Friday, October 1, 2010

The Harsh Truth About Mesothelioma

By Alex Johnson (Guest blogger)

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that affects the mesothelium, a membrane lining that surrounds the internal organs. It is known to be caused by exposure and inhalation of asbestos particles or fibers. Even though the National Cancer Institute classified mesothelioma as a “relatively rare” form of cancer with about 2,000 cases diagnosed a year, the number of patients infected with mesothelioma has climbed steadily in the past 20 years.

There are four locations of the body that the cancerous cells can potentially infect, which are the pleura, the pertorium, the pericardium and tunica vaginalis testis or tunica serosa uteri. Pleura affects the lining around the lungs and chest walls, the peritorium affects the lining around the abdominal cavity, the pericardium affects the lining surrounding the heart and the tunica vaginalis affects the reproductive organ of male patients while the tunica serosa uteri affects the reproductive organ of female patients.

The cancer grows in between the two layers of membrane lining that surrounds the specific organs and can spread to surrounding tissues and cells if it is not diagnosed earlier.

The mesothelioma symptoms can vary depending on the location of the affected area; and they tend to have a rather latent effect where visible symptoms only appear between 30 to 50 years after the patient’s exposure to asbestos.

Pleura mesothelioma can cause shortness of breath, pain around the chest wall, fatigue, wheezing, coughing and hoarseness around the throat. Sometimes, blood can be found in the fluid that is coughed up. Patients who suffer from severe pleura mesothelioma may develop tumor or swelling and their lungs may collapse causing acute shortness of breath and chest pain.

Peritoneal mesothelioma, which affects the abdominal cavity, can cause weight loss, abdominal pain, bowel obstruction, swelling caused by fluid buildup in the abdomen, fatigue and fever. If the cancer has spread to other areas of the body, the patient may experience trouble swallowing, pain and swelling of the face and neck.

Patients who suffer from severe mesothelioma may develop abnormal blood clots in the vein or in the arteries of the lungs, serious bleeding in several body organs, jaundice or the yellowing of the eyes and skin, low blood sugar level and severe ascites, which is the accumulation of fluid in the abdomen that causes abdominal heaviness and shortness of breath.


Mesothelioma is normally hard to detect as symptoms are similar to other ailment causes. However, patients who have been exposed to asbestos some time in their lives and experience the above symptoms should seek medical consultation immediately.

The presence of Mesothelioma can be detected with imaging tests such as chest x-ray, CT scan, PET scan and MRI scan. Chest x-ray is used to detect growth around the heart, lungs and chest while the CT scan and MRI scan provide a detailed imaging of the body. The scan tests serve to detect for any abnormal growth and if there is, to identify the affected area. PET scan is often conducted to detect the presence of cancer cells through glucose deposits; it can also identify structural changes in tissues or organs caused by the cancer.

If the scan results are found to be positive for cancer, the doctor would proceed to perform biopsy tests such as fine needle aspiration, thoracoscopy, bronchoscopy, laparoscopy or mediastinoscopy. Biopsy tests involve the extraction of fluid from the affected area for further tests. Fine needle aspiration is the extraction of fluid along the lungs using a fine long needle, whereas thoracoscopy, bronchoscopy, laparoscopy and mediastinoscopy involve the extraction of fluid from the chest wall, trachea walls, abdomen areas and the respiratory organs respectively.

Mesothelioma is considered to be ‘localized’ if the cancer is contained within the membrane lining surface but it becomes more serious if spread to other parts of the body such as the lungs, chest walls, abdominal organs or the lymph nodes. Treatment for mesothelioma varies depending on the stage of the cancer as well as the location of the affected area.

Thursday, July 8, 2010


In the case of Oscar Grant of California the verdict has returned a conviction of guilt on involuntary manslaughter (2-4 yrs) for Officer Mehserle who committed the vile act against Mr. Grant. The videos of this act was broadcasted on the world wide web for all to see, and many people feel as though the verdict should have been more like murder with a sentence of life in prison. However, Officer Mehserle proclaimed to have been confused at the time of pulling the gun, for he thought he was actually reaching for his tazer. Many people feel that as a trained officer Mr. Mehserle should not be able to use such an excuse, because he should be held to a higher standard when it comes to making mistakes that ultimately conflict with the law, as in this case with Mr. Grant being shot and killed.

On the other hand, there are also others who believe that Mr. Mehserle should be left alone due to this ordeal being a “simple mistake”. Well, I disagree wholeheartedly. Mr. Mehserle is a trained police officer who should have known better than to make such a grave mistake. The bottom line is simple; the minute Mr. Grant dared to ask a question or even appeared to be “resisting” arrest he was marked for death. This is the utter sad truth that America has yet to confront. America must admit to its complete TOLERATION of Black males being literally murdered and terrorized by so called peace officers in the “line of duty”. Cops are supposed to protect all citizens and treat them with the utmost respect; however, when it comes to Black males, increasingly each year we’re seeing that this is hardly the case and things are only getting worse.

Police unions play a large role in the protection of officers. In fact, officers are not readily investigated in certain criminal allegations as fast as a “regular” citizen would be which alone should be seen as illegal. If a person is accused of a crime he/she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and there shouldn’t be any special considerations for anyone. Government employees must not be characterized as in being above the law under any circumstances. However, when it comes to cops they seem to be consistently above the law. When a cop murders a Black male it is equivalent to a Black male being lynched back during the good ole days. Why? Well, let’s see; when it happened back then the murderous animals who committed the act got away with it time and time again. They also got away with the evil act because it was TOLERATED by society. What is the difference between that vile act and the case of Oscar Grant? When will the American society wake up and begin to take a stand against the vivid terrorism that has been going on against Black males since the inception of this nation? Why is such acts tolerated by society? Is it embedded within the American moral code that Black males are worthless pieces of craps worthy of death at all costs? The taking of a person’s life should never been labeled as a mistake when a cop is involved; if anything it should be readily justified, but in the case of Oscar Grant it doesn’t fit the bill!

Race and policing dates back to slavery; when the only job the officer (slave catcher) had was to return run away slaves back to the plantation to be brutalized. Perhaps this is why Black males aren’t granted justice in cases similar to Grant’s. I once wrote an essay which can be found on my blog or facebook notes section titled, “From the slave catcher to the modern day police officer”. I chose that title because it is true. Most officers can be seen as slave catchers based on their attitudes and actions towards Blacks. The truth is that social control today mimics the same kind of social control that we thought was rid of from our society. Proof of that can be found in the stats, which readily shows who is targeted and who isn’t. Scholarly research from within the field of criminology paints the picture all too well, but it is ignored by society and those who holds power.

Why is it that in this day and age with a Black POTUS and a Black Attorney Gen we still cannot seem to solve the issue of race and law enforcement? There must be a deep covert toleration built beneath the surface that grants officers the right to “shoot to kill” Black males. How can America claim to have come through the tunnel of equality when it has yet to find it? The conversation on race in America hasn’t even begun to start and until that conversation is had we can expect to see hundreds of more Blacks males shot and killed by police officers who for the most part have been trained to do such. Meanwhile society sits back and says, “Well let those negroes join the rest of their fallen Black undesirable forbearers.” America isn’t even ashamed of its utter complete sickness! Yet it dares to judge other nations!!

