny (now Nigeria) told the British: “You’re country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”
The Knocking Documentary PBS (Jehovah's Witnesses)
PBS is doing a documentory on the Jehovahs Witnesses, a religion I know to well since I was raised one.The PBS documentory is nothing more than another example of PBS doing a Politicaly Correct hit job on a contreversiol authorarian religion. This is the link to the project http://www.knocking.org/. PBS will no doubt spin the facts about this faith just as it did about Islam.
It is true that the Jehovahs Witnesses have given alot to society as far as freedoms, they alone brought over 40 cases to the Supreme Court on issues realating to civil liberties. Every first year law student knows the case of WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE which was a ruling that stated that no state could force any to do compulsory flag salute and pledge.
Supreme Court JUSTICE MURPHY, concurring:
I agree with the opinion of the Court and join in it.... I am unable to agree that the benefits that may accrue to society from the compulsory flag salute are sufficiently definite and tangible to justify the invasion of freedom and privacy that is entailed or to compensate for a restraint on the freedom of the individual to be vocal or silent according to his conscience or personal inclination. The trenchant words in the preamble to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom remain unanswerable: ". . . all attempts to influence [the mind] by temporal punishments, or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, . . ."
Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies.
As I have stated the Jehovahs Witnesses have given Americans many freedoms we take for granted. Many of the members of the faith are persecuted daily, and in many ways they are the truest of pacisfist, unlike leftist who cheer on lefting wing south American guerrlias while claiming to be anto war the Jehovah's Witnesses stay do not vote nor do they particpate in war in greece, France and Isreal the men do prison time vs joining the millitary.
The problem with only showing the good side of the Watchtower Society is that it creates a false illusion that all is well in the faith. The truth is that this faith has caused the great suffering to many people. Critics and former members have noted that the religion employs organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members.
Some victims of sexual abuse also assert that when reporting abuse they have been directed to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization. According to Wikipedia In February 2001, Christianity Today printed an article alleging that Jehovah's Witness policies made reporting sexual abuse difficult for members, and did not follow legal norms on the issue. Shortly after, in 2002, Erica Rodriguez filed a suit in the US District Court in Spokane, Washington.
Manuel Beliz was convicted of abusing her and was sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment for his crime. In her suit, Rodriguez sought unspecified damages from Beliz for her abuse, and also from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
In 2003, Heidi Meyer alleged that her pleas concerning sexual abuse were dismissed and that this is a widespread problem. [1]
In response, Jehovah's Witnesses stated their opposition to any form of child abuse. They encourage parents - especially fathers - to take an active role in the proper guidance and protection of their children from molesters. They affirmed that the local elders are expected to investigate any accusation of child abuse. Declaring that where child abuse can be proven by their standards (two witnesses, which they interpret Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17 to support, or a voluntary confession), and the member is unrepentant, he or she is disfellowshipped (expelled from the religious institution)
When a member of Jehovah's Witnesses unrepentantly engages in "gross sin", they can be excommunicated, termed disfellowshipping. This involves being shunned by all members of the religion, including any family members that do not live under the same roof. Due to the social nature of the religion, being shunned can isolate a member in a very powerful way and can be devastating if everyone in a member's social circle participates in the shunning. Prior to 1981, if a member disassociated from the religion but was not disfellowshipped, the practice of shunning was not required and normal contact could be maintained. A policy change in 1981 required that all who were considered to have disassociated by their actions were to be treated in the same way as a member who had been disfellowshipped for gross wrongdoing.
The new policy meant that congregation members are not informed whether a person was being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", or on what grounds. Many of these changes were precipitated by events surrounding Raymond Franz, a former governing body member.
Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people to stay who might otherwise freely leave the religion, but Jehovah's Witnesses say that disfellowshipping is a scripturally-documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing. Jehovah's Witnesses have no provision for conscientious objectors who freely leave to have any continued normal associations. The only way to officially leave the religion is to write a letter requesting to be disassociated or to be disfellowshipped, but both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties. Critics contend the judicial process involved, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings[83] and can be used in an arbitrary and punitive manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.[84
Internet use
The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion over doctrinal matters rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.[90] A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."[91]
While Witnesses define the existence of "harmful" information, critics define all accurate information valid. What Witnesses consider "apostate propaganda", critics consider merely an alternative viewpoint, which must be considered in order to claim one has a rounded viewpoint. Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form.[92]
Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control"[93] in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society.[94] Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses, although the information included is still controlled by the society.[95]
Doctrinal Contriversies
From as early as 1891, the Witnesses leader Charles Taze Russell taught that the Great Pyramid of Giza contained prophetic measurements that pointed to 1874, derived from a measurement of 3416 inches[12]. The 1910 edition revised the measurement to 3457 inches to point to 1915.[13] It was claimed that the pyramid was of prophetic significance until at least 1925[14], but the belief was rejected by 1928[15].
Jehovah's Witnesses currently believe that Christ Jesus has been ruling as king invisibly since October 1914. Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish the Greek word parousia, often translated "coming" as being more accurately understood as "presence
Judgment of Religion and Selection of True Followers
Jehovah's Witnesses believe 1918 to be the time when Christ Jesus judged all world religions. They teach that after a period of 18 months, among all groups and religions, there was found only one that was humbly doing the will of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses claim the "Bible Students" who later became known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1931 (See History of Jehovah's Witnesses) are that one unique group.
Stay Alive till 75
During the 1960s and early 1970s, many Witnesses were stimulated by articles in their literature [40] and further encouraged by speakers at their assemblies prior to 1975, to believe that Armageddon and Christ's thousand-year millennial reign would begin by 1975. Although the views of Armageddon and Christ's millennium beginning in 1975 were never fully or explicitly supported by the Watch Tower Society, many in the organization's writing department, as well as several elders and overseers[41]in the organization heavily suggested that Christ's millennial reign over earth would begin by 1975. Caution was shown by some, however, especially as the time approached. For example, a lecture[42] by then Vice-President Fred Franz in early 1975 pin-pointed after sundown on September 5, 1975 as the end of 6,000 years and saying all the prophecies "could happen" by then, while admitting that looked improbable [43] While Witnesses have always been encouraged to increase the preaching work, and avoid secular life goals or careers, this emphasis was especially strong prior to 1975.
Fall of Jerusalem
The date 1914 is based on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 BC. No non-Witness scholars support 607 BC for the event; most scholars date the destruction to within a year of 587 BC, twenty years later. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that periods of seventy years mentioned in the books of Jeremiah and Daniel refer to the Jewish exile.
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology & Christ's Return by Carl O. Jonsson[63], he presents 18 lines of evidence to support the traditional view of neo-Babylonian chronology. He accuses the Watchtower of deliberately misquoting sources in an effort to bolster their position.
In Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume 1: Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews Rolf Furuli presents a very detailed study of 607 BC and supports the conclusion that Witnesses publish.[64]. It should be noted that Furuli is himself a Jehovah's Witness.
Witnesses believe that the year 607 BC is critical in two other prophetic interpretations. First, the destruction of Jerusalem for a seventy year time span.[65] Second, the arrival of Christ in kingly power coincides with the 2,520 year period from October 607 BC to October 1914 AD.[66]
Unfulfilled predictions
Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:[51]
1907: Armageddon will culminate in the year 1914.[52]
1917: In 1918, God would destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions.[53] 1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.[54]
In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California, and built a mansion on it. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, who would be resurrected to life in 1925.
1924: As of 1926, there would be no more deaths. Witnesses were encouraged to add a room to their houses, and get an undertaker to decorate it, since undertakers would be out of work. Witnesses could then call Abraham's office in Jerusalem and request that a deceased relative be brought back to life. These would subsequently appear in the new room.[55]
1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[56]
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[57]
1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[58]
1969: Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in 1975.[59]
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[60]
A number of Christian apologists have argued that in making predictions about the future, the Watchtower Society have acted as a prophet,[61] often citing Watchtower Society publications that use the word "prophet" in referring to the organization.[62][63]
The Watchtower Society itself has condemned others for making false predictions about the future, stating that such people were "guilty of false prophesying".[64] The apologists argue, based on Deuteronomy 18:22: “ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (ESV) ” that the Watchtower Society does not represent God. The Watchtower Society has stated as early as 1908, "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises....We do not even [assert] that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them."[65] They have also stated that they do not have the gift of prophecy.[66] More recently they have defended themselves against claims of "false prophesying", by saying that they do not claim to be inspired prophets,[67] and that their predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah" but rather are given only as an interpretation of Scripture.[68]
And the beat goes on and onthe ACLU and the left idealise the Jehovahs Witnesess because they represent what they want from religion. They want a faith that does not vote and get involved in politics. They want a quiet tame religion unlike the Evangelicals who give them hell. The left uses the Jehovah;s Witnesses to argue that it is possible for religion to be seperate from the State.
If you want the facts read about Raymond Franz a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from 1971 until 1980, and served at the organization's world headquarters for fifteen years, from 1965 until 1980.He was expulsed for his act of wanting to make his own sect.
He is relatively well known today, both within and without the Jehovah's Witness community, as a former Jehovah's Witness. Since departing the religious group in late 1981, Franz has written and edited two detailed books which relate his personal experiences with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and fellow members of the Jehovah's Witness organization.
You can read his book for free..
Bibliography
Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz, a former Governing Body member of the Watch Tower Society. A documented account of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines over time and the struggle that Franz had with his Christian conscience in dealing with what he describes as un-Christian attitudes and conduct. This book gives a personal account of the authority structure, formation, practices and doctrines of the religion and allows the reader a view of decision-making sessions within the religion's inner council, and the impact the decisions have on Witnesses' lives. Paperback (ISBN 0-914675-23-0). Hardback (ISBN 0-914675-24-9). Publisher: Commentary Press; 4th edition (June 2002)
Today I got a post from a yahoo group I belong to the person posting mentioned that she like me describes herself as as a neocon moderate Republican. She stated that she had never been crazy about the label "neoconservative" , but she stated that she did like the word "Radical Republicans" a lot.
She gave a suggestion that we call ourslves "Radical Republicans". I think she is right. Instead of calling ourselves Neo Cons lets resurrect the "The Radical Republicans "
They took a hard line against the Confederacy during the war and opposed Lincoln's "too easy" terms for reuniting the nation. By 1866 they supported federal civil rights for freedmen, and by 1867 set terms that allowed free slaves the right to vote in the South but not ex-Confederates. They fought with moderate Republicans, especially president Abraham Lincoln, as well as with his successor Andrew Johnson. Using as a base the Joint Committee on Reconstruction the Radicals demanded a more aggressive prosecution of the war and the faster destruction of slavery and Confederate nationalism.
After their victory in the Congressional elections of 1866 they finally had enough votes to enact their legislation over Johnson's vetoes. They replaced ex-Confederates with a Republican coalition of Freedmen, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags. They impeached Johnson in the House but failed by one vote to remove him from office.During the war and the first part of Reconstruction, the leading Radicals were Thaddeus Stevens in the House and Charles Sumner in the Senate. After his election as president in 1868 Ulysses Grant became the leading Radical.
From the 1890s to the 1940s Radicals were denounced by historians of the Dunning School for being corrupt and violating the principles of democratic self government. In recent years they have been in favor among Neoabolitionist historians.
Wartime
After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the United States Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, whom they felt was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their equality. Lincoln put all factions in his cabinet, including Radicals like Salmon P. Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), whom he later appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, James Speed (Attorney General) and Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War). Lincoln appointed many Radicals to key diplomatic positions, such as journalist James Shepherd Pike. An important Republican opponent of the Radicals was Henry Jarvis Raymond, editor of the New York Times and chairman of the Republican National Committee. In Congress the most influential Radicals during the war and Reconstruction were Senator Charles Sumner and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who died in 1868. They led the call for a total war, one that would destroy the economic base of the rebellion by freeing the slaves.
-I say its about time we take back our name and use it more often.
We have a proud history Neo Con sounds to much like Neo Nazi and I am not
to fond of it.
The Radical Republicans have come back they were resurrected on September 11th just as they arose during the fight against slavery. It was The Radical Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which made African Americans American citizens and forbade discrimination against them, with enforcement in federal courts. It was also these same Radical Republicans who with courage and faith passed the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution of 1868, (with its equal protection clause) It was The Radical Republicans led the Reconstruction of the South and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.
Today the Radical Republicans fight for justice and equal rights not just in America but also in the Middle East and around the world. As president Bush so eloquently stated I believe freedom is not America's gift to the world; I believe freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and women in this world.
It was another Radical Republican who while fighting a war ignored the pundits and said "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
The Radical Republicans who so long ago fought for equal rights and freedom for blacks against the racist segregationist who justified his acts by quoting holy scripture, today fight against Arab Islamist supremacist which is a racist ideology that holds the belief that Arab Muslims are superior to other races and religions.
Today is a new dawn the resurrection of the Radical Republicans
-It has only been one day and the democrats have already raised the level of discourse.What could Bush have done to other than stand on the levee and part Lake Ponchartrain himself. This is what happens when Republicans stay home and don't vote, they are accused of mass genocide.
The federal government has approved $88 billion for Katrina relief.
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, who is black, has been actively involved in trying to rebuild New Orleans in a responsible and enduring way.
Barney Frank is attempting to divide the country for his own aggrandizement, playing on fears of racism.
No more pathetic excuses about not being ready, or not being able to get along, or not having a good enough career. In the old days, when a man got another man's daughter pregnant, the father would march the expectant father down the aisle at the end of a shotgun. We don't believe in forcing couples to get married these days. And look what's happened. At the rate black men -- many of them fathers -- are not marrying, the entire race may be at risk. Here are the simple facts, according to credible research: African Americans are significantly less likely to marry than are whites.
