Note: this is a fairly long piece that I wrote a week ago about the video that was brought to light in this article. if you’ve been following Pigford, I think it’s worth the read.

While the Congressional Black Caucus was holding their CBC Convention down the street, another group was discussing the Pigford Settlement at The National Press Club. This press conference is a multilayered indicator of why the Pigford settlement has been such a train wreck for legitimate black farmers. It contained a number of shocking revelations — all caught on video — about fraud perpetrated by black ministers, a discussion of a second large organized fraud ring and also a number of offensive racist outbursts that had nothing to do with farming.

The press conference was held by a ragtag group of self-styled black leaders. The most notorious presence was Malik Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, there to announce that the NBPP was going to make ‘black farmers’ a focus of his organization. Also in attendance was Ridgley Muhammad, the Minister of Agriculture for Nation of Islam, who has written critically about the Pigford settlement for years. Gary Grant, the head of the Black Farmers Agricultural Association of North Carolina, also spoke for a long time at the sparsely attended presser.

The star of the show, however, was Selma, Alabama based semi-retired attorney Rose Sanders. Mrs. Sanders arrive late — to applause from the audience and the panel — but her presence was significant for not only what she said but who she is.

Sanders is a complex figure. She and her husband — Democrat Alabama State Senator Hank Sanders — both came from very humble backgrounds to become graduates of Harvard Law School. They were recruited by famed civil rights attorney J.L. Chestnut to work at his Selma based law firm decades ago. Rose Sanders is also a songwriter, playwright and does a lot of volunteer and activist work. She’s fiercely and famously outspoken against her perceived enemies, including the Tea Party. Some of these enemies aren’t mere figments of an overactive imagination, either. There are certainly some white racists in Alabama, where echoes of the Ku Klux Klan and other violent groups have not completely faded.

[Read more...]

(I use the word ‘babies’ a number of times in this article so I don’t want this to drift into a debate about abortion. It won’t be settled here and because it’s an established controversy with large numbers of people with a lot of divergent viewpoints it’s a distraction from my point here which is that killing months-out-of-the-womb, crawling, crying, diaper wearing children isn’t something that is or should be controversial with anyone at all. The discussion about abortion can wait for another article.)

Here is every single thing you need to know about the New Black Panther Party in order to make an informed judgement about them; they are in favor of killing babies.

The leadership of the New Black Panther Party has shouted this belief of theirs repeatedly in the last two decades in short, simple three word declarative sentences that cant be broken down, interpreted or parser in any other possible way save for their obvious meaning,

“Kill the babies!”

There isn’t one other fact you need to know about the New Black Panther party.

Yes, amazingly, after my piece yesterday on “Who Is The Black Panther Party?”, I got into a few discussions with people who seem to be struggling to deflect from this obvious point. Why is that?

Let’s remember the new related issue on the table here. While running for President in 2007, Barack Obama spoke and marched at an event in Selma, Alabama commemorating the 42nd anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” civil rights protest. Memorializing this event and the Civil Rights movement in general is justified and honorable. Thousands attended, including Al Sharpton and Bill & Hillary Clinton. At the time, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were locked in a tight and often vicious primary race.

Yesterday, photos were released related to J. Christian Adam’s new book Injustice showing candidate Obama speaking at the same podium as Mailk Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panthers. Video showed that Obama was in proximity to Shabazz at one point. At the time, Shabazz and the New Black Panthers gave Obama their endorsement. Obama never repudiated this endorsement and after he was elected President, his justice department refused to peruse voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. This is the subject of Adam’s book.

It pains me to have to point out what should be completely obvious were it not for the blinders of ideology — it’s wrong to grant any legitimacy to to people who repeatedly call for racist violence against children. There’s no possible justification for it. Zero. There’s simply not one ounce of nuance here to grapple with.

A few people tried to argue with me that the New Black Panther Party was ‘marginal’. That’s true in the sense that there isn’t a popular mass movement in the United States calling explicitly for racial killings. It’s not a view with many adherents. If that’s what marginal means, so are the Manson Family and the church that protests at soldier’s funerals, yet that doesn’t keep anyone from condemning them, immediately and strongly.

The other argument that gives shelter to the New Black Panther Party’s involvement is even more depraved, so it was naturally put forward by Media Matters for America. It’s the opposite of the ‘marginal’ argument and it says in essence that it’s no big deal that Obama was there, since thousands of other people were as well.

This gives lie to the idea that the New Black Panthers are completely marginal. They are treated legitimately and taken seriously enough to not only be included in such an event but to be given a speaker’s slot. Their presence wasn’t controversial. They weren’t asked to leave or denounced.

