Friday, October 29, 2010

*UPDATE (VIDEO)* The Daily Show Rally To Restore Sanity (and/or fear) in Washington DC This Saturday


I don't know how many of you are in or around the DC area, but if you are you should definitely roll over to the Rally this weekend and go holla at Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert as they try to bring some sanity (and/or fear per Colbert) back to the main stream media.  I'm actually hopping on the old bus today to head down to DC so let me know if anybody else is going.

Video after the jump:

Thursday, October 28, 2010

And BTW, Obama was on the Daily Show last night (VIDEO)

See video after the jump:

Midterm Mania: the 411 on Privatizing Social Security

With the Midterm Elections next week, the airwaves have been flooded with political talking points regarding the privatization of Social Security.  So we figured we would do our duty as a political blog and provide a thorough break down of the Social Security debate so that you'll be able to decipher the political BS from the actual legitimate arguments before you go to pull that lever on November 2nd.  Since Social Security involves a lot of complex economical jargon and mathematical formulas that you hopefully have never heard of, we're going to talk about this stuff using the King's English in plain terms so that we can all stay on the same page, cool?  We also have the benefit of having our very own in-house Federal Government specialist, The Fed, who can shepherd us through the valley of confusion so let us begin:

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Guest Post: The Culture of Poverty

We're always interested to hear your thoughts on the issues, so if you're interested in sharing them then send us a Guest Post. Today we bring you a Guest Post from a regular to The Urban Politico who needs no introduction, Mr. ShadyGrady. So please show our Guest some love in the comment section as we break down the Culture of Poverty in America:

*******************************************

What do you think of when you read the phrase “culture of poverty”? Who FIRST comes to mind?

Is it an obese Black woman bearing a first name which contains a tremendous number of vowels and who has three kids by three different men? Is it a Hispanic woman in a similar situation? Is it a white Woman that looks hard used and has substance abuse issues? Is it a Black man with kids all over town? Is it a Hispanic or White man that drinks too much?

What does “culture of poverty” mean? For most black Americans, you go back just 50 years, let alone 100 years, you would probably find that a great many of our forebears weren’t exactly captains of industry. Many were as poor as church mice. It wasn’t really a “culture of poverty” that was holding many of them back so much as it was systematic oppression in every facet of life.

This changed. Today we have opportunities that our ancestors could not have dreamed of.

And yet things didn’t get better for everyone. WEB DuBois discussed this over 100 years ago in his seminal work “The Philadelphia Negro.”

The phrase “culture of poverty” has become more accepted recently. The recent New York Times article discusses this. I will not post the complete article but I urge everyone to read it in its entirety.

For more than 40 years, social scientists investigating the causes of poverty have tended to treat cultural explanations like Lord Voldemort: That Which Must Not Be Named.
The reticence was a legacy of the ugly battles that erupted after Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then an assistant labor secretary in the Johnson administration, introduced the idea of a “culture of poverty” to the public in a startling 1965 report. Although Moynihan didn’t coin the phrase (that distinction belongs to the anthropologist Oscar Lewis), his description of the urban black family as caught in an inescapable “tangle of pathology” of unmarried mothers and welfare dependency was seen as attributing self-perpetuating moral deficiencies to black people, as if blaming them for their own misfortune.
Moynihan’s analysis never lost its appeal to conservative thinkers, whose arguments ultimately succeeded when President Bill Clinton signed a bill in 1996 “ending welfare as we know it.” But in the overwhelmingly liberal ranks of academic sociology and anthropology the word “culture” became a live grenade, and the idea that attitudes and behavior patterns kept people poor was shunned.
Now, after decades of silence, these scholars are speaking openly about you-know-what, conceding that culture and persistent poverty are enmeshed. ..
This surge of academic research also comes as the percentage of Americans living in poverty hit a 15-year high: one in seven, or 44 million…
Today, social scientists are rejecting the notion of a monolithic and unchanging culture of poverty. And they attribute destructive attitudes and behavior not to inherent moral character but to sustained racism and isolation. 

