Just another isolated event

Just days ago the Government decided that there was nothing more they could do to pursue justice in the Sean Bell shooting. After 4 years and 50 shots, nothing has been done besides "normal police actions".



Across the country, in an odd coincidence, a Black man was unarmed and shot in the back by police. No I'm not speaking about Robbie Tolan, or Adolph Grimes, or even Oscar Grant. I mean the shooting of Aaron Campbell in Portland.

I know, with all these cases being so similar it's hard to know which police shooting of unarmed Black men I could be talking about. Not that this is an epidemic or a pattern that someone should investigate or report.

Aaron Campbell was a man that had just lost his brother to heart disease. He was understandably upset. As was his family, because they knew he had a gun in his house. But the family made one mistake. They called the police.

Police arrived and text messaged Campbell if he was going to harm himself. He replied
that he had no intention of killing himself. Sgt. Liani Reyna, commander at the scene, believed the situation was over.

She is quoted as saying "I'm ready to walk away from this, we don't need to be here."

At that time Campbell came outside, unarmed, hands on his head. What do you think the police did next?

Obviously they felt that Campbell was still dangerous. Because he is a Black man and he must have the strength of Hercules, and the skin of Superman. The police near simultaneously told him to raise his hands over his head, shot him with non-lethal bean bags, and sicked a police dog on him.

Campbell ran, which is not entirely a strange thing to do as a dog attacks and the confusing reactions of police. As Campbell ran police claim he reached for his waistband. Here is the critical moment.

Just like Amidou Diallo (41 shots), like Sean Bell (50 shots), like Oscar Grant (1 shot while he laid face down on the ground), like Robbie Tolan (1 shot as he was on his knees), like numerous Black men across the nation, police were 100% sure that this meant Campbell had a gun. So they shot him in the back with a AR-15 (the civillian version of the military M-16 rifle) and killed him. They left his body on the ground while the police dog bit it, for half an hour, before they checked it (maybe they thought he was a vampire and would just get back up).

The police were loaded for bear, and bagged an unarmed Black man. What do you think happened to the officers involved in this? Nothing. Just a letter from the Multnomah County grand jury stating

"We feel that his death resulted from flawed police policies, incomplete or inappropriate training, incomplete communication and other issues with the police effort."

Have you heard that before? I have. Too many times. In cities across the nation (L.A., Philadelphia, New York, Oakland, Dallas, do I need to go on?), in "isolated" "justified" police shootings of Black men every year for decades now. But I bet that most people haven't heard a word about 1/5th of them.

But today the Dept. of Justice has decided to look into this case. Just because it's a "routine" thing to do.

I don't think there is anything routine about it. Aaron Campbell did not need to die. Nor did Oscar Grant (a case that won't go before a jury for another year oddly enough). Nor Sean Bell. Or a whole list of men (and Black women too) shot with enough bullets to kill the army of France [ok I'm exaggerating, France and Belgium combined].

At what point to people stop avoiding this "isolated" event that keeps repeating multiple times a year in every corner of the nation? At what point do people stop dreaming and proclaiming America is post-racial, and start noticing the very racial bias of police? Will it take a police officer shooting one of the Obama children 5 or 10 years from now to make someone in the major media notice there is a problem?

I'm not saying that every police shooting is unjustified or unreasonable. But I am saying that there are way to many examples of excessive force and deadly action, focused directly on African American men, without the hint of reason. And I am tired of it.



Stop the game!

The final Sean Bell act of injustice

I'm in NYC on business and I was checking the latest local news for what's going on in my old home. That's when I noticed this small item of news that hit at about 11pm. The resolution of the Sean Bell case.

A quick summary of the case. Sean Bell was having his bachelor party with 2 friends at a strip club. They had a minor argument with a man in the club and decide to leave. The man follows them and approaches their car. The men in the car attempt to leave. The man that followed was a cop. He and 4 other officers, in the strip club on a different matter, fire 50 shots into the car - killing Bell and wounding the 2 other men in the car. Bell and his friends were unarmed.

Those are facts. The debate is whether this was justified, excessive, or a crime. The coverage of the case was centralized in New York City, and was spotty from day one. The news media overlooked initial claims by officers that there was a 4th man in the car that escaped the barrage of bullets without injury with a gun in hand. An individual that was never seen by any witnesses nor verified in any manner.

So what has happened in this case that has floated slowly through the criminal justice system for 4 years? The criminal charges were dropped by judges. The Feds have decided that they won't pursue charges either.

Neither accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation. - Justice Department statement"

Is anyone surprised?

There seems to be 2 ways the criminal justice system reacts to African Americans (and often any person of color). IF they are a huge entertainer, like say Snoop Dogg or lil Wayne, they get mutiple chances to evade jail as they break the law over and over. Like the recent decision to allow lil Wayne to delay his jail sentence so he can get his personal dentist to take the diamond out of his mouth. Like you or I would be allowed to delay going to jail for dental surgery that any dentist can do, including those in a prison.

The other side of the coin is far less cavalier. This it the side most people of color get to see. That's where African Americans are seen a violent criminals that need to be stopped at all costs. Where people of color deserve to be shot, as often as possible, because they might rise up like the undead and raise hell with them.

It's that kind of justice that causes the kidnapping, sexual abuse, and rape of Megan Williams by 6 Whites (men and women of vartious ages) to go virtually unspoken by the media. It causes the muder of Oscar Grant at the start of a year to be discarded, even as riots unfold because of the murder - a murder of an unarmed man. It allows men like Bell, Diallo, and many others to be shot so many times as to be the human equivalent of cheese - each the murder of unarmed men.

In each case, and others like the assault by 15 officers in Philidelphia against 3 men, the person of color was assumed to be violent, deadly, and apparently impervious to bullets. In each case the trials take multiple years, plenty of time for witnesses and the media to forget what happened. In each case the reports of officers being absolved of their wrongs is announced in the dead of night, a weekend, over a holiday, or a combination of the previous.

Over the years I have recorded case after case of the warped justice system in America. I have seen police officers walk away from acts of depraved brutality, while I have seen people of color sledgehammered by the very same system for minor violations of law. I have seen the justice system bend over and kiss it's ass to make sure that whatever celebrity gets one more chance to cause a problem with drugs, violence, and/or guns.

The justice system isn't flawed. It's broken. The latest example of it with Sean Bell is just another reminder to police across the nation that as long as the person has a skin tone other than White, they can do damn near whatever they please.

For those that think President Obama ushered in an era of post-racial America, I submit this case. I submit his action to even acknowledge the Oscar Grant case that happened just before his inauguration. But for those that hold out and hope for change there is this

"Ms. Paultre Bell said she hoped to get the attention of the White House. “There is a history of black men being killed by police officers, and something needs to be done,” she said. “We’re hoping to eventually meet with President Obama, and that he’ll do something, because this is a national problem.”

I agree with Ms. Bell that this is a national problem. But I'm also sadly willing to take odds that President Obama neither responds to them, or any of the cases that I have mentioned or exist in this nation, nor will he publicly address the problem. Because America is anything but post-racial.

Will this ever change? Not until the day that news of these kinds of abuses of power and corruption of the justice system are as prominent in the news as the attention given to Paris Hilton and Stephanie Pratt wearing the same dress gets. The same attention that Burger King's business moves for the breakfast market gets. The same attention that Sarah Palin talking about Family Guy episodes gets. Are you understanding the disparity yet?

I feel bad for the Bell family, but more than that I feel afraid. Because it seems I have a bull's eye on my head, just like every other person of color in America. And that is a feeling you never get used to.

News flash from Chris Matthews: Obama is Black

I realize that most people do not watch MSNBC. There are many reasons for this, but the latest comments from Chris Matthews helps to make it quite clear.





So if I understand this correctly, Chris Matthews forgot that President Obama is (by Matthews comments) a Black, loincloth wearing, spear chucking, Tarzan movie escapee that can stand infront of a crowd of Whites and not cower and simper? And Matthews believes this because America is past the racial divide of the 1950's?

Ok, let's smell the coffee and wake up. President Obama is African American, and there are no Blacks in the modern world that run around in loincloths. To my knowledge there are not tribes of African Americans, not even during the centuries of slavery. And President Obama is not the only African American will and capable of standing in front of a crowd of any and all groups of people in a position of authority and leadership without a loss of respect, power, or anything else.

Yes, in the 1950's African Americans couldn't do a lot of things. Yes, even today stereotypes and small-minded individuals make life difficult for people of color. It's true that loans, for anything, tend to be priced higher for people of color. It's true that inner city schools with high percentages of people of color are more likely to be underfunded and the teachers overworked. It's true that the worst stereotypes and images of people of color are promoted to this day on television, music videos, and every other media. It's even true that right now, in every industry in America, people of color are underrepresented at the top level even though qualified people exist for those positions.

But all of that together does not make President Obama less Black, or any of the numerous insults that Chris Matthews let fly.

