Occupy Grand Rapids announces first Spring Action for 2012
The local group, known as Occupy Grand Rapids, has just announced that they will be hosting their first rally this Spring.
As part of the kickoff event, Occupy GR is also hosting a Really, Really Free Market this Saturday on the corner of Fulton and Division at Monument Park.
According to the Media Release, there will also be a number of workshops and “open mic” opportunities. The schedule for the day is as follows:
2:00p-2:30p – “Tabling: how-to & why it’s important.”
2:30p-3:00p – “Occupy Our Homes: Eviction Resistance & Housing Defense”
3:00p-3:30p – Your Rights/Direct Action at work (IWW)
3:30p-4:00p – Consensus and the GA: It’s not a protest it’s a process!
4:00p-4:30p – Open Mic / Speak-Out (anyone welcome to speak their mind)
4:30p-5:00p – Discussion on Re-Occupying
Occupy Grand Rapids
Saturday, April 14
From 2:00PM til 5:00PM
Corner of Fulton & Division in downtown Grand Rapids
For more information, check out their Facebook event page.
Why Campaigning for Democrats Cripples Unions
This article by Shamus Cooke is re-posted from CounterPunch.
As labor leaders across the U.S. shift resources away from defending workers and into Obama’s re-election campaign, millions of organized and non-organized workers remain unemployed and hopeless. Contrary to the “optimistic” government jobs numbers, the jobs crisis grinds onward. Some labor leaders will argue that getting Obama elected is the first step towards addressing the jobs crisis, but they know better.
The recent so-called JOBS Act that passed with strong Democrat and Republican support will create zero jobs — the law’s intent is to lower regulations for banks and corporations, in an attempt to boost their profits. The JOBS wording was used for popularity’s sake, requiring heavy doses of deceit.
A similar-minded jobs project was put forth by Obama earlier in the year, when he appointed “experts” to his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. But the Council was front loaded with CEO’s and bankers, with only two labor reps, who allowed themselves to be used to obscure the real intent of the project. Richard Trumka, President of the labor federation AFL-CIO, was one of the token labor leaders on the council, who only later partially redeemed himself by denouncing the Council’s job-creating recommendations (predictably, one of the key “job creating” ideas was to lower corporate tax rates).
Millions of union and non-union workers have seen their lives worsen under Obama while he promotes the above stunts that are intended to serve the wealthy and fool everybody else.
These millions of workers will now be subjugated to pro-Obama door knockers and phone callers from labor unions who will ignore the above facts while trying to put a pro-worker face on the pro-corporate president. Workers will not be so easily fooled, their paychecks — or lack thereof — speak stronger truths than can any pro-Obama campaigner.
The key irony is that the more forward-looking labor unions have already realized that they need the support of non-unionized workers if their movement is to survive. To this extent both union federations — AFL-CIO and Change to Win — have put tremendous resources towards community outreach and organizing. But such efforts can be wasted when unions pursue policies that working people not only disagree with, but denounce.
Non-unionized workers will only actively support labor unions when they are inspired to do so; if the non-union community trusts labor to fight for their interests, they will fight alongside unions in the streets. However, when unions have to skew the facts to encourage votes for Obama, they lose crucial trust with the broader community.
Trust was also lost when working people witnessed many unions publicly supporting Obama’s health care plan, which forces millions of non-union workers to buy shoddy corporate health insurance they cannot afford. Labor’s kid glove handling of Obama’s anti-public education policy is also high on the list of examples where unions weakened their community status by attaching themselves to the Democrats’ pro-corporate polices.
Shockingly, the largest teachers’ union, National Education Association, has endorsed Obama’s campaign even though the NEA President, Dennis Van Roekel, summarized teachers’ experience with the Obama Administration by saying, “Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced” — an environment directly encouraged by Obama’s deceitfully named “Race to the Top” education program.
Obama has yet to promise unions or working people anything in the upcoming election. Whoever wins the Presidency will immediately continue serving the corporations with varying degrees of public enthusiasm — the only real difference between the two parties.
Labor leaders are not stupid. They recognize these facts, but have absolutely no idea what to do about it. So they do what they’ve done for decades; align themselves with the Democrats in the hopes that they will be rewarded for their servitude. But the crumbs of gratitude stopped trickling down years ago, and what little remains on the workers plate is now being targeted by both Democratic and Republican politicians who insist on ever more concessions.