I’m going to state simple, obvious, civilized truth again. There’s a word for people who explicitly call for racist murder of children and it’s psychopath. Once you make that argument, you have left the realm of sane, legitimate discussion and are to be banished to the hinterlands of the homicidally obsessed insane.

Barack Obama shouldn’t have been speaking at an event where Malik Zulu Shabazz was speaking. Once he knew Shabazz was there, Obama should have immediately and strongly condemned him and whoever gave Shabazz access to a microphone and a crowd. Instead, he took their endorsement,

But Media Matters is correct in the sense that criticism shouldn’t just be directed at Barack Obama.

The Clintons should have denounced Shabazz’s participation as well. Even as bad as Al Sharpton is, he’s in aother dimension from the New Black Panthers and should have denounced them and the event organizers as well. Thousands of people shouldn’t have been marching with them. Nobody should have. Not one single person. The New Black Panther Party should be completely shunned by everyone — black, white, Asian, Hispanic, liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist. Every single person.

So why has the New Black Panther Party been given a pass?

Here’s the ugly truth — it’s because they are black and because the murders that they call for are of white, ‘cracker babies.’ The unstated basis for the silence protecting Shabazz is that somehow Shabazz’s group is perhaps a bit extreme but somehow maybe a little bit justified because you know…slavery.

Wrong. A thousand times, wrong. The tacit acceptance of the New Black Panther’s black-on-white calls for murder is totally wrong because it helps to perpetuate hatred, racism and violence to the benefit of no one.

Let’s not tip toe around this. Letting Shabazz speak at the Selma event dishonored everyone who fought for civil rights. It disgraced the event and all those who stood silently by while it happened and ll those who defend it in any way now let the cause of equality be sullied. This includes Barack Obama, who is well aware that he risks being called an Uncle Tom and worse if he dares to criticize the New Black Panthers in the way they so richly deserve.

Racism is wrong. It needs to be discussed and debated so we can all move forward. Sometimes those debates are going to get uncomfortable and heated. That’s the way forward. Anyone who calls for wholesale violence can’t be part of that debate.

One of the worst things about the current class warfare meme being pushed by the left media, the Democratic Party establishment and the Unions is how they lump all ‘the rich’ into one large, undefined category in order to create a nice big fat target for their self-serving bile.

There are certainly some people who deserve this wrath; if you made out like a bandit due to the TARP bailouts, you got wealthy at the public’s expense and that sucks. There are certainly some CEOs who took their Golden Parachute and bailed on their shareholders.

But there are plenty of people who became wealthy in honest ways; by creating genuine value and great products and services. The current rhetoric doesn’t take the difference between the honest and the people that gamed the political system into account and that’s no accident. The goal is obvious; makes villains of them all and create an atmosphere were taking their money seems like the only alternative.

Because most people who made a bunch of money are honest — unless you take the view that there’s a limited pie of wealth and everyone who gets rich does so by stealing from someone else. I’m seeing a lot of people who do take that view, too. It’s not just wrong but dangerously wrong. I’ve heard just that from a few people; that anyone who’s made a good deal of money is suspect. No wonder our economy is a mess. If people don’t understand how money gets made and they have a knee jerk dislike of those who make it, they have little hope of actually adding value themselves.

The Obama Administration is helping to foster this craziness, which means they have no possible hope of fixing the economy.

I’m here at my Starbucks Office and I have two devices with me — my smartphone and my iPad. That’s no big deal, of corse. I see 17 year old kids on the bus with smart phones and a couple of iPads every time I take the train.

In other words, I’m not special in this regard. So, what have I got here?

I have immediate access to tens of thousands of songs through Spotify; more albums than the biggest Tower Records or Virgin Megastore ever had. I can listen to about 5,000 radios stations from all over the world for free with TuneIn Radio or program incredible, smart custom radio stations with Pandora.

Right now, I can choose to watch thousands of hours of video, including some of the greatest films and TV shows ever produced between YouTube, NetFlix, HBO Go, Huu and the ABC and NBC apps. Or I have access to hundreds of high tech training classes on Lynda.com that costs me $25 a month for as many courses as I care to watch.

I have access to over 20,000 books right now including all the classics. Philosophy, politic thought, business education, poetry, essays, fiction — all free through a variety of apps that give you access to great works now in the public domain. I’m carrying about 145 books on my Kindle — and I can instantly buy and start reading a new one.

I have tools to research, write and publish my own works — instantly and to people around the world. I could publish them for sale, as well — no startup costs. I could put on paid classes with no startup costs using AnyMeeting.com. I can host daily shows free on BlogTalkRadio.