I wonder what will happen to Matthews, if anything. If this were a White Conservative, say Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone on Fox News, you could guarantee that there would be an outcry for them to be fired. But I wonder how Black "leaders" like Rev. Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson will respond to this, if at all.

"Negro dialect"

Those are part of the words that Sen. Harry Reid used to describe President Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign. "Negro dialect". It just keeps running through my mind.

What is "negro dialect" Senator Reid? How exactly are African Americans supposed to speak? Is it somehow different than himself, or Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh? Is there some kind of class required to learn this language?

Let's take this from the beginning. Negro, a term used before and through the 1960's to describe African Americans. It replaced the N-word, which was a step forward indeed. But EVERY conotation of the word was intended to denote a second-class of citizenship, a substandard way of life, and inferiority. It is a term embedded with racial disparity and prejudice. And it is a term no longer used because of those very reasons.

In using these words, combined with the backhanded compliment of how light the skin of President Obama is, an image is made. It's an image no different that the one I would have if the words were said by a person in a white hood made them. And there is nothing that makes that statement better.

Reid has run for the hills, with Democrats of all types covering his tracks. He is proclaiming his record of acheivements absolve him of the thought process that made those words enter and escape his mouth. He is trying to project his liberal image, as a defense to his racial verbage.

But why, in 2008, would ANYONE of whatever political background use such terminology? What is it that makes this ok for some? [Notably the "Black leaders" - who themselves share the same political ideology]

Shallow minds might point to rap music as the cause of the statement. But think about that. Slang words have been used by every generation of Americans since before there was an America. Those in the South, the West Coast, even in various cities in the same region, all have slang. Yet I have never heard anyone speak of a politicians "White dialect", let alone praise them for it (or the lack thereof).

Who promotes the slang used in rap music? Not the entertainers. They are merely the tool used to market it. They don't control the production of CD's, the production of music videos and television commercials. That's all done by the music industry executives. The very same people that decide that this style of clothing will sell, or that gospel should be emphasized in the South, and country music in the mid-west.

Yes it's music executives that promote the rap slang. And they sell it to White youth that are all too willing to buy the records, dress in the clothes, and emulate the style in a music video like a child might emulate the family puppy because it's funny.

But that's all business. That has nothing to do with the educations of the entertainers, or their fans. It has nothing to do with their ability to speak or think. It has nothing to do with the shades of color (or lack) of their skin. All that has to do with is money.

So I really want to understand what "negro dialect" Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is talking about. Is it the way I speak? Is it the way that my father spoke? Or the way Rev. Jesse jackson speaks? What is it exactly?

In my life I have heard some with doctorates that have thick Southern drawls, business owners with the quick tempos of New York City speech. I have heard people with perfect diction that are winos, and others who mumble that are multi-millionaires. I even recall a stock brokerage owner who you would swear sounds just like Mickey Mouse. Do any of those styles of speech make these people smarter, richer, better? Would revealing the skin color of those same people elevate their intelligence and abilities?

Sen. Reid wants to point out all the things he's done to better race relations in America. As if that alters his apparent thought that African Americans need to be fixed. That somehow the color of my skin impedes my mental abilities in some manner.

Was Dr. Martin Luther King any less intelligent because he had skin darker than mine? Was Malcolm X an less of a man because he could speak jive, like many New Yorkers? Is Jay-Z any less of a success because he can rap on an album that music executives want to promote? Is Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali, or Tiger Woods any less talented because of their skin or how they speak?

Sen. Harry Reid slipped when he uttered these comments. He spoke his true mind, and not the polispeak spin of a politician when in front of a crowd or camera. In the past when celebrities and politicians have done this there was an outcry to have those people removed. Think of Don Imus, Dogg the bounty hunter, and so many more. How is what Reid said any differnt?

Better yet, to understand if this was really racial bias and wrong let's change the color of the statement. If it's insulting when any other group is used, then it's insulting. And if any other group would be outraged, Harry Reid should be removed from his political position.

If the statement was 'Jewish dialect' or 'Chinese dialect', or 'Hispanic dialect', does it sound any better? What if he had said 'that's a lght-skinned Arab' or 'light-skinned Italian' does it sound just as supposedly innocent?

'XX should be President because they are a dark-skinned Caucassian... who can speak without a Christian dialect if they want to.'

Does any of that sound fair, or simple? Does it sound innocent, or does it hint as if the speaker is saying something less than positive? That somehow the person being referred to is less than what they are being touted as?

I say that in each case, substituting whomever you wish, the statement is an insult. Which means that, if we are consistent, Harry Reid should lose his position (and hopefully be voted out of office). Because if Rush Limbaugh, or Kanye West, or Bill O'Reilly said it, Liberals and Democrats, and all the "Black leaders" rushing to the defense of Harry Reid would surely demand their scalp.

Post-racial America? Are you sure about that

Do you remember that once President Obama was elected how every major news media source was proclaiming, or at least inferring, that America had become post-racial. That the election proved America had moved beyond race and was now the fruition of the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.

For me such lunacy ended on January 1st of 2009 when 2 young Black men were murdered by police while unarmed without provocation, and another was severely wounded. But for much of the nation the media ads of "change" ruled the airwaves and internet. I recall fanciful commercials on BET portraying Dr. King looking up to President Obama and smiling amid a crowd of mixed Americans. Obviously Harry Reid was not in that crowd.

The AP has found, and Sen. Harry Reid has apologized for, comments made about then-candidate and Senator Obama. They seemed to be meant as a positive much in the way VP Biden (then a Senator as well) described President Obama as "clean". Sen. Reid said

"light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Wow.

It brings up a memory from roughly the same time of a joke that was made by Chris Rock. It was about former General Colin Powell, who at the time was considered a potential candidate, and went along the lines of



It would seem that Senate Majoity Leader Harry Reid did in fact expect then-Senator Obama to be something like the joke from Rock. Which makes me wonder who else in Nevada might share that thought. Who else in Congress shares those thoughts. Who eles in the Democrat Party and leadership shares those views.

I look at this from a systemic viewpoint because the 2010 census also reverberates that theme to an extent. Question 9 on the census, when asking for the racial background of the public includes the description "Black, African Am., or Negro".

Negro? A term only slightly less repugnant than the N-word. A term firmly isolated to the 1950's pre-Civil Rights Movement view of Blacks as seperate, inferior, second-class citizens. A term that only 50,000 people used in the 2000 census and will be considered for removal in the 2020 census.

When I look at the reality of the situation, things like the murder of Sean Bell, the murder of Oscar Grant, the kidnapping and torture of Megan Williams, the persecution of Mauricia Grant by NASCAR, and then add the census and Senator Harry Reid, I don't get post-racial. When I listen to President Carter and President Clinton (with his famous dream comments and denial to recognize then-Senator Obama), along with other prominent Democrats, flinging around the term racist on ANYONE that disagrees with them - I don't see post-racial.

If we are to be honest, America is no more in a post-racial phase of it's existence than it is in an economic boom. Some can see improvement on the horizon, but for far too many people that horizon is too far away to matter. It's a concept most of us want to believe, to live. But reality reminds us that right now it is still only a concept.

I have long disagreed with Democrats and Liberals on policy and economics. But I had hoped that at least on the concept of equality, respect, and recognition there was some degree of common ground. Sen. Harry Reid, among so many others, seems intent on dashing even that thought. Not that a slew of Republicans are much better.

So is America post-racial? Has President Obama ushered in a new era, filled with the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream? I didn't think so in 2007. I said it wasn't in Novemebr 2008. And it seems that I am being proven correct in 2010.

I really wished I was going to be proven wrong. I really did.

Plains, Georgia - more than a political difference with President Obama

The economy has gone from bad to worse for a still growing number of Americans. More people are in danger of losing their homes than at any point in the last 2 years. The Obama Stimulus failed, and talk of a new stimulus - or Jobs for Main Street Act as it's called in Congress - seems just as likely to do nothing as the plan a year ago.

These are facts of the enviroment that America finds itself in today. For those of us old enough to recall the Carter Administration, many similarities exist. Which definitely justifies comment and critique of the job President Obama has been doing since he got elected, even though President Carter brushed off those comments as racist without condition. But it will never justify, on any level, blatant racism.

Every President has a portion of the population that disagree with whatever they may propose. The best of President's have endured that, as have the worst. It is a healthy does of reality and a reminder that the President is still just an elected official of the people, and it is the citizens that ultimately wield the power of the nation. Yet, given this expression of dissent that is our Right, there is a line and it's not hard to know when it has been crossed.

In Plains, Georgia a statement has been made. Considering the comments of President Carter there is no surprise that the statement has been made there. Sadly, the statement is an expression of the lowest kind, a reminder that even in America today there are some that cannot elevate their minds beyond the shameful past of our nation.



Just 3 days ago I mentioned that I was thankful for the start of the New Year (Why I am thankful in 2010) being so different than the start of 2009. I was hopeful that perhaps this year the ugly, putrid, ignorant pestilience that is racism would not show itself, mayhap it had died. But it seems that such regressive thoughts cannot be removed so quickly. Such warped views cannot be corrected in so little time.

