A musical giant and a great human being just passed away, after over 75 years of making music which gladdened the hearts of all that heard him.
To say his piano playing was influential is one of the biggest understatements one could make. As a pianist I can testify to his impact on my playing for the many, many years I've been listening him. I know of no other pianist that would not agree that his impact on their playing was enormous. My playing was most affected by his peerless ballad playing, and his incomparable ability to accompany other soloists, in the most tasteful and understated way. His touch, his harmonic sense, and his total command of the instrument was the standard that I aspired to and continue to do so. He, like Erroll Garner and Art Tatum, who also gained total command of the piano, are the gold-standards for all musicians to aspire to and emulate.
I remember first hearing him in the late 40s and being astonished at his virtuosity and touch. Later in the 80s I was able to meet him in person and spend a rewarding two or three hours with him in a piano emporium owned by a dear friend, David Abell, who also has passed on. He was in town on that occasion, to play at a jazz club owned by the bassist of his first great trio, Ray Brown. In our conversation, we discovered that we had a similar cultural background, and that our fathers were both immigrants from the West Indies, and had immigrated from there approximately the same year, his dad to Canada and my dad to New York. They were both amateur musicians and had started each of us in music lessons around the age of five.
From that time on, right up to his recent passing, I was able to more deeply identify with him as a person, along with continuing to being inspired by his awesome musical gifts. The outpouring of love and affection for him from around the world, as well as the universal admiration for his prowess on the piano, is a tribute to the man and his music.
Rest In Peace Oscar - musically, you left this world a much better place, and we are the richer for it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The 'Cause' or the 'Effect'?
All year, on topics of race, I have been ranting and raving at the ongoing news stories that highlight the dual-standards that the media applies to blacks, particularly athletes, versus whites. I've also been outraged at the plethora of black so-called 'truth-tellers', who are supposedly 'keeping it real', while savaging mostly the black underclass for their lack of sophistication, morals, poor English, and a litany of other supposed sins.
I say they are neither 'truth-tellers' nor 'keeping it real', instead they are cravenly, crass, well-paid opportunists, who will say anything for fame and fortune, while giving aid and comfort to unrepentant whites, most of whom are hiding their racist agendas behind the 'cover' provided by these black proxies. The proof is how whites generally fawn over them, providing them with lucrative book deals, bully pulpits, media appearances, and constantly commend their 'truthfulness' and their 'independent thinking' which they say runs refreshingly counter to the prevailing mindsets of those blacks who they dismissively label as 'poverty pimps', or worse.
The latest in the lengthening list of these black proxies is Roland Martin, a CNN contributing columnist. Another, is author, Pamela Wilson,who claims to be a born-again Christian. Both are being lauded by the white media and praised to the sky for their 'fearless truthfulness'.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/roland.martin/index.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071217/30521_Black
_Christian_%27Racialism%27_Challenges_Faith_in_America.htm
I say nonsense! - they are guilty of half-truths, false straw-men arguments, and a host of other pandering-to-their-benefactor, sins. But my biggest problem with them, is their appalling failure to identify and excoriate the historical, systemic racism of whites, which is the context and the 'cause' of much of the black dysfunctions they are railing against, and instead are obsequiously slamming the conduct of the black underclass, which is merely the 'effect'.
Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, Roland Martin, Pamela Wilson and a host of others, are in this stew of black foot-shufflers, who are being lauded, feted and patted on the head by whites, and commended for their 'refreshing honesty'. They are either too stupid, too greedy or too self-hating, to recognize that if the accolades are coming more overwhelmingly from racist whites than from blacks who agree with them, then their screeds must be demeaning and hurtful to the black underclass in particular, and to blacks in general.
Perhaps they don't even care - this is what makes them so utterly contemptible.
I say they are neither 'truth-tellers' nor 'keeping it real', instead they are cravenly, crass, well-paid opportunists, who will say anything for fame and fortune, while giving aid and comfort to unrepentant whites, most of whom are hiding their racist agendas behind the 'cover' provided by these black proxies. The proof is how whites generally fawn over them, providing them with lucrative book deals, bully pulpits, media appearances, and constantly commend their 'truthfulness' and their 'independent thinking' which they say runs refreshingly counter to the prevailing mindsets of those blacks who they dismissively label as 'poverty pimps', or worse.
The latest in the lengthening list of these black proxies is Roland Martin, a CNN contributing columnist. Another, is author, Pamela Wilson,who claims to be a born-again Christian. Both are being lauded by the white media and praised to the sky for their 'fearless truthfulness'.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/roland.martin/index.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071217/30521_Black
_Christian_%27Racialism%27_Challenges_Faith_in_America.htm
I say nonsense! - they are guilty of half-truths, false straw-men arguments, and a host of other pandering-to-their-benefactor, sins. But my biggest problem with them, is their appalling failure to identify and excoriate the historical, systemic racism of whites, which is the context and the 'cause' of much of the black dysfunctions they are railing against, and instead are obsequiously slamming the conduct of the black underclass, which is merely the 'effect'.
Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, Roland Martin, Pamela Wilson and a host of others, are in this stew of black foot-shufflers, who are being lauded, feted and patted on the head by whites, and commended for their 'refreshing honesty'. They are either too stupid, too greedy or too self-hating, to recognize that if the accolades are coming more overwhelmingly from racist whites than from blacks who agree with them, then their screeds must be demeaning and hurtful to the black underclass in particular, and to blacks in general.
Perhaps they don't even care - this is what makes them so utterly contemptible.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The 'Roids of Summer
Now that the Mitchell report has been released, the untouchable teflon wall erected around Clemons, the multi-Cy Young award-winning pitcher, while the home-run champion, Bonds, was being savaged, has now crumbled as it should.
In fact I would say, if the pitchers were on steroids, the hitters arguably had a duty to counter their pitching advantage with their own steroid use. I probably would not use steroids, but then again, I'm not being judged on how well I am hitting against steroid-enhanced pitching, which also could affect the size of the contract I could get next season based on my hitting. Bonds and others could certainly have used this rationale, and probably did. But let us not forget one important fact, Bonds never failed a drug test, and based on that, remains innocent of all charges.
In fact I would say, if the pitchers were on steroids, the hitters arguably had a duty to counter their pitching advantage with their own steroid use. I probably would not use steroids, but then again, I'm not being judged on how well I am hitting against steroid-enhanced pitching, which also could affect the size of the contract I could get next season based on my hitting. Bonds and others could certainly have used this rationale, and probably did. But let us not forget one important fact, Bonds never failed a drug test, and based on that, remains innocent of all charges.
But I have another angle that is seldom considered, all of baseball history and records are suspect, going back to the days of segregated baseball. The white 'record-holders' like Ruth, Cobb, etc., got those records by being shielded through the farce of segregation, from the pitching and fielding of many of the superior negro-leaguers like Satchel Paige and others. Had they had to face them, many doubt they would have obtained a fraction of those records.
So once again, this country's sorry racist history is coming back to bite it, and baseball now embroiled in the steroid scandal, is 'reaping-what-it-sowed' for disenfranchising worthy black ballplayers for 50 years, and denying them an equal opportunity to make a living and earn the records that whites got credited for, by not having to earn them on a level playing field.
Those early records should have been given an asterisk but were not, now the current records are plastered with those asterisks. And the Hall of Fame, which had already embraced wife beaters, murderers, gamblers, and drunkards, now has to embrace 'Roiders....so much for baseball's supposed 'integrity'
Friday, December 14, 2007
Our Tortured History
Why are we so surprised at the present-day willingness to torture by our government. Don't we remember the thousands of blacks that were routinely lashed, lynched, raped, branded, sold away from their families, discriminated against, kidnapped and forced to work as slaves from sunup to sundown - all forms of torture, for much of this country's history.
What about the delightful practice of scalping the 'savage' native Americans we found here?
So torture is as American as apple pie, and it should not surprise us that we are readily repeating our history and cannot run away from it. In fact we parse and justify things like waterboarding, just like we justified torture back then.
To prove it was normal and accepted by the good citizens of those times, how many of the torturers of blacks were ever indicted, tried, jailed or executed?? - few, if any - do you know of any, I sure don't?