Thursday, May 20, 2010


On Rachel Maddow’s show which aired on 5/20 she presented to her audience the reality of racial politics. She had based her thesis off of the exchange she had with Rand Paul the night before on her show. Rand Paul by his own admittance denied the need for certain parts or provisions within the Civil Rights Acts. This comes on the eve of a great exchange of racial reality that is about to hit the continental U.S that would most likely mimic the days of those seen back during the sixties IF this isn't identified as a teachable moment. With Paul’s sentiments being exclusively and readily accepted by his supporters (tea party) and by other members of Congress, things are surely to heat up. However the biggest question of all lies with the POTUS! What says Barack Obama on these issues? For the longest Pres. Obama has been trying to avoid issues of race; he even failed to attend the World Conference on Racism. As a self proclaimed Black man living in America some would frown heavily upon his absence from such an important conference, which probably meant a lot to many disenfranchised people here in America.

The fact is the POTUS needs to stand up once and for all and address the issue of race in America. With front runners like Paul gaining credibility among great portions of the citizenry one must begin to ponder as to whether or not we’re going back in time. Paul blatantly admitted that he would be for segregation on the behalf of private businesses, which of course is exclusively probhibited within the Civil Rights Acts. Instead of backing off of his politically incorrect stance, he instead tried to sustain a purest point of view by speaking on the topic philosophically which resulted in an utter complete failure. Many people feel that consequentially his ride for the U.S Senate seat in KY is indeed over; however, I beg to differ. I beg to differ for one simple reason. If Paul is bold enough to appear on national television and say what he has stated, you better damn well believe that somewhere deep down inside he knows that those words will not threaten his chances at getting the Senate seat. This is because those who put in him in that position are also in association with his world view. Yes, that means the tea partiers or whatever they wish to call themselves share the same points of view, and irregardless to what the media may say about Paul, they’re going to still vote for him when the time comes and it may even attract more supporters. This is the exact same pattern of racial politics that had taken place back during the sixties and prior. It is simply identity politics. Tea partiers, who are closet racists for the most part as Maddow revealed clearly via much of her common sense evidence on her show, are going to congregate around people who are intelligent enough such as Paul to run on a segregationist platform while not appearing to do so—stealth mode!

Paul and the alike rely heavily on “intellectual debates” as Paul calls them in order to “modify” certain policies or at least reconsider the language of certain statutory laws. By using the phrase “intellectual debates” they thereby dilute all possible accusations of racism, on the grounds of claiming a philosophical stance as Paul tried to indicate on Maddow’s show. However, when faced against an equally intelligent person, such a stance will fail to ignite. Maddow was smart enough to throw back hypotheticals, which Paul gave total disregard to because he knew that if he had answered it would expose his hypocrisy and thus his inner racism. Yet even with his complete dodging of Maddow’s questions his racism reeked through faster than light could shine! This occurrence should be a teachable moment for most in America and around the world who actually believe Paul’s world view is non existent. The fact as Maddow stated is that they’re still around. Parading among us but beneath the surface in stealth mode, just waiting to attack the very essence and fabric of what makes America what it is today. They seek to bring forth their filthy diseased appetite for xenophobic policy and impose it onto everyone who is different, even those who are like themselves but fail to identify with their sentiments. These people, things, idiots, creatures are innately dangerous and are highly contagious to others who are too weak to understand reason from blatant falsehoods supported by Paul and the alike.

Those who share Paul’s beliefs are on a mission. A mission that seeks to regenerate the southern strategy in efforts of “taking their country back” to the good ole days. They seek to reengage in an America that was in the midst of a racial catastrophe. An America that had a heart that only a monster from the deepest depths of hell could breathe life into. Paul and the alike are similar to all forms of terror that wishes to see the downfall of America. They’re indeed what some would readily call domestic terrorists. They claim to be patriots when in reality they’re amateur imperialists trying to impose their view onto the rest of society, in efforts of trying to rule over every aspect of American life. Their political ideology is born out of nothingness, for their logic is flawed and their care for America is polluted. These people care not for the views of others because like a terrorist many of them are willing to die for their beliefs just as they would tell you their ancestors did in the civil war. Yes, there is a war going on here, and those who notice this war will speak logic into the veins of America, while those who will profit or seek trouble will drown happily in their own propaganda in order to push their agenda forward to an old version of America. On the other hand, many would consider the plight of the tea partiers to be valid. With big banks taking over our country and blatant taxation without representation which they so readily claim, some might think that their demands are indeed acceptable and even revolutionary. On the contrary, others may feel that their inability to address the obvious racism within their ranks pretty much destroys all that they claim to stand for, whether good or bad. The overt racism that many tea partiers seem to display is irrefutable, for the signs at their protests are always high and clear as to what their racial beliefs are. To date there hasn’t been one leader from the group to come out and condemn such nonsense. This is clearly where the tea partiers begin to lose much needed credibility.

The question is will the POTUS finally step up and speak about the issue of race in America, for if he fails, just like back in the good ole days, many lives will be at stake as a race war is undoubtedly beginning to approach the shores of America in a quiet yet stern manner. Whether some consider my words to be extreme or not, one thing is clear and irrefutable: We’re only in the beginning stage of a terrible tempest that has yet to show up on the radar!

P.S Kudos to Rachel Maddow, excellent work!!!

Monday, April 19, 2010


The anniversary of the Okalahoma bombing has arrived and yet people still cannot seem to equate modern day tea parties and underground militia groups (which are mostly white) to being like that of a terrorist group. Are these groups NOT a threat to the existence of the U.S government and its people? Do they not make their sentiments clear enough for ALL TO SEE? Why is it then do we have a government and a media structure that fails to label these groups of people as they truly are? Instead these right winged radical people are labeled as mentally ill, or better yet just a common trouble maker. Is this fair to all others who are usually readily labeled as terrorists or enemies of state?

For example, Arab Muslims who are racially profiled due to the war on terror, or Blacks who are racially profiled due to the war on drugs? How about Hispanics and other perceived immigrants who are readily labeled as “illegals” thanks to the new war against illegal immigration? Why is it that when the perpetrator is White, suddenly they’re not labeled and painted as the enemy? Why are they not labeled as enemy combatants and sent to places like Gitmo? After all they’re charging war against the state without the authority to do so, just like the many Arabs who have been labeled as enemy combatants due to participating arbitrarily in war! Therefore, one must ask, is there truly a difference between these angry Whites and the Arab Muslims who have been considered enemy combatants? Why are the Black Panthers considered worst than the KKK among most Americans, when the ACTIONS of both groups pretty much speak for themselves? Will there ever be a war waged against Whites that will effectively profile against them racially? Why is it that Whites seem to be the ONLY protected group within the U.S who has yet to have a war waged against them by the state? Why is this tolerated by this society and what can we do to stop state supported racial profiling?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


America is the land of the free, the land that is the alleged beacon of morality, yet we still believe in punishing children like that of an adult, why? We know it to be true that many adults within this society are set up to be criminals and branded life time felons; however, when this type of oppression begin to transcend down onto juveniles one must wonder why it is even allowed to be remotely thought of. Disparities in juvenile justice are extremely similar to the disparities found in that of the adult criminal justice system. Race and socioeconomic factors are clearly exhibited within the disparities and the loads of studies and scholastic writings that are out there on the subject. Do you believe in the death penalty for children? Do you believe in life sentences for juveniles? Is the juvenile system moving away from treatment and slowly slipping into a just deserts setup? What forms of propaganda are out there that allows society to tolerate such nonsense? The juveniles in America are in dire need of relief from the INJUSTICE system, why are their needs being ignored? Most importantly, why do racial disparities exist within the JUVENILE justice system? America the beautiful, the great, the land of the free and opportunity—huh? The magnificent Dr. Dohrn has worked extensively to bring light onto this matter, below are a series of vids where she is lecturing on this subject matter. Take a look at them and then comment if you may.

