Friday, January 13, 2006

Stare Decisis

By Lady Guinevere
Snoop Zone Guest Writer

It’s being talked about more then is usual on TV these days, in connection with Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Those wanting to nuke his chances are playing the “A” card - they point to his statements, decisions, and personal view points on Abortion. And he’s made no secret that he believes abortion is wrong. So, the abortion on demand (oh - excuse me - the abortion is a right) folks are gearing up for the fight of their lives. They believe, or they want others to believe that they believe, that with Alito’s appointment would come a return to back room or alley abortions. A vote for Alito would be a vote against women, so they say.

But can one judge, or a majority of judges, on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, it depends. It depends upon whether the judge(s) in question are willing to ignore one of the oldest legal principles around. In lay-person’s terms, it means that any court reaching a decision has GOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW. There are two sources of laws - Legislatures and Courts. The Lawmakers pass codes, statutes, regulations, etc. The Courts interpret those things, in light of the specific facts in front of them in a particular case. Overriding any legislature (state or federal) or any court (state or federal) are the principles of the Constitution (state or federal). The Constitution represents the framework. The overriding principles by which everyone, but especially, the government must “play”.

The Court in Roe v Wade decided that women have a Constitutional Right to Privacy (so far so good) that included the right to decide if/when to abort a fetus (say what?). So, like it or hate it, the Roe v. Wade case was based upon the interpretation of the US Constitution by the highest court in the country.

If the Neo-con judges are a majority, the liberals rant and rave, then they’ll throw Roe v. Wade out like yesterdays’ rotten garbage, and truth to tell lots of ultra-right wing types are hoping that is what will indeed happen. And both are going to be disappointed.

Stare Decesis requires that ALL COURTS including the US Supreme Court follow legal precedent. They cannot simply ignore prior case law. They can distinguish it from the older cases, if the laws on which it was based have changed. They can find differences in facts that make the laws not apply in the newer cases. They can even look for loopholes in the older case, and provide wiggle room for changes.

But unless they ignore stare decisis entirely, the same court cannot simply say “the prior court was wrong in how they read the law”. Since the Roe v. Wade case was based on the Constitution, and last time I looked it had not been recently amended, they can’t find that the laws have changed. The courts can (and have been) finding ways to make abortion less easy to obtain, without completely banning it. In order to overturn Roe v. Wade. they’ll have to say that the other court was wrong. Flat wrong. And that is not going to happen any time soon. It may happen, but not in my lifetime. Plessy v. Ferguson was a famous US Supreme Court case. It’s the one from the 1800's where the court decided that slaves could in fact be owned because they were property. A century later, it was overturned by another bunch of US Supreme Court judges. But it took a long time.

So while all of the nut cases on both side froth at the mouth over Alito and his pals trying to end legalized abortion in this country, those who are calmer and saner realize that stare decisis will block any overt attempts to completely reverse case law. You can stop worrying about it, either way. I suggest that instead of stirring up mud and throwing around stupid epitaphs, those who really care about the women rights AND the poor little unborn babies do something positive to improve the situations and lives of those who are in such dire straights! Educate your young women, and men, about reproductive responsibility (and morality) and cram job training and education into these women and their children. And for God sake people, can someone get girls to stop equating having sex with getting love? Either that, or start passing out birth control pills with the milk at nap time.....

Thursday, January 12, 2006

“Potentially Delicious” Scandal Bias

by L. Brent Bozell III

You can just feel the media’s euphoria over lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to fleecing clients and throwing goodies at legislators. Overnight, Rush Limbaugh could play an audio montage of various anchors and pundits proclaiming it was the biggest scandal to hit Washington in decades. Everywhere you turned, it was “huge,” of “historic proportions.” Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz called it “potentially delicious.” The joy was reminiscent of old Post editor Ben Bradlee’s line about Iran-Contra: “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”

This scandal is big – no questions about that. But by what measure is this story so huge and historic? How does it compare to the House Bank scandal of 1992, which resulted in a number of congressional careers ended? How does Abramoff compare to the related mess at the House Post Office, which led to the eventual conviction of House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski?

There was no glee in the newsrooms then, when it was Democrats.

When Speaker Jim Wright was forced out in 1989 for dozens upon dozens of ethical violations? “Mindless cannibalism,” Wright called it, and they agreed. When Majority Whip Tony Coelho scooted away behind Wright, the media mourned America’s loss.