The Democrats’ policies signify a clean break from labor unions, an alliance that was always at the indirect expense of the rest of the working class. As long as unions were treated fairly, many labor leaders turned a blind eye to policies that affected non-union workers, creating a suicidal distance between the organized and non-organized.
Now it’s labor unions that are on the menu; Democratic governors on a state by state basis have wrenched major concessions from public sector unions, substantially weakening them and reducing their numbers. This, combined with mass unemployment and Race to the Top, amounts to a concerted anti-union agenda.
Labor leaders solution to this crisis is to raise money and volunteers…to elect Democrats.
Labor’s real power will thus remain unused. The inherent power of unions lies in their numbers, organization, and ability to collectively assert themselves in the workplace and streets. This is how labor became strong; the mass strikes and street demonstrations that built the labor movement created an organizational power that neither Democrats nor Republicans dared touch. President Eisenhower and Nixon, for example, refused to confront unions for fear of the repercussions. Unions were not given this power by compassionate Democrats in past generations; power was forcibly taken from the Democrats.
This truth is kept concealed from the current generation of union members, many of whom are miseducated into believing that their power is limited to electing Democrats. No other belief is as dangerous for the labor movement, which would immediately benefit from de-funding the Democrats and using the money to educate and organize their members to fight in the workplaces and streets for the many pro-worker demands, like a massive federal jobs program, that will otherwise remain “off the table” in Congress.
Why sexual assault is a men’s issue
According to the national group RAINN – Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network – someone is sexually assaulted in the US every 2 minutes.
The bulk of those sexually assaulted are women and children. However, the primary perpetrators of such acts are men. So what is it about our culture and the way that men are socialized, which leads them to sexually assault women and children?
Well, there certainly is no single factor that determines the fact that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual assault in the US. Some of the predominant factors are male privilege, gender socialization from institutional structures and the how the media normalizes the objectification of women.
We know what the research tells us about how frequently women are objectified in the media, whether it is to sell products, to get TV ratings, pump up sales of video games or to sell tickets at the box office. The objectification of women is so frequent that it is seen as the norm in this society. Women are presented as objects for male pleasure, always available, always tempting and ready to be consumed.
Remember the Superbowl ads from this past February? Women were either objects of male fantasy or they were presented as cold bitches who don’t want to have any fun.
In addition, we have a news media system in the US, which not only tends to ignore male violence against women, it misinforms the public on this critical issue. Sexual Assault is under-reported for several reasons. First, many women will not report it to law enforcement, since the legal system will stigmatize and vilify them as causing the rape or sexual assault. Second, newsrooms rarely present information in a systemic way, thus they tend to report on individual cases of sexual assault instead of a broader view. Lastly, newsrooms treat sexual assault as a crime story and not a public health issue, thus they don’t ask the question of why men rape and sexually assault women.
However, media is only one mechanism that determines how men are socialized to see women. Most major US institutions also socialize men in very narrow gender roles, often affirming the messages of the media about the status of women in US society. Women do not make equal pay for equal work. Women still hold a disproportionately small amount of leadership positions in the US. The legal system still unjustly favors men over women and there has been a three-decade long backlash against the feminist gains of the 1960s and 70s with government policy not favoring the rights of women.
Then there is the issue of male privilege. Many men do not even realize the tremendous privilege they have in this society, around issues of safety, wealth and opportunity. Men disproportionately make more money, they are rarely at risk of being sexually assaulted and when that does happens it is almost always other men who are the perpetrators. On the flip side, if one thinks in terms of pure cost to society, men are less cost effective. This is the thesis in Men Are Not Cost-Effective Male Crime in America, June Stephenson. Stephenson argues that because of the crimes committed by men, both street and corporate crimes, the cost to society is outrageous, thus making them case that men overall are bad for the economy.
Male privilege is also manifested in the fact that men’s intent and their attitudes are rarely questioned in this society and when they are, there are plenty of men who will step forward to defend other men to maintain their privilege.
This is exactly why sexual assault must become a men’s issue. For decades, women have done amazing work to help each other heal from sexual assault through social services, programs and education. However, the rate of sexual assault has not significantly declined and that is because there has not been enough done to educate and challenge men to confront male privilege in this society.
