Rebelology

Uncle Killa is on HBO!!!

2009-02-15T01:15:00.000-08:00

I told you earlier that a film I'm writing was adapted and used as a short for a friend of mine's thesis project at Columbia University. Well it just so happens that the film has won a few awards and is on HBO onDemand All February until March 2. Its beautiful to see something you create make its way to HBO. Please order it OnDemand, its free if you hav HBO ondemand, and i'm sure they keep records of how many times its been viewed. I may need to put that on my resume onde day!!! Oh and feel free to let me know how you feel about it, good, bad or otherwise.

Obama: The Sleeper Cell Theory

2008-07-10T22:02:00.000-07:00

If we look at Obama’s positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, Cuba, Foreign Spy legislation (FISA), Troop expansion, and his love of ‘free’ markets, the picture that we begin to see is one of a centrist politician. All of these relatively recent developments have made it clear to the world that he is not the change agent he has presented himself as, even in the luke-warm way that liberals define change. So why are there still so many Obama supporters who offer him support unconditionally? Why is there still virtually nothing Obama can do or say that they cannot excuse or overlook as he fights to become the first black president of the United States? The Sleeper Cell Theory is why.

The Sleeper Cell Theory holds that Barack Obama has to lean to the right, even if it contradicts the things that he truly believes, in order to appease a particular interest group and win the election. Once he is elected he will, much like a hijacker, commandeer the oval office and use it as force for progressive/liberal/black causes.

Since most of Obama’s supporters believe this thoery or some variant of it, anything he does which contradicts their view of him as progressive, is labelled 'pragmatic.' Afterall, they say, he doesn't really believe those things, he's just saying that to get elected. Even those who think they can vote him in and pressure him leftward, subscribe to the notion that Barack actually believes in some core progressive values or that he is somehow more willing to work with them (whatever that means). In other words, they think he's their Sleeper Cell. Apparently, for them, the change they can believe in is outlined in the the things he's not saying.

A large part of the appeal that the sleeper cell theory holds, hinges upon the fact that Obama is black. When you are from a group which has historically been oppressed, there is a tendency for people to think that every member of said group is very critical of the system. While I agree that members of oppressed groups ought to be especially critical of the system, believing that things ought to be a certain way does not make them so. Barrack's blackness is no more an indicator of his political positions than Condoleeza Rice’s or Colin Powells is of theirs.

Another reason people gravitate towards the Sleeper Cell Theory is that politicians do habitually lie and pander in order to get into office so it isn't totally irrational to assume that Obama is pandering. However, if you look at the class nature of his pandering, you will understand the picture more clearly. Politicians typically lie to the working class about how they are going to work in their interests and make life better for them, and when they get into office they operate on behalf of the ruling class like every other politician has before them. What makes the Sleeper Cell proponents so crazy is that they believe that Obama is promising the ruling class that he's their guy, and once he gets in office he'll be our guy. This way of thinking contradicts even a rudimentary understanding of the influence that money exerts on our ostensibly democratic process.

The Sleeper Cell Theory is the product of a desperate and politically naïve populace, who know little about capitalism, politics and how change, even minor reforms, occur in society. Thinking they have been left with no alternatives, the progressive/liberal left, either hope that Obama will become who they want him to be, hope that they can pressure him lefward once elected, or have resigned to voting for him as the lessor of 2 evils. In all 3 scenarios, Obama still has a kung-fu grip on their vote and the ruling class wins again. More importantly, the working class is left no better prepared for the next liberal misleader that shows up with promises of hope and change.

However, the silver lining in all of this is that Obama's game of pretend, has energized millions of young people, who have demonstrated, by being suckered into a pseudo-movement, that they desire change and can be won to a real movement. However, these disillusioned Obama supporters will need to understand, rather quickly, that their major mistake was not simply supporting a candidate who pretended to be a liberal reformer. The critical error was in thinking that liberal reforms can change a system that exists to serve the profit interests of a small ruling class, into a system that serves the interests of the working class. That is a huge hurdle to get over, but when enough young people come to that understanding, then whole nature of what ‘change’ means and how it is achieved becomes something radically different.

Nader 'goes in' on Obama

2008-06-29T12:03:00.000-07:00

Ralph Nader had this to say about Obama or watch him say it here:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American… I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"

"...the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor…and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended…Haven't heard a thing."

"He wants to show that he is not...another politically threatening African-American politician…He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Let me get this out of the way first: Obama has in fact tried hard to run as the non-Black, Black candidate, he has purposely stayed away from so-called Black issues/venues, and he has failed to make any meaningful effort to talk about poverty and poverty-related issues, even in the liberal way that John Edwards did. I believe these are the things that Nader means when he says Obama is ‘talking white’. However, the notion of ‘talking white’ is troubling in a number of ways.

First, to accuse a black person of engaging in any verb (dancing, talking, acting) in a ‘white’ way, is to suggest something that has deeply negative connotations in the Black community that I don’t think Nader is fully aware of. His use of the term, which I believe was meant to be controversial, will do far more to overshadow his mainly valid criticisms of Obama, than anything else.

More importantly, ‘talking white’ implies that predatory lending, payday loans, asbestos, lead and poverty are ‘Black’ issues. The things Nader is outlining are nothing more than forms of exploitation aimed at those who are politically and economically vulnerable. IN other words, these are class issues, not 'Black' issues. Race is not the primary factor in any of those issues although obviously, like most social maladys, blacks, the poor and people of color in general are affected by them at higher rates. Class. Got that Nader? Use some next time.

Obama isn’t ‘talking white’ by ignoring the issues of the poor, he is ‘talking corporate.’ Obama ought to be addressing those issues as American issues, and it would seem to fit in perfectly with his crafted image as the ‘post-race’ candidate (whatever the hell that means). Obama is a liberal politician, which by definition means he can only offer small, easily reversible reforms to the system. That he isn't even promising to reform these more egregious forms of exploitation should tell you alot about the 'change' that candidate of 'change' is bringing. I have to agree with Nader in the sense that having a black president oversee our exploitation seems to be the only change he's offering.

This election is a circus, and this system is organized crime. The crime heads change, or kill each other off, bet the rackets remain the same.

Update: I revised the last 2 paragraphs.

More Gangsterism: ExxonMobil says fuck your jury...

2008-06-26T12:15:00.001-07:00

...and your livelihood and your environment.

Remember the Exxon Valdez supertanker that spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaskan waters in 1989? Yeah, you remember, the one where the captain of the ship was a known drunk and they let him man the supertanker anyway? Let me refresh your memory:

The Exxon Valdez spill was the worst in American history, damaging 1,300 miles of shoreline, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of [at least 32,000] people in the region and killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals.

Yeah, that spill and as usual, the New York Times gives you just enough info so that you think you know what happened, but no clue about how sisnister and diabolical Exxon has been in manipulating that situation over the last 18 years. Gotta love those establishment liberals.

A jury decided in 1994 that Exxon was required to pay about 5 Billion dollars in punitive damages, but when you are a gangster, you don’t wory too much about what jury’s say. Exxon didn’t pay, appealed the ruling, and eventually got it reduced to 2.5 billion in 2006. But even 2.5 billion dollars, which is about 3 weeks of profit for them (seriously), didn’t quite feel right. I think they still felt like their gangster was being tested. They now have the damages reduced to 500 million dollars or about 4 or 5 days worth of profit. In other words, fuck your jury, we pay the lawyers to have the judges fix it how we want it. It would be interesting to compare the percentage of criminal defendants that get this kind of love on appeal to the percentage of corporate defendants. I think it would be an interesting lesson in how money controls allegedly 'impartial' social processes.

You have to also take into account that this payment, which still has not yet been paid, has been fought in court over the course of 19 years!! Can you imagine you were a fisher and had your livelihood destroyed 19 years ago, and the damages you expected to recieve, went from around 165k, to around 80k, to about 16k?!?! What is 16k after you adjust for inflation? It’s a trip to Disney world and a wild night on the town with 2 of best friends. Its also less than $1,000 per year since the spill.

Whittling 5 Billion dollars down to 500 million dollars is a 90% reduction. Just to put that in real world terms, can you remember the last time, or any time you have paid 90% less than the price of something, like say a pair of shoes or a shirt? Let me help you. You can’t!! Not unless you stole it, because 90% off just doesn't exist in our world.

I leave you with a quote from the most comprehensive article on this that I’ve found, (which is in indy media, not the NYTimes btw):

The American justice system is predicated on several underlying assumptions, most of which are not valid...Equal treatment under the law? Not possible when those with money use it to influence the laws and public perception, or manipulate courts of law to make punishment moot.

Impartial judges? Not possible when judges are human and often former corporate lawyers.

Decisions based on whole truth and facts? Not even close: Jurors receive only selective information from judges or court masters as gatekeepers, and facts are grossly distorted through corporate-sponsored "science."

What they have said here is applicable to every aspect of society, the super rich, write the rules and we all have to play by them. Even the slanted rule book they play from isn’t sufficient for the capitalist super-gangsters, who then re-rig and undermine it more to suit their needs. This system is built around the power of capital (hence the name capitalism) and anything else we are trying to make it d, or not do, is at best secondary. This is not a system we should be trying to reform, it is one we should be fighting to replace.

Capitalism is Organized Crime.