Dr. Bernardine Dohrn - Extreme Sentencing of Youth

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4

Thursday, March 18, 2010


I will not cover too much academic history within this note here because I am assuming that for the most part those who will read this note will already have knowledge of the disparity. This note is mainly for establishing a discussion base that will ultimately debate or break down why such a disparity even exists. Scientifically speaking, it has already been determined that crack and coke are equal in their capacity to affect the human body, therefore the question must be asked, why is it that those who are arrested for crack possession gain longer sentences than those who are arrested off of coke possession? Clearly there isn’t a difference between the two identical drugs; the only difference is that poor folks are more likely than not to have possession of crack while those who are economically better off are more aligned with coke.

I think the proof is irrefutable as to the nonsense factor of this disparity. Clearly both forms are identical in nature and can have the same affect on the human body. The question I feel society should be asking is who’s responsible for allowing this disparity to exist? Just the other day the disparity was lowered to a lower percentage by an act of congress. Therefore congress doesn’t see harm with having the disparity; however, they felt that the least they can do is lower the disparity so that the harm will not be as hard felt. Another harsh reality is the fact that it is mostly blacks who are impacted negatively tby the disparity, yet time and time again blacks continue to vote for democratic politicians who are not doing anything about social justice. Blacks are voting for these politicians based off of lip service for the most part, because democrats are just as absent on black issues as the republicans. Even Kennedy is guilty of adding to the suffering of blacks, because he was involved in proposing the mandatory sentencing on the fed level, likewise with Clinton and his Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, yet both of those politicians are allegedly among the most liberal of those who have ever stepped foot in Washington, yea ok!

People who are on the lower levels of the economic latter need to wake up and realize that both Democrats and Republicans are two of a kind when it comes to social injustice and they’re not willing to take on the fight to improve the system. Both sides are afraid of being labeled soft on crime, and for the most part neither side will ever have to live in a setting whereby they are forced to wake up to social disorganization and crime on a daily basis. More than half of the folks in Washington and within state congresses probably never have had to live in such conditions, which for the most part makes them ignorant to the conditions of these neighborhoods, yet on a daily basis they continue to pass laws regarding these neighborhoods without ever taking notice to the scholarship within criminology, which has for the longest already outlined what needs to be done. Locking more people up will only turn crime into a public health issue, and it will worsen the conditions further due the habitual usage of just deserts. As a result, people are released from prison with a vendetta against society to only end up right back in prison partly due to legalized discrimination against those who are labeled felons. The crack cocaine disparity makes it legal for the gov’t to send blacks back to the conditions that many of their ancestors have had to face in the past. The war on drugs brought back a load of past evils: 1. The passing system whose modern day representation is the Terry Standard (Terry Stops) due to the war on drugs cops are more eager to find drugs to make arrests even if it means violating the constitution. As a result of Terry v. Ohio (1968) combined with the war on drugs, blacks are disproportionately unprotected by the fourth amendment. 2. The pig laws whose modern day representation is indeed the War on Drugs. 3. Jim Crow whose modern day representation is the labeling of becoming a felon and therefore having all of your rights snatched away, namely one’s right to vote. Becoming a felon is like becoming apart of the lower caste system that blacks were forced into during Jim Crow. In short, the crack cocaine disparity along with the war on drugs turns many blacks into felons. 4. Slavery whose modern day representation is the slave labor that corporations gain off of prisoners who are primarily incarcerated in private prisons… I can go on and on with the disparities and the racist implications behind such policies, however I am going to leave it up to the readers to finish up this conversation.

The question is simple; do bad habits eventually die out? Why is it that we have two political parties that are unwilling to accept the sociological truths of this system? Why is it that blacks STILL continue to be oppressed by the systems of social control within the U.S? Why are blacks targeted, what is it about black folks that this society/govt hates? Why hasn’t this yet been labeled a violation of Human Rights? It is time for blacks to vote within their collective interest and not be fooled by political scumbags who are only looking to be reelected. Again, BOTH parties are at fault because it is BOTH parties that consistently vote yes for these discriminating policies, all while blatantly ignoring the scholarship of criminology which documents the effects of this system in a social science manner. Pres. Obama has said countless times that he was aware of such disparities and wanted them gone, yet all he can do is sign a dumb ass bill that will decrease the disparities rather than getting rid of them completely? I think all of those who have died for the right for his ass to be in the white house are now turning in their graves! Obama has sold himself severely short with that one; let’s not even talk about how he is ignoring black political issues. The NAACP, The Urban League and all of those other organizations that are supposedly here to help are worthless pieces of shits who have been long paid off to keep shut on black issues, so they too should be immediately rejected. The only thing The Congressional Black Caucus knows how to do is waste money on parties and take setbacks from corporations that does nothing for the black community.

Some blacks and those who are on the lower levels must push for a progressive candidate that is going to be willing to stand tall and stand proud for what is right, not a coward or an ass kisser to the democratic caucus or some colorblind jackass from the republican party. It is time to expose the phonies to the masses and let’s hope that society isn’t blind enough to not see the truth before their very eyes! A nation that has lost compassion for its fellow man is a nation that has denied its own existence and may as well be dead!

Nuff said!

Monday, March 8, 2010


*In no way am I trying to generalize all whites within this note. I maintain that there is a clear distinction between those whites who enjoy the presence of racism and those who don’t!

When the term racism is discussed there is almost never a mention of what makes it so acceptable to those who have power engaging within racism. We know why it is here and what it can potentially do but the one question must be asked; is it indeed a form of mental illness? I will get to the genocide portion later; however, let us focus on the mental illness portion first. Racism is a system that allows a person or people to feel superior to others who are considered different. Furthermore, racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial difference produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Now when we focus on the notion of being superior how can one attempt to rationalize such stupidity, without first controlling the social structure of the society in which they live to bring about such results. For example, in criminology the positivist school exhaustively tried to label those who are non-white as imbeciles and this was supposed to be supported by science. Yet when their findings are broken down and reconstructed their conclusions fails miserably. There is no such thing as one human being better than any other human because of race, yet for some reason people believe ever so greatly that they are indeed superior. In America it has been the white race that has benefited from racism ever since the birth of this nation. Whites have always gained control of almost every institution within the borders of the U.S. Three primary institutions they have been quite undefeated in keeping control are, politics, social control, and economics. One may conclude that in order to maintain superiority a person or group would have to have unanimous control over those main three institutions. Sadly, even in the present, whites still have unanimous control in those main institutions of superiority. There is an exclusion of black scholars and other minorities throughout all three of those institutions. The exclusion is done by orchestrating different mechanism within the structure that will limit the capacity for other races to become successful. For the sake of this essay I will label those mechanisms as “separation agents” I call them that because the function of such mechanisms is to effectively separate everyone else from those who are allegedly superior. For example, how many black senators are there in congress? What is the count on minority governors? If one were to do the research on those two questions they would readily find that there aren’t enough in either area.

So now that we have established the fact that separation agents are invented to give the illusion of superiority to whites, a very serious question must be asked; if whites were superior why must they invent separation agents to limit competition from other races? The answer is simple, because they are not superior. Through the use of various different separation agents, white racists are able to give off the illusion that they are indeed superior by getting others to feel as though they are inferior. One powerful separation agent that is used quite effectively by the power structure is the use of the media. The media dictates to the population images and stories. If society is fed with negative images and stories all the time about everyone except whites, then subconsciously non-white folks began to adopt the traits that they are labeled with having (see labeling theory). For example, if a black young male is constantly shown that success as a black man is becoming a rapper, then he will indeed aspire to become a rapper. Notice how the media never fails at excluding to show young black males positive role models from other fields, especially the fields of imminent control as I’ve stated earlier; politics, social control, and economics. If young black children were shown that they too can achieve to those levels, it would of course jeopardize the falsified superiority that whites have within those three main institutions. This is precisely why there is a shortage of black lawyers and blacks with PhDs pertaining to social control, whether it is criminology or sociology, this is indeed supplemented by two other separation agents, the GRE and the LSAT. The supremacists know that in order to maintain power and order they must effectively crush every opportunity that would bring competition their way; in short I will label this as social-capitalism.