How does Casino-gate, or whatever we’re going to call this one, compare to the Asian fundraising scandal of 1996? No one mentioned that, either. Investor’s Business Daily published a very informative graphic showing that 22 foreign figures and Democrat activists plugging away for Clinton-Gore and Democratic candidates were convicted by the federal probe of that scandal. (And that figure does not include the people that fled the country rather than testify.) How is the Abramoff plea already bigger than that?

As expected, Democrats and their gaggle of supportive bloggers are claiming it’s outrageous for anyone to suggest that Jack Abramoff could be connected to Democrats.

They argue that because Abramoff was Republican and the majority of his funding went to Republicans, the discussion should end there. After all, the GOP is the Party of Corruption, is it not?

The very idea that Howard Dean & Co. think they can suggest to the public that it is Republicans who represent a “culture of corruption,” and not the party of the Clintons, Rosty, and Wright, is an exercise in self-delusion – or outright fabrication.

Last week, yet another old Democratic fundraising scandal emerged again, with barely a peep from the liberal media. The Associated Press sent out a squib of an article by reporter Devlin Barrett. The news? Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate committee agreed to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for under-reporting the cost of a Hollywood fundraiser by more than $720,000. This is no tiny boo-boo in oversight. In fact, understating the fundraiser’s budget was essential to enable Hillary to hoard more “hard money” dollars in the late months of the campaign. To an ethical midget, the game was clear: cheat now, win the seat, pay a tiny fine later, and watch the liberal media whisper right past it.

Hillary Clinton is constantly touted as our next president, and it’s going to be amusing watching this cattle-futures bribe-taker running against a “culture of corruption.”But just as her husband could look straight into a TV camera and lie through his teeth, so too will Hillary pounce on rhetoric that is one part disingenuous and two parts hypocritical. She’ll do it because no one in the Run Hillary Run media club will expose her.

How was Hillary’s Hollywood-party fine covered? On January 6, The Washington Post just carried the 325-word AP dispatch inside the paper. The New York Times gave it little more than 100 words on page B-4 in a “Metro Briefs” section. It was buried even further still as story number six in that column. Nothing emerged on ABC. Or CBS. Or NBC. Or NPR. (CNN mentioned it briefly on “American Morning,” right before its brief item on the “Bubble Gum Bandit.”) USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News? Nothing.

Dave Pierre at had some fun exploring the bias by omission at the Los Angeles Times. This paper had no Hillary story, but on the 6th, it did carry 2,315 words in two articles on NBC’s liberal “Book of Daniel” premiere, 1,431 words on liberal Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars, 182 words on Pat Robertson’s bizarre Ariel Sharon remarks, and another 1,477 words (starting on Page One) on the decline in the popularity of tennis. Pierre was especially wincing over this factoid: the offending Hillary fundraiser was held in Hollywood, smack-dab on the paper’s stomping grounds.

But let it not be said that the Los Angeles Times doesn’t cover corruption. The day before, the front page carried a big, long Abramoff story with a tiny mention of Hillary Clinton’s Abramoff connection.

Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'


An AOL chatroom named 'Romance — Older Men' was the scene of unbearable humiliation for one chatter, according to a new lawsuit.

By J.K. Dineen
Court TV

Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.
But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."
"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."
A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it's the Internet age — and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit against two erstwhile cyber chums he met in the sprawling 900-room, mostly anonymous society that makes up AOL's chat universe.
Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."
The complaint, expected in court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference, also names AOL as a defendant for allowing the alleged harassment to take place.
Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.
The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.
"Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not."
But Marlowe said he works 60 hours a week at an autobody shop and laughed at the notion that he would drive from Alabama to Ohio to take pictures of Gillespie's house.
"I have never been to Ohio and I have absolutely no desire to go to Ohio," Marlowe said. "There is nothing there — the Cincinnati Bengals are there, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame maybe, and that's about it."
Even if Marlowe did take a trip to Ohio, posting a picture of someone's house on the Internet does not violate privacy laws, according to Chris Hoofnagle, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
"Those norms require the aggressor to engage in behavior that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," he said. "Taking a picture of somebody's house and putting it up on the Web is not that."
Hoofnagle said Gillespie's emotional distress claim will also be tough to prove.

