A Reminder: Rachel Jeantel Is Not the One On Trial

America got to see an Angry Black Lady (and didn’t much like it)

We’re only a few weeks into the George Zimmerman trial and already there is moaning and groaning that he’s going to walk.   A friend told me today, “That girl totally blew it for the prosecution.   She was so poorly prepared and didn’t seem even to be mad about Trayvon being dead.  Why didn’t she act like she cared?”

I understand why my friend was turned off by Rachel Jeantel.  She was rough around the edges and   Even some Black folks found her tough to take.   She was sullen, uncooperative, sarcastic and disinterested.   She looked like she rather be anywhere else on earth than in that courtroom answering question after question for two days straight.

Jeantel has a reason for the bad attitude. The 19-year-old was on the phone with Martin before Zimmerman killed him.   Now she has to come to court and play along with this game of dress-up and legal mumbo-jumbo while the man who murdered her friend is sitting right across from her.   It is unlikely Jeantel spent her life learning courtroom decorum from Law and Order reruns.   It’s understandable if Jeantel’s huffy demeanor doesn’t play well with those scoring the trial at home, but she is not an actress and this is not a television with a tidy ending in the last 15 minutes.    This is real and Jeantel deserves to be cut a little slack.   It was her friend that was gunned down and if that’s not a reason to feel frosty about testifying what is?

This exchange between Jeantel and defense attorney Don West makes obvious she doesn’t suffer fools gladly.  Or a foolish questions either.

West: “Of course, you don’t know if he was telling the truth or not.”

Jeantel: “Why would he need to lie about that, sir?”

West: “Maybe he decided to assault George Zimmerman and he didn’t want you to know about it,”

Jeantel: “That’s real retarded, sir. Trayvon did not know him.”

This is the guy on trial. Remember?

Blunt?  Yes.  Politically incorrect?  Certainly.   Logical?  Definitely.

You can feel Jeantel contempt for the proceedings coming off in her in waves.  She exhibits utter disdain for the niceties of the law and total disinterest in being deferential to the attorneys.

I loved every minute of The Rachel Jeantel Show.   Even the moments where I winced and cringed.    This was not a young woman  about to play nice with the guy trying to get off the killer of her friend and she wasn’t interested if Middle America liked her.   I rather think she would care as much if they didn’t.

Rachel Jeantel is not interested in smiling when she does not want to smile or playing to the cameras.   She is not concerned who considers her insolent, rude, or ignorant.   She is not an entertainer.   She does not care if she infuriates White people who do not understand her or irritates Black people whom are embarrassed  by her surly attitude.

America prefers to Blacks sing, dance, play sports and show their teeth to the camera.   Angry Black people bothers America and Rachel Jeantel is very angry.

There are more Rachels and Trayvons out there than we are comfortable with.  Angry, surly, and easily annoyed Black teenagers whom aren’t impressed by courtrooms, judges, attorneys and television cameras have a remarkable power to intimidate those among us who regard them as bizarre as an alien life form.

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon not because he had done anything wrong, but because he was the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood.   The one thing Martin could not change was all Zimmerman saw.   That’s what racial profiling is.   Why are so many so eager to now racial profile Jeantel?

Jeantel and West do not speak the same language.   He wants to keep his client out of prison.  She wants justice for her dead friend.  Is it surprising she’s so hostile and contemptuous of him?

The prosecution could have prepared Jeantel better, but you can’t program people like computers. If you’re Black and embarrassed by Jeantel you were probably embarrassed by Charles Ramsey a few weeks ago and you need to ask yourself why?

Clarence Thomas and his four White friends on the Supreme Court pose a far greater threat to Black folks than Paula Deen‘s N-bombs.  Who hurt Black folks more this week?  Jeantel’s lack of articulation or Thomas’ deliberate calculation to give racist politicians a green light to reintroduce Jim Crow style voting laws?

Let’s get our priorities straight.   On Rachel’s worst day she does less harm to the race than Clarence on his best.   Let’s call the shabby treatment of Jeantel for what it is: Reverse Racial Profiling.  Respectable Negroes were embarrassed by Charles Ramsey a few weeks ago and now they’re back bellyaching over Rachel Jeantel.

Why don’t we focus on the substance of Ramsey and Jeantel and less about their style or lack of?   Not every Black person on television is going to be Cliff and Claire Huxtable.

