A treatise on how to gain real Em-P-O-W-E-R-ment for Black people

The African-American community is at a crossroads. High unemployment, gang activity, drug abuse, failing schools, and soaring rates of incarceration among Black males wreak havoc among us. The simple answer would be to blame it all on “racism” but this is not a strategy for liberation.  In order to simplify things and get to the heart of the matter I will quote the words of Jesus: “You will know the truth and it will set you free.” The first thing to acknowledge is that we have been lied to and continue to receive this ‘cultural brainwashing.’ We have been told that we live in a Democracy but our form of government is Republican, according to the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 4). We are taught the path to success is getting a college degree but that is not necessarily true in every case. And even so, all it makes you is a well-paid, educated slave.  Curtiss Mayfield of the 1970’s Soul group ‘The Impressions,’ once said in one of his songs: “Educated fools from uneducated schools.”  This does not mean that he feels the value of higher learning is useless, but rather that accumulating a lot of information and facts isn’t the same thing as knowing ‘truth’ and how the real world works.

During the Civil Rights period we had two choices-Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm-X.  The former won out over the latter because this is what White America wanted- a harmless-as-a-dove slave that believed all the lies. MLK’s stance on non-violence was correct, at least strategically, in view of our circumstances and experiences in this country, but he was naïve and overestimated the capacity of the racists in having a moral conscience. Malcolm-X, on the other hand understood this perfectly and explains much of his harsh language and fiery rhetoric in denouncing the White man, at least in the beginning, as “Blue-eyed devils.” MLK might have used the Bible and faith in God as his guiding principle but he did not know TRUTH.  Malcolm-X, on the other hand, understood “reality,” that is, how things operate in this world system, especially American imperialism and hegemony; he therefore knew TRUTH. MLK was driven by pie-in-the -sky theological yearnings and suffering for rewards in the afterlife, and while such is a viable part of the Christian path, it does not mean one must be blind to the things that are happening right before our very eyes.

It is important to understand the nature of “power” and no better practical explanation of it can be found than the one offered by actor Jim Davies of the popular TV show of the 1980’s, “Dallas.” In one episode, Bobby Ewing (played by actor Patrick Duffy) was complaining to his father Jock Ewing (played by Davies) about the underhanded way his brother J.R. (played by actor Larry Hagman) took over control of Ewing Oil company after Jock appointed him to run it, at first. Jock, angry at the whining of his younger son, said, “Nobody gives you power, Bobby, you take it.” This is the ‘answer’ in a nutshell because as long as you are dependent on someone giving you something then you don’t have power; at least in the true sense of the word. Take for instance the stories about immigrants who came to America and created businesses and major industries. They weren’t given anything but created with imagination, perseverance, and a little luck, an industrial renaissance that gradually changed the country into a manufacturing juggernaut.

 

Marxism says that a significant minority [status quo] controls the factors of production as well as the distribution of goods and so it seems obvious what we need, as a starting point, is to recreate our own ‘power’ by making things, selling goods and services that can be exchanged and sold as currency in the marketplace, whether domestically or internationally. We have to own our own businesses using our own money and learn to create generational wealth. The lessons learned from the 2008 Wall Street meltdown is the tremendous power and influence of the banking and insurance companies [AIG], and that is where the ‘institutionalized power’ is because some of them were deemed, “too big to fail.” Blacks need to understand about  financing, investment banking, the stock market, international business and emerging markets, and we must take a huge stake in or control some of the major industries in America like transportation, chemicals, insurance, technology, commodities, telecommunications, banking, aerospace, finance, pharmaceuticals, utilities, oil and gas etc.

As a last point we have to remember that we are part of one vast Black community, no matter the city we live in- whether urban, rural, metropolitan, town, or village. We are part of the African “Diaspora” and while it is not of necessity to return to the mother Continent, but we do have to link up in an unbroken chain of cultural solidarity with people of color all over the planet-in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Central and South America, India, First Nations people, Pacific Islanders, Australian aborigines, etc. If people of color are in need of help why do we have a “White Savior” come to the rescue-such as an international Pop star like Bono, Sting or some American movie celebrity? If Black people can come together for a “Million Man” march why can’t the same type of organizing take place where, for instance,  every Black person or working family in America donate just one dollar that will go towards alleviating some specific need in the Black community? This would generate millions of dollars and we could gradually take care of many of our own problems without asking for one dime from others or the government. The money could provide computers and Internet services to a neighborhood with at-risk kids by bridging the “digital divide.” We could also keep community clinics operating just a little bit longer that provide basic healthcare services for those who have no insurance or can’t pay for treatments or examinations.  We could also use the money to pay daycare services for working single-parents who take public transportation to work or college, and other such things that are necessary. As Soul Brother # 1, James Brown said in one of his songs, “I don’t want nobody to give me nothing, open up the door I’ll get it myself.”  

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 20, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

WA State Supreme Court Justices concede bias in jury selection process

In a Tacoma News Tribune, August 2, 2013 article, WA State Supreme Court Justices mention about racial bias in process by which jurors are selected in criminal trials. The Justices acknowledge there is ‘persistent’ racial bias in jury selection but there is no agreement on what the remedy should be. This concern stems from the case of Kirk Saintcalle who was convicted in the murder of Anthony Manzo. Saintcalle complained that the Prosecution struck the only potential black from the jury pool using what is called a “preemptory challenge.” This procedure is used in the court by lawyers to disqualify or exclude someone from serving as a juror because it is believed they would not be impartial. Some of the Justices concede that “race is often a factor . . . when lawyers use their preemptory challenges to dismiss potential jurors from cases.” Justice Steven Gonzales wrote that throughout the state this strategy is based on racial stereotypes and that it is [frequently] invoked to exclude people from jury service strictly based on race. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and Gonzales have called for the elimination of preemptory challenges in jury trials, altogether.

WA Supreme Court Justice Charlie Wiggins cited Batson v Kentucky as legal precedent to show that institutional discrimination still exists in jury selection.  According to “Wikipedia” this was a case in 1986 where James Kirkland Batson, an African American man, was convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the voiere (questioning) of jurors the Prosecution dismissed 4 potential Black jurors and Batson was convicted by an all-White jury. The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction. That court cited Swain v. Alabama, and held that a defendant alleging lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate “systematic exclusion” of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community were being constructed so as to not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted Writ of certiorari to decide whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a ‘fair’ cross section of the community.

In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor. The court overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Swain, the Court had recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In Batson the court ruled that the defendant could make a prima facie case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained:

The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the defendant makes a “prima facie” showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.

The Court also held that:

• A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded;
• A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. [NOTE: Wouldn’t this apply to White people, too?] However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors.

The Sixth Amendment states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. . .” It DOES NOT say that you have to be tried by a jury of your peers and the Courts have at times, interpreted this phrase in various ways. Just as important, if not more so is the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1b, which says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whether the criminal defendant is guilty or not isn’t the issue but rather that the individual receives a fair trial and jurors are not systematically excluded if a racial minority, in a trial involving a person of color.

How would it be if a white criminal defendant faced an all-Black jury, would their attorneys not issue a ‘prima facie’ challenge about the exclusion of white jurors? Well, if it is seen as absurd to have Black jurors deliberate in trials of White people then by the same “equal protection” logic it is even more so for Black criminal defendants to have their fates decided by White people. Is it because Black people cannot understand all the discovery (evidence) and legal arguments between the Prosecution and Assigned Counsel (Defense), or are racial minorities more sympathetic toward criminal behavior? White people are not any more law-abiding, moral, or intelligent than anybody else, so their disproportionate numbers as jurors has to be balanced with inclusion of more non-Whites to bring integrity and respect to the Justice system, as well as the courts that it has never enjoyed in quite some time, or at all; especially from disenfranchised persons of color.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 3, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Still on the Plantation: Hip Hop and White male Hegemony

I have had some time to think about problems besetting the Black community that is evidenced in rap/hip hop music videos and lyrics. Let me get to the heart of the matter by making this bold declaration: “ENSLAVEMENT OF BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA HAS NEVER ENDED.” I know many will say this is absurd because of The Emancipation Proclamation issued by president Abraham Lincoln ‘officially’ ended slavery in 1862. Next thing is you will remind me about the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments [1868-1870] to the U.S. Constitution included in the Bill of Rights as proof that I am off my rocker; Well, let’s just see if this is the case or not. The first thing that should be obvious to any rational thinking person is that no one can give you something that you already possess as a human being with the  alienable right to life, liberty [freedom], and the pursuit of happiness. Subsequently, anything that is ‘given’ can be taken away, abrogated, ignored, and doesn’t really belong to us in the first place because it is artificially created. Any legislative act by itself cannot truly make people free; especially if it undermined by structural and institutional mechanisms whose primary functions are to keep so-called ‘freed’ people on the plantation.  The shackles of iron formerly worn around our ankles and wrists are now the glittery BLING BLING rings on rappers fingers and gold chains hanging around their necks. There is an old African proverb that those who don’t know their history are dead, thus the name ‘Negro’ etymologically means “dead.” Our ancestral memories, traditions, religion, and distinctive tribal customs were tortured out of us, a type of cultural genocide or ethnic cleansing [brainwashing], which has no parallel in the history of the world. Now when it comes to the mixed messages coming from the African-American community about gangsta rap, well the Black community is under siege. The rappers who talk about being in a state of war are right on the money, the thing is though, and they stop a little short of fully explaining it. Many soldiers coming back from the battlefield war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan are diagnosed as suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), well, in a similar way this is what is happening to black people in America.

The seeds of the ‘dysfunctional’ Black family were planted long ago and it is just now producing the fruit of violent and angry young Black men. I don’t know if it is amusing or sad to see Black intellectuals try to explain the problem in front of the White-controlled media because when the cameras are rolling they like to clown just like the young rappers whom many of them criticize. It’s like singer Curtiss Mayfield of the 1970’s Soul group ‘The Impressions’ once said, “Educated fools from uneducated schools.” It seems to me that no one is asking the right question and therefore the answer is still elusive. I have a thought-travel to any part of the world where there is a war [sectarian, religious ethnic, regular, etc.] going on and observe the people, infrastructure and living conditions, then come back to American and compare what you saw there to the scenes in some Black [and Latino] communities in this country. I would speculate there is very little difference and I am also sure the people are very angry about how they are living in such deplorable conditions and if they could write rap lyrics about their experiences in English it would sound quite familiar as far as tone or feeling. It is laughable when some well-meaning saviors think the answer is more money because if that was the case, with all the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years, especially in education [the linchpin of Conservatives and many Liberals] most of our problems would be solved, according to them. Critics like FOX News Bill O’Reilly, other Conservative demagogues and a few token Blacks in the news media say it is the fault of Blacks themselves for their dismal state of affairs. Blacks have been freed from slavery, given citizenship, legal protections, the right to vote, free education, affirmative action, integration, employment opportunities, and just about everything else that the White man has, so what gives-why can’t they make it or be more law-abiding?

Well, back on the plantation in the ante-bellum Southern states some slaves served in the Big House and had a few more privileges than the field slaves. Now get this, only a very small number worked inside with and around the master and his family, even raising his children while the overwhelming majorities were treated quite differently.  In other words, even a brutish and racist master can reward one slave with favors and advancement while denying the same opportunity to another one if in doing so it serves his purposes. This is how the unequal system is maintained because it was never intended to bring everyone up to the same level. The master even enjoyed some entertainment by forcing two strong bucks [physically powerful and muscular Mandingo warrior-types] to battle each other for his pleasure, and no other reason. And even as awesome as the slave was he was still obedient to the master’s whip, rope, or gun. The trauma of experiencing torture, especially terror and fright are recorded in our DNA and transmitted generationally in our genes. Black people have been psychologically traumatized and “raped” by the White Euro-American male hegemony and the perpetrator of this crime against humanity is “above the law.” Not only that but he feigns benevolence by giving us the dope of social service programs and promises that we eagerly take and inject into our veins like heroin, but all this does is make us more dependent on the drugs in the first place. Then when we are all strung out he gives us another drug to wean us off the addiction of this opiate in the form of social methadone; of which we become addicted to the cure. What we desperately need is mental health and counseling services but there is no doctor in the house. The Conservatives and others say, “It’s not my problem-heal yourself.” And of course one of the main obstacles to being treated for any medical problem is to deny that anything is wrong and thinking that you are doing just fine; then the next thing you know you are in the ICU suffering from Cardiac Arrest or pronounced DOA and R.I.P. [you’re deceased].

What about Black men’s hyper masculinity, sexuality, misogyny, thug life and gangsta pose? It’s quite elementary my dear Sherlock-our seeming crazy, inconsistent, incoherent and erratic at times behavior in and out of the lyrics is the result of inner turmoil, struggle and tension expressed as an outward sign that we are in pain and hurting. Collectively, all the Black community is affected; it is just that some of us show outward signs of the progression of the malignancy more than others. The Black man has been the White man’s or slave master’s “cultural/social eugenics” experimental lab rat for so long he really doesn’t how to be a man. The corporate recording industry is “punkin” him or pimping him out through hip hop lyrics and like any loyal ‘star’ in Big Daddy’s stable, you bring him the money so he can break you off a few ends. The most visible evidence of this “new racism” is in the “N” word because brothers who use it and think that somehow they have taken the power from it shows they do not understand the enemy, their history, or themselves for that matter. By the mere fact that they come off a certain way in the music videos and lyrics is only being a tool of the very racists [not just simply the P-O-l-I-C-E] that they claim to be fighting against. I was just thinking about Nelly’s “Tip Drill” and if ever there was a video that should be in the racists showcase, it is this one. The twist in that video is this: The White recording producers, executives and commercial industry represent the brothers throwing cash money at the women [rappers] who are performing for their pleasure. I think it is a love/hate relationship with the White power structure. On the one hand you hate him for what he has done, and continues to do to you collectively as a group, and yet on the other hand you want to be just like him or have the things that he represents [wealth, power, fame, king of the hill, and objectifying  women]-like a son wanting to emulate his father. It perhaps explains why many successful male rappers identify with the persona of someone like Donald Trump, and although there are wealthier men, he stands out as flamboyant, swag, [money, clothes, women-“Notorious B.I.G”], livin’ large, and he’s a real New York, Big Apple playa.