America is better than this. By leaps and bounds. We have our problems, like all nations, but this should not still be one of them.

Every American need not agree with the policies of President Obama. Every American need not be of a particular party affiliation or political view. But is it too much to ask that any America that disagrees at least be honest enough and intelligent enough to have whatever view without the disease of racism?

What happened in Georgia was not political. Let's be clear, this wasn't about policy. This was about race and ignorance and fear. It was created by cowards of the worst type.

But now that it has happened, America has a choice. We can stand together and denounce this vile act of a few wretched and miserable souls, or we can hide our eyes and pretend it never happened. The latter gives strength to these villians that they don't deserve and I think America does not agree with. The former is the path that I think the overwhelming majority prefer. But we have to say it.

I've made my statement on this, now it's your turn if you chose.

America and Muslims - we love them

I was speaking with a friend of mine the other day who was as upset as any of us over the shootings committed by Maj. Nidal Hasan. My friend was very upset about the shooting, and like many he took out his frustration by cursing all Muslims. Which I was quick to correct.

I remember this conversation because it has just been released today that NBA great Karem Abdul Jabbar has a rare form of leukemia. The news is shocking and I wish him the best. But at the same time I want to use this as an opportunity to remind some of us that America has never had a problem with Muslims or Islam - just fanatics.

The history of Muslims in America, like elsewhere in the world is comprised of many versions of truth. Some have always had a fear of the religion. Some have never understood it. Some haven't a clue what it is about. And up until 9/11 few people cared.

But there have been Muslims around us, and praised by us, long before there was a Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps the most famous is the greatest boxer to have lived, and arguably the greatest athlete of the 20th Century. He is also without question one of the best known celebrities of the world. His name is Muhammad Ali.

Notice that when I mention his name how many didn't realize he is a devout Muslim. That he has long ago converted and gave up his given name Cassius Clay. That over the years of cartoons, tv shows, commercials and movies about his life, there was no problem about his religion. Of course there were issues when he converted, and refused to go to Viet Nam. But I think the issue then was the war and not his religious reasons to object.

Do we think of Muhammad Ali when we think of Maj. Hasan?

There is Karem Abdul Jabbar. A force in the NBA, a record breaker and maker. A celebrity that has endured for decades. A man that any basketball fan can place anywhere. Hell even those that know almost nothing about basketball know him from his many commercials, and even a few movies.

Is he what people think of when they think of Osama Bin Laden? Or Muslims?

Stepping away from sports, how about Dave Chappelle. He has made millions laugh out loud. He had one of the most popular comedy shows on television, ever. He broke DVD sales records that Seinfeld wishes he could have had.

Even after his decision to give up the wealth that Comedy Central was offering for his integrity, he has remained a celebrity on the A-list. He continues to make people laugh. And he has been a Muslim while doing all of that.

Does knowing he is a Muslim make him less funny? Or un-American?

There are many more examples. Some famous, some live next door to you right now. But they are all Americans. They are all people we know, and work with, and get cancer or get old. They are regular people.

I feel no less compassion, nor more, for Karem Abdul Jabbar and his battle with cancer because of his religious faith. And anyone that does allow his religion to affect their views is a lowly person indeed.

Are there fanatics that hate America, or parts of it, and are Muslim? Indeed. Just as there are Christian fanatics that kill abortion doctors, or just insane people that kill others like at Columbine. But I don't see people angry at Christians or White teens because of the actions of a few psychos.

I look forward to hearing that Maj. Hasan will receive death by firing squad for what he has done, unless he is proven innocent which I highly doubt. But that in no way is a reflection on how we should feel about all Muslims.

Its something that some of us need to remember.

How far have we really come?

The year is 2009. Yet there are still people who act as if the year were 1959. For all the hype of a post-racial America, for all those that continue to deny that any racism exists, they need only look to Louisianna.

Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish, recently refused to grant a marriage to a man and woman. His only reason - they are an interracial couple. And he admits doing this several times before.

Wow. It just hits me hard. A supposed member of the Court, sworn to uphold the laws of the State and the nation, blatantly and without remorse is breaking the law. Because he doesn't agree with a racial issue that has nothing to do with him and should not be an issue. And he has been a judge for 34 years.

In all that time this officer of the court has been violating the rights of couples by asking about their races, and refusing to marry those that don't conform to his standards. That's breaking a law that's older than I am, and has been in effect long before he became a justice of the peace. But Justice Bardwell does not consider himself a bigot or racist. Because he has "piles and piles of Black friends".

Stepping away from the thought that I have never refered to the number of friends, or even enemies, I have as piles (or what imagery that might imply). Judge Bardwell has the audacity to claim that he is fair and treats everyone equal. Imagine that.

How equal can any man or woman be to another if on the basis of the color of their skin, and that alone, Justice Bardwell treats them differently? How is that not biased? And one must ask how else this racial prejudice have come out in his legal actions?

I will give Justice Bardwell this, he is open about his prejudice. But as the saying goes

"If you can see one roach, there are a thousand others you cannot."

What really upsets me is that I just wrote about the prejudice of France and Australia. How I just reprimanded both countries for not being in the 21st Century. Because I had forgotten for a moment about the death threats that were given to the Black college football player who proposed to his White girlfriend on national television (they since got happily married). I forgot about the systemic bias in the police across the nation, as clearly defined by the murder of Oscar Grant and Adolph Grimes as well as the shooting of Robbie Tolan. And there are a host of other examples from this year alone, never mind going back several.

This is not a case of some made up racism, like the accusations that stood before Rush Limbaugh. This is not some kind of political accusation meant to deflect any criticism or question of policy, as is being used by Democrats. This is the real racism that runs through the nation, altering what we see on television and movies, reinforcing stereotypes, and affecting the lives of millions both subtly and occasionally obviously.

When we get to see moments of racial bias in the light of day as this has, it makes me ask yet again - How far have we really come?

France and Australia have more in common than you think

Wait, France and Australia? They are on opposite sides of the world. Literally. They don't have a share history. The people in Australia like beer, France has wine. Australia is mostly a big desert known for Mad Max and Mel Gibson. France has the Eiffel Tower, cheese, and hasn't won a war (or really mattered) since a short guy named Napoleon.

These things are all true. But they are very similar in their desire to display buffoonery that mocks Blacks. For Australia its the Aborigine people that are the special focus of this backwards kind of thinking. In France it's usually Moroccans, but they really stepped up the insults with the latest venture into pugnacious "art".



The French Vogue magazine, in all its brilliance, decided that supermodels needed more attention. Which is fine if not a bit absurd. But when it came time to have photos of Black models they decided that blackface was a far more appropriate and fashionable thing to do. Yes, blackface. The key part of the minstrel show that the uneducated and repugnant of the 19th century loved.

I realize that there aren't a lot of models, or supermodels for that matter, that are women of color. It's a problem the entire fashion industry can't seem to figure out. Then again, in my experience, it's far easier to find White women the size and flat board curvaciousness of Olive Oil. And as I have said before

"I have to believe that the designers are the biggest group of fetishists in plain public sight. That's the only explanation. The women they use, or airbrush, are so far from the norm that Janeane Garafalow (her politics) is mainstream in comparison. Obviously they just saw one Popeye cartoon too many. Especially Ralph Lauren."

Still I find it hard to believe that none of the Black supermodels were available. I mean there is Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Iman, Alek Wek, Liya Kebede, Chanel Iman. I mean the photographer, Steven Klein is an American. Couldn't he have had the balls to simple say what Harry Connick Jr. said to the nation of Australia? Did Klein think that no one in America would notice, or care?

Perhaps I'm not as artsy and cultured as our European "friends" or as burly as those down in Australia. But at least I am in the 20th century. Though the fact that both these nations consider racism and prejudice a normal and current way to deal with people of color in their own nations.

Vogue knows better than what they did. They had the ability to bring in Black models, they have the intelligence to know this is offensive. They knew that they were insulting tens of millions of people of color around the world. But maybe they are just like the Australian audience for Hey Hey, its Saturday night! in that they just don't care.

Considering that Blacks across the world have contributed to freedom (including saving the French in WWI, WWII, and Viet Nam), made innovations that have eased life and saved untold millions of people over the centuries, and the least of all - President Obama - you would think they might have a bit of a wake-up call. But it seems not.

I would suggest to every reader I have that buys Vogue to skip it for 3 months (or more if you would like). Send them a message in a color they are sure to respect and understand - money. Blackface is an insult. ANYWHERE in the world to ALL people of color. Perhaps France and Australia would like to join us in the 21st Century on that.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL - the true shame

In listening to all the discussion about Rush Limbaugh potentially buying the St. Louis Rams, I come to a simple conclusion. It is yet another example of a saying that I believe the far-left lives by

"You can say anything you want... unless we disagree with it."

It really is just that simple.

Now I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh. He has been as right and as wrong as most any pundit. He's made huge amounts of money being incredibly controversial. In that respect he is not different than say Howard Stern, or Rev. Al Sharpton.

Actually, Limbaugh is better than one of his chief critics - Rev. Sharpton. While there are accusations about what Limbaugh has said - the worst of which are untrue - Rev. Al Sharpton is hardly in a place of judgement. The same is true of Rev. Jesse Jackson. These "Black leaders" have no end of comments that factually they have said. Yet there has never been outrage, or a call by the media, to prevent them from making a living or buying anything.

Think about it. Rush Limbaugh is probably one of the most reviewed people in the nation if not the world. For years, if not longer, the media and various Liberal groups have recorded every word spoken or written by Limbaugh. And at a time in this nation where comments by people like Don Imus and Dog the Bounty Hunter have rightly lead to job losses, there has never been a single report proving Limbaugh has said half of the things he is claimed to have said. Not one.

Had Limbaugh said what is alleged, I too would have cried to prevent his ownership. But he hasn't. So how is it that the NFL folded to such rumors? I mean we are talking about an organization that believes in hiring violent individuals, criminals of various degrees and ex-cons. All of whom are given every excuse and reason for a second, third and in cases more chances. The NFL too has no room to judge anyone as being too controversial or presenting a negative image. And again, this was based on rumor alone.

What does this say about the nation? At this point the word racist is more common than ever before. It's been applied to any person that disagrees politically with the far-left, and especially President Obama. Some have even tried to apply it to me for my political commentary, simply because they did not like the facts I have presented. Did that mean my purchase of my home should have been blocked because of accusations some have written about me on my blogs? That I should be denied business opportunites because I am Republican?

If Rev. Sharpton can make a living after the multiple comments he has made, and Rev. Jackson as well, and the NFL can re-hire ex-convicts and minor criminals, how is it possible to bar Limbaugh.

I truly am concerned. Because the mantra I stated above seems more in action day by day. It reaches from simple entertainment to our highest political offices. It's a scary thought that I find more akin to my time in communist led Moscow than an American value. And the damage it does to true issues of racism that still plague this nation is incalculable.

Reverend Al Sharpton may claim the action against Rush Limbaugh as a victory, but I just see it as a slap against America.

Nicholas Cage is better than Method Man - so the IRS apparently thinks

I think that someone in the IRS must really be a fan of Ghost Rider. Or perhaps this head honcho just loved Con Air. It has to be something like that, since I just found out about Nicholas Cage.

Nicholas Cage owes the IRS $6 million since 2007. Which does not include a lien against him for $350,000 back in 2003 - 2005. Of course the IRS is not looking to arrest Nicholas Cage. Which sets him apart from other celebrities.

As I mentioned last week, Method Man was arrested because he owes $33,000 to the IRS. Of course part of that arrest may lie in the excuse Method Man has for not paying the taxes

"Method Man has publicly said that he suffers from memory loss due to his penchant for smoke Marijuana, and that is the prime reason he has missed his tax payments."

Even if true it's a dumb reason. And illegal. But that aside, isn't it interesting?

Method Man is facing 5 years in prison. Wesley Snipe was sentenced to 3 years in prison, after beating the IRS on charges of evading takes on $14 million and facing 16 years in prison. The 3 year sentence was for 3 misdemeanours - and is universally seen as overly harsh. On the other side of things, besides the non-action on Cage, there was Willie Nelson who owed $33 million dollars and got probation.

Perhaps it's me, but this looks like a systemic problem. There seems to be a massive issue here, and I doubt that anyone in the major media will raise it.

Why is it that Nelson got off scot-free? Why is Cage seemingly untouched? Yet there was no end of media coverage negatively implying his guilt. And Method Man seems hardly in the same category, though the IRS took and sold his car and now has arrested him.

I realize that often celebrities and entertainers are slapped on the wrist for most criminal actions. Rappers, and other entertainers, are routinely absolved of possession of drugs, sex with minors, even acts of violence. But when it comes to taxes, well things appear to be very different. Are we to infer that the IRS loves country music and occasionally bad acting so much that it will give a free pass to those entertainers, but if the music and actor is outside that realm the whole weigh of the Government is thrown at them?

Personally, I think that all the entertainers and celebrities (not to mention a host of politicians) should be treated harsher than the average person when they break the law. The perks their careers provide should be the best reason not to commit a crime - of any nature. They need to be examples as much as they are role models in the society - even if they don't wish to acknowledge that they are that.

But when I say harsh penalties, I mean harsh with a level playing field. it is the highest hypocrisy to have one entertainer face jail for $33,000 and another entertainer walking free as a bird without a care while owing $6,350,000. If nothing else it implies a favouritism and prejudice. Neither should exist and must be removed from the Government and law.

The IRS is not a movie mogul, nor an Oscar judge. It is not a Grammy official, or in record sales. It has one purpose (which no one loves, given) and that purpose sees only 1 color - green. If the IRS cannot get that right, well then why do we have it?

I wish Nicholas Cage no ill, but if I could I'd make sure he was in the same boat as Wesley Snipes. At least that would make sense.

Oscar Grant trial - now its about 'emotional' African Americans

It's just one of those days. The racial bias in the news just seems to be rolling of the presses. This time its in reference to a trial I have long been discussing. Johannes Mehserle.

Johannes Mehserle is the former officer that allegedly shot the unarmed and defenseless Oscar Grant in the back on January 1st of this year. It was the first murder of the year (I believe), and was the unofficial welcome to office for President Obama.

I have stated in no uncertain terms, that I believe Mehserle is guilty. The fact that at least 4 separate videos of the shooting exist that I have seen, in addition to preliminary testimony for police that is at best questionable, plus the actions to evade prosecution by Mehserle have all led to that belief. But according to the lawyer for Mehserle it is that combination of facts, which cause me to be upset, that guarantee no African American can be fair in the trial without even presenting a single piece of evidence for Johannes Mehserle.

In fact, the defense has gone so far as to ask for a change of venue to move the trial out of Almeda County. They have stated that polls (of unknown quality and suspect technique) done for the defense show that 80% of all African Americans in Almeda County believe Mehserle is guilty. The defense has inferred that African Americans are too emotional and devoid of logic to put aside their passions and evaluate facts.

Thus if the trial is not moved, an action and motivation that allowed the officers on trial for the Rodney King beating to evade justice, the defense - Michael Rains - has requested the following:

"Mehserle will be entitled to question every black juror, in private, in substantial depth, about prejudgment. The questioning will be intense, awkward, personal and uncomfortable."

So I take it that the defense plans to either move the trial because 87% of Almeda County (the non-Black resident percentage) just hangs on the every word and thought of the Black community there, or any African American called to jury duty and selected for this trial will be taken to the side and intimidated in a style reminiscent of Mississippi in 1960.

Now my job may be to comment on events in the nation and the world and in doing so express my opinions and feelings - but I have no illusion that everyone that reads what I write agrees with me. No matter the color of their skin, age, religious background or sex. Yet the defense in this case is trying to claim exactly that same kind of situation. Essentially they are insulting every person of color in the nation and reviving streotypes that just can't seem to be left for dead in the past.

45% of all people polled by the defense stated that they had no opinion, or favored, Mehserle. So far there is no legal evidence presented - since the trial has yet to start. But if the defense thinks that just poking at race will allow Mehserle to bypass the legal system I think Mehserle should plan for a long stay in a very small room.

It is one thing for evidence to prove that Mehserle is innocent. It is a far cry differnt for race baiting to allow him to avoid prosecution.

So I come to this conclusion, Mehserle knows that testimony from officers found to have changed their story multiple times is not enough. That video from multiple sources makes a very clear and strong case. That an unarmed man lying on the ground face down isn't a threat to anything but an ant. That all of this combined equates to life in jail, UNLESS enough prejudice can be stirred up beforehand to create a biased verdict in his favor.

That's not emotion, that's logic based on facts at hand. But if Rains wants emotion I will take a moment and provide him some - if his client gets convicted I would love to see him get the death penalty.

Australia - A great country if you are White

If you haven't heard about this yet, I am sure that you will soon. Harry Connick Jr. was in Australia recently, on a program that some of my older readers will recognize as a copy of The Gong Show. Basically it was the poor man's version of American Idol back in the 70's when the concept of "reality" television meant a live event.

Connick was a guest on the show, which seemed to be a return trip for those on it. The "entertainers" had been on the show years prior and were back to give it one more go. All this is fine.

But then came a group called "Jackson Jive". And it was with this group that were were again shown the racist attitudes that most of Australia has.



I have known many Australians. They were good people. I'm sure there are many in Australia right now. But there is no question that the racial attitudes of the nation is more akin with 1950's America that the 21st century.

I just don't know where to start with what I think is wrong with this. The group in blackface is probably the big thing. When I first saw this I was stunned. It was the last thing I expected.

Connick is either a master of control, or the other celebrity judge beat him to getting the gong for this group. Which is a nice sign that some in Australia have good taste. But did you hear the crowd? they were loving that group. They were loving the blackface. It just makes me think how much lynch mobs must have loved hanging a Black person back in the days of America no one wants to talk about (the last known lynching was in the 80's by the way).

Connick, much to his credit gave the group a 0. I suppose negative numbers are shunned in the show. And I do like the way that Connick was clearly displeased and uncomfortable. But the judge in the middle gave that group a 7! I wonder how she would rate a lynching? I hope that all the Aborigine people near her stay clear after dark.

The other part of the video that I think was great was that Connick made it clear that this was unacceptable. That had he known this was to be on the program he would not have appeared. It's the least that could have been said to a crowd that really just didn't care. Notice that there was no apology, except to the American sensibilities of Connick. The host, like the judge and crowd thaought that depicting people of color as buffoons was perfectly normal and humorous.

Perhaps the most chilling part of this is that the clueless morons that comprised the Jackson Jive are all professionals. Doctors and 1 psychiatrist. This is an example of what the professionals in Australia do in their downtime. It's sickening.

In one fells swoop, this show and these doctors along with Australia, insulted every person of color in the world. They disrespected the memory of one of the most famous and influential entertainers in the world. And they reinforced the abysmal treatment of the original natives of their country - that are still systemically treated to bias and hate.

Some will likely say that Harry Connick Jr. knew what was going to happen. That he was just covering his butt with his fanbase and America in general.

I disagree with that thought. You can see his displeasure, his anger, with this performance. I genuinely believe that Connick had no idea, and would hope he was fighting walking off the set.

In all this is just yet another reminder that the problems of race relations are not just an American thing. It's not just something that happened in the past. Across the world people have ignored the lessons of history and will reap the bitter pain that these kinds of actions create.

Pass this video around, especially to anyone that might be considering a trip to Australia.

Tom asks about "African American"

I was recently asked a question at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author. The question was in regard to why people use "African American" instead of just going by American.

It's a good question and I thought I'd provide it and my response here.

This will be a short post derived from my own curiosity. Who in America is an American? Very likely “Native Indian” would be the response of most. And, I’m tempted to agree. We all came from somewhere else to get here.

If the native Indian is the only true American, then aren’t we all, who aren’t native American, subject to some kind of classification by kindred affiliation? If so, then why only the “African American” distinction? I’ve really never understood the reasoning behind this situation.

As a Caucasian I’ve always felt this to be some kind of racial designation that musters tension between Blacks and Whites particularly. The reason I’ve felt this is simply because it seems totally unnecessary. Why do we have to differentiate the Black race? If it’s a good idea to do so, then it would seem that all men, red, brown, yellow and white should also have such distinction. Can you imagine that being the case!

If such were fact, I would hereafter be known as Tom a European Dutch/French American. You’re right! That would be totally mucho whaco. So, would somebody please explain to me why “African American” or for that matter, “Black American.”

It seems to me that if we all were just simply known as “Jane Smiths” or “John Blacks” it would be much easier to look at one another with a colorless eye. We’re making a great effort to rid the world of racism while at the same time we promote it by highlighting race!

Maybe it is simplistic, but it makes sense to me.

Tom

My response, while not completely historical are my feelings about what Tom stated.

Tom,

It is simple, and yet not quite. The reason why there is an African American designation, or Black American for that matter, is because of the issues America has always had with people of color.

Since colonial days, and before then, non-Europeans were considered ’savages’. As such they were not seen as equals and the names given to these people of color reflected that thought. So when Eurpoeans came to America they carried with them that prejudice.

Thus African Americans were called the N-word, or boy, in efforts to dehumanize them and make the slavery they endured more reasonable. As centuries passed, America grew a little. African American contributions to every facet of life in America, and every single conflict, removed the thought of dehumanizing and instead was replaced by a thought of inequality.

That created the designation of colored. A step up from boy or the N-word, but hardly worthwhile. The next step was Negro, also hardly a positive - but a precursor to Black.

Black was accepted in the 50’s,60’s and 70’s due to the fact that it was less weighted with negative stereotypes and history of slavery. It was not connected to the N-word, nor did it relegate people of color to some other negative that had been in the societal conciousness since inception of the nation.

In the 80’s African American became popular as a recognition of the history of African Americans took hold across the nation. It is a symbolic way of regaining a history and heritage that was removed forcibly and denied for centuries. For many, like my family, that can’t trace their lineage beyond slave masters in the 1860’s it’s the only means of having a history.

It may not seem like much, but Tom you know you go back to the Dutch and French, maybe for 1000 or more years. I can’t tell you where my family come from past slave owner Johnson in 1863. That lack of knowledge takes something away from me, and knowing it was done because my family was considered non-human makes it worse.

I agree that after 400 years in America, any group should be proud to be just American. Yet America only figured out that Blacks are people 144 years ago. And only figured out that we have equally shed our blood and built this nation (literally with our sweat, blood, and bones) in the last 44 or so years.

Because of such little time recognizing the worth of people of color, America has needed designators for anyone of color. It helps keep people seperated even as the law supposedly fight that. It allows for negative stereotyping and quick identification.

So at the same time, African American is an attempt to reclaim a past that has been denied and shunned, while being a means of seperation and inequlity.

I would love to see the day where none of this is necessary. But considering that to this day, America (the Government) still refuses to apologize for slavery, the legal system is unquestionably skewed against people of color, and people of color are disproportionately represented in every aspect of life in this nation, I don’t see things changing any time soon.

Hair highlights police bias in Philadelphia

Can you imagine your boss coming to you and reprimanding you for your hair? To have your boss instruct you to change your hairstyle because it is not ‘clean or professional’. And imagine in this instance that there are several other people in your workplace that have the same exact hairstyle, and nothing is said to them as they happen to be of a different race.

Sounds like a blatant bias does it not? I would say it is.

The hairstyle in question is cornrows. A popular style among many African Americans, men and women alike. Which is not to be confused with dreadlocks, as some do make that mistake.

The workplace is the police in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia to be exact. Where the regulations regarding hairstyle require a military look.

But the person in question is not an African American. It’s a White cop – Officer Thomas Strain.

Now does that change anything in what you were thinking as you were reading along? For me it has not. But obviously in Philadelphia there is a bias, this time against White cops, over what is a simple situation.

This is just as wrong as if a Black police officer was told to cut his cornrows. In fact, I believe either all the officers need to remove the cornrows or every officer that wants to wear them can. As long as they are neat and keep up to date, it’s no different than a dozen different hairstyles that I have seen officers in every police force in the nation wear.

These days politicians are using accusations of bias, and racism, for anything and everything that does not match their point of view. It doesn’t matter how trivial the subject, nor if any factual evidence exists. Which is a shame and a problem at the same time.

This is an obvious case of bias. It doesn’t matter that the officer in question is White. And while hair preferences may be transitory and benign to most, it is a real issue as it indicates other problems. Yet with so many fake and politically advantageous uses of the serious issue of bias and racism, this gets shoved under a carpet – as do all real issues.

Personally I hate when any rule or law is split or modified just because of the color of my skin. Either I am just as good and qualified as anyone else, or I am not. To create special rules just for me infers a weakness or inferiority in me. Which is an insult and a lie. Which doesn’t change because the issue is trivial.

In stating that the White officer can’t have cornrows, the police department is stating that Black officers have to be treated with different rules. That they are not the same as any other officer. It’s an insult to EVERY non-White officer.

What other rules and regulations are not the same? What else might one officer be allowed that another cannot do? And would that include violations of the law? Because it seems to be credible that such disparities might just exist.

I am a man. A Black and Latino man. Which makes me no better or worse than anyone just on the basis of my skin. Or my hairstyle. To judge me as such is to insult me.

The same is occurring in this case. Every officer in the department has been insulted and ranked. They have been told de facto that they are not the same and therefore better or worse because of skin and hairstyle. I can think of little more explicit examples of bias. It should not be allowed to happen.

Johannes Mehserle may still face justice in Oscar Grant murder

Following up on the news of a story that the national news media has avoided like the plague since it happened, I will discuss the latest events in the Oscar Grant murder case.

As long-time readers are aware, I started covering this case back in January shortly after former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle shot and I believe purposefully killed Oscar Grant while he laid face down (and I believe handcuffed behind his back) on the ground with another police officer kneeling on his neck. It was an outrageous display of police overreaction, violence and abuse. And it was all caught on video by at least 4 sources I am aware of.

Many people still are completely unaware of the events that happened on January 1st at 2am. That’s because the national news media has never covered even 30 seconds of this news story. In fact the media made it obvious that they were willfully concealing this news story when national coverage of riots in Oakland, California – directly the result of the apparent attempted police cover-up of this murder – failed to mention this case or any of the people involved.

But I have followed the case. Including the sudden attempt by Mehserle to avoid investigation by resigning from the police, the extended timeframe required for the D.A. to press charges – after serious local pressure, the long-term denial by prosecutors and defense (and the news media) of multiple recordings of the entire murder, and the more recent changing excuses and blatant lies by police officers at the scene of the murder.

I am doing this because Justice needs to prevail. And I truly believe that if we do not continue to watch this case, and scream at the top of our lungs for justice, Johannes Mehserle will walk away from this without so much as a slap on the wrists.