James Baldwin said, “The power of the white world is threatened whenever a black man refuses to accept the white world’s definitions.” Black people need to stop defining themselves by the White world’s definition of what is proper, smart and articulate.   We must stop defining ourselves by standards that we had no part in creating and do not accurately depict us.  Rachel Jeantel is not Antoine Dodson playing the fool for the camera.   This is not World Star Hip Hop.  This is real.

West tried to do to Jeantel what the judge would not let be done to Trayvon: niggerize him as a threat and the type of Black teen Whites should be afraid of.

Maybe they should be if there’s no justice for Trayvon.

The murdered and the murdered.

Advertisements

Yes, Uncle Ruckus Thomas Still Hates Your Black Ass

“Paula Deen doesn’t like Blacks? Me neither!”

In my previous post I predicted two of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions would result as follows:  “affirmative action is further weakened and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gutted.”

Turns out I was only half right.   Affirmative action lives, but only for now and the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section Five, was curb-stomped by four White conservative judges and a house slave happier than Stephen in Django Unchained.

The Supreme Court punted the affirmative action case back down to the lower court, but made it clear the policy of considering race in college admissions is hanging by the thinnest of threads.    While Justice Anthony Kennedy is no fan of affirmative action, he’s not ready to provide the scissors that cuts it into shreds.

Clarence The Cruel Thomas has no such reluctance.   He’s ready to hack affirmative action into bloody chunks with a machete.    While the decision to return Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin  to the lower appeals court was 7-1 (with Justice Elena Kagan abstaining and Ruth Bader Ginsburg objecting), Thomas concurred with the majority, but wrote a separate 20 page opinion comparing affirmative action to slavery.

“Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” Thomas wrote in a separate opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. “A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students.”

“Following in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign.  The University’s professed good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists.”

“Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping. 

   “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

The ULTIMATE affirmative action hire talks smack about the policy that put his incompetent ass on the Court. Pot calling kettle…

What’s the main argument against affirmative action? That it gives unqualified and unprepared Blacks an unfair advantage into jobs they would never qualify for based upon their individual merits?

Uncle Ruckus Thomas, shuffle on over!

“We wuz both cursed by this damn Black skin!”

With the case of Clarence Thomas being a notable exception. When Bush 41 put his name into nomination he said, “He was the most qualified man I could find” which was a total lie. Thomas wasn’t even the most qualified Black judge Bush could have selected. Thomas had kissed the right rings and they knew he was NEVER going to change or become an independent judge the way David Souter did.

Thomas is an AA baby right down to his toes and he got a lifetime appointment to a job he wasn’t remotely qualified for.  He knows it and bitterly resents it.   But Thomas has spent 22 years making sure  the rest of Black America suffers for his humiliation.

“I was disappointed because what I think what the court did today is stab the Voting Rights Act of 1965 right in its very heart,” Congressman John Lewis explained to MSNBC. “It is a major setback. We may not have people being beaten today, maybe they’re not being denied the right to participate, to register to vote, they’re not being chased by police dogs or trampled by horses. But in the 11 states of the old Confederacy and even in some of the states outside of the South, there has been a systematic, deliberate attempt to take us back to another period.”

“And these men that voted to strip the Voting Rights Act of its power, they never stood in unmovable lines, they never had to pass a so-called literacy test. It took us almost a hundred years to get where we are today. So, will it take another hundred years to fix it, to change it?”

There are only eight years difference in age between Representative Lewis and Judge Thomas.  There is a yawning chasm between how the two men perceive where Black Americans were regarding racism and where they are.

Say bye-bye to early voting, same-day registration, and weekend voting and say hello to more voter I.D. requirements, more polling places closed in Black and Latino neighborhoods, long waits in long lines and every other restriction Republican-run statehouses can dream up.   It will start down South (and already has in Texas, North Carolina, Georgia and other states covered by Section 5), but will it be too long before it winds it way up to Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio as well?

I  hope all my good liberal/progressive friends who have been LOSING THEIR SHIT for the past few weeks over the NSA domestic surveillance and the theoretical threats to liberty and democracy are equally fired up over what a conservative cabal has done to turn not the clock, but the calendar back.  This is 2013, but the Court may just have decided the 2016 presidential election.  Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic contender will rue the day a right-wing majority of the Court decided they were tired of racism and declared it a thing of the past.   At least racism directed toward non-Whites.