American Gangsters

2008-06-22T07:39:00.000-07:00

No, not Frank Lucas, and not some young black man who wears his pants below his boxers. These are the real American gangsters, the elite corporate business men who, in this case, sit on the board of directors, of the world's richest, most powerful corporation ExxonMobil. These men make decisions that affect our lives, you will respect their gangster. If you ever doubted that the Iraq war was a war for oil, the following is either the smoking gun, or another really crazy coincidence (depending on how many functioning brain cells you have):

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power… Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields.

And this:

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

You’ve got to love the detached way the New York Times reports this, and by detached I mean, from reality. It wasn’t only in the Arab world, and in any event, the biggest anti-war protests in the history of the world should not be characterized as 'suspicion' in the first place. Protesters had a very clear understanding that the war against Iraq was a transparent move by the US ruling class to gain control of the world’s 2^nd largest oil reserves, and history has proven us (I was there) correct.

This is what the war costs:

click here to learn more

Who Pays?
The American Working Class finances the war with their tax dollars or 'Public Money"
The American & Iraqi working class with their lives.
Who Profits?
Private Corporations, most notably, ExxonMobil and Haliburton; with no-bid contracts just because they got it like that. So much for the competition you read about in economics class.

Capitalism is Organized Crime.

Capitalism is Bananas

2008-06-18T23:03:00.000-07:00

I go to the corner store to buy the bananas that I give to my daughters each morning. I pick 2 bananas, give him a dollar and wait for my change but none comes.

Kai: Yo Ak, how much were those bananas?
Clerk: 50 cent each.
Kai: What?!? Is there gold inside them shits? They were 35 cents a week ago and 25 cents before that!
Clerk: They are the best bananas in the world!!
Kai: [skeptical] Where are these bananas from?
Clerk: Kluma.
Kai: Where?
Clerk: Ah-Kluma.
Kai: Where the hell is that?
Clerk: Ah-Klah-Uma
Kai: Oklahoma?
Clerk:Yes!
Kai: They dont grow no fucking bananas in Oklahoma, what they hell are you talking about?

Me, the clerk, and several other people who witnessed the exchange busted out into laughter and I walk out with my high priced bananas, assuming its all about the increase in gas prices.

Its important to realize that we have to be trained to think about where things come from, and how certain relationships have come to exist. When we are younger, we live in the world and think that things must have always been just the way they are now, give or take an iphone and the internets. If we mature in our understanding of the world, we realize that in the United States, most of what we take for granted as normal, is usually the result of some carefully orchestrated corporate plan to infiltrate our lives with their products.

When this process is successful it is usually called development, and I agree with that term, if by development they mean something like the transformation that takes place between HIV and AIDS. Capitalist development is not unlike HIV/AIDS, in that it spreads ever faster and will eventually kill us all if we do not take serious, dramatic measures to eradicate it.

Of course eating Bananas wont kill us, but the profits and politics that surround them have caused many others to die. The New York Times ran an Op-Ed piece by Dan Koeppel that sheds light on the bloody, exploitative history of the fruit my girls love. Here is a highlight:

Once bananas had become widely popular, the companies kept costs low by exercising iron-fisted control over the Latin American countries where the fruit was grown. Workers could not be allowed such basic rights as health care, decent wages or the right to congregate. (In 1929, Colombian troops shot down banana workers and their families who were gathered in a town square after church.) Governments could not be anything but utterly pliable. Over and over, banana companies, aided by the American military, intervened whenever there was a chance that any “banana republic” might end its cooperation. (In 1954, United Fruit helped arrange the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala.) Labor is still cheap in these countries, and growers still resort to heavy-handed tactics.

In that last sentence, labor is contrasted with 'growers' but um...What the hell is a grower? lol. Its a liberal euphemism for boss, capitalist, or owner, but other than that minor quip, I find the information in the article fascinating.

If you were in anyway familiar with the history of the banana trade or capitalism, none of this information about it's turbulent history is shocking, although it is still incredibly outrageous. The more you read, the more you realize that whether its bananas, cotton, cocoa or oil, the history of seemingly benign commodoties, is routinely full of murder, exploitation and corruption. During the course of your studies, you will also inevitably come across many instances of gov't militaries, advancing very-private corporate interests. This, my friends, is what capitalism is, and the sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can get on with the business of replacing it, before we are all gone.

Capitalism really is Bananas.

Parenting: A Stochastic Process

2008-06-15T22:01:00.000-07:00

My father always said, "Babies dont come with instructions, you just do the best you can with what you have." His statement rings with a truth that is as obvious as the sky is blue. I'm still extremely grateful to him for being the best father he could be to me throughout my years. Thats truly all you can ask for from your parents. What he did and still does as a father continues to help me grapple with life's challenges generally and fatherhood specifically. But, even if there were a manual which came with babies and taught us the 'right' way to raise children, it still would not work every time for every child, because parenting is not an exact science. This reality is what makes parenting a stochastic process:

Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, cannot guarantee success. Classical examples of this are medicine: a doctor can administer the same treatment to multiple patients suffering from the same symptoms, however, the patients may not all react to the treatment the same way.

Although there are no 'right' ways to raise children, I think there are methods which lead to 'success' more often than not. The approach that my wife and I employ is what most people I know view as the correct approach: love your children, develop their self-esteem, and expose them to a wide array of arts, sciences, and other experiences which you think will stimulate their intellectual curiosity and development. As I've said before, parenting is typically a difficult job for anyone, and I think it's important enough to require a license. But being black and radical in a capitalist society, which is stubbornly white supremacist, means that some of the things we teach our children deal specifically with that reality, even at their tender ages of 1.5 and 2.5 years old.

Raising 2 black girls, means that addressing their self-esteem needs includes a belief in gender equality, and a healthy love of their brown skin and kinky hair. I'd hope that these efforts mean that our children would pass the doll test and would have them unafraid to tackle 'male' subjects like Science and Math. I would not teach them that they are princesses, because the notion that they are royalty, means that others are peasants. If I want to teach them they are special I can do that without reinforcing Bull#$%* notions about class status, privilege, and other bourgeois myths that the rich use to justify their position as exploiters.

As black parents, I feel we especially need to balance the importance of them having the freedom to explore, against the need for them to have disciplined behavior; because I believe society is less forgiving of black people who make mistakes. (Side but important note: I'd emphasize the need for discipline more strongly if I had a boy, because the challenges Black boys face on the path to manhood, more often steer them into prison or early graves). Most of these needs can be addressed rather easily while they are still very young, but as they grow older, the way they perceive the world becomes more complex, and our responsibility to train them grows with it.

We will eventually teach them that their public behavior, academic achievement, and personal relationships reflect not only upon themselves, but on their family and community as well. We'd teach them that blackness shouldn't be measured by the 'black' books, artwork or dashikis you posses, but instead by the degree to which you use your talents and resources to deal with the problems that Black people face in the United States and throughout the African diaspora. I'd teach them that their value as a woman isn't connected to whether or not men find them attractive. I'd also teach them to avoid the empty consumerism which has so many black women sporting the almost obligatory Gucci, Fendi or Prada handbags as status symbols. Rich, white people's names on your personal items do not make you special either, got that princess?

There are so many other critical and mundane things I hope to teach my girls as we grow together. I'd like to teach them how to respect their bodies, how to drive a car, and how to demand respect from others. But in the picture above, while she struggled on the toilet with a stomach ache and sleepiness, the lesson I taught my 2 year old daughter was simple:

Daddy loves you and will always be there for you.

Thats probably one of the most important lessons I'll ever teach her. Happy Fathers day.

The Mainstream Media and 'Race', not racism.

2008-05-25T15:49:00.000-07:00

There are truly not enough ways to chronicle how much I hate the mainstream media. Yes, even the New York Times the so-called paper of record. In many ways the Times mirrors what I abhor about democratic policiticans, they talk a good one, they are somewhat better than their conservative counterparts, but they are still largely full of shit in most of the ways that matter. What I'm saying is, the New York Times is Obama. I'll have to explain why to you wanna-be lefties in another post (and I will), but I'll simply state here in spite of his rhetoric of change, nothing Obama is proposing to do is outside the realm of mainstream politics, and I think mainstream politics are very dangerous to the working class and to the planet.

But anyway, the New York Times ran a series of articles 8 years ago, that I thought were really interesting then, and as I rediscovered them, I think recent events make them relevant all over again. The series was called How Race is Lived in America.

The flaws in the series are the typical mainstream liberal flaws, they tell you the story is about 'race' instead of 'racism' (it just makes you feel better that way doesn't it?). When they do discuss racism, it is never called that by name, and it is only addressed when it appears in the form of personal bigotry (wouldn't wanna be calling American institutions racist now would we?). Fittingly, after all of these ciruitous tactics are employed, and both sides of the story are told, the author does, ever so subtly, lead you to his liberal conclusion; which of course isn't that far off from the conservative conclusion. In fact, I'm beginning to realize that what often seperates liberals from conservatives, aside from liberals having more braincells, is nuance. Here, the Times illustrates this in its description of the series:

Two generations after the end of legal discrimination, race still ignites political debates..but the wider public discussion of race relations seems muted by a full-employment economy and by a sense, particularly among many whites, that the time of large social remedies is past.