Thus I reported that the preliminary trial in June of 2009 found that there was a wealth of evidence to go to trial. That trial date was November 2, 2009. But all has not been quiet in this case.

Johannes Mehserle, who is out of jail on bail – something you and I would likely not have the ability to do based on the nature of this crime and the video evidence – and his lawyers have tried to get the entire case thrown out of Court. Their argument is that Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay unfairly allowed evidence into the hearing. They claim the ruling to go to trial is “arbitrary, capricious and patently absurd”.

The defense stated

“Rains said Mehserle shouldn't face murder charges because there's no evidence that he exhibited malice during the two and a half minutes he was on the station's platform before the shooting. He said that at the most, Mehserle should face a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But at the end of the hearing, Clay said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun, not a Taser" because Mehserle had both his hands on his gun when he fired that shot that killed Grant.

Rains said on Friday that Clay's remark was an error because the defense's Taser expert would have testified that Taser users are trained to use both hands on their stun guns while firing.”

Judge Thomas Reardon obviously did not agree. Something I am greatful for and was worried about. Because shooting an unarmed man in the back while they lay face down with an police officer on their back and not resisting tends to seem malicious to me. And the testemony of a Taser expert does not change that.

So the case will again start on November 2. Unless the Mehserle defense team can win on another motion they are presenting. Which is to move the trial out of Alameda County. Which harkens to the move of the Rodney King trial police retirement community of Simi Valley. And we know how that verdict came out. This will be decided on October 2, 2009.

Keep you fingers crossed and pray the Scales of Justice are not rigged in Johannes Mehserle’s favor by the legal system.

Would you call Michael Vass a racist?

Recently I received a comment from my discussion of the upcoming Disney film The Princess and the Frog, that made several claims and challenges that I though would be best to deal with in total as a post. You can see the comment from Logan Calder at http://www.blackandwhiteblog.net/2009/04/22/movie-preview-the-princess-and-the-frog/ and in quotes below.

“Ok, fair enough. I want to add that I have no problem with your issues of unfair treatment of Blacks in this country. My issues and responses are based on what I see as your Afrocentrism, which basically is racism against Whites in a costume - why you need to concentrate on diminishing Whites can be understood if you are a racist Black person, but is no different than a racist White person.”

Ok, I am confused. Are there people in America that believe this? That they can state that they understand that African Americans have, and continue, to be treated with bias and prejudice; but if you identify such abuses, and are Black (or Black Puerto Rican in my case), then it is Afrocentrism and racist?

Let’s be clear. I am Black and Latino. I am an American. I love my country, and my heritages. But neither stops me from pointing out that in the greatest nation on the planet – a country I would readily die for as is – there is systemic abuses and problems in regards to people of color. Being American, of any color, does not preclude facts.

By the way Afrocentrism is defined as

“a world view which emphasizes the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people", in culture, philosophy, and history.[2] The roots of Afrocentrism lay in a reaction to the repression of Black people throughout the Western world in the 19th century and as a backlash against the scientific racism of the period, which tended to attribute any advanced civilization to the immigration of Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants.[3] Part of this reaction involved reviewing history to document the contributions that Black people made to world civilization.”

I do not see myself as such, though aspects of this are surely part of me. As it should be for anyone of any particular group. I am proud of who I am, and what I do, and my ancestors. I will never apologize for that.

And I see no reason not to note the contributions of African Americans in this nation. Something that is all but ignored in basic educations, the media, entertainment, and general life in this nation. America tends to ignore people of color, especially African Americans, because to not do so means the nation has to deal with past and current biases. Which America is unwilling to do.

But is it racist? Am I racist?

Over the years of my writing I have had a multitude of people I know across the world, of most every nationality and background, read my writing. Only in America has anyone found my writing, about race relations, even somewhat disturbing. And of those in America, only those that don’t know me have ever made accusations of racism. Generally after reading just one post, instead of the thousands I have written. And generally they have taken a statement out of context or reinterpeted my words to fit a pre-existing view they have.

Still I wonder about this. When I discuss the fact that a photo of a Black man wading through post-Katrina waters with a bag is called a looter by national media, and an exactly the same photo of a White man doing the same thing is called foraging to stay alive, am I being racist? When I discussed the fact that repeatedly African American males are shot by police, across the country, in a hail of dozens of bullets while unarmed, and that I am unaware of there ever being similar treatment to White males, is that racist? When I note that some 90%+ of all media ignores completely people of color, or that specific and often insulting references are made just for people of color, is that too racist?

Or am I just commenting on a racial bias that is so ingrained in the society that most people ignore it as commonplace. Am I hoping to note the inequality and systemic problem that prevents true respect and societal bonding, or is it just one guy screaming Black Power?

“Ultimately I still dont know why any of this matters, pointing out who is Black and who is White. Blacks and Whites both want to claim king Tut, Jesus, and Bob Marley as theirs, as if they would justify that the race they belong to is the better. It is still a racist thought that is driving the force, to need to claim someone of mixed race is theirs. Do you get it?. Do you need to claim that “we are Gods first” if you are Black?? you are really saying “we are Gods real children and are therefore better than you” and then that same person gets mad if a White person is a racist.”

First off, Jesus, Bob Marley, and with some question King Tut are all Negroid (which I will call Black to simplify). Why is that important? Because in American society, where almost all positive actions and contributions of history and the nation’s development have been either ignored or rewritten, the truth is necessary. In fact the truth is always important. Because lies always lead to a problem down the road.

Plus I think that correcting misconceptions is important. Queen Nefertiti never looked like Elizabeth Taylor. To assume as much steals away the history of my ancestors and perverts history. It diminishes people when you relegate them to nothing. And any people that are nothing can be treated as less than human. Which American history is rife with. Such was the excuses to justify slavery and the invasion of “savage” people across the world. Not to mention the “saving” of Native American Indians. I don’t think it’s racist to correct that.

Though I have never claimed anyone was God’s first. I dare anyone to find such a comment on any post or comment I have ever made. To say that I have is to totally misunderstand everything I have ever written and to place words in my mouth I have never spoken. It is insulting.

“I simply get tired of a racial debate, that continually attacks White people in a racist and/or degrading manner for being racist. It is my belief that racism is absolutely equal among races, and that 80% of us dont really care too much, but do have racial or prejudcial views. The other 10% of radicals are at both ends - one hates their own race and the other hates everyone else. It is definetly NOT a White only thing. In fact, Whites are the only race taught (by the same media you claim is so racist) to be ashamed of being proud of who they are!!. If it were equal we wouldnt have Obama or Sotomayor in office.”

I don’t agree with attacking anyone, without cause. I am as willing to take on the Government, racists, corporations, global warming, political lies, and bad entertainment. The question is not the color, but the content. But I will not back away from critiquing President Obama because he is Black, just as I have no problem taking on ex-officer Mehserle because he is White.

But it is not racist to point out the systemic problems in the nation. Problems that benefit some, and hinder others. Generally those that are people of color. Is it racist to ask why the nation is so focused on Mexico and the potential threat from terrorists, when all terrorists that have entered the nation have come from Canada which is ignored? That’s not an attack on White people, but it does bring up the question of what factors are involved in such a mentality.

Is racism really equal among all people? I don’t know. But in America, my experience says that it is not. Partially that is because there are so many things taken as commonplace that it is not recognized as bias. But there are indeed those that are prejudiced. And it’s not 10%. If you recall the polls done before the election of 2008, fully 20% of those polled directly stated they could not vote for a Black man. And that’s those (in both political parties) that were willing to answer the question.

Because America has not move that far forward since the 1960’s, as much as we try to imagine so. We just generally prefer to avoid the questions or answers. It’s more PC and no one will feel socially awkward. This is not the same thing.

But you are right. Racism is not solely a White thing. While not nearly as common it does exist in some people of color in this nation. And I don’t support that either. But that is not the same as being willing to address the issues in this nation. Black or White or whatever, the issues exist – pointing them out is not racist.

As for Whites being ashamed, where do you see that? Maybe I missed it. Which you might understand as 95% of all characters in movies and television are White. 97% of all commentators and pundits are White. I believe that some 80% of all politicians are White. 97% of all major CEO’s are White. And on and on.

So where is the media saying it’s bad to be White? Considering that most people of color are not addressed in almost every form of media, except when a negative is expressed, how are we being lifted above anyone?

As for President Obama, and Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, they are political and I have addressed my thoughts of both at my political site VASS. Though I will ask, how was a bias of their color created to benefit them? If every African American, hell every person of color in America voted for President Obama (which they did not) he would still need an overwhelming number of Whites to be elected (as he was). And Judge Sotomayor got nominated because she is a woman and liberal, not due to some benefit of her race.

“Lets say we all wake up tomorrow and agree with you, on the absolutely ridiculous notion that America is here because of Africans and would never have made it into the greatest country on earth without slave labor - a completely absurd notion and belief but it is yours, and based on a need outlined above.