Men need to do the hard work of self-reflection and come to terms with how they have gender privilege. Men need to do the hard work of developing better and more meaningful relationships and men need to engage in more bold acts of solidarity with women. We need to support and affirm the women in our lives. We need to support and attend events and participate in campaigns organized by women.
However, it is equally important that we hold other men accountable for their actions, particularly their behavior towards women. Until men take a public stand against male violence against women and challenge the institutional support for the objectification and abuse of women, sexual assault by men against women in this society will not decline.
Lastly, it is problematic to frame this discussion around traditional gender binaries of men and women. This can be seen is some circles of men wanting to do the right thing by saying, “be a real man and stop violence against women.” While I applaud the intent, what we should encourage is the notion that we all need to be better human beings and prevent sexual assault in our relationships, families, neighborhoods, workplaces and communities. No one is truly free while others are oppressed.
The Bloom Collective is hosting a forum this Wednesday for people who want to learn about the US role in NATO and the upcoming protest in Chicago, where NATO will be having a meeting.
The G8 countries were originally scheduled to meet at the same time as NATO in Chicago, but because of the massive protests that were being planned, the Obama administration moved the G8 gathering to the government protected Camp David site.
The NATO protest in Chicago is planned for May 20 and the coalition of groups involved just obtained a permit for their march, despite the fact that the city will be heavily militarized.
The event at the Bloom Collective is designed to provide information about NATO and its imperialist function for the US and other rich nations of the world. The forum will also feature information for people who plan to go to the protest in Chicago and how to be better prepared when dealing with police and other oppressive forces in that context.
The NATO forum in free and open to anyone, plus it is a potluck, so there will be food to share.
NATO Protest discussion
Wednesday, April 11
5:30 – 7:30PM
Bloom Collective
Steepletown Center
671 Davis NW, Grand Rapids
There is also a facebook page for this event.
This video is re-posted from ZNet.
This 14 – minute video is part of a longer talk/interview with political writer and linguist Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky talks about the history of free speech in the US, particularly the grassroots efforts of dissidents to make free speech a reality for many people. Chomsky makes the point that speech has often been suppressed in the US and that free speech battles have been central to many major social movements.
Trayvon just the most recent victim of a racist system of power is message of march in Grand Rapids
Yesterday, about 50 people marched in downtown Grand Rapids to denounce the murder of Trayvon Martin and to stand in solidarity with his family and all those who have been recent victims of racist violence.
People gathered at a small storefront space, which is home to Take Hold Church. The two women responsible for organizing the march then addressed the crowd.
Sheri Munsell spoke first and talked about how the murder of Trayvon impacted her emotionally. She said she kept thinking that Trayvon looked just like her nephew all grown up and it made her fear for his future.
Sheri then went on to say that Trayvon’s murder should be a wake up call to all of us to not stand by in the future and let this kind of violence happen to our brothers and sisters. She said we needed to stop the so-called justice system from profiling and abusing communities of color.
Sheri also acknowledged that Trayvon’s murder was just the most recent in a long list of people, primarily young black men, who have been shot or beaten to death by police officers around the country. This is a theme that many writers and organizations have been communicating in recent weeks.
Sheri was followed by April Bert, who began her comments by quoting the poet Maya Angelo. April said that Trayvon represents so many who have been victims of a racist system of oppression, but he also represents the past, the present and the future of what we want to be.
After the opening remarks by the organizers, people marched down Division to the Kent County Court House. Along the way people chanted and carried signs. At one point several other people joined the march and one man and his son joined even though they were not aware of the action, but joined because as he said, “it was the right thing to do with my son.”
Once the group arrived at the Kent County Court House, Rev. Paul Mayhue said a prayer and then continued to address the crowd. Mayhue acknowledged that there was a great deal of injustice happening in the US, but he put the emphasis of his comments on the importance of working within the system. Mayhue challenged those in the crowd to run for political office and judicial seats so that they could make the right decisions when faced with racist and violent actions in our community. In light of what has been happening with violence against communities of color and the lack of any real justice, Mayhue’s comments seem to contradict what had been said by Sheri Munsell before the march even started.