So we can spare ourselves the feigned outrage - history is merely repeating itself, it's in America's DNA.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Who Should Come Clean??
Quoted today from the British Guardian Unlimited newspaper, -
"Bush demanded that Tehran detail its previous program to develop nuclear weapons ``which the Iranian regime has yet to acknowledge.'' The Iranians have a strategic choice to make,'' he said before a political appearance in Omaha, Neb. ``They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities,'' and accept U.S.-backed terms for new nuclear negotiations, ``or they can continue on a path of isolation."
I say, why isn't Bush demanding that Israel "come clean" with the international community about the scope of it's nuclear activities, which the Israeli regime has yet to acknowledge? Apparently I'm one of the few that is willing to ask this question....maybe it's because I have not been paid off or blackmailed to ensure my silence.
Israel with nuclear and other weapons is much more dangerous to it's neighbors than Iran could ever be - in June 1967, it bombed, torpedoed and napalmed the clearly identified American naval vessel the USS Liberty, killing 34 American sailors and injuring 174 others; in 1982 it invaded Lebanon and preemptively bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities; in 2005 it bombed Lebanon again and attacked Syria in 2007; not to speak of it's illegal settlements and it's brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, where in 2007 they killed 457 Palestinians, while the Palestinians only killed 10 Israelis in retaliation.
I'm so sick of the deafening silence regarding Israel's lawlessness and immoral criminal actions, while neighboring countries are being held to a higher moral and political standard than she is being held to. She gets away with it because four-fifths of the country including her leadership, are European whites who are part of the world-wide network of white supremacists seeking permanent imperial dominance over non-white countries, particularly those with valuable natural resources that they covet.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Jefferson the Hypocrite???
It is interesting to read the historical record and find that Jefferson was one of the immoral landowning gentry, that were able to afford their lavish lifestyles by owning slaves. Not only slaves for free labor, but apparently for their sexual needs and fantasies as well, as illustrated by his slave mistress, Sally Hemings.
But the historical record also provides a nuanced insight into another side of Jefferson...that of a conflicted slaver who tried to abolish slavery nationally, in his writings, speeches and legislative actions. His attempts at ending slavery even lasted into the final years of his life, when he objected to the state of Missouri being admitted to the union because of their embrace and practice of slavery. His last attempt was crushingly defeated by the infamous 'Missouri Compromise' of 1820, which made the admittance of the slave state of Missouri, as a quid pro quo for admitting the free state of Maine. Jefferson correctly noted that the acceptance of this compromise "would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union." Just 41 years later, the civil war was fought, with slavery being one of many issues that led to the deaths of 618,000 - 700,000 soldiers and civilians.
Physical and economic slavery is still a worldwide phenomenon, and the lifestyles that we enjoy here in America, are in part made possible by the slave labor in China, Malaysia and other countries that produces goods and services that we import.
If we close our eyes to this fact, then we are in fact similarly conflicted as Jefferson, and also somewhat as hypocritical as he was.
If we close our eyes to this fact, then we are in fact similarly conflicted as Jefferson, and also somewhat as hypocritical as he was.
Monday, November 12, 2007
R U a Celebrity Fawner?
A Fawner is defined as - "someone who behaves as if without self-respect or independent thoughts, who curries favor by behaving obsequiously and submissively, an apple-polisher, a bootlicker, a kowtower, etc."
As long as there have been celebrities, there have been those who have idolized and deified them, by attaching undue credibility, importance and credence to their every utterance and action, no matter how inane, ignorant, mean-spirited, self-aggrandizing or misinformed. Because of this near universal deference by their fans and wannabe followers, celebrities often take this as license to pontificate wily-nily on their bully pulpits, regardless of who it hurts or slanders.
I'm mystified that so many, despite their own personal accomplishments, will deify and give credence to the most inane, sophomoric, mindless rantings of celebrities. I know TV and movie exposure plays a big part in this 'anointing', but it still is dumbfounding.
My wise buddy, Nezet, Prophet of the Surreal says..."Completely and utterly dumbfounding! I've gotten into many an argument, not mere disagreement, but full-blown arguing with fam and friends over some sheet that a so-called celeb has said or done. I do NOT do celeb "worshipping" at all...and despite what society and the media says, I try to raise my kids to not worship celebs either. They are people...as flawed, nice and f-up'ed as any of us walking the planet, period. I think it has to do with collective low self-esteem, hero/ine worship, consumerism and projection (psychological term!). People are fed a constant dose of so-called reality by marketing, advertising and other corporate entities that they haven't achieved enough (foundation of capitalism IMHO), that when they hear and see people who speak well (and have all the material possessions to boot)....they seduce the masses with mass psychology/hypnosis (see: Hitler and other dictators, many televangelists and others)...and the lemmings (fawners) get behind the message cause it makes them "feel good"....and they feel so "connected" to the personality (see: Oprah, Cosby et. al.) that they think they are living their lives vicariously through these individuals. Despite a high level of education, people still flock to and are deluded in their thinking that Cosby, Oprah, Trump, Jakes...whoever, is somehow worthy of being deified and is "better" than them, because they have marketed themselves to make you part with your dollars and buy the "kool-aid" they be selling!"
Two prominent celebrities whose every word is often revered by faithful celebrity fawners, as if it was spoken from a mountain top by gods of the universe, are Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby. Recently these two have been quoted saying dismissive and disparaging things about the 'lower classes' of blacks in the ghettos of our cities. Their fawners, who hang on their every word, dutifully ignores the mean-spirited, damning words, and instead anoints them as modern 'truth-tellers' while ignoring their insulting, elitist words.
One admiring fawner wrote this;
"I am also so sick and tired of the jealous Black (and White) newsmongerers who can’t stop criticizing Oprah and Bill Cosby whenever they get the chance. Both of them have been exceedingly generous, having donated millions over time to historically Black colleges, numerous causes and to innumerable individuals in need here in the USA
Whether we want to accept it or not, calling it “airing our dirty linen in public,” what they have said is THE TRUTH!!! Ipods and sneakers and long baggy pants, hiphop music, rap music with its awful disgraceful lyrics, gansta rap, holdups, prison, gangbangging, crack/cocaine, methamphetamines, MTV, homelessness, fatherlessness, teen pregnancies, “Baby Daddies” welfare, etc etc etc are the order of the day in the Black community and it is DISGRACEFUL. Just walk through any mall or through any of our urban communities and there they are with doo rags on their heads and hairstyles with 5 different colors. Ask them a geography question and they’re looking at you as if you have rocks in your heads. Most don’t own a passport because they are not planning to go anywhere. Most can’t spell, read or speak. They take disgraceful pride in being on Jerry Springer and Maury Popvich illuminating their disgusting lifestyles. We know there are many of us who have pulled ourselves up against unspeakable odds and have succeeded. But we are less than 1%. Let’s not kid ourselves.
When Oprah or Bill Cosby try to speak out. They are NOT being insulting. But even those of us who know better want to shush they down. Why? We are in crisis!! MLK and Malcolm would turn over in their graves if they could see where we are now. After all they fought for, we have slidden backwards instead of forwards. Stop the jealousy because that’s all it is. Leave Oprah and Bill Cosby Alone!!!!"
It's clear that there will be those, like this writer, who make equally offensive remarks about the 'lower classes', and will defend these truth-tellers' not because they are necessarily telling the truth, but because they are celebrities, and therefore above criticism and being held accountable for damaging and insulting words, that would be rightfully deemed stereotyping and racist if uttered by any other ethnic group.
Moreover, every story has a contextual framework. To only tell part of the story while dismissing contributing factors, is disingenuous and factually incorrect. If one is going to tell the "truth" - then tell the whole truth, warts and all (see an article by the recently departed Norman Mailer that does such, here: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0708-01.htm )
We will all do well, if we view celebrities as just as flawed and subject to error, as any of us who are not celebrities. Their words and deeds must be subjected to the same scrutiny and criticism, as those of us who don't have the big bully pulpits they do.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
'Trump'-ing Oprah and Cosby
Donald Trump, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby are three zillionaires who reek of egocentric excesses that say more about them, rather than the purported cause de jour they are trumpeting. Maybe I'm being too hard on Oprah, but I'm certainly spot-on about Trump and Cosby.
