June 6, 2013
Rand Paul to Introduce Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013

the-anti-authoritarian:

letterstomycountry:

Senator Paul’s comments, from the article:

The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive’s expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party,” Sen. Paul said. “When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American’s constitutional rights. 

“The bill restores our Constitutional rights and declares that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause.”

Fuck Obama W. Bush, the First Nigger!

I waited a few minutes before reblogging this to see if the blogger above was going to re-think his/her remarks and take his post down.  He/she has not, which is disappointing.

This is an open letter to everybody who reads my blog: If you’re going to reblog one of my posts, kindly avoid calling Black people niggers.  I don’t appreciate it when someone uses something I post as an excuse to call a Black person a nigger.  It’s bush league, sophomoric, immature, in addition to being problematic for reasons that extend beyond the immediate discourse.  Obama’s racial identity has absolutely nothing to do with the misguided nature of his national security policies.  It is completely irrelevant.  Using a political disagreement—however profound—as an excuse to drop an N-bomb on a prominent Black person’s head says much more about the speaker than it does about the Black politician it’s directed against.  In that case, you are the person who’s making a bad decision.

Furthermore, the fallout for commentary like this is not limited to its speaker.  When you reblog something I’ve posted and add a racially charged, casually racist remark, you’ve created a permanent link on the internet that someone can visit, and see your remarks under something I’ve posted.  This creates a conceivable chance that a casual reader of your blog may think that you and I are on the same page regarding your “first nigger” commentary.  Unless, of course, I publicly respond by rejecting it.  So by reblogging my post and adding those remarks, you’ve made it necessary for me to create a public record repudiating the same. Unfortunately, this also means drawing public attention to your mistake so I can avoid being associated with your remarks, which I imagine will probably lead to unwanted attention for you, since Tumblr is notoriously sensitive to this sort of thing.

So do me a favor, and please avoid calling Black people niggers if you’re going to reblog my posts.  I’m not going to sit idly by when people use the things I post as a springboard to spread racially charged filth without saying something about it.  You’re creating problems for me in addition to creating problems for yourself.  And I don’t appreciate the former.  Thanks.

11:18pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxmmTar7
(Notes: 56)
  
Filed under: politics race relations tumblr 
May 20, 2013
"According to an ongoing study conducted by Black Women’s Blueprint, sixty percent of Black girls have experienced sexual abuse before the age of 18. More than 300 Black women nationwide participated in the research project. A similar study conducted by The Black Women’s Health Imperative seven years ago found the rate of sexual assault was approximately 40%."

—

Brooke Axtell, Black Women, Sexual Assault, And The Art Of Resistance.

Also from the article:

There are many reasons why Black women may choose not to report incidences of sexual assault. Survivors of all races often fear that they will not be believed or will be blamed for their attack, but Black women face unique challenges.

Historically, law enforcement has been used to control African-American communities through brutality and racial profiling. It may be difficult for a Black woman to seek help if she feels it could be at the expense of African-American men or her community. The history of racial injustice (particularly the stereotype of the Black male as a sexual predator) and the need to protect her community from further attack might persuade a survivor to remain silent.

12:21pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxlQjkqN
(Notes: 18)
  
Filed under: politics race relations criminal law criminal justice sexual assault rape 
May 20, 2013
Malcolm X On Government, Racism, And Morality

As I was listening through some of Malcolm X’s speeches yesterday, I neglected to point out this particular gem, which is a fine example of Malcolm X’s amazing rhetorical prowess (at 1:30):

We don’t steal, we don’t gamble, we don’t lie, and we don’t cheat.  And that also deprives the government of revenue.  Because you can’t get into a whiskey bottle without getting past the government’s seal.  You can’t get into a deck of cards without getting past the government seal.  There, the White man makes the whiskey and then puts you in jail for getting drunk.  He sells you the cards and the dice and puts you in jail when he catches you using them.  So he’s against us, because we fix it where he can’t catch you anymore.  We take the dice out of your hands, and the cards out of your hands, and the whiskey out of your head.