Ironically, given general liberal hostility to biological determinism , “culture of poverty” explanations became the preferred field of debate for conservatives who would, in some cases (Dinesh D’Souza for example) occasionally disingenuously claim they weren’t racist at all because they didn’t think that certain problems were biological but purely cultural.

My questions are

1) Is the term culture of poverty a valid description of what’s going on in some US areas?

2) Is the term just a dodge to avoid discussing the failings of capitalism? Is it possible to NOT discuss capitalism here? How useful is this frame of reference in an US in which wages have been flat for 40 years, private sector unions have virtually disappeared and large swaths of the economy have either been shipped overseas or opened to cutthroat foreign competition.

3) How much do we owe the poor and/or those that have lost their jobs? Isn’t 99 weeks of unemployment insurance enough?

Today in Tea Party Racism: Al Reynolds

Al Reynolds, the Tea Party backed candidate from central Illinois is not the first candidate of his type to make racist un-founded remarks, but he certainly is the latest. While speaking at a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Champagne County NAACP, Reynolds stated that black men would rather deal drugs than going to college because it's easier.

HUH??

They don't prefer playing video games, or going straight to work over going to college they prefer drug dealing? Really Al Reynolds?

This is just the latest example of how these Tea Party candidates have no idea of what's really going on in this country. Please see the video of the comments below and share your thoughts.





Is Miami Heated?

And in other urban politics, the anointed Miami triumvirate (LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade) could not deliver the win in their NBA debut against Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and the rest of the Boston Celtics.  The Celtics knocked off the Heat 88-80.  Now, normally this would be just another game in a long line of the 82 games played during an NBA season - however...when you hold an all day special to announce your departure from your former team in Ohio to hype up the fact that you're joining up with two other power house players in Miami, did you honestly think that you had the luxury of losing that first season game?  No, sir.  Anything short of 82 flawless victories now automatically earns you a "man I knew they wasn't gonna be sh*t" award from the millions of NBA fans you pissed off during the Lebron-a-palooza fest.  The moral of the story, if you're going to become a free agent and join up with another team, then just join up with the other team like every other player in the history of the league, put away the balloons and streamers, and handle your business on the court. Save the celebration for AFTER you win the championship.


What's your take on the Miami-Boston game?
Did this loss add more fuel to the critics out there, and if so, is Lebron partly to blame for that?
Is Miami going to win the championship this year?

Monday, October 25, 2010

Can Going Independent Save Our Government?

I'm just thinking out loud here but in light of the country's growing frustration with the two parties that we have, and given their general inability to get anything done amongst themselves due to partisan in-fighting, it seems fairly obvious that the current political system in this country is unsustainable.   The current political system is one in which the two major parties have become consumed with self-preservation and promoting their own respective ideology to the detriment and neglect of the public that they are supposed to serve.   What this means is that we have created a system where it is more politically advantageous to maintain the current problems of the day rather than attempt to solve them.  Why?  Because if you solve all of the people's problems then you won't have any more carrots left to dangle in front of them in order to induce them to vote for you.  In other words, folks, our system, for all its ups and downs, is broken and, contrary to conservative talking points, the answer for fixing it is not to send more Republicans to Washington who will engage in the same behavior as the Republicans who came before them.  Nor is the answer to send in more Democrats who will likewise engage in the same behavior as the Democrats who came before them.  I don't profess to know whether the current political system can be saved, but if it can, it would seem that the only way to do so is to send in the Independents.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Dr. King Still Speaking From the Grave



There is not much an individual can say after viewing a video such as the one below. Huge shout out and always nothing but love to Mr. Dick Gregory, for bringing this kind of information to light. Mr. Gregory is one of the masters of what has been labeled the "conspiracy theory." However, unlike many of the so called theorists out there, Mr. Gregory was and is in the struggle, at the forefront and has the kind of inside knowledge that not many of us can relate to.

A few weeks ago the media spent the day discussing a black man who had recently died. This man was apparently an undercover FBI informant during the Civil Rights Movement, who used the color of his skin to infiltrate the inner circles of some of the stronger organizations of the time. We all know that this was common place back then. Unfortunately the treachery of some of our people dates back even further than 40 years ago, to pre-slavery as Africans sold other Africans into slavery.