Social-capitalism can be defined as the exploitation and incapacitation of groups who are targeted by another group in a stronghold attempt to keep one group at the top while the disliked groups remain in a slave like condition, possibly reaching for objectives and goals that are sadly not meant for them to obtain—institutionalized racism! It is a greed justified by hatred and a superiority complex. A human rights violation of unimaginable levels and the greatest threat to peace and humanity!

Another separation agent that is used to maintain white superiority is the controlling of academia on all fronts especially those disciplines that fall under social control. This is when crime control and law comes into play; the disparities in death penalty cases or the criminal justice system as a whole, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and other various landmark cases that has a relevance to the need for whites to maintain superiority. Gideon is the one case that orchestrated the public defenders office throughout the nation; however, is Gideon being kept up to constitutional standards in modern day America? I think not! Indigent offenders who are overwhelmingly black still do not have access to effective council; Strickland v Washington (1984) clearly is a case that has long come about after Gideon and still blacks are not awarded with a fair fight in court. To go a little deeper how can an indigent offender challenge so called forensic expert testimony if he/she doesn’t have the resources to do so? I challenge anyone to find a case whereby an indigent offender was awarded such access? As result, of these disparities statistics are used to further dismantle any positive image blacks can possibly have in America. In the U.S and sadly even abroad it is almost customary to label blacks as criminals and possible convicts. This silliness became sanctioned by the U.S Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Now by mere speculation and alleged suspicion, a black man who has already been labeled as a criminal can now be stopped without a sense of probable cause being present. As a result, blacks are disproportionately unprotected by the fourth amendment. Blacks were probably slightly treated better during Jim Crow and the Black Codes. What allows this to happen one might ask, my response would be social-capitalism and racism.

It is the need for one group to remain falsely superior to another. This hypocrisy can readily be seen when it comes to drug distribution and usage. Study after study has shown that whites account for more drug usage than blacks yet blacks are labeled as the kings and queens of drugs—unbelievable! Let’s not even touch on economic injustice. When blacks were freed, were they freed with any capital? How were they supposed to set up shop and maintain prosperity? This is precisely why economic poverty exists so widespread for so many blacks in the U.S. Unlike whites blacks didn’t have a chance to inherent prosperity from their families. Yet some whites feel superior when it comes to having more riches than others, well of course you can when you have limited the capacity for others to compete and be on the level of yourself. These types of things are done to maintain the highest level of superiority. Separation agents however, are gravely needed in order to give off the illusion of superiority and inferiority, these separation agents are justified via statistics or other various forms of academia and mind control techniques. This superiority is of course mental, because if others were given the opportunity to truly compete for a joyous life, we would find that everyone else can be successful and economically sufficient as well. We will find that there truly isn’t a difference in race and success. Suddenly we would find children in the inner city daring to dream, and then reaching those dreams after college or diligent training. Success for all people will blossom so far it would shed light in space and beyond.

For the second portion of this essay, the question was asked, is racism a form of indirect genocide? Let’s examine the inner cities of America and the condition in which the victims of social-capitalism find themselves. They find themselves held up in captivity and born into circumstances that are completely out of their control, and with their collective future already decided for them. Some will become murderers, druggies, drug dealers, repeat offenders, etc. Criminologists that are sympathetic to the struggles of the lower caste in America are almost readily excluded from the overall conversation on crime control. This is of course done to maintain white superiority, and to stomp out all sociological reasons for crime, because under white supremacy it is only the legalistic definition of crime that matters, which is of course written by majority white legislative bodies. As a result, of being forced against the wall, inner cities turn into battlefields of hate, incapacitation, deprivation, and degradation; with teenagers living lives well beyond their age and comprehension. Organizing is almost inevitably non-existent due to social strain and other associated forms of ANOMIE. Consequently, gangs become the determined power force in many of these communities and because they’re unable to turn against the common enemy which is the power structure they indeed begin to kill off each other. The love and respect for life is readily expunged from the minds of those innocent victims of racism as they are forced to turn against each other for the grab of the last crumb dropped from the powerful gates of capitalism. This form of destruction was labeled a case of indirect genocide by scholars Robert Johnson and Paul Leighton in their powerful article titled, “Black Genocide? Preliminary Thoughts On the Plight of America’s Poor Black Men”. This can indeed be true, due to the simple fact that the U.S govt tolerates the fact that blacks are killing each other off in its own inner cities. Instead of trying to intervene in meaningful ways, the govt sits back and adopt harder criminal codes that will not only punish these victims of racism further but also return them to society with a vendetta. It is indirect genocide each and every time this society sits by and allows people to be consumed by their negative circumstances. It is indeed indirect genocide each and every time there are no resources around to help uplift those from disadvantaged neighborhoods. Yes, it is also indirect genocide each and every time blacks are attacked by the prison industrialization complex and forced to work within the prison on slave wages. It is also indirect genocide when women and men are snatched from their families and sent to jail off of non violent offences, which ultimately puts their children at risk for juvenile delinquency, which ultimately sends them on their path to a robust criminal career, thus labeling the entire family inherently criminal. Breaking families up is somewhat reminiscent to the days of slavery. The fact is simple the social and economic policy that is directed at those who are without in this country is nothing short of genocide in stealth. When we look at what racism is and why it exists, clearly we know that it can only be labeled as a mental illness. A mental illness that is passed down from generation to generation and of course a mental illness that has yet to be discovered. It is a mental illness whose victims or drones ignore the progressions of others, they seeks to rationalize the social disembowelment of cultures and identities that are not their own. So long as things are going their way, they’re ok! They don’t have time to share and recognize the beauty and capacity in others. White racists get off on the need of seeing other people suffer; it is like a trigger that gives them a mental orgasm, it is like there is a appetite for torturing embedded therein. Racism is a mental illness that robs the mind of its ability to function properly, while rendering its victims into an unknown form of evilhood and eventual self destruction. This mental illness leads to the destruction of others, the pillaging, dehumanization, and exploitation of others, all while the victims of this illness wait to self destruct when all else has been defeated. Quite frankly, if there weren’t others around for the victims of this mental illness to attack, they would divide themselves and destroy each other, for all they know is war and destruction. The time has come for white anti racists to stand up and teach their fellow mates how to overcome this mental illness. They must learn to embrace people of all colors, cultures, and identities. The truth must be told to them, for it is indeed the truth that shall set them free!

Albeit there is a black man in the Whitehouse, the fact still remains that on the eve of the destruction of this great empire, separation agents still linger on undetected and undefined. Tea partiers around the nation are standing up to let their colors be shown. The GOP, a party that once represented something good has now become a safe haven for white supremacists and mercenaries of divide and capitalism. Many of them have yet to realize the fact that the enemy is indeed those who profit the most off of such divide. They fail to realize that they’re no better than anyone else. It is fear, the fear that is embedded within the mental illness they are inherently born to attain—racism. Just as blacks and other minorities are victims to their destructive behavior, so are they indeed victims to a mental condition that has been long survived by the help of the state. Yes, racism is a state sponsored mental illness. I call this condition the Jean Syndrome. Jean is a character from Xmen and in an Xmen movie called; “The Last Stand” Jean became extremely destructive, killing everyone in sight even those who were mutants like herself. This was due to a strong mental personality disorder, whereby at times she would become herself (good natured) and then something evil. This can easily be seen in real time, for instance, how whites who are sympathetic to minorities are labeled by white racists for wanting to help. The history of white abolitionists can be revisited to see this harsh truth. In modern day times whites who seem to be sympathetic to minorities are readily labeled as Marxists, liberals or socialists just because they believe in equality for all. Also within the movie “The Last Stand,” a cure was found to “correct” mutants and bring them into mainstream society. This can be seen as a representation of people assimilating into white society while leaving their own cultural make up behind in order to be falsely liked by those who are falsely superior. Racism teaches the targeted groups to hate themselves and to feel half human. The disease of racism must be destroyed, for it poses a great harm not only to its victims but even to those who benefit form it. For all of the reasons mentioned above I have no choice but to label racism a form of mental illness and indirect genocide. I can go on and on but what says you?!

Tuesday, March 2, 2010


On March 4th 2010 there will be a cause of GLOBAL ACTION against the budget cuts within higher education in the public sector. Many of the proposed budget cuts that sadly seem inevitably unbreakable in some districts will directly impact those who are apart of the working class, and predominantly those who are of color. It is indeed a very sad day in America when our government literally seeks rationalize the act of theft against higher education. Essentially, by choosing to cut funding from higher ed our government is thus stealing from the minds of current students as well as those students who will be forthcoming. Intellectual theft is one of the harshest crimes against humanity. A person who is excluded from being able to think, learn, and interact intellectually, is a indeed of victim of a vicious system of forced incapacitation, greed, and the worst of all hatred known to man. This very same act can be reviewed by looking at the educational system in America prior to Brown v Board of Ed (1954). It was a systemic achievement to blockade young people of color from achieving their highest potential academically. Forcing them to be satisfied with a low quality education, while whites went on to private or higher leveled public institutions, which gave them preferential treatment over children of color. Sadly, this pattern of degradation that Brown v. Board of Ed (1954) clearly exhibited infected institutions of higher learning as well, and thus the existence of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) started to proliferate around the nation. This gave off a clear indication that blacks were not willing to sit down and allow whites to tell them they cannot learn, however, disparities in funding between predominantly white institutions (PWIs) and HBCUs were instant and inevitable, this can still be seen today.

The fact is simple, there is a war going on against Public Higher Ed in America. There is no longer a need by politicians to invest money into the leaders/scholars of tomorrow. As a result, those who have more to lose oftentimes will be hit the hardest. Private institutions will continue to receive funding although they will indeed most likely remain the highest priced schools. However, when the price of a public institution is nearly as high as those that are private, that should be seen as a huge disservice to the public and especially to the working class people who work extremely hard to achieve academic and economic success. The only thing I can conclude from the budget cuts is that we are slowly but surely slipping back into de facto segregation similar to times reminiscent of Jim Crow and prior to. People of color who are underrepresented as it is with degrees will begin to drop out, as their need to work more to pay for competing bills will become more important than continuing on with their education. The lack of good dedicated professors will begin to diminish, since talks of eradicating tenure from out of public higher ed is also said to be on the table in several states. Parents will have to file for bankruptcy as a result of paying for their children’s education and threatened with the possibility of being induced into homelessness. All of this while banks flourish in profits and while private institutions continue on to receive private and public grants over public institutions due to the eventual inability for public schools to compete. Overwhelming class sizes and lack of one on one time with professors will also diminish the capacity of public institutions to produce quality programs and students. Again, this is all reminiscent to the educational system my ancestors had to endure, being black in America before Brown v Board (1954). The question must be asked to all people in this day and age; were their marches in vain? Were their giant efforts in ensuring equality for all nothing more than a contract that would end in 2010? On March 4th 2010, it is time for everyone to stand up and have your voice be included. Say no to the privatizing of essential university functions! Say no to those politicians where our words fall on death ears!! Say no to the banks that are looking at a lovely pay day as a result of higher tuition!! Say no to the military and prison industrialization complex. Above all, say no to de facto segregation in Higher Ed!! The revolution has been initiated by the other side, what says you?!

Saturday, February 20, 2010


Before Black History Month closes out I would like to address yet another topic pertaining to the Black plight in America. The term angry black man/woman has been used quite a bit in different white supremacist societies and the question is, why? I, as a black man have never really been called that term by someone of my own race, yet for some reason the term is still used heavily by other members within society. My one and only question to those who believe in those terms is, why and what constitutes one being an “angry” black man or woman? In my own research the term generally means a black man/woman who “complains” too much about racism or societal inequalities. Also, a black man/woman whom is considered too stuck up or confrontational.

Why is it that every time a black person speaks about his/her experience in America they’re labeled as unpatriotic or even worst ungrateful (wtf)? This same technique was tried on Michelle Obama on the behalf of the right when she stated, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” that was said after her husband Barack was elected president! The right immediately began to attack her, while never asking why she spoke out such words. What is the fixation by non-blacks to label blacks who speak upon their experiences or who critiques this nation angry black men/women? Do these people not break down the validity to what the alleged angry black man/woman is saying, or is it another way to marginalize people based on their “foreign” culture or life experiences? Everyone does not grow up the same way in America; there are loads of social barriers to prove that. Something isn’t clear about this technique; to me it is an attempt to discount the fact that blacks are living human beings with a story to tell just as anyone else. Stop using the term and instead listen and if necessary refute! Everyone’s experience and history has a right to be heard. The only history people are taught in K-12 is white American history, yet people are expected NOT to complain about that. The only thing blacks are taught about themselves during K-12 is that they were nothing more than a damn slave! Yet when the truth is told they’re labeled angry, yea ok!

Nuff said!

Friday, February 19, 2010


There seems to be a huge misinterpretation on what crime is in many of the judicial systems throughout the world, however, this is primarily due to the way in which different governments have chosen to define crime. When it comes to the U.S, crime is defined legalistically. Our criminal code is written and made into law by legislators. It is the duty of the legislator to define right and wrong and somehow fit it into the system of laws. In our system of law there are two types, statutory and case law. Again, statutory law is law that have been passed by legislatures and placed in the state criminal code or federal criminal code and case law stands for how judges interpret law. Certain policy is set by the courts as well, when it comes to cases where possible policy may need to be reexamined (Plessy v. Ferguson). Once the law is interpreted it becomes the basis for legal rulings in future cases (stare decisis).

Crime in the U.S must be an intentional act. In our system there is something called mens rea and actus reas. To be convicted of crime the State must prove both. It has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mens rea deals with the state of mind, while actus reas stands for the actual act. In the U.S system of laws one must have committed some act to be found guilty of a crime. Under the U.S system if you’re found guilty of violating the law then you’re “legally guilty.” I use the term legally guilty, because once a person is convicted according to law, then they’re guilty based on law and only law, nothing else. However, defining crime within legalistic terms can have devastating setbacks on society or certain members of society. Under this system it is very easy for disparities to come about and grow without a care, because people are more concerned with the legalistic definition than the sociological definitions of crime, which are studied by criminologists. The legal academy, although it tries its best to define crime within the context of law, race, and other sociological factors, they fail miserably at getting their points across due to the simple fact that they’re unable to travel outside of the legal field. Therefore, although they may write amazing articles on certain setbacks in the law, there will be certain key sociological factors missing. When it comes to legal scholars such as Paul Butler and Michelle Alexander we find that they’ve been quite successful in borrowing from the field of criminology, a unique branch of sociology to help make their profound points within their writings.