Cole Dorsey, with the IWW, followed up those comments by saying that he was not only encouraged by the fact that people came out for the march, but that it was grassroots organizing and mobilizing of people that can make real change and create real justice. “When we organize together, we can challenge the system,” said Dorsey. He also mentioned that the Prison Industrial Complex disproportionately targets and punishes communities of color, which should tell us something about how the system is corrupt and that we shouldn’t wait for elected officials to make the changes that we want.
The last person to address those who marched was Rev. Fred Wooden, pastor at Fountain St. Church. Rev. Wooden framed his comments within the theme of the Jewish Passover and made three points. First, he said that we all need to be willing to move when injustice confronts us, but he also acknowledged that this kind of change would require a cost to all of us. Second, he said that we should not be deceived by those who wish to control us and that we should expect that deception will occur. Lastly, he said that need to challenge those if power, which means we need to challenge the system if we want real liberation.
The group than walked back to where the march started, with lively conversation and a second opportunity to communicate to those walking or driving by that indeed there were some people in this community who were not going to remain silent about the murder of Trayvon Martin.
The American Nightmare: A reality for too many
This article was written by GVSU student, Christina Reseigh.
About a month ago, another tragedy occurred in America. A bright, young man with a promising future was murdered. One may agree that this is sad, but wonder why this particular tragedy is singled out. The death of Trayvon Martin was much more than just another fluke incident beyond our control. It is the direct consequence of our failure, as a society, to acknowledge and address some of our biggest flaws.
Trayvon, a 17 year old in Florida, went to the store to get some skittles and an ice tea. On the way back from the store, he realized he was being followed and began to walk faster but could not lose the man. Finally he asked “what are you following me for?” which prompted the man to pull out a 9mm shot gun. Trayvon cried out for help but it was no use. A nearby neighbor heard cries for help and called 911. As she was on the phone with them, a gun shot rang out. The killer, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, confessed to the police that he shot Trayvon because he had felt threatened. He had called them earlier reporting a suspicious young male who he proceeded to follow, even after ordered by the police to stand down. The Sanford police found nothing on Trayvon’s dead body other than his candy, beverage and phone, and knew who had killed him. But they proceeded to send the body to the morgue, let Zimmerman go, and neglect the Martin family and witnesses’ attempts to contact them.
The local community united in support of the family to protest this complete disregard for justice. They helped expose the police department’s obvious lack of compassion for its citizens whose safety it is their job to ensure. Cities nationwide followed suit holding demonstrations sporting signs saying ‘Justice for Trayvon’ and ‘Prosecute Zimmerman.’ Millions of people have been wearing hoodies, holding ice tea and skittles while asking “do I look suspicious?” and demanding the justice system to enforce its laws and charge Zimmerman for the crime he committed.
When trying to stay optimistic about this tragedy, some people to whom I have spoken have said, “at least the boy did not die in vain. Look at the protests breaking out across the county, and as a result now Obama and the F.B.I. are getting involved. Sometimes it takes a horrible incident like this to shed light on an issue that has been left in the dark.” Seeing the outrage and support spread like wildfire with the help of social media is almost encouraging. It can lead one to think that maybe the death of Trayvon will at least help to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
However, I stumbled upon some very disappointing and disturbing news, summarized below, that burst this small bubble of hope. It turns out, Trayvon was far from the first, and he will not be the last unless we do something different this time.
James Craig Anderson, a 49-year-old, auto-plant worker was killed in June of 2011, in Jackson, Mississippi. He was beaten by two truckloads of drunk, white teenagers who had driven 16 miles to mess with the first black person they could find.[i] After beating Anderson, they ran him over with their F-250.
Barry Deloatch, an unarmed, 47- year-old man was fatally shot in September of 2011 by New Brunswick policemen who jumped out of their car with their guns drawn and chased him into an alley.
Aaron Campbell was killed by the police in January of 2010. The officer who shot him in the back with an assault rifle said he saw Campbell reach in his waistband for a gun but the man was unarmed. The jurors wrote ‘we could find no crime committed.’
Phoenix City Councilman Mike Johnson, in March of 2010 was handcuffed and thrown to the cement by police for trying to check on his neighbor, whose house was on fire.