"Like Caine and Able, Caesar and Brutus, Jesus and Judas backstabbers do this!" - Lauryn Hill

Juan Williams Gets the Boot from NPR Over Muslim Comments

Last week we had a guest post by William Sullivan Jr that sparked a good discussion about the seemingly common trend of censorship in the media with respect to journalists who comment on Jewish people.  Today, yet another journalist joins the ranks of those fired for expressing their views, only this time the subject at issue is Islam:  Juan Williams.  As the Washington Post reports:

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Um...Say What? Clarence Thomas' Wife Asks For Apology from Anita Hill

Yeah, you heard right.  The woman asked Anita Hill for an apology over what happened back in 1991 when Thomas joined the bench.  As the WSJ reports:

Justice Thomas’s wife, Virginia, earlier this month called Anita Hill, now a professor at Brandeis University, seeking an apology. During Justice Thomas’s confirmation hearings in 1991, Hill alleged that Thomas, as her boss, had sexually harassed her at the Education Department and later at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thomas vehemently denied the allegations.
“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed (sic) what happened so long ago,” Virginia Thomas said through a spokesman.
Hill said she didn’t take Mrs. Thomas’s Oct. 9 voicemail as conciliatory.
“I certainly thought the call was inappropriate,” Hill said through a Brandeis spokesman. “I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony.”
Hill said she initially assumed the call, which a Brandeis spokesman said came in at 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday, was a prank. She notified campus security, Brandeis spokesman Charles Radin said, which in a routine procedure alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” the message went. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”

Thoughts?

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Racial Bias in Pace University Police Shooting?

In the 1995 classic, Higher Learning, John Singleton (shout out to my Kappa Alpha Psi frat bruh) explored a myriad of issues affecting the college experience - one of which happened to be racial bias in the police force.  In one of the final scenes of the film, we see the neo-nazi character, Remy (played by Michael Rapaport), who has just opened fire on a campus crowd, clash with the protagonist, Malik (played by Omar Epps) in the stairwell of  a campus building.  When the police catch up with the two, without asking any questions they automatically grab and start beating Malik but they let Remy, the killer, walk away.  Then, after they're done with Malik, they follow Remy, who at this point has drawn out a handgun and started waving it around at everybody including the cops, and, instead of shooting him, the police actually try to talk him down.  Eventually, Remy shoots himself in the head and the cops cry out in anguish and you can't help but pick up on Singleton's inference that if the roles between Remy and Malik had been reversed, not only would the cops have lacked any empathy to cry about the suicide of a Black armed gunman, but they probably would have shot him sooner rather than later.   Did a similar scenario play out this past Sunday in New York?

Monday, October 18, 2010

House Republicans...Be Careful What You Wish For!

With about 3 weeks left until the mid-term elections the word is all but official that the Republicans, led by House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (pictured), are going to regain control of the House of Representatives but will not likely gain the seats needed to take over the Senate.  Democrats, as usual, are running scared and entering a collective state of depression at the prospect of losing something to the Republicans.  On the other side of the fence, Republicans are beating their collective chests and hopping up and down like House of Pain in celebration of the fact that the country is actually going to hand them the keys to the car again now that the Democrats have just started to "get it out of the ditch" to borrow one of Obama's favorite analogies.  Before we weep tears of joy or sorrow, let's think about this for a minute.  If anybody is reallying paying attention to the political dynamics of this country, there are at least 3 REASONS why a Republican take over of the house is a good thing:

Friday, October 15, 2010

DADT: To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question

As you might recall, about a month ago Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the federal district court for the Central District of California declared the U.S. military's Don't Ask Don't Tell ("DADT") policy unconstitutional, and yesterday she issued an injunction based on that ruling that would force the military to abandon the policy immediately.  One would assume that given the Obama administration's position against DADT that the injunction would go into place without a hitch and that would be that right?  Well...not so much.  In an interesting twist, the NY Times reports that the U.S. Justice Department is appealing Judge Phillips' ruling and asking for a temporary stay of the injunction:

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Delaware Debate: Christine O'Donnell v. Chris Coons