My father was what Thomas thinks he is: a strong and proud Black man.   He despised Thomas for his slave mentality.   He wanted to take Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and all those other despicable right-wingers and beat all their asses with a baseball bat.

The house slave who Bush 41 selected to occupy the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall, the iconic champion of Black progress and civil rights,  continued to mock his predecessor’s legacy in joining his conservative brethren on the Court to gut Section Five and throw his own people to the tender mercies of racist Southern politicians.

I knew this ruling by the Supreme Court was coming.   I fully expected how the vote would go.   But I still want to beat Clarence Thomas’ punk ass with a baseball bat.

Black robes, white hoods.

Black robes, white hoods.

Expect A Week of Joy and Pain from the Supremes.

We rule!

We rule!

We tend to forget how much the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have on the lives of millions of Americans until they remind us all and this is going to be one such time.

This week the Court will hand down decisions on several cases of vital importance to the Black and gay community and depending on how they come down the rulings are likely to cause celebration in one community, consternation in the other and further resentment between the two groups.

Within days, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a series of decisions that could transform three fundamental social institutions: marriage, education and voting.

 The extraordinary run of blockbuster rulings due in the space of a single week will also reshape the meaning of legal equality and help define for decades to come one of the Constitution’s grandest commands: “the equal protection of the laws.”

If those words require only equal treatment from the government, the rulings are likely to be a mixed bag that will delight and disappoint liberals and conservatives in equal measure. Under that approach, same-sex couples who want to marry would be better off at the end of the term, while blacks and Hispanics could find it harder to get into college and to vote.

But a tension runs through the cases, one based on different conceptions of equality. Some justices are committed to formal equality. Others say the Constitution requires a more dynamic kind of equality, one that takes account of the weight of history and of modern disparities.

The four major cases yet to be decided concern same-sex marriage, affirmative action in higher education and the fate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which places special burdens on states with a history of racial discrimination.

Aw man, voting rights is SO 1965….

However the majority of the Court rules will delight conservatives and infuriate liberals or delight liberals and infuriate conservatives.   There may be  a little something for everyone this week.

You should definitely expect if the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 are kicked to the curb (yay) but affirmative action is further weakened and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gutted, in the aftermath there will be a furious firestorm of stories and commentaries playing up the “gays vs. Blacks” schism and how one group’s interests are being advanced while the other is being rolled back.

That is simplistic as well as flat-out wrong.  Marriage is not civil rights is not education.  Yet while the parts do not equal a whole, the perception that the Court favors one side’s interests over another will inevitably come up no matter how they rules.  Between the antipathy of the conservative wing of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas and swing vote Anthony Kennedy‘s indifference to civil rights it is almost a foregone conclusion the Court is going to serve up a big ol’ crap sandwich for the supporters of affirmative action and voting rights.

It isn’t that there will be any connection between the separate issues of marriage equality and protecting voting rights.   There isn’t and the Supremes don’t do “one for  you and one for me. ”   The Blame Game  will fall on the collective heads of the gay community because invariably some commentators will  designate them as  “winners” in DOMA and Prop. 8 are overturned  and  Blacks will be deemed “losers” if the issues of greatest concern to them are severely curtailed.   There  already exists resentment from some Blacks  over how the gay rights movement has appropriated the tactics and rhetoric of the civil rights movement for their own (and why not? It’s been proven effective and Gandhi never patented it to stop Martin Luther King for giving them an Americanized makeover).

Trust me when I say there will always be those who desire to keep tensions high between the Black and gay communities for their own reasons.  Reasons that include homophobia or racism.

I expect this week is going to be like the old R’n’B song: “Joy and Pain.”

The news channels will serve up team of their legal “experts” to identify the various winners and losers.   That’s fine if you want that sort of snap ESPN style analysis, but I don’t get much from watching Jeffery Toobin or Alan Dershowitz blathering about what the Justices really meant.   You don’t have to be an attorney or a pompous talking head to understand what is going on with the Supremes.  The SCOTUS Blog not only provides  live reporting of the Court’s rulings, it does so in (mostly) plain English

For a layman who has always been fascinated by the workings of the Supreme Court,  I appreciate that.   The expected screams of joy from one side and groans of anguish from the other will need no such translation.

The money isn’t as big as the Super Bowl but the stakes inside this building are a lot higher.