Steven Eugene Washington, an unarmed, 27-year-old, autistic man on his way back from a friend’s house was shot dead by the police in March of 2010 because they “thought he was manipulating something in his waistband.”
Steven Rodriguez, in January of 2012, was first tased and then shot to death by the police after walking out of a restaurant in Monterey Park, California.
Victor Steen, killed by the police in October 2009, was riding a bike when the police saw him, ‘thought he looked suspicious’, and decided to pursue him. The officer tased Steen and then ran him over with his car. The judge issued a verdict stating the officer did not commit a crime.
Oscar Grant was killed in January of 2009 by a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer who pulled him off of a train in Oakland and shot him in the back. The officer said he thought Grant was reaching for a gun in his waistband and meant to tase him. He was sentenced to two years in prison. (Possession of marijuana will get you more time than that, if you are black.)
Sean Bell died in a hail of 50 bullets just hours before his wedding in 2006 because the police ‘thought he had a gun.’ The three NYPD detectives who killed this unarmed man as he and his friends left his bachelor party were found not guilty.
Of course the tragedies above are only a few among many examples of completely innocent black men, abused and murdered by the police who, in nearly all instances, end up being cleared of all charges. In most of these cases the communities affected got involved: demanding justice, holding demonstrations with signs calling for the conviction of the killers and protesting police brutality, etc. The Rev. Al Sharpton and the ACLU even got involved in some of these cases. In fact, the public’s current reaction to the Trayvon Martin case is almost identical to the way the public responded to all of these previous atrocities.
It is extremely obvious that the way in which we choose to respond and attempt to restore justice and affect change IS NOT WORKING. Why is it not working? Because for some reason we always focus on the aftermath instead of the true, underlying cause of the tragedy. Plucking off the leaves of the problem may be a temporary resolution, but it is also a waste of energy because until that root is ripped up, the weed will continue to sprout.
As Diane Nash, one of the leaders of the Freedom Riders who largely contributed to the eradication of segregation, said: people are never your enemy. It is ignorance, attitudes, beliefs, unjust systems that are the problem. Killing the people, or getting them locked up will leave the problematic system or unjust environment intact allowing it to continue to produce more of those horrible people.
In Trayvon’s case, Zimmerman is not our enemy. Everybody is putting all of their energy and resources into helping Zimmerman get charged (or getting side tracked by hoodies, skittles, and ice tea). The same thing happened with Sean Bell, Aaron Campbell and everyone else. The communities rallied for the conviction of the murderers and maybe an end to police brutality or racial profiling. In a one or two of the cases, the killer got the sentence he deserved. But one can see this did almost nothing to stop similar instances from occurring. Even if we could get Zimmerman a life sentence, this would have a very small effect on protecting potential future Trayvons.
Do not misconstrue the previous sentence. Yes, of course these murderers need to be incarcerated for life. But that, by itself, is far from enough. Locking Zimmerman up will not bring Trayvon back. Nor does it address the cause of his death. And merely voicing disgust for police brutality, racial profiling and injustice will not produce much change. A much deeper analysis is necessary to ensure we direct our efforts towards fighting the true culprit. We need to ask: why did the police kill these innocent men? Well, some officers were overtly racist bigots consciously abusing their authority. Some actually feared for their lives.
We need to focus on the latter. Why did they fear for their lives? Because America has a serious psychological disorder. It is Black Male Phobia. We are deadly afraid of all black males. Their attire, socioeconomic status and behavior are irrelevant factors in this fear. Size and shade of skin color alone (biological factors outside of their control) determine the amount of fear that will be immediately felt by those in their presence. They could be walking down their very own street, trying to help their neighbor with her groceries, wearing the same exact outfit as the white boy next to them, or probably even knitting a scarf and they will be perceived as ‘shady’ or ‘suspicious.’
Why is ‘suspicious’ a synonym for ‘black man’? Why do we have this unbridled fear? The list of reasons is lengthy so we will only indulge in a few.