Also, here is Malcolm X on the position of Black women in America, from the same speech:

The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman.  The most unprotected person in America is the Black woman.  The most neglected person in America is the Black woman.  And as Muslims, the honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us to respect our women, and to protect our women.  And the only time a Muslim really gets real violent is when someone goes to molest his woman.  We will kill you for our woman. …We believe that if the White man will do whatever is necessary to see that his woman gets respect and protection, then you and I will never be recognized as men, until we stand up like men and place the same penalty over the head of anyone who puts his filthy hands out in the direction of our women.

Clearly this discourse would be a bit problematic today, as traditional gendered notions of “male as protector” are not quite as prominent as they were back then.  Nonetheless, the vulnerability of Black women in the 1950’s and 60’s was real, and is still real today.  Malcolm X was then, as ever, unafraid to “make it plain” for those that would listen.

12:10pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxlQhHGL
(Notes: 14)
  
Filed under: politics malcolm x race relations 
May 19, 2013
Remembering Malcolm X

Today is Malcolm X’s birthday.  He would’ve been 88.  I wanted to take a moment to remember his contribution to the American civil rights movement.

Most people view Malcolm X as a manifestation of one side of the two biggest prongs of the civil rights movement.  On the one side, you had the likes of Martin Luther King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the NAACP, who preferred legislative engagement and non-violent resistance.  On the other side, you have Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party, who did not preach violence, but nonetheless asserted a right for Black citizens to defend themselves against any aggression, whether from private or official in nature.  Mixed somewhere in-between, you have folks like Stokely Carmichael and the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, which began as a community organizing outfit, but later became “radical,” protesting the Vietnam War and later changing its name to the Student National Coordinating Committee before falling out of existence in the 1970’s.

Malcolm X’s primary contribution to the civil rights movement was to give a voice to the frustration felt by every Black American during the 1950’s and 60’s.  He saw that the White stranglehold on the levers of power persisted despite years of non-violent struggle.  He saw that even moderate White liberals who claimed to support racial equality often wavered and waffled when it came to political action on behalf of the Black community.  His resistance to integration was scary to those who believed that it was a necessary step for racial progress.  But his resistance was based on a life lived in perpetual witness of constant indignity and political disappointment.  He also saw the contradictions that were constantly played out in the “White media,” as where the Nation of Islam was consistently accused of preaching racial hatred.  His infamous response before a crowd in Los Angeles in 1962 still resonates today:

Who taught you to hate the color of your skin?  Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair?  Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips?  Who taught you to hate yourself, from the top of your head to the soles of your feet?  Who taught you to hate your own kind?  Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to, so much so that you don’t want to be around each other?  No, before you come asking Mr. Muhammad does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you.

Malcolm’s response does not directly address the question of whether the Nation of Islam preached hate, but rather points out a fundamental problem with the question itself.  The question assumes, firstly, that there was no institutional aggression against Blacks, when clearly there was.  That institutional aggression was based in part on the legacy of Black inferiority that still infected American culture in the 1950’s and 60’s, which is what makes Malcolm’s response relevant.  Moreover, the question also assumes that like acts are being treated alike.  When Whites asserted the right to defend themselves from aggression, no unusual violent motivations were imputed to them.  But when Blacks asserted the same right, they were accused of inciting racial hatred and advocating violence.  Malcolm believed it was reprehensible to live in a world where Whites were free to use violence to defend themselves and their families, but Blacks must remain committed to non-violence.  Malcolm believed that this was simply a further perpetuation of the inequality of condition that defined race relations in America in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Even those sympathetic to Malcolm X don’t necessarily agree with everything he said.  But you don’t have to agree with all of it to recognize its importance.  Even when he was wrong, Malcolm X was still giving voice to the frustrations of countless Black citizens who were consistently abused in both private and official relations.  He is, unfortunately, unduly vilified in many “main stream” history textbooks, despite being an important voice in the civil rights movement.  His ideas had an enormous impact on public discourse.  He is worth remembering, worth listening to, and worth reading, especially for those who have not been exposed to his work.