"We live in a rough society, as compared to Europe, where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action," he said.
Power Struggle in 'Romance — Older Men'
Charpentier said he first encountered Gillespie more than five years ago and at first, the two chatters were friendly. But Charpentier says he quickly became disenchanted by what he saw as Gillespie's mean streak.
Things really turned ugly four years ago when Charpentier traveled to Kentucky to meet another chatroom regular, a woman who was also a friend of Gillespie's. The blind date did not go particularly well, and when Charpentier returned to he discovered that Gillespie had gone on the attack.
"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."
Charpentier, who has filed a response seeking to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie, said Gillespie threatened to kill him and "made sick and disgusting remarks about the passing of my grandmother."
"He is an AOL computer thug, that is all he is," Charpentier said.
Marlowe characterized the dispute as a petty power struggle. He said Gillespie was the de facto leader of the "Romance — Older Men" chatroom, and didn't like it when he and Charpentier challenged his authority.
But Marlowe said he never took the chatroom antics personally — until he was served with a lawsuit.
"I don't know how four years of bantering back and forth led to this insane nonsense," he said. "It's just the Internet, for God's sake. It's nothing important."
Michael Gordon, an attorney for AOL, declined to comment, saying, "This is just the beginning stages of this thing."
Megan Gray, a Washington D.C.-based intellectual property attorney who specializes in cyber issues, called it "a loser of a case." She said the Communications Decency Act gives AOL immunity from chatroom misconduct.
"AOL cannot be held liable for the actions of people on the site," she said.
She also suggested the case against Marlowe and Charpentier was doomed.
"The Internet is such a vibrant, young medium, these types of cases are not taken seriously," she said.

Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy Had Racial Covenants

It's particularly ironic that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would try to smear Samuel Alito as racist for his 1980s membership in a Princeton organization that was against affirmative action - especially given the backgrounds of Alito's leading critics on the Committee.
In fact, Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden have some significant exposure of their own on the racial sensitivity front, given the fact that both their families owned homes that were restricted by "racial covenants" from being sold to blacks, Jews or other minorities.
The startling news emerged in 1986, during confirmation hearings for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Back then, Democrats were in the midst of skewering Rehnquist as a racist because a deed on a home he once owned had a racial covenant.
But the tables were turned when Republicans on the Committee learned that both Kennedy and Biden's families owned property with the same kind of racial restrictions.
United Press International picked up the story, reporting at the time: "The parents of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., own a home in Wilmington, Del., that has an old deed prohibiting sale or occupancy by blacks."
Biden insisted that neither he nor his parents knew about the racist restriction. The Delaware Democrat announced that when his family found out they took immediate legal action to reverse what he called the "morally repugnant" agreement.
Sen. Kennedy's racial skeletons came tumbling out of the closet shortly thereafter, when news surfaced that his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy, had a racially restrictive covenant on the deed to his Georgetown home.
Kennedy, who was leading the charge against Justice Rehnquist, insisted his brother couldn't have possibly known about the racist agreement, which he called "deplorable."


I’m likely the only person in the world who does not have a freaken I Pod thingy, but this tis kinda interesting.....

iTunes Update: Apple's Looking Over Your Shoulder ·

From the blog Since 1968

As noted at TUAW, iTunes 6.0.2 contains a new feature: the MiniStore. It’s neat, at first. Sort of.
But not really.
Each time you play a different song, the MiniStore features information about the artist currently playing, as well as “Listeners Also Bought…” Here’s a full size capture of Apple marketing in action: as you can see, I’m playing Mary J. Blige covering U2’s “One”, and the MiniStore shows other albums from Mary J. Blige and U2.
This means, of course, that every single time I play a song the information is sent back to Apple. You can turn off the MiniStore at the click of a button, but it’s not clear whether turning off the MiniStore is the same as turning off the flow of data (one doubts it). And don’t bother looking for a way to turn this “feature” off in the Preference pane: it’s not there.
In fairness to Apple, I didn’t read the iTunes software license when I updated. So let’s have a look. I’ll be waiting here when you’re done.

Back so soon? Did you read the whole thing? OK, I didn’t either. But the music store receives scant mention:
This software enables access to Apple’s online music store which offers downloads of music for sale. This store is open in the United States and may be open in other select territories. Use of this store requires Internet access and requires you to accept additional terms of service which will be presented to you before you can use the store.