- Segregation. You fear what (in this case, ‘who’) you do not know or understand. Even though the laws that required segregation were eradicated 50 years ago, this did not cause any reversal of white flight nor did it by any means undo the long-term damages of redlining. The abolition of segregation made it legal for blacks to leave the deteriorating cities but not necessarily economically feasible. Most Americans have been led to believe that we have conquered segregation and even racism (since apparently they are one in the same) because some very brave and truly heroic individuals killed Jim Crow. Don’t be mistaken, the death of Jim Crow was absolutely necessary for the re-routing of this country’s destiny and I am overwhelmingly grateful for all that these freedom fighters accomplished. But, even they would agree that there are some mandatory follow up measures that have yet to be taken to keep this country on the right track so that the sacrifices they made do not end up being in vain. As a result, one only needs to open both eyes, take a step back and look at the big picture or do some research in order to see we are nearly as segregated as we were 50 years ago. There is a huge misunderstanding going on between white America and black America and the physical gap is doing nothing to help close the mental gap. The majority of whites do not know many blacks on a personal level making them even more susceptible to the brainwashing of the media, which leads me to the next reason.
- Media vilification. America has persistently portrayed black men as criminals since they were first dragged here against their will.
- Slaves were not allowed to reap the benefits of their own hand and therefore, when caught taking some of “master’s” crops or livestock which they sowed, harvested and raised and needed to survive, they were considered thieves. When some of them managed to escape, they were “wanted” as criminals, and treated as such.
- After slavery ‘ended,’ southerners sought to maintain it, of course. The law said that Slavery was abolished except as punishment for a crime. So, all the white supremacists had to do was accuse blacks of committing a crime. Political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson explains in his book how they established Black Codes. These were petty laws exclusive to blacks (making “mischief” a crime, for example) which were created solely to assist in the criminalization of black men to achieve the goal of continuing the system of slavery.
- The criminalization of black men continued as they were repeatedly lynched, especially during the Jim Crow era, for ‘raping white women.’ But research, particularly an extensive study done by Ida B. Wells, discovered that very few of the men actually raped anyone. The reality was miscegenation (also known as interracial relations) was illegal, so black men in genuine relationships with white woman, having consensual sex were considered rapists by society. Many were also lynched under the “rape” allegation because white men did not like the competition they served to be at work and in other aspects of life. The myth of the black male as a ‘white woman rapist’ was also used to rationalize segregation because white men (who had been raping black women since they departed from the coast of Africa, or probably since they set foot in Africa) could not stand the thought of their women brushing shoulders with these ‘predatory’ black males.
- Sadly, today nothing has changed. Black men are continually portrayed by the media as nothing more than criminals. Many argue, ‘if they would stop committing so many crimes then that wouldn’t happen.” This is not true because they are disproportionately portrayed as criminals, meaning the extent to which they are portrayed as criminals in the media is not a reflection of how many are actually criminals in society. For example, a study done by Travis Dixon and Daniel Linz in the Journal of Communication discovered that blacks were more likely to be depicted as felons on television news (44 percent) than to be arrested for felonies (25 percent). The media has always portrayed blacks inaccurately and negatively. Even if 95% never committed a crime, the media would primarily cover the bad 5%, leading society to assume that they are an accurate representation of the entire population.
- 3. Prison Demographics . The fact that Black men make up only 6% of the entire population but roughly 50% of the prison population contributes to the perpetuation of black criminality.
However, the majority of those in prison are in there for nonviolent offenses, meaning they are not dangerous. As found by social activist Michelle Alexander and stated in her best seller The New Jim Crow, the number of those locked up for mere drug offenses alone today, is more than the total number of people in prison at all in 1980. And despite the fact that people of all races violate drug laws at similar rates: “blacks are nearly fifty times as likely as white youth to be incarcerated for a first-time drug offense, even when all the factors surrounding the crime are equal,” as found in Dear White America by Tim Wise. In simpler terms, Americans all across the board violate drug laws; 1 in 10 people each year (Alexander, 123). But the majority of those doing time for it are black males; 9 in 10 people locked up each year for a possession offense are people of color (Wise, 35). And again, this is not because black males use illegal drugs at a higher rate than anyone else-that is just another myth fed to us by the media.
So, thanks to de facto segregation, media vilification, and prison demographics, as well as many other factors, the racist rooted, bogus belief of the inherent criminality of black men has been embedded into our psyches. The environment in which we live has taught us for centuries, from all directions, that black men are dangerous.
That is why America is scared shitless of black men.
This is how an innocent boy buying skittles gets murdered.