Only 50 percent of African Americans born between 1960 and 1969 were married by the age of 30 (compared with 78 percent of whites). African Americans have higher rates of divorce than do other racial and ethnic groups. And because of lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates, African-American women are about half as likely as white women to be married at any one time. But marriage is no longer a moral issue. It is an economic one.....This is not a lot of right-wing mumbo jumbo.
In fact, the next time a politician starts downplaying this problem, notice the wedding ring on his finger. Just about every high-profile civic leader today is or was married, and made the effort to raise his children in a two-parent family. That goes for the political rock star, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, too. But when was the last time any black leader made a pitch for marriage? More of them have defended same-sex marriage than have pointed out that the lack of marriage is destroying the black community from the inside out.
This is not a ghetto problem.....Common sense should have told us there would be consequences for this selfish behavior. By now, so many blacks have ignored the warnings about the harm caused by the absence of black fathers that those consequences are now overtaking communities in the form of high dropout rates and senseless violence. Black man, this is not an attack. It is a black woman's plea. We are tired of seeing our daughters travail in such sorrow. We are tired of watching our grandchildren cling to fragile family ties. And by now, we are clear: Politicians can't fix this problem. Preachers can't fix it. There's only one real way to ensure that a black child has the best chance to succeed in this life. Black man, marry your baby's mother."
— Mary Mitchell, liberal columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times
MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf entered Mogadishu on Monday, capping a remarkable turn-around in the capital Islamists ruled for six months until they were ousted before the New Year.
As Yusuf entered the city for the first time since taking office in 2004, protected by his own soldiers and Ethiopian troops who helped route the Islamists, he ruled out talks with his foes.
"With regard to holding talks with the courts, this will not happen," Yusuf told Al Jazeera television in an interview before flying to Mogadishu. "We will crack down on the terrorists in any place around the nation."
In the southern tip of Somalia, Ethiopian jets and soldiers attacked the remnants of the Somali Islamic Courts Council (SICC) with jets, part of a campaign to finish off the hardcore Islamist fighters who have vowed to fight on.
Mogadishu is the official capital of Somalia, but the government had been unable to install itself there first because of warlords in the government who opposed giving up their turf, and later because of the Islamists.
It had been forced to stay in outlying Somali towns, first Jowhar north of the capital and since late April, in the south-central agricultural trading town of Baidoa -- the only area it had controlled until the two-week war that drove out the Islamists on December 28.
"The president has arrived. He is now in Villa Somalia," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari said. "He urged all Somalis to forget the past and prepare to build their country and support the interim government."
The bullet-scarred Villa Somalia compound is the former palace of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, whose 1991 ouster as Somalia's last national president in 1991 triggered more than 15 years of anarchy.
NEW PEACEKEEPERS
The Ethiopians are expected to pull out of Somalia in a matter of weeks, while an African peacekeeping force is cobbled together to fill the anticipated vacuum in security, which the government admits it cannot handle on its own.
In Addis Ababa, a meeting of the African Union's Peace and Security Council discussed plans for a proposed 8,000-strong deployment, including how it would be funded and which countries would contribute troops.
Somalia's Ambassador to the African Union, Abdikarim Farah, said it was agreed the deployment would go ahead immediately, and would require $150 million for the first six months.
"Seven African countries have showed an interest in providing troops and are awaiting the AU's official request," he said.
Uganda has already agreed to send troops, but parliament must approve it and it is not due to be in session until the end of the month.
"When they come back, it's a priority. They know it needs to be urgently approved," parliament spokeswoman Helen Kawesa said.
Diplomats say South Africa and Nigeria have made murmurs of contributing troops. Farah declined to name the other countries.
The AU is planning to ask the United Nations, Arab League, and European Union to pay for the mission. The United States on Friday said it was contributing $16 million.
NEW FIGHTING
With Ethiopian troops doing most of the heavy lifting, the government has pushed the SICC to the southern tip of Somalia, near the Kenyan border. Witnesses said Ethiopian and Somali troops continued their pursuit on Monday.
"The warplanes this morning struck at a location 18 km (11 miles) from Afmadow where Islamic troops are hiding. So many Ethiopian and government troops driving dozens of military trucks passed there today," resident Hassan Mursal told Reuters.
Defense Minister Barre Aden Shire "Barre Hirale" declined to comment on that and reports a group of Islamists had been cornered at a jungle hideout near the Kenyan border, which has been sealed and trapped thousands of refugees on the other side.
Some of the Islamists have surfaced in Yemen and say they are willing to hold peace talks with the government, but Yusuf on Monday ruled that out.
The United States, Ethiopia and Yusuf have all accused the Islamists of links to al Qaeda, which they had denied.
Yusuf was in Mogadishu in 1994 but in recent years had stayed out of the capital, where he is an outsider and still has many enemies from his time as warlord based in the semi-autonomous northern Puntland region.
The streets of Mogadishu were under heavy security on Monday, with thousands of mostly Somali soldiers patrolling, after several protests and attacks against Ethiopian troops in recent days.
Ethiopian soldiers there twice pointed their assault rifles at a Reuters reporter who visited the scene.
He is now the transitional President of Somalia. He was elected by a session of the transitional Parliament held in neighbouring Kenya's capital, Nairobi, on October 10, 2004, and sworn in on October 14, 2004. He has been living in the Kenyan capital since his election. The election took place in Kenya because the Somali capital was regarded as being too dangerous. Ahmed is from the Majeerteen subclan of the Darod clan.
He is a decorated war hero and fought for Somalia in the 1964 and 1977-78 wars. He also played a key role in the creation of the powerful Puntland state, which covers one third of Somalia. The apparent defeat of both the warlords and the Islamic Courts Union centred in Mogadishu has seen him become the internationally recognized de facto leader of Somalia.
CORE To Honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali With King Heroes Award
The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) will host its 23rd Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Ambassadorial Reception and Awards Dinner on Monday, January 15, 2007 at the Hilton Hotel in New York City. This year, CORE will honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali with its Martin Luther King Heroes Award. Born in Somalia, the moderate-conservative feminist is a vocal critic of Islam for its lack of humanitarianism, and a former Dutch parliamentarian. She has received countless accolades for her arduous strides to bring about equality for women. The European editors of Readers Digest named Ms. Hirsi Ali the “European of the Year for 2006”. In 2005, Fortune/Time Magazine named her one of the “100 Most Influential Persons of the World.
The Swedish Liberal Party (as in classical liberalism, or what Americans call libertarianism) awarded her the Democracy Prize for being an advocate for women’s rights, and last year a member of the Norwegian Parliament nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize. She is current a scholar in residence at the American Enterprise Institute.
CORE will also honor Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity for leading the effort to establish the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial - which opens in 2008 - on the National Mall in D.C.. Other honorees are Dr. Fredrick K.C. Price, founder and senior pastor of the Crenshaw Christian Center, and Dr. Slinger Francisco, also known as the “The Mighty Sparrow” for addressing social issues through music.
If you wish to attend and live in the New York City area contact the Congress of Racial Equality
Everyone’s favourite Jewish hip hop artist Y-Love is having a birthday bash this coming Saturday night in Brooklyn.
Celebrating his 21st birthday (yet again!) at North Six, Y will be showcasing something old as well as something new and show his skills in blending English, Arabic, Yiddish, and Hebrew into the mix.Born Yitz Jordan, Y is a frum black Jew from Baltimore who converted a few years.
He describes his sounds: “My lyrical style has been compared to OutKast, to Ludacris, and to, consequently, no Jewish artist. I draw lyrical inspiration from words of Scripture and Kabbalah.”
So for a night to remember and to celebrate another great year for one of the best Jewish artists around, get down to Brooklyn and see Y-Love.
And with tickets at only $8 and part of the proceeds going to charity, there’s no excuse for not being there (unless of course you are currently somewhere else in the world, like London!).
Nearby, a man collapsed, his body convulsing. Mr. Autrey and two women rushed to help, he said. The man, Cameron Hollopeter, 20, managed to get up, but then stumbled to the platform edge and fell to the tracks, between the two rails.
The headlights of the No. 1 train appeared. “I had to make a split decision,” Mr. Autrey said. So he made one, and leapt Mr. Autrey lay on Mr. Hollopeter, his heart pounding, pressing him down in a space roughly a foot deep. The train’s brakes screeched, but it could not stop in time.
Five cars rolled overhead before the train stopped, the cars passing inches from his head, smudging his blue knit cap with grease. Mr. Autrey heard onlookers’ screams. “We’re O.K. down here,” he yelled, “but I’ve got two daughters up there. Let them know their father’s O.K.” He heard cries of wonder, and applause.
The UK Times describes the gloom at the French mission after its ambassador was expelled from Rwanda after the African country charged that France had masterminded the genocide.
Here's more background from the UK Times:
Rwanda has recalled its ambassador to France as the row between the two countries over culpability for the 1994 Rwandan genocide spiralled to a new low. The decision to bring Emmanuel Ndagijimana home from Paris was made after a French judge issued arrest warrants for nine high-ranking Rwandans accused of involvement in the assassination of then-President Juvenal Habyarimana – an occurrence which triggered the mass slaughter. ... Rwanda has accused Paris of making the allegations as a means of covering up its own role in training soldiers who carried out the genocide. Yesterday, 25,000 Rwandans protested in Kigali against France, accusing it of complicity in the slaughter – a charge Paris has always denied.
Commentary
Whichever of the two is guilty, it's interesting to compare the International mode of justice to that which hanged Saddam Hussein. Milosevic died in captivity. In the case of Rwanda, no major statesmen, just a few flunkies, have been indicted for the genocide. It's already on its way, after some theatrics, to the dustbin of history or perhaps more appropriately, to its graveyard. Yet there is some preference for running the world in this indefinite manner. Letting stuff just happen. Like Darfur. And deciding that stuff just happened, like Rwanda. It's the perfect postmodern world. A world with many narratives all of which may be incompatible. But ces't la vie. Or as Willie Nelson was once rumored to have pronounced it: sest lah vee.
Humans, or more specifically, Americans tend to stereotype. It's part of human nature. So, when people of the modern day era - 80's and forward started to see some of the black artists come out with their slang - they interpreted this to be the definition of being black.
I noticed something one day though. I watched a series of movies (all at different times) about blacks in this countries history. Most of the films were pre-80's and all of the black people on the film spoke the kings english. They were also extremely intelligent. Artists like Gil Scott Herron, Jimi Hendrix and several political activists were all featured on the films. Random blacks of the times also appeared commenting on the protests, concerts or what have you and all sounded the same.
Then I noticed that on certain films prior to the 60's and 70's most blacks in entertainment all had southern accents, but most still spoke well.
It was only once rap started to come out and become more popular in the white world did the phrase "acting white" or "acting black" came out. It was highly popularized by the television show "The Fresh Prince" with the character Carlton and somewhat more mild with Steve Erkel on whatever show he was on. After this, people associated the accents, slang and phonetic sounds with blacks and used it as a distinguishing factor between cultures. Unfortunately, this sparked the whole "know your roll" movement as I like to call it.
I believe the way blacks speak today comes from the old southern accents, the poverty and the molding or branding of an image that was to be sold by the predominately white controlled music business. They wanted to portray something that was different. They wanted shock value. They wanted a new nigga. The neo-nigga. SO they pushed and in a way rewarded this model or stereo type which had all sorts of negative mannerisms associated with it. I remember when NWA first came out - it was like dayum! Every white person in my town (all white) was frickin shocked - it blew up! I don't know a white person today who doesn't have the old school NWA album. It was new. It was the new jazz, the new rock and roll... and whites were ready to exploit and market.
Listen to black artists in the 70's and early 80's - they don't sound like Luda and Kanye. They don't sound like Biggie and Puffy. Listen to the original "rappers delight" then "Too Shorts" work, then "Run DMC" and then "Dre, Snoop and NWA" - you can see, or hear rather, the evolution or revolution occur.
As a result of this new era and art form, younger blacks started to mold themselves to be or emulate these "roll models." Then a new counter culture was born. all the sudden, everybody was rappin. It was the new thing in the black culture. Everybody was rhymin (except me, i suck lol) - you still see that today. Shit, I even used to drop freestyles with my boys (black of course). Now, it's a way of life. NWA came out almost over 20 years ago. That's long enough for a stereo type to be born.
All that was in the media were the tap dancers and artists. The Colin Powell's and condaleeza rices' and John Basquiat's weren't pushed as hard in the media. They didn't sell. Whites would see these types and perhaps thing - "Good for them" but then would shriek in utter horror when they saw the evolution of rap and thuggish niggas. I forget who said it - but it was Americas worst nightmare. A black man.
Now unfortunately, whites and blacks make fun of blacks who speak the kings english. Honestly, I outgrew slang. I could switch back and forth. But, that doesn't get you hired as a CEO/CTO/CIO/CFO or any company. And white's run the companies. I had to grow up. When i'm with the boys, I drop slang all the time, but I can switch.
Also, I didn't grow up in the 'hood' so I don't act a certain way.... well, cause, tha'ts not me. I would be fakin it. I'd be a buster. But the stigma was born. It lives on and will continue to live on. Until more and more educated blacks flourish in the media and in business and in communities where they are the minority.
But until then - It's sad, but true.
-bbqchickenrobot is a black Republican blogger who lives in WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA .
In 1926 George Gershwin read Porgy by DuBose Heyward, a native of Charleston, South Carolina, and immediately wrote to the author suggesting that they collaborate on a folk opera based on the novel. Heyward was enthusiastic, but it was 1934 before Gershwin's composing and performing schedules permitted him to begin actual work on the project. Meanwhile, Heyward and his wife Dorothy dramatized Porgy for a 1927 production which incorporated spirituals into the action.