The iTunes software license doesn’t actually provide a link to the Music Store Terms of Service, but I do: read it here.
Here’s what Apple says about my information (emphasis mine):
Your Information. You agree to provide accurate, current, and complete information required to register with the Service and at other points as may be required in the course of using the Service (“Registration Data”). You further agree to maintain and update your Registration Data as required to keep it accurate, current, and complete. Apple may terminate your rights to any or all of the Service if any information you provide is false, inaccurate or incomplete. You agree that Apple may store and use the Registration Data you provide (including credit card and PayPal account information) for use in maintaining your accounts and billing fees to your credit card or PayPal account.
That’s it. Apple doesn’t say that it can transmit or store information about the songs I play back to the iTunes Store. In fact, the Music Store TOS expressly incorporates the Apple Customer Privacy Statement.

The Privacy Statement contains the following language:
We also collect information regarding customer activities on our website, .Mac, the iTunes Music Store, and on related websites. This helps us to determine how best to provide useful information to customers and to understand which parts of our websites and Internet services are of most interest to them.

But this caveat is cited specifically in the context of collecting billing information (such as address, phone number, and credit card).
Either the privacy statement means something, or it doesn’t. My sense is that it doesn’t: the general exceptions Apple carves out for itself in the Privacy Policy are large enough to drive a truck through, making the specific exceptions in the iTunes TOS meaningless.
What’s to be done? Probably not much, other than steal your music from file-sharing services and play it with open source players (presumably the sort of behavior Apple wishes to discourage). Either that or acquiesce as yet another corporation takes, without asking, just a bit more of your privacy.

Should race still matter to Generation Y?

By DAVID TARRANT / The Dallas Morning News

To the coming-of- age-generation known as the Millennials, the world has never seemed more diverse.

DAVE PLUNKERT / Special to the DMN Popular television shows such as The Real World and Grey's Anatomy show diverse casts mixing and mingling on-screen. Teens are exposed to the hottest R&B and hip-hop artists on VH1 and MTV. And in this Internet age, access to other cultures, trends and styles is only a few clicks away.
Pop culture serves up a "multiracial, multicultural nirvana," says Charles Gallagher, a Georgia State sociology professor, contributing to an impression of the younger generation as the first "post-race" generation – one where race doesn't matter.
"I don't know very many people who flat out have a problem with other races," says Andrew Moua, 17, a senior at Duncanville High School and a member of The Dallas Morning News Teen Advisory Board. "Everyone I know listens to some kind of hip-hop."
Generation Y's perception of diverse cultures and racial issues has been shaped by pop culture and mass media. But what they see on TV isn't necessarily reality, and that disconnect can lead to everything from personal misunderstandings to cultural collisions in classrooms or dorms.


Black sergeant was 'loyal Klansman'

By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News

About 25 years ago, Ron Stallworth was asked to lead the Ku Klux Klan chapter in Colorado Springs.
Brian Nicholson, Deseret Morning NewsRon Stallworth carries his KKK membership card as a memento. Problem was, the outgoing Klan leader didn't know that Stallworth is black.
"He asked me to take over the lead because I was a good, loyal Klansman," said Stallworth, who had been in constant phone contact with the Klan leader while leading a yearlong Colorado Springs police investigation into the Klan.
Stallworth later moved to Utah, where he recently retired after nearly 20 years as an investigator for the Utah Department of Public Safety. He says he's amazed that no one ever caught on to the investigation he led starting in 1979. After he was offered Klan leadership, he quietly disappeared.
As a memento Stallworth still carries his Klan membership card — signed by David Duke.


Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Interesting Reads

By Neil Bortz:

According to National Review's Michael Ledeen, Osama Bin Laden died from kidney failure last month and is buried in Iran. I guess the only way to know for sure is to dig him up and do a little DNA testing.

We haven't had a candidate for Senate who has this much chance of winning since Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama. John Spencer, who is running against Shrillary, criticized The Hildabeast for being weak on national security.

Paul Bremer, who used to be in charge in Iraq, now says the biggest problem in Iraq was....not enough troops. Of course, he's pushing a book...a motive the mainstream media never seems to recognize. How does government lift a million people a month out of poverty?

Thomas Sowell says you won't believe what country is doing it: China. This one should really make the left wet its pants. The Republican Congress is increasingly bought and paid for, sending pork home to their constituents and wallowing in the pleasures of power.

George Will reports. Ted Kennedy quoted a study in his opening statement at yesterday's confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito. The accusation: defendants don't get a fair hearing in Alito's court room.