This is why a wallet in the hand of a black man will be mistaken for a gun. (He doesn’t even need an object in his hand, only for it to fall in the vicinity of his waistline.)
This is how police can get away with murder and find the majority of the public backing them up.
This is why, as long as we all suffer from this mental illness, the claim of ‘self-defense’ will always be unquestionably considered legitimate when made against a black male; even if he is autistic or his back is to the gunman, or the killer was chasing him.
The majority of Americans suffer from Black Male Phobia but I think it is safe to say that white America suffers from the worst case of it, despite the fact that they are 4 to 5 times more likely to be victimized by a white person than a black person (Wise, 68). By medical dictionaries, a ‘phobia’ is defined as an obsessive, irrational, intense fear of a specific object or situation (in our case; person) and is considered to be a mental disorder when it interferes with social functioning. (I would argue that the deliberate and unremorseful killing of innocent people is evidence of major social dysfunction). A phobia manifests itself in many ways such as panic, tremor, perspiration and, when pertaining to us, trigger-happy tendencies.
Zimmermans will come and go, get incarcerated and released, but as long as we do nothing to eliminate this deadly fear, black men will continue to be, by far the greatest victims of murder as they are safe nowhere-well except maybe with a jersey on, in the sports arena.
So let us not get caught up in trends that accomplish practically nothing, such as taking a picture with one’s hood on for Trayvon Martin. Let us not only scream “Justice for Trayvon” or “Justice for Troy Davis,” lest we be filled with the same pain just screaming a different name (maybe even of someone we personally know) in a couple months or years. Let us scream “Protect our Black Men” and work to cure this debilitating illness that turns even kind, relatively non-racist, fairly intelligent men into murderers and judges and jurors into complete imbeciles. And let us do so expeditiously because I’ll be damned if one of my loved ones ends up being next and I am not the only one who feels that way.
Chiquita Banana To Face Colombia Torture Claim
This article is re-posted from Corpwatch.
Chiquita, the global banana producer, was ordered this week to face a federal court over their role in paying off right wing death squads in Colombia. Villagers allege that the death squads used “random and targeted violence in exchange for financial assistance and access to Chiquita’s private port for arms and drug smuggling,” according to a lawsuit filed on their behalf by EarthRights International and Cohen Milstein.
The lawsuit, which is based on the Alien Torts Claims Act (ATCA), is likely to go forward, even though the statute is being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case against Royal Dutch Petroleum in Nigeria that may limit the use of the act against corporations under U.S. law. (see U.S. Supreme Court: Can Multinationals Be Sued for Crimes?) The 223 year old ATCA allows foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for violations the “law of nations.”
Cincinnati-based Chiquita has been growing bananas in Colombia since 1899. For over four decades these operations have been under attack – first by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a left-wing guerrilla group, and then by Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary group created by ranchers and drug traffickers. Court documents show that Chiquita executives paid off both groups. FARC was paid between $20,000 and $100,000 a month. Chiquita has also admitted to making over 100 payments totaling $1.7 million to the AUC or affiliated organizations over seven years.
The villagers have accused the AUC of a number of human rights abuses including torturing and killing at least 40 people in the town of Mapiripan in July 1997 and then killing 36 people and torturing dozens in a February 2000 operation. Court documents also show that a shipment of 3,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 5 million rounds of ammunition from Nicaragua in 2001 was invoiced to Chiquita. The armaments were delivered to Chiquita warehouses and then trucked to the AUC by Chiquita, according to the legal papers.
Chiquita, which was represented by Eric Holder, admitted the payments and paid a fine of $25 million. (Holder has since been appointed U.S. attorney general in 2009 by Barack Obama) In a ruling issued earlier this week, U.S. federal judge Judge Kenneth Marra in Florida ruled that the charges of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of person and peaceful assembly and association; and consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights” would be heard in court. Benjamin Brown of Cohen Milstein told CorpWatch that the “exciting” news was that Marra would allow his clients to use Colombian law in the case, which would mean that even if the Supreme Court did not allow the Shell lawsuit to proceed under U.S. law, the Chiquita lawsuit would likely not be affected. “We’re thrilled that the judge has recognized that our claims against Chiquita for violations of Colombian law can proceed in this lawsuit,” added Marco Simons of EarthRights in a press statement. “The plaintiffs have been waiting for justice for a decade and more, and this is one more step in the right direction for them to finally have their day in court.”