However, the vast majority of legal scholars are extremely oblivious to the field of criminology and because of that other key factors are not heard. Lawyers are in many ways synonymous with politics, and if they’re going to write on a certain issue pertaining to the law and injustice one would at least hope they’re covering all parts of the problem, but that is not the case! The courts are extremely guilty of ignoring sociological evidence. Even where evidence is presented that is overwhelming such as in the US Supreme Court decision death penalty case, McClesky v Kemp (1987), the court returns to legalistic arguments. Here the high Court was provided huge amounts of the very best statistical evidence (The Baldus study) that showed that black defendants were much more likely to be sentenced to death compared to white defendants even though the crime was the same. The US Supreme Court simply said, that even though the statistics show this pattern, in this particular case of McClesky’s appeal, he had to show specifically that he was discriminated against. The courts in short, follow legalistic arguments, not sociological.

This is precisely why racial injustice continues to exist within the court system, due to the lack of the sociological perspective being included within the writing of law. It is as though the field of criminology exists for its health. The only way to combat racial injustice in the US is to combine the two academies together. We need the best legal and criminology scholars to come together and conduct research and publishing. This is the only way to truly influence politicians on making change. Society as well, must be educated on defining crime. People must know that law on the books are written by fellow human beings whom in many cases are biased, due to party politics and they may not have your best interest in hand if you’re indeed a targeted group. When we look at the history blacks have had in the US when it comes to law enforcement it is more than clear to cite that they’re a targeted group. The field of criminology and sociology collectively, has a ton of scholarly information showcasing this sad reality, yet legislators continue to draft up law that blatantly discriminate against blacks, totally showing their ignorance to the possible effects of their bills. The prison system is comprised mostly of blacks. The public defender office, which is overburdened with cases is almost all the time utilized by poor blacks, so much for Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).

The fact is simple; law defined within legalistic terms will always be a threat to society if the field of criminology is readily ignored time and time again. Problems of injustice cannot be fixed unless the courts finally start to acknowledge the fact that all crime has a sociology to it that must be acknowledged. The courts must begin to acknowledge offenders’ socio-economical status as a possible factor to crime. It is also wise for the courts to start acknowledging one’s psycho-sociological status as well. These factors with a host of many others are covered within the field of criminology all the time, yet they receive no utilization from legislators or the legal academy. If there are loads of black men being jailed for drug offenses, the more proper approach would be to have a criminologist investigate the issue and then immediately following his findings politicians/lawyers would take those findings under consideration, and then a possible law will be drafted into a bill and voted on. Although that may sound like common sense, our current system doesn’t follow it and therefore crime continues to grow and disparities go through the roof.

This is why I ague that the rule of law is a joke. The rule of law is what the majority wants it to be, and under our system of legalistic crime, the impacts of certain crimes are not seen as important, only the amounts of those convicted, however this was not the case during prohibition when those impacted negatively were majority white. It is easy to conclude with the help of history that unless the law impact whites negatively, nothing will never come about to help those who are non-white. The only hope left is to see both academies (criminology and legal) combine together to fight off injustice. In order to truly define crime, every possible attributing factor to crime must be factored in, especially when it comes to the poor. Crime committed by those up the economic ladder is readily dismissed as frivolous acts not worthy of criminalization. According to government statistics and scholarly research, the poor is disproportionately affected by crime, therefore the law isn’t protecting or helping the poor. Incarcerating someone for his lack of being able to provide for himself is one of the biggest crimes of humanity, and the US government engages in that crime on a daily basis by ignoring the grave importance of the field of criminology. But as the saying goes, history inevitably repeats itself if people do not learn from their prior mistakes, on the other hand with the history of blacks being terrorized by the State, one must ask if the law will ever be written with their welfare in mind?

Tuesday, February 16, 2010


This note is basically an add on to something my good friend Melissa Smith has stated under one of my posts to another contributor during a debate. However before I copy and paste her commentary within this note I first want to go over what I feel a superiority complex is. In America and abroad there is something called White Supremacy, which breeds a certain kind of superiority onto Whites who actually believe in it. If we were to scan America and its history in terms of how the White race has maintained its place at the top it would be clear to anyone with common sense that this was done with the help of racism, which as Nikki stated is used as a tool to maintain their power at the top. However in order for such a tool to actually work, the notion of superiority must be believed by all or by enough people. For example, before Brown v. Board of Ed and Plessy v Ferguson the notion of feeling less than had to be imbedded within Black folks to justify the separate but equal treatment. This is best done when racism is included, I.E the fallacy that Blacks are retarded or slow learners and therefore different than Whites when it comes to learning. Although Plessy v Ferguson gave off a lovely victory, disparities still exist today in education, thus some would conclude that we have defacto segregation within our school system today. In addition, because of our defacto segregation in education today, the numbers show as they once did back in History that Whites are achieving at much higher rates than Blacks, which again forces Blacks to wear the badge of inferiority just as their forbearers. However this doesn’t mean the slightest bit that Blacks are inferior to Whites when it comes to education, because the actual problem is based in the quality of education not one’s capacity to learn. The numbers also show that school districts that are mostly filled with people of color receive less funding than those schools that are positioned in suburbia, which is undoubtedly reminiscent to the days of Separate but Equal.

But I wrote all of that to ask the following: Is the superiority complex that many whites hold (not all) just a mental construct? After all the way in which things are set up, are done in a specific manner to give off such numbers that feed into their need to feel superior. For instance, if you want to label Blacks drug dealers then set up laws and put Blacks in a position whereby your labeling will come into fruition, labeling theory tells us this. Is this false sense of superiority just something in their minds? Can they not see reality? Why is it that stats are used to counter common sense question such as these but yet they’re rarely used to actually solve the very issues they claim to point out? In point of fact, it is clear that locking people up for selling drugs isn’t fixing the problem, so why have we not come to other solutions, such as sending those types of offenders to problem solving courts, or better yet actually putting opportunities in drug oriented neighborhoods that will deter the young men of color from engaging in drug dealing? It seems to me that things are set up in such a way as to preserve the superiority complex that many Whites have long been accused of having since the birth of this nation. Sadly, as a result of being labeled less than, many non-whites begin to adhere to their lower-casted status of being subhuman and non-deserving of the same joyfulness in life as Whites, and thus fall into the trap of becoming the many negative things that have been set up for them to become. It is no coincidence that there is such a high level of Black men in prison, for their destiny has already been determined long before birth. In closing, I will copy and paste Melissa Smith’s UNEDITED comment, PLS ANSWSER, is it accurate, does she slightly have a point, or is it an outright lie?

Melissa Smith::
Patrick said : "Whatever isn't "normal" can seem threatening."
EXACTLY!!!!!!! And don't you get it??? I have ALWAYS been the "norm" as a white girl!! I am barbie. I am June Cleaver. I am Jackie Kennedy. I am Betsy Ross. I am Jane from the Dick and Jane books. I am Cinderella. I am one who wears "skin colored" bandaids, and they match! I am 80% of ... See Moreour nation's educators. I am Jennifer Aniston. I am "the girl next door"...... This country made WHITE the norm!!! THat's the point!! So white people always think black isn't the norm, latina isn't the norm, cuz WE are the norm! We are the standard to which others are measured! We were born to know this, to believe this.... And we inherently believe this norm to be true, and other norms to be "less than".... THAT'S racism.

What says you folks?????