Trump has filed for bankruptcy, twice - hardly what we should expect from someone billing himself as the biggest. the brightest and the best at everything. His golf course and real estate housing development in Palos Verdes, Ca., is embroiled in a multi-million dollar lawsuit by neighbors who have alleged property destabilizations and devaluations because of his project. Also I can never forget the full-page ad he took out in the 90s, libeling minority youths that were falsely arrested for the rape and assault of the Central Park jogger, as 'wilding animals'. After years in jail, the real perpetrator was caught, and the youths were all released, but without nary an apology from 'The Donald' who libeled them.
Cosby's corporate sponsors did not make him wildly rich without expecting a payoff somewhere down the line, and at a time and place that suits them. Apparently, now is the time for him to use his bestowed celebrity as a bully-pulpit to savage and disparage a segment of his own people. This is the ultimately selling of his soul, and once one starts down that road, there's no turning back. This explains why Cosby, despite heavy criticism, continues to spew his invectives, at and against, the defenseless 'lower classes', as he is now doing in his latest book and rounds of media interviews. He apparently values his riches more than the suffering he is causing and will continue to cause, his people to be subjected to.
Oprah has had a string of over-the-top personal investments that have turned sour. Her trumpeting of the book by Frey as her #1 book club pick, that turned out to be mostly fabricated, is just one of those that I remember recently. Another is her lavish reception for Obama at her estate in Montecito, Ca.. Well-heeled attendees were reportedly miffed and outraged that they were restricted only to the expansive lawn of the estate, and were not allowed to enter her home as a wealthy guest who paid so much money to attend, would normally expect. Now her lavish $49 million girl's academy in South Africa is in the spotlight because of alleged sexual abuse of some of the girls by a member of the staff. In this instance she has told of how personally hurt and betrayed she has felt, which leads me to believe that it is more about her feelings and ego, rather than about the feelings of the girls that have been abused.
Oprah and Cosby's brand of truth-telling' about the black community, could best be described as picking on the weakest and lowest segments of the community, for more fame, and for more profit. Cosby is now touring and hawking his book on all the major networks, where he is dutifully being given the mike to rant his dismissive venom on his own people. Of course nary a word about the 'cause and effect' of the dysfunction is given - because that would inappropriately indict the rich white boys that gave Cosby his fat book contract. It would also indict the systemic, societal racism that acts in one accord to neutralize and render ineffective, as many blacks as possible - by any means necessary. Listening to him you would think that the ills he is ranting against just happened out of thin air - like magic, with no cause other than the defective genes these 'lower classes' are born with. He is too much of a coward and bully to hold his sponsors accountable for the 'cause and effect' of their actions - plus he is not about to lose his well-paid lifestyle they have been providing over the years. Likewise Oprah would never dare confront the power structure that gives it's blessing to the system of inequality and white supremacy that is dished out to a segment of her people, by any means necessary. If you think Oprah's fortune is not conditioned on her following a prescribed program dictated by those sponsors who made her rich, you have a fool for a brain.
Some of us are apparently so stricken with celebrity worship, that we will confer credence, importance and integrity to the most inane and disingenuous rants of comedic buffoons and political sell-outs like Cosby, and increasingly, Oprah. Personally, I am not in awe of either of them, because I know their bully-pulpit is bought and paid for by their corrupt corporate sponsors, who made them rich enough to compromise whatever integrity they originally had.
It's undeniable that the corporate sponsors of Oprah and Cosby have made them disproportionately rich compared to most blacks, and even most whites - the question is why....and to what purpose?????
It's time to connect the dots and ask... why?????
This same question must be asked of all who have been made rich by accepting various corporate sponsorships in the form of book deals, think-tank fellowships, speaking engagements etc., and who have also been lashing out at a defenseless segment of the black community. Their words have been a verbal lynching that encourages regressive public policies by racists in high places, who point to their words as proof of an innate, genetic dysfunction among the 'lower classes', which cannot be addressed and changed with liberal social policies and programs. Therefore many of the most needed, critical programs have been defunded or ended.
It's time to connect the dots and ask... why?????
Monday, November 05, 2007
Amused by the Abusive Imus
So Don Imus is shortly about to return to the airwaves on right-wing radio station, WABC. This will be a fitting place for his brand of racist, sexist, sophomoric, unintelligent drivel. The marketplace has decided to take another chance on him, after deciding he was too much of a liability by his offending so many a few months ago. His free speech was never an issue then, since no government entity attempted to suppress his speech. Instead, the capitalist marketplace decided he was a liability, at least in the short-term, and would lose more money than he would make for it, so he had to go.
His many fans of like-minded insensitivity and racism, will be delighted that he is returning, and on one hand I'm not so sorry he is returning either. We need examples of slime like him, to remind those who say racism and sexism is now a thing of the past and the playing-field is now level, that racism is very much alive and well, and has not really gone anywhere, at all. On the other hand though, what about the millions who tune in to validate their own belief systems that embraces privilege, separation and hate? I can see how this show can serve to bolster their unbalanced view of the world, and if Imus believes it and says it, this is all they need to perhaps embolden them to racist actions. For this reason, I would prefer that he did not return.
The marketplace that had been rewarding him so handsomely, turned on him and decided to suspend subsidizing him. It had nothing to do with Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson's displeasure, just plain old American profits and the bottom line that was being jeopardized by this latest of his many racist rants. The angry white men demographic, that Imus champions, are in the same school of bullies like him, picking on those who have no voice or a microphone, as they did to the Rutgers female basketball team. This time enough people resented his disrespect and racism, that even the amoral capitalistic marketplace had to react and fire him, at least for a while. His brand and product was the lowest of the lowest products out there, and for just a few months, the consumers voted with their wallets, and said, 'you're fired!'.
To me, Imus is just a decrepit, unapologetic, alcoholic, cowardly racist, and his ignorant vitriol has been ongoing for decades. His defenders cried 'political correctness', which is just another attempted slur invented by white males, who can't abide cultural changes and diversity, and who believe themselves to be exemplars and paragons of the best and brightest. Consciously or unconsciously, he was using his bully pulpit to affirm his investment in whiteness, and protecting his group's privileges and power as top dogs in America. He was also showing his deep investment in historical white narcissism expressed as scorn for 'others' - in this case the mostly black, Rutgers basketball team.
He's now found a different network where his insensitivities are acceptable, at least initially and until he again reactivates the market forces that 'fired' him before. I'm betting that he will be just as, or even more offensive than before - after all, there are millions of his demographic that just loves his slop!
Friday, November 02, 2007
'It's the 'Dawg' in Me'
That's the song that Duane 'Dog' Chapman should be singing after being exposed for the racist he is, by a tape of a conversation with his own son Tucker, that liberally used the 'n.....' word concerning his son's black girlfriend.
The cable company A & E, has suspended their number one bounty hunter/bail bondsman show, pending an investigation of what he said and how it negatively impacts their bottom line. Already one sponsor, 'Yum Brands' which owns KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, has cancelled their sponsorship, citing Chapman's "despicable" behavior". A & E's position to me, is most hypocritical since they put this low life ex-con on the air in the first place. So what should they expect of this kind of scum/trash, given his background and criminal record. I certainly did not have any expectations of anything different from the 'dog', so to learn that he is the racist that I already thought he was, is no big deal to me.
I've watched the show and laughed hysterically when 'Dog' and his posse is shown 'praying' before they set out to capture the bad guys. Some folks even have been fooled into thinking there is some kind of spiritual 'mandate' for his efforts, because he prays in Jesus' name before his trips. I would remind them that the KKK also read scripture and prayed before going out to lynch, rape and burn blacks who they despised. So praying ain't necessarily more than empty words, depending on who is praying.
Another interesting point in this story, is that his son, Tucker, taped their conversation and sold it to the National Enquirer for a reported $15,000. So his fear of being exposed as a racist, was actually achieved by one of his 12 children by 6 different women. I'm sure his son had numerous experiences with his father's racism and racist speech over the years, and finally had enough when his father demeaned his black girlfriend and threatened to fire him if he did not leave her.