Democratic Candidate Chris Coons (left) and Republican Tea Party Candidate Christine O'Donnell (right) debated last night for Joe Biden's old seat in the Senate.  Highlight and Full videos after the jump:


Health Care Reform is Approved by Federal Court

I've been on vaca over the past week so pardon the late announcement, but in case you didn't know "Obamacare" had it's first Constitutional test on October 7, 2010 in the case Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (read the case HERE).   The specific issue at the heart of this case was the ever-so controversial provision in the new Health Care Reform ("HCR") law that requires Americans to buy health care coverage in 2014 or else pay a tax.  Some of you might recall that back in March we predicted the Top 5 Reasons why this provision of the HCR law would pass Constitutional muster if it ever found itself before a court.  Without getting into too much legalese, we basically said HCR would be found Constitutional because (A) health care insurance is interstate commerce and Congress (via the Commerce Clause) has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and (B) in case ya'll forgot, Congress has always had the power to Tax folks since Day 1.  The federal judge who heard the case in the Eastern District of Michigan's federal court basically said (A) health care insurance is interstate commerce and Congress (via the Commerce Clause) has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and (B) in case ya'll forgot, Congress has always had the power to Tax folks since Day 1 (sound familiar?)  So in other words, half a year later it turns out our prediction was right.  (now if we could just predict the winning lottery numbers...)

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Preview CNN's Latest Black in America Installment: "Almight Debt"




The Urban Politico recently had the privilege of viewing a 45-minute screener of CNN’s new Black in America documentary entitled “Almighty Debt.” In this latest installment of the Black in America series, Soledad O'Brien focuses on one of the primary adversaries that the black community has had to face post slavery….Debt!

Much like the previous Black in America documentaries that have aired, this new installment follows the lives of everyday black folks in the context of debt and how it has affected their lives. These stories aim to act as a microcosm of the bigger black community, proving that more blacks than not have been affected negatively in some way, by the American credit system. From post slavery sharecropping to now being systematically denied employment by some companies because of the credit score, debt has proven to be a worthy opponent.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Guest Post: Are Journalists' Free Speech Rights Being Challenged?

We're always interested in hearing what our readers have to say so we encourage you to send in your submissions for Guest Posts on whatever you think we should be talking about on The Urban Politico.  This Guest Post comes to us from one of our old-school readers and commenter, William Sullivan Jr., so show him some love in the comment section below and weigh in with your 2 cents on whether Journalists' free speech rights being challenged:

*** GUEST POST ***

In recent months high profile journalists have been relieved of their duties after making statements that were, in many circles, considered to be Anti-Semitic. Many argue that Rick Sanchez was released because of poor ratings on his daytime show Rick’s List but after the ordeal with Helen Thomas in May of this year one must question if these people are being released because of a powerful Jewish presence in the U.S. media.



 
In a May 27 exchange with Rabbi David Nesenoff, Thomas said “Israelis should get the hell out of Palestine and go home to Germany and Poland“.
 

"Yeah, very powerless people," Sanchez said, laughing. "He's such a minority. I mean, you know, please. What are you kidding? I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?"


Using her official CNN  Twitter account Nasr wrote: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot."
Nasr interviewed the Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadiallah for Lebanese television in 1990, and was referring  to his stance on women's rights, notably his demands that "honour killings" stop, she explained.

Parisa Khosravi, senior vice president of CNN International Newsgathering, said “Nasr accepts she shouldn't have made such a "simplistic" comment without context.”

"However," Khorsravi stated, "at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward."

Are we dealing with censorship or were these people fired because what they said was so upsetting to the American public that they could no longer continue at their current positions. Journalists need to be able to speak their minds without fear of losing their jobs or jeopardizing their careers. Throughout history dictatorships have used such methods of controlling the thoughts of populations of people and I fear that, if allowed to continue, we are seeing the beginning of the end of independent journalism in this country. What concerns me the most is that each time we have lost a journalist for what has been perceived as Anti-Semitism the rest of the media has been silent. 


The questions I ask are:
  • Is this censorship or legitimate reasons for firing these journalists?                                         
  • Are these people victims of what is called The Israel Lobby?
  • Would a journalist be fired for making similar comments about another minority in this country?
  • Is Fear causing the rest of American Journalists to be Silent?