Byron York takes a look at this so-called "study."The left is continuing their effort to demonize Samuel Alito...but David Limbaugh says it all comes down to the fact that Alito is just not enough of a right-wing extremist for liberals.

Gas prices are going up again....and while the left will jump up and down and blame George Bush, they will do nothing to actually bring the prices down. You know, like drill for more oil in the United States and build more gasoline refineries.

Senator John Kyl says Congress should make some New Years' resolutions of their own....and one of those includes border enforcement. Good luck...doesn't seem to be much political will on either side of the aisle to do anything about the problem of illegal aliens.

Speaking of illegal immigration, Mort Kondracke opines that the president needs to talk some sense into his fellow Republicans when it comes to immigration.

For a white man's execution, where are black protesters?

Outcry on behalf of Tookie might be viewed as race-based
Jasmyne A. Cannick

Los Angeles -- In the wee hours of the morning of Jan. 17, another man will be put to death by lethal injection in the state of California. This comes exactly 36 days after the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams. But where are the protesters?
With just a few days to go before the scheduled execution of a 76-year-old blind and deaf man who uses a wheelchair, there has been no public outcry of support for clemency for Clarence Ray Allen, who is white. There have been no planned protests and celebrity read-ins in support of saving an old man's life. Community activists and civil rights leaders aren't organizing statewide tours to bring attention to Allen's execution. There hasn't even been one "Kill Clarence Ray Allen Hour" from KFI-AM's "John and Ken Show."
Which raises the question: Was the community cry for clemency for Williams because he was a black man, or was it because the death penalty is immoral, inhumane and cruel?
Granted, Allen hasn't written any children's books, been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, or had a Hollywood actor play him in a film, but that doesn't mean his life isn't worth saving.
The fight for clemency should not have died with Williams. With two more executions scheduled in California, including that of Michael Morales, who was convicted at the age of 21 for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old female, now is not the time for all of Williams' supporters to retreat to their separate corners of the world. In fact, it's time for the opposite. We need to get back into action and show the world that the fight for clemency for Williams was not solely based on the fact that he was a black man but rather that he was a man who did not deserve to have his life prematurely taken from him, no matter how heinous the crimes he was convicted of committing.
The state Legislature is considering a moratorium on the death penalty. Although a decision didn't come soon enough to save Williams' life, our work could aid in saving the lives of many other condemned prisoners.
Black Californians who supported clemency for Williams need to re-examine their reasons for wanting Williams to live. Was it because he was a black man? Was it because he co-founded the Crips? Was it because of his anti-gang and anti-drug work? Or was it because we abhor the death penalty?
Allen poses no significant risk. Blind and deaf, it's very unlikely that he will be ordering the killing of anyone if left to live his remaining days on Death Row.
Many of the black leaders who supported clemency for Williams vehemently denied they were racists when challenged by a pair of conservative radio DJs in Los Angeles who sponsored the repulsive "Kill Tookie Hour." Accusing the black leadership of getting involved in the fight to save Williams only because he was black, the shock jocks noted that these same activists were going to be nowhere to be found when the next execution of a nonblack person came up.
If all of the protests around clemency for Williams were not just for show, it should be no problem for the black community to reassemble for the fight to save Clarence Ray Allen. He may not have been our homeboy from back in the day, or demonstrated to the world that he is a redeemed man. He may not even be likable, but his life is worth trying to save. What kind of message does it send if we sit back and do nothing while another person is systematically put to death on our watch?

Are Black Men Retarded? No, really, what the hell!

Even if you are not a sports fan many of you can still relate to the emergence of absolute ignorance and stupidity of some people right before your eyes.
Another young black dude with unlimited potential fucks up his chance at millions of dollars and a promising career because he acts like a fucken jackass.
First you had Clarett , now Marcus Vick, whom his brother says is better than he is.
I’m so sick of seeing these young brotha’s fuck up opportunity after opportunity it’s not even funny. Hence the re-post of the “Are Black Men Retarded.”
This is getting real old, and this is why it harder and harder for young black MEN to get opportunities in this country. Oh don’t get me wrong the doors are open and the opportunities are there, but for every triumph of the likes of Vince Young you get the idiot fucks like Clarett and Vick.
Yes somewhere down the road “whitey” will be blamed for his misdeeds.
Will dude get an opportunity in the NFL? Of course because some greedy and hungry NFL executive will say fuck it and throw caution to the wind hoping he can be the one who “rehabilitates” his crazy ass.
Dude is broke and a big phat NFL contract will only make him a bigger idiot than he already is.