My phone has a high resolution camera that shoots stills and videos. I can instantly broadcast this to people anywhere. I have apps that cost only a couple of dollars that do photo retouching, editing, and special effects.

I have the ability to write and record music, using software emulations that exactly duplicate everything from guitar amps to drum machines to choirs to expensive outboard recording gear. Then I put that music up online and charge for it.

The tools to market myself are all out there and available for free, too. Mailing lists, video marketing, newsletter publishing, e-commerce — it’s all in place, right this second.

You probably have this same capacity, more or less. If you don’t, you could save $10 a week for a year and have everything I just described. Or if you’re impatient, work a crappy job for about three weeks and you’d have the $500 or so you need.

You and I have all this stuff — are we using it? If not, why not? Seriously — why the hell not? the economy isn’t stopping you. “The rich” aren’t holding you back. The Obama administration isn’t in your way and neither is The Tea Party.

Maybe you don’t quite know what to do. Okay, go learn. The answers are all out there and you don’t need to apply or take out a loan. The information is out there, free or cheap

Probably you’re a little afraid. Okay, power through it. You aren’t used to having this much control. You don’t need permission and that’s unusual. Okay, welcome to the club. Nobody is really quite used to it yet.

Really. What are you waiting for? Get started. Then finish what you started. Then start something else. We’re all waiting.

I’ve been doing some work on debunking the well-produced yet fundamentally dishonest film Better This World and a few posts back, I published the letter that I sent to PBS’s Ombudsman. He did some research, contacted the filmmakers Katie Galloway and Kelly Duane de la Vega and now has published a lengthy and detailed response.

The Ombudsman calls the film ‘flawed’ but doesn’t find the flaw I point out to be fatal. I actually agree with that; my criticisms are not based just on that one problem. I only sent him one criticism and not even the most substantive but we’ve gotten the ball rolling. Galloway and Duane de la Vega even tell the Ombudsman that they are open to discussion, which is awesome to know since they have been ducking me.

But a quick note about the nature of filmmaking, particularly documentaries.

Because I’ve been working on my Pigford documentary for the better part of a year, I give the ethics of filmmaking a lot of thought. I’m intimately involved in every aspect of that film; I conducted the interviews myself, shot them myself, and I’m the one doing all of the editing. This is fairly unique. I’m not saying it’s better but it’s the way I’ve worked so far.

So when I look at Better This World, I look at it as a filmmaker who is versed in every way you can bias a move. Despite all the awards it’s won and the praise heaped on it for the supposedly great journalism that Galloway and de le Vega did, after watching the film several times and doing my own research to verify facts my verdict is that Better This World is as journalistic as a bad American reality TV show.

In fact, the more I look at it the more I think it owes as much to The Jersey Shore as The Thin Blue Line, This may actually be part of the film’s appeal to audiences. It lays out the story it wants to lay out pretty clearly and in a hip, grungy verite style. It’s truthy.
,
The problem that I have with the film isn’t that they have an opinion – and they clearly do. It’s a film for liberals, no doubt about it. The opening shots of the film show scenes from the Republican National Convention and the filmmakers start immediately by signaling their intent. They show a convention antennae with a Fox News sticker on their hat. They end the film with Brandon Darby on the Gordon Liddy show. These are liberal dog whistles — Things We Are Supposed To Hiss At. The filmmakers don’t need to cue the hiss sign. They know their audience and pander to it.

And I’m okay with that, too.

A conservative filmmaker could do the same simple framing trick — show the Democratic convention and someone with an MSNBC sticker. End with the film’s antagonist on the air with Al Franken, It’s called pandering and it’s super simple to do . It’s the equivalent artistically of the lead singer for a band saying “Someone told me that Springfield is ready to ROCK!!!” Crowd cheers. Easy. nothing wrong with it especially, but let’s call it what it is.

But Better This World deals with a criminal case and as I’ll be outlining in the coming weeks, it gets the facts of the case wrong. On purpose. And there’s a purpose to that purpose — to destroy Brandon Darby

Why? Brandon committed the inexcusable sin. No, not that he was an informant for the FBI. If Crowder and McKay were right wing radicals who planned to throw molotov cocktails at abortion clinics and Darby broke ranks with the right to inform on them, the same crowd that hates him now would throw a parade for him

No, Brandon’s sin is that he crossed the left. That’s it. And because that’s what he did, it’s okay to take him down by any means necessary. And so they did.

Because brandon was on the left, though, I think a lot of conservatives are loathe to defend him, He’s suspect and so he’s been largely left hanging n the breeze. I think that sucks, too.

