The NAACP trotted out its latest public relations vehical this week and according to wire reports, it's aim is to end negative portrayals of blacks, especially women, in the media. Reportedly the moves comes partially in response to comments by fired DJ Don Imus, but also cited were comments made last year by comedian Michael Richards. And that's all well and good, but I couldn't help but notice there was no mention of the culture of young blacks who adopt the thug/gangster lifestyle as a role model to be emulated.... And let's be clear; the biggest part of dealing with the negative portrayal of blacks is that subculture. It is not Michael Richards, Don Imus, the KKK, or even the bone-deep racism of American society. The most immediate problem is the culture that portrays family, education and personable responsibility as sucker concepts, and gangsterism as a good thing. Those are issues not inflicted upon the black community by white folks. They are issues inflicted upon the black community by itself.
Given that the NAACP, along with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are famous for leaping to the microphone to take white people to task for insults to the the black community, yet are apparently silent when it comes to addressing the issues of broken families, violent crime, and resolute ignorance within the communities they pretend to care about and represent, I doubt it can have any real relevance and effect in this campaign.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
22 DEAD IN VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING SPREE
Virginia Tech Shooting
Latest News
Statement by Virginia Tech's President
Bush Said Shocked at College Shootings
Gunman Kills 21 on Virginia Tech Campus
BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) -- A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech on Monday, killing 21 people in the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history. The gunman was killed, but it was unclear if he was shot by police or took his own life.
"Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions," said Virginia Tech president Charles Steger. "The university is shocked and indeed horrified."
The university reported shootings at opposite sides of the 2,600-acre campus, beginning at about 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston, a co-ed residence hall that houses 895 people, and continuing about two hours later at Norris Hall, an engineering building.
Some but not all the dead were students. One student was killed in a dorm and the others were killed in the classroom, Virginia Tech Police Chief W.R. Flinchum.
The name of the gunman was not released. It was not known if he was a student.
Up until Monday, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history took place in 1966 at the University of Texas, where Charles Whitman climbed to the 28th-floor observation deck of a clock tower and opened fire. He killed 16 people before he was gunned down by police. In the Columbine High bloodbath near Littleton, Colo., in 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.
After Monday's shootings, all entrances to the campus were closed. The campus was to reopen Tuesday but classes were canceled.
The university set up a meeting place for families to reunite with their children at the Inn at Virginia Tech. It also made counselors available and planned a convocation for Tuesday at the Cassell Coliseum basketball arena.
After the shootings, students were told to stay inside away from the windows.
"There's just a lot of commotion. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on," said Jason Anthony Smith, 19, who lives in the dorm where shooting took place.
Aimee Kanode, a freshman from Martinsville, said the shooting happened on the 4th floor of West Ambler Johnston dormitory, one floor above her room. Kanode's resident assistant knocked on her door about 8 a.m. to notify students to stay put.
"They had us under lockdown," Kanode said. "They temporarily lifted the lockdown, the gunman shot again."
"We're all locked in our dorms surfing the Internet trying to figure out what's going on," Kanode said.
Madison Van Duyne, a student who was interviewed by telephone on CNN, said, "We are all in lockdown. Most of the students are sitting on the floors away from the windows just trying to be as safe as possible."
Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks by authorities but said they have not determined a link to the shootings.
It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a shooting.
In August 2006, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff's deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail just off campus.
The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder charges.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Latest News
Statement by Virginia Tech's President
Bush Said Shocked at College Shootings
Gunman Kills 21 on Virginia Tech Campus
BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) -- A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech on Monday, killing 21 people in the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history. The gunman was killed, but it was unclear if he was shot by police or took his own life.
"Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions," said Virginia Tech president Charles Steger. "The university is shocked and indeed horrified."
The university reported shootings at opposite sides of the 2,600-acre campus, beginning at about 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston, a co-ed residence hall that houses 895 people, and continuing about two hours later at Norris Hall, an engineering building.
Some but not all the dead were students. One student was killed in a dorm and the others were killed in the classroom, Virginia Tech Police Chief W.R. Flinchum.
The name of the gunman was not released. It was not known if he was a student.
Up until Monday, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history took place in 1966 at the University of Texas, where Charles Whitman climbed to the 28th-floor observation deck of a clock tower and opened fire. He killed 16 people before he was gunned down by police. In the Columbine High bloodbath near Littleton, Colo., in 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.
After Monday's shootings, all entrances to the campus were closed. The campus was to reopen Tuesday but classes were canceled.
The university set up a meeting place for families to reunite with their children at the Inn at Virginia Tech. It also made counselors available and planned a convocation for Tuesday at the Cassell Coliseum basketball arena.
After the shootings, students were told to stay inside away from the windows.
"There's just a lot of commotion. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on," said Jason Anthony Smith, 19, who lives in the dorm where shooting took place.
Aimee Kanode, a freshman from Martinsville, said the shooting happened on the 4th floor of West Ambler Johnston dormitory, one floor above her room. Kanode's resident assistant knocked on her door about 8 a.m. to notify students to stay put.
"They had us under lockdown," Kanode said. "They temporarily lifted the lockdown, the gunman shot again."
"We're all locked in our dorms surfing the Internet trying to figure out what's going on," Kanode said.
Madison Van Duyne, a student who was interviewed by telephone on CNN, said, "We are all in lockdown. Most of the students are sitting on the floors away from the windows just trying to be as safe as possible."
Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks by authorities but said they have not determined a link to the shootings.
It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a shooting.
In August 2006, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff's deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail just off campus.
The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder charges.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Friday, April 13, 2007
CALL FOR GEN. CUSTER ON LINE ONE
Seems our Feckless Leader is having a tough time finding someone to take the reins on his runaway Middle East warhorse. Five retired generals have rejected his offer, and one reportedly said was public about the rejection, saying the Administration does not have a workable plan to prosecute the effort.
And maybe that's why the First Shrub is seeking a czar in the first place.... someone to take the heat for a failed policy ... a whipping boy to take the weight off the Repiglican's shoulders as the election season dawns. Yo, Georgi, these men didn't become generals by being stupid.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
DON IMUS SHOULD BE SHAMED AND HECKLED.... BUT NOT SILENCED
So shock-jock Don Imus is in the hot seat for referring to a women's collegiate b-ball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hos." And some in the black community have lined up to take their cues from the likes of Jesse Jackson and (insert heavy sigh and eye-roll here) Al Sharpton to demand Imus be fired and never be allowed to broadcast again. But that would be a mistake.
As dimwitted and racist as Imus' comments may have been, he has a right to speak his opinion. He has a right to spark debate. And for a few equally dim self-appointed activists to demand he be silenced is unAmerican and only serves to build an argument that their illconceived diatribes be silenced also. That's the way it is in America, guys... we all have a constitutional right to say what's on our minds. .... It's right there in the First Amendment. And let's understand that the purpose of that right to not to protect those who utter words that everyone wants to hear, rather, it is to protect those who utter words that are disturbing and unpopular - even if they are considered racist or sacrilegious or foment political and social dissent. In effect, the same law that protected Martin Luther King, Jr. and allowed him to speak out against racism and poverty and unequal protection of the law in cities like Montgomery, Selma and Atlanta is the same one that should protect the words spoken by Don Imus..... Granted, comparing Imus' words to King's is akin to comparing Bugs Bunny to Winston Churchill, but it's not the message that has value here, it's the right to convey the message, no matter how unpopular it may be. For it is from unpopular ideas that social and political revolutions are born.... King's words were wildly unpopular with the ruling class in Selma, Montgomery and everywhere else, yet the truth he spoke and the debate he sparked could not be ignored.... If Imus is silenced and anyone else whose words offend us or make us uncomfortable is silenced, then where can such a policy end except in universal censorship and an end to the freedom of fresh ideas.
As dimwitted and racist as Imus' comments may have been, he has a right to speak his opinion. He has a right to spark debate. And for a few equally dim self-appointed activists to demand he be silenced is unAmerican and only serves to build an argument that their illconceived diatribes be silenced also. That's the way it is in America, guys... we all have a constitutional right to say what's on our minds. .... It's right there in the First Amendment. And let's understand that the purpose of that right to not to protect those who utter words that everyone wants to hear, rather, it is to protect those who utter words that are disturbing and unpopular - even if they are considered racist or sacrilegious or foment political and social dissent. In effect, the same law that protected Martin Luther King, Jr. and allowed him to speak out against racism and poverty and unequal protection of the law in cities like Montgomery, Selma and Atlanta is the same one that should protect the words spoken by Don Imus..... Granted, comparing Imus' words to King's is akin to comparing Bugs Bunny to Winston Churchill, but it's not the message that has value here, it's the right to convey the message, no matter how unpopular it may be. For it is from unpopular ideas that social and political revolutions are born.... King's words were wildly unpopular with the ruling class in Selma, Montgomery and everywhere else, yet the truth he spoke and the debate he sparked could not be ignored.... If Imus is silenced and anyone else whose words offend us or make us uncomfortable is silenced, then where can such a policy end except in universal censorship and an end to the freedom of fresh ideas.
Monday, April 09, 2007
....AND HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE SAVIOR OF THE FREE WORLD
We almost had an Easter miracle this week but the CEO of Ford leaped into the breach and prevented a change of the American government Administration. You can read the Detroit News story here. Whatever else you think about the Bush Whitehouse, you have to admit there would have been a bit of humor to see Bush and Cheney done in by their own ignorance. Dang, the forces of darkness defeat the forces of goodness and light again.
Friday, March 30, 2007
EXTENDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE
So, another dimwit felt the need to post an anonymous comment in the Daily Crime today.
"The Democrats in Maryland both the House and Senate have passed a bill to restore convicted felons' voting rights. Now this bill sits on Gov. Martin O'Malley's desk, waiting for him to sign it into law. This is simply outrageous. If O'Malley signs this bill, he might as well open all the cell doors in every prison in this state of Maryland and let all these inmates go free."
But as we address this issue, let's leave out the fact that the comment makes no sense and concentrate instead on the larger question of allowing ex-convicts to vote.
First, I can't see a reason for them not to be able to vote... is thee some sort irrational fear that they could emerge as a voting block and perhaps elect someone who is stupid, malicious, or dishonest? Well, don't worry about it, because the bonafied voters have already done that time and again, and all too frequently those voters and elected officials came from the "law-and-order" party.... just look at recent history: Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were chased out of office with the hounds of felony charges snapping at their heels; Ronald Reagan and King George I were haunted by their traitorous acts relative to the Iran Contra affair.
So what's the reason? Is it a belief those who are convicted of crimes should lose all their rights and liberties forever? If we subscribe to that policy, then where is the incentive for those who have served their sentences to rejoin society as a productive and law-abiding member?
Still unaddressed here, is the real reason this bill needs to become law, and it has a lot to do with that fact that minorities are convicted of felonies at a significantly higher rate than us white folks, and by some estimates that means that about 25 percent of the black population is barred from casting a ballot.... and that's one way of getting around the Voting Rights Act, huh? So, is that the reason for the opposition.... because it might eventually mean a minority would occupy the Statehouse or even the Whitehouse?
"The Democrats in Maryland both the House and Senate have passed a bill to restore convicted felons' voting rights. Now this bill sits on Gov. Martin O'Malley's desk, waiting for him to sign it into law. This is simply outrageous. If O'Malley signs this bill, he might as well open all the cell doors in every prison in this state of Maryland and let all these inmates go free."
But as we address this issue, let's leave out the fact that the comment makes no sense and concentrate instead on the larger question of allowing ex-convicts to vote.
First, I can't see a reason for them not to be able to vote... is thee some sort irrational fear that they could emerge as a voting block and perhaps elect someone who is stupid, malicious, or dishonest? Well, don't worry about it, because the bonafied voters have already done that time and again, and all too frequently those voters and elected officials came from the "law-and-order" party.... just look at recent history: Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were chased out of office with the hounds of felony charges snapping at their heels; Ronald Reagan and King George I were haunted by their traitorous acts relative to the Iran Contra affair.
So what's the reason? Is it a belief those who are convicted of crimes should lose all their rights and liberties forever? If we subscribe to that policy, then where is the incentive for those who have served their sentences to rejoin society as a productive and law-abiding member?
Still unaddressed here, is the real reason this bill needs to become law, and it has a lot to do with that fact that minorities are convicted of felonies at a significantly higher rate than us white folks, and by some estimates that means that about 25 percent of the black population is barred from casting a ballot.... and that's one way of getting around the Voting Rights Act, huh? So, is that the reason for the opposition.... because it might eventually mean a minority would occupy the Statehouse or even the Whitehouse?
Monday, March 26, 2007
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagle is the latest politico to mention the words Geroge Bush and impeachment in the came context, and God knows they fit together like Oreos and milk. And despite the temptation to gobble it up like a stack of cookies, any outcome of an impeachment would be a disaster for America. ... If Bush is impeached and found guilty, then what are we to do with him? If he's sent to prison (the ideal outcome)or merely ousted from office, then the nation is left to the mercies of Dick Cheney. And if he's found guilty and not ousted, then what have we accomplished except to prove that the president is immune from sanctions as well as the traditional constitutional system of checks and balances.
No, we have to ride out this storm and take some hard-learned lessons from the experience - not the least of which is to never again let so-called "religious" leaders have a say in choosing political leadership. Moreover, we must all assume a certain degree of responsibility for Bush being in office in the first place. But let the vast majority of the weight for that clusterfuck fall on the shoulders of whose who voted for him, and let a similar amount of weight be shouldered by those who din't bother to vote at all. And let's not forget those Democratic elected officials who did absolutely nothing to curb the First Cur in the first six years of his reign of political terror.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
JOHN ATKINS HEADS TO THE WOODSHED AND WE'RE HALF-WAY HOME
The Delaware House Ethics Committee recommended yesterday to censure Republican Rep. John Atkins, The Wilmington News Journal reports. The recommendation is expected to go to the full House for action today. In addition, the committee also drafted a resolution outlining other, more serious sanctions the house could impose against Atkins, including expulsion. Reportedly, some representatives on both side of the isle are considering voting to expel Atkins from the House.
The committee's action came in the wake of Atkins' actions during a traffic stop by police last October during which he flashed his legislative ID card after being pulled over for suspected drunken driving.
His actions apparently were successful, as he avoided a DUI arrest despite a preliminary breath test indicating his blood alcohol content was nearly twice the legal limit. He was arrested that that same night, however, after police went to his home to resolve a domestic violence complaint.
Still unresolved are the actions of the Ocean City police officers who turned their backs to the DUI case.
The committee's action came in the wake of Atkins' actions during a traffic stop by police last October during which he flashed his legislative ID card after being pulled over for suspected drunken driving.
His actions apparently were successful, as he avoided a DUI arrest despite a preliminary breath test indicating his blood alcohol content was nearly twice the legal limit. He was arrested that that same night, however, after police went to his home to resolve a domestic violence complaint.
Still unresolved are the actions of the Ocean City police officers who turned their backs to the DUI case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