Of course 'Dog' has apologized profusely and said his remarks were misunderstood and taken out of context. But that's what they all say when they have been caught in mid-racism. Instead of telling his son to get rid of his girlfriend so she would not hear his and his posse's racist speech, it would instead, have been more sensible for him to clean-up his speech and avoid exposure. But as some of his many defenders are saying, he has the right to speak privately as he wishes. I agree, but I also agree his son has the right to expose his racist dad as he did, even if it kills his TV show.
I would have expected nothing less from the 'Dog', and I have not been disappointed.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
'Bowling for Iran...and then Syria'
The title is a take-off on Michael Moore's highly successful documentary, but in this case the target is Iran..and then Syria, and then...?
Under the just announced executive order #13382, U.S. authorities will be able to freeze the assets of, and prohibit any U.S. citizen or organization, from doing business with Iran.
This would certainly be considered an act of war if this had been done to the U.S. by another sovereign country. One newspaper reported it this way: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1025/p99s01-duts.htm
Not surprisingly, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is quoted as being ecstatic at this further escalation and provocation of war with Iran. Lieberman is an Israeli proxy, whose main concern is the destruction of any country who Israel deems to be a threat to it's security. The certain destructive impact of war with Iran on our own country and it's economy, is of little concern to him, just as the horrific human and economic losses already caused by our ongoing war on Iraq, is of no consequence to him, and is still supported by him.
Although I'm very sorry that Al Gore was robbed of the presidency in 2000, on the other hand, in a way, I'm glad that he lost. Had he won, we would have had Joseph Lieberman as our vice-president, and if something unfortunate happened to Gore, Lieberman would have become president. Can you imagine where we would be right now if he were president??? IMHO, it would be much worse than it has been with Bush, and we probably would have already been at war with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and any other perceived enemy of Israel.
The justification for this latest sanction and warmongering, is Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions and it's threat to the region. Few, besides me, are brave enough to point out, that Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons in it's arsenal, and is certainly more of a threat to the region than any of it's neighbors - (they bombed Iraq's facilities in 1982, Lebanon a few years ago, and Syria a few months ago). And even if they were not an immediate threat to their neighbors, they are more than capably equipped to defend themselves if attacked. No one is asking them to get rid of their arsenal, so why is Iran being told not to develop theirs? This double-standard when it comes to Israel, is so blatant and accepted universally, that it would be laughable, if it was not so deadly serious.
Israel's supporters would label my views as being anti-semitic, as a means of denying the facts and truth of this double-standard. They have very effectively used this canard on virtually anyone, in and out of our government, who would dare to speak the truth about what's going on. It's time to lose this fear of speaking the truth, because if we don't, we will be soon rolling to war with other sovereign countries, on trumped-up charges, on behalf of the war profiteers and on behalf of Israel.
Under the just announced executive order #13382, U.S. authorities will be able to freeze the assets of, and prohibit any U.S. citizen or organization, from doing business with Iran.
This would certainly be considered an act of war if this had been done to the U.S. by another sovereign country. One newspaper reported it this way: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1025/p99s01-duts.htm
Not surprisingly, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is quoted as being ecstatic at this further escalation and provocation of war with Iran. Lieberman is an Israeli proxy, whose main concern is the destruction of any country who Israel deems to be a threat to it's security. The certain destructive impact of war with Iran on our own country and it's economy, is of little concern to him, just as the horrific human and economic losses already caused by our ongoing war on Iraq, is of no consequence to him, and is still supported by him.
Although I'm very sorry that Al Gore was robbed of the presidency in 2000, on the other hand, in a way, I'm glad that he lost. Had he won, we would have had Joseph Lieberman as our vice-president, and if something unfortunate happened to Gore, Lieberman would have become president. Can you imagine where we would be right now if he were president??? IMHO, it would be much worse than it has been with Bush, and we probably would have already been at war with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and any other perceived enemy of Israel.
The justification for this latest sanction and warmongering, is Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions and it's threat to the region. Few, besides me, are brave enough to point out, that Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons in it's arsenal, and is certainly more of a threat to the region than any of it's neighbors - (they bombed Iraq's facilities in 1982, Lebanon a few years ago, and Syria a few months ago). And even if they were not an immediate threat to their neighbors, they are more than capably equipped to defend themselves if attacked. No one is asking them to get rid of their arsenal, so why is Iran being told not to develop theirs? This double-standard when it comes to Israel, is so blatant and accepted universally, that it would be laughable, if it was not so deadly serious.
Israel's supporters would label my views as being anti-semitic, as a means of denying the facts and truth of this double-standard. They have very effectively used this canard on virtually anyone, in and out of our government, who would dare to speak the truth about what's going on. It's time to lose this fear of speaking the truth, because if we don't, we will be soon rolling to war with other sovereign countries, on trumped-up charges, on behalf of the war profiteers and on behalf of Israel.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Come On People....."
So starts the title of the latest missive in the form of a book, by Bill Cosby and his enabler, Dr. Alvin Poussaint. Their blame-the-victim worldview, is on full display on it's pages. So much so, that 'Meet The Press' and 'Larry King' deemed it worthy of devoting a full hour of their program to highlight and publicize it's relentless black-bashing and overly-broad, generalizations.
The problems of misplaced values, predatory neighborhood violence, alcohol and drug addictions, single parent households, etc., are commonplace in the 'lower classes' of all racial groups, whether they be black, white, Latino, Asian, or native American. But this book makes it seem as those ills and problems, are exclusively those of 'lower class' blacks and no other groups. The dominant society wants to believe it is self-inflicted, and therefore blacks are not the victims of the well-documented history of white racial intolerance and injustices. This is crucial to what whites want to believe about themselves, because the black lower classes are a constant reminder of the legacy of slavery and it's fruits, that continue to prick their consciences.
Black bashing, is red-meat to the most right-wing foes of African Americans, and the corporate media is in full-scale slurp as it slobbers up the tidbits in this book, that absolves them and lets them off the hook by blaming the alleged 'victimhood' mentality of lower-class blacks, for their condition.
Within the African American community exists elements (like Cosby) which constantly points to the 'dysfunctionality' of the black underclass as a way to both distinguish themselves from such behavior, and to attack the shortcomings of the black poor as their own fault and no one else's. At the core of the black elite’s hatred for the behavior of the black underclass, is their ultimate fear of being equated with all things 'black'. The black elite cannot stand the possibility of being lumped together with those who they disdain, and who might threaten their status of being 'ascended' beyond the common plight of those who are not likely to rise above their surroundings.
One reviewer correctly observed, "Cosby makes a Grand Canyon size leap to paint a half-truth, skewed, picture of the plight of poor blacks and the reasons and then prescriptions for their plight. This is all based on the assumption that they are crime-prone, education despising, ebonics speaking, unwed baby making machines."
Not only does he take the worst behaviors of blacks (that are also true of a minority of all ethnic groups) and implies that it is exclusively a black dysfunction, but he makes it racially based rather than a function of the systemic racism that has been ongoing since slavery. He pays scant attention to the context for this dysfunction, and instead leaps headlong in making and perpetuating dangerous stereotypes, that would make the most ardent racist, proud. The facts of educational disparities, lack of living wage jobs because they have been outsourced, a biased criminal justice system etc., are hardly mentioned as context for the damning statistics that are offered as proof of their inferiority and victimhood mentality.
To say that we have overcome systemic racism before, and can do so now, is stating the obvious which no one disagrees with. But to say that they have to "clean themselves up first, before complaining about societal racism", displays an appalling lack of ignorance or willfully ignoring the principal of personal growth and affirmation through struggle in common with others. It's the old 'pulling up by the bootstrap' theory that Cosby fancies he has already done, using his wealth as proof of how well it works.
Biased corporate decisions and failed public policies, are the main villains that should be addressed as a first step in reversing the alarming statistics that are being used to demonize the black poor. But the political will and activism that is required to accomplish this, is urged by Cosby to be put on the back burner until the ghetto cleanses itself. In his mind it is just as simple as saying no (Nancy Reagan would be so proud that her simplistic bromide has been adopted by Cosby).
I found most of the book and particularly the first chapter, to be full of simplistic, inane homilies and condescending rhetoric. One of the worst examples is;
"We're not saying there is no discrimination or racial profiling today, but there is less than there was in 1950. These are not ‘political' criminals. These are people selling drugs, stealing, or shooting their buddies over trivia."