I guess when you frame discussions about race (again, not racism), on a 'full employment economy ' and the perception among many whites that society has adequately addressed the problem, I shouldnt set my hopes too high. They might as well say: We (white people) are enjoying the economy and really dont know why minorities keep bringing up all of this this stuff up because like, didn't we already fix this whole race thing in the 60s? Nearly a half century later and liberals insist on remaining utterly clueless about racism. Did it not aoccur to the writer that, unemployment for black people has perennially been at least double that of whites? The only full employment economy we've ever enjoyed came with a whip.

Is it any wonder most Americans (read: white people) tend to be so delusional when it comes to racism? I happen to think that most Americans need to be spoken to about racism in ways that shatter the erroneous beliefs they've grown accustomed to and while I dont think this series does that, I do think it provides more insight and nuance, than is typical for mainstream reporting on a touchy topic.

There is the article about race and running political office:

When a reporter describes Mr. Sims [an African-American] as angry in a public debate, he will challenge the characterization. "That's code," he said. "A black man who is angry is a lethal label in politics."

The article is titled: "When to Campaign with Color?" My Answer: When you're not black.
I recently read about Obama being Mr. Cool? I'd suggest his coolness is largely because he has no alternative.

There is the piece about race in the NYPD which causes one to revisit the Sean Bell case:

the good:

Dark-skinned undercovers are touchy about racial profiling because most, including Detective Gonzalez, say that when off duty, in their neighborhoods or out driving, they have been targets of white officers. One undercover, Tyrone, says that while driving home from work to Brooklyn he gets stopped an average of one night a week.

Derrick and Rob didn't bother explaining to that plainclothes cop that they, too, were cops. They just shook their heads and waited until he left. "You know it's because we're black," Derrick said.

How do police apologists reconcile the fact that even black and brown Police Officers claim that the NYPD routinely uses racist tactics?

The bad:

The biggest police race case in New York City in years, Diallo -- the 1998 killing of a black man standing in the doorway of his Bronx building by four panicky [emphasis mine] white policemen --

Interestingly enough, large black man that I am, in the 90's I had many encounters with the notorious Street Crimes Unit that murdered Amadou Diallo, and those encounters mostly consisted of stop and frisks that violated my rights without even the pretense of civility or legality. So if by panicky, they mean overly aggressive, cowboy cops, then I'd say we are on the same page.

Lastly there is the piece Called "Who gets to tell a black story?" For fans of the Wire, this is a must read, as it describes the racial politics behind the production of "The Corner" mini-series which was essentially "The Wire" prequel. Writer David Simon and Director Charles S. Dutton have some interesting experiences.

"There isn't a single black person in Hollywood with any power," [Dutton] said last fall. "This isn't paranoia. Because if I stood in a room with every major black star, just talking, then I would hear the same things out of their mouths that are coming out of mine. Multimillionaires. The main thing you'll hear is, 'Whenever I take a project, I can't get it done unless I have a white partner.'

If anyone has seen American Gangster, they realize that Hollywood's racial politics ruined what should have been a classic ganster flick. They didn't want to spend all of that money making a 'black' movie so they make the movie about the black ganster and the white cop. Thanks for the yarn. Hollywoood has a long history of doing this, Cry Freedom comes to mind, a movie ostensibly about South African freedom fighter, Steven Biko (played exceptionally by Denzel), that was actually more about a white journalist who befriended him. I could go on forever, Hollywood is racist, thats no surprise, but this particular article gave me a new found respect for Charles S. Dutton and his fight for black folks on and off the screen.

"Who protects us from you?" - KRS-ONE

2008-05-07T09:02:00.000-07:00

Do you remember the days when Hip Hop mattered? Nearly 20 ago, Rap Legend/Icon KRS-ONE, wrote a polemic on police brutality that is made relevant once again as the Philly police are caught doing on tape (below), what people in black communities have known them to do since the reconstruction era: get violent. Unfortunately, this relationship has been very slow to change over the years. What strikes me about this, is that there were so many cops on the scene, over a dozen and you don't see anyone physically stopping an officer from hitting these suspects. If brutality wasn't rampant, and a police officer objected to what was happening but didn't want to snitch, at the least you would expect to see him/her grab a nightstick or push a fellow officer back and tell him to cool off. Forget that they are supposed to, like, you know, uphold the law and silly shit like that.

And of course after they finish doing their dirty deeds, they make public cries for calm. Dont get me wrong, I think there should be calm, because any violence is only going to mean more black people are hurt, dead or in prison, but I think the police ought to practice what they preach every once in a while.

And in the midst of thinking about the grim reality of police brutality & crime in black neighborhoods, I am also forced to be saddened at how I can no longer rely on Hip Hop to speak intelligently to my life and struggle as a black man in this country. Do you think any of what passes for Hip Hop today is going to be remotely memorable 20 years from now? This shit is all around depressing.

Chris Mathews spills the beans

2008-05-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

In the middle of making the case about how each 'journalist' at MSNBC has the freedom to support whichever candidate they choose, Chris Mathews tells us that his bosses were "basically pro-war during the war." I suppose coincidentally so was MSNBC's war coverage.

OH, THE IRONY.

As you try to make the case for media freedom, you inadvertently provide proof of media censorship. Thank You Mr. Mathews, for the first time in years you've done your job as a journalist. And it was by accident.

Sean Bell Verdict & The Stupid Arguments used to justify it

2008-04-29T21:26:00.000-07:00

People who support the cops in this case, almost universally get key facts wrong, AND they make justifications for the shooting that-well, aren't good reasons someone should be killed.

Why do people get so many facts wrong? The media hasn't done a good job of reporting all of the facts of the case clearly, the case is a bit complicated, and people who think this incident is justified are probably more likely to believe most things police do are justified anyway (particularly when those things are only happening to people of color). Not surprisingly, the things that were omitted or under reported in the case lean towards a cop friendly, if murky, view of events and I don't think that is a coincidence.

In my view, most of these stupid arguments are thinly veiled covers for racist beliefs. The racist beliefs I speak of have a line of logic that connects Blackness (or Browness) to criminality. There is the conservative version of this logic: They're all criminals anyway, if one of 'em gets killed by accident, thats what happens when you send in the good guys to tame the savages. Then there is it's liberal cousin: In high crime areas the police simply have to be more aggressive and these incidents, though unfortunate, are part of the price we (read: People of color) pay for making the city safe for everyone (read: Not People of color).

Just to be clear, I think that for the first time in my life, MOST white people have found a case of police brutality that shocks the senses enough to think excessive force was used in this case. However, because there are black officers in the case, some have expressed the feeling that it simply cannot be about race. This view, a widely held misconception about the nature of racism, has manifested itself often enough that I will have to devote another post (or blog!) to address this properly.

Here are the major stupid arguments.

Stupid argument 1: What were they (Sean Bell & co.) doing at a bad Bar, loaded with criminals, drugs, and prostitutes?

Response: Uh, having fun at a bachelor party, which may have included getting a blowjob or worse *gasp* intercourse? Lets put it like this, if paying for a blowjob were grounds enough to be murdered (by the police no less), Eliot Spitzer would be dead and a sizeable portion of the rethuglican party wouldn't be around either, albeit for blowjobs given to male prostitutes, but who's counting? The people who make SA1, couldnt possibly believe this, I think these arguments are thrown out to cover for their racist belief in dangerous black men, and the need to tame them at all costs. "They shouldn't have been there in the first place" is not a justifiable reason for people to be shot and murdered and anyone with good sense knows it.

Stupid argument 2: Some variation of "the police have a difficult and dangerous job" and that when they kill people we should accept it because their job is so hard.

Response: If they cannot handle the responsibility that comes with walking around with a gun, stepping into conflicts, and risking their lives, DONT FUCKING SIGN UP!!!! Its quite simple, there is no draft, and none of these men or women were forced into this profession. The fact that you have a difficult job with tough life-or-death decisions to make, is something you choose when you join the academy. Growing up in a poor community is very tough too. Its tough not to fall victim to the allure of gangs, drugs, or various other criminal lifestyles, YET, the police don't take that into consideration when policing those neighborhoods, and the courts dont take it into consideration when sentencing those who fell victim to the gravitational pull of the streets. Your job is tough, but you chose it, if you dont like it, choose something else; (if only it were so easy for the ghetto child his/her way out). Don't do your job haphazardly and expect sympathy because its difficult. I acknowledge the job is hard, but I dont accept the difficulty of your job as an excuse to take away my life. And lets be clear, I am Sean Bell in so many ways that this shit enrages me and frightens me at the same time.

Stupid Argument 3: But they thought they saw someone reach for a gun thats why they fired.

Response: Funny how that always happens isn't it? Let me tell you a story about fear. When I was 12, I rode the train scared to death because at the time a youth gang called 'the Decepticons' were running wild in the city, and the horror stories were swirling like vultures over the death of my innocence. In my pre-teen mind they were the equivalent of a South American death squad (funded by the USA of course). Against this backdrop a real tough looking dude walks onto the train, I look at his hand go in his bag and come out with a gun. As it turns out, it was a $5 dollar umbrella, not a gun, but I almost died of a heart attack before I realized it. Fear can make you see things that aren't there. I was 12, and I was shook. If you are a cop whose fear causes you to assume that every black man's gesture is a possible move for a weapon, you pose a threat to public safety and have no business walking around with a gun. It is ok to be afraid of people and situations, but it is not ok to kill people because you are afraid and if you are that afraid then policing was a bad career move for you and is downright hazardous for people who look like me.