Tuesday, February 9, 2010


So it is Black History month but yet there seems to be a silence upon it. Nobody is really saying much about it and now the U.S for some reason feels as though it is in the age of colorblindness for some reason. We have a Black president whom to quote from Dr Dyson, “Runs from race more than a brother running from the police” and this Black president as he proclaimed himself to be has yet to acknowledge any of the problems that affect Blacks negatively at disproportionate rates. This president is having a summit on health care, yet he continuously fail to introduce to the table conversations on crime and race, housing and race, and other issues that we know to be problems in the Black community. When will this president grow the courage to attack these historical problems in the Black community? To throw a bone to the right he doesn’t even have to label the issue with race. He can easily just announce it as a conversation, a summit, or a discussion. Him just speaking on a certain issue can have a dramatic effect on a possible outcome, why has he yet to be as courageous as MLK, a person whom most whites like to associate with him although he is nowhere near MLK’s legacy. MLK was far from a coward and he spoke up for what he knew to be truth.

With Obama being in office there is a huge case of colorblindness. People suddenly believe that there are no longer racial tensions in America. Barack being elected allegedly proves that White Supremacy is no longer an issue, when the numbers still show Whites being the least impacted by almost every “negative” thing in society that can paint them a bad picture. But nevertheless Barack is the proof that Blacks have a fair share and everything is equal to now. I am confused because in one breath Blacks are equal and all is ok and then in the next breath we have to put up with manufactured or real statistics that paints us in a negative light thus showing that things are obviously unequal and not ok. Barack getting into the white house is essentially his own accomplishment and not an accomplishment that should be generalized to all Blacks. Yes he is a Harvard educated lawyer, but the masses of Blacks are being weeded out of Law School admission due to the LSAT’s and other discriminatory practices, yet folks don’t wish to talk about that huh? Yes some will get through, due to having the resources to do so, but is that a fair assessment? How the hell do we expect to make the legal profession or any other equally important profession representative to all people in the U.S if we continue on with practices that are CLEARLY hindering that process?

Now of course there is still more time for him to act, however the fact still remains that he is now a year in and he has yet to acknowledge any major problems to alleviate Blacks from the bondage in which they find themselves. Michelle is guilty of the same charge, and so is congress. Senator Buriss is the only standing Black senator in congress, and once his term is up, which is extremely soon, there will be NO Black senators in the American Congress, yet we believe that we’re in a colorblind society. This government and this society are despicable!! Each and every time Black History month comes around they have an opportunity to make change and have it matter the most to those who desperately need change, and yet they pass it up time and time again. To add insult to injury we now have an actual Black president with the majority of Congress on his side and even with that nothing have been even remotely acknowledged. This is a major catastrophe to many Blacks who feel as though they’ve voted for change! Barack Obama didn’t receive over 80% of the Black vote for no reason, many Blacks felt as though he would actually make a change in the system, so that things can be a bit more easier for them. For example, the hundreds of thousands of Black men who are arrested and can no longer live a proper life. How about the Black young adults who voted for him so that their fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers can get a second chance and their families’ can stay intact. How about the middle school and high school kids who campaigned and held up his signs so that their schools can perform just a tad bit better. Why aren’t these issues being singled out and acknowledged, after all they EXIST yes they EXIST!! Why do those on the right and some on the left wish to act as though they don’t exist. Why is there this pseudo culture of colorblindedness further depressing issues that needs immediate looking in to? His presidency means much more to Blacks than any other race of people within the U.S and to see him blatantly ignore Black issues is something most conscious folk can’t even began to fathom. Other presidents have acknowledged problems that have been disproportionately attached to Blacks why can’t president Obama? People like to fall back on Lincoln who was a bigot and the Civil Rights Acts, yet when we look at incarceration rates we see that Blacks are hardly free. Tim Wise has a new book coming out in May titled, “Color Blind Barack Obama, Post-Racial Liberalism and the Retreat from Racial Equity” I can only hope that his book will somehow put into motion the buzz that is needed to force this President to act. How many progressive Blacks have been invited to the Whitehouse? NONE!

In closing, I would like to state that Blacks are equally citizens just like everyone else with needs that must be addressed. The historical record clearly shows that certain issues Blacks are faced with are nothing close to surprising in this nation. The emergence of these Tea Parties is a clear testament to that. Anyone that would suppose otherwise is clearly in denial. Barack Obama thus far has failed the many Black American leaders that came before him. But then again he isn’t a descendent of slaves either; perhaps this is a reason why? To those Whites who are bigots perhaps there is a difference in threat levels between Black Americans whose ancestors were slaves and those who don’t fit into that genre. Why are we so afraid to acknowledge the mistreatment of Blacks in this allegedly free nation? America is extremely phony for celebrating prior Black leaders knowing damn well that our progress is being purposely delayed. Throwing a bone to Blacks isn’t fixing issues that literally put them back into the Jim Crow era and that includes the electing of Barack Obama. Don’t throw a damn bone and think that will suddenly solve the issues. Petty ass apologies and phony ass speeches are not what is needed the issues must be attacked directly, why are some so afraid to do that? With Obama being the president, do you guys think Black History has lost its buzz to a slight degree? What says you?

Friday, February 5, 2010


As I began to take notice to the extensive conversation that was taking place under my last note on “Societal values and the law” A thought came to mind; a thought in the form of a question, “Anarchy or government?” To what extent are those who are excluded from government recognition are willing to continue on with the current system? When will those who have been excluded finally break away from the system? There seems to be a heavy need for defiance against the system for some, but the question is why don’t they rebel? What is it about this current system whereby some folk are actually being oppressed rather than being included? The Civil Rights Acts were supposed to bring Black Americans into mainstream involvement, however, the broader question to that alleged goal is simple, can that be seen today? Are Black Americans truly apart of mainstream society? How many of them own houses in the suburbs and are actually making it to levels in this society that has been historically unseen. What are the demographics looking like in terms of state and federal congresses—something isn’t right! How about law school and graduate school admissions? As my favorite legal scholar Michelle Alexander would say, this is The New Jim Crow age. However, surprisingly, the act of being left out of government can now be directed to all members of this society, the Patriot Act being the number one reason to that.

Is it better to chose anarchy over government? After all, suffering has been instinctively attached to some persons within this society and only a present thing for others, and even though certain laws were passed to fix such suffering, the suffering remains alive. Will there ever be a change, or will the system continue to go through periods of backwards evolutionary change to give off a visual effect of change, while never succeeding with the actual change that is needed to rectify the mishaps. After boundlessly seeing the failure of the system to commit to change, one may seek to adopt the concept of anarchy. At least under anarchy he isn’t bound to rules made up by another. He isn’t a slave to a system in which he has no say so within. There are no structural barriers in place that purposely have him in bondage while the rhetoric is that he is indeed free. When a person’s back is against the wall and the very system that claims to protect him is holding him back what choices does he have? Although anarchy may appear to be uncivilized to most, to many others the grass on the other side is much greener compared to the usual. To the readers who may be reading this note the question for you is clear, anarchy, government or other?