This is absolute nonsense when you consider the 'politics' of allowing an unlimited number of liquor stores in black communities, the 3-strike laws, the swat-team swoops in which innocents are regularly assaulted, the massive infusion of drugs and guns into the ghettos of our nation - all point to 'political' racial targeting on a scale that was unimaginable in the 1950s.
Cosby's broad generalizations about the unworthy, immoral, black poor, fills this book in chapter after chapter and verse after verse. And not once did I see any mention about his being charged with numerous sexual assaults on women, and his own extra-marital child who came forward recently - how moral is his own conduct????
The old saying about not throwing stones while living in a glass house, was never more true than in this case. I would change the title of this book to - "Come on Cosby, you've forgotten about your own misdeeds, and that some need more patience and help than others, and that the measure of a societies humanity, is how they care for and treat the poorest ones among them."
Not only does this book do nothing to inspire and motivate underachieving blacks to move forward and improve their lives, but it further demoralizes the majority of the poor who are trying so hard against the overwhelming odds stacked against them. It also says to the majority community as well as to government agencies and social service providers, that poor blacks are unworthy of their affirmative help, resources or opportunities, because their condition is self-inflicted and therefore their own fault.
It's becoming clearer that Cosby is either a card-carrying member of the Repugnant party which delights in this kind of 'truth-telling' at the expense of blacks, or he has drunk their poisonous kool-aid and has sold his soul for the wealth they have allowed him to have. Either way, Cosby has been 'weighed in the balances and found wanting'.
The problems of misplaced values, predatory neighborhood violence, alcohol and drug addictions, single parent households, etc., are commonplace in the 'lower classes' of all racial groups, whether they be black, white, Latino, Asian, or native American. But this book makes it seem as those ills and problems, are exclusively those of 'lower class' blacks and no other groups. The dominant society wants to believe it is self-inflicted, and therefore blacks are not the victims of the well-documented history of white racial intolerance and injustices. This is crucial to what whites want to believe about themselves, because the black lower classes are a constant reminder of the legacy of slavery and it's fruits, that continue to prick their consciences.
Black bashing, is red-meat to the most right-wing foes of African Americans, and the corporate media is in full-scale slurp as it slobbers up the tidbits in this book, that absolves them and lets them off the hook by blaming the alleged 'victimhood' mentality of lower-class blacks, for their condition.
Within the African American community exists elements (like Cosby) which constantly points to the 'dysfunctionality' of the black underclass as a way to both distinguish themselves from such behavior, and to attack the shortcomings of the black poor as their own fault and no one else's. At the core of the black elite’s hatred for the behavior of the black underclass, is their ultimate fear of being equated with all things 'black'. The black elite cannot stand the possibility of being lumped together with those who they disdain, and who might threaten their status of being 'ascended' beyond the common plight of those who are not likely to rise above their surroundings.
One reviewer correctly observed, "Cosby makes a Grand Canyon size leap to paint a half-truth, skewed, picture of the plight of poor blacks and the reasons and then prescriptions for their plight. This is all based on the assumption that they are crime-prone, education despising, ebonics speaking, unwed baby making machines."
Not only does he take the worst behaviors of blacks (that are also true of a minority of all ethnic groups) and implies that it is exclusively a black dysfunction, but he makes it racially based rather than a function of the systemic racism that has been ongoing since slavery. He pays scant attention to the context for this dysfunction, and instead leaps headlong in making and perpetuating dangerous stereotypes, that would make the most ardent racist, proud. The facts of educational disparities, lack of living wage jobs because they have been outsourced, a biased criminal justice system etc., are hardly mentioned as context for the damning statistics that are offered as proof of their inferiority and victimhood mentality.
To say that we have overcome systemic racism before, and can do so now, is stating the obvious which no one disagrees with. But to say that they have to "clean themselves up first, before complaining about societal racism", displays an appalling lack of ignorance or willfully ignoring the principal of personal growth and affirmation through struggle in common with others. It's the old 'pulling up by the bootstrap' theory that Cosby fancies he has already done, using his wealth as proof of how well it works.
Biased corporate decisions and failed public policies, are the main villains that should be addressed as a first step in reversing the alarming statistics that are being used to demonize the black poor. But the political will and activism that is required to accomplish this, is urged by Cosby to be put on the back burner until the ghetto cleanses itself. In his mind it is just as simple as saying no (Nancy Reagan would be so proud that her simplistic bromide has been adopted by Cosby).
I found most of the book and particularly the first chapter, to be full of simplistic, inane homilies and condescending rhetoric. One of the worst examples is;
"We're not saying there is no discrimination or racial profiling today, but there is less than there was in 1950. These are not ‘political' criminals. These are people selling drugs, stealing, or shooting their buddies over trivia."
This is absolute nonsense when you consider the 'politics' of allowing an unlimited number of liquor stores in black communities, the 3-strike laws, the swat-team swoops in which innocents are regularly assaulted, the massive infusion of drugs and guns into the ghettos of our nation - all point to 'political' racial targeting on a scale that was unimaginable in the 1950s.
Cosby's broad generalizations about the unworthy, immoral, black poor, fills this book in chapter after chapter and verse after verse. And not once did I see any mention about his being charged with numerous sexual assaults on women, and his own extra-marital child who came forward recently - how moral is his own conduct????
The old saying about not throwing stones while living in a glass house, was never more true than in this case. I would change the title of this book to - "Come on Cosby, you've forgotten about your own misdeeds, and that some need more patience and help than others, and that the measure of a societies humanity, is how they care for and treat the poorest ones among them."
Not only does this book do nothing to inspire and motivate underachieving blacks to move forward and improve their lives, but it further demoralizes the majority of the poor who are trying so hard against the overwhelming odds stacked against them. It also says to the majority community as well as to government agencies and social service providers, that poor blacks are unworthy of their affirmative help, resources or opportunities, because their condition is self-inflicted and therefore their own fault.
It's becoming clearer that Cosby is either a card-carrying member of the Repugnant party which delights in this kind of 'truth-telling' at the expense of blacks, or he has drunk their poisonous kool-aid and has sold his soul for the wealth they have allowed him to have. Either way, Cosby has been 'weighed in the balances and found wanting'.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Visible or Invisible?
What is important for Jerald and all of us to understand, is that no man is an island, and we depend on each other, particularly in a white-dominated environment. That means we sacrifice some of our needs or notions, for the greater good of our black community. We don't have to lose our 'self'to do this, but our solidarity is important.
However, if you're the "American" black man (see Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Ward Connerly et. al.)...they who have no history (that they want to acknowledge), they who have no culture (or think it only began in 1619 at Jamestown), they who probably don't want to be around a roomful of people who look like them (self-hating of the highest order)...and thus, we read - "I recognize that the desire to celebrate customs and traditions is a good one, but Kwanzaa's emphasis on Africa simply has no personal appeal to me. I am American, not African". Most folks don't celebrate Kwanzaa beyond noting it's start and ending times, but if one was on a campus where you are a part of a tiny black faculty, and it was a sanctioned campus event like this one was, you would think one would feel a spiritual and dare I say, ancestral, obligation to go and support my colleagues.
I should note here that this supporting of your fellow colleagues, is duplicated campus-wide among other self-defined organizations like Hillel and related Jewish groups, Latino/Hispanic functions, Greek organizations, etc.- all are ethnically and culturally relevant to particular students and faculty. It's even duplicated in our congress, with the Black caucus, Latino caucus, Woman's caucus, Jewish caucus, and other caucuses as examples.
Then the author who is only mindful of recent history says this, "I applauded, too, even though I knew blacks had accomplished more in the past 40 years than in the previous 400." Yes, like Condi, Colin, Clarence?....the advances are mind-numbing ...and aren't we all benefiting phenomenally?? Or is it only a select few that are benefiting - like Dubois' "talented tenth"? In fact we are not all benefiting even a little bit, not withstanding his noting the hundreds of well-dressed blacks in attendance at the M.L.King breakfast, but conveniently forgetting or ignoring the multiple thousands of less fortunate blacks who would be hard-pressed to applaud any progress in the last 40 years, and who would be unable to even afford to attend this breakfast.