Paula Deen’s Southern-Fried Racist Fantasies

Maybe by now you’ve heard that Paula Deen, the Food Network chef whose confections include stomach-churning monstrosities such as Deep-Fried Lasagna, Chocolate Cheese Fudge (don’t forget the Velveeta!)  and  Krispy Kreme Bread Pudding  made some colorful comments during a deposition she gave for a discrimination lawsuit filed against her, her brother and others.

Deen admitted to using “nigger” and other derogatory racial slurs (“yes, of course”) and described wanting to have a “very southern style wedding” for her brother modeled after a restaurant where the “whole entire wait staff was middle-aged black men” in white jackets and black bow ties

I am absolutely shocked–SHOCKED–I tell you that a 66-year-old, White trash, trailer park, backwards-ass, country-fried peckerwood who fries everything in butter is a racist old SKANK. Who woulda thunk it?

Am I going too far?  Am I wallowing in the same sort of vulgar and nasty stereotypes  Paula Deen dreams of?   Yes, I am and what of it?

Just to be clear if my language is extreme (and admittingly it is)  you can’t be bad with that and e good with Mrs. Deen’s “bunch of little niggers” dancing around like they’re in a Shirley Temple movie phraseology.   Because if we can’t express loathing, revulsion and disgust for Deen’s Southern-fried fantasies of Black men in White shirts waiting on her hand and foot, then I’m kind of stumped on how to do so properly without turning Deen’s vile stereotypes against her.

Paula is down for the chocolate.

What gives stereotypes their sting is when they have some grain of truth to them. African-Americans do like fried chicken. White people put mayonnaise on their sandwiches. There are gay men whom adore Judy Garland and Irish husbands who get sauced and beat their wives’ asses.

Americans like to tell themselves racism is a thing of the past.   The Supreme Court stands poised to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Antonin Scalia says it is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”   Surveys indicate Whites are more hostile to affirmative action than ever before and believe they are the ones suffering most from racial discrimination.    In comparison to the mounting tensions between Whites and Blacks, Deen’s wet dreams of subservient Blacks seem staggeringly trivial, but in another way are a troubling reminder of how much progress remains to be made between the races.

There remains Southern born bigots like Paula Deen who long for the days when you could call a Black man shining your shoes a “boy” and much worse if they forgot their place  and they had better not give a White person any sass  if they knew what was good for them.

Is calling Deen a peckerwood, White trash, a trailer resident going over-the-top deep into Stereotype Lake?  Sure it is, and I know she’s probably none of those things, but then I’m not a nigger either.

What Paula Deen thinks about Blacks is sad, pathetic and backwards as hell,  but I still feel more pity than contempt for her.   To the extent she can think at all, who  cares what this phony thinks about Blacks?  The women’s brain is full of butter, gravy and b.s. and ingesting all that fried gunk probably gave her Type 2 diabetes.

Seems like poetic justice to me.

ADDENDUM:  Oh, look!  Roland Martin, The National Association of Black Journalists choice for the 2013 Journalist of the Year took to his Twitter account to defend Deen’s divine right to say “nigger” as much as she wants.   How gallant of The Ascot.

“I like plenty of butter and gravy on my Negroes.”

Dave Koz’s Bummer of the Summer

“Strange. The longer I play the smaller this saxophone gets.”

The idea of a quartet of top smooth jazz saxophonists gathering for a super-session must have seemed like a great idea to Dave Koz. Why not invite Gerald Albright, Mindi Abair and Richard Elliot to join him for a sax summit? Hang out, play some together, have some laughs. It’ll be fun. What could possibly go wrong?

Quite a bit actually. The biggest problem with Summer Horns is it suffers from the mistaken assumption that if some is good, then more must be better. But more isn’t always better. Sometimes more is just more than what is necessary and that is why Summer Horns doesn’t work.

There will be a some folks mad at Koz about this album. Namely, every smooth jazz saxophonist who wasn’t invited to play.
Yet even swapping out Koz, Albright, Abair and Elliot for Euge Groove, Eric Darius, Walter Beasley and Jessy J., probably doesn’t change much. The songs would probably stay pretty much the same as the horn arrangements by Greg Adams, Tom Scott, Gordon Goodwin, Marco Basci and Albright achieve competency without ever being impressive.

Discerning fans will notice the songs chosen for the album are crossover jazz (Ronnie Laws’ “Always There” and “Rise” by Herb Alpert), rock and soul bands that featured horns, (Chicago, Sly and the Family Stone, James Brown, Stevie Wonder) and a few standards for good measure.