This Theater Guild presentation of Porgy ran for 367 performances and elicited interest from others, among them Al Jolson, in using it as a basis for some sort of musical production. However, nothing came of these ideas and in 1934, after years of correspondence, George and Ira Gershwin joined DuBose Heyward in Charleston to write the opera which had been germinating in George's imagination for several years.
They settled for the summer at Folly Beach, located on a barrier island about ten miles from Charleston, where they could observe the Gullahs an isolated group living on adjacent James Island who became the prototypes of the Catfish Row residents. It was a happy collaboration as DuBose Heyward wrote the libretto, and Ira Gershwin and Heyward wrote the lyrics. (Heyward's contributions included the lyrics to Summertime and My Man's Gone Now.) By mid-August the Gershwins left Charleston, and George applied himself to finishing the recitatives and orchestrating the opera. When it was finally completed in July, 1935, the 700 pages of music represented his most ambitious creation and his favorite composition. According to David Ewen, Gershwin's first biographer, he "never quite ceased to wonder at the miracle that he had been its composer. he never stopped loving each and every bar, never wavered in the conviction that he had produced a work of art."
Next, Gershwin involved himself with the casting and production of his opera. Todd Duncan, the first Porgy, recalled that Gershwin was "going around the country looking for his Porgy." Music critic Olin Downes recommended that Gershwin hear Duncan, who was teaching at Howard University as well as singing, but Gershwin rejected the idea because he felt that "he didn't want any university professor to sing." For his part, Duncan was not interested because Gershwin was "Tin Pan Alley and something beneath me." Finally the two arranged a meeting during which Gershwin played and Duncan sang, and Gershwin asked Duncan to take the part of Porgy. Gershwin arranged an evening for Duncan with Ira Gershwin and his wife, the Theater Guild board, and prospective backers. Duncan recalls that he was supposed to sing three or four songs, but "I sang an hour, an hour and a half." Then Ira and George got out the score of Porgy and Bess and sang the entire opera in "their awful, rotten voices." Duncan continues "I just thought I was in heaven. These beautiful melodies in this new idiom it was something I had never heard. I just couldn't get enough of it when he ended with I'm on My Way I was crying. I was weeping."
Gershwin chose to have Porgy and Bess given a Broadway run at the Alvin Theater rather than a full operatic production, to assure more performances, and the word opera was carefully avoided. The first cast of nineteen singing principals included, with Duncan, Anne Brown as Bess, John W. Bubbles as Sportin' Life, Warren Coleman as Crown, and the Eva Jessye Choir; Rouben Mammoulian produced and directed, and Alexander Smallens conducted. Porgy and Bess tried out in Boston and opened In New York on October 10, 1935, for a disappointing run of 124 performances; it was years later before the show's backers got their money back, and more.
Porgy and Bess was George Gershwin's longest and most ambitious creation, but it was not truly successful during his lifetime. Some of the songs had achieved popularity before Gershwin's death in 1937, but the work earned real approval and favor only after the 1940 Theater Guild presentation of a slightly revised version. For years it was performed more frequently in Europe, where it was considered a true American opera, than in America. Porgy and Bess received its first uncut production in Houston in the 1970's, conducted by John DeMain, to great acclamation, and it was finally produced at the Met some 50 years after the first production. It is probably the only opera founded on 1920's and 30's jazz which has survived past the post-World War II period, when composers began to use jazz satirically.
Heyward's novel was inspired by a newspaper article about a maimed black man who committed murder in the height of passion, and was based on a real-life well-known local character called "Goat Sammy," who could not stand upright and was forced to travel about in a goat-drawn cart. The three-act opera takes place in Catfish Row, once an aristocratic mansion, now a crowded waterfront tenement.
The opera opens with a brief overture, then a piano is heard playing Jasbo Brown Blues. It is night and Clara sings a lullaby, Summertime, to her baby as a crap game takes place in the background. Jake, Clara's husband, sings A woman is a sometime thing to the baby, and we hear the call of the honeyman. Porgy enters in his goat cart as his friends tease him about caring for Bess. He protests that When Gawd make a cripple, He mean him to be lonely. As the crap game continues (Boxcars again) a drunken Crown enters with flashily-dressed Bess and joins the game. Enraged by his losses, Crown attacks Robbins before the horrified Catfish Row inhabitants, and kills him with a cotton hook. Bess gives Crown money as he goes to hide, and Sportin' Life offers to take Bess to New York with him. She refuses, but as the police whistles are heard she pleads for shelter and Porgy opens his door to her.
Scene ii opens in Serena's room where Robbins' body lies on the bed with a saucer on his chest to receive donations for burial expenses. Many people cluster around singing spirituals to mourn Robbins and comfort his widow, Serena. Porgy and Bess enter and put money in the saucer as the people exhort one another to do the same, in Overflow, overflow. A detective arrives with policemen and accuses Peter, a half-deaf old man, in an attempt to get the others to accuse Crown. Peter is taken off as a "material witness," and Serena sings My man's gone now. Bess leads a last spiritual, ending the scene.
Act II takes place a month later in Catfish Row. Jake and the fishermen sing It take a long pull to get there as they repair their nets and prepare to go to sea, despite warnings about September storms. Porgy appears at his window singing I got plenty o' nuttin, and the people comment on the positive change in Porgy since Bess came to live with him. Sportin' Life struts in and Maria, the cook, blows white powder from his hand. He protests, but she tells him nobody ain' goin' peddle happy dust roun' my shop and threatens him with a carving knife. He runs off as Lawyer Frazier enters looking for Porgy, to whom he sells a divorce' for Bess, pointing out as he does so that it is much more difficult to divorce someone who has never been married. Next Mr. Archdale appears, offering to provide bond for the still-jailed Peter. (NB: Sometimes the Buzzard Song is left out, sometimes it is placed elsewhere in the opera; Gershwin himself excised it in an attempt to cut the role of Porgy slightly, as it is fatiguing.) Porgy sees a buzzard, and he and the chorus sing the Buzzard Song, warning of bad luck if the bird alights. Sportin' Life reappears and again suggests to Bess that she go to New York with him, but she declines, saying that she hates the sight of him. Porgy warns him to stay away from Bess, who now tells Porgy that she will not leave him to go to the picnic, as he cannot go. They sing the beautiful love duet Bess, you is my woman now, and Maria insists that Bess must join the picnickers as they start on their way. As they leave Porgy happily sings I got plenty o' nuttin.
Scene ii opens on Kittiwah Island at evening. The picnic is in full swing, and the participants sing and dance to I ain' got no shame; next Sportin' Life treats them to a sermon on the virtues of skepticism in the brilliant It ain't necessarily so. Serena comes upon the scene and denounces everyone as sinners (Shame on all you sinners), further reminding them that they must hurry or the boat will leave them behind. As Bess lingers for a moment, Crown appears and tells her that he will soon return for her. She pleads to be allowed to remain with Porgy and to live a decent life, but Crown laughs and tells her that her living arrangement is temporary but permissible, and will cease the moment he comes back. She asks him to find some other woman (What you want wid Bess?), but his old attraction reasserts itself and as the boat leave Bess remains behind with Crown.
As Scene iii begins Jake and the fishermen are preparing to go fishing, singing a bit of It takes a long pull to get there. Peter has been released from prison, and we hear the sound of Bess' delirious voice from Porgy's room, indicating that she has returned from Kittiwah Island. She was lost for two days, and incoherent when she returned home. Serena prays for her, and tells Porgy that Bess will soon be well as she sings Oh, doctor Jesus. We hear the cries of the strawberry woman, the honeyman, and the crab man; finally Bess, sounding recovered, calls for Porgy. She talks with Porgy, who tells her that he knows that she has been with Crown, but that he loves her all the same. She says that although she told Crown she would go with him she really wants to stay with Porgy and is fearful of the effect of Crown's presence on her, singing I loves you, Porgy. Porgy assures her that he will take care of Crown if he bothers Bess again. Clara watches the sea anxiously as a storm approaches, and the fearful sound of the hurricane bell is heard as the scene ends.
The Scene iv curtain rises on Serena's room as a terrible storm rages outside. People huddle in anxious groups, singing Oh, doctor Jesus. Peter sings I hear death knockin' at de do' and almost immediately a real knock is heard on the door as the people rush to hold the door closed. It is Crown, who has come for Bess, and he throws Porgy down as he attempts to come between Crown and Bess. Serena warns Crown that at any moment the storm might get him, but he scoffs at her warnings, singing If God want to kill me He had plenty of chance tween here an' Kittiwah Island. The frightened keening continues until Crown stops it as he strikes up a cheerful number, A red-headed woman makes a choo-choo jump its track. Suddenly Clara thrusts her baby at Bess and runs out because she has seen Jake's fishing boat floating upside-down (Jake's boat in de river). Bess urges the men to follow her but only Crown will brave the storm. He leaves, promising that he will return for Bess, and the act ends with the people again pleading for mercy in Oh, doctor Jesus.
Act III opens in the courtyard again, with the people mourning Clara, Jake, and Crown, all of whom they fear are lost. As they start to pray for Crown, Sportin' Life interrupts them with laughter. Maria scolds him, but he hints that Crown is not dead and he slyly wonders about the result of the rivalry between Crown and Porgy over Bess. Bess sings Summertime to Clara's baby, and everyone drifts off. Suddenly Crown is seen at the gate, moving stealthily across the court toward Porgy's door. As he passes the window an arm extends, grasping a long knife which is plunged into Crown's back. As Crown staggers, Porgy seizes him around the neck and throttles him. Porgy exclaims Bess, Bess, you got a man now.
Scene ii takes place the next afternoon as the police arrive to investigate Crown's death. Serena says she was ill and knows nothing of the death of the man who, as everyone in Catfish Row will swear, killed her husband Robbins. Porgy is brought in and dragged away to identify Crown's body, protesting that he will have nothing to do with Crown. (His reluctance has been increased by Sportin' Life, who said that Crown's wound will begin to bleed when the man who killed him comes near the body.)
Bess comes in and Sportin' Life offers her some happy dust to help her over her nerves at the prospect of losing Porgy. She tries to refuse, but cannot, and Sportin' Life again urges her to come to New York with him, singing There's a boat dat's leavin' soon for New York.
The final Scene is again in Catfish Row, a week later. Life seems normal, children dance and sing, and the people greet one another in Good mornin', sistuh. Porgy returns after a week in jail for contempt of court because he would not look at Crown's body. He has brought presents for everyone (after some successful crap-shooting in jail), as the people sing It's Porgy comin' home. He finally realizes that Bess is not there, and sings the heartbreaking Oh, Bess, oh where's my Bess? Serena and Maria join in, one condemning Bess and one explaining and excusing her, and in this trio Porgy expresses his longing for her. Told that she has gone to New York, Porgy asks that his goat-cart be brought to him. As he starts out of Catfish Row to find Bess wherever she may be and bring her back, he and the chorus sing the finale, Oh Lawd, I'm on my way.
"[The] Pursuit of Happyness gave you a good feeling about black fathers. It reminded you there are some really good ones out there who understand the pain their absent father caused them and are determined not to repeat the cycle. When it comes to bad parents in the black community, both men and women qualify, but the simple fact is as long as the women stay with the kids, they are the ones given the benefit of the doubt. It's the one who isn't there wiping the nose, reading the books, making sure they eat all their vegetables that will get the short end of the stick respect wise. Men can complain about it until they turn blue, but it isn't possible for everyone to know the details of every situation. What people know is who stayed with the kids and who left."
Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri Calls for Jihad in Somalia
A Web video of Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, surfaced Thursday and called on Muslims throughout the Middle East to wage a jihad against Ethiopian forces occupying Somalia.
"You have to use ambushes and mines, and raids and suicidal attacks until you rend and eat your prey as the lion does with his prey," al-Zawahiri declared. The statement was part of a five-and-a-half minute video produced by the terrorist group's multimedia arm as-Sahab.
In the video titled "Set Out and Support Your Brothers in Somalia," and translated by the SITE Institute, Zawahiri is seen in a still image from a previous release, while his voice calls on Muslims everywhere — but specifically those Yemen, the Arab Peninsula, Egypt, North Africa and Sudan — to participate in a holy war against secular government forces in Somalia. Zawahiri says Mujahideen must provide Somali Muslims with men, experience, money and advice to defeat the Ethiopian forces, which he refers to as the "slaves of America."
-But I thought he wanted a Jihad in Iraq. Of course just like Arab racist in Sudan he's not just calling for "jihad", he's calling for genocide of all black Christians .
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body."
The Bashaw of Tripoli’s justification for war on American trading ships in the Mediterranean two hundred years ago,
“it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.” -Thomas Jefferson By Pamela
So we are all supposed to kiss Keith Ellison's ring for using the Quran of Thomas Jefferson? CAIR is bouncing off the couch a la Tom Cruise on Oprah sending out their CAIR alert with the following ABC News article The first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, attacked for planning to use the Koran at his swearing-in instead of a Bible, will use a copy of the Muslim holy book once owned by Thomas Jefferson, an official said on Wednesday. And CAIR salivates over the excitable Washington Post piece: BUT IT'S THOMAS JEFFERSON'S KORAN! -Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, Washington Post, 1/3/07
Sorry dhimmis it wasn't Jefferson's prayer book. Jefferson had a copy of the Quran so that he might understand the enemy. WAR GAMES. Jefferson, in defense of America, was studying the enemy's war plan, their "Art of War." Maybe Ellison ought to read Andrew Bostom's, "America's First War on Terror" here; Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja.
These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib).
During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Thus as Joshua London’s Victory in Tripoli elaborates in lucid prose, an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 years—exploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.
