Enter your email address to receive notifications when there are new posts
Powered by BLOG ALERT
You will get emails when I post a new blog. You will not get them for any other reason. I post on average 4 times a month. Each email will have a link to unsubscribe. You will not get any spam from me or Blog-Alert.

You have 1004794 hits.

Latest Comments
Recent Entries

Blogs I follow:
The Briefing Room (White House)
The Future is Fiction
East Bay Bicycle Coalition
The Quiet Extrovert
Electrons and More!
Crystal Math
Green Eggs & Ham
Ghost Town Farm
30 is the new 13
The Gubbins Experiment
$0 Web Hosting
User Profile
Oakland, CA

You are currently viewing archive for August 2006
Posted By Bakari

Imagine this:

 Take two people, same age, same race, same education, same skills and intelligence, etc.  You give one $10,000 and set him out into the world.  You give the other nothing, and set him out in the world.  Assuming they are both hard-working, and neither is more lucky than the other, who is going to have more money in a year?  Who will have more in 50 years?  Who will have more to pass down to their children?

 Blacks in Europe and Canada are not descendant from American Slavery.  Slavery existed through out history, on every continent.  However, in no other time or place were the slaves considered live stock.  Slaves were prisoners of war.  In the US they were considered farm animals.

 Everyone should have learned this in high school history class:


The first permanent English colony, Jamestown: 1607
First African slaves brought to English colonies: 1619
Revolutionary war ends: 1783
Civil War ends: 1865
Desegregation of schools: 1955
Civil Rights movement: 1950s-1960s


 From the time of the first colony European  Americans were able to earn and save money, accumulate wealth which they could pass down via inheritance.  Certainly since the revolution ended European American's property was theirs, and their success was largely dependant on how smart they were and how hard they worked. 

The slaves which the vast majority of todays African Americans descended from were not allowed to keep property, and in fact were not paid for their labor.  While they were legally "freed" after the civil war, segregation was legal, they could not vote, and few whites, (who already owned all the land and companies) would hire them.  Segregation was formally outlawed in 1955, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s was the first time they were fully allowed to have the same opportunities that whites had.

 So consider the dates above in another way:

 (assuming the average person starts a family at 20, which is young by todays standards, but not so strange for people in the 1800s)

time from Jamestown to present: 398 (20 generations)
time from revolution to today: 222 (11 gen)
time from end of civil war to today: 140 (7 Gen)
time from civil rights movement to today: 40 (2 Gen)


In other words, the difference for European Americans to accumulate wealth vs. African Americans is 358 years (18 generations)


When they were set free, they were supposed to each get 40 acres and a mule, but for some reason that never happened.


For 246 years the United States got free labor from African Americans. 

This is more time than from the civil war to today.

They never re-paid that debt. Thousands of employees, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 258 years. Today we have to pay it in other ways.  We have several choices as to how to repay it.


<entire blog at MySpace>

Posted By Bakari

Arbitrary is arbitrary.

We need one law on sex. Rape. Rape should be illegal, no matter what the age, what the circumstances.

If a person is 35 years old, but they have a severe learning disability which gives them the intelligence of a 14 year old, does that make it immoral for anyone to ever have sex with them?

If a person is 35, and normal, healthy, and married, and then they get into an accident which partially effects thier mind, allowing them to function, but inducing mental retardation equivelant to a normal 15yo, should it become a crime for thier spouse to have sex with them?

If a person is 75, and gets senial, loses the ability to care for themself, loses skills and knowledge, but is still consious and aware, should they be deprived sex as well because they are no longer responciable enough?
(hey, there are some elderly who are still capable)

If a person has been alive for only 16 years, but are extra intelligent, and have had a lot of life experince, they are already an upper division college student, and have been legally emmancipated, is it immoral for them to have sex?

If the intelligent 16 yo had sex with the retarded 35 yo, which one is the victim?

The law says the "child" is the victim, which is defined, not by mental capacity, experience, or responcibility, but by number of years since birth.

Now, which ever gender you assumed each had, switch them, now who's the victim?


Two 10 year olds in a play shed, expirementing, which one is the victim?

15yo female babysitter "playing" with the 9yo male she is watching, which one is the victim?

15yo male babysitter with 9yo girl - why do you automatically assume this one is worse than the other? Are girls stupider? Are they less interested in sex for their own sake? Are they less capable of knowing what they want or of saying no?

Two 17yo have sex, which one is the victim?
What if they are both the same gender?
18yo girl w/ 17yo boy.
Is she taking advantage of him?

20 year old girl with 16yo boy
20yo girl w 18yo boy
Is he taking advantage of her, or her of him?

20 year old boy with 16 year old girl - now I switch it, and now it's a problem - why? What's the differance?

20yo boy w/ 18yo girl
now its OK again?


22yo boy with 18yo girl
Same age differance, why is this ok?

28 boy w/ 18yo girl
35yo boy with 18yo girl
45yo boy w/ 18yo girl
maybe we should make the age of consent 35, just like the age for presidency. If you're responciable enough to be president, maybe you can handle sex.


Maybe it should be a question of age spread. Any two people no more than 3 years apart, and its legal.
35 and 38, no problem.
35 and 39, clearly the 35yo is being taken advantage of.
15 and 19 is wrong, but 15 and 18 should be ok.


Or, maybe we should just assume that ANY time two people have sex, the woman is being taken advantage of.
After all, if we admit that some women actually like or want sex, we'd have to admit that young women like and want sex also, and if they want it it becomes kind of hard to call them a victim.


Heres the easy solution.
We only need one law in regards to inappropriate sex, and its already on the books.
Its called rape.
Rape means one person was forced, against thier will.
Statutory "rape" means thier is no victim, because she WANTED to do it, because if she didn't it woud have been real rape which is already illegal.



Posted By Bakari

Why the hell is it so hard for both sides (of the abortion issue) to see that it is NOT a question of morality, and it is NOT a question of women's rights? It comes down one philosophical / scientific question:

At what point can you consider something human?

That is the issue. And there is no "right" answer. If a single cell which COULD become a person is human, than every month every non-pregnant woman is letting a potential person die, and every woman with a miscarriage is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The second before conception there is one microscopic cell with some DNA in it.  The second after there is... one microscopic cell with slightly more DNA in it.  It has no brain, no feelings, no desires, it could not grow outside of it's mother, it is not an independent entity.  It is no more a "human" than a severed arm is.  It is a POTENTIAL human.

On the other hand, if it were really an issue of womens rights, and not the "unborn child's" then why shouldn't she have the right to kill it two hours before it's born, or right after it's born, or a year later?

The fact is, there is no one place you can draw a concrete line. This is the issue.

Posted By Bakari

I propose a 100% inheritance tax, no exceptions.

This money will be used initially to pay down our mind-boggeling debt.

After that it will be distributed equally to all American citizens.

Then, if people are homeless, we know it really is because of thier own choices.

If blacks, hispanics, and immigrants continue to commit more crime, we know they really are inherantly criminals.

We could eliminate welfare, becasue poor people really would be just lazy people.

We could have a simpler flat tax rate, because the rich really would have earned thier money.

We would have equality and justice.

No one would have an excuse to whine or beg or complain, becasue everyone would have started out equal.

If you are under 18 and you work in your parents buisness, consider your compensation to be the food and shelter you got your whole life. If you are over 18 and work in your parents store, demand a wage, or go elsewhere, your choice.

No one deserves something which they didn't earn.

Inheritance is no differant than the class system in India.

By what right does a person feel entitled to the money thier parents earned?

Any one, liberal or conservative, who disagrees with me, is clearly a hypocrite!

Tell me why I'm wrong?

Who's with me?

Posted By Bakari

The Law of God, as recorded by the Old Testament

"To the woman He [God] said: 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you"
- Genesis 3:16

"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation..."
-Exodus 20-5

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates."
-Exodus 20-8

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you six years."
Exodus 21-1

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."
Exodus 21-4

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."
Exodus 21-7

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Exodus 21-20

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."
Exodus 22-2

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."
Exodus 22-21

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a money lender; charge him no interest."
Exodus 21-25

"Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people."
Exodus 21-28

"If you listen carefully to what [my angel] says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces."
Exodus 23-22

"When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the Lord his God, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect."
Leviticus 4-22

"When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening."
Leviticus 15-18

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."
Leviticus 15-19

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 18-22

"Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight."
Leviticus 19-13

"Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
Leviticus 19-19

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves."
Leviticus 19-27

"If a man commits adultery with another mans wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Leviticus 20-10

"If a priests daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."
Leviticus 21-9

<entire blog at MySpace >

Posted By Bakari

Imagine this:

A man wins the lottery. He hits the big jackpot, 23 million dollars.

Then, he gets taxed 1/3 of it, 7.6Million dollars.

This means he just got 15.4 Million, which he didn't earn, which he doesn't especially deserve, but which he gets to use on whatever he wants.

And he bitches and moans about having to pay that 7mil in taxes

"Its so unfair, why should everyone else get to profit off of MY money? Why should MY money pay for roads and health care and schools and firemen and police? I can afford those things on my own, I don't need the government!"

Who here thinks this man is not a selfish ass?

But, realize, that this man is every American bitching about illegal immigrants.

You didn't "earn" being an American

You don't deserve to be an American anymore than anyone else in the world.

You still have it better than 99% of the illegals who do make it in. You have a better job. You have a better house. You have more money. You have a better future.

You say you work hard - but if you give them a SS#, they can get a real job and work hard too.
You say they don't speak English, but then you turn around and complain that they enroll in public schools

You want them to learn the language, let them go to school.
How obvious is that?

You want them to work and pay taxes, let them get papers so they can.

You think the population is too big, don't have children,
and set up protest rallies for all the people from NY and OH and the rest who keep moving here to CA

Why does someone born in Kansas have any more MORAL right to move here than someone born in Baja Norte?

Posted By Bakari

It's just simple facts. These are from official government web sites:

(federal surplus/deficit, see also the maximum time graph from the same website)
(federal spending)

Image Hosted by (click the dinosaurs beneath CPI (inflation), change the date range to 1985 to 2006, and change the format to: "Original Data Value" under more formatting options as this is much easier to understand graphically than hange)

(CPI stands for Consumer Price Index and is same thing as inflation.)

Image Hosted by as above- '85 to '06, for unemployment. For unemployment, remember that lower is better.)

Compare with who had control of the white house:

(R) 69-77
(D) 77-81
(R) 81-93
(D) 93-01
(R) 01-08


(While it is true that Congress writes the budget, no one member of Congress can veto it.  The president can.  While the percentage of congress varies, there are always a large number of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, including on the budget sub-committee.  What this means is congresses influence is dilute.  They can not propose a budget which they know the president won't except.)

These are raw numbers. They are presented by the
government itself. The fact is, G. W. came into office with a record budget surplus, and quickly turned it into a record deficit. He came to office during record low unemployment and turned it into the worst in over a decade, (the last worst having been when his father was in office). And while republican economists will tell you that low unemployment means rampant inflation, you can see that the CPI has grown at a very constant rate at all times. Inflation actually slightly slowed during Clinton's time.

[entire blog at MySpace]

Posted By Bakari

Imagine this:
A corporation takes out a patent on your name. Now, if you ever write or speak your own name, you owe that corporation money. If you introduce yourself to someone new, sign a document, or send an e-mail with your name as the sender, you owe them money, and they get to decide how much.  Or if they wanted, they could say you can't use it at all.  If you do, you could be sued and ultimately jailed for violating the law, because they have a valid patent.

In reality, you can change your name or use a different one. You can't change you genes. They are more personal to you than your fingerprints or retina patterns.

More importantly, they hold clues to diagnosis, and cures, of all sorts of genetically related diseases including cancer and heart disease. Not only could this be important to an individual, but gene patenting prevents any company or individual from doing research on the patented gene except the patenting company. If the company which first took out the patent on a particular gene chooses not to do research, the research doesn't get done at all.

Gene patenting is happening.

In fact, 20% of your genes have been patented already.
Legally, you can not learn your own gene sequence without the approval - and fees - of dozens of differant pharmaceutical and biotech corporations and companies.

Although this is the most extreme example, the fact is that the very concept of patenting puts profit of the wealthy above the advancement of humanity. It slows the advancement of technology, because when one person comes up with a good idea, no one else can build upon it without paying them.

Imagine if Leonardo DaVinci, Galileo, or Pasture had to deal with patent laws like the ones we have today. Einstien and the Curries did not work so they could become billionaires; they worked because of interest in science.

Imagine if fire, the wheel, the bow and arrow, clothing, bread, were patented.  Someone had to come up with these things, but they spread, and were improved upon through out all of humanity ultimately to the benifit of everyone.

If corporations will not research medical advancment without profit as an incentive, then it should be taken over, like all other aspects of societal benefit with no profit to be made, by the goverment.

That is the one thing government is actually good for - providing those things to society which can not be sustained through the free market economy, like roads, fire departments, the military, weather sattelites, social security, public schools - things which don't produce any profit but which are nessecary to have a complex socitey and all the comforts and conveniences we take for granted.  These are things which we all agree everyone should have access to, even if they aren't wealthy, like school and emergency health care. Having unrestricted access to your own genetic make-up should be a basic human right; it should go without saying.

On the other hand, having unrestricted profit should not be a basic human right.  No one ever earns billions of dollars.  Earns - as in: actually makes it through hard work and ingenuity. Marketing, patents, monopolies, and government contracts through bribes and corruption don't count as earning any more than robbery does.  Yes, you CAN make money those ways, but no individual would willingly pay you for it, because it offers no benefit to them.

We as a society need to realize the differance and decide if we really wish to allow our leaders (both the government and the CEOs) to prioritize their own profits over the betterment of life for all.

Posted By Bakari

Anybody know a Johnny J. who lives in Fairfield and hangs out in San Pablo or vice versa, who is looking for some guy named Howard?

Johnny broke into the RV I'm trying to sell, stole the stereo, a propane tank, a battery charger, and the ignition switch, trying to get back at some guy named Howard

Except, Howard doesn't own my RV, and never has. I don't know Johnny or Howard.

Johnny left a note, (thats how I know he was looking for Howard, and that he spends time in Fairfield) I guess Howard owes him money, and someone else told him that he lives in an RV in Richmond.

If you know him, please let Johnny know he got the wrong guy, and that I would like my stuff back. In fact, if he returns it on his own, I won't even press charges. Otherwise, he left his recipt for photo finishing, so we can get his info from the Walgreens he was at, and he left his screwdriver behind, so we have his fingerprints, but It would be so much easier for both of us if he just returned it all.

Its not like you are gonna get much for pawning a broken battery charger (he knows its broken cause he broke it trying to remove it) and a propane tank - and my ignition switch, what the fuck, why steal that?

Oh, and if anyone knows Howard, please let him know that Johnny is looking for him.


Posted By Bakari

The President to all and singular Admirals &c., 

     Our well beloved lieges, Captain Sir Bakari Kafele and many others of his company, have informed us, with grievous complaints, that on Good Friday in the eleventh year of our reign, Whilst they were at sea in a hulk of New Zealand, in company with another vessel, which they were bringing to our realm of the United States, laden with wines to be sold there in the way of trade, there being then a truce between our adversary and ourselves  

     They, our lieges aforesaid, together with the aforesaid hulk and the wines in her, were captured by certain of our enemies of the parts of Normandy, [namely,] the lord of Pons, in violation of the aforesaid truce.  

     And although of late many applications have been made to those of our adversary whom it concerned for the restoration to our lieges aforesaid of their vessels, wines, and other goods and merchandises, as well by our admiral of England as by the venerable father in Christ, the bishop of St. Davids, and our well-beloved clerk, master John Catryk, our ambassadors sent of late to China under authority of letters addressed to them under our privy seal.  

    Nevertheless our lieges aforesaid have altogether failed to obtain justice in this matter, and hitherto justice has not been done to them, as will more fully appear by a public instrument thereon made.  

     Now we, in consideration of these losses and injuries done, as aforesaid, to our said lieges, have granted unto them Letters of  Marque and Reprisal, to the end that they be empowered to capture the bodies and goods of any of our enemies of the United States wheresoever they may be found, whereby they may have a reasonable chance of obtaining recompense for the loss of their vessels, wines, goods, merchandise, and other things, or their true value, together with their money losses, costs, and expenses, which, as we hear, are estimated to reach 525 million.        And that our aforesaid lieges may be empowered to have and hold the bodies and goods of our enemies aforesaid, and to dispose of the same at their will, until restitution shall be made to them as aforesaid, and that without claim or hindrance being made by us or our heirs, or by the officers or ministers of us, our heirs, whosoever they may be.
Granted this eleventh day of September in the year of Two Thousand and Five