The all-covers concept may have been driven by the desire to dress up familiar favorites in new technology or maybe it was a matter of the various artists not having the time to compose and learn all-new, original material. Since there is a follow-up tour scheduled what’s more likely to please a crowd: a bunch of new and unfamiliar tunes or moldy oldies they know by heart?

There is a vague whiff of calculation to this approach because even though Koz, Abair, Albright and Elliot’s interpretations pale in comparison to the originals the chance to see all four sharing the one stage will be an irresistible hook for both promoters and concertgoers.

As a Doobie Brother and as a solo act Michael McDonald was the epitome of blue-eyed soul, but that was a long time ago. Tower of Power’s “So Very Hard to Go” sinks as McDonald strains for the soul that used to come easily. Jeffrey Osbourne is a veteran crooner who does a little better with “God Bless the Child” but not much better. He doesn’t have much of an affinity for Billie Holiday’s definitive classic and Koz and company fare little better.

More successful and Jonathan Butler and Osbourne’s backing vocals for “Hot Fun In the Summertime” and if there weren’t enough horns already Brian Culbertson drops in to add a trombone solo. The horns-and-bass version of “Take Five” is sincere in its wish to pay respects to Dave Brubeck, but hasn’t Paul Desmond’s classic been overdone by now? A persistent criticism leveled at smooth jazz artists is they take the path of least resistance and here the charge sticks.

The lone original moment comes at the end with “Summer Horns” but by then it’s only a teaser of what this grand collaboration might have been if Koz and company hadn’t chosen to play things both straight and safe.

The urgency to please instead of intrigue the listener is what makes Summer Horns a frustrating affair. It’s akin to a summer blockbuster movie with a star-studded cast, eye-popping special effects that kills an hour or two and leaves no lasting, long-term impression. The talent of the stars is undisputed, but nobody seems on the verge of breaking a sweat.

This is an album that will sell big, but aims small.

This review originally appeared at All About Jazz.

This part didn’t.

There was more I wanted to say about Dave Koz and Friends and the Summer Horns album that I could not say in the All About Jazz review.   Here on my personal blog I say what I want.

And what I want to say is how much I could not stand this record.

I like smooth jazz, but boy, does it wear me out trying to defend it from those who call it unlistenable pabulum.   It’s not, but albums like Summer Horns are impossible to defend.   Everything  you hate about smooth jazz is here in big heaping helping of different ways to SUCK.

How much sax is too much sax?

I find what a lot musicians are doing  to be completely uninteresting to my ears and jazz is certainly no exception.  Nothing bugs me more than guys like  Koz  whom seem capable of more, but settle on uninspired and unachieving crap like his  Summer Horns project which relies on a gimmick of pulling together four smooth jazz sax players, going through the motions on some lame cover version of someone else’s hit songs and then just noodle until it sells like crazy (or what passes for crazy in an age where nobody buys albums anymore).

It’s a sin and a shame to make music this dull.   It’s not a crime, but it should be.   This is not the worst album I’ve heard from a major act in ten years of reviewing recordings, but it could be the most lethargic.   Playing loud and piling on some lame solos doesn’t mean you’re kicking ass.   Simply calling Summer Horns a “bad” album doesn’t get close to summing up my feelings.  Bad is the wrong word.  Dreary is the word.  This is the kind of record that people who love jazz hate with a passion because it isn’t jazz.   It’s instrumental music.    Which ain’t necessarily jazz.

Too many musicians learn a trick and then they repeat that trick if it proves to be successful.   “They liked that one so I’ll give them another one just like it.”   This is a trap and artists big and small have walked into it.  I know this to be true.  Jazz is too much of a limited niche market for anybody to deliberately make lousy music and I truly believe  nobody makes a bad album on purpose.

But lazy, half-ass, going through the motions albums that nothing but product like a bad of McDonald’s fries?   Yes.  That absolutely happens all the time.

My father always said bad music will drive out good.   He wasn’t  entirely right about that.  Boring music  drives out both.

Zimmerman Family Values

If the colors were changed Zimmerman would already be in prison for life.

It’s Father’s Day, a time sons and dads get together and reminiscence fondly of their good times together.    Or if you’re Robert Zimmerman Sr. whose son George faces second-degree murder charges for the killing of Trayvon Martin last February and you think he got a raw deal,  what you do is dash off a $3.99 e-book on Amazon and  you lay fault for all the woes of your family squarely on nearly every prominent Black politician and organization for being “the true racists.”

Who is it that has that knives out for George?   Daddy Zimmerman has it all figured out and naming names:

  • Congressional Black Caucus. “[A] pathetic, self-serving group of racists… advancing their purely racist agenda.” He later adds that “all members of Congress should be ashamed of the Congressional Black Caucus, as should be their constituents.” And finally: “They are truly a disgrace to all Americans.”
  • The NAACP. “[S]imply promotes racism and hatred for their own, primarily financial, interests” and “without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist.”
  • NAACP President Benjamin Jealous. “[W]hat I would expect of a racist.”
  • Trayvon Martin’s funeral director. A “racial activist and former head of the local NAACP.”
  • Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson and Daryl Parks, attorneys for Travyon Martin’s family. “The scheme team.”
  • The National Basketball Players Association.
  • Black Chamber of Commerce.
  • National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers.
  • National Black United Fund.
  • United Negro College Fund.

Robert Zimmerman Sr. sees conspiracies against his son and the face of the conspiracy is a Black one.

Pretty much everybody but The Harlem Globetrotters is gunning for Boy George Zimmerman.   The old man also claims the Boston bombings could have been averted if the FBI wasn’t busy investigating the Martin murder.

The positive reviews on Amazon praising Zimmerman Sr., are just as  eye-opening.

 This book gives you a glimpse into what actually happened in February of 2012, without the lies and politics. Don’t be put off by other people who disparage this man and his family without bothering to find out what actually happened. The truth will come out during the trial, and the Zimmermans will be vindicated.

I have believed all along that this case was a travesty propelled by financial and personal gain by those whose interest is benefited from this being a criminal & race issue…Those of you that think this isn’t financially motivated read the book and then ask Trayvons grieving mother when & where she got those huge multi carat diamond earrings she was sporting on her media campaign?

To the Zimmerman family, I support your family, and I wish the Martin family would have recognized the signs for their son to get help. It’s a tragedy, and I wish we could bring Trayvon back, and have given him some guidance before he decided not to stop beating your son’s head into the pavement. A couple more poundings, and George would possibly have brain damage, and been a vegetable. If Trayvon would have kept his hands to himself, he still would be here for his family.

Okay, you get the picture.   There’s a lot of sick, twisted bastards and far too many of them have computer access.

Too bad you can’t train a puppy on an e-book.

In the foreword of  “Florida v. Zimmerman: Uncovering the Malicious Prosecution of my Son, George” Daddy Z declares, “Everything stated in this book is true to the best of my knowledge and my belief (You really believe that?).   However, given the media’s egregious and misleading reporting (Because I certainly couldn’t be biased in favor of my son), I would certainly encourage readers research any and all information they may question (And if you’re expecting an impartial account to come from the father of a guy facing hard time behind bars you’re out of your mind).”

The only ones who could be interested in slanted, self-serving trash like this are the same fools who are making contributions to George Zimmerman’s defense fund.   It’s a neat little Jedi mind trick Daddy Z has pulled off here.   He appeals to racists by denouncing every African-American who has chosen justice for Trayvon over freedom for George as the real racists.

This strategy should do well with morons and Stormfront members.

Zimmerman, Sr.is engaged in two of the oldest defenses in the world: deflection and projection. Blaming others for the sins of racism that he and his family perpetuates continually and repeatedly.

Can I say with 100 percent certainty George Zimmerman was motivated by racism when he murdered Trayvon Martin?   No.   But what I can say is if he is he got it honestly.

Today is Father’s Day and there is no doubt Robert Zimmerman Sr., loves his son George very much .   He loves him so much he would lie for him.  He loves him so much he would spread his race-baiting venom to others to feed the seething racial resentment his son started with his reckless and criminal behavior .      George  is a killer and that reflects poorly upon how the elder Zimmerman raised him.      His  love is no excuse for being a lousy parent.    The stupid and selfish actions of George took Trayvon away from his father and that’s why he’s on trial for murder, not because of anything the NAACP or the NBA did.

Today is Father’s Day and Robert Zimmerman Sr. shows his love by spewing hate.

This is the face of a good boy. Not a boy killer.

 

No, I’m Not Nostalgic For Dubya

Presendentin’ be hard work.

It’s Old Presidents Week here at The Domino Theory.   It be that way sometimes and especially when they are making news.

Facts are stupid things.  Ronnie Reagan said that.  He was right about facts occasionally being stupid.  Facts are also subject to being manipulated, misleading and meaningless.

The disaster movie that was George W. Bush’s presidency has been ripe for a rehabbing and with President Obama’s recent spate of dilemmas, diversions and drama it’s getting one.

Gallup pollsters announced Tuesday that the last Bush in office is more popular than our sitting president. Forty-nine percent of Americans now see Bush in favorable terms, compared to 47 percent for President Barack Obama.

Bush’s 49/45 approval-to-disapproval rating split in the new poll also is the first time since 2005 – not-so-coincidentally the same year as Hurricane Katrina – that more Americans say they approve of his presidency than don’t. It’s also a major uptick from his favorability rating low of 35 percent in March 2009. (His high: 87% two months after the 9/11 attacks in 2001).

No, I don’t know WTF he’s doing either.

Before you could say, “Holy Revisionism, Batman” a colored conservative was all up in my Facebook news feed proudly proclaiming,  “If you take off your Obama blinders you can see why life was better under Bush.”

Really?

The economy collapsed under Bush. The bank bail-out was introduced and signed into law by Bush. Bush burned through Bill Clinton’s surplus like a horny sailor in a whorehouse. Bush dragged the country into one war in Afghanistan and left it unfinished and then into another with Iraq based upon cooked “intelligence” of Weapons of Mass Destruction” that weren’t there because they didn’t exist. Bush ignored the poor and the Black drowning like rats in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina but rammed through a tax cut that redistributed the wealth into the pockets of the One Percent.

Oh, and the worst terrorist attack ever occurred while George W. Bush sat on his ass reading “My Pet Goat.”

To sum up, if you were  Black  after Hurricane Katrina, or in the World Trade Center on 9/11 or one of the over 4,000 soldiers whose lives were wasted in Iraq, your life wasn’t better under Bush. Your life was OVER because of Bush.    Nostalgia for the Bad Old Days of Dubya and Evil Dick Cheney coming from a Black person is like an ex-slave reminiscing for the  cotton fields. 

Yes,  Barack Obama is having a series of rotten days and weeks.   The afterglow of his reelection has faded and the grind of governing has knocked him from his once lofty poll numbers.   No surprise there.   They only place they could go was down.   But polls don’t decide whether a presidency is a success or failure.    History does that and in my history George W. Bush is still the all-time, undisputed, winner and still champion  Worst President Ever.

So I really don’t give a damn what a Gallup poll of 1,529 morons with short-term memories and no sense of history says. A majority of people thought slavery was a great idea once upon a time.

“Better off under Bush?”

Only if you’re a damn fool or a crazy Republican.  But I repeat myself.

 

The Return of Backstabbing Bill

You’ll never need an enemy when  Bill Clinton is your friend.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the only member in her family whose reputation received a boost by agreeing to be the Secretary of State for the man who beat her, Barack Obama.   Bill Clinton fell out of favor with a lot of core Democratic voters for his shabby, and occasionally race-baiting attacks against Obama during the hotly contested 2008 election.

Obama and his Democratic predecessor were not close in the aftermath, but in the 2012 campaign, one president reached out to the other and Bill Clinton became one of Obama’s most effective supporters and delivered a stirring speech at last year’s convention that easily surpassed Obama’s own address.

If the two men aren’t exactly friends, they learned they needed each other and both benefited from striking a truce and setting aside their differences.

Here’s one way to know the election is over and the next one is already well under way.   Bill Clinton is through making nice with Barack Obama and he’s back to showing him up and cutting him down.

In remarks at the McCain Institute (that’s John McCain, the guy Obama beat in 2008) that weren’t open to the press, but Politico and The Daily Beast  got the juicy parts anyway  of,the 42nd President of the United States  ripping  the 44th  for failing to act in Syria.