Marcus Vick's new issue: Gun charges

By Kristen Gelineau
Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. -- Former Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick, booted from the team last week for his behavior on and off the field, was charged Monday with pulling a gun on three teenagers during an altercation in a restaurant parking lot.

Timeline of Marcus Vick's Troubles - Yahoo! News

Marcus Vick's new issue: Gun charges - Chicago Tribune

Marcus Vick arrested on gun charges - Reuters

No way Marcus Vick should be allowed in NFL - MSNBC

Holier-than-Vick attitude found disconcerting

Vick turning pro after dismissal from Virginia Tech
Sports Illustrated

By Minister Paul Scott

All my Brotha's eatin' chicken and watermelon, talk broken English and drug sellin' See I'm tellin' and teaching real facts. The way some act in rap is kinda wack.
("My Philosophy" -Boogie Down Productions)
Every family has one, that cousin who got stuck in a 1980's time warp and just refused to grow up. You see him at every family reunion walking around in a Members Only jacket with a 40 ounce braggin' about how he has 10 children by 10 different women and is too smooth to pay child support. While the rest of the grown folks slip away to the family room to discuss important family business, Cousin 'Junior' stays outback with the children trying to do the Cabbage Patch off of the Whisper Song, not much different than what he was doing 20 years ago....
If we look in the dictionary, we will see the definition of retarded as 'slow or backwards in mental or emotional development ' along with a big picture of one of the Ying Yang twins. While the off the chain behavior of some Brotha's has been discussed in detail by some of our greatest scholar's such as Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, this issue is rarely discussed in a Hip Hop-centric context.
Historically, white supremacy has made it virtually impossible for Black boys to become Black men. Back in tha day (and even now in a small town just south of Tupelo, Mississippi) it was common for 70 year old Black men to be called 'boy' by 10 year old white children. The system has put so many obstacles in our way that it is hard to live up to the basic meaning of manhood: one who provides food, clothing, shelter and security for his family. So much so that many Black men choose to live in a perpetual childhood instead of risking the wrath of white supremacy by asserting their manhood. This is why, in 2005, we see that our development has gone way beyond being arrested; it is on major lockdown.
So today, you have 35 year old men acting like they are 14 year old teenie boppers. They may not be going around singing that jingle from the commercial from back in tha day 'I don't want to grow up, I'm a Toys R Us kid, but they are singing the Hip Hop remix, 'It's plain to see, you can't change me cuz I'm a be a nigga for life...'
While back in the day a rapper was shipped off to the Happy Valley Hip Hop Retirement Home on his 21st birthday, thanks to the industry's potent Hip Hop viagra, a rapper can still be pimpin' all over the world well into his 40's. So the natural progression to manhood has been altered.
While many Brotha's come into the rap game in their late teens with the 'product of my environment/ just keepin' it real like it is on tha streets' excuse,' it becomes problematic when the 18 year old kid becomes a 33 year old multimillioniare who has traveled the world several times over but still kicks lyrics about standin' on tha block with a 40oz, hollerin' at ho's. There is something very wrong in a society when in 2005, Snoop Dog is talking about virtually the same thing he talked about in 1992.
Also, problematic is the 'school yard brawl' mentality where instead of threatening to beat someone up after 6th period woodshop class, grown men like 50 cent and the Game threaten to annihilate each other if they cross paths in the hotel lobby after the after party.
Most disturbing is the crunk music coming out of the Dirty South which has done more to destroy Black manhood than when JJ Evans from Good Times was running around in those red pajama's screaming 'Kid Dy-no-mite !!!' With few exceptions, like Durham's 'Street Ambassador' Crown King, who is developing a sound called 'Conscious C.R.U.N.K. (Consciousness Raising Unleashing Nubian Knowledge) the subject matter is pretty much the same. It usually doesn't go much deeper than a Brotha threatening to shoot another Brotha over a parking space in front of the strip club or a Brotha whispering to a Sista like some sick pervert calling one of those 900 numbers at 3 in the morning threatening to do things to her that are illegal in most states. (Wait till ya see my.....OOOOh!!!)
This Father's Day, in communities across the country, Black men should join together and put a mandatory age limit on actin' the darn fool. We must develop a Rites of Passage for the Hip Hop Generation that doesn't include a 10 year bid in the federal pen.
Just as in some countries every male is required to serve in the military, we should require every Black man to do a tour of duty in the Afrikan Liberation Army (or at least enlist in the Hip Hop DROP Squad). Also we must join efforts to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery, like Bro. Sile, National Chairman of the RBG SOULdiers, is doing with the Take Back Black Music Campaign.
We, as Black men, must join together and boldly proclaim the words of Eldridge Cleaver, [We shall have our manhood or the earth will be leveled by our attempts to gain it!]
Minister Paul Scott represents the Messianic Afrikan Nation in Durham NC.