Oops....someone on the "programming committee" needs to be fired it seems! As the author notes by saying - "at some point I glanced at Brenda, whose mouth and eyes were opened wide, and then I scanned the room and saw similar expressions of disbelief, including on the faces of some of the event organizers and the colleague who had invited me...and never again would I applaud speeches that celebrated the myth of black defeat, and I would not participate in events simply because of the color of my skin." When did speeches of historical relevance become "celebrations of 'black defeat'?
This speaks volumes of the author's consciousness (or lack thereof), and his comments about the segregation of black commencement exercises is also unfortunate. What is wrong with a private supplemental graduation exercise, recognizing the hard work and achievement of the black graduates? So he did not like the speaker nor the 'entertainment' offered - so what? Has he always liked everything that white groups do?
Lastly, his comments in general, connote a dismissive and overly critical view of anything that has a black cultural connection - this is what he is running away from!...and it would be curious to know if his wife, Brenda, is black, or some other ethnicity. One can wonder if that has a lot to do with his lack of cultural identification and his hesitancy to identify with his black colleagues. And his, "I intend to be visible.........but only in ways I wish to be seen" comment, means he will be mostly invisible in the future - and to that many will say, a hearty amen and good riddance!
The fact is, the author will be yet another member of the higher education community who does not execute a "fade-to-black" (seen and visible, regardless of whether scorned or applauded), but does a "fade-to-clear" (invisible and a non-entity), which will likely be his metaphor of achievement and resulting legacy.
(bennie thanks Nezet 'Prophet of The Surreal' for his invaluable inputs to this post)
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Nobody Knows The Lynchings He's Seen
"WHAT'S the difference between a low-tech lynching and a high-tech lynching? A high-tech lynching brings a tenured job on the Supreme Court and a $1.5 million book deal. A low-tech lynching, not so much." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07rich.html?hp
This is how the brilliant article by Frank Rich of the NYTimes starts off, as he reviews Thomas's new book, "My Grandfather's Son", and his '60 Minutes' guest appearance last Sunday evening.
Early this morning, C-Span2 re-broadcasted their live coverage of a book signing for Thomas hosted by Armstrong Williams, and this was the first time I had ever seen major republican political players, in an informal and unscripted social setting.
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I was struck by how 'normal' this event seemed, considering that most of those attending were right-wing republican ideologues and key supporters and purveyors of one of the most inhumane, costly, deadly and disastrous wars in US history. Attending were luminaries like V.P. Chaney, John Bolton, Michael Chertoff, Arlen Specter, Sen. Lindsay Graham, Thomas and his wife Virginia, most of the supreme court justices and their wives , and even black sportscaster, Stephen A. Smith.
The light-hearted banter and joking that flowed between the attendees, belied their deadly, flawed politics. As a comparison, I remember reading of the many social events and classical/opera concerts that leading Nazi party officials loved to attend in Germany, during WW2. The authors of those reports could not understand how architects of the evils of Nazism, could seem so 'normal' and yet be so evil. Likewise, the air of conviviality at this book signing, and it's 'fiddling while Rome is burning' in Iraq, and as it did at Katrina, seemed surreal and strange to me, and gave me an eerie and disquieted feeling while watching it.
Thomas was very upbeat and jocular while uttering bromides like "stay positive and think positive" to his well-wishers. When asked whether he read Anita Hill's NYTimes op-ed rebuttal to his books assertions, he just laughed and sneered dismissively that he would never, ever, waste his time reading it.
So this was just a tiny glimpse into Clarence Thomas's world and those who share it with him.....Happily, I want no part of that slimy world.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
'The Mismatch Effect'.....
"....the system of affirmative action that enables hundreds of minority law students to attend more elite institutions than their credentials alone would allow. Data from across the country suggest to some researchers that when law students attend schools where their credentials (including LSAT scores and college grades) are much lower than the median at the school, they actually learn less, are less likely to graduate and are nearly twice as likely to fail the bar exam than they would have been had they gone to less elite schools. This is known as the "mismatch effect."
This so-called 'effect' does not make sense to me, why would going to a less 'elite' school improve the chances of a minority student graduating and passing the bar? It would seem to me that the 'elite' schools would have better faculty and resources that would be beneficial to the students, particularly if their credentials are much lower than the median of the schools.
This so-called 'effect' does not make sense to me, why would going to a less 'elite' school improve the chances of a minority student graduating and passing the bar? It would seem to me that the 'elite' schools would have better faculty and resources that would be beneficial to the students, particularly if their credentials are much lower than the median of the schools.
Also what about the 'legacy effect' as the sub-par Geo. Bush exemplifies? No one attributes his lackluster performance as a student and as president, to the 'legacy effect'. There has got to be thousands of examples of sub-par 'legacy' admissions, and yet no one analyzes and criticizes their admissions, nor their eventual sub-par performances.
Also what about the hundreds of thousands of 'preferences' granted to returning servicemen and women from WW2, Korea and Vietnam under the GI bill? Would anyone argue against such a sensible investment in their education by providing preferential admissions, even if some eventually failed or dropped-out from their courses of study?
I definitely distrust the motivations of those who have 'coined' this term and definition. It makes more sense that such elite institutions would be ideally suited to help those students that have been marginalized, rather than hinder their march towards graduation.
Is the 'mismatch effect' theory, which smacks of elitism, discrimination and classism, just another rationalization to maintain and keep the lily-white elite's paternalistic grip and stranglehold, on the rest of society???
- just wondering?
Was This a Set-Up?
Just a few days ago, the president of Columbia University hosted an appearance by the highly educated but controversial president of Iran, Armadinejad. While introducing him to his audience, Lee Bollinger said the most insulting, jingoistic, nonsense about his invited guest, who is the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation.
The academician's self-important, self-righteous histrionics was not just simple arrogance, but the poisoned fruit of malicious propaganda foisted upon an ignorant American public. Who is really the petty dictator, the invader, the uneducated C- student who avoided the Vietnam draft, and who has caused the deaths of over 1 million people in a country that did nothing to us and was virtually defenseless? That person should be loudly condemned by Bollinger, instead of Armadinejad. To his credit, the disrespected guest, ignored the "petty dictator" label and other insults hurled by Bollinger in his introduction, and proceeded to deliver a credible, dignified address to his audience in spite of the insults.
So why did Bollinger unleash this attack, even before Armadinejad started speaking? Because he, along with Geo. Bush, Dick Chaney, John Hagee and many others allied with the BuchCo administration, are Zionists, who believe that Iran is a threat to Israel, and whatever is bad for Israel is also bad for the United States. This theory conflates Israel's interests with those of the US, and makes it impossible for a rational diplomatic American discourse with Iran. Instead Iran is now being demonized, much like Iraq was prior to their being attacked and occupied. Any country that has a valuable resource like oil that America and Israel covets, and is perceived to be a threat to their interests, is turned into an object of contempt and ridicule, in an attempt to make an attack on them more palatable to the voters.
Iran is one of four countries in the middle east who elects their president democratically. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Egypt do not, and yet they are allies in good standing with the US - so it's clear that it's not about having a democratic government, but is instead about empire and who will control that part of the world and it's resources.
Whatever has happened in Iran over the last 60 years, has been a direct result of US intervention. The people of Iran chose the way they are governed and the way they live, and the laws they live by is their choice and is just as valid as the laws under which Americans live. Also in Iran, about 25-35,000 religious Jews comprise the largest Jewish community in the middle east outside of Israel, and has resided there peacefully and protected by the Iranian government for centuries. They are apparently so happy there, that they have consistently refused to emigrate to Israel, as many Israelis would have them do.
Is it a coincidence that Bollinger invited Ahmadinejad, called him petty and cruel....all he left out was the "axis of evil" part....and that this week's Newsweek asks "How far will Israel go to keep Iran from getting the bomb?" Do those calling him a tyrant, dictator, murderer, and worse, realize that he has far less power in Iran, than Bush and Chaney have here. This bogeyman has no control whatever over the Iranian military, cannot even appoint the members of his own cabinet, and must defer to the Ayatollahs in every important decision - how does this make him a dictator or tyrant?