Respone 2: Now I'm wondering what exactly does a reach for a gun look like? How is it different from a reach for a cell phone, or a wallet? Do the police undergo special reach training where they can interpret the various objects that a person is reaching for before the object is revealed? Obviously there is no way to tell what someone is reaching for, so when the police say they thought someone was reaching for a gun, they are imagining things, they are adding variables into an equation that are not there. You should not be able to kill someone because you think they are reaching for something that is not there. This reaching for a gun argument needs to be put to rest. Unless you can see a gun, or someone tells you they are reaching for a gun, or you KNOW someone has a gun, you have absolutely no way to tell if someone is reaching for a gun or not. More importantly, in this case, I do not believe anyone was reaching for anything. We know there was no gun, not "no gun was found" as all of the papers say, there was NO FUCKING GUN! I believe it was an excuse made up after the fact, to justify the shooting. This reaching for a gun argument is the police version of the favored excuse among homicide defendants 'the gun just went off'.

Bottom line:
The police are supposed to risk their lives to save ours, not risk our lives to save yours. That means that even if he was reaching for something, you already have a gun drawn and aimed, you have the drop, and that should give you enough time to determine if what said person was reaching for was a gun or not. Dont police train for this type of thing?!?! Yes they do, but as I said, there was no gun and no plausible explanation for why anyone would be reaching for anything .

Stupid Argument 4: All of the victims had prior criminal convictions.

Response: Its difficult for me to address such an asinine argument without getting upset. What exactly does what someone did in the past, have to do with why they were shot? First, the police did not know any of this about the victims unless they were wearing their rap sheets on their heads. Second, the people who make these kinds of arguments seek to blame the victims and lessen the value of their humanity, something that most Americans do automatically when the victims are young black males anyway. This is one of many arguments that stupid people use to blame the victims for being shot. Ironically, these same people are outraged when someone makes the connection between 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy of the last 30 years; and that aint even blaming the victim, thats connecting the dots.

Incorrect Argument 1 (IA1): They were killed for driving the car at a cop using it as a deadly weapon.

Response: This argument isn't stupid it is wrong. The police have explicitly NOT used this defense precisely because they are trained NOT to fire at moving cars. Therefore, IA1 is factually incorrect on 2 levels, shooting at this car in this case would not have been a legal justification and the police never claimed to have fired because the car was moving. Again, they claimed one of the passengers was reaching for a gun that he didn't have.

I'm sure stupid people are thinking of other stupid and factually incorrect arguments to support their indifference to the loss of black life, so I have to stop here; but not before showing the irony of stupid logic:

1. Its OK, for the police to shoot and kill because they think a black guy is reaching for a gun.
2. Its not OK, for some black guys to be afraid and try to drive off when they see another black guy who actually HAS a gun.

Sean Bell Verdict: What 31 shots looks like

2008-04-25T15:24:00.000-07:00

I cant begin to describe how this makes me feel. I'm gonna get into the details of this whole incomprehensible situation later, but I wanna put this out there first. Michael Oliver, pictured above, fired 31 shots. That means he emptied his clip, dropped the magazine, loaded another clip and emptied that full clip too!! Is that not enough time to figure out that no one is shooting at you? Heres the reenactment that was used in the trial. A jury would have convicted these cops for something, thats why they opted not to have one. I literally was screaming at my screen when I watched this: "THIS IS FUCKING CRAZY!!!"

Answer one question after watching this.
Between the first shot and the last, was there a chance to realize that NOBODY IS SHOOTING BACK?

Update added on April 29:

This is what the man in the above video testified to in court.
"My finger was getting worn out," said Alexander Jason, who was put on the stand to counter accusations the cops were trigger-happy. "It took a lot of effort to pull that trigger."

Jason, who tested the weapons that killed Bell, said triggers on NYPD weapons are calibrated to make them harder to pull - and thus avoid accidentally spraying dozens of bullets at a target.

"Each time you fired your weapon, you had to do so of your own volition?" prosecutor Peter Reese asked. "You had to squeeze a trigger each time."

"The gun performance doesn't change," Jason answered. "But my finger performance was changing."

If I Ruled the World: Snoop would be 'retired'

2008-04-22T23:17:00.000-07:00

In an interview with the guardian Snoop Dogg, once again reminded me why the mere mention of his name upsets my mood. I applaud the reporter, who is a Jewish woman btw, for her presence of mind on a point that the mainstream media often misses:

Taking women dressed in diamond collars and leads down the red carpet at awards shows has been labelled hip-hop behaviour, when it's really just recycled blaxploitation imagery and misogynist buffoonery - to say nothing of Snoop's other confused political views.

What confused politcal views you ask?

The KKK gave Obama money...They was one of his biggest supporters. Why wouldn't they be? The media won't tell you that. They don't want you to know that. They just want you to know that this nigga befriended this other nigga who be threatening your values. But we all know all presidents lie to get into fucking office. That's they job.

I started to say, see THIS is why white people say the racist-and then I caught myself. This is fodder for the racists, but truthfully they didn't need it. White supremacy was clicking on all cylinders well before we had any negro entertainers whoring themselves for corporations that are ostensibly in the business of making music. However, it is no less true that in a racist society, when one negro does or says some incredibly stupid shit, his foolishness serves to tarnish (even in some small way) all of us. It still pains me to hear this negro talk about anything. Why wont he just fade into the fucking sunset? Or into the actual sun? Instead he says this about Clinton:

He was closest we gonna get to the first black president. He related to black needs and black values, black understanding and racism. He from Little Rock, Arkansas. That's a black-dominated world. He was part of us. That's why every day was happy when he was in office. It was just the funnest time in the world. Everything worked.

WTF is he talking about?!?!? Little Rock is a black dominated world? Bill Clinton is in tune with black understanding and racism? Well, actually he's halfway right on that one, Bill is in tune with racism, just not in the way Snoop meant it. I wish I were there to remind this simple ass negro that he was on trial for murder in 1993 during Bill Clinton's first term, which, i remember to not be the funniest time in the world for him; but I suppose it wouldn't matter. I'm speaking in terms of logic and he's speaking his native toungue: coonise. We simply wouldn't be communicating.

If I ruled the world I would have retired this brother a long long time ago, mafia style. I'd make him an offer he couldn't refuse. No more music, no more videos, no more TV shows, and certainly no more interviews, or you'll do no more breathing. At least in the music there is often a layer of protection between the public and Snoop's 'thoughts' on issues, but in interviews, it is raw unadulterated coonousity (couldn't resist one more conjugation of the word coon). The time and resources spent interviewing him could be better spent interviewing me, or any number of my friends/bloggers, OR doing nothing at all!!

To be fair, Snoop does do some positive things in the community, and I for one, recognized his song, Vatos, as an important attempt to heal the often deadly Black-Mexican relations in LA; BUT, its not enough. When Snoop promotes, misogny, debauchery, gang culture and other random acts of coonery on a global stage, it does far more damage than a kiddie footbal league, or 1 song about black-brown unity could ever undo. If I ruled the world, Snoop would be at home with his wife and kids, and not in the public eye influencing youth, or convincing casual racists that they have a point.

Of course I could just finish my own damn album before I'm 60 and irrelevant, and counteract much of this Hip Hop foolishness by showcasing my own brilliance on the mic. As a matter of fact, while I wait for you all to make me ruler of the word, I think I'll do that.

If I Ruled the World: A License to Parent

2008-04-22T08:31:00.000-07:00

[This is a part 1 of what is going to be an ongoing series called: If I ruled the world. I write this in hopes that I will inspire you, to join me, in helping me, rule the world. Thanks. ;) ]

In this country, it seems like you need a license to do virtually anything. Plumbers, Barbers, Nail technicians, Drivers, Doctors, Teachers, and many other professions need licenses to do what they do. In a civilized society (whatever that is) one of the most important purposes for licensing is to protect the public from unskilled, untrained and perhaps unethical individuals who can harm or kill people through their incompetence. Ironically, of all of these jobs, the hardest job you’ll probably ever get doesn’t require a license or an education, and you can even get this job completely by accident: Parenting.

Licenses are largely about public safety, so If I ruled the world, anyone who has a child would have to get a license in order to raise that child. Yes, a parenting license. I mean, is parenting not a public safety issue? Don't bad parents pose a threat to the well being of their children? Isn't a poorly raised child more likely to pose a threat to our well-being? I think we are mostly in denial about how widespread bad parenting is, which is part of a larger denial of how much harm is done to kids in this society.

I think a license to parent is in order. The hospital won’t let you take your baby home without a car seat, but if you think cheese doodles, 2nd hand smoke and the sight of periodic violence are a healthy child environment, then you hurry up and take that baby home; just make sure he's buckled in!! If I ruled the world: No license, no takey home baby from hospital, umkay? The ability to ejaculate or the possession of a pair of functioning ovaries, does not give you the right to ruin the life of a human baby, and ruin the lives of us all once your poorly raised child becomes a menace II society. Bad parenting is a form of child abuse.