4:12pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxlMhVs_
(Notes: 38)
  
Filed under: politics race relations malcolm x 
May 15, 2013
Charges dropped against Florida teen over amateur science experiment — MSNBC

Good to see the D.A. came to their senses.  This young woman never deserved to be treated this way.

9:35pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxl4dU5V
(Notes: 70)
  
Filed under: politics criminal law criminal justice race relations 
May 3, 2013
Buzzfeed: 27 Things You had To Deal With As The Only Black Kid In Your Class

This is a really excellent article, and you should read it, regardless of your racial identity.

11:35am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxk7QRdR
(Notes: 17)
  
Filed under: race relations 
March 7, 2013
"According to evidence recently accepted by the Supreme Court, a black man who kills a white is three times more likely to suffer the penalty of death than a white man who kills a white. A black man who kills a white is eleven times more likely to be slain by the state than a white man who kills a black. In my idealistic youth, this was known as racial discrimination or even racism. Now, says the majority on the Supreme Court, it is “a discrepancy that appears to correlate with race.” However, as the justices went on to say, such “apparent disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system.” If that last statement is true, it is rather a condemnation."

— Christopher Hitchens, The Nation, August 29, 1987 (via prettayprettaygood)

10:29pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxfmMrCc
(Notes: 1,246)
  
Filed under: politics race relations hitchens 
February 26, 2013
utnereader: Black is Beautiful: Why Black Dolls Matter As a little girl, Samantha Knowles didn’t stop to consider why most of her dolls—her American Girl dolls, her Cabbage Patch Kids, her Barbie dolls—were black like her. But black dolls were not common in her upstate New York hometown, whose population remains overwhelmingly white. So when Knowles was 8 years old, one of her friends innocently asked “Why do you have black dolls?” And she didn’t know quite what to say. Read more.

utnereader:

Black is Beautiful: Why Black Dolls Matter

As a little girl, Samantha Knowles didn’t stop to consider why most of her dolls—her American Girl dolls, her Cabbage Patch Kids, her Barbie dolls—were black like her. But black dolls were not common in her upstate New York hometown, whose population remains overwhelmingly white. So when Knowles was 8 years old, one of her friends innocently asked “Why do you have black dolls?” And she didn’t know quite what to say. Read more.

10:14pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxf5Nzqd
(Notes: 146)
  
Filed under: politics race relations 
February 13, 2013

unimpressed2chainz:

blackaudacity:

At the bracketed link, you’ll see the full interview with Rashida & Kidada Jones.  I really, really recommend everybody take the time to read it.  I can’t think of a better case study that demonstrates the social impact of being racialized as “White” or “Black.”  Two sisters, same parents, same genetic heritage, but because one of them has slightly darker skin and curly hair, and the other lighter skin & straight hair, they have completely different experiences growing up.  My heart broke reading some of the anecdotes from their childhood.

(via mohandasgandhi)

6:42pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxe55xGW
(Notes: 4,641)
  
Filed under: politics race relations rashida jones kidada jones 
February 13, 2013
Shooting Black Men

Back in February of 2005, Howard Morgan,  a Black detective with the Chicago PD, was shot 28 times by four White officers after they allegedly pulled him over for driving the wrong way down a one-way street.  Morgan was charged with attempted murder of the four officers in question, and was convicted.  He was sentenced last year to 40 years in prison.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in Morgan’s case.  For starters,  there were a number of missing puzzle pieces in the evidence:

Howard Morgan’s van was crushed and destroyed without notice or cause before any forensic investigation could be done.

…

Howard Morgan was never tested for gun residue to confirm if he even fired a weapon on the morning in question.

The State never produced the actual bullet proof vest worn by one of the officers who claimed to have allegedly taken a shot directly into the vest on the morning in question. The State only produced a replica.

Second, according to a web page set up by Howard’s friends & family, an independent witness testified that Howard never fired his weapon.