Does anything change??? No!! - why not stick to current and the future instead of using the past to make wounds?? I have never yet met anyone, who has told me that their family had been on American soil long enough to have been a slave owner.”

First, you do wake up in that reality. Without slave labor America could not exist. That’s not opinion, that’s fact. Do the math, check the population numbers (where African Americans were counted). Add up the money that the labor of slaves should have made. Remove the manpower they provided and see what would have been left of the nation at the time. To deny the facts is absurd and revisionist dreaming. Thus my need is for people to accept nothing more than what has happened. Because less is insulting, and something that most Americans would not stand for if it were them.

As for families that were slave owners, you are either being obtuse or uninformed. Millions have traced back their lineages to find they were either slaves or slave owners. My family line goes back to about 1860, and the records end because the slave owners before that did not see a need to document their “property”. But I do have that slave owners name in 1860. So do a lot of people.

It’s just that a majority of people don’t want to face that truth. They don’t want to know. Just as they don’t want to know about racism, or prejudice, or bias. Because they feel bad. Because the system helps Whites and hurts people of color. And who wants to have to have that on their back – since the system is not being changed.

So the past is the present. To address one is to address the other. To fix one is to start on fixing it all. And to do nothing is to bask in the benefits some have at the cost of others. Which I do not agree with.

Am I a racist? No, I don’t think so. Those that know me across the world don’t think so. I’m just upfront about addressing what is and is not really going on in America. Which is not an accusation, just a reality. And for some such honesty is too harsh to deal with. And thus I must be at fault since their worldview cannot be so corrupt.

It still doesn’t make me a racist, but I understand why I absolutely have to be for some people.

Bill o'Reilly discusses Black man shot 43 times by police

Tonight Bill O’Reilly will be discussing the shooting of a Black man by police. He was shot 43 times. It’s about time such cases get attention.

I decided to check out which case of shooting O’Reilly might be investigating. Considering the time and number of shots involved I know it was not the Oscar Grant case (which O’Reilly did not cover), Robbie Tolan, Adolph Grimes (the last 3 being all at the start of the year 2009), Sean Bell, or several other more recent actions. So I decided to google it.

Under the term police shooting black man 43 shots there are 221,000 responses. On the first page of Google the time frame covers 2009 – 2001. That’s a hell of a lot of time. But it denotes the number of cases that never get national attention.

I have long stated that there is a national epidemic on-going. That young Black males are the target of police abuse and overreaction. In fact studies have found that the darker the skin, the more likely police are of reacting with violence, where or not the individual is armed.

So which case might Bill O’Reilly be discussing?

As I said before, it’s not the 1 shot in the back of an unarmed Black male in Oakland. Its not the shot against the unarmed Black male in his driveway in Texas as his mother was assaulted by police. But there is no scarcity of incidents across the country where an African American male has been shot by police officers several dozen times.

In fact, when was the last time that an armed White male was shot by police more than 3 times? Seriously. I can name at least a half dozen times where an unarmed African American male was shot by police at least 12 times or more in the last year and a half. But I cannot recall a single instance where even an armed and dangerous White male was shot by police more than 3 times. Not in a decade. Maybe more. Anywhere in the country.

So what will Bill O’Reilly say tonight at 8pm? Do you think it will be a highlight of the national response of police forces towards people of color? Or will it justify a singular case of police action?

No matter which it is, the ultimate truth remains. Police are prone to overreaction towards people of color. They react as if young Black males are the most dangerous people in America (which is factually White males 18 – 30, proven in another post). And that same reaction is also the consistent call of White violent crime criminals trying to obfuscate their own actions (how many times have we heard a supposed White victim claim that some ambiguous Black male did it?). Hell, almost even in the most extreme cases White actively dangerous armed criminals are treated with more care and firing restrictions than people of color – armed or not.

What do I want to hear O’Reilly say? That there is a problem. That the justice system is skewed in the nation. That across the country there is a predisposition towards violence against people of color, and that this needs to be addressed.

Will I hear that? Not likely. Not from O’Reilly, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other major news organization.

And that is the key point that sticks out in my mind. What about you?

Michael Vass comments on President Obama "beerfest"

Video commentary of the meeting with police, Harvard professor, and President Obama. In particular is the emphasis on the failure to create a positive discussion on the issue of race relations and interactions between police across the nation and people of color.

The transcript of the video is below.

The t-shirt worn by Michael Vass, President of M V Consulting, Inc., can be found at the World of Vass online store. Additional clothing lines for men and women are also available at the online store.

(Sorry, the audio appears slightly muddled.)






You know, with all the attention that the arrest of Professor Gates has been given you would think that real issues between police and African Americans across the country would be addressed. Hell, police policies and actions with all people of color in this nation for that matter. But it’s a subject no one wants to go near.

President Obama could have really made a stance on the issues of race relations and police. He could have taken a position that would have created debate that advances all sides. He could have used examples that I have covered for years now, or who knows how many that the Government has data on.

But he did none of the above. He instead jumped into a situation, stomping all over local authorities, with misinformation and an agenda that honestly was more fixated on defending his friend than addressing race relations.

Think about it. If President Obama really wanted to do something about race relations there have been no lack of opportunities. He could have noted that on the first day of this year 3 Black men were all shot, without provocation or cause, by police. 2 were killed, one seriously injured. Their names are Oscar Grant, Adolph Grimes, and Robbie Tolan. He could have addressed how Oakland BART officers have lied in court in the face of video that proves guilt.

There is something to address how stupidly the police can act. There is a question that needs to be made a national discussion. The fact that African American men, especially those between 18 – 35, are targets of police profiling, brutality, and overreaction.

President Obama could have cited the way the media blew past the attack of 3 Black men by 15 police officers in Philadelphia, or the way the media ignored the cause of the riots in Oakland, or how they failed to even hint at the potential guilt of officers in the California, Texas, and Louisiana cases. Which says noting of the abuses that have occurred in New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, and a dozen other places just in the past couple of years. And the trail of abuse can be seen clearly going back as far as Rodney King. Not that it didn’t happen before then. It just wasn’t reported, and there was no Youtube to press the issue.

President Obama has taken a hit in his approval rating because of the Professor Gates arrest (roughly 2 – 7 points). He is being mocked by comedians about the beerfest that will replace an apology. He has angered police departments across the nation. And he is being called a racist.

All of which promotes nothing positive and benefits no one.

Seriously, a beer is supposed to wipe away racial profiling? A casual chat with the President will alter police departments across the country from a predisposition to react violently towards African Americans (including in one study the finding that police would more quickly and likely shoot an armed or unarmed African American than any other group)? Is this really the best President Obama can do on a subject that this nation needs to address desperately, even as it vehemently hides its head in the sand to avoid.

I realize that president Obama is on a crusade to socially re-engineer America. It’s apparent that he is using all his approval rating to ram big Government and politically extreme laws up America without so much as grease or a ‘may I’. But since he opened the door on the subject of race relations, and he is getting slammed for it, he might as well do something positive.

If President Obama does nothing, as it seems he will, he cannot come back to this. Any future action will carry the mark this has brought him. A mark he does deserve. But a burden that will prevent any substantive change, as it will be mired in the mud of this fiasco.

Think, the precedent being set is ‘Race in America? Have a kegger and don’t worry about it.’

Is this what all those people that were looking to Obama as the fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream imagined? Is this what all the suffering during the Civil Rights Movement was meant to culminate into?

Honestly, I expected little better from President Obama. It’s one of the many reasons I did not vote for him. But the little I have expected from the President seems to have been far too much to expect. Which makes the future of race relations seem moribund since the way he is screwing up so many things, another chance may not come for decades, if ever again.

Transformers 2 - controversy or not?

Transformers 2 is now in theaters, so the question of whether the hype is equal to the film is about to be answered. But setting aside the lack of logic, the overabundance of CGI and explosions, and the failure to have a script worthy of the Saturday morning versions this was created from, there is a big question.

Is having a CGI robot speaking ebonics a take on Black culture and, even in the most innocent of ways, making fun of African Americans?

This is the growing question from the film. Many fans that have seen the movie (which I have not) believe that it does, others do not. But what I have read leads me to believe that this is another instance of Hollywood sticking to what it knows best – stereotypes in bad taste.

“Skids and Mudflap, twin robots disguised as compact Chevys, constantly brawl and bicker in rap-inspired street slang. They're forced to acknowledge that they can't read. One has a gold tooth.”

So the robots are deep into hip hop. Which could mean anyone, since fans of hip hop reach from Beverly Hills to Japan to the Bronx. But how often have you seen a character in a movie that speaks “rap inspired street slang” that isn’t Black? How many movies can you recall ever having a character with a gold tooth (or teeth) that were anything but African American? Add to this the connection the major media makes between rap and violence (which is a natural conclusion), and African Americans (which is not).

So is this a caricature of African Americans? Sounds like it. In fact some are relating these characters to another CGI major movie character that inflamed millions. Jar Jar Binks. They are being called Jar Jar Bots.