Just to be clear, I want to say that this idea is as much about the ghetto mother yelling at her 4 year old son like he’s a grown man, as it is also about the middle class parent who tries to be a friend instead of a parent. This is also about the rich parent who provides all of the material things but never learned the value of a hug, or learned that time spent with your child can actually help you and the child become better people. And fathers need to know about the affects of their absence before it happens, so that they can make an informed decision when they are considering leaving a child's life. These are just a handful of the scenarios I'd try address through the Parent Licensing Bureau

The Licensing process
Once you arrive at the Parent Licensing Bureau (PLB) you will take classes that cover:
1. What to expect as a new parent
2. What items you will need and/or find useful (give them some of these items)
3. Survey of documented approaches to parenting that work.

Number 3 is the most controversial, because we have to establish the difference between 'good' and 'bad' parenting and that could be difficult to do in a multiethnic society like the U.S.A. By 'bad' parenting I mean, things that negatively impact a child's, physical, mental and emotional well-being. By 'good' parenting I mean things that help a child become a fully developed human being with a chance to succeed (insofar as society will let her/him).

Like most any human activity, we can establish some ‘best practices’ for parenting too. Put the money and resources into dealing with how children are treated in society. Let people know, neglect, verbal abuse, poor diet, and many other things are forms of child abuse. I know there is research out there that speaks to methods of parenting that have proven effective most of the time and I know it makes sense for everyone who has a baby to be exposed to this information. They don't necessarily have to choose any of the methods offered to them, they just ought to be made aware of what traditionally has worked.

Well, as it turns out, I wasn’t the first person to think of this, Dr. Westman actually wrote a book about this, here are some notes on it, its quite interesting.

Who's with me?

Father Pfleger ethers a random Faux News 'Reporter'

2008-04-20T08:18:00.000-07:00

Father Pfleger gave this Faux News reporter all that he could handle. This video is for Rev. Wright, what this video was for Obama. But its still so much more. He makes so many thoughtful, well reasoned points, about Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, Martin Luther King, and racist media hypocrisy that I dont even need to write about them, you just have to see this. Faux News has this tagged as 'web exclusive', which is a really clever way of saying, we wont be airing this shit, EVER. This is a must see!

Uncle Killa

2008-04-16T13:51:00.000-07:00

This short film is an adaptation of a feature length sceenplay I'm still working on. It was adapted by my fellow Hampton University Alum, and Columbia film school student, William T. Sutphin. Google Video link here, please rate and post comments.

This 15 minute film, follows 'Kai' who comes home from prison and tries to get his nephews life on the right track, while struggling with his own.
Based on a story written by Kai Pettaway.
Adapted by William Sutphin and Kai Pettaway.
Produced & Directed by William Sutphin

BTW, yes my name is Kai, no I am not in the film, and no this is not a film about my life. Enjoy.

Racism & Smoking Guns

2008-04-15T12:16:00.000-07:00

Catherine Donnelly, recently recounted how she and her mother were horrified that she was placed in a room with a black woman, in her first day as a freshman in Princeton University. In the article she explains that her mom ran to the school office demanding her daughter be moved out of the room with that black girl because they "weren’t used to living with black people." That black girl was Michelle Obama (then Michelle Robinson). The article goes on to say that a friendship never developed [surprise] in spite of how funny and smart she thought Michelle was, and that after the room (that her mom requested) became available she left and the two never had a meaningful conversation again. Why is this important you ask?

I think the revelations in this article are important because Michelle Obama has been painted as some kind of anti-American, Black revolutionary because of her thesis and some other remarks that she’s made. The notion that her experiences with racism may have shaped her perception of America as something less than glowing, hasn’t seemed to enter into the popular dialogue at all. I believe that is so because many white people do not think racism exists in this country. I have come to find that many (thought not all) whites seem to need a smoking gun when it comes to accepting claims of racism (this phenomena is decades old it is called white denial). It seems that absent proof that someone used the N-word or committed some other overt act of personal bigotry, many whites have a hard time believing that racism still exists.

Well, here it is folks, Michelle Obama’s first college roommate came from a long line of racists, and Catherine Donnelly admits that her mom and grandmother filled her head with “with racist stereotypes, portraying African-Americans as prone to crime, uneducated and, at times, people to be feared” Here is the smoking gun.

I was excited when I read the article because rare is it that a person comes forward and admits so candidly their family history of racism and bigotry. I really appreciated their honesty and respected their courage.; and wish them well on their desire to evolve into better human beings. But more importantly, I hoped that the media discussion of this would prove that Michelle Obama's views on racism in this country were vindicated, that is, I hoped the confessions of a racist bigot, might serve to put the black perspective on race, into a context that made sense. After all, isn't perfectly reasonable to feel anger, resentment, and frustration when you've been mistreated solely because of the color of your skin? Well that media discussion hasn't happened, and many of my friends think I'm crazy for expecting it to. Maybe I am crazy?

Maybe not. Catherine Donnelly’s mother has already said this with regards to Rev. Wrights remarks:

"If I had been treated the same way blacks have been treated," she says, "I'd be resentful, too."

I’d say that most conscious black folks aren’t the super patriotic, god bless America types, because it simply doesn’t jibe with our experiences in a society that is often racist, and always in denial of it. I was hoping to see this unfold in the national media, because with material like this, we could well be on our way to a real dialogue about racism in this country. However, thus far, I get the feeling that this story is going to be blacked out. Pun intended. Instead, like Catherine Donnelly as a freshman, America will have missed out on yet another great oppurtunity to begin moving foward.

Fuck the Pope!!

2008-04-12T18:51:00.001-07:00

I dont mean that literally, I do not want to fuck the pope. Not that I think he'd mind. I say 'fuck the pope' as in I have zero respect for this dude. What this guy did when he was the cardinal, was write a letter to parishes saying that they should hide any evidence of sexual abuse for up to 10 years after the victims turned 18 and that the "church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been perpetrated with a minor by a cleric." Thats basically the papal equivalent of "stop snitching" and "fuck tha police!" This would all be a lot more humorous if we weren't talking about little boys being raped.

This man aided and abetted child rapists (catholic priests) who were responsible for committing sex crimes against hundreds of defenseless children. I mean, there is crime, and then there is the raping of little kids, the absolute lowest most egregious crime there is, bar none. In prison, do you know what happens to child rapists? Yeah, we all know what happens, and it aint pretty, but what does this tell you? It tells you that murderers, drug dealers and rapists (of adults), who obviously have very little value for human life themselves, are offended and appalled at a crime as heinous as the sexual exploitation of little kids. What I'm trying to say is that, when you have offended these people's sensibilities, you've really accomplished something.

As a result of the pope's efforts, nearly none of these scum were brought to justice and instead the church spent 615 million dollars to deal with the 'problem' of priests touching boys. Oh, and the criminal mastermind behind it all, becomes your new pope. Bill Maher made a dope point about this which I will put into my own words: If Obama should've left his church for remarks that offended [white] people, certainly the Catholic church ought to have empty pews for using the church like a NAMBLA dating service.

In the New York Times' article on the pope entitled "Hard liner with a soft touch reaches out," its interesting that in spite of the unintentional comedy of the title, there is little mention of the sex abuse scandal and no mention of the Pope's, quite serious involvement in a cover up. As a young radical, I was trained to see the media as an idealogical tool of the ruling class, so their lies to to protect the powerful are no surprise to me, its what they do. I just wanted to pile on to the list of reasons why they are full of shit, as some of my favorite bloggers have.

The fact that people are bound to hate me for writing this, and are bound to never utter a critical word about 'his holiness,' is one more reason why I hate religion. Fuck your religion, fuck your pope and fuck you! And try to make sure your priest doesn't fuck your children.

John McCain, Friend of the Negro since 1990.

2008-04-04T21:24:00.000-07:00

On the anniversy of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assasination, John McCain was in Memphis (at the site where MLK was assasinated) to to explain that he voted against a federal holiday for MLK in 1983 because he didn't know what a great man MLK was. [In Lil Jon voice] HuuuuWHAAATTTTT?!?!?!?

As a congressperson, isn't it your obligation to find out exactly what the issue is you are asked to vote on? You like, dont have a real job because people voted you into congress, expecting you to make informed decisions on issues and this is what you do? At age 47 when he voted no in 1983, he was plenty old enough, freshman congressman or not, to either know who Dr. King was or to know that he ought to find out. We're not talking about some obscure historical figure here. If this man wasn't doing his due diligence on congressional matters at 47, should we expect that he will on presidential matters at 71? Ok, I know people who are likely reading this are not even considering voting for him, but I still thougth that was an argument worth putting out into the blogosphere, anyway.

McCain, you need more people.
He claims to have evolved, but not knowing who someone is, and then knowing who they are isn't really evolving. He makes it seem as though, had he known about MLK in '83, he would have voted for the holiday. Thats not evolution. Going from bigot to something less than a bigot is evolving, but thats not what he's claiming, and in my estimation, it should be. And even that assumes that he's something less than a bigot now, which according to his voting record isn't quite accurate. Heres what he could have said to earn my respect:

At the time, I was a middle-aged white man, who didn't have much contact with black people and as a result, wasn't really in tune with civil rights issues (read: I was a racist). So when the country was making an attempt to move foward, I was still a step behind and I was wrong for that, but I have changed. Blah, blah, blah.