We don't need more knee-jerk, anti-free speech jerks like Bollinger. Ahmadinejad has not attacked another sovereign country - George W. Bush has. Who is closer to being a "petty and cruel dictator?" See Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo and loss of habeas corpus and civil liberties in the United States. Ahmadinejad may be anti-Israel and a speechifying figurehead, but ask yourself - who has caused more actual, real, bloody death and destruction in this world - George W. Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
It was a stunningly-synchronized campaign against Ahmadinejad, and I'd say many were pretty much on board for it. Which is timely, because this time we can ALL get behind Bush (as opposed to the last time), and feel all weepy and warm and patriotic when he drops bombs on Iran, and incinerates the flesh off their little children, and turns a functioning economy into a desolate hell of fire and sewage and death, as he has done in Iraq.
I think the Iranian President was SET UP!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Who 'Be-Trayed' Us?
Was it MoveOn.org for running an ad that accurately challenged Gen. Petraeus's assertion that the phony 'surge' was a success, and provided factual documentation that proved otherwise?
Was it the 22 cowardly Senate Democrats who lacked the cajones to stand up to BushCo and his war, and acted as enablers for the Repugnants, by voting against free-speech for MoveOn.org?
Was it the Senate Republicans who filibustered votes on bills supported by the majority of the Congress and the country--bills which would have supported our troops and kept our armed forces whole by giving them a year at home for every year at the front, and which would have restored the constitutional right of habeas corpus, and others of our freedoms?
Was it Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, for allowing this outrageous bit of Repugnant legislation condemning MoveOn's ad, to even get to the senate floor for a vote in the first place?
Was it the Democrats who control both houses of congress, and yet have been unable to or have refused to, stop the war funding and bring our soldiers home, post-haste, now?
The 'be-trayers' have now been exposed, and should be remembered when the voters go to the polls in 2008.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Did OJ Do It - Again?
Just when I think OJ has turned the corner of stupidity as I did in my 8/28 post, he outdoes himself with an even more outrageous shot in the foot - this one could very well get him some hard time for the rest of his miserable life.
I can only conclude that he must be seriously mentally disturbed - he can't possible be sane and make the kind of self-defeating decisions as he did in writing the book last year, and as he just did in Las Vegas. If he was sane he would have known the Goldman's would have a financial interest in setting him up in a high-publicity sting, so that the book they just released last week would get a much needed shot in the arm for increased sales. Sure enough the publisher just announced ordering an additional 50,000 copies from the printer - solely on the basis of OJ's arrest this week, and almost certain future conviction and jailing.
I believe the unsavory characters that were arrested with him, as well as the money-grubbing Goldmans, were in this caper together for the purpose of exploiting OJ's mentally ill condition, knowing that he would stupidly fall for the slightest provocation and enticement.
Some people can't be saved from themselves - OJ certainly falls into this category! Instead of acquiring another blond, live-in, Nicole look-alike, named Christie Prody (29 yrs. his junior), he should have just confined himself to some secluded area of the country and lived quietly. But no, he had to travel to the best known town for getting into trouble - Las Vegas, and now he's facing upwards of 50+ years of jail-time if he is convicted of all the felonies charged.
I'm embarrassed for him and his family, but I can no longer empathize with him on a racial solidarity basis - he's far too stupid to be black! It's one thing to be crazy, but it's far worst to be stupid - sadly OJ is both, big-time!
This time I think the jig is up, and the freedom he has enjoyed since his miraculous acquittal in his infamous 'trial of the century' 12 years ago, is almost certainly about to come to an end.
Here's what I wrote to a friend about the book that is now on sale:
I'm afraid the joke is on you Jeff - pulled off by an OJ who I feel is mentally disturbed, maybe insane, but still sane enough to write this book, and have his cartoonish tormentor, Fred Goldman, scam you and anyone else who buys this book!
I can only conclude that he must be seriously mentally disturbed - he can't possible be sane and make the kind of self-defeating decisions as he did in writing the book last year, and as he just did in Las Vegas. If he was sane he would have known the Goldman's would have a financial interest in setting him up in a high-publicity sting, so that the book they just released last week would get a much needed shot in the arm for increased sales. Sure enough the publisher just announced ordering an additional 50,000 copies from the printer - solely on the basis of OJ's arrest this week, and almost certain future conviction and jailing.
I believe the unsavory characters that were arrested with him, as well as the money-grubbing Goldmans, were in this caper together for the purpose of exploiting OJ's mentally ill condition, knowing that he would stupidly fall for the slightest provocation and enticement.
Some people can't be saved from themselves - OJ certainly falls into this category! Instead of acquiring another blond, live-in, Nicole look-alike, named Christie Prody (29 yrs. his junior), he should have just confined himself to some secluded area of the country and lived quietly. But no, he had to travel to the best known town for getting into trouble - Las Vegas, and now he's facing upwards of 50+ years of jail-time if he is convicted of all the felonies charged.
I'm embarrassed for him and his family, but I can no longer empathize with him on a racial solidarity basis - he's far too stupid to be black! It's one thing to be crazy, but it's far worst to be stupid - sadly OJ is both, big-time!
This time I think the jig is up, and the freedom he has enjoyed since his miraculous acquittal in his infamous 'trial of the century' 12 years ago, is almost certainly about to come to an end.
Here's what I wrote to a friend about the book that is now on sale:
Jeff,
You have been hoodwinked by the book "If I Did It".
You have been hoodwinked by the book "If I Did It".
Simpson is a huckster and a hustler, that's his background and that is what he would have been even without a football career. This book is another one of his hustles. To pick out passages and assert that they constitute a 'confession' is ludicrous. He said exactly what he needed to say in order to make this a viable and saleable book - anything less would not make it marketable. If I was in a position to write such a book and make potential millions, I would write exactly what he wrote. It's not hard to do - the facts of the case are well known, and a collaboration with a skilled ghost-writer would help put it into the proper words for maximum effect.
Think about it - what incentive would OJ have to write a true 'confession' now, even if he could not be tried again for those crimes? - exactly none. White folks are just desperate to get a 'confession' out of him, and are fooling themselves into thinking that he finally did - but this sure ain't it!
Simpson is not the only hustler, Fred Goldman is also one. He has been hustling to get paid for his phony civil verdict for years, and thinks nothing of stooping low enough to use this hustle for his own enrichment, as Denise Brown has correctly noted. You are furthering this hustle by encouraging others to buy it and read it - that's buying into his and Goldman's hustle big-time!
Think about it - what incentive would OJ have to write a true 'confession' now, even if he could not be tried again for those crimes? - exactly none. White folks are just desperate to get a 'confession' out of him, and are fooling themselves into thinking that he finally did - but this sure ain't it!
Simpson is not the only hustler, Fred Goldman is also one. He has been hustling to get paid for his phony civil verdict for years, and thinks nothing of stooping low enough to use this hustle for his own enrichment, as Denise Brown has correctly noted. You are furthering this hustle by encouraging others to buy it and read it - that's buying into his and Goldman's hustle big-time!
I'm afraid the joke is on you Jeff - pulled off by an OJ who I feel is mentally disturbed, maybe insane, but still sane enough to write this book, and have his cartoonish tormentor, Fred Goldman, scam you and anyone else who buys this book!
benny
How Big is Your God ???
Mine is pretty big.....not to mention all-knowing, all-powerful, everywhere at once, having no beginning nor ending, and having such a keen interest in me, that each of the hairs on my head has been meticulously numbered by Him.
I'm aware that some have their own unique belief and concept of a god - others don't even believe in a god, and still others certainly don't believe in one who is bigger or smarter than they are. On the other hand, some like me, believe in a personal, engaged God, with Whom we have a personal, 24/7 relationship, and on Whom we depend for the very air we breathe, the sunlight we see by, and the water that sustains us, among everything else.
That being said, early this morning, I was struck by the thought that my God foresaw, foreknew, and created, my ancestral links that would snake across many continents, over many centuries, and eventually lead to me at this very moment in time and space as I'm writing these words. The thought of the enormity of the planning process necessary to produce and sustain me with all my faults and strengths to this very moment, is earth-shattering and mind-blowing.
I can't even begin to wrap my mind around what this all means - but I'm grateful and elated at the knowledge, that all the details had been worked out and put into place, long before time began.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"Iraq: WTF is Going On?!"