How do some defend these characters?

“They don't really have any positive effect on the film," she [Tasha Robinson, associate entertainment editor at The Onion] said. "They only exist to talk in bad ebonics, beat each other up and talk about how stupid each other is.”

Sounds like most rap music videos. And who is the lead minstrels in those music videos?

This disturbs me since any association some might make to African Americans is to 2 cowards, that are illiterate, eternally distracted by the useless, and are worthless. Would you like to be referred to in an association like that? I sure don’t.

“If these characters weren't animated and instead played by real black actors, "then you might have to admit that it's racist," Robinson said. "But stick it into a robot's mouth, and it's just a robot, it's OK."

Perhaps the best way to consider if this is making fun of African Americans in a negative way is if we substitute what the characters are portraying. Let’s say that instead of rap, they went with country music. Instead of street slang they speak with a Southern drawl. And instead of the gold tooth we have a confederate flag.

So in effect we have two illiterate, cowardly (since they avoid all fights), dumb, Southern brawlers. What might be identified as the Southern inbred hillbilly redneck stereotype – like Ricky Bobby. Still sound like a fun character, something that you and your friends can laugh at? Would you laugh if you were in the deep South? Would you still like it if foreigners heard your accent and compared you to these characters?

Yes it’s a movie. And movies often use a stereotype to convey thoughts that are in the societal mindset. But the negative stereotypes really don’t need to be reinforced. Especially on an international level. And saying that it’s just a movie, is akin to saying a Nazi flag is just a decoration.

You may disagree, but for me it is just one more reason not to see this film.

Will there ever be justice for Oscar Grant?

Oh my god. Could it actually be that Justice will be served in a case where a police officer shot, and killed, and unarmed young Black male?

The end of the preliminary trial for ex-BART officer Johannes Mehserle has ended in Oakland, still without the media coverage that such a case deserves to have. This is especially true given the fact that video evidence exists for this case from multiple sources. Add to that the blatant and extreme nature of a police cover-up. Then finally include an astounding revelation from one of the key officers involved with the murder of Oscar Grant

“I didn't see the hands, so I didn't see a threat," Pirone said. "It didn't pose a threat to me "... or any other officer.” - Officer Anthony Pirone, who was kneeling on the neck of Oscar Grant III as he was shot in the back and killed.

The facts of this case are so blatant that the Judge presiding over the prelim made the following statement after ruling to allow this case to go forward to trial

“There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun and not a Taser.” Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay

Yes, it’s so obvious that a Judge was willing to say that publicly. Of course this will likely cause the trial to be moved. And I’m willing to bet that the new location for the trial will be the equivalent of Simi Valley. And we all know how impartial that kind of jury pool can be.

Since I first learned of this case in January 2009, days after the murder of Grant, I have seen no reason to doubt the guilt of Mehserle. I have followed this case while the major news media has actively ignored it at every turn. I have questioned what has been done to cover-up the situation, and speculate about the cause of news media disintrest.

So far we have learned that ex-officer Mehserle initially excused his murder of Grant with a claim of an unseen, non-existent gun. Later, after time with a new lawyer and the quick cover story speculated by the Oakland Police Chief, the story became the accidental use of deadly force.

We have learned that every officer involved has (in my opinion) perjured themselves with lies of chaos and impending doom. Accusations of angry mobs rushing forward, attacks against officers, and resisting arrest have all been soundly debunked by witnesses and multiple videos of the event.

How this case has not been subject to a quick plea bargain leads me to one thought. Mehserle believes he can get off scot free.

This is even more likely if the venue is moved. It is backed up by precedence of officers across the nation being absolved of the murders of, and/or violence against, unarmed, innocent, young Black males. It is supported by a news media that has tried to actively maintain doubt, in the most of the few times the case has ever been mentioned. It is reinforced with the persistence of criminals covering their crimes with accusation of imaginary Black assailants that are readily accepted as fact by the media and most of the nation (most recently by a Pennsylvanian woman who was in Disney at the time).

That is gut-wrenching sickening. That a defendant can be guilty as sin, with more than ample proof, and the odds of gaining justice or even a semblance of punishment are maybe 60 - 40 against is unacceptable in the least. And I still get people advocating the innocence of Mehserle. I still have people that wonder and debate why African Americans across the nation fear and shun police officers. I still hear people deny the imbalance of the legal system and misrepresentation of Justice in America.

In my opinion, Mehserle is guilty of murder. Yet I still cannot be assured that he will be convicted of this obvious and insanely vicious crime. Because in the end, it was just another young innocent defenseless Black male. And in America that is the same as a deadly weapon in the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Lady Justice is weeping.

ex-officer Mehserle on trial for Oscar Grant murder - justice undone

And so it begins. Almost 6 months ago to the day, the year 2009 rang to life. At almost the same time Oscar Grant’s life came to a close with a sharp bang. That bang was a gunshot through his back and into his lung. Oscar Grant was lying on the ground, possibly handcuffed, with one police officer kneeling on his neck with another standing and having shot him.

This was the cause of riots in Oakland, California. This was the start of yet another cry for justice from the Black community across the nation (a cry the major news media ignored). And it was the target, along with another murder and shooting – all by police, of multiple posts and videos by me. And I’m not done yet.

On the 26th of May, the defense for former officer Mehserle has claimed that the officers at a BART station on January 1st feared for their lives and were receiving resistance from at least Oscar Grant among 4 men detained that night. One officer has stated that Grant was grabbing her arm shortly before being shot in the back. It was stated that Grant had to be forcibly made to sit down by officers, and that he was being restrained when he was shot in the back.

Oh, and the major point that everyone has waited for the defense to say: Ex-officer Mehserle thought he had his stun gun out when he shot Oscar Grant in the back while he lay on the ground, defenseless.

This is bullshit. Not unexpected but crap from start to end.

While I cannot comment on the actions of Grant or the other men that night from before video was available, I can comment on the video before and during the time he was shot. The video that the earliest news reports denied existed. Video that was available to the world, and I featured in my posts of the event.

Here are the facts as I saw on the video. Grant was not resisting officers. Grant was on the ground, restrained and under control of an officer who was on his neck. None of the other men being detained moved. There were some 5 or 6 officers on the scene. Not one officer made a move for their guns or stun guns. None were reaching for or had out their mace/pepper spray. While the situation was loud, not one officer was moved against with aggression from the crowd on the scene. Officers did try to confiscate videos being taken of the event.

Most important is officer Mehserle. After he stands, he is alone from all other groups and officers. He takes out his gun, which is not near his stun gun, just because of this supposed occurrence. He aims for about 2 or 3 seconds, then fires.

So the actual visual record, from at least 3 video recordings of this event, all show the same thing. The officers did not have to fear for their lives. They may have been uncomfortable, but they were in no apparent danger. They were outnumbered, but they also were in force and not mobbed by a crowd. None felt the situation to be so precarious as to arm themselves.

Mehserle is the only officer to become armed. He took his time, and acted with purpose. He was seemingly in full control and was unencumbered nor rushed. He is not a rookie, and was supposedly well trained.

Grant was lying on the ground. His hands are behind his back, likely restrained. Which means this was cold-blooded murder.

The news media will likely not cover this story, just as it did not cover the initial event. There will probably be no mention of this on the national cable networks. The few stations that do cover this trial will likely take the stance that the police offered immediately after the shooting. That it was a tragic accident. The actual videos of what happened will likely not be mentioned. And the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson will remain absolutely silent.

In fact, other than a quote from the family of Grant, the existence of a video was barely mentioned in the news report by the San Fransisco Chronicle

So the average American, who probably never heard of this murder, and don’t know that video evidence of the actual shooting exists, will think that an officer in fear of his life accidentally shot a kid that was resisting arrest. Which is a lie.

And I’ll even say more on that. It’s a lie because officer Mehserle would not have quit the police force rather than go thru an internal investigation of the shooting if it was an accident. Mehserle would not have left the state prior to charges being placed against him (well over a month after the fact). News organizations would not have omitted the existence of multiple videos of the event, nor would the police have denied all but one source of video (which conveniently had the worst view of the shooting). This is a set-up. It is the means by which a former cop is being protected from the truth of his actions.

Again I tell you that I have covered this story in detail. You can see all my posts at http://blogsearch.google.com/?bl_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackentertainmentblog.com%2F&ui=blg&as_q=grant

True justice demands that Mehserle gets the death penalty. Justice would be his imprisonment for life, and the awarding of all his possessions and funds to the Grant family (in particular to Grant’s daughter that will never see him again). But this is America. Mehserle was a police officer who killed a young Black man. Odds are that Mehserle will walk away from this with barely community service.

And people wonder why African Americans are so angry at the police and the legal system. Just imagine the press coverage, and speed this would be happening at – not to mention the ultimate outcome – if this was a Black cop that killed a young White father while he was lying on the ground defenseless. If you can imagine that, you cannot compare it to this mockery. That’s why we are angry.

But I will continue to follow this, even as the major media avoids it like the televised plague.