Maybe he would have said something like that if his campaign were based on riding around the country on a bus called the 'straight talk express.' Oops. I have to also consider his 'vigorous fight' for the MLK holiday in 1990 dubious at best, considering the fact the he knew the state would (and did) lose millions in tourism dollars through a subsequent boycott if the holiday did not come into existence. Eventually, in 1991, after 2 years of boycotts and over 500 million dollars in lost tourism dollars, the politicians and citizen's of Arizona 'evolved' in unison to make the holiday a reality. Isn't it amazing how people's consciousness evolves when it costs them half billion dollars?

Wyclef needs a sociology class

2008-03-31T12:54:00.000-07:00

Wyclef, a man chosen to be the ambassador for Haiti has recently appeared on radio ads asking Haitians to "give up crime and work to improve the country." Full article here, below are the highlights:

"...you should not be raping women, kidnapping people and children, because there can be no excuse for doing so,"
"I reject these evil practices"

I'm sure Wyclef means well, he seems like a decent guy, and I have no doubt he loves his country and its people. I'd also like to add that I don't really have a problem with what he's saying. After all, raping women and kidnapping children kinda got played out in the 80's, right? What does bother me is the eerily Bush-like, fundamentalist phraseology of the line :'I reject these evil practices.' I'm figuring thats either a Haitian thing I'm not hip to, or maybe he just finished watching an episode of Charmed?

Seriously though, to me Wyclef is saying this:

"Many poor Haitians choose to do bad things, and maybe if I, as a millionaire celebrity, ask them to stop, they will stop because they respect me. "

Aside from the immediate problem I have with a rich person telling poor people to do anything; what he is saying seems to imply that the crime and violence going on Haiti are solely the product of personal choices. It implies that all is well in Haiti and yet, for some inexplicable reason, people keep committing crimes.

If you know anything about Haiti you know all is not well and it never has been. The kind of poverty that Haitians have endured over at least the last 40 years, is nothing short of violent torture; and that is not hyperbole. Haiti, has consistantly been the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and now, there are Haitians who are forced to eat dirt to survive!! The U.S. has played a healthy role in helping to create the Haiti that exists today and is unwilling to play an equal role in improving living conditions there. As a black man, I have to say, I'm not exactly surprised, but its still sad nonetheless.

If I could speak to Wyclef, I would implore him to study the connection between, politics, economomics, and crime and analyze the environment that most of the people who become street criminals, grow up in. I think he would find that, poor living conditions, generally produce criminal activity and that this holds true pretty much all over the world. Then I would ask him if he thinks that a millionaire ought to be asking poor people to stop committing crimes, when the solution to crime is rooted in economics and education?

I'd hope that after his studies, he'd no longer look at the guns and street crimes that kill Haitians, and instead focus on the political corruption and economic rape that is killing them softly.

Tight is the new Baggy: Indivdualism vs. Individuality

2008-03-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

Whenever I get into a discussion about communism, inevitably someone makes an argument that sounds more or less like this:

But under communism everything will be the same, everybody will be getting the same thing. What if I don't want to wear a drab grey jump suit every day for the rest of my life? What if I don't want to live in black & white?

Between this non-argument and the 'human nature' platitude, I have to give credit where credit is due. After all of these years, shitty public education and anti-communist propaganda are still effective weapons for the ruling class.

I am forced to endure these arguments because people are individualistic. Individualism is encouraged by society (how else are they gonna control us?), that is, until they need some fresh bodies to go kill some brown people in another country somewhere. Then they are waxing poetic about how brave it is to sacrifice for the common good and how you ought to think about people other than yourself. Yeah, think about people other than yourself, because, yourself…well, he’s about to die! But I digress. It always strikes me as ironic that amidst all of this individualism, there is very little individuality.

On its surface, the individuality argument seems valid. You wonder, aren’t they arguing in favor of greater individual choices, a wider political debate, and more health care and educational approaches? No, instead they are mainly talking about freedom of choice as it relates to fashion, jewelry and other consumer status symbols like cars. They don’t want to lose their choices between Evisu, Bathing Ape, and True Religion jeans. They want the choice to be rich (hows that choice coming along, btw?), the choice to be different, the choice to be consumers and have those consumer goods define them. The glaring contradiction of it all is that the people making this argument are ALL DOING, SAYING & WEARING THE SAME EXACT SHIT!!!! What they are really saying is they don’t want to change the economic system to focus on human need, because they will lose their over-priced consumer goods that make them fell good about themselves. They are essentially rebelling against rebellion. How radical?

What many of them do not realize (or care about) is that the modern concept of fashion, (clothing as a way to express your individuality) comes solidly out of corporate marketing in the early part of this century. Clothing was once just something to have you look decent and protect you from the elements. Thats until some corporations got the bright idea to manipulate public opinion by paying some famous rich people to tell you, that you're hip and fashionable because you wear a certain item. Then, once you have complied and paid way too much money for some cotton garment that an exploited woman of color somewhere sewed for pennies an hour, you can walk around looking smugly at those who aren't following the trends as closely as you. You get to pose as some kind of fashionista pioneer by following the trends of the fashion world closer than your friends. Wow! Not only do you dress better than me, but you' are also now one step closer to being gay. Congrats. Repeat cycle when your fashion gods tell you whats hot for the next season.

The fashion industry reminds me very much of the American political system. There is the illusion of choices, but they are all really all made from the same cheap shit when you get down to it. There are a million clothing lines/labels who are all making clothes so similarly ugly, it takes me a full day of shopping to find 1 pair of jeans that aren't male hip huggers with some kind of embroidered mosaic going down my leg, and 1 shirt that doesn't look like my daughters did an art project on it. Or maybe I'm wrong about this whole fashion/politics analogy and we all really do fit neatly into political boxes labeled democrat and republican? And maybe i need to cop me a whole bathing ape outfit and stop playing? Yeah, wait for it.

Nah, but honestly, I feel your pain my soon-to-be-gay fashionista friends. You're afraid that in some kind of Communist/Socialist society you wouldn't all be able to rock your Technicolor hoodies and wear your tight-ass pants down by the back of your knees, looking like a male rape victim, while you call yourselves 'young', using the identical vocal inflection of a 38 year old corporate/CEO rapper. Aside from the fact that your concerns are unfounded (who's gonna deny you the right to look like a buffoon?), I understand why you wouldn’t want some silly shit like universal health care, and free higher education, to stifle all that hyper creativity you've got going. Its like Sophies Choice, for you dudes. I guess thats how we now have a million rappers and not an original thought among them. Lots of individualism, and scarce little individuality. To be honest, I'd prefer a drab grey sweatsuit to alot of what passes for hot nowadays anyway.

1 in 10 get Obama's religion wrong

2008-03-29T19:55:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post documents American ignorance here, below are the highlights:

One in 10 voters believes Barack Obama is Muslim, a mistaken impression that lingers across party lines, a poll showed Wednesday.

Conservatives, less educated voters and white evangelical Protestants are likelier to believe Obama is Muslim, as are people from the South, the Midwest and rural areas, the poll showed. Nearly a quarter of white Democrats with unfavorable views of Obama say he is Muslim though overall, blacks are about as likely as whites to hold the misconception.

Although this is pretty self-explanatory, I feel compelled to state the obvious: Huge swaths of this society are severely uninformed and easily misinformed about a wide variety of things. I suppose thats nothing knew, but it gets worse...

[The notion that Barrack is Muslim] has persisted despite the recent controversy over divisive remarks by his longtime pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Those saying they have heard a lot about Wright's comments are about as likely as others to say they think Obama is Muslim, the poll showed.

So in other words, many know that the Christian Pastor of Barrack's Christian church has said some controversial things, YET, they still think he is a Muslim. Barrack is a Muslim, who attends a Christian church which is too black and scares white people?!? There is a word for people who allow both of these ideas to exist in their mind at the same time. Stupid.

How long before these people connect him to Al-Qaeda?

Church & Marriage

2007-12-03T08:26:00.000-08:00

My wife is a Christian and I am an atheist. When we met in college I was hardcore into debating with Christians, studying the bible and pointing out the contradictions to anyone who would listen. I had some debates with some gorgeous christian women, and as I look back now I have to look at myself and say: you gotdamned fool!! You get alone with this bad ass woman and you are having some theological debate?!?! In college, along with learning about machinations of American society, I also mastered the art of talking my way out of the pussy. I could write a movie about it; a sitcom of course. But thats another conversation for another time.

So my wife invites me to church all the time, and I go on Christmas, Easter, Mothers day and stuff like that. But She gets pressure from her church members and then she starts pressuring me and here I am with a choice to make. The young Rebel in me would just say, nah, I'm not Chrisitan and I'm not going. But the mature rebel in me knows, that that approach is fools gold. Marriage is about compromise, and the mature rebel in me knows, I'm gonna have to go if she keeps asking me.

So boom, here it is, Sunday, I have my suit on looking all fly, wife looking fly, kids looking fly, and we walk into the show. My wife gets to show me off, so I know I need to look as good as possible, stand erect, smile, try to remember people's names, and dont fall asleep during the service.

I like singing, so the singing part of church always works for me. The choir is pretty good and the choir director has a really beautiful voice, imo, so I dig the musical part. The pastor is a relatively young guy, about 30, he's energetic, he uses popular music and expressions to liven up his sermon, he's really funny and I generally am entertained by him. So why dont I want to go to church?