Friday, October 8, 2010

Now Do You See What Happens When You Torture Folks?

In law school they taught us this concept in Evidence class called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" which is another way of saying if the government does something shady (ie. illegal) in prosecuting their case, then anything that stems from that shady business cannot be used in court.  Its a checks-and-balances type system to keep law enforcement honest in how they go about interrogating suspects.  Every police station, FBI station, etc. knows this rule.  Some try to bend it as far as it will go. Others break it and wonder "what happened?" when their case gets tossed.  Speaking of which, Exhibit A as reported by the NY Times:

A federal judge barred prosecutors on Wednesday from using a crucial witness in the first trial of a former Guantánamo detainee, adding to the fierce debate over whether the government can successfully prosecute terrorist detainees in civilian court.
The trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who faces charges in the 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa, has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of moving many other detainees, like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, into federal court and, ultimately, closing Guantánamo.
In the months since Mr. Ghailani was brought to New York from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of United States District Court in Manhattan has rejected defense requests to dismiss the case because of violations of Mr. Ghailani’s right to a speedy trial and because of accusations he was tortured.
But just as the trial was to begin on Wednesday, Judge Kaplan ruled that he would not allow the witness to testify. He noted that the government had acknowledged that it had identified and located the witness through interrogation of Mr. Ghailani when he was earlier held in a secret overseas jail run by the Central Intelligence Agency. His lawyers have said he was tortured there.
Judge Kaplan said he was “acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world in which we live.”
But the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests,” he went on. “We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.” 




Your thoughts on what happened?  Should we keep the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree rule or throw it out in terrorism cases?  Where do we draw the line in interrogations?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Snyder v. Phelps: How Far Should We Stretch the First Amendment?

Growing up in Kansas, it was hard not to know Fred Phelps and his band of Church rebels.  To say that they were ubiquitous would be the understatement of the century.  If the KU Jayhawks had a basketball game - they were there protesting.  K-State football game - they were there protesting.  A little girl opens up a lemonade stand on the corner - yup...they'd protest that too.  No public event was sacred to the Phelps Church (we'll come back to this statement shortly).  For those of you who may not be familiar with the Phelpses, they run a Church in Topeka, Kansas where the primary sermon on any given Sunday is the part of the Bible that says, quote, "God Hates Fags," unquote.  I'm sure you remember that verse from Sunday School in the book of Hateronomy, right? No?  Well according to Fred Phelps it's in there somewhere and he has decided to make it his life's work to inform the entire world about it whether you asked him or not.  Which brings us back to sacred events or the lack thereof.  In 2006, Albert Snyder, father of the late Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq in the line of duty, held a funeral service to lay his son to rest in Westminster, Maryland.  The Phelps congregation, which as you will recall is from Kansas, made it their business to travel all the way over to Maryland (over 1,000 miles away) to protest the funeral with the message that God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuality.  Snyder successfully sued the Phelps congregation for $5 Million dollars in Maryland state court for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but when the case was appealed by the Phelpses a federal court threw out the case on First Amendment Freedom of Speech grounds. The case was finally appealed up to the United States Supreme Court who heard oral argument yesterday (Oct 6, 2010).  The question before the Court was how far should we stretch the free speech protections of the First Amendment?

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Federal Court (as in NOT a military tribunal) Gives Times Square Bomber Life in Prison

Remember the frenzy that erupted about a year ago when Eric Holder announced that the mastermind behind 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM"), would stand trial in...wait for it....wait for it...New York's Federal Court *gasp* [dun dun DUNNNNNN!!!!].  Certain people *cough*conservatives*cough* said there is no way in hell we could possibly hope to try terrorists in "civilian courts."  According to these folks, Terrorists (or rather, people accused of Terrorism) belong in Military Tribunals because they are terrorists and terrorists don't deserve any Constitutional Rights.  And furthermore, if we try the terrorists in "civilian courts" and "lawyer them up" with "Constitutional Rights" the world as we know it will certainly come to an end.  There will be human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!!