Monday, January 09, 2006

I love liberals..........

Mercury Rising

The fact is that the American people are abysmally informed. Many right-wingers want to be misinformed, because keeping themselves misinformed is the only way to justify to themselves the deep wrongs against their country they are complicit in. Some examples we're all familiar with:

1. we offered a thread to right-wingers to argue the case for invading Syria. Months have gone by, with no takers.
2. we have offered another person, who claimed in e-mail to be seeking a dialogue, a thread to argue the case for Iraq. Unfortunately, he wasn't interested enough in dialogue to actually read our offer.
3. we have witnessed the unfortunate self-humiliation of another right-winger who tried to use misdirection, ad hominem, and even outright falsehood to try to diminish the gravity of Bush's lawbreaking in eavesdropping on Americans without a FISA warrant.

I happen to be working on a longer piece that deals with rhetorical techniques and can supply the Latin names for each of these kinds of game playing, but think there's a single Anglo Saxon noun that provides a far better description.

But it's not people like the right-wingers with ADHD that are the problem. Such people have always been with us and always will be. Usually they are kept in check (and at the margins of power) by ordinary citizens who realize that their own long-term self-interest lies with making sure that the budget gets balanced more or less, that corporations don't get too powerful, and that the poor don't get ground down too far. Absent blind hubris, all of us know that disaster or illness could reduce us to the straits of the shopping cart people. A small dose of "there but for the grace of God go I" does wonders to achieve political balance.

No, the problem is that most Americans have put the slave collar on themselves. They don't pay attention to politics, they don't challenge their assumptions, they don't visit the other side of the tracks, and they don't vote. When they see wrong, they stay silent. Until the tens of millions of disengaged people get off the sidelines and start doing their duties as citizens, America is not really a democracy, no matter which party is in office.

One of the Web's finest moments--so far!-- was when the British ambassador to Uzbekhistan released his correspondence to the British government showing that the Blair Administration knew about American complicity in the vile tortures going on in that nation. The British government threatened every publication that reprinted them with prosecution, at which point many websites picked published the documents themselves. The cry, from a thousand blogs, was "I am Spartacus!"... as they reprinted the articles.

These are people who know what freedom is, and that it comes at a price. That price, at a minimum, is staying well-informed and involved with neighbors and community, seeking out other points of view (and wanting to be sure they are represented in the public square), and refusing to grant wrongdoing the darkness it loves. We are people of the light not because we are in any way Elect or morally superior, but to the extent that the light of truth gives us joy, even when it illuminates our own error for the world to see.

The darkness is already lifting from America as the people see that the so-called "conservative movement" was never about anything more than money. And so, as I reflect on this day of rest, I give thanks for my colleagues PW and MEC, for our readers, and for every other person who loves the light.

Perfect entry for outlining my contempt for liberals.
People like Chuckie wake up each morning looking in the mirror and believing in their moral and intellectual superiority.
Mutherfuckers like this write this crazy bullshit and I bet gazing lovingly at their own blogsterbation.
Some of you liberals need to get over yourselves. You are not that smart and you sure as hell are not that bright.
I oft wonder how do you manage to tolerate the rest of us in YOUR world?
Fucken arrogant bastards.