I dont believe in god! Baptist church's are heavy into what appears to me to be some kind of ancient worship ritual. I mean I literally feel like I am being transported 100s of years back in time to a cruder civilization, where people feel like God is this powerful being who needs to be praised and worshiped or he will wreak his wrath upon you. When we are constantly being implored to say things like 'praise your name oh lord' 'we worship you oh god' 'we lift your name oh god' 'we know that only you, etc.' I just cant get into it. It seems crazy to me. Is god some kind of ego manic or something? Why does he need all of this adulation? Does he have low self-esteem or something? I mean, if there was a god, I would like to think he would be a lot less concerned with praise, and alot more concerned with actually having his words and principles lived out. But maybe thats just me.

Then we get to the craziest of the crazy things I hear in church. "cover me with your blood". WHAT THE FEEZY?!?!? Is it me, or is asking to be covered in blood a little odd? Yeah, I figured, it must be me. Well I guess I'm just funny like that. :) I must really love my wife.

Jena 6 DA cops a plea

2007-10-10T11:27:00.000-07:00

In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, Reed Walters, the Jean 6 DA, writes a justification for all of his actions in a sensitive tone in an attempt to appear reasonable, and I assume, not racist. Let us begin.

Reed Walters' Poison Pen

Before I get into what he wrote in the Times, lets talk about some things he said that aren't disputed. Walter read stood in front of some students in an assembly at school and told them “With one stroke of my pen, I can make your life disappear.” Many black students felt that remark was directed at them and reported that he was looking directly at them when he said it. However, regardless of which group of students his comment was directed at, he was still talking to HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS!!!! Before there was an incident worthy of national attention, he behaved in a way that is equal parts unprofessional and irresponsible. Furthermore, I believe his behavior played a role in escalating tensions surrounding the noose incident. I've heard the pen is mightier than the sword, but I'm saying though-this is incomprehensible.

In his Op Ed piece, Reed Walters wrote:

I do not question the sincerity or motivation of the 10,000 or more protesters who descended on Jena last week, after riding hundreds of miles on buses. But long before reaching our town of 3,000 people, they had decided that a miscarriage of justice was taking place here. Their anger at me was summed up by a woman who said, “If you can figure out how to make a schoolyard fight into an attempted murder charge, I’m sure you can figure out how to make stringing nooses into a hate crime.”
That could be a compelling statement to someone trying to motivate listeners on a radio show, but as I am a lawyer obligated to enforce the laws of my state, it does not work for me.

He chose to argue against what even he admits was talk radio logic. Although I understand that hanging a noose isn’t a crime, I must admit that I dont understand why it isn't, since it's basically a terroristic threat and America's answer to the Swastika. But again, I can't fault a man for not charging students with something that isn't in the book (isn't it funny how instituional racism works?). However, for most of us, the outrage in the Black community is not about equating the hanging of nooses with beating someone unconscious. The outrage is about the inappropriate zeal with which Reed Walters has approached this case and how most of us view this in the context of a criminal justice system, which has consistantly offered harsher penalties whenever possible for African Americans (theres that pesky institutionalised racism again). This view is well documented as fact, but scant attention is paid to acknowledging its existence, much less redressing it. The outrage in this matter is about redressing it, in this particular case, and in the criminal justice system in general.

Dangerous Sneakers
According to Louisiana Penal Code aggravated second degree battery charges specifically includes the use of a dangerous weapon.
I have read that the dangerous weapon he is alleging was used in this case was the student’s sneakers?!?! I guess that’s not a racist application of a law and its perfectly logical for us to assume that sneakers are deadly weapons when they are attached to these students’ black feet. I don’t have the data about how he has treated other cases, but I would be curious to know how many pairs of sneakers have been labeled dangerous weapons on white feet, hell, on any other feet. Sneakers are not deadly weapons no matter how you slice it, to charge the students in this way is immoral and inappropriate. If Reed Walters thinks overcharging to an admittedly lesser offense than Attempted Murder is appropriate, we can all see where his notions about fairness and justice will lead.

Schoolyard Fight?!?!

Last week, a reporter asked me whether, if I had it to do over, I would do anything differently. I didn’t think of it at the time, but the answer is yes. I would have done a better job of explaining that the offenses of Dec. 4, 2006, did not stem from a “schoolyard fight” as it has been commonly described in the news media and by critics.

Reed Walters' grand omission here is that he charged some teenagers who jumped another student, with second degree attempted murder. That he shows no contrition for such an excessive charge speaks volumes. Schoolyard fight, or bar room brawl, Second degree attempted murder charges for a fight are excessive.

Still I march on to the notion of whether the term 'school yard fight' is appropriate. It was a fight and it happened in a school yard, so that part is accurate. However, I think the true test in this is to think about how you would feel if your child had been beaten by several students and was unconscious, bloody and taken to a hospital in an ambulance. I would not characterize that as a schoolyard fight, so Reed Walters and I do agree on something.

Freedom or Justice?
As I have said to many a friend in response to the ridiculous hip hop ‘campaigns’ to free x rapper, or x rapper's weed carrier; calls for freedom are reserved for people who are falsely accused/imprisoned. While I think the Jena 6 have been overcharged, I haven't heard anyone claim that they have been falsely accused. What I want for the Jena 6 is justice. Freedom may be justice for all or some of them in this case, or it may not be, depending on the circumstances. The fact that the kids were over charged initially, and are still being overcharged, imo, does not mean they all ought to exonerated unconditionally. I am not certain about everything that happened, but, we do know that Justin Barker was beaten unconscious and lets assume that some or all of the students known as the Jena 6 were responsible. This incident is not something I would characterize as a schoolyard fight. When a kid is beaten unconscious and taken to the hospital in an ambulance, that is a serious matter. Yes, even if he was well enough to go to an event later that night, its still serious. I certainly would be taking it very seriously if a group of kids knocked my child unconscious. So lets establish that.

That the police were involved in a situation like this does not seem unusual or happening solely because the students were black. A kid gets beaten unconscious on school grounds, and has to leave in an ambulance, and several kids allegedly beat him, yes I would think anywhere in America, school administrators would call the police. So I think we have a situation where kids have taken some actions which have lead them into the arms of the criminal justice system and are now facing charges.

What kind of charges ought they face, if any, and what kind of sentence ought to be meted out if they are found guilty? I'd say they ought to get the same kind of justice that upper class white teens get when they do things they aren't supposed to do. I think thats a fair. way to go about evaluating the fairness in any case.I also think that our community needs to be more critical and strategic about when and how we respond to instances of alleged injustice. There are so many more egregious examples of injustice that are deserving of our outrage, that if we were on our jobs as community, I'm not sure we would have had time to focus on Jena so loudly. In fact, if we were really on our jobs, there might not have been a Jena 6 in the first place.

The Lupe, Fiasco.

2007-10-09T12:10:00.000-07:00

Props to Nahright on letting me know about the story, but heres my take.

A small controversy turned into something major when Lupe Fiasco, performed in honor of A Tribe Called Quest (ATCQ) recently at the VH1 Hip Hop Honors award show. In Lupe's cover of Electric Relaxation, Lupe messed up 2 bars of one of the verses. This only became a somewhat big deal because weeks prior to the awards show Lupe made it known that he wasnt a big fan of ATCQ growing up and wasnt familiar with it.

Well after the slip up, he defended himself by saying, rather obnoxiously, that he only did it because he was asked to by Q-Tip, the group's lead rapper. He also added in, that he still hadn't heard the Midnight Marauders album (which is considered by many to be ATCQ's best work, and one of the best hip hop albums of all time). Not only that, but ATCQ is held in nearly mythical status and is widely believed to be the second greatest hip hop group of all times (behind Wu-Tang). AND unfortunately for Lupe, his fanbase overlaps heavily with his because his music is so similar in so many ways to the kind of music ATCQ made, albeit much more ordinary, imho.

You can read more about the details of this whole saga here

What this got me thinking about was this is why hip hop sucks. Lupe Fiasco, who is so obviously operating in a space that wase created by ATCQ (regardless of whether he was personally influenced by them or not), is in essence refusing to listen to their work. This is a huge part of why Hip Hop in general and emceeing in particular is not growing. Lupe is not alone in thhis regard. Multi-Platinum selling artist The Game clumsily stumbled his way through a debut album name dropping albums, artists, executives, and their personal assistants, when he erroneously said this:

I woke up from a Coma in 2001/
the same time Dre dropped 2001/

The problem is, Dr. Dre didnt drop 2001 in 2001, he dropped it in 1999. And the problem with that is, The Game is from Los Angeles and this is DR. DRE we are talking about!! Whenever Dre drops an album, the earth stops spinning and the fighters in the middle east take a 2 week break from suicide bombs and straffing civilian buildings so they can digest the album Dre has put together. This is an album that sold 10 million copies worldwide, and he was put out on Dr. Dre's label for crying out loud!!!! This isn't so much an affront to Dre as it is an affront to the artform itself. An affront that no one but me and a few other purists care about. I take my craft seriously, and it bothers me that others, particularly those fortunate enough to be making a living from it, care very little about the art form.

Is there a Jazz Saxophonist of any stature who hasn't heard nearly every single note that Charlie Parker ever played? I doubt it. Why? Because Jazz is an art form where artists take their craft seriously and so do its listeners. Hip Hop is an art form, where all too often neither the artist, nor the teenage fans they are trying to win over, takes the art form seriously. These are problems inherent in the demographic that most hip hop targets and its also a problem in terms of what purpose hip hop is trying to serve. Jazz musicians want to be artists and want to make music that is respected as art. Rappers want to be rich and want to make music that makes them rich.

Did I mention that these labels and this industry seems wholly divorced from any understanding of what hip hop could be? I mean do all black people really sell crack or love Louis Vitton? I'm just saying. But most of these new 'artists' are not 'artists' at all, they are products, not even original products, just an old product with a new package and a new shape. I can't wait to take over hip hop.

Philly's police chief asks 10,000 Black men for help

2007-09-15T07:51:00.000-07:00

The city's embattled police chief, [Sylvester Johnson] acknowledging that police alone cannot quell a run of deadly violence [294 homicides so far], has called on 10,000 black men to patrol the streets to reduce crime. He wants each volunteer to pledge to work three hours a day for at least 90 days.

"It's time for African-American men to stand up," Johnson told the Philadelphia Daily News. "We have an obligation to protect our women, our children and our elderly. We're going to put men on the street. We're going to train them in conflict resolution."
read full story

I am in love with this idea. For the longest time I have been telling anyone who will listen, that we (black men in particular) can solve most of the problems in our community on our own. I am basing my life on this premise and it is part of the reason I played a part in forming Rebel Life (more on that later). Unfortunately, although I love the idea, iI have a great many problems with how it is manifesting itself in Philly.

1. Wrong Person
Philly's chief of police, black though he may be, is not going to have the political capital with young black men to pull this type of thing off. He's asking black men to come out and volunteer to put themselves in harms way, to help their community. This is dangerous work, it doesn't pay, and the chief of police is making the request. You'd have to a) care about your community AND b) you would have to like or respect the person making the request in order to volunteer. There isn't enough of a and I would assume even less of b to make this work. I'm not from Philly and don't know this guy's history in the community, but I know black men, and I know our relationship with the police, so unless something really special is going on there (other than their 80's era murder rate and fascination with bad hairstyles) I'd say hes not the dude for this. He could be a part of something like this, but, IMO, him spearheading this seems like it hurts the idea more than helps it.

2. Wrong approach to crime.
While I think a group of trained black men could put a serious dent in crime (and in the heads of some of these knuckleheads) this is not the solution to crime and the chief of police ought to (and probably does) know it. Crime in our community has a long history, and so do limited job opportunities, poor schools, bad living conditions, and an overall feeling of hopelessness; this is not a coincidence. You cant hope to heal these problems in a real way without even attempting to deal with the social conditions that created them. Get brothers some access to jobs that pay a decent wage, and improve the educational system and you will see the crime numbers fall dramatically. Any approach that comes from a govt administrator that doesn't involve something along those lines, is either misinformed or disingenuous.

3. Volunteer?!?!
Unemployment among young black men is always higher than in any other group in the country. This unemployment is a huge part of why the murder rate is so high! These brothers aren't killing each other over gets to take off from work on Labor day. These guys already don't have jobs and are operating within the underground economy where violence is a preferred method of conflict resolution.

So, color me crazy, but this is how I’m seeing this:
There is a demographic whose chronic unemployment leads them into chronic involvement in crime, which leads into violence and murder reminiscent of #9 on The Chronic. And the chief of police asks them to volunteer in the streets, to help end the violence which is a byproduct of the economic crimes that stem from unemployment. He must be smoking chronic (I couldnt resistone more chronic reference).

I’ve got a better idea, why doesn’t he volunteer to be the chief of police, and donate his salary to a group of people who will lobby the city gov’t and local businesses to create 10,000 jobs for black men in the city of Philly. I say that joking (kind of) but he really should be trying to get brothers some jobs instead of asking them to do a job for free that requires, a gun, a bulletproof vest, and walkie talkie access to other people with guns and bullet proof vests. Oh, and a starting salary of $39k!!!

4. Who could pull this off?
Not the chief of police of Philly. Not the chief of police anywhere. If Farrakhan asked for something like this within a few years of the million man march, brothers would have signed up. Tupac could have pulled something off like this before he was killed. In fact, if they both had gotten together, they could have started a very powerful, nationwide movement. But that was then, and that oppurtunity is lost. Now, I am hard pressed to think of anyone who could make this call in a large city and actually get thousands of black men to come out. Jesse Jackson can’t do it, Al Sharpton can’t do it, no one can really do it on a national level or in New York (which is where I'm thinkng about it).

For the average black man, there probably is not enough incentive (money, prestige) to want to risk your life over a concept as abstract as community must be nowadays. Having said that, my circle is not average and we are already excited to do this kind of work, but find it is hard to attract the numbers we need to really make an impact. I think Hip Hop has the potential to change those attitudes, and I think I can be the driving force behind that. Time will tell.

-Kai. Rebel Life
Rebelology

Choosing our battles wisely

2007-09-09T11:09:00.000-07:00

In case you havent heard, the US govt has decided to create a memorial to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the Mall in D.C. The monument will be placed in betweeen Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln's memorial.

Yeah, its kind of a big deal in one sense and kind of not in another, but thats not the point. The black firm in charge of designing it, chose a Chinese sculptor to do the work . And just for clarity, when I say Chinese, I mean from China, not a Chinese-American.
So as the story goes, there is a black artist leading the protest/ppetition to have a black sculptor sculpt kDr. King's likeness. Fuck crime, poverty, healthcare, and the educational system, WE WANT A BLACK SCULPTOR FOR THE MLK MEMORIAL DAMMIT!! But jokes aside, that is kinda how this whole thing seems to me: silly, ridiculous and ironic all at the same time.

To his credit, the brother calling for the protest/petition makes one really good point which is:
the granite to be used on the scultpure will come from China, which underpays its works (read: slave labor) and has them do this work in a way which is very harmful to their health (read: they die). I havent researched this independantly, but if what he alleges is true, he has a point that something is amiss. However, in this instance, the problem can easily be remedied by changing the company they get the granite from.

Let me also add that I think it would be appropriate, though not essential, for the monument to be sculpted by a black sculptor. I would think there are black sculptors lined up to do this project for little or even no money, because they would see it as an honor to do a project of this magnitude, that holds such historic and cultural significance to them.

This situation reminds me of Spike Lee and the making of Malcom X. Initially he read that a film about Malcolm X had been green lighted and was going into production. Norm Jewison (a Jewish director who tastefully directed a film about the black experience previously: A soldiers story) was given the role of director for that film. Spike said he was like whoa ho ho, hold up! He basically said said:

I'm not saying a white person cant be the director of a film about Malcolm X, but he'd have to be pretty sensitive to accurately capture his life in its proper light.

I agreed wholeheartedly with that sentiment, and think his film project, as a work of art, needed a black hand directing it much much more than this sculpture piece does. Any great sculptor CAN do a wonderful piece on MLK. I wouldn't say any great director can do accurately do a film about a highly controversial Black historical figure.

I'd like to also say that I like when our community is able to come together around any issue that even remotely has to do with community control, or taking control of our representations in mass media. But as I recently told my cousin who was up in arms about a 15% tip being included in his $22 meal as a matter of store policy for ALL meals, "you are fighting the wrong fight brother."

Taking control of our community, could mean something major for ourselves, this country, and other oppressed people all around the world. Taking control over how we are represented in popular media could be a critical part of that. Making sure a black sculptor does the MLK monument is not an essential part of anything that is going to affect our community. IN fact, in my opinion, insuring that a black sculptor does the MLK monument is like making sure, Obama has a black makeup and hair stylist if he becomes the president. Its meaningless, its figurative and symbolic, and thats really the only reason the govt is doing a memorial like this instead of something substantive like uh, I dont know..REPERATIONS!!!

Taking control over how we are represented could be done quite simply by placing some very real pressure on black people who are in posiitons that wield that power. In hip hop music, we have more black decision makers who are in on every aspect of the buisiness side than ever before, yet we have worse music, less variety, and more harmful images being transmitted to an even broader audience.

In response to that, too often we take action by placing pressure on big corporate bosses, like warner brothers, universal, Arista, et al, who dont give 2 shits about our demands or our concerns. Most of the people who buy the records are white, so boycotts from our community do not hurt them financially. Why not aim our sites at people who cannot afford to dismiss us, people whose credibility and support are priceless in hip hop? Why not challenge Jay-Z, Diddy, Jermaine Dupree, Irv Gotti, et al to promote 1) better music, and a wider variety of artists? These are people who cannot ignore the demands of black people. There simply arent enough young black and Latino people who are willing to apply pressure to their own. We can blame the gov't for allowing the drug trade to flourish, but we cant challenge our childhood friends who stubbornly chooses to sell drugs in our community without having even considered another option.

Which brings to me to a new rule, Bill Mahr Style:

If the thing we are fighting for doesnt leave our community substantively improved once it is achieved, we dont need to fight for it period. When we fight for trivial things like the color of the sculptor of MLK, not only do we make ourselves appear more fractured and weak, we become parties to our own oppression by diverting our resources away from where they are truly needed. We have a pretty long list of things that we must fight for to improve our communities and our experience in this country. This monument thing, however, is not on that list. Someone send this brother the memo.