Third, Morgan was tried back in 2007 and acquitted on separate charges related to the same incident.  This creates a Double Jeopardy problem in Morgan’s case.  Even though Howard was acquitted on separate charges, the Double Jeopardy clause prevents the Government from re-litigating a case against the same Defendant involving facts found by a jury in a prior acquittal.  If this were not the case, prosecutors could essentially re-charge defendants for the same transaction or occurrence, over and over, trial after trial, in front of different juries, until one of the charges eventually stuck.  See Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (both appropriately cited by Howard’s web page).  Why the judge in Morgan’s second trial allowed these charges to be pressed is unclear.

No one appears to be sure what motive the White police officers would’ve had to gun down Howard in the absence of a threat.  What is known is that 21 of the shots that hit Howard entered through his back.  Morgan also appears to have been a veteran law enforcement official with over 20 years of experience, first as a Chicago officer, than as a Railroad officer with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.  As Morgan’s wife told the Sun Times, “Four white officers and one black Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad police man with his weapon on him — around the corner from our home — and he just decided to go crazy? No. That’s ludicrous[.]”

But if Howard’s first acquittal was based on a question of whether he fired his weapon, that would make it “a critical issue of ultimate fact in all of the charges against [him],” and “a jury verdict that necessarily decided that issue in his favor protects him from prosecution for any charge for which that is an essential element.”  Yeager, at 111.  Given that Howard was originally charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm, the jury’s acquittal on that charge would almost certainly preclude future prosecution on attempted murder charges.  While it’s not safe to speculate without seeing a transcript of the trial testimony, but I cannot see how the attempted murder charge could’ve possibly stuck in a second trial if the prior jury found that Morgan did not discharge his weapon—which would have estopped the Government from charging Howard with further crimes related to the shooting.

What is more likely at work here is another example of the Blue Wall protecting itself from scrutiny.  Perhaps one of the officers thought he saw Morgan make a threatening motion, got scared, and pull the trigger.  When they realized they screwed up (as the police often do when confronting unarmed Black men, much less those that are armed), they closed rank to protect themselves.  Indeed, that’s the story that was told by Morgan at his trial:

Morgan [says he] was pulled over for driving the wrong way on a one-way street near his home at 12:45 a.m. on February 21, 2005. Morgan said he was ordered out of his car and searched. Spotting Morgan’s holstered weapon, which he carried for his job at the railroad, a rookie officer shouted, “Gun!” At that point, according to Morgan, he became target practice and could not have returned fire.

Just as we shouldn’t trust the story of the White officers who shot Morgan, we shouldn’t necessarily trust Morgan’s side of the story either.  But the fact remains that the amount of relevant evidence that was held back by the CPD—which could have helped paint a clearer picture of what happened—is staggering.  The CPD destroyed the vehicle Howard was driving when he was pulled over.  They never produced the bulletproof vests worn by the officers to determine if any shots from Morgan’s gun had hit them.  Morgan’s trigger hand was never even tested for gun powder residue after the shooting to determine if he’d actually fired his weapon.  This is a standard forensic investigation technique that is performed routinely around the country, and yet it wasn’t done in Morgan’s case.  Add this all on top of the fact that independent witness says Howard did not fire his gun, 21 of the shots were fired into Howard’s back, and a previous jury acquitted Morgan of charges related to the shooting in 2007.  Based on the record alone, there is more than enough to suggest that Morgan is the victim here, not the four police officers who shot him 28 times.

But much like every other incident in which a “threatening” Black male is gunned down by trigger-happy police, the chances that the truth will come out in Morgan’s case are slim.  Based on the CPD’s behavior leading up to Morgan’s trial, they have everything to hide in this case.  Routine forensic tests were not done.  Evidence was destroyed.  And what we have here is just another case of the police gunning down a Black male in cold blood, and then doing everything in their power to cover up their mistakes.  

With any luck, Morgan will prevail on appeal, since the law appears to be on his side.  But given the infamous reluctance of state appellate courts to overturn jury verdicts, Morgan’s battle will be decidedly uphill.  Of course, that assumes he won’t die before-hand from the residual health effects of being shot 28 times.  But such is the audacity of hope, one could suppose.

2:13pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZMMjnxe3yWyX
(Notes: 18)
  
Filed under: politics police race relations chicago 
Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »