Sunday, July 24, 2005


When I turned off the computer and went to the kitchen to get my morning cup of coffee, I reflected on what I had done. I was on a message board and as usual, lambasting the church. Just when the final drop of java hit the chafe, I asked myself, why did I do that? The answer, after focused contemplation, came streaming forth.

In the antebellum period the church was useful as an organizing tool, apparatus for the dissemination of information, and educational facility. The focus of Black church folk was the abolishment of enslavement, a very noble cause. The underlying impetus for this cause was “faith.”

Black people went to church, prayed, sang, and then went downstairs to plot, plan and learn. They had purpose and this purpose became a unify force to end enslavement for all blacks. I believe this was the major reason whites opposed the black church. Some say teaching Blacks to read was the issue, I say it could have been, but for a slave, it would make sense that if they could read, they could follow written instructions and be more productive. I believe whites were afraid of the church becoming something other than a pacifying social institution as they intended and that’s why they opposed Black becoming Christians.

Today the church is just the opposite. It became what whites had intended it to be. The focus of the church today is on “faith,” not as an underlying impetus for change or amelioration, but as the main character in our lives that can’t formulate our own particular world view. When you feed faith to a group of people who have been systematically deprived of the riches of the land, you feed them a belief without a plan to change their condition. That’s why I believe Black folks have studiedly gone downhill after the civil rights movement, no group goal. The goal of the civil rights movement, similar to the abolition of enslavement in the antebellum, was integration into the main stream society. The church again played a major role. The people went to church on Sunday and after church went into the basement to plan for Monday. Again this was a unifying force and “faith” again was the underlying impetus.

When the integration fight was won, the church, with all due respects, took the credit. However in this play there were other organizations that white folks couldn’t recognize as important that played even greater roles, if not equally important ones as the church and the NAACP. Organizations like the Black Panthers, The Young Lords, N.O. I., U.S., SNCC, and other “people’s liberation movements,” reminded America of other, not so kinder and gentler possibilities as non-violence.

However with the church in the forefront, they now had the responsibility to implement the next step in Black advancement. However they had a major problem. The next step would be Black liberation and that would mean a break with or major fight with their new integrated Christian brethren. That would mean that Jesus’ tenets of, we are all brothers, turn the other cheek, ideals of love for your fellow man, men are not different, we need to work together, would come into conflict. Liberation demanded nothing less than parity on all levels and this should have been the last great battle.

Since the church was now stuck, they had no choice but the make “faith” it’s primary impetus because that’s all they had left. They had no cause to plan for, no fight against real injustice, just the obvious racism and no education program that was historically our own. Integration was the goal and integration they got. So on Sunday’s after church, instead of retiring to the basement to plan for our next great Black movement, liberation, they held bible study and planned for church fundraising committees one of which is to build a bigger and better church for the group as a symbol of their “success” and importance.

At this stage of Black advancement, or lack thereof, in America the church is virtually useless. My beloved cousin said it well. She goes to church on Sunday to hear her preacher because he’s an excellent speaker. He gives her “hope” which is synonymous with “faith.” He doesn’t give her any viable plan to help pull Black folks together so we can eventually take care of our own, take care of our grandchildren or the 50% unemployed in New York. No plan, just beautiful words of faith to give her and each member some individual hope.

Let me clarify something for those who think I’m being racist or separatist. Let it be known that I firmly believe that Black total liberation is good for the country. This country needs an injection of new ideas and a new spirituality. I believe that if our minds were truly liberated, the church after Sunday’s service would retire to the basement and make plans for a better America, not on faith, but as in the past, on Black folk’s collective work, planning, education and creation of their own legitimate world view.

Monday, May 16, 2005


Author Harry Frankfurt just wrote a book called "On Bull." From what I’ve gathered the 67-page book is about hypocrisy in the American culture. Although it focused more on American popular culture, I’m sure it applied to both almost equally. With that in mind, I was wondering:

Perhaps someone can clear something up for me. I am seriously confused about the difference between white supremacy and the crying out by "good" white people against U.S. imperialism. My major confusion starts when I look at history. The overwhelming majority of people who did things in the world of note (according to his-story) are all white people, both the "good" ones and the "bad" ones, however I must admit, they were mostly men. For example, the Caesars (except for one), the kings and queens of Europe, the so-called “great” generals, Alexander, Constantine, Hitler, Patton, the inventors, Guggenheim, Di Vince, Galileo, the religious icons, the Popes, (except for two), Martin Luther, Billy Graham, the “explorers” Columbus, Magellan, De Leon, etc. etc., etc. Further, when I look at all the heads of state of the most powerful countries in the world today, they are again white men, (except for their one token).

I wonder why in the last two thousand years or so why hasn't a non-white country produced a great world leader? Why in the last two thousand years or so hasn't anyone but white people (except their token) controlled the world resources, created and presently sit on the so-called, G-7/8 of the world richest nations? Why is it that they control the “world” bank, the "International"Monetary Fund, and the greatest weaponry in the world, while screaming to high heaven if a non-white country wants to build them? Why is it that the great majority of the countries controlled by whites (except their token and in the age of Islam) waged wars/conquest/saviorships and "exploration/exploitation" outside their state boundaries? Why was the focus on most countries that had no history of a relationship with whites, only resources?

Given the history of white skinned peoples, what separates world imperialism/conquest/saviors from world white supremacy? I see nothing, do you? What’s more telling is why don’t they admit the truth as to their goals and intentions? I remember a saying from a movie I once saw, it was “The Usual Suspects.” The one line that resonated with me was, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people he didn’t exist.”

I would appreciate any clarification of the difference between U.S. imperialism and world wide white supremacy under U.S. leadership because maybe this is one major issue of B.S. that On Bull needed to address, if the sincere white people of the world want to have a more just one. See in my "unimportant" non-European mind, you can't really fix a problem until those working on it know the scope of the problem and are able to confront it in its entirety.

Saturday, May 07, 2005


I was talking with my friend on the phone last night. She mentioned how black men were spreading AIDS in the community by being “bi-sexual.” But since she lived in the Bay Area, she more or less whispered it to me over the phone.

This took me back nine years to my Ethnic Studies graduate power point presentation. We had to address a problem in our community and focus on the resultant issues directly affecting the Black Community. My friend Anthony and I chose to do one on how homosexuality affected Black families. Predictably since we attended San Francisco State University, this was also received with a jaundice eye.

The point we were making with this presentation was that the foundation of the Black Community, the family, was under attack. See our idea of family, from an African perspective, which I believe is Nature’s perspective, is the "old fashioned" one of a male and a female procreating. Not some type of “artificial” conception be it in a test tube or insemination. My premise for this being “natural” is that nothing else in nature, except white Europeans, creates "artificial life" and presents this creation as a “universal” trait of man. Frankenstein was not black, yellow or brown.

Of course our presentation caught the attention of our Dean who happened to be “gay.” It appears it also made our African-centered professor upset because the dean was his friend and colleague. Needless to say, I would pay for that later.

The motivation for our choice has historical significance for the Black Community. Briefly, many Africans on the continent believe, in spite of European inspired protest, that homosexuality is NOT an African cultural tradition. However if one studies the history of the Scythians, Greeks, Romans, and other early European cultures, they find Europeans can’t make such claims. Put this in context with the many other cultural ideas that Europeans have presented to the world as “universal” ideas, I tend to believe the Africans.

With that said, we look at the contemporary events in the Black Community. We see that our prisons are crammed with young black men. We see that they are sexually assaulted as a sort of rights of passage by other black men who have been programmed to destroy things black. You see that economically, young black men are coerced into homosexuality because they have no idea of their ancestral spirit which could allow them to repeal this economic-psychological onslaught. You also see young black men in corporate white America accepting homosexuality as showing they are no threat to the white system. Finally, you see young black men going through an educational/social system that strips them of their Black cultural manhood, which in turn opens the door for all kinds of concepts.

As mentioned before, the above “pressures” on the Black man reaches into the very core of our cultural survival, the black family. For me, many of our cultural interactions with European culture are a form of imposed consensual cultural genocide, one that this society chooses to see as benign or non- threatening. Another reason is that the white community can take the homosexuality hit. They don’t need as many “male” bodies to protect their supremacy or foster their cultural legitimacy. They have their technology holding the hordes at bay. However Blacks are faced, on a global level, with high levels of imprisonment, economic depravation, disease, proportional drug addiction, historical ignorance, fear, and mistrust. Now we have an AIDS attack on our entire weakened community mobilized by one of our greatest drives, sex, supposedly the black man’s salvation.

So I ask, Is the Down Low really Low Down? I would say emphatically yes. I’ve never experienced sex with a man, but there must be something to it since it is so popular. But in my mind, that’s not what makes it “low down.” What makes it low down is that it has the potential to spreads AIDS to innocent people, wrecking havoc in our community. Even more realistically, it gives our women the disease, possibly passing it on to our children. Another mention is that the “down low” further exacerbates our communal problem because in many instances because of lack, it forces our women into homosexuality.

My final analysis is that if our young men want to lay with other men, leave our women alone. (Given the circumstances, I am sorry to say if our women can’t find a black man, try a man from another culture.) Gay black men don’t need to prove their lost “manhood” to anyone, if by consent, it’s gone. Finally, I wish our young men would stop raping other young men in prison. These are sicknesses that must be stopped if we are to get back to sanity. In fact, I wish my professors weren’t so hard on us nine years ago when the down low was further down.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005


Just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon issued a sweeping defense strategy detailing a new vision for winning swift wars against global terrorist networks and outlaw regimes. One year later, the White House unveiled its "National Security Strategy," which discussed using the U.S. military to launch preemptive wars and snuff out threats before they materialized - a strategy that would later be known as "The Bush Doctrine."

Now, with nearly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq two years after the fall of Baghdad, along with commitments in Afghanistan and for the global war on terrorism, many Pentagon officials admit that the bloody insurgency in Iraq has tempered that vision of what the U.S. military can and cannot do."-from Truthout..

This is insanity but accepted as a "sane" rationale. I remember when I was teenager and would go to house parties. We'd all be in the basement fast and slow dancing. The rhythms would emanate from every young body in the room and it looked like a universal communion based in natural rhythms. Later, I would go home and watch TV. I would tune into "American Bandstand" to look at the white kids dance. I saw uncoordinated bodies that begged to find some continuity with nature and the universe. I would see little white feet hopping around and bodies doing something I just didn't understand instead of sliding and gliding like those basement dancers to the sounds of ancestral memories.

Today I watch the grandsons and granddaughters of those basement dancers. To me they look like mechanical windmills in some bizarre dance with some phantom impulses coming from who knows where. They sometimes hop around and contort their bodies in jerks and synchronous motions like some spastic child crying for attention. And they enjoy it thinking they have pushed dancing to another level.

By now I'm sure you are probably asking what in the hell does this have to do with war plans, global terrorist and the "Bush Doctrine." It has a great deal to do with them. Just like the Bush Doctrine is in place to bring "western continuity" to the world, so were the dancers on American Bandstand with regard to dancing. They knew that they looked and probably felt strange as well as out of place when watching the basement dancers, so they began to change the idea of what is rhythm. The Bush Doctrine attempts to do the same thing, change the idea of cultural sovereignty.

The ideas of capitalism, western democracy, religions, laws and political systems don't/didn't fit most cultures whose history was steeped in some form of cultural socialism (dance). That would make the Bush Doctrine's dancers "hoppers" on the world stage instead of sliders and gliders in tune with the majority of the world's cultural rhythms. Those European cultural ideologist, like the ones on the Bush Doctrine's "American Bandstand," throughout history couldn't learn to synchronize with nature, so they changed the essence of human rhythm and natural synchronization. It took them centuries as witnessed by the invasions of Scythia, Greece, Rome, Crusaders, England, France, Germany, etc., etc., etc.,. on the "rhythmic" dancers of the world.

Believe it or not, I can understand the need for the hoppers of the world to change the dance, to bring another idea of rhythm to the world. What I don't understand is why does the world allow it to happen? What is it that prevents the world from understand that "hopping" is not in tune with nature's rhythm, but with some dance from someplace even I don't understand? Why does the world keep trying to understand this spastic drummer and adopt their style? Why doesn't the world just ignore their paternalistic desire to mechanize nature and let them keep trying to learn the glide and slide?

The answers are complex, but the primary reason is the world doesn't understand why they only learned to hop instead of slide and glide. The world just can't understand that the hopper's drummer never fully developed the depth or ability to drum, however he did understand how to hit the damm thing and make "big" noises.

The kids today have no idea the importance of dancing to universal rhythms. The world has no idea of how important it is to evolve their culture from their ancestral memory. The world has no idea how important it is to learn to dance with different styles, but the same rhythms?

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Road to Techno-Speak

Do you remember when people talked with each other? When they walked down the street and looked into faces and spoke? Do you remember when people cared about people problems and not just for self aggrandizement? Well, those days are just about gone and anyone who has any insight needn’t ask why. It begins at the beginning.

America sends its children off to school each morning with the hope that they will someday evolve into this well rounded human being. A human being that will not only be self sufficient, but hopefully make some meaningful contribution towards the welfare of humankind. If that’s the parent’s goal, then its best to keep them home.

Education today is not a human centered endeavor, therefore; when the mold is being shaped in schools it becomes truncated. I say this because post-secondary education has devolved into three basic categories. Math, Science and Special Education.

The “special interest” in society, mostly business interest, have decided that technology and capitalism are society's saviors. They feel the science of technology is needed to attempt to solve problems like global warming and environmental pollution that doing business has caused. Business also emphasizes science to try to curtail fears of disease and dying while pharmaceutical companies rake gigantic profits. Math is needed to maintain the ideals of capitalism and world-wide supremacy through the use of technology and its concomitant idea of progress. Society then needs the combination of the two to create weapons of mass destruction/control and also expand itself to places like Mars.

The third prong, special education, is for those children who had no particular interest in Math or Science. They usually find technology basically boring, unless it has entertainment value. They are the children that didn’t make the math-science cut in the early grades and tracked into a kind of social anonymity. They are mostly those “right brain” children, the ones who like to talk, have music jumping around in their heads and dream. A great many of the children “No Child Left Behind,” is leaving behind.

The marriage between academia and business with ideas of “world leadership” as its bride’s maid, creates a milieu of “societal darlings” that fit the capitalist script. Special Education children are left looking inside. With the nature of humans needing some type of recognition, not to mention financial rewards, in a society that creates anonymity, allows buying into the techno-scientific culture very easy. The focus, rewards, and accolades goes to those who can best memorized texts and regurgitate them hopefully with a different spin. Creativity in the realm of human development becomes obfuscated. People become limited in their desire to have eclectic “human-centered” conversations because they are programmed to indulge in and appreciate techno-speak. Interpersonal relationships are often carried out in the ambiguity of chat rooms and cyber space. One can even go to war or have sex while participating in the ultimate human degradations of killing or sexual objectification while on line.

As I mentioned earlier, anyone with insight needn’t ask why. However even with insight, I still ask why. I ask why parents send their children off to molding factories known as schools without understanding there total implications. I ask why parents can’t grasp that society is getting worst, and making the connection that creative human interactions through a varied curriculum are all but overlooked in schools in favor of the push for math and science geniuses. But given the rash of violence in schools, it seems that gun toting has become a substitute for creative interaction. Why can’t parents figure out that no matter how much math and science their children learn or become techno savvy, it is basically useless because education must be for the life’s amelioration, not its alienation.

Education should be well rounded to include and have equal appreciation in our society for the arts, legitimate open social sciences, cultural and physical education. Each must share a universal prestige placing math and science in the venue of students who have that aptitude and placing the arts, social sciences, cultural and physical education in the venue of students with those aptitudes. I believe this will also lessen the need for “special education” classes. I would further suspect that if society doesn’t abandon this very slippery slope towards almost total technological dependence, it will experience simultaneous human interpersonal erosion. I think American society or any society can’t afford such and should really examine its sacred cow education by starting at the beginning.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

My European Origin Theory

My European Origin Theory

One theory on the origin of the European: The story that Africans migrated to Europe then due to climatic change mutated from black people to white people due to a vitamin “D” deficiency for me is suspect. I challenge this theory because of the following: This “migration” supposedly took place approximately 40,000 years ago. It would then follow that this “mutation” had to postdate 40,000 years ago. Upon investigation, I found that there are two types of mutations which would directly affect this occurrence, 1. Germinal (A cell from which other cells are derived, especially a dividing cell in the embryonic neural tube) and 2. Somatic (Any cell of a plant or an animal other than a germ cell. Also called body cell). Mutations due to a vitamin deficiency would be classified as Somatic Mutations.

Somatic means that the mutation takes place in the body and not in the sexual cells (Germinal) and ends when the host dies and is not passed on to the next generation.

“Whatever the effect, the ultimate fate of that somatic mutation is to disappear when the cell in which it occurred, or its owner, dies. Germline mutations, in contrast, will be found in every cell descended from the zygote to which that mutant gamete contributed. If an adult is successfully produced, every one of its cells will contain the mutation. Included among these will be the next generation of gametes, so if the owner is able to become a parent, that mutation will pass down to yet another generation.”

Somatic mutations need time to evolve and 40,000 years is not enough time for this type of mutation to occur in a body cell without the aid of some type of out side phenomena. Therefore, within this given time any vitamin deficiency would be unable to affect the cells of the body turning them from black to white.

“The effect of natural selection on gene frequencies can be quantified. Let us assume a population containing36% homozygous dominants (AA)48% heterozygotes (Aa) and*16% homozygous recessives (aa)*The gene frequencies in this population arep = 0.6 and q = 0.4The heterozygotes are just as successful at reproducing themselves as the homozygous dominants, but the homozygous recessives are only 80% as successful. That is, for every 100 AA (or Aa) individuals that reproduce successfully only 80 of the aa individuals succeed in doing so. The fitness (w) of the recessive phenotype is thus 80% or 0.8."

What does that mean? I would say one very early migration of the African, perhaps Neanderthal, became isolated during one of the many glacial periods. Due to limited female and nutritional resources, they had to revert to inter-breeding. This inbreeding over time caused a permanent mutation in their germinal cells, thus passing this mutation into their somatic cells. Evolution allowed the mutation of the Y chromosome to change those things that were least needed in the colder climates, one being Melanin, creating the mm gene pool in the Neanderthal.

During another warming period, another migration out of Africa traveled to Europe. (Grimaldi?) They also became a victim of a glacial cooling period and due to limited female and nutritional resources, inter-bred with the Neanderthal and also bred among them selves creating the mutation from mm to pm genes in the Y chromosome. This perhaps caused a permanent mutation in their germinal cells to pm genes. The small “p” gene affected mostly phenotype. Melanin was no longer dominate because of climatic conditions.

I would further assume about 8,000 years ago a third migration left Africa and migrated to Europe. During this period due to both early exploration and later conquest, interbreeding took place and introduced into the gene pool of Europe the “Pm” gene. I would surmise because of new technology at the time, which allowed for faster insemination of genes into the population, at least 36% of the modern day Europeans carry this gene.

My conclusions for the origin of the European are as follows:

(mm) (16%) Carrying chromosomes this gene in Y chromosomes.
(pm) (48%) Carrying chromosome of this gene in Y chromosomes. (affecting mostly Phenotype)
(Pm) (36%) Carrying chromosome of this gene in Y chromosones. (reintroduction of Melanin on a very limited scale.)

This is only MY theory and really needs further investigation.


“Interbreeding was a mainstay of human evolution well before 100,000 years ago, Templeton contends. The evolutionary trees that he devised indicate that four nuclear DNA sites first arose approximately 600,000 years ago, he says. Of the remaining six DNA regions in his study, four of them appeared between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago. A major migration of people from Africa to Asia occurred between 840,000 and 420,000 years ago, Templeton estimates. A second large out-of-Africa migration followed at around 100,000 years ago. If that event had resulted in the replacement of non-African groups, it would have erased genetic evidence of the older expansion, he asserts, "This new analysis is complicated, but it makes the most sense of any genetic study of evolution that I've seen," comments anthropologist John H. Relethford of the State University of New York at Oneonta. He agrees with Templeton that human origins lie mostly but not completely in Africa and that dispersed populations interbred.”

Wednesday, March 30, 2005


The new found power of the religious right is constantly trying to improve upon itself. The latest “fad” is their theory of “Intelligent Design.” As many of us know this idea is based on some intelligent being or entity creating life. They say it’s not God, but we know better. This concept is just a veiled attempt to further propagate what they consider their religious profundity.

I understand that the vast majority of those who wish to believe in Intelligent Design are really seeking some answers to what has been passed down through religious doctrine as, man being born in sin and the idea of salvation because God has a special place in his heart for us, therefore he has to be anthropomorphic. If you don't believe me ask Adam or Eve. But how would those right to lifers, religious pundits or Intelligent Design theorist explain the fact that there could be silicon based life? Why didn't the Intelligent Designer make Sandmen too?

I ask that questions because I wonder why, whoever their Intelligent Designer was, didn’t make silicon-based life as well as carbon based- life? Silicon is abundant in the universe. Without a doubt he had to know how if what they purport is true and he/she had the where with all to create us. But seriously, that wouldn’t fit their religo-socio-politico objectives. Can you image their Intelligent Designer being made of sand? How could we experience "salvation" from a Sand God? Can you imagine this Intelligent Designer making sandmen? Although silicon-based life is a slight possibility, it is still a possibility and no match for any Intelligent Designer to create. An article in Inside/Out suggest:

“Biologists have noted the proximity of carbon and silicon in the periodic table. Both elements are in Group 4 of the periodic table. NB Modern chemists now refer to these elements as Group 14. Elements in the same Group of the periodic table have very similar properties. In fact our cells have difficulty in distinguishing between calcium and strontium, both in Group 2 of the periodic table. Some scientists have supposed that it might be possible for some kind of life form to develop using silicon instead of carbon as the basis for life. Such organisms might have evolved on other planets in remote solar systems under very different conditions or even in the fiercely hot magma beneath the Earth’s crust.

I really wonder if Phillip Johnson and his fellow theorist foresaw the hijacking of their ideas by the religious right? I also wonder why religious folks are always “back-door-in” scientific discovery. For example, there were no dinosaurs, the earth is only 6,000 years old, evolution is false, and there was a flood that consumed all the earth. Science has just about discounted these notions but the Intelligent Design camps are still trying to come up with a rationale for their power base quest. I suppose the field of academic scholarship is too demanding for them. And I would suspect those that know evolution is the answer, the temptation of money and power is too great to turn down.

The sad part is that our own social evolution is stifled because their God or Designer of the Universe must have human likeness and qualities or else we could never begin to conceive of him conceiving us. We humans must have a special relationship both positive and negative with him and/or the Intelligent Designer. He belongs to only us and protects only us in the entire Universe. This must be true or else Silicon people would inhabit Venus or Mars. See their Intelligent Designer could never offer the Sand People equal status. By George he couldn't even conceive of creating them so what chance would they have? No more than a snowball’s chance in Hatie’s I'm sure. Ummm, Snow Ball people, I wonder? But one thing is for sure, they wouldn't evolve and thereby bolster the Intelligent Designer theory and send the evolutionist running for cover.

Friday, March 25, 2005


Did you know that there are tours to the mountains of Rwanda to view the Gorillas in the Mist? Certain people pay thousands of dollars to hike up a mountain to view these powerful primates indigenous only to Africa.

But I’m lucky. I don’t have to travel to Rwanda to see a Gorilla in its “natural” state. I can view a gorilla any time I want in the Valley of the Sun as long as it's basketball season. A gorilla that’s just as big and blacker than any in Africa. Yep, sure can. All I need to do is attend a Phoenix Suns basketball game. There it is, the symbol of the most physical intimidating primate on the globe, the Gorilla. The Great Ape is the premiere symbol of black Africa and an accepted symbol of pure brute strength. It's also the mascot of the Phoenix Suns basketball team. But let me jump ahead for a moment to remember something I read about the development of more powerful bullets. It was said that these bullets were necessary because the conventional projectile at the time wasn’t powerful enough to stop an enraged black man on drugs. Today, I suppose these weapons are needed to stop someone like a "physically powerful" Rodney King or any black man on enhancement drugs, that is if he's not Barry Bonds. Of course this is only one historical stereotypical idea of the black man having the strength of a gorilla. But enough of this, I digress.

When I turn on the T.V. and watch the NBA Phoenix Suns run up and down the court, my attention focuses on those black men whose ancestry was the home of the gorilla, the African American. I pay close attention to how the white players are far removed from the image of their NBA team mascot. For example,who would even accuse a Steve Nash or Tom Chambers of being a black Africa? Plus they certainly don't conjure up images of any association with a powerful black gorilla. Also If you ever really listened to the white announcers, they will tell you that Nash and the other white players are more “heady” than physically dominate. They don’t do 360 degree through your legs behind your head slam dunks and pound their chest when they show their proficiency of the game.

So the onus of this gorilla mascot being the symbol of the stereotypical powerful brute, the black man, is obvious to me. What is not obvious is the connection between a gorilla and a basketball team in Arizona. It's also interesting that this symbol belongs to a basketball team that represents a state that was a confederate territory, has never signed the ERA and was the last state in the Nation to ratify the Martin Luther King holiday. It also doesn’t escape me that NBA black players comprise about 80% of the league. So this symbol can also become universal to a lot of teams who employ men whose ancestry is the home of the “mighty” gorilla.

I must admit that there’s something comforting in knowing that the Phoenix Suns chose this mascot. It is a comforting reminder that if you are black, you can’t be comfortable, no matter the rhetoric. It is also comforting to know that I can save thousands of dollars because I don’t have to travel to the mountains of Rwanda to see the gorillas, but I may have to if I wanted to see the mist.

Sunday, March 20, 2005


Several years ago I dated this European woman. I liked her because she was different and the quintessential European. As an example, I would have my desk cluttered with papers and this would drive her crazy. So much so that she would file every paper when my back was turned. I told her that I didn't need that because I knew where everything was and in my mind everything had its proper place. There was no chaos in my view.

At the time I had no idea her actions were the result of not seeing the world as I did. I thought she was, as we call them, a neat freak. However, as I became more "enlightened" by studying European thought and behavior, I found that this wasn't necessarily so. I was mistaken because I didn't understand the influence of being "raised"in a culture and picking up the ideas and values of that culture.

If you've ever studied Greek mythology, I'm sure you've come across their Creation myth. I can imagine elders of the Doric tribe sitting by the fire building on their ideas of creation giving it a flavor that fits their cultural spirit. First in the myth was chaos and the gods continuing struggle to bring order to their world. The strife begins with the castration of father Uranus, (heaven) by his son Cronos. Later Cronos was overthrown by his son, Zeus. One of the gods, Prometheus, deserted the other Titans to side with Zeus. After warring with the Titans and Zeus was victorious, he allowed Prometheus to create Man out of mud and Athena to breath life into the clay creation. Prometheus loved Man more than the gods and to preserve Man's place tricked Zeus. Zeus became angry and punished both Man and Prometheus. He punished Man by having the first woman created, Pandora, who had a deceptive heart and lying tongue (poor Eve). Pandora was given a jar by Zeus and was told not to open it. She disobeyed and out came all the plagues of man, suffering, evil, sorrow, misfortune, but at the bottom of the jar there was one good thing, "hope"(faith). Zeus punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock in the Caucasus Mountains where he was tormented day and night.

Although this story was derived from another culture's creation myth which showed the opposite, from order came chaos, this one is unique because it lays the foundation of what is happening today in the Western world. In the United States there are people who view the world in chaos. Typical of their ancient creation myths, there must be war to end strife and bring order to the world. In fact, if you look at the history of the West, you'll see Zeus' pattern of fighting or warring to bring order. (Or more poignantly, a different way of seeing the world, similar to my experience with my aforementioned girlfriend). A look at the history of Western cultures, the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, English, French, Italians, Germans, and now the United States all acted out the myth. They felt they were ordained by Zeus, or whatever the god of the day, to shape the world into their idea of order. They had a mandate to finally defeat chaos and bring democracy and/or freedom (order) by making the world "safe" albeit using bigger swords, cannons, and bombs.

This idea of bringing order to chaos can also affect a society. Those followers of the ancient myth can use Zeusian or godly beliefs to oppress a society that they feel is in chaos, like achieving an Orwellian 1984, instead of using bombs, they use the thought police. Those of us who understand that you can't bring order through violence, only more chaos, are silenced. But what can you do when those who developed the major weapons and resources for the purpose of "righting" the world, can't see it any other way? Their world view from ancient times can't be wrong.

The only solution I can see is that those people who believe in the ancient myth, take a long hard look at their behavior. For those who can understand what this essay is saying, I would suggest they use their resources to let chaos exist for those culture's that can function in what the West sees as chaos. I hope they will understand that you don't need to own the resources of the world so you can be more powerful to change the world in your image.

This is not an impossible task, but it will take a dramatic departure from what Greek mythology has taught the people of "Western" cultures. For those who can make the transition, I say let those that can't stay on "Mount Olympus" and dictate the affairs of those who still believe in war as a solution to force their ideas of order on the world. For the rest of us, I say we should get started with the business of humanity. We should use the many resources we have to do business with each other and the rest of the world. There are many in the world who understands that the road we are on is insanity and will gladly do business with corporations and individuals outside of those on Mount Olympus. People who want to trade goods, services and ideas. People whose chaos is their own and don't wish to impose their idea of order. By the way, my lady-friend finally got the idea and let my chaos be.

Sunday, March 13, 2005


I woke up this morning in my 6X13 room still hell bent on leaving this hypocritical country. I can't speak for others, but I really get so very tired of the lies and deceit. I suppose so many folks are able to cope because they just ignore them and for a minute or two they go away.

I have often said that a percentage of the white American populace to date, has always protect its perceived self interest over any moral issues pertaining to non-whites and the poor. The most popular method of accomplishing this and still think one is "fair," is to support a system that is upheld as "legitimate" and dilute yourself into believing it. For example, IF the democratic process functions as it should, then voting is a workable methodology. Majority rules! I've researched the past Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court from 1953 to 2001. Democrats have made six (6) appointments and the Republicans fifteen (15). ( After J.F. Kennedy only four appointments and of those only two remain) It appears that in the years when these "Justices" are likely to leave the Court, the populace votes Republican. I would imagine an example of why would be the 2000 election.

In the next four years there maybe at least three new appointments, maybe four to the Court. The historic trend continues with the sitting president, G.W. Bush, a Republican, having the chance to appoint justices more favorable to his agenda and those who support him by manipulating the laws of the land "legitimately" in the favor of the elite corporate-complex and the religious "right."

If you noticed the "if" in the second paragraph is capitalized and underlined. It boggles the mind to think that such a disparity in appointments is just by chance or coincidence and the pubic will vote a particular party into office each and every year since 1953 that has the opportunity to control the Court. We have long suspected that this country is controlled by money and not ideals. The Republican party represents money. The law represents methods of manipulating and channeling money. It would make sense that the Court must stay in the hands of the money interest. It would therefore follow that voting must not be left to chance and the fifteen to six ratio I think makes a good case for no chances.

I don't know for sure the future of the United States, but I do know that if this trend isn't curbed, the country will implode. It will implode because of the disparity in wealth, the shrinking resources, the global position of the United States and the desire to impose a hypocritical moral value on the population.
But historically, no one listens and G.W. will make his appointments as planned and I will continue to try to find a reasonable way out of here.

Saturday, March 12, 2005


As I grow older, I can reflect on social and technological developments over a span of some 50 plus years. I remember no matter my income; I was restricted to my community. I remember big tube radios, the Lone Ranger, Inner Sanctum, and Jack Benny. I remember the first commercial jet airliner. I remember when color T.V. came to market. I remember the first transistor radio and Texas Instrument’s first hand held calculator. I remember Vietnam and the “Summer of Love.” I remember Malcolm, Kuame, Dr. King, and Ali. I also remember when the prisons were 20% Black and 80% White. I remember when drugs were an abomination in my community. I remember when guns were all but non-existent. Now I see a systematic and calculated reversal in the Black community. One so slick that it has the victims blaming the victims, the victims killing the victims, and the victims believing they are victims because they can’t do any better.

This almost complete reversal of social attitudes and conditions in the Black community has taken place right under my nose just like all the other “remembrances.” Except now these conditions were culminating into devastating results for Black people. For example, “According to Todd Clear, the negative labor market effects of mass incarceration on black communities are probably minor "compared to the economic relocation of resources" from Black to white communities that mass incarceration entails. As Clear explains in cool and candid terms, "Each prisoner represents an economic asset that has been removed from that community and placed elsewhere. As an economic being, the person would spend money at or near his or her area of residence-typically, an inner city. Imprisonment displaces that economic activity: Instead of buying snacks in a local deli, the prisoner makes those purchases in a prison commissary. The removal may represent a loss of economic value to the home community, but it is a boon to the prison community. Each prisoner represents as much as $25,000 in income for the community in which the prison is located, not to mention the value of constructing the prison facility in the first place. This can be a massive transfer of value: A young male worth a few thousand dollars of support to children and local purchases is transformed into a $25,000 financial asset to a rural prison community. The economy of the rural community is artificially amplified, the local city economy artificially deflated."

Looking back before I helped to integrate my high school, I wonder how we Blacks would have faired if we didn’t accept integration. From my perspective integration only forced competition among the ex-enslaved Blacks while whites knew full well there was only room for a very limited number of those ex-enslaved. Those few allowed in the house because their "attitudes" were politically correct, received the positons assigned to them. However, I wonder if left alone could we have built our own communities comparable to other ethnic groups in this country. I wonder what would have happened if we hadn’t forgotten that we were then, as now, Black bodies for America’s economic and political aspirations. I wonder if it’s too late for our young men and women to realize, or even want to realize, that they should use their skills to help develop Africa. If so I'm convinced their reflections, although prehaps more technologically sophisticated, will never allow them to stand witness to what I’ve seen. Perhaps in Africa they can fulfill our deferred promise of America and build those communities without having to look over their shoulders for integration or incarceration schemes.

Thursday, March 03, 2005


“WASHINGTON - Religious groups participating in federal job-training programs could hire employees based on their religious beliefs under a jobs bill that narrowly passed the House Wednesday.”-Associated Press

Americans must make up their minds, if they haven’t already. Do they want a country that is having its resources consolidated into the hands of a wealthy few and then leaving the shrinking middle class and habitually poor in the hands of “faith-based” organizations? Are they creating a religious welfare state, one that has concepts of knowing what is and how to be the “good” to those growing numbers of angry citizens that lack jobs and resources? Are they creating a state that is religiously chic? One that dictates, if you are not in the “fold,” you are out in the cold.

Historically government has not been the friend of people of color in the United States. We all know how the First Peoples’ no longer have any choice land or real sovereignty. (Blacks know about such historical decisions as The Three Fifths Clause, Dred Scott, Plessy and Bakke.) But most importantly they don’t have real religious freedom. The Native American Rights Fund states, "Even today, the freedom of Native Americans to practice their traditional religions continues to be questioned in the courts and discounted in federal legislation. In the past few decades, issues such as access to religious sites, the use of peyote in religious ceremonies, the process of obtaining eagle feathers for religious uses, and Native American prisoners’ access to religious articles and practitioners have all raised questions about the U.S. government’s true commitment to protecting religious freedom for all people in the U.S., including Native Americans.”

Isn’t it interesting that Black Americans are in many ways the most religious (Overwhelming Christian) people in America? Some 82 percent of blacks (versus 67 percent of whites) are church members; 82 percent of blacks (versus 55 percent of whites) say that religion is "very important in their life"; and 86 percent of blacks (versus 60 percent of whites) believe that religion "can answer all or most of today’s problems." (John J. Dilulio Director, White House Faith Based Community Programs).

On the contrary, statistics taken from the Sentencing Project show that the rate of imprisonment for black men (those who go to prison are probably the least educated, poorest, and the less likely to consistantly participate in religious rituals or european cultural values) in 1996 was 8.5 times that of white men: black men were confined in prison at a rate of 3,098 per 100,000 compared to a white rate of 370. Even more strikingly, in the past ten years the black men’s rate increased ten times the white men’s increase. (However almost all will likely admit to being a Christian before incarceration)

From my perspective, why not just cut to the chase and say if you are different then us "faith based moral people,", you can’t make it here. If you aren’t what the Christian leadership thinks is a good Christian, a "like white" Christian, a "moral" person in their eyes, then you either land in jail or probably not have you or your ancestor's religion protected or respected. Forget about finding gainful employment, after all, most non-corporate community jobs will be controlled by faith based community projects and go to the "believers" while high level corporate jobs, being highly competitive, going to those who have the “right” education and eventually, the right religious beliefs too.

I am thrown back to Nazi Germany. If you weren’t on the same page as the Nazi’s and didn't share Nazi values, you were rounded up and eventually isolated and discriminated against. As Representative Bobby Scott, D-Virginia., said, The provision would "shift the weight of the federal government from supporting the victim of discrimination to supporting some so-called right to discriminate with federal funds. That is a profound change in civil rights protection."

“If you aren’t with us, you’re against us”- George W. Bush.

I sincerely hope the Senate doesn't let this country slip any further into darkness.

Saturday, February 26, 2005


Supporters of keeping the monument on the Capitol grounds say the traditions of Western law are rooted in the Ten Commandments. America can't scrub the role of religion from its history, said Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute, which defends religious freedoms and First Amendment rights and filed briefs in support of keeping the monument.

"What they're really advocating on the other side is a religious cleansing from our history," Shackelford said. "It should be treated with respect as our part of history, not some new form of pornography that has to be banned from our public arena." -Taken from the article; Top Court to Weigh Ten Commandments.

I couldn't agree more that "America can't scrub the role of religion from its history" and it would be insane to do so. After all, it is American history and it is valid. But wait. Why does the connection between America's religious history and how that history is dissected and interpreted only valid when the proponents of the religion set the standards? If the religion is not presented in a favorable light, or not by "agreed upon" interpretations by those who control the religion, trouble. (I wonder if those religious folks can accept or seriously entertain the possibility that there may be a historical connection between the 42 tenets of Maat and the Ten Commandments?)

I would think anything as powerful and so well promoted as the only way to live a life, should be examined from all angles without repercussions. If religion is truth based, then there should be nothing to hide and scrunity should be encouraged, after all isn't one's religion that important? There should be no need for advertisements of the religious faith blasted all over the country, it should stand on its own merits. For those who believe, it is the truth and truth has a way of finding its way to the surface, one way or the other.

I often wonder if those pious people among the theocracy that promote, "the only way to live is their way to live" and what they believe, would be so inclined to just be silent and let their truth do the work? By this time everyone on the planet knows their story. I wonder if they will ever stop trying to acquire political power/clout, media control, and the White House to silence or intimidate opposing views? Can they forget or ignore the torments by the religious zealots like, the 250 years of the Crusades, The Inquisitions, The Salem Witch Hunts, etc., not to mention other atrocities done in the name of God, like, the taking of the Western Hemisphere from Indigenous Peoples and the slave trade.

Now if they could do this, and their views survive, then there very well may be something to what they believe.

Thursday, February 24, 2005


As a student of history and also a non-white citizen of the United States, I have learned to be extra cautious when the U.S. takes an interest in non-white peoples. Recently, I read in the Associated Press that more Africans are arriving in the U.S. today than during the Middle Passage. Well, I found that very interesting. Again, my knowing the history of the African slave trade, the Antebellum, Jim Crow, Segregation and the constant discrimination and isolation, even into contemporary times, would not only make me wonder, but an Einstein too.

The most striking contradiction is that this influx of “new” Blacks coincided with the massive incarceration of the Blacks already here. When I thought about this, I of course imagined the most sinister of plots. It was like the only thing they thought could be done with the “garbage” they created, whether “criminal or dissident,” was to discard it in the trash bins of society’s jails or isolation boxes. Then, they could start with Blacks who have no history of U.S. maltreatments, enslavements or debasements. Therefore they could keep their insidious history hidden from themselves and the world.

I must give credit to the majority group in the U.S. They know how to plan for the future and they know how to apply lessons learned from experience. For example, when I lived in California and then in Arizona, I found that many Mexican Americans voted to keep those “immigrants” Mexicans from crossing the border. It seems that those Mexicans who already had theirs in the U.S. didn’t want any competition from the new arrivals for the crumbs.

One consequence could be that Africans (Americans) already in America will resist the new arrivals because they feel their crumb pile threatened. They could feel they may lose some “points” from all their past suffering in this country. This may create friction between the two Africans. The majority culture may favor the new arrivals.

A more devious consequence has to do with reparations. Once the “new” arrivals have been assimilated in the country, the white majority will have a strong “Black” voice that can yell loud and clear, “We blacks don’t deserve reparations,” and by this time the new arrivals will be legitimate African-Americans. This ploy can diminish the sting of past enslavement, dilute the call for reparations, and place in the forefront a number of Blacks who can soothe white guilt thereby supporting their hypocrisy.

In my mind the final benefit for whites would be the new arrivals will demonstrate less anger toward the majority community. After placing most of the contemporary “angry” blacks in prisons, drug invested communities, and suicidal-homicidal situations, whites know that there is a good chance they will disappear within a few generations. Concomitantly, they don’t have to worry about the ten percent black “intelligentsia” because they have mortgages. The new arrivals can be the replacements players for the now dwindling ninety-percent.

When I read back through this I can understand why I made my opening statements. See, the new arrivals more than likely will eliminate much of the need for paranoia in today's Black community to.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Intelligent Design?

I read in the Tucson Weekly an article entitled, “Evolution Revolution,” by Deidre Pike. What I got out of the article was there is yet another challenge to evolution and the Christian fundamentalist would like to have this idea of intelligent design taught as part of a school’s science curriculum.

When I read the article, my first thought was, what is the difference between this idea of the universe being created by an intelligent designer and it being created by the biblical God? From what I understand as the difference, the intelligent design idea, as Dembski expressed, “[Is that] the search for a designer goes deeper than science-and involves the way humans view the world.”

Ok, sort of, but do all humans on the planet view the world as being created by a God or an intelligent designer? I think not, but again, this type of myopic thinking could be cultural arrogance or ignorance. But with my very limited knowledge, let me try examining this even further. When one studies evolution there is no “search” as Dembski theorized for phenomenon, and science has not suggested that the earth, and its inhabitants, “human beings, have any real significance in the universe. So does it really matter how “humans see the world?” But just open your eyes and the universe is laid before you. One sees trees, rocks, clouds, stars, major galaxies, millions of phenomena with a plethora of proof the natural world exists, but not one single piece of proof, except in the minds of humans, that some intelligent designer created it.

If I were a person who needed to subdue and control Nature like some on the planet think they must do, then I think I would be more apt to think in terms of an “intelligent designer.” If Nature is the force and process that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world, and I would add “spiritual world,” as a human being who thrived on power, dominance and resource control, I would feel powerless in the wake of Nature because I couldn’t see myself in control. I would just be an actor with these unknown natural forces directing me. I find myself fearing there is no “logical” human order to phenomena, but needing an escapegoat for my destructive behavior towards Nature. What better scapegoat then using this intelligent designer?

How do I overcome this feeling of powerlessness? I make the director-designer a thinking entity. Then within the world view of those particular destructive humans, order and logic would be restored. There is now a point of reference. Since we know humans are able to do what we define as thinking, then this Creator, director or designer, must have human qualities. If this designer has human qualities than perhaps one day humans with a certain world view can be a director or a designer, with no bounds. This world view would allow those who believe in a thinking, logical, intelligent designer, feel more comfortable because they are not at the mercy of forces they know nothing about or can’t control.

Karl Marx once said that religion is the opium of the masses. I would say religion is just a tool to explain why the masses must be controlled. The masses can understand a thinking creator or designer, but would feel hopeless in a destructive world such as ours with only natural forces as their guide. After all who can trust Nature? Contrarily, if the masses could understand that these natural forces have always been their guide, even before the advent of religion, then the theocracy and their explanations would be useless. Again enter the intelligent designer.

Christian fundamentalist ideology has a deep seeded need to express itself, even in a limited manner. Their ideology must be accepted or it has grave social and psychological implications for those who "believe." Since the biblical story is now pretty much ineffective, intelligent design lets them keep what they consider power and legitimacy, it becomes their viable alternative. I can think of no better creation story then one that most humans can share some common ground with, yet still have no requirement for truth. That's the intelligent design theory. There’s not one human on the planet that couldn't understand a thinking and creating designer. But how does our insignificant position in the universe justify that thoughts through design or whatever, as perceived and expressed by humans, must lead to some intelligent designer creatating the universe?

From The Talk.Origins Archives:
“Evolutionists have successfully refuted the usual argument for design that is grounded on the intricacy of biological life. They have convincingly demonstrated, to any rational person, that complexity sufficient for life could readily have emerged naturally in the primeval chemical stew. However, the processes of biological evolution on earth still depended on the pre-existence, billions of years ago, of the particles and "laws" of physics.
For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.
Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
These forces must have been in operation within seconds of the start of the big bang, 10-15 billion years ago, to allow for the formation of protons and neutrons out of quarks and their storage in stable hydrogen and deuterium atoms. Free neutrons disintegrate in minutes. To be able to hang around for billions of years so that they could later join with protons in making chemical elements in stars, neutrons had to be bound in deuterons and other light nuclei where energetics prevented their decay.
Gravity was needed to gather atoms together into stars and to compress stellar cores, raising the core temperatures to tens of millions of degrees. These high temperatures made nuclear reactions possible, and over billions of years the elements of the chemical periodic table were synthesized as the by-product.”

I’m sure the intelligent design theory is just another smoke screen for biblical creationism. To the evolutionist I say, what if what we see (universe) has always been, no beginning and no end? After all isn't time a human construct? What if the universe is being "recycled" through contraction (gravity) and expansion (nuclear force-big band)? Circularity and evolutionary. What if to understand creation humans must transfer it into human thought as needing a creator or an intelligent designer? Wouldn't that make humans the intelligent designer?

Saturday, February 12, 2005


Yesterday I was walking down the street and I saw two quails eating some bread crumbs someone had left for them. I didn’t want to frighten them so I took the long way around. But when I came parallel to their eating spot, one bird stopped eating and ran towards me like a true avian trooper while the other didn’t miss a crumb. I thought this brave guardian must be the male.

Then as usual I started relating this experience with other animal behavior on the planet. I saw that this behavior was not too different from the human animal and his ideas about protecting the female and by extension, the family. Of course I had to put this into the context of cultural behaviors. My epiphany brought me to my own past. I don’t remember any of the men, father, uncles, family friends, really working. They had menial jobs like driving taxis, janitorial work and numbers running, after all this was in the early 1950’s, but nothing considered, “professional.” Looking back, I wondered how their females felt. I got a glimpse of this watching my avian friends.

The basic function of the man in a patriarchal society is to protect those who depend on him for said protection. No Black man then or now is allowed to fully fulfill this basic function whether he is a “professional” or a businessman. Even the successful black businessman is not immune because he has some type of bank note from a white banker and must show some caution, although not as much as the working professional.

So where does that leave the black female who just wants to have her and her child eat while their back is being protected? I would say “loving,” but with one foot out the door.

There are so many forces that come into play when a black man wants to protect his partner. There is always the threat that the white establishment will tire of him and his income will become poverty level. There is the chance that he is under so much pressure to be a non-entity in the outside world, that he takes this frustration out on his family. Then there is the chance that he internalizes his lack to express his manhood, making the female either no longer tolerating his yielding disposition, thereby losing respect, however still needing to eat, or; she finds other avenues of escapism, but the end result is the familiar bonds dissolve.

“One wonders how long a man can maintain enthusiasm for thrift, diligence,
and hard work when the rewards so earned are denied and when the goods so
earned are stolen.”-Black Rage

How can the black female feel secure with the black man? I would say this is a near impossible situation for the long term under present conditions. Factor in that today’s relationships also cross “racial” and “gender” boundaries, that condition makes black male-female situations more acute. All this is then packaged into the idea of a “progressive” society further leaving the black female’s back exposed to many abstract dangers. Subsequently, when she does eat, she eats a ton because there’s no telling when the knife of white supremacy will be thrust into her because her natural mate is able to continuously watch her back safely. To this I say, too bad we aren't quails.

Friday, January 28, 2005

My Friend M

While talking on the phone last night with my friend in New York, let’s call him “M,” he was expressing his despair about the election. See, he had gone to Ohio to work on the Kerry campaign and was so optimistic about John’s chances. When he lost the election, M was not a happy camper because he was totally involved with W’s defeat. He sold T-shirts on the streets of New York for the Democratic Party. He did all the things that the sixties generation did in past elections, however as we all know, to no avail.

M is truly depressed. I think he feels like there’s no direction except down the tubes. He, like many others in post election Bush country, are fearful, sadden, desperate, and angry. But using my usual backwater analysis of the situation, I came up with the following.

The democrats have nothing to engage the public except to be defensive about the many republican initiatives and proposals. Republicans set the agenda and the debate. They use America’s arsenal of corporate, media, and military tools to sway opinion and to get down and dirty when ever necessary. Democrats are left like a ship without a rudder, a voice without sound because they have no message except from a defensive posture parroting cognitive logical functions. They just can’t find their piece of dirt to stand aground. So how does this relate to “M?” First let me say that I’ve known M for over thirty years. He is my friend and my brother. He is white, Jewish and as we now know, a democrat.

I’ve often suggested to M that there are basically two types of people in American politics. What I’d call the cognitive logical and the cognitive emotional. The cognitive logical, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, are predominately members of the Republican Party. The cognitive emotional are mostly democrats. The Republican Party is strictly a party formulated for power through control, and achieves those goals through cognitive logical functions. The democrats are a party that tries to engage the masses thereby embracing eclectic ideas of how to share power and control, however minimally. Their functions are cognitive emotional. When one lives in a culture that thrives and exalts materialism, the Republican Party will always dictate policy for they are single minded and rooted in the cognitive logical. For example, how more "logical" can one be but to support God and Country?

Cognitive emotional people often lose focus on using resources for strict power and control purposes. Although it doesn’t seem “logical,” I believe the democrats should play to their strength and set the agenda by framing policy around the cognitive emotional and stay that course. There is no way the Democrats can subvert the Republican's "logical hold" on God or Country. But Democrats feel they must respond to the agenda of the Republican Party or they are out of the mainstream which is mostly materialistic rhetoric whether, logical or illogical.

Again, that’s a ploy of the cognitive logical and the cognitive emotional can never win that battle. After all it makes logical sense and contributes to a sense of power to be and remain the number one Country in the world, with the number one God, who knows the only and best way to live. How can the cognitive emotional opposed such an agenda? How can they justify this cognitive emotional sentiment to a country built on self indulgence and greed? How can they convice the populance that giving to some remote “rip off” social program, some undeserving gay socialist, or fund an abortion clinic which may support this abstract idea of human rights, the "logical thing to do?

Eventually M will accept that the cognitive emotional are really in the majority, no matter how the cognitive logical paint the picture. He should understand that if what we thought was sanity is to return, we must speak in terms of our cognitive emotional being. Never mind that the cognitive logical are busy honing their logical skills for the manipulation of phenomena, simple put, democrats must allow policy to be balanced between the soul and the head.

I hope M understands this and perhaps he won’t be so depressed because his feelings are from his soul which in this day and time makes him seem out of touch. In fact, I believe all democrats need to connect to their soul, their cognitive emotional. Perhaps that would remind them that real truth comes from the soul, which allows us to feel something is right. Conversely, when we formulate truth within our minds, especially when resources are involved, policy becomes corrupt and we by extension become corrupt. The cognitive emotional should use their soul to speak truth, then, manipulation through unbalanced cognitive logical means, must take a back seat to human reality.

Manipulation understands well we are still, above all else, part and parcel of this planet. This is why the Republicans use so much negative energy to stay in control, to garner power. They have no emotional truth. They are masterful at manipulating mindful things with their cognitive logical rhetoric and behavior. But it should be clear to the democrats, they can’t manipulate the cognitive emotional unless they ALLOW themselves to be manipulated. Truth is the foundation of our human being-ness. M and the Democratic Party should understand this simple fact and appeal to our humanness. Then his depression will melt away.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005


So many of us complain about the "System." What is the "System?" I've always wanted to know because any "System" that needs to maintain power by suppression of its citizens won't last long. History is replete with examples, Assyria, Greece, Rome, Byzantine, all dirt and dust. So before it goes, I want to know what it is. Is it a bunch of guys with Cuban cigars sitting around making plans on how much of other people's resources they can acquire without regard to how they acquire them? Is it a few people who pay other people to promote and support their position as head of the "System?" Or is it an attitude? Is the System an idea? What if the system is a thought that things must be done one way? What if it’s like a ideological snowball rolling down a hill and it catches everyone in its path. It catches those who make profit their goal, those who support them, and those who suffer under their socio-politico-economic power. It catches all, the rich, weak, and poor. I think that's it. "The system" is a big white snowball that allows no escape.

I believe no one can stop this rolling behemoth called "the system" even if they wanted too. One question would be, if someone did, who would be among the first to stand in front of this mass to try to slow its roll and risk having what they have gobbled up? We have many people standing on the sidelines throwing sticks and stones, but no one directly in its path. Other questions are, Is this snowball an idea gone bad? What will happen if the snowball keeps rolling? My thoughts are, that it will eventually feed upon itself and need to find other "economic ideological food." Perhaps the Chinese or some other stealth nation will start their own piss color snowball financed by those who created the first snowball. Those folks who only know how to create monopolizing spiritless balls called capitalism that morphs into a cannibalistic “system.” Then it will once again become this all encompassing cold mass rolling downhill until it finally reaches the edge of that final cliff and tumble into the inevitable hell fire.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Do Liberal Whites Want To Keep America White?

I have viewed so many talk shows and read so many comments on the net, etc. regarding how to change the world for the better. I hear the voices of the "liberal" and "conservative"(whatever that means) whites and "conservative" blacks speaking each and every day. They speak about "democracy," "freedom," "liberty," "the good and the evil." However there is one obvious voice missing. That voice is the "liberal" black voice. The voice that doesn't echo either liberal or conservative white or conservative black views. That voice that relates to the truly disenfranchised people of color in the United States and the world.

For this reason I asked the question, Do liberal whites wish to keep America white? I won't even attempt to ask why conservative whites and blacks don't want to acknowledge the liberal black voice, that's pretty clear. They don't respect that voice. But the "liberal" whites who want a better world for all, a more just world and a world that is pluralistic and equitable, come on, they should embrace the liberal black voice.

What is this "liberal" black voice I write about? I would say it's the voice of Diop, Clarke, Yoseh-Ben, Carruthers, Wilson, Ani and so many others. On liberal talk shows, in liberal chat rooms, in liberal universities, in liberal daily life, why are these voices excluded when they too speak of a better, and more just world?

I believe these voices are not acknowledge in this culture by both liberal and conservative whites because it wants, not to just change the way whites do business, ie: deconstruction of the social-economic-political American/European matrix, but to blend another cultural element that is difficult for the European mind to appreciate or respect. However does that mean it is invalid? Does it mean it has no agency? Does that mean it can't contribute to accomplishing the implied common goal of our human existence? Does that mean it can't seriously contribute to making this a better world?

I think so. I think if liberal whites allowed these black liberal voices to be heard in their circles, the fallout from the dialog and creativity would seriously open up new avenues of thought. I think the inclusion of the black liberal voice will challenge the American socio-economic-political system as never before, thereby bringing into the discussion more than just the "colonial" parties. However this can only be accomplished if the "liberal" whites choose to truly examine their own self interest and ideology. They should be able to accept views that may not be favorable to their conventional wisdom or present worldview. They should be seriously willing to join the world and not just objectify it through their own perspective for their own gain. They must understand they are not boundless.