Thursday, February 4, 2010


As I sat on the phone chit chatting with a very good friend of mine about societal values and law, she and I came to an abrupt halt within our conversation, when I asked the question, “To what extent do we separate religious and/or bias values from neutral values that can be added into the discussion on developing law?” This is a very unique question on almost every debate that would be within the realm of domestic policy. For example, if one were to focus on gay rights, oftentimes the right would shout homosexuality is against God, even though there may be some homosexuals that may be agnostic, atheist, or a different type of Christian. Perhaps some homosexuals believe that their God accepts them. This can also be recognized in the debate on abortion. Usually conservatives are quick to say abortion is too against God. Yes, both sides have an exclusive right to have their voices heard; however, where do we as a civil society draw the line between what is to be considered neutral and what is to be considered a “self value”. Self value meaning a belief that should be limited to just the person who believes. In modern day this would play out like the following: Rhetoric on God being against homosexuals would have no value in the overall debate on gay marriage. Why, because all gays don’t believe the same way. Some may believe in God but not in the way in which how others who are against them do. Therefore the suitable response to “self valued” beliefs would be: your stance can only be limited to those of like belief. I say this because it isn’t fair to exclude certain civil liberties from those who may not believe the same way as others, and therefore, the philosophy behind “societal values” would have to be examined to a much higher magnitude in order to ensure that the eventual law and/or conclusion is fair to all parties. By doing so we ensure the process of democracy and give everyone their fair shares in the discussion. This exact same technique can also be applied to abortion, because there are differing views even within that discussion. There are many different standards of morality also if one were to examine it on a much deeper philosophical level, but these things should be acknowledged to say the least. Neutral values would be beliefs that everyone readily share and are practical for participation within the discussion. For example, mostly everyone would be against murder; also the rationale behind being against murder is easily accessible and understood thus making it logical stance.

Overall, in order to ensure a proper orchestration and implementation of law via the process of democracy we must make sure that everyone’s voice is heard and examined in a highly intellectualized manner. Stances that are not of logic cannot be included; stances that attempt to take civil liberty away from others due to their color, creed, or sexual orientation must also be excluded from the debate. Sadly, one would think Congress actually operates in this manner but the truth is that they don’t. Congress on a daily basis fails to recognize the differing life styles and beliefs of people in America when they’re making law and instead only vote in reference to their personal core beliefs. The constitution guarantees everyone a voice in this land, and that basic right must be rebirthed. The only way in which to bring forth the rebirth of our right to be heard, we must push through a process upon which legislators may use to prevent certain people voices from being disregarded. Congress will have to give extensive viable reasons on why they voted the way they did and this must be mandated. With the presence of too many interest groups and other entities that seem to have more control than the average citizen with a voice, there is a dire need of some form of regulation on the legislative process. By only allowing intellectual stances to be included in the debates and within the writing of law, we can prevent many forms of injustice and errors within the law

With that being said, I ask again folks, to what extent do we separate religious and/or bias values from neutral values that can be added into the discussion on developing law? There has to be a mechanism put in place that will properly define what law is and why we have it. There must also be a broader discussion on how to implement the needs of everyone in an effective manner so that people don’t feel wronged. If we are to be a land where everyone is allegedly heard then this must be done. Although it is said that we have such a process already, the harsh reality is that we don’t! Therefore, I personally move to bring forth a directive that will effectively regulate all actions of congress in stricter terms. What the legislative process needs is efficiency; this cannot be achieved with that which we currently have. To what extent do we separate religious and/or bias values from neutral values that can be added into the discussion on developing law? Most laws that came about and were based out of religious belief failed miserably, i.e. prohibition, which was pushed with religious rhetoric. Do you agree with my plan or do you have a different plan? Or do you feel the system is fine as is?

Saturday, January 9, 2010


Many people oftentimes consider Black Americans to automatically hate cops. They say that Black Americans are inherently un-American but yet never seem to produce the reasoning behind why some African Americans tend to have unpopular views about America. This is equivalent to my last post on, “why become a terrorist”. Americans are quick to outcast people who do not agree with the status quo. Let’s be frank, there is a subtext even to the status quo that all parties and non-Black people in America agree with. On certain racial issues, Whites from all political parties will tend to agree. They will more likely than not agree with the notion that all is fair now, that equal opportunity exist notwithstanding the fact that the results are not matching up. Equal opportunity without equal results means no change.

When we began to examine the history of policing as it relates to Blacks, immediately we’re quenched to revisit the southern style of policing, which at best was nothing more than the slave catcher. Everyone knows the duty of the slave catcher. The slave catcher was a sign of oppression and a representative of the establishment that reminded the runaway of that badge of slavery embedded within the fabric of their very person. The slave catcher’s duty was to maintain the most precious profitable property of the south, which were the slaves. When we compare that to the Northern style policing, which most areas throughout the U.S now have, we still see a sign of oppression, humiliation, and manipulation. Blacks were still being subject to harsh and extreme levels of human rights violations. They were still the subject and symbol of the lawbreaker, the native terrorist who must be contained. There were always scares of Blacks possibly revolting and the establishment knew this.

Let’s go over a brief vague history if we may. When we examine the legacy of freedom for the coloreds in America, we must first begin to take notice to the 13th amendment, which gave Blacks their freedom and rights to exist solely as native born Americans. Although it was heavily noted, that government officials did not recognize the 13th Amendment when it came to Blacks, it was still indeed the first major step to granting Blacks full citizenship. Then sadly, to combat the 13th Amendment, the Black Codes were more forcibly enforced, which limited all movement of Blacks, which made it virtually impossible for Blacks to enjoy their newly granted freedom. The orchestration of the first draconian law against Blacks known as “Pigs Law,” which has been nearly cut out of history, came into fruition as well. Pigs Law imprisoned young Black men at highly disproportionate rates just for “stealing domestic animals” (primarily pigs) on the grounds of basic survival. Due to not being able to move about much (Black Codes), Blacks acted under extreme desperateness to seek food. To combat Pigs Law and the Black Codes, the 14th Amendment came into existence, which gave Blacks equal protection under the law. However, even after that Jim Crow was established, which brings us up to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, which pretty much abolished all possible forms of discrimination, or so we think. Throughout all of these battles, however, it was the police that maintained the order and the discrimination that was bestowed onto Black Americans. Therefore, the unanimous perception that Blacks have on police, is indeed a perception of historical presence and meaning. There is no question of police practices today still mimicking some of the actions that police engaged in during the past, whether that be within the sixties or during slavery. A colleague of mine Christine Bell actually believes that the distain towards police by Blacks may even be somehow genetic, given its historical context. Bell argues that just the mere presence of an officer triggers a negative reaction in the mind of the Black individual. Some scholars within the field of psychology and psychiatry have argued that there is a mental defect that Blacks have in American society when it comes to the power government has over them. (See: Cobbs and Grier, Black Rage)

Blacks are still disproportionately denied of their civil rights. They still continue to fight for equal protection under the law, and just their simple birth right to exist with the color of their skin. Disparities continue to rise at astronomical rates, while police work double time to maintain “order”. It is clear by the number of Blacks imprisoned, that things aren’t much different from when the Pig Laws were in effect. The prevalent practice of racial profiling by police makes it quite clear that the Black Codes are still here. Court cases on malpractice of police involving criminal procedure issues make it quite clear that the passing system in its fullest context still lives on today. The passing system mandated that slaves caught without the proper paper work can be readily whipped; well today Blacks are readily shot dead, while their family receives no justice—where is the difference? All of these policies/laws are written and brainstormed by politicians primarily from the dominant society, and just like back in history, the police are still the defenders of those ideas. Therefore, when people speak on the validity of Blacks having a bad perception against cops, they must first stop and ask why. People shouldn’t be so quick to label the situation something other than what it actually is. Look through the history and ask what good have the police ever done for Blacks in America? Yes it is easy to say they’re just doing their job, however, they too have a conscious, and the right to choose not to engage in such action. The day must come, whereby everyone’s experiences and history will be acknowledged and considered in the overall conversation on policing in America. Until such a day arrives, most Blacks will continue to see the modern police officer as nothing more than a reflection of his forbearers. Thus, the title of this post stands correct!