As usual, when we inconvenienced the "mass hysteria" talk with facts, it all fell apart.  It turns out that the so-called "civilian courts" are actually called Federal District Courts, and these Federal District Courts have a pretty damn good track record of trying and convicting terrorists. (see Ramzi Yousef; see also Zarcarias Moussaoui; see also Jose Padilla).  It also turned out that, in all the years since GW established the infamous Military Tribunals at Gitmo in 2001, these Military Tribunals have convicted a whopping number of....three (3) terrorists.  Not three-thousand.  Not three-hundred.  Just plain old three...as in that number that comes after two and before four (that's a 1 terrorist for every three-year average and that's so laaaaaaaaaaame!!!).  At the time Eric Holder announced that KSM would face trial in New York's Federal District Court, One-Hundred Ninety-Five (195) terrorists suspects had been tried and convicted in Federal District Courts.  So it should come at no surprise today that 31-year-old Faisal Shahzad received a life sentence without the possibility of parole in New York's Federal District Court for the attempted terrorist attack in Times Square in May earlier this year.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Why What Happened in DC Stayed in DC


On Saturday morning I awoke excitedly to the sounds of my blackberry alarm, unmoved by the fact that the sun had not yet rose and that I had not been up that early all year. Charged up, without coffee and ready to conquer the day, my heart was set on a trip to DC, where I would be attending the One Nation Working Together Rally. It was exciting to come together with not just my fellow brothers and sisters by race, but by ALL of my brothers and sisters of ALL races who’s commonality is that they too call themselves American. To here that name One Nation, Working Together, is to embrace a concept that has been lost in this country for some time now. It is a general and consistent truth that only seems to surface during times of great tragedy, yet has even managed to hide itself from us during this country’s recent decline in almost every area possible. It is the concept that says we are much more likely to be victorious by working together than by focusing on our differences and fighting apart. The spirit which exists in that very basic concept, is the reason I could not miss being in DC on Saturday.

MISSING: Michael Steele

Missing Person



2010 Election Season
Washington DC






MICHAEL STEPHEN STEELE
 



DESCRIPTION

Date of Birth: October 19, 1958               Place of Birth: Andrew's Air Force Base, Maryland
Sex: Male          Hair: Balding
Height: 6'0"        Eyes: Brown
Weight: 225     Race:  African American


THE DETAILS

Michael (Mike) Steele disappeared from the political forefront.  He was last seen in July of 2010 fighting off Republican calls for his resignation for saying  that the Afghan war was "a war of Obama's choosing" and "not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."  Leading up to the months prior, the RNC Chairman was often in the public view, saying or doing something stupid.  His disappearance from the scene has been deemed suspicious in nature.


REMARKS

Chairman Steele enjoys mixing it up with members of both parties, unfortunately, his mixing it up with the Republican party is usually done as a byproduct of his own mistake.  Recently, he was caught saying that the GOP and the Tea Party are locked "hand in hand."


REWARD

As GOP money was spent at the adult club Voyeur West Hollywood, there is no reward money at this time.  Chairman's Steele disappearance from the spot light is VERY noticeable, as if those responsible don't want him messing up their plans in November.  So any information on his location will be treated with the utmost importance.  Help us find Chairman Steele, find out the reasons for his disappearance from the public eye, and find those responsible.

October Book of the Month: The New Jim Crow


The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010)*

by

Michelle Alexander, Esq.

*Hat tip to Reign and JuJube for suggesting this book. 


Friday, October 1, 2010

America to Guatemala: Uhhh...My Bad?!?!


In a Tuskegee Experiment style atrocity, straight out of the belly of this country's evil past, the United States has apologized to Guatemala for a 1946-1948 research study in which people in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Prostitutes, mental health patients and soldiers were the targeted population for these trials, which were apparently designed to test the effectiveness of penicillin.

According to the study, more than 1,600 people were infected with various diseases: 696 with syphillis, 772 with gonorrhea and 142 with chancres. Please see the video clip at the end of this post which describes in gruesome detail the way in which the study was conducted.

Sixty-four (64) years later this gruesome act, thought to be burried in history, has resurfaced and reminded the world once again the potential this country has to destroy human life when it suites their purpose.