Jihad at Sea—An Overview
Barbary jihad piracy was merely a16th through 19th century manifestation of the naval razzias characteristic of Islamic imperialism since its emergence (pp.41-43) in the 7th and 8th centuries. For example, although the Abbasid state (750-1250) “orientalized” the Caliphate, and lacked naval power of any importance, in the west, Muslim forces (i.e., decentralized, “organic formations”), continued the Islamic expansion by maritime warfare. Throughout the 9th and 10th centuries, Berbers and Arabs from Spain and North Africa launched raids along the coastal regions of France, Italy, Sicily, and in the Greek archipelago.
Jihad Piracy and the Barbary StatesJihad Piracy and the Barbary States The Barbary jihad piracy which confronted America soon after our nation was established (i.e., between 1786-1815), was an enduring, formidable enterprise. During the 16th and 17th centuries, as many Europeans were captured, sold, and enslaved by the Barbary corsairs as were West Africans made captive and shipped for plantation labor in the Americas by European slave traders.
Robert Davis’ methodical enumeration indicates that between one, and one and one-quarter million white European Christians were enslaved by the Barbary Muslims from 1530 through 1780. White Gold,, Giles Milton’s remarkable account of Cornish cabin boy Thomas Pellow, captured by Barbary corsairs in 1716, also documents how earlier 17th century jihad razzias had extended to England [p. 13, “By the end of the dreadful summer of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth reckoned that 1,000 skiffs had been destroyed, and a similar number of villagers carried off into slavery”], Wales, southern Ireland [p.16, “In 1631…200 Islamic soldiers…sailed to the village of Baltimore, storming ashore with swords drawn and catching the villagers totally by surprise.
(They) carried off 237 men, women, and children and took them to Algiers…The French padre Pierre Dan was in the city (Algiers) at the time…He witnessed the sale of the captives in the slave auction. ‘It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again’.”], and even Reykjavik, Iceland!
"Several muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release. In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained, on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...." This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.
The incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, under pressure from a congressional ethics committee, has agreed to ensure that his staff does not engage in improper political activities.
In a report issued just before Democrats take control of Congress on Thursday, the bipartisan committee said Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan has acknowledged "'a lack of clarity"' in communications with aides about their duties.
The panel's three-year inquiry came amid newspaper reports that Conyers assigned congressional staffers to work in Michigan political campaigns.
In winning control of Congress from Republicans in the November elections, Democrats accused their opponents of a "culture of corruption" and promising higher ethical standards and a more honest and open government if they took over.
According to the ethics panel's statement, Conyers has agreed to prohibit his staff from performing campaign-related work, unless aides take a leave from the House of Representatives and get written approval from the ethics panel.
The 42-year House veteran with a liberal voting record also will inform his staff in writing of the prohibition on voluntary work on political campaigns by congressional aides, the panel said.
The ethics committee statement did not say whether Conyers was found to have violated any laws or House rules.
The statement concluded "this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff."
-Conyers should do much better this time around because his kids are grown now and no longer require free babysitting.The New York State Comptroller violated the same laws as Conyers. Using staffers to babysit , give family rides and pay with taxpayers money. So shoud not Conyers resign?
Democrat pleads guilty to disenfranchising black voters.
BOSTON - Former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, once considered the most powerful man on Beacon Hill, pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice in a deal that spared him prison time for misrepresenting his role in a redistricting plan that diluted the clout of minority voters.
Federal prosecutors agreed to drop three perjury charges against Finneran in exchange for his guilty plea to a single count of obstruction of justice.
Under the deal, Finneran will pay a $25,000 fine and be placed on 18 months of unsupervised probation, according to the documents filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. He has also agreed not to seek political office for at least five years.
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns still must approve the deal.
Separately, Finneran still faces a possible suspension of his law license or disbarment by the state Board of Bar Overseers.
Finneran was indicted in June 2005 and accused of lying during his testimony in a voting rights lawsuit. The suit claimed a 2001 law that drew up new legislative district boundaries discriminated against blacks and other minority voters in Boston while protecting incumbents, including Finneran.
Finneran's trial was scheduled to begin Jan. 16, but the plea deal allows him to avoid a trial and any prison time.
The plea agreement documents show Finneran will admit to making false and misleading statements while testifying under oath about whether he had seen and reviewed a redistricting plan before it was filed with the clerk of the House of Representatives.
In a transcript of his testimony, Finneran repeatedly denied seeing the plan until it was filed with the House clerk, when all members of the House see the plan.
``Did you review any of the redistricting plans as the process proceeded?'' Finneran was asked.
``Not as the process proceeded, No sir,'' he responded.
``So the first time you saw a redistricting plan was when the redistricting committee disseminated its plan to the full House, is that your testimony?''
``That is my testimony. Yes, sir,'' Finneran responded.
The indictment cited several meetings Finneran conducted before the formal release of the redistricting map, including one in which he reviewed a redistricting plan for each district in the state, including his own.
Finneran had previously vehemently denied the charges and suggested the case against him was politically motivated, referring to the ``questionable motives and machinations of the U.S. attorney's office.''
``I'm not going to lose any sleep over it,'' he told reporters the day the indictment was handed down.
His attorney, Richard Egbert, has said Finneran never claimed he was totally uninvolved in the redistricting process and that he acknowledged in his testimony having about ``half a dozen'' conversations with leaders of the redistricting committee.
Under state law and House rules, Finneran was free to help draft the legislative map before it was released.
Since leaving the Legislature, Finneran has been president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, where he earns a salary of about $416,000 plus bonuses.
-"Usually, a felony conviction of this type of crime would either result in disbarment or a lengthy suspension, absent mitigating circumstances, "Mitigating circumstances=laws do not apply to Democrats. Silly me I forgot ethics are for Republicans
Immigration Laws Trap Those Who Comply and Those Who Don't
By Tamar Jacoby
At dawn on Tuesday more than a thousand Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents descended on six plants owned by Swift & Co., one of the country's largest meat processors. Some 1,300 workers were arrested, and operations at all six slaughterhouses were suspended.
Seen in one light, the raids were perfectly justified. Both employer and employees were breaking the law. It's a law that's being violated on a massive scale from coast to coast, and the public is increasingly upset about it.
The only catch: Swift has been trying for years to comply with our poorly conceived immigration laws, coping as best it could with an impossible situation. Like a driver who finally goes through a broken traffic light, the company and its workers aren't the problem -- the system is.
Both Swift and its employees -- who bore the brunt of the punishment -- are caught in an economic bind far bigger than themselves. Meat processing is dirty and dangerous. Fewer and fewer members of the increasingly educated American workforce are interested in the jobs.
As a result, although it now pays an average of $13 an hour, or $25,000 a year, the industry increasingly relies on foreign workers, not because they're cheap -- $25,000 a year is what trained paramedics and college-educated kindergarten teachers make in meatpacking states such as Iowa and Kansas -- but simply because they'll do the work. If immigrants weren't available, companies such as Swift would have to close, and both meatpacking and the agriculture that depends on it -- cattle and hog producers -- would eventually move to other countries.
Not only that, but U.S. law makes the bind much worse for both employers and employees. Despite the meatpacking industry's well-known need for foreign labor, the United States offers virtually no way for these workers to enter the country legally. Every year the economy as a whole creates some 500,000 more unskilled jobs than Americans want to do, yet we issue only 5,000 year-round visas for the immigrants who might fill them. For companies such as Swift and its workers, there's no good answer, and it's not surprising that many break the law.
But even that isn't the end of the cruel twists of Swift's story. Far from ignoring or shrugging off the law, the firm has been trying to comply with it. When job applicants started showing up with what the company suspected were false papers, it tried inquiring into their backgrounds -- only to be sued for discrimination by the Justice Department.
When the government created a program meant to help employers verify that their workers were in the country legally by checking Social Security numbers against a central database, Swift was among the first to sign up. And when that program didn't seem to be catching the worst offenders -- people using not false Social Security cards but stolen ones -- Swift came to Washington to testify in Congress about the problem. The reward: That was precisely the offense that ICE raided the company for on Tuesday.
Don't misunderstand: Swift is no band of saints. Everyone involved -- the company, its workers, the U.S. government -- knows that the kind of compliance required to pass muster today is a charade. But it is a charade our dysfunctional immigration system has all but forced the firm and its workers to play.
Does this mean it's all right to break the law? Of course not.
Our nudge-nudge, wink-wink immigration system -- unrealistic laws, all but ignored on the ground -- must be replaced by a law enforcement regime that works: more honest quotas, enforced to the letter, including in the workplace. Raids such as those that took place this week would be justified in the context of an immigration overhaul of the kind proposed by the president and passed by the Senate last spring. Workers need a legal way to enter the country. Businesses need a legitimate way to get workers, plus a reliable verification system -- not unlike credit card verification -- to tell them which workers are legal and which aren't. And once these things are in place, there will be no excuse for breaking the rules.
But until then, raids of the kind that occurred this week can only be counterproductive: Companies trying to do the right thing will be driven out of business, even as those happy to flout the law will find themselves with more of a competitive advantage. And meanwhile illegal workers will be driven further underground.
I happened to be with a group of employers when the Swift raids were announced -- not food-processing companies but contractors, landscapers, growers and others who also count on unskilled workers -- brought together by their growing anger at the broken immigration system and the lies it makes them tell.
"What am I supposed to do?" one employer asked bitterly. "I'm paying $22.50 an hour. I still can't find enough workers. I'm making less and less money as a result -- I've stopped bidding for lots of jobs. And I could go to jail just for trying to get the work done."
And the sad truth is, he can't do much. Only Congress can fix the system he and his workers are trapped in. As the Swift raids remind us, it's a job that cannot wait.
Tamar Jacoby is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
The moderate-liberal commentator discusses the evolution of musical theater in the United States of America: "On post-rock Broadway, then, there is the increasing prevalence of what is often termed 'American Idol' singing, in which the singer stretches out notes across rippling valleys of improvisatory decoration, for which the technical term is melisma. I am actually a little uncomfortable with those who sniff that these singers are 'not staying on the pitch,' as this kind of singing has its roots not in a 5-year-old television show, but in the black gospel tradition, and I for one am not ready to tell Aretha Franklin to 'just sing the note as written.'
Ms. Franklin's singing is world-class art. However, the song itself that is rendered in the melisma style almost never is. It doesn't need to be: A singer can light up the audience with melisma on the basis of a song with five chords and a melody my cat could write. Whitney Houston could hold my attention just singing the mess out of a single note.
But this means that the musical that trucks heavily in this kind of singing — or, in general, on performance charisma rather than what is written — is usually rather light on substance as a written score. And that does mean something beyond the mere fact that fashions change. Broadway musical scores today contribute much less than before to the body of truly impressive human accomplishment. Fifty years ago today, I and my in-laws could have seen 'Candide,' 'The Most Happy Fella,' and 'My Fair Lady' all in this same week. Their printed scores alone are treasures of artistic achievement. They inspire awe.
This will not be true of 'Rent,' 'Wicked,' or 'The Color Purple' in 2057. Their music pleases via the transient and amorphous matter of performance style. Gratifying as this can be, a finely written score between two covers, shining through even in lousy performances — think of how 'Guys and Dolls' scores even when stumbled through by middle-schoolers — is, for my money, more awesome than a performer's knack for striking a certain visceral chord in my belly one night."
“I have observed this in my experience of slavery, that whenever my condition was improved, instead of increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one.”
Black people, particularly Black men are lazy.False.
How can a people who built this nation and did it for free suddenly become the laziest people in the nation?According to the US Census Bureau, 68.1% of all Black men and 62.3% of Black women over the age of 16 are in the civilian labor force, compared to 73% of white men.
And 59.9% of white women. With racial discrimination and other challenges, more of us are still working than sitting at home.While the majority of poor people in America are Black, the majority of Black people are NOT poor. Of the 33.7 million Blacks in this nation, 8.1 million have incomes below the poverty line.Now, what we do with our money is another story…
Gotta love those 8 mile per gallon jalopies laden with peace and environment bumper stickers, leaking oil faster than the Exxon Valdez. Zombie’s Concourse of Hypocrisy takes a look around San Francisco for the most ridiculous “progressive” junkers.
What You Don't Know About The Federal Minimum Wage
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have placed a significant minimum-wage increase at the top of their agenda for the 110th Congress. President Bush has signaled his willingness to approve it, using the increase as a lever for tax relief on small businesses.
One would imagine that this show of bipartisanship springs from a national crisis, but George Will explains that the effort will benefit only a few, and not even the few that the politicos assume:
Democrats consider the minimum-wage increase a signature issue. So, consider what it says about them:
Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000.
(The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.) Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers.
Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and earn tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow people to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent.
Will makes a point which many on both sides have missed, which is that the Bush administration's spending spree makes it politically difficult for them to oppose the increase. After all, Bush signed the pork-filled farm bill in 2002 that benefitted the large farmers more than anyone else, and he signed a highway bill in 2005 that notoriously contained over six thousand earmarks. If the government wants to give away money, why not to the poor? But that's precisely the problem.
They aren't giving away money, not from their checkbook, at any rate. They're distorting a market for a short-term political benefit that will do nothing to raise the standard of living for the people they supposedly want to help. Arbitrarily raising the prices of services and goods in a marketplace causes inflation, not an increase in real value. They're forcing consumers of labor to pay more for the same service, from which they will get no increased benefit -- and that means that they will have to pass the costs along to the consumers of their goods and services, all through the distribution chain.
Whose money is getting given away? Yours and mine, and all 479,000 minimum-wage workers, that's who. i can absorb the incremental loss of buying power, but the people at the bottom rungs cannot. If they're lucky, all that will happen is that their buying power will remain the same as it was after a short period of adjustment. More likely, some of their jobs will get eliminated as businesses have to support the cost increase in some other fashion than price hikes.
And it's not even the working poor that gets helped in the increase. The working poor may have started at minimum wage, but they move up as they progress in their jobs. It is an absolute fallacy to argue that minimum-wage workers have not gotten a raise since the last federal increase of the minimum wage; they get raises as they increase their value to their employer, not from Uncle Sam.
Anyone who has worked at the minimum wage since 1997 is either switching jobs too often to get a raise or is not very productive. The people making minimum wage are by and large temporary workers and people who make most of their living through tips, the latter comprising three out of every five minimum-wage workers. It's not an accurate reflection of their standard of living.
Will has it right -- the minimum wage should be zero. Unfortunately, the politicians don't get re-elected when they tell Americans that they can't solve their problems, and so we get these splashy systemic solutions to issues that either don't exist at all or only affect a narrow slice of the nation. The rest of us get to pay for it, and the people with the least ability to withstand the economic consequences pay the most for it.
Perhaps we should insist on an increase in the minimum common sense of Washington officials.
"Man’s real treasure is the treasure of his mistakes, piled up stone by stone through thousands of years"
-Jose Ortega Y Gasset
Early in the morning of December 9, 1981, Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner pulled over a car going the wrong way on a one way street in the "red light" district of Philadelphia. The Volkswagen belonged to a man named Billy Cook. A few minutes later, gunshots would ring out and Officer Faulkner would be shot numerous times. Billy Cook’s brother, a man who called himself Mumia Abu-Jamal would be arrested for the murder and would be later sentenced to death for the crime.
Now there is little doubt in my mind that Mumia slaughtered Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Yet, to many people far from Philadelphia, ignorant to the realities and facts of the case, Mumia is a hero, a cause-celebre of the far left, and a published and celebrated author. To them, he is not a killer, he is a martyr-to-be, and the living embodiment of all that is wrong with America’s criminal justice system. And, for a time, this is what I believed, as well.
I discovered Mumia’s case through my voracious appetite for reading. When I was in my late teens, I had decided to turn my back on the world of partying and fun, and instead committed myself to "self-discovery." I did my time as an aspiring Eastern spiritualist and suffering existentialist. When these journeys ended in disappointment, (as they tend to do) I turned to politics. I listened to Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, but aside from Liddy’s opposition to animal testing, I found the voices of the right to not be my cup of tea.
Eventually, I was turned on to Chomsky, Micheal Parenti, the works of Marx, Howard Zinn, and began down the path of far-leftist politics. It was than that I ran across Jamal’s book "Live From Death Row." I felt it impossible that this man who seemed so articulate, so seemingly sensitive to the plight of others, could be guilty of anything and was compelled to do something to address what I saw to be an obvious case of injustice.
What finally pushed me into full-throttle on Mumia activism was not a full scale investigation into the facts of the case, but rather a viewing of the HBO documentary on Jamal’s case "A Case for Reasonable Doubt," which first aired in 1996. I now see just how terribly flawed and biased the documentary was, but, at the time, I believed it to be an unbiased look at how the justice system had got it all wrong and had allowed for an innocent man to be on death row. I was hooked.
When I came into the "Mumia movement" during the mid-nineties, the cause was at the height of its popularity. Mumia had a host of celebrities and politicos to count on as defenders, as well as thousands of other activists who hung on his every word, gobbled up his books, and shelled out in excess of a million dollars to feed the giant legal and organizing machine that sought to "brick by brick, wall by wall, free Mumia Abu-Jamal."
And there I was in the middle of it. I believed that the dread locked, self-proclaimed "voice of the voiceless" was a victim of a political frame up enacted by racist Philadelphia authorities.
So, I attended all the rallies, raised funds, organized locally in my hometown of Virginia Beach, and befriended cult-member, and chief Mumia advocate, Pam Africa. My tireless dedication to the cause quickly propelled me up the ranks and I soon found myself dining and hanging out with the likes of Zack De-Rocha of Rage Against the Machine, Mos Def, Ed Asner, delegations of French politicians and dozens of other high profile, and deep-pocketed "Mumia-maniacs" while attending pro-Mumia events.
The first time I crossed the line from being an activist to being an attack dog on behalf of Pam. Africa was back in 1997 when I phoned Jane Henderson who was then the head of a group called Equal Justice. Equal Justice was an organization which organized and raised huge amounts of funds on Mumia’s behalf. Pam and Jane had locked horns over the root of most conflicts, money. To put it simply, Equal Justice was successful in raising it and Pam’s group International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia was successful in financial mismanagement.
This led inevitably to conflict and I loyally joined the fray on Pam’s behalf and at her behest. I called up Jane Henderson on the phone and berated her for her disloyalty to the cause and her audaciousness. From that day forth, I was consumed with putting Jamal’s detractors in their proper place. I loved the rush of rhetorical combat and always spoiled for a fight with those who had not "seen the light."
I began to write articles that were more ad-hominem attacks than fact based analysis pieces, which were more an exercise in ego than integrity. I called Pulitzer prize winning journalist Steve Lopez a hack, labeled Philadelphia Radio Host Michael Smerconish a racist, and even made crude remarks about the physical appearance of Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham.
I was cruel for cruelties sake; yet, my "literary" bombast did not bring reproach from my fellow travelers of the far left, it brought praise. My articles were printed in dozens of leftist periodicals and, while trolling around the Internet, I had found that someone had even taken the time to translate some of my pieces into Japanese and French. I was on a roll, a big fish in a very tiny and unimportant pond, but for me it was something important, something I thought I needed. Eventually my zealousness caught up with me when I wrote a scathing review of Dave Lindorff’s book Killing Time. Lindorff’s book was decidedly pro-Mumia, but it did make rather harsh criticisms of Jamal’s lawyers Marlene Kamish and Eliot Grossman and the defense they were attempting to use at that time. Lindorff also offered a somewhat oblique critique of the Jamal movement, which was than, and is certainly now, in a state of decline.
In conversations with Pam Africa, I was left with the impression that this book was a threat to Jamal’s defense and that Lindorff was likely an agent of the government seeking to discredit the movement. That was all that I needed to hear. I then set out to destroy Lindorff’s reputation and make sure he didn’t sell any books.
As it turns out, I almost succeeded. Speaking to Lindorff about the effects of my handiwork a few months ago he indicated to me that he believed my leveling review cut harshly into the book sales and caused many within the movement to question his own motivations in writing the book. But unlike all of my previous victims, Lindorff fought back and through some heated and public exchanges over the Internet forced me, for once, to defend my actions. It was the beginning of the end of my blind faith in the utterances of Pam Africa.
I soon realized that I had allowed my self to be transformed from a wide-eyed, well-intentioned, teen activist into a cynical peddler of lies who de-constructed people for kicks. I didn’t care about the truthful recording of facts or emotional sincerity, or integrity. I cared about the "movement" and my precious ego. It took me a while to realize that in producing prose that was flagrantly artificial and mean spirited that I had become the monster that I had claimed to be in opposition to.
After some time, I started to get the impression that I was not alone in my looseness of facts within the movement. It began to become evident that for most of the people who supported Mumia, the facts were not relevant. All that mattered to most of Jamal’s menagerie of kooky friends was that he embraced a leftist ideology that made Michael Moore seem like Karl Rove.
The facts of Jamal’s case create a troubling dilemma for the movement dedicated to freeing him. The evidence could not be more clear. Mumia shot Faulkner in the back and than shot the twenty-five-year-old, newly married police officer between the eyes. No less than five witnesses implicated Mumia in the shooting. Other witnesses would come forward and make the claim that Jamal had even boasted of killing Officer Faulkner.
Abu-Jamal was found at the crime scene slumped against a light pole, himself suffering from a gun-shot wound...the one shot that Officer Faulkner was able to get off before he was killed by Jamal. Mumia’s .38 caliber revolver was found at the scene of the crime with five empty shell casings. The bullet retrieved from Faulkner’s brain matched up to Mumia’s gun.
As far as Jamal’s defense goes, you might need a scorecard to keep up. Jamal’s original attorney during his 1982 trial, Anthony Jackson, failed to produce or even insinuate that their were any witnesses that could counter the claims of the prosecutions eyewitnesses. He did not so much offer a rebuttal to the prosecutions case, but rather focused upon relatively unimportant discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses testimonies. Years later, Anthony Jackson would be unfairly maligned by Jamal’s supporters as an actual participant in the conspiracy to "railroad" Jamal.
A careful reading of trial transcripts paints another picture all together, though. It was not Jackson that sabotaged Jamal’s case, it was Mumia. At every opportunity, Jamal sought to undermine the authority of the court and generally create a terrible nuisance of himself through obscene outbursts and repeated demands that the leader of the MOVE cult serve as his attorney. Unfortunately for Jamal, his crude attempt at political theater didn’t work well for him and he was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and was subsequently sentenced to death.
Through most of the 1980's Jamal’s case was all but forgotten. Than in 1990, a new team of lawyers came together to defend Mumia after the Trotskyist, Socialist Workers Party started doing activist work around Jamal’s case. The team was led by Leonard Weinglass of "Chicago 7" fame and it was through Weinglass’s relentless ability to lie, and lie well, that Mumia would become the cause celebre of the 1990's.
Qualitatively, the legal strategy pursued by Weinglass was not altogether that different from that which was presented by Anthony Jackson. Weinglass did, however, offer his own version of what happened the fateful night that Faulkner was killed.
According to Weinglass, Jamal was shot as he approached the scene by Faulkner, whom was in the midst of beating Billy Cook. At that point, the passenger in Billy Cook’s car exited the vehicle, shot Officer Faulkner, and proceeded to run east on Locust Street away from the scene.
To back up this version of events, Weinglass presented three witnesses. The first was a career criminal and known pimp. The second was a man named William Singletary, whom Weinglass even had to admit "was not entirely accurate" about his recollection of events. And the third witness was a man named Harkins who ended up testifying that the man who shot Faulkner "sat down and sat on the curb." This was devastating to Weinglass’s case as it corroborated what the prosecution witnesses had said in the original trial. Needless to say, Jamal’s crucial Post Conviction Relief Appeal (PCRA) was turned down.
While he was not so successful in getting his client off of death row, Weinglass fared much better in the court of public opinion (outside of Philadelphia, anyway). He circled the globe and raised thousands of dollars for himself and for the defense of Jamal. He published a book "Race for Justice" and was treated as a hero at pro-Mumia events.
Yet, despite his out of court success in raising Jamal’s profile, Weinglass and his co-counsel Dan Williams were fired by Jamal in 2001. The "free Mumia" movement was shocked at the sudden and unexpected move on the part of Jamal. Mumia justified firing his legal team by citing a conflict of interest due to the fact that Dan Williams was about to publish a book about Jamal’s case. Williams would allege that Jamal not only knew about the book and approved of its publication, but had also read it in manuscript form, something that Jamal does not deny.
Nevertheless, two relatively unknown attorneys were tapped to replace Weinglass, Marlene Kamish and Eliot Grossman. In addition to savagely attacking Weinglass’s performance as counsel, Grossman and Kamish would introduce a new element to the Jamal case...a confession from someone other than Jamal to the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner.
It would be argued by Grossman and Kamish that a man named Arnold Beverly, not Jamal, shot Faulkner. And what did they produce as evidence? A grainy and certainly suspect videotape of what appears to be a homeless person confessing to killing Faulkner.
His reason for this brutal murder? According to Beverly, he and another man (who remains unnamed, but is often implied to be Kenneth Freeman-a long time friend and business partner of Billy Cook ) were hired to kill Daniel Faulkner because of Faulkner’s interference in mob-run, prostitution and drug-dealing. Beverly went even further to say that it was not only the mob that wanted a rookie, low ranking officer rubbed out, it was corrupt cops as well.
There are, of course, a few problems with the course of events as presented by Kamish and Grossman in regards to the Beverly confession. The first and most obvious being the Beverly confession, itself. Aside from it sounding completely ridiculous, the fact is that nobody can place Beverly at the scene of the crime.
Secondly, the chain of events, as presented by Arnold Beverly, directly contradict nearly all of the defense claims made prior to the alleged "confession." For example, nearly anyone who is familiar with the case has heard Jamal’s defense claim that the gun that killed Faulkner was a .44 while Jamal’s gun was a .38. Yet, in his confession, Beverly claims that he used either a .22 or .38 to kill Faulkner. Arnold Beverly also makes the wild assertion that two police officers were near the scene when the shooting started, a claim that no other witness has corroborated.
Beverly claims that after he shot Faulkner he ran west down Locust Street and on down into the subway. However, since 1995, the defense had been making the claim that Faulkner’s killer had ran east and into an alleyway.
In one of the most patently revealing, manipulative tactics employed by Kamish and Grossman, the primary support of Arnold Beverly’s confession was buttressed by an affidavit from Billy Cook. In this affidavit, Cook’s testimony reads like spackle on a wall.
Where the defense had holes and gaps in their narration of an alternative scenario, Cook pasted in what, quite obviously, he thought the case needed. He added yet another .38 caliber pistol in the hands of Kenneth Freeman, the passenger of his car. He added a confession from Freeman that he was involved in a plot to assassinate Officer Faulkner with another guy.
What he left out was why his friend would make him the get away driver without first consulting him. He left out any eye-witness account of the actual shooting. And he left out any guilt that would have rightfully be his own in his role as driver of a murder plot. Basically, he wanted readers to believe that he innocently drove to the site of a conspiracy, unaware, confused, and unable to have seen anything implicating against his brother and his best friend.
Another, and perhaps more daunting problem for Jamal’s supporters is the fact that Beverly had approached Jamal attorneys as far back as 1999 in regards to his confession and the two lead attorneys on the case found his story to be wholly incredible. Dan Williams, one of Jamal’s attorneys at the time Beverly came forward, had this to say about the Beverly confession in his 2001 book "Executing Justice."
"I wasn’t about to embarrass myself by running with such a patently outrageous story on the most visible death-penalty case in the world."
I recall vividly when the Beverly confession story broke in the media, how electrified the Jamal movement was. At a celebratory dinner held that night in downtown Philadelphia, my fellow Jamal supporters were abuzz with excitement and the question of the night was how long before the disgraced District Attorney’s office would release Jamal in the face of a confession from the "real killer."
I, for one, did not share in their excitement, nor their optimism, that Jamal would soon be released. As it turns out, pretty much the only people who bought into the Beverly theory were the throng of Jamal supporters gorging themselves on sub-par Indian food that night.
As for me, I had another reason that I could not share in my comrades’ enthusiasm. The reason for my pessimism was a conversation that I had with Eliot Grossman just prior to him taking over the case from Leonard Weinglass, a conversation that yielded a confession far more compelling than the one offered up by Beverly.
I had met Grossman out in Los Angeles back in the summer of 2000 when I traveled there with MOVE member and Mumia movement leader Pam Africa to participate in the huge Mumia demonstration that was to be held the weekend before the Democratic National Convention was to begin.
Grossman, along with Marlene Kamish, had filed an "amicus" (friend of the court) brief on behalf of Jamal that had been held up within elements of the movement as a piece of superb legal work. Before flying out to LA, Pam had been running around for weeks telling anyone within earshot just how brilliant Grossman and Kamish’s work had been, all the while voicing her frustrations with Williams and Weinglass (frustrations that seemed to be rooted in financial arrangements, as opposed to disputes over legal strategy).
We ended up staying at Grossman’s hilltop home outside of LA. And while I can say I quickly came to like Grossman, it became quickly clear that he had an agenda, one of Weinglass’s destruction. As it turned out, Weinglass and Grossman had, at one time, been friends. The two apparently had some kind of falling out over the handling of a death penalty case in Chicago they two had worked on. Now Grossman was on a mission and Pam Africa, already perturbed at Weinglass, was all ears.
For two days, Pam and I were subjected to an almost continuous tirade against Weinglass and the decisions that had been made by the current legal team. It quickly became clear to me that Weinglass was soon going to be out and Grossman and company would be in. What also became apparent was that Grossman did not care that his soon to be client was likely guilty. In fact, in a moment of alcohol induced candidness, Grossman looked at Pam and me and told us that everything that he had looked at in regards to the case pointed to the fact that Jamal murdered Faulkner.
Needless to say, I was floored. Here was a man that, for two days, had been aggressively lobbying to take over Mumia’s case, saying that he believed that Jamal was guilty! A few awkward moments passed and I looked over to Pam Africa and waited for her to respond to Grossman’s clear violation of "movement etiquette," but the rebuke didn’t come. She simply nodded affirmatively. Was she agreeing with Grossman’s summation? I, to this day, don’t know, but I certainly have my suspicion.
Now you can imagine my shock upon hearing, just a few months after that meeting with Grossman, that he was presenting a theory of events that completely exonerated Jamal from any involvement in Faulkner’s shooting. I was starting to come to the realization that often my "fellow-travelers" on the far left were not interested in truth or justice or any of the things that are paid lip-service to, but were interested in furthering an ideology. Jamal was a hero of the "radicals." Grossman was an old-school Marxist who was simply doing his part for the "cause" (not to speak of elevating himself to iconic status amongst his fellow crackpots). Whether Jamal shot and killed Faulkner or not, really didn’t seem to matter to Grossman, but it did to me.
It seems that Jamal eventually tired of Grossman and Kamish and has now let them go. Philadelphia attorney Robert Bryan has taken over the daunting task of freeing Jamal. As the case stands now Jamal could still be executed, but this is not likely. As Jamal’s prosecutor told the jurors in the case, Jamal would get "years of appeals." As it turns, out he was right. Jamal’s attorney is now filing appeals on Jamal’s behalf claiming that the original trial judge, Judge Albert Sabo was biased against Jamal.
Mumia, through his writings, has presented himself as a proto-typical-far-leftist, sprucing his articles with quotes from Chomsky, Zinn, Paine, and even occasionally quotes from fellow African- Americans. Yet, the fact is that while it is generally accepted that Mumia is a "leftist revolutionary" working to overthrow the capitalist oppressors, he is wedded to the religious sect MOVE and, for a time, so was I.
MOVE was started in the early 1970's by a man named Vincent Lephart who would later change his name to John Africa, along with a college professor named Donald Glassey. At its base, MOVE is a group that’s stated goal is the destruction of not only western civilization, but, in fact, all of civilization. MOVE teaches its members that mankind strayed from the natural order of things millions of years ago and has been reaping the "wages of sin" ever since. They believe that for things to be "right again," all man-made constructs from enlightenment notions of justice to the SUV need to be done away with.
They believe that John Africa is God and they believe everyone not in MOVE are "perverts" and a raper of "mother earth." They keep the young members of the cult largely illiterate and force girls as young as twelve to become pregnant and "marry" grown men and other teenaged boys.
MOVE has been in two major confrontations with authorities in Philadelphia, one in 1978, which resulted in the death of Police Officer James Ramp after he was shot by MOVE members (eight of whom remain in prison for his murder).
The other was in 1985. This time the Police actually dropped a "bomb" from a State Police Helicopter onto a bunker MOVE members had built atop their West Philadelphia row home igniting a fire. This fire was allowed to burn by authorities and the resulting conflagration left a neighborhood in ruins and six adults and five children of MOVE dead, amongst them was MOVE founder John Africa.
Ramona Africa was the only adult MOVE member inside the house to survive. She served seven years in prison for her role in the confrontation. When she was released, she advanced her role as one of MOVE’s leaders, sued the city, won millions, and now lives in Chester, PA, outside of Philadelphia.
In 2000, I moved in with Ramona Africa and became a full fledged "supporter" of MOVE (the group no longer accepts members, adherents are considered supporters) of MOVE. How a middle class, white kid who supported Mumia ended up in a cult comprised of mostly African-Americans who preach sermons of destruction is not nearly a complicated story as one might expect.
What began as the political for me, quickly became the personal. I trusted MOVE in the context of the movement to "Free Mumia" and this trust became manifest in other aspects of my life. I not only began to query MOVE members in relation to matter of politics, but also personal matters, affairs of the heart. I slowly started to cede control of my life to people that I thought had my best interest at heart, people that I thought were touched by the divine inspiration of John Africa. It goes without saying, that I was wrong, terribly wrong.
I was, however, more fortunate than many people who had been caught up in MOVE’s grasp. I kept a steady job, which allowed me more independence than many MOVE adherents and I always had a bit of a contrary streak within me that kept me from completely surrendering my cerebral and ironic faculties. For, you see, in MOVE, being an emotional cripple is the key to success within the group. The less that you can do on your own and the more dependant you are on the group, the more you are held up as the example to be followed. The less you think, the stronger you are in MOVE’s eyes.
I stayed close with MOVE until 2002, when one event would forever alter the course of my life. On September 27th, of that year I received a call at my job telling me that John Gilbride had been killed. Now I didn’t know John, but I did know that he was MOVE’s number one enemy and they hated him. As I slumped into the chair at my Office one thought raced through my mind "MOVE killed John."
John was found dead at 12:08 that morning in the parking lot of his apartment complex. The motor still running, the music still blaring, his head and body blown apart from multiple gunshot wounds. Two years have gone by since that day and prosecutors have yet to make an arrest, although media reports have indicated that MOVE matriarch Alberta Africa may be the prime suspect in the case.
Alberta, an ex-con, a woman twice John’s age, and the ex-wife of MOVE founder John Africa, had married John back in the early nineties. John was much like myself, a white, middle class MOVE supporter.
The two had a child together through in-vitro fertilization and the difficulties began soon after. It seems that after some time as a father, John was coming to the conclusion that life in MOVE was not what would be best for his son. He was growing weary of MOVE members staged "interventions" every time he and Alberta would get into an argument. He was tiring of the cult’s overbearing control over his life and the life of his young son.
In the fall of 1998, John had decided he had enough and left Alberta. He reportedly left her with $500 and immediately had a lawyer notify Alberta that he was filing for divorce and, more importantly, he was going to fight for his young son. It took until 2000 for the divorce to be settled, but the bitter custody dispute would rage on until John’s death.
As a MOVE supporter, I do not recall the first time that I heard about John, but I do recall that as the years wore on, the Organization spent more of its time and energy in fighting John than doing anything else. Activism on behalf of Mumia became an issue on the back burner.
We were told that John was a "government puppet" who was not interested in getting custody of his son, but rather was attempting to force the Organization into another confrontation with police that would end in more jail time for MOVE members, or worse. We were told that he had to be stopped and that Alberta Africa would never allow her son to be taken by John, no matter what.
We were asked to carry out a number of "activities" against John that were literally designed to ruin the man’s life and take away his livelihood. Senior MOVE members instructed us to call his job at the airlines to tell his bosses that John was a terrorist. MOVE supporters were sent to John’s parent’s home outside of Washington DC to spread flyers accusing the family of being "child molesters." MOVE members staged a confrontation with John in an attempt to paint him as a domestic abuser. All of these attacks on John failed and, in fact, only seemed to strengthen his resolve to fight for his young son.
In August of 2002, a judge finally granted John the unsupervised visitation rights that he had been pursuing. By all appearances, it seemed that MOVE was ready for a showdown with John and the authorities.
I was terrified. Nearly every day, my wife and infant daughter would be stationed outside of the now fortified MOVE house staring down the hordes of media who had now descended on the area. After hearing years of anti-police rhetoric from our MOVE idols, we were all certain that the authorities had every intention of storming the MOVE house, especially after MOVE members made it clear that John would not be allowed the court ordered visitation with his son. Through stall tactics MOVE managed to block John from seeing his son until finally, towards the end of September, MOVE had run out of time and options. The day John was murdered was the day that he was going to have his first unsupervised visit with his son. It was also the day that I decided that, like John, I had enough of MOVE.
It would take me nearly two years to extricate myself and my family from MOVE. For me the choice was simple, but, like John, I had a wife and young child who were firmly in MOVE’s grasp and there was no way that I was going to leave without them. So, I stayed in MOVE, at least in the physical sense. I went to their functions, gave them my money, helped with their website, and, worst of all, pretended like I didn’t know they were murderers. It was a living hell, one only endurable because of the hope I had that my wife, who had joined MOVE when I did, would eventually see the group for what it was.
Eventually, she did. In March of this year we officially left MOVE and the Mumia movement for good. The tale of our extrication from the group made the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer back in September in an article titled "Life In MOVE."
Needless to say, our former MOVE "friends" were not overly happy with our choice to depart MOVE. Upon hearing the news that I was leaving, one MOVE member said that I was "worse than John Gilbride." Other MOVE supporters responded with e-mailed threats indicating that I would "go down" and that I had better watch my back because you never knew who was going to "get it next." They also accused me of being a racist, a government agent, a provocateur, and a schizophrenic etc...
Insults against me I could handle, but threats against my family and I were another story. We had no choice but to leave the Philadelphia area, conceal our new whereabouts, and hope that MOVE will never find us.
Upon leaving MOVE I made a vow to myself that I would work in whatever capacity that I could to educate people about MOVE in order to help them not make the same mistake I did.
However, until now, I have stayed relatively silent about my feelings towards Jamal. I partially did so because, as someone opposed to the death penalty, I was afraid that comments I make against the "Mumia movement" might be used against the larger death penalty cause.
Secondly I really don’t think that Mumia is ever going to leave prison, so what would be the point in further discrediting an already doomed man? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that no one has benefitted from Jamal’s imprisonment more than the MOVE Organization. I came to the conclusion that one of the best ways to illustrate MOVE’s contemptible nature is by discussing MOVE’s role within the Jamal movement.
In my view, Jamal was the best thing that ever happened to MOVE. It has provided them with a ready made cause and a somewhat steady supply of funds and members. I would wager that nearly all of the people who have came to the group in the last 15 years found out about MOVE through Mumia’s case.
Pam Africa and other MOVE members get trips around the world to meet world-leaders preaching watered down versions of their "MOVE belief" while advocating for the release of Jamal. Mumia’s case has allowed MOVE members unprecedented access to influential and famous people that would, as a matter of principle, normally reject MOVE members and their arcane ideology out of hand.
What I found when I did the investigation into the Jamal case, that I really should have done nearly a decade ago, was that while the prosecution’s case could be seen from certain perspectives as being flawed, the totality of evidence points to Jamal as being the only possible killer of Danny Faulkner.
This came to me as not at all a shock, but I must confess it was a bitter pill to swallow that I had made a mistake that took up nearly a decade of my life. Not only had I spent my time supporting an unrepentant killer, but I had also attacked the credibility and reputations of those who would dare question the validity of Jamal’s cause, or even heretics from within the movement, who had dared cross Pam Africa or her MOVE compatriots.
So how where does this leave me? Opponents and supporters of what I am doing in relation to the MOVE Organization have often queried me as to what my political outlook is now. Certainly, I reject MOVE’s violent cultism and Mumia’s contradictory marinade of MOVE belief, black-power politics, and Chomskyite platitudes. I find unacceptable the moral blindness of people like Ramsey Clark and Micheal Moore and am increasingly uncomfortable with far-left’s support of Islamo-fascists and dictators.
Writer Christopher Hitchens made the point that at one time for the left, "fascism meant war." Now, for most of my "fellow travelers," it seems that fascism is something to support and to make exceptions for. For me, having seen the results of this endorsement of evil first hand, I cannot count myself amongst the ranks of the "radical left" any longer.
That said, I still hate bigotry and racialism for all of the calamities that it has wrought upon the world. I don’t trust, nor have time for the overly religious or the "transcendent" who offer us fantasy instead of reality. I still believe that most politicians don’t have our best interest at hand and that the power they wield is often out of proportion with the brains in their heads, and often deserve the distrust that people have for them. So politically I don’t know exactly where I am, but I do know where I am not. And I certainly know that Mumia is where he belongs and that, in time, MOVE will be relegated to the dustbin history.
-We would like to thank the blog Anti-MOVE for this article.
There blog exist as a counter to the more organized Pro Mumia forces.
I found this on Youtube.com Nina is such a diva! I Love You Porgy is from the opera "Porgy and Bess" a (1935)(1935), founded on the play "Porgy" by Dubose Heyward and Dorothy K. Heyward. Bleow are the lyrics.
I love you, Porgy, Don't let him take me Don't let him handle me And drive me mad If you can keep me I wanna stay here with you forever And I'll be glad
Yes I love you, Porgy, Don't let him take me Don't let him handle me With his hot hands If you can keep me I wants to stay here with you forever I've got my man
I love you, Porgy, Don't let him take me Don't let him handle me And drive me mad If you can keep me I wanna stay here with you forever I've got my man
Someday I know he's coming to call me He's going to handle me and hold me So, it' going to be like dying, Porgy When he calls me But when he comes I know I'll have to go
I love you, Porgy, Don't let him take me Honey, don't let him handle me and drive me mad If you can keep me I wanna stay here with you forever I've got my man
From the opera "Porgy and Bess" (1935), founded on the play "Porgy" by Dubose Heyward and Dorothy K. Heyward.
Music by George Gershwin (1898-1937), lyrics by Ira Gershwin and DuBose Heyward. ... (more) (less)
In the debate over gay marriage there are many views they can range from strict libertarian which advocates non involvement by government in areas of marriage to traditional, which advocates the state has a valid interest because rearing children in a nuclear family the argument goes produces the best functional child for society.
What ever the case the issue has resurfaced as of late in Massachusetts because the state legislature there has given an okay to the voters deciding whether gay marriage will be banned or legal. Also in South Africa the parliament approved gay marriage for the entire nation.
Recently I got an email from a friend about an article by a liberal gay African American who does not support gay marriage. I have always had an interest in third party opinions and wanted to share the article this person wrote on this blog.
The article is entitled Is Gay Marriage Anti Blackand was written by a gay black writer named Kenyon Farrow. His article starts out as with a typical anti religious right argument which theorizes that white evangelical faith based groups which he says are anti black, are using gay marriage bans to create a coalition between black churches and white evangelicals.
Below is the article and may shed light into the divide within the black gay community and the white gay community which leads many of the communities policy discussions.
Is Gay Marriage Anti Black???
By Kenyon Farrow
I was in Atlanta on business when I saw the Sunday, Feb. 29th edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution that featured as its cover story the issue of gay marriage. Georgia is one of the states prepared to add some additional language to its state constitution that bans same sex marriages (though the state already defines marriage between a man and a woman, so the legislation is completely symbolic as it is political).
What struck me about the front page story was the fact that all of the average Atlanta citizens who were pictured that opposed gay marriages were black people. This is not to single out the Atlanta Journal Constitution, as I have noticed in all of the recent coverage and hubbub over gay marriage that the media has been real crucial in playing up the racial politics of the debate.
For example, the people who are in San Francisco getting married are almost exclusively white whereas many of the people who are shown opposing it are black. And it is more black people than typically shown in the evening news (not in handcuffs). This leaves me with several questions: Is gay marriage a black/white issue? Are the Gay Community and the Black Community natural allies or sworn enemies? And where does that leave me, a black gay man, who does not want to get married?
Same-sex Marriage and Race Politics
My sister really believes that this push for gay marriage is actually not being controlled by gays & lesbians. She believes it is actually being tested in various states by the Far Right in disguise, in an effort to cause major fractures in the Democratic Party to distract from all the possible roadblocks to re-election for George W. in November such as an unpopular war and occupation, the continued loss of jobs, and growing revelations of the Bush administration’s ties to corporate scandals.
Whatever the case, it is important to remember that gay marriage rights are fraught with racial politics, and that there is no question that the public opposition to same-sex marriages is in large part being financially backed by various right-wing Christian groups like the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council. Both groups have histories and overlapping staff ties to white supremacist groups and solidly oppose affirmative action but play up some sort of Christian allegiance to the black Community when the gay marriage issue is involved.
For example, in 1990’s the Traditional Values Coalition produced a short documentary called “Gay Rights, Special Rights," which was targeted at black churches to paint non-heterosexual people as only white and upper class, and as sexual pariahs, while painting black people as pure, chaste, and morally superior.
The video juxtaposed images of white gay men for the leather/S&M community with the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, leaving conservative black viewers with the fear that the Civil Rights Movement was being taken over by morally debased human beings. And since black people continue to be represented as hyper sexual beings and sexual predators in both pop culture and the mass media (pimps & players, hoochies & hos, rapists of white women & tempters of white men), conservative black people often cling to the other image white America hoists onto black people as well – asexual and morally superior (as seen in the role of the black talk show host and the role of the black sage/savior-of-white people used in so many Hollywood movies, like In America and The Green Mile, which are all traceable to Mammy and Uncle Remus-type caricatures).
Since the Christian Right has money and access to corporate media, they set the racial/sexual paradigm that much of America gets in this debate, which is that homos are rich and white and do not need any such special protections and that black people are black – a homogeneous group who, in this case, are Christian, asexual (or hetero-normative), morally superior, and have the right type of “family values.” This, even though black families are consistently painted as dysfunctional and are treated as such in the mass media and in public policy, which has devastating effects on black self-esteem, and urban and rural black communities’ ability to be self-supporting, self-sustaining, and self determining.
The lack of control over economic resources, high un/underemployment, lack of adequate funding for targeted effective HIV prevention and treatment, and the large numbers of black people in prison (nearly one million of the 2.2 million U.S. prison population) are all ways that black families (which include non-heterosexuals) are undermined by public policies often fueled by right wing “tough on crime” and “war on drugs” rhetoric.
Given all of these social problems that largely plague the black community (and thinking about my sister’s theory), one has to wonder why this issue would rise to the surface in an election year, just when the Democratic ticket is unifying. And it is an issue, according to the polls anyway, that could potentially strip the Democratic Party of it solid support from African-American communities.
And even though several old-guard civil rights leaders (including Coretta Scott King, John Lewis, Revs. Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson) have long supported equal protection under the law for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community (which usually, but not always means support of same-sex marriage), the right wing continues to pit gay marriage (and by extension, gay civil rights) against black political interests, by relying on conservative black people to publicly speak out against it (and a lot has been written about how several black ministers received monies from right-wing organizations to speak out against same-sex marriages in their pulpits).
But many black leaders, including some I’ve been able to catch on television recently despite the right-wing’s spin on the matter, have made the argument that they know too well the dangers that lie in “separate but equal” rhetoric. So, if many of our black leaders vocally support same-sex marriage, how has the Christian Right been able to create such a wedge between the black community and the gay community?
Homophobia in Black Popular Culture
Some of the ways that the Christian Right-wing has been so successful in using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue is by both exploiting homophobia in the black community and also racism in the gay community. In regards to homophobia in the black community the focus of conversation has been about the Black Churches’ stance on homosexuality.
It has been said many times that while many black churches remain somewhat hostile places for non-heterosexual parishioners, it is also where you will in fact find many black gays and lesbians. Many of them are in positions of power and leadership within the church – ushers, choir members/directors, musicians, and even preachers themselves.
But let me debunk the myth that the Black Church is the black community. The black community is in no way monolithic, nor are black Christians. The vast majority of black people who identify as “Christian” do not attend any church whatsoever. Many black Americans have been Muslim for over a century and there are larger numbers of black people who are proudly identifying as Yoruba, Santero/a, and atheists as well.
The black community in America is also growing more ethnically diverse, with a larger, more visible presence of Africans, West Indians, and Afro-Latinos amongst our ranks. We have always been politically diverse, with conservatives, liberals, radicals and revolutionaries alike (and politics do not necessarily align with what religion you may identify as your own). It is also true that we are and have always been sexually diverse and multi-gendered. Many of our well-known Black History Month favorites were in fact Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, or Transgender.
Despite our internal diversity, we are at a time (for the last 30 years) when black people are portrayed in the mass media—mostly through hip-hop culture—as being hyper-sexual and hyper-heterosexual to be specific. Nowhere is the performance of black masculinity more prevalent than in hip-hop culture, which is where the most palpable form of homophobia in American culture currently resides.
This of course is due largely to the white record industry’s notions of who we are, which they also sell to non-black people. Remember pop culture has for the last 150 years been presenting blackness to the world – initially as white performers in blackface, to black performers in black face, and currently to white, black and other racial groups performing blackness as something that connotes sexual potency and a propensity for violent behavior, which are also performed as heterosexuality.
And with the music video, performance is important (if not more) than song content. As black hip-hop artists perform gangsta and Black Nationalist revolutionary forms of masculinity alike, so follows overt homophobia and hostility to queer people, gay men in particular. Recently, DMX’s video and song “Where the Hood At?” contained some of the most blatant and hateful homophobic lyrics and images I have seen in about a decade.
The song suggests that the “faggot” can and will never be part of the “hood” for he is not a man. The song and video are particularly targeted at black men who are not out of the closet, and considered on the “down low.” Although challenged by DMX, the image of the “down low” brother is another form of performance of black masculinity, regardless of actual sexual preference.
But it’s not just “commercial” rap artists being homophobic. “Conscious” hip–hop artists such as Common, Dead Prez and Mos Def have also promoted homophobia through their lyrics, mostly around notions of “strong black families,” and since gay black men (in theory) do not have children, we are somehow anti-family and antithetical to what a “strong black man” should be.
Lesbians (who are not interested in performing sex acts for the pleasure of men voyeurs) are also seen as anti-family, and not a part of the black community. A woman “not wanting dick” in a nation where black dick is the only tangible power symbol for black men is seen as just plain crazy, which is also expressed in many hip-hop tunes. None of these artists interrogate their representations of masculinity in their music, but merely perform them for street credibility. And for white market consumption.
It cannot be taken lightly that white men are in control of the record industry as a whole (even with a few black entrepreneurs), and control what images get played. Young white suburban males are the largest consumer of hip-hop music. So performance of black masculinity (or black sexuality as a whole) is created by white men for white men. And since white men have always portrayed black men as sexually dangerous and black women as always sexually available (and sexual violence against black women is rarely taken seriously), simplistic representations of black sexuality as hyper-heterosexual are important to maintaining white supremacy and patriarchy, and control of black bodies.
Black people are merely the unfortunate middlemen in an exchange between white men. We consume the representations like the rest of America. And the more that black people are willing to accept these representations as fact rather than racist fiction, the more heightened homophobia in our communities tends to be.
Race and the Gay Community
While homophobia in the black community is certainly an issue we need to address, blacks of all sexualities experience the reality that many white gays and lesbians think that because they’re gay, they “understand” oppression, and therefore could not be racist like their heterosexual counterparts. Bullshit.
America is first built on the privilege of whiteness, and as long as you have white skin, you have a level of agency and access above and beyond people of color, period. White women and white non-heteros included. There is a white gay man named Charles Knipp who roams this nation performing drag in blackface to sold-out houses, north and south alike. Just this past Valentine’s day weekend, he performed at the Slide Bar in NY’s east village to a packed house of white queer folks eager to see him perform “Shirley Q Liquor,” a welfare mother with 19 kids.
And haven’t all of the popular culture gay images on TV shows like Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, etc., been exclusively white? No matter how many black divas wail over club beats in white gay clubs all over America (Mammy goes disco!) with gay men appropriating language and other black cultural norms (specifically from black women), white gay men continue to function as cultural imperialists the same way straight white boys appropriate hip-hop (and let’s not ignore that white women have been in on the act, largely a result of Madonna bringing white women into the game.).
There have always been racial tensions in the gay community as long as there have been racial tensions in America, but in the 1990’s, the white gay community went mainstream, further pushing non-hetero people of color from the movement.
The reason for this schism is that in order to be mainstream in America, one has to be seen as white. And since white is normative, one has to interrogate what other labels or institutions are seen as normative in our society: family, marriage, and military service, to name a few. It is then no surprise that a movement that goes for “normality” would then end up in a battle over a dubious institution like marriage (and hetero-normative family structures by extension).
And debates over “family values,” no matter how broad or narrow you look at them, always have whiteness at the center, and are almost always anti-black. As articulated by Robin D.G. Kelley in his book Yo Mama’s Dysfunktional, the infamous Moynihan report is the most egregious of examples of how the black family structure has been portrayed as dysfunctional, an image that still has influence on the way in which black families are discussed in the media and controlled by law enforcement and public policy.
Since black families are in fact presented and treated as dysfunctional, this explains the large numbers of black children in the hands of the state through foster care, and increasingly, prisons (so-called “youth detention centers”). In many cases, trans-racial adoptions are the result. Many white same-sex unions take advantage of the state’s treatment of black families; after all, white queer couples are known for adopting black children since they are so “readily” available and also not considered as attractive or healthy compared to white, Asian and Latino/a kids.
If black families were not labeled as dysfunctional or de-stabilized by prison expansion and welfare “reform,” our children would not be removed from their homes at the numbers they are, and there would be no need for adoption or foster care in the first place. So the fact that the white gay community continues to use white images of same-sex families is no accident, since the black family, heterosexual, same sex or otherwise, is always portrayed as dysfunctional.
I also think the white gay community’s supposed “understanding” of racism is what has caused them to appropriate language and ideology of the Black Civil Rights Movement, which has led to the bitter divide between the two communities. This is where I as a black gay man, am forced to intervene in a debate that I find problematic on all sides.
Black Community and Gay Community – Natural Allies or Sworn Enemies?
As the gay community moved more to the right in the 1990’s, they also began to talk about Gay Rights as Civil Rights. Even today in this gay marriage debate, I have heard countless well-groomed, well-fed white gays and lesbians on TV referring to themselves as “second-class citizens.” Jason West, the white mayor of New Paltz, NY, who started marrying gay couples was quoted as saying, “The same people who don’t want to see gays and lesbians get married are the same people who would have made Rosa Parks go to the back of the bus."
It’s these comparisons that piss black people off. While the anger of black heteros is sometimes expressed in ways that are in fact homophobic, the truth of the matter is that black folks are tired of seeing other people hijack their shit for their own gains, and getting nothing in return. Black non-heteros share this anger of having our blackness and black political rhetoric and struggle stolen for other people’s gains.
The hijacking of Rosa Parks for their campaigns clearly ignores the fact that white gays and lesbians who lived in Montgomery, AL and elsewhere probably gladly made many a black person go to the back of the bus. James Baldwin wrote in his long essay “No Name in the Street” about how he was felt up by a white sheriff in a small southern town when on a visit during the civil rights era.
These comparisons of “Gay Civil Rights” as equal to “Black Civil Rights” really began in the early 1990’s, and largely responsible for this was Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and a few other mostly-white gay organizations. This push from HRC, without any visible black leadership or tangible support from black allies (straight and queer), to equate these movements did several things:
1) Piss off the black community for the white gay movement’s cultural appropriation, and making the straight black community question non-hetero black people’s allegiances, resulting in our further isolation.
2) Giving the (white) Christian Right ammunition to build relationships with black ministers to denounce gay rights from their pulpits based on the HRC’s cultural appropriation.
3) Create a scenario in their effort to go mainstream that equates gay and lesbian with upper-class and white.
This meant that the only visibility of non-hetero poor people and people of color wound up on Jerry Springer, where non-heteros who are poor and of color are encouraged (and paid) to act out, and are therefore only represented as dishonest, violent, and pathological.
So, given this difficult history and problematic working relationship of the black community and the gay community, how can the gay community now, at its most crucial hour, expect large scale support of same-sex marriage by the black community when there has been no real work done to build strategic allies with us? A new coalition has formed of black people, non-hetero and hetero, to promote same-sex marriage equality to the black community, and I assume to effectively bridge that disconnect, and to in effect, say that gay marriage ain’t just a white thing. Or is it?
Is Gay Marriage Anti – Black?
I, as a black gay man, do not support this push for same-sex marriage. Although I don’t claim to represent all black gay people, I do believe that the manner in which this campaign has been handled has put black people in the middle of essentially two white groups of people, who are trying to manipulate us one way or the other. The Christian Right, which is in fact anti-black, has tried to create a false alliance between themselves and blacks through religion to push forward their homophobic, fascist agenda.
The white gay civil rights groups are also anti-black, however they want black people to see this struggle for same-sex unions as tantamount to separate but equal Jim Crow laws. Yet any close examination reveals that histories of terror imposed upon generations of all black people in this country do not in any way compare to what appears to be the very last barrier between white gays and lesbians’ access to what bell hooks describes as “christian capitalist patriarchy.”
That system is inherently anti-black, and no amount of civil rights will ever get black people any real liberation from it. For, in what is now a good 40 years of “civil rights,” nothing has intrinsically changed or altered in the American power structure, and a few black faces in inherently racist institutions is hardly progress.
Given the current white hetero-normative constructions of family and how the institutions of marriage and nuclear families have been used against black people, I do think that to support same-sex marriage is in fact, anti-black (I also believe the institution of marriage to be historically anti-woman, and don’t support it for those reasons as well).
At this point I don’t know if I am totally opposed to the institution of marriage altogether, but I do know that the campaign would have to happen on very different terms for me to support same-sex marriages. At this point, the white gay community is as much to blame as the Christian Right for the way they have constructed the campaign, including who is represented, and their appropriation of black civil rights language.
Along with how the campaign is currently devised, I struggle with same-sex marriage because, given the level of homophobia in our society (specifically in the black community), and racism as well, I think that even if same-sex marriage becomes legal, white people will access that privilege far more than black people. This is especially the case with poor black people, who regardless of sexual preference or gender, are struggling with the most critical of needs (housing, food, gainful employment), which are not at all met by same-sex marriage.
Some black people (men in particular) might not try to access same-sex marriage because they do not even identify as “gay” partly because of homophobia in the black community, but also because of the fact that racist white queer people continue to dominate the public discourse of what “gay” is, which does not include black people of the hip-hop generation by and large.
I do fully understand that non-heteros of all races and classes may cheer this effort for they want their love to be recognized, and may want to reap some of the practical benefits that a marriage entitlement would bring – health care (if one of you gets health care from your job in the first place) for your spouse, hospital visits without drama or scrutiny, and control over a deceased partner’s estate.
But, gay marriage, in and of itself, is not a move towards real, and systemic liberation. It does not address my most critical need as a black gay man to be able to walk down the streets of my community with my lover, spouse or trick, and not be subjected to ridicule, assault or even murder. Gay marriage does not adequately address homophobia or transphobia, for same-sex marriage still implies binary opposite thinking, and transgender folks are not at all addressed in this debate.
What does gay marriage mean for all Black people?
But what does that mean for black people? For black non-heteros, specifically? Am I supposed to get behind this effort, and convince heterosexual black people to do the same, especially when I know the racist manner in which this campaign has been carried out for over ten years? And especially when I know that the vast majority of issues that my community—The Black Community, of all orientations and genders—are not taken nearly this seriously when it comes to crucial life and death issues that we face daily like inadequate housing and health care, HIV/AIDS, police brutality, and the wholesale lockdown of an entire generation in America’s grotesquely large prison system.
How do those of us who are non-heterosexual and black use this as an opportunity to deal with homophobia, transphobia and misogyny in our communities, and heal those larger wounds of isolation, marginalization and fear that plague us regardless of marital status? It is the undoing of systems of domination and control that will lead to liberation for all of ourselves, and all of us as a whole.
In the end, I am down for black people who oppose gay marriage—other folks “in the life” as well as straight, feminists, Christians, Muslims, and the like. But I want more than just quotes from Leviticus or other religious and moral posturing. I want to engage in a meaningful critical conversation of what this means for all of us, which means that I must not be afraid to be me in our community, and you must not be afraid of me. I will struggle alongside you, but I must know that you will also have my back.
Kenyon Farrow is a writer, activist and performer, currently working with Critical Resistance, and has also worked with FIERCE!. He is a New Yorker, temporarily living in New Orleans.
Keith Ellison, the first ever Muslim elected to the US Congress, announced his intention of taking the oath of office placing his hand on Islam's supreme holy book, the Quran, when the new 110th Congress convenes in January next year. Instead of 'So Help me God', Ellison, an African American Catholic converted to the Islamic faith, will pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States ending with the phrase ' Allahu Akbar' meaning 'God is Great' in Arabic.
The Muslim congressman's stand on taking oath by the Quran created a furor after conservative radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, in an article, titled " America, not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on", expressed concern that this "will embolden Islamic extremist" and do "more damage to the unity of America and to the values system that has formed this country.." Mr. Prager however conceded that bringing the Quran alongside the traditional Bible for the swearing ceremony would be sensible. He also argued that Mr. Ellison may take the oath without swearing by anything or even can do away with it altogether to work in his elected position. Since then, the media have been flooded with a deluge of commentaries and opinions both condemning and supporting Keith Ellison's choice and Mr. Prager's concerns.
In the latest development, conservative Republican congressman, Virgil Goode, from Virginia in an open letter, expressed his concerns for America being swamped by the Quran-wielding representatives in the future. He wrote,"...if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.
"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.", he continued.
Being a non-theist, I care little about what book or stuff one uses for the oath, be it the Bible, phone directory, a piece of stone or nothing at all. What concerns me is the fact 'as to why the Muslim congressman must swear by the Quran only and not by another book such as the Bible ' and what it means to the American constitution Understanding the basic precepts of the Islamic faith is a precondition to grasp the devout Muslim congressman's stand on taking oath by the Quran. Islam only cares for the truth. Allah, the creator of the universe, undertook the final mission of prophetic succession to deliver the divine message in the perfect form through the last Prophet Muhammad (seal of Prophethood) as the Quran says:
"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets..." [Quran 33:40]
In the Islamic belief, the Quran which contains Allah's final messages in unaltered form, is thus, the divine book of complete truth and knowledge of the universe and Islam is the perfect religious guidance chosen by Allah for all mankind:
This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. [Quran 5:3]
When the creator of the universe has chosen Islam as the only perfect religion for the mankind, all other religions, existing before or to appear later, are either false or incomplete and God disapproves them all. Islam has the perfect prescription for every dealing in human life, such as how humans will sit while eating, take bath, do sex, dress up, deal in trades and collect taxes; what they will eat or drink as well as what he must not do.
The state will enforce the dos and don'ts of the absolute commander of the universe to run the society in conformity to His wishes. The Quran is not only the book of guidance, it is also the book of complete knowledge of the universe. So, the reformist Muslims and their non-Islamic agents have discovered all the formula of modern science, democracy, secularism, human rights and technology in the Quran in recent years. However, the human innovations of the non-Islamic world are naturally fault-prone and are not perfect. Islam only can have these innovations in the perfect form as they come down directly from the knower of all truth. Thus, we have Islamic science, Islamic economy, Islamic banking, Islamic democracy, Islamic human rights, Islamic sex and Islamic technology (Islamic cell phone, TV and fighter jets etc.) in the Islamic world.
Hence Prophet Muhammad, the earthly editor of the Quran, is increasing being seen as the greatest ever scientist and intellectual in the Islamic world, apart from his being the greatest-ever propeht and man. This upsurge in 'everything Islamic' has much to do with assertions of the Quran like in verses 33:40 and 5:3 cited above. It also goes back to the very inception of Islam. Since Islam is the complete treasure-trove of truth and knowledge, early Muslim conquerors undertook the principle of destroying non-Islamic books or documents they came across. Ali, Islam's fourth caliph and Prophet Muhammad's dearest companion, cousin and son-in-law, had said that extra-Islamic documents or books that contain information absent in the Quran are false and misleading, while others that contained knowledge already in the Quran are unneccesary and hence, they must be destroyed. On this ground, the 3 rd Caliph Othman order the destruction of the massive library of Alexandria (built by Alexander, ~332 BC) after the Muslims' conquest of Egypt in 641.
Islam also recognizes the period before Islam as the age of Jihiliya (age of ignorance) and a principle of destroying the knowledge, wisdom and customs of period, because of their false or ignoramous nature, were followed during the rule of the first four pious caliphs (till 661), who were the Prophet's companions and trusted friends. After the initial assaults, however, much of pre-Islamic knowledge and intelletaul properties survived during the 90-year rule of the fiercely anti-Muhamamd, anti-Quran godless Omayyads and later the Abbassids. Interestingly, the Abbasids were more Persian than Arab and yet somewhat pious, who preferred the nominally Islamic Mutazili theology over the orthodox Quranic or Muhammedan Islam.
They were in great pursuit of learning and were astonished by vast treasures of knowledge and philosophy that existed before the coming of Muhammad. To conform to a core Islamic principle of discarding anything from the Jahiliya age, they collected many of original Greek manuscripts from around the kingdom and overseas, translated them into Arabic and destroyed the original transcripts to create an impression that those materials came from the days of Islam. Hence, many of the original Greek manuscripts do not exists and survived only in the Arabic from which Europeans later translated. The translations were mostly done by the Christian, Zoroastrain (Persian) and Jewish sages employed by the Muslim rulers.
Here lies the mysteries of how the Islamic world flourished during the Islamic golden age (8-13 th century) despite Islam being such an anti-intellectual, obscurantist and iconoclastic religion.
In the 12th century, however, the Quran-based orthodox Islam, revived by great Islamic theologians like Imam Ghazzali (d. 1111 AD), pushed the exercise of philosophy, science and free thought into the back-burner, resulting in the decline of scientific and intellectual progress in the Islamic kingdoms.
For example, the proverbial Islamic ruler Saladin of the crusade, a zealous orthodox Sunni, disposed of the famous library of Cairo, consisting of nearly one million books, scrolls and manuscripts after he defeated the Fatimids in 1171 AD. Some were sold, others burned or the rest were left for rotting. [Walker, 284-288].
Keith Ellison, being a devout Muslim behind his liberal and democratic façade, must be aware of these foundamentals of Islam. The Bible, belong to the Jihiliya age, is full of falsehood and errors. A Muslim should in principle try to destroy such materials and never can he swear by such book of ignorance and falsehood.
Also in Islam, " The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers (8:55)" , who consist of all non-Islamic peoples. Here are more verdicts of the Quran specifically on the Jews and Christians who form the bulk of the American people: " Christians and Jews are perverse. Allah fights against them" ( 9:30) Jews and Christians are evil-livers. (5:59) Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers. ( 4:47) Jews and Christians believe in idols and false deities.. (4:51)
"Those ( Christians and Jews) are they whom Allah hath cursed." (4:52) Allah has stirred up enmity and hatred among Christians. (5:14}
[Quran 9:29] Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture (Christian & Jews) as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily , being brought low.
Here are a people whom Allah has sorted out as the