The more I look into this story, though, the more clear it is just how Brandon has been wronged. Stay tuned and see if I don’t convince you, too.

I’ve been listening to a lot of Gillian Welch lately. Love this cover of the Radiohead song…more than the original, even, at this point.

Even though I do most of my work at home, it’s nice to have an office space to let me get out of the house and away the distractions there, You know, distractions like the relative proximity of comfy horizontal surfaces I can lay on.

So I rent an office. I’m writing this at the office, in fact. It’s nice. A little noisy sometimes but that’s just the bustle of real life and with three kids at home — one under two years old — my home is pretty loud, too.

The rent is reasonable – it varies but it’s usually no more than sixty bucks a month. And that’s furnished with utilities, air conditioning, Wifi, and of course, plenty of quality snacks.

Obviously, it’s Starbucks. My drink is an iced coffee, which is a about two bucks for a tall. I’m a Gold Card idiot so I get free refills,

And my office is all over. I had to take out cat Lucy to get spayed today so I’m stuck way on the other side of Dallas…but my office is right here.

Photo by me – taken with Paper Camera and processed through PhotoToaster

The role of labor unions in our political system is going to be one of the big, under reported stories of the 2012 election. The mainstream press isn’t going to cover this story but the left and right blogospheres are all over it. That leads to more heat and less light, however, which means an honest-to-God= discussion is unlikely. That’s really too damn bad because it’s a discussion worth having.

So let’s say you and I start having it, okay?

I was as shocked as anyone at how much this Fscebook post by Sarah Palin a couple of days ago resonated with me but it gets into a lot of the complex thoughts I have about the unions in America circa 2011. If you really hate Sarah Palin then you’re going to hate the article. Heck, you probably even hate it before reading it. Here’s a quote…

To the same degree Americans are concerned about irresponsible, greedy corporate execs who got cushy bonuses from taxpayer-funded bailouts, we should also be concerned about greedy union bosses who are willing to tank our economy just to protect their own power. As union history shows, power and greed corrupt. Just because you claim to represent union members doesn’t mean you are on the side of the angels. The greed of too many of these union bosses has all but destroyed the labor movement in this country, helped chase away our jobs, and is killing the American dream.

That’s populism, baby and it’s probably one big reason Palin scares the conventional political establishment. That’s a major figure in the GOP talking about ‘greedy corporate execs who got cushy bonuses taxpayer-funded bailouts”.

I think the piece is notable for a few reasons…

• She’s not attacking unions or the idea of unions. In fact, she identifies with the union workers — actaully reaching out to them and saying she’s a former union member herself
• She (correctly, in my opinion) addresses the victims of the current economy as the middle class and points how tt’s rigged for the very poor and the very rich. The issue of ‘the poor’ is complex but again, kudos to Palin for bringing up the rich who are taking advantage of the system, too.
• What she does attack is the purely political role that unions have taken on recently

If the heart of the debate between the Democrats and the Republicans is the role of the government in the economy, the unions obviously come down 100% on the side of the Democrats and therefore the government. In fact, what I fund interesting is the whole focus of the unions lately seems to be largely to protect government employees.

This is a very clever tactic on the part of the unions and their political allies on the left. If they came out about talked about protecting taxpayer-funded jobs directly, some taxpayers might revolt. So instead they use the term ‘worker’ when they really mean ‘government employee’, Everyone likes ‘workers’, right? When you think of a worker you think of someone working.

What do you think of when I say ‘government employee’?

This is the idea; get people on the side on the government employees — who often have much better pensions and benefits the the average private sector worker. For example, the battle for Wisconsin was about collective bargaining rights for state workers.. Or take this quote from a recent article liberal writer Alison Kilkenny…

The recent attacks against the United States Postal Service (USPS) are more than signs of desperate times – a natural sunset moment for a service rendered archaic by FedEx and UPS. Rather, the Postal Service has been under constant, vicious assault for years from the right, who views this as an epic battle with the goal of finally taking down the strongest union in the country, the second-largest employer in the United States (second only to Walmart) and a means to roll the country ever closer toward the abyss of privatization

Funny, I could have sworn that the dude who runs the post office said they were running out of money. And I also seem to remember that things lime email and electronic bill payment have greatly curtailed people’s use of the postal service’s services. It’s the kind of change that lots of businesses are currently facing.

But Kilkenny is laying out what you’ll see if you look at almost any discussion of unions lately — it’s about protecting government jobs.

This is a gray area, as far as I’m concerned. State workers are paid with tax dollars. Even FDR opposed collective bargaining rights for state workers because there’s of the built in monopoly that the state has on it’s functions.

I’ll be covering the union issues more in the run-up to the election.