A number of lawsuits have been brought against corporations under the Alien Torts Claims Act. EarthRights International has been able to use the statute to negotiate a settlement in December 2004 with Unocal on behalf of thirteen villagers for alleged human-rights violations, such as forced labor, in the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline project in Burma. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum on February 28, 2012, but did not make a decision. Instead it ordered plaintiffs to return to court in October 2012 for additional arguments.
Thanks to Kate Wheeler for assisting with this article.
The statewide group Michigan Forward had announced that the effort to repeal Public Act 4, the law that has allowed the State government to impose a local financial manager, is on track to put the repeal on the ballot in November.
According to a recent Michigan Forward Press Release:
On February 29, 2012 we submitted 226,637 signatures to the Michigan Secretary of State (SOS) to uphold Democracy. The Michigan SOS has informed us that of the 226,637 signatures submitted that only 752 signatures have been removed. We continue to anticipate certification of the people’s initiative for referendum by the Board of Canvassers in late April. This unconstitutional law will be placed before voters in November.
Our work doesn’t end once the issue is placed on the ballot. Michigan Forward will be aggressive building a mandate vote to repeal Michigan’s Emergency Manager Law and building strong voter turnout and engagement in urban centers across the state. Over these next several months we will make attempts to reach over 3 million voters statewide to send a strong and clear message about repealing Public Act 4.
Michigan Forward also announced that their CEO Brandon Jessup is temporary leave of absence, since he will be taking a position with Organizing for America as their African-American State Vote Director. This should raises serious questions for people on the autonomy of Michigan Forward and its relationship to the Democratic Party, particularly the Obama campaign. One could argue that the whole effort was an attempt to mobilize Michigan voters for Obama in the November election.
As we get new information on the campaign to repeal Public Act 4 we will continue to keep our readers informed.
This article is re-posted from the LGBT group Truth Wins Out.
Today, Invisible Children released its much-anticipated sequel to its KONY 2012 video. But exclusive audio obtained by Truth Wins Out (TWO) reveals that Invisible Children may have a hidden agenda that is more ideological than idealistic. 
In audio TWO discovered from a 2005 Christian conference in San Antonio, Invisible Children’s co-founder Jason Russell called his organization a “Trojan Horse” designed to infiltrate secular institutions and surreptitiously promote his group’s version of Christian fundamentalism. The audiotape reveals that that his organization is particularly focused on targeting youth in public schools. According to Russell’s remarks (:44):
“Coming in January we are trying to hit as many high schools, churches, and colleges as possible with this movie. We are able to be the Trojan Horse in a sense, going into a secular realm and saying, guess what life is about orphans, and it’s about the widow. It’s about the oppressed. That’s God’s heart. And to sit in a public high school and tell them about that has been life-changing. Because they get so excited. And it’s not driven by guilt, it’s driven by an adventure and the adventure is God’s.”
The audio vividly reveals Invisible Children’s invisible agenda. This group is not simply about exposing LRA leader Joseph Kony, but engaging in stealth evangelism. Invisible Children sold themselves as romantic idealists, but the evidence suggests that they are more like fundamentalist ideologues.”
Invisible Children first raised alarms after researcher Bruce Wilson showed the group was funded by the National Christian Foundation, a fundamentalist outfit that finances extremist right wing organizations and anti-gay groups. Wilson also discovered that Invisible Children was intimately linked to The Family, the secretive and powerful American fundamentalist group widely considered responsible for Uganda’s draconian “Kill the Gays Bill.” Forbes reported yesterday that conservative strongholds such as Oklahoma City and Alabama were surprisingly the driving force behind making the KONY2012 video go viral.
People across the globe need to realize that there is a huge invisible network of wealthy and powerful fundamentalist organizations. They know that they can’t win your heart and they certainly can’t persuade your rational mind to support their medieval, intolerant ways. So, they use chicanery in an attempt to trick you into supporting their issues. And, once they have you sucked in, they will introduce you to their real and nefarious motives.
Such dishonest organizations are much more dangerous than the traditional Religious Right groups we are used to dealing with, since they conceal their dangerous ideology.