My buddy 'Nezet, Prophet of the Surreal', stopped by and gave his view of the war in Iraq and our political parties: -
"Frankly, I don't think either party has a plan (why I'm an avowed 'Independent' now...and will pine and work towards having multiple parties in future elections..this two-party nonsense might've worked at one time, though I doubt it...but it fails miserably in our times now for sure IMHO). I don't think the Republicans nor the Democrats have a freaking clue or a plan! Whatever plan there might've been changes like the seasons...and is being left to the next administration to "clean up"...nice legacy there Dubya (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.)!
I want to see logic and critical thinking from our so-called leaders...not the crap we get now....that is filtered by handlers, political 'consultants' and media advisers...and American men and women are dying daily (not to mention the Iraqi wounded and dead). The more that continues to leak out of the lack of Pentagon planning and Dubya's administrative gaffes at thinking that war is going to be a piece of cake...did they not read a smidgen of the reports of the Vietnam experience? This is not some glorified WWI or WWII operation...times have changed...the "enemy" (however defined) has changed...troops don't line up in nice rows and engage on some field of battle. Iraq is now a war zone for years to come. And I'm really trying to understand how this operation is serving to lessen/damper international terrorism and Islamic fascism. The logic is that "we'll fight them over there so they won't come over here"....they're probably already here. And our borders are sieves from every report I see....illegals still get in daily.
This is beyond politics (if that's even possible to have a discussion/debate in this country anymore without some political angle)...I fear we have created enemies and sheet that will go on for our grandchildren to battle and die for. This whole "let's go to war" mentality just escapes me (in my reality, the folks that parrot this line haven't seen any parts of combat in their life....and none, to a person, wants their kids to go...but someone else's....by all means).
Makes one pine for the "good ol" days when we (the American government) sent in the CIA and we had covert ops assassinate a dictator or destabilized the offending government with operatives. As I was talking to an ex-Marine buddy one day, "You mean we couldn't set-up a "kill" of Saddam if that was the objective?" He explained that would've been do-able and would have spared the mess we have now. 3700+ American soldiers dead, a multiple of four or five of that number that are disfigured/maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi civilians are dead/wounded? I'm not getting this "war" at all. Then again, I know some folks who still think this all has something to do with 9/11 (ummmm...the hijackers were mostly, if not all, Saudis).
Just sad and such a waste of human lives. And if what we're seeing now is "The Plan"...it sucks, isn't working and goes to show how deluded we as a populous have become. Going into our fifth year of this crap...this is success? But like Tom Skerrit's character in "Top Gun" remarked, "I'm not going to blow sunshine up your asshole.." (or something like that)...and as long as Americans can go about their jobs, their families and the Starbucks has the lattes at the ready..... everything is okay."
"Frankly, I don't think either party has a plan (why I'm an avowed 'Independent' now...and will pine and work towards having multiple parties in future elections..this two-party nonsense might've worked at one time, though I doubt it...but it fails miserably in our times now for sure IMHO). I don't think the Republicans nor the Democrats have a freaking clue or a plan! Whatever plan there might've been changes like the seasons...and is being left to the next administration to "clean up"...nice legacy there Dubya (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.)!
I want to see logic and critical thinking from our so-called leaders...not the crap we get now....that is filtered by handlers, political 'consultants' and media advisers...and American men and women are dying daily (not to mention the Iraqi wounded and dead). The more that continues to leak out of the lack of Pentagon planning and Dubya's administrative gaffes at thinking that war is going to be a piece of cake...did they not read a smidgen of the reports of the Vietnam experience? This is not some glorified WWI or WWII operation...times have changed...the "enemy" (however defined) has changed...troops don't line up in nice rows and engage on some field of battle. Iraq is now a war zone for years to come. And I'm really trying to understand how this operation is serving to lessen/damper international terrorism and Islamic fascism. The logic is that "we'll fight them over there so they won't come over here"....they're probably already here. And our borders are sieves from every report I see....illegals still get in daily.
This is beyond politics (if that's even possible to have a discussion/debate in this country anymore without some political angle)...I fear we have created enemies and sheet that will go on for our grandchildren to battle and die for. This whole "let's go to war" mentality just escapes me (in my reality, the folks that parrot this line haven't seen any parts of combat in their life....and none, to a person, wants their kids to go...but someone else's....by all means).
Makes one pine for the "good ol" days when we (the American government) sent in the CIA and we had covert ops assassinate a dictator or destabilized the offending government with operatives. As I was talking to an ex-Marine buddy one day, "You mean we couldn't set-up a "kill" of Saddam if that was the objective?" He explained that would've been do-able and would have spared the mess we have now. 3700+ American soldiers dead, a multiple of four or five of that number that are disfigured/maimed for life, and who knows how many Iraqi civilians are dead/wounded? I'm not getting this "war" at all. Then again, I know some folks who still think this all has something to do with 9/11 (ummmm...the hijackers were mostly, if not all, Saudis).
Just sad and such a waste of human lives. And if what we're seeing now is "The Plan"...it sucks, isn't working and goes to show how deluded we as a populous have become. Going into our fifth year of this crap...this is success? But like Tom Skerrit's character in "Top Gun" remarked, "I'm not going to blow sunshine up your asshole.." (or something like that)...and as long as Americans can go about their jobs, their families and the Starbucks has the lattes at the ready..... everything is okay."
Friday, September 14, 2007
"Glory Road"
A few days ago, an unlikely event happened at the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. The team that featured an all-black starting five, and who defeated the #1 ranked, all-white team from Kentucky coached by racist, Adolph Rupp, 72-66, and won the national NCAA title, was enshrined - 41 years late!
This seminal event on March 19, 1966, which I saw on television, was and is the best and most significant game I've ever seen, and I'm sure Pat Reilly, coach of the Miami Heat, still remembers it because he was the all-American forward, playing for the losing team, Kentucky.
Not only did the Miners out-play the Wildcats, but they whupped them while demonstrating a basketball 101 course on man-to-man defense, superior offense, superior rebounding - all done while committing only one-forth the fouls that the Wildcats committed. To add insult to injury, little guard Bobby Joe Hill, demonstrated several times how to steal the ball in mid-dribble from the best and brightest all-American players like Louie Dampier and Pat Riley.
My biggest thrill was seeing the shock on the face of the red-necked racist coach, Adolph Rupp, as this all-black starting five, destroyed them on a nationally televised broadcast. The victory was particularly sweet because they had been maligned in the press for months leading up to the final game, as thugs from northen ghettos with criminal backgrounds, non-student athletes, undisciplined playground denizens, and every other dismissive, libelous and racist characterization possible. Rupp was also reported to be incensed at having to play against black players at this Maryland tournament venue.
Their shocking win went over like a lead balloon with most of America, and no one even bothered to bring a ladder out, so the players could climb up and cut the traditional nets down. The Ed Sullivan Show which traditional invited the yearly NCAA winner to appear, did not bother to issue an invitation this time. Their innovative and courageous 36-year old, white coach, Don Haskins, was blackballed by the basketball establishment for having the temerity to start five blacks against 'America's all-white team', and worse, to beat them! Although they received a heroes welcome from their school in El Paso, Texas, they got death threats and hate mail by the bucketfull from much of America, particularly from the south. The NCAA even sent an 'investigator' down to El Paso, to uncover wrongdoing by the school's athletic department!
And as profound as their historic and social impact was, more significantly, their win opened the doors to literally thousands and thousands of athletic scholarships for black kids to colleges that had traditionally denied them admission. Colleges could no longer afford to ignore the Black athlete and hope to continue to win the championships they coveted.
Belatedly, the team received some recognition in the late 90s with a book and a movie titled "Glory Road" that chronicled their historic achievement. Coach Haskins was even inducted into the hall of fame in 1997 with 719 career wins at the college level.
Enshrined in my heart and memory are some of the names of these players - Bobby Joe Hill, Nevil Shed, Jerry Armstrong, Willie Worsley, David "Big Daddy D" Lattin, Harry Flournoy,......and I'm sorry that their fabulous little point guard, Bobby Joe Hill, passed away before they received this recognition.
I never forgot them in the 41 years that have passed since their historic achievement, and I'm glad the Hall of Fame - finally remembered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)