Ramsey Clark Exposes the Left's Agenda

by Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

The Big Lie has been exposed again: While the Left preens as the champion of the oppressed, the defender of the weak, and the advocate of liberty, one of its most venerable contemporary exponents, Ramsey Clark, has become the foremost apologist for a blood-spattered dictator. Has Clark betrayed the Left? By no means. He has just revealed yet again that behind the rhetoric of love and peace is a thinly-concealed taste for the boot on the face and the shackles on the mind -- tools so favored by the regimes most beloved of the international Left, from Stalin’s Russia to Mao’s China to Saddam’s Iraq.
Clark says he is doing what any good defense lawyer does: taking even the most noxious case, not out of any love for the defendant, but because every man deserves a fair shake. He has thundered: “the idea that you don’t represent someone because they’re awful, if they are, is contrary to the idea of the right to counsel.”
But does Clark actually think Saddam is awful? Clark declared in 2004 that “Saddam Hussein was demonized. … It must be observed that all the rogue states, the victims of the many U.S. interventions and the U.S. captives mutilated, or humiliated as Saddam Hussein has been, are members of the great majority of the world’s population that has beautiful darker skin.”
Does Clark love Saddam only for his “beautiful darker skin”? No, there is much more to it than that: Ramsey Clark has seen the enemy and it is us. The one constant that runs through his career since the Johnson Administration is not the Left’s vaunted but empty quest for justice. Clark’s advocacy for Saddam is of a piece with his defense of Mohammad Daoud al-Owhali, who bombed the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998, killing 213; with his participation in a “Crimes of America” conference in Iran in 1980; and his work for the likes of Nazi war criminals and Slobodan Milosevic.
It has become habitual for all too many Leftists to embrace anyone who is opposed to the United States, and commonplace for Leftists to espouse the totalitarian agenda (and a totalitarian intolerance for dissent that manifests itself today in many ways in the Leftist-controlled mainstream of the America media and academic spheres) in search of the earthly utopia for which they long. Yet the Islamic jihad aims not to establish a just and equitable society in which the state will wither away, but one in which life is hard, punishments are draconian, and mercy is absent -- but of course, that is just the kind of society that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot constructed, to paroxysms of ecstasy from Leftists.
Clark is as ridiculous as Lynne Stewart, lawyer for the blind Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Convicted of smuggling messages from Sheikh Omar to his disciples, she explained her actions by saying: “To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don’t think that can come nonviolently.” The idea of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman as a champion of the struggle against sexism and racism is beyond absurd, but so was Stalin’s self-portrayal in the 1930s as a beloved figure leading his people to a just society -- yet New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who spiked stories of the Stalin-induced Ukrainian famine, and others were all too happy to peddle the myth.
Saddam, of course, is no Sheikh Omar. With his mistresses, Sinatra records, and liquor cabinet, Saddam’s Islamic bona fides were always suspect to the most devout among his citizens, try as he might to use the language of jihad to fire up support for his regime in its dark days, as well as in its last days. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that he is a bona fide anti-American -- and a ruler who did not hesitate to unsheathe the sword against his enemies.
That was probably all that Ramsey Clark needed to know before he caught the next plane to Baghdad.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Lawsuit: Bank Hired Women as 'Eye Candy' YUM! You women know you like it...

Six female employees have filed a $1.4 billion class-action sex-bias lawsuit against an investment bank, claiming they were hired as "eye candy.”
According to the suit filed in Manhattan, one attractive female employee at the German bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC was openly called "the Pamela Anderson of trading” by her boss.
The six women – five of whom work in New York and one in London – also allege that executives brought prostitutes to the office for lunch.
Plaintiff Jyoti Ruta claims she was once pressured by a boss and a colleague to leave a dinner celebrating a deal so that male employees could go to a strip club, the New York Post reports.
Another plaintiff, Kathleen Treglia, said salesmen admitted they chose female junior hires based on appearance because they wanted "eye candy” in the office, according to the suit, submitted on behalf of any female employee of the bank in the U.S. or any female U.S. citizen who works for the bank overseas.
The women alleged in the suit that the company condoned relationships between top executives and female subordinates, and one married boss dated his personal assistant and impregnated her.
The six stated that they wanted to end unfair promotion practices and unequal pay for men and women at the bank, according to the Post.
Said Ruta: "The glass ceiling is unfortunately alive and well at Dresdner.”

In Case Y'all Missed it.........

Clinton Knew Iran Was Working on Nukes


just remember........
Fri Dec 16 2005

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication
on the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."
Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.
But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!
The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.
"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.
The book editor Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

"At the center of the article's backstory is Risen, who unsuccessfully pushed to publish the wiretap report last year, then took a leave to write a book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. It now appears he may pay a price for the disclosure: last Friday the Justice Department opened an investigation into who leaked the existence of the NSA program to the Times, raising the prospect of Risen's being compelled to reveal the identities of the "nearly dozen" current and former officials who spoke to him about the program or face jail time for contempt of court."