    —”You just think how lame you’d be… suppose I had let a million people, two million people be refugees out of Kosovo, a couple hundred thousand people die, and they say, ‘You could have stopped this by dropping a few bombs. Why didn’t you do it?’ And I say, ‘because the House of Representatives voted 75% against it?’” Clinton said. “You look like a total wuss, and you would be.” (via DB)

    —”If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity, the one thing you cannot say when all the eggs have been broken is, ‘Oh my god, two years ago there was a poll that said 80 percent of you were against it.’ You look like a total fool,” Clinton said. (DB)

    —”Nobody is asking for American soldiers in Syria,” Clinton said. “The only question is now that the Russians, the Iranians and the Hezbollah are in there head over heels, 90 miles to nothing, should we try to do something to try to slow their gains and rebalance the power so that these rebel groups have a decent chance, if they’re supported by a majority of the people, to prevail?” (via Politico)

The missing and the dead. The byproducts of President Clinton’s disinterest.

It’s hard to know exactly  what Clinton wants the president to do about Syria.  He was a little skimpy on the details but  makes it pretty clear somebody needs to “do something.”

Mostly its about Clinton reviving a theme began by his wife five years ago: Obama isn’t ready to sit in the Big Chair and make the tough calls.    Bill knows he could and wants everyone to know Hillary could too.

Except when he didn’t and allowed almost a million people to lose their lives.    Perhaps while he sucking on the unlit cigar soaked with Monica Lewinsky’s sex sauce, Bubba forgot how in 1994 he allowed the Hutus to slaughter the  Tutsis in the Rwandan Genocide.

The only thing more disgusting than Clinton’s craven opportunism is his lousy memory.   There was a time when he was the one who was the “wuss” and the “fool” and he was definitely looking at the polling numbers before coming to a decision.

What’s funny only it’s not is here’s the guy who sat on his thumbs when he wasn’t getting blow jobs from chubby interns and let the slaughter in Rwanda go down and he did NOTHING. The “first Black president” knew of the plans for genocide when the Hutus massacred over 800,000 Tutsis in 100 day.   Clinton chose not to get involved.   

President Bill Clinton’s administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

No use crying kids. Bill Clinton can’t hear you.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis” before the slaughter reached its peak.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

“It’s powerful proof that they knew,” said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that the CIA’s national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to “stop the genocide, which … is spreading south”.

Three days later the state department’s intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted “genocide and partition” and reported declarations of a “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis”.

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying “acts of genocide”.

Ms Des Forges said: “They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn’t want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination.”

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. “Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials – even aid workers – provided timely information up the chain,” he said.

“That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda.”

Clinton cared more about his blow jobs than innocents being massacred.   At least when it came to Black innocents.   But in Kosovo, Clinton didn’t dawdle at all.   He moved quickly to intervene and save the Croats.  Being born with White skin still has its privileges and one is the U.S. doesn’t dick around when it comes to saving the lives of those it considers worth it.

“It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror,” Clinton said during a trip to Africa in 1998 as the Lewinsky scandal was eating his presidency alive.

When Clinton said those words it was a lie.   He knew what was going on in Rwanda.   He didn’t care.

I respect Clinton. I even like Clinton. But his failure to act during the Rwanda genocide will never be forgiven or forgotten by me.   He was a coward then, he’s a coward now and he has no right to criticize Obama for not interceding in Syria while he was unwilling to do likewise in Rwanda.

Oh well, the campaign’s over. Hillary’s out of the Cabinet. Time for Big Bill to do what he does best: steal the spotlight and undercut  Obama.   The next presidential election is right around the corner and there isn’t an inch of daylight between Hill and Bill in their plans to put her in the Oval Office.   He owes her big-time for not divorcing his cheating ass while he was still in the White House and she WILL collect.

You expect this kind of behavior from Bill Clinton.   He doesn’t mean to be so bombastic.  He just is.  He does mean to be duplicitous, deceptive and devious.    Clinton has always been a guy who after he shakes your hand, you want to count and see how many fingers you still have.

In politics, they smile in your face while they pat you on the back.  That’s because they’re looking for the best place to stick the knife.   Maybe Clinton is coming down so hard on Obama to prod him into taking action in Syria in a way he failed to do so in Rwanda.   Maybe, but I don’t think Clinton allocates that much thought to his past mistakes.   His eyes on on the future and triumphant return to the White House and this time as The First Husband.

That’s a dream for Clinton well worth the risk of pissing off Obama.   However he might want to  consider Obama can ether be a big help or a big hindrance to Hill and Bill in 2016.

Throwing Obama under the bus and backing it up just to be sure isn’t anything new for anybody as ambitious as The Clintons.   There’s been a few bodies stacked up under wheels of the Clintoncruiser over the years and there’s always room for two more.