To wrap all this up, Dead Prez in the song, “It’s Bigger than Hip Hop” gives the key to the entire dilemma with such lyrics as.: “Got us slavin for the welfare, aint no food, clothes, or healthcare. “ “Ay dogg that label is that slave ship, owners got them whips and rappers are slaves.” “Aint never seen no hope, brainwash video shows be foolin my folk.” “It's bigger than all these fake ass records when poor folks got the millions and my woman's disrespected.” “MC's get a little bit of love and think they hot, talkin' 'bout how much money they got-You would rather have a Lexus or justice; A dream or some substance; A Beamer, a necklace or freedom?” “Still a nigga like me don't playa' hate, I just stay awake[to what the true game is really all about].” The most important quote is from Master MC Jesus, who said, “You shall know the Truth and it will set you free.” You see, we have been programmed to celebrate July 4th, but as MLK astutely observed decades ago, “The Negro is not yet free [in America].” The Revolutionary War of 1776 freed the colonists from British rule but it didn’t free us [from the colonists rule and their descendants]. Our Revolution and Declaration of Independence is yet in the future as the struggle to achieve it is ongoing, and the weapon we must use today is ‘Truth;’ not guns or insulting and offensive words. Learn the lessons from the past and reread the war manuals passed down in the legacy of writings from original OG’s such as The Black Panthers, the last Malcolm X speech and other soldiers of the Movement, when the consciousness of Black people really started to awaken and many of them saw the chains that were wrapped around their and our minds.

 

Unfortunately, the one casualty in this current cultural war is “ignorance” exhibited by our rapping brothers and the collateral damage is Black women depicted as hoochies, hoe’s, bitches, tricks, skeezers, and baby mommas. To correct Reef and The Lost Cauze’s tribute to Trayvon Martin where it voices a threat to George Zimmerman, “The hunt [war] is on and you are the prey.” No, the war is on and has been for millennia against people of color, and we are the prey. I could not end this without a final word as it relates to all the brothers who brag about how they have been so successful but to me they are the modern “house niggas” (you know who you are) and the ‘real’ soldiers in the struggle are the “field niggas” who haven’t been pimped out or compromised the integrity of Hip Hop just to get paid-even though the rent is due. But it is a much bigger issue than any one Black male rapper or the female performers in the videos but rather there has to be another way to represent ourselves positively and earn a decent living at the same time. What is needed in the Black community is for us to reclaim our collective womanhood and manhood. I believe this movement towards recovery has to be Black women-led because they are the mothers of civilization and moral teachers of our children. We need to clean up our act one family and one house at a time without the pity party, victimization, and playing the convenient “race card because blaming White America is not a strategy-It’s a little more complicated than that. Just Keepin’ It Real.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 30, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

George Zimmerman found Not Guilty

There are many who will say that this unexpected verdict is just another example of the racist justice system that exonerates Whites who perpetrate crimes against a persons of color, proving once again that there is “No Justice, J-U-S-T US [against Them].” The all-White female jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the murder of Black teenager Trayvon Martin. Was this a case of ‘racial profiling’ similar to Driving While Black (DWB), or rather in this particular situation, wearing a “hoodie” and seen walking in a neighborhood where Trayvon wasn’t expected to be and he stood out like a sore thumb? I found the last day of the trial quite interesting, especially when the Judge’s instructions and the Prosecutors closing arguments to the jury before their deliberation where they were told, “Although there might not be enough proof. . .”

Additionally, the judge instructed jurors to consider Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in their deliberations, but it was not an issue in the case because Zimmerman wasn’t on trial for violation of that criminal statute, but for Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter. To me this is a technical error that should be challenged legally on the grounds that such statements would or should have cast some doubt in the minds of jurors, causing bias and possibly influencing them to render a fair and impartial decision. The other aspect of the trial that was the most important concerns the charges of Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter.  In order to prove this accusation or charge in Court the Prosecution had to raise the threshold from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to almost “absolute certainty” in the mind of jurors to get a guilty verdict.

I don’t think the evidence and witness testimony were sufficient to prove that George Zimmerman “murdered” Trayvon Martin intentionally, but rather that there is the likely possibly he unwittingly “caused the death” of this teenager. Using BUT/FOR and “IT IS REASONABLE THAT” analogy in Criminal law- BUT/FOR George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin he would not have died [on that day]. IT IS REASONABLE THAT in a struggle involving someone with a gun such a person could get killed. The issue for me is not so much the absence of any person of color on the jury panel, but that the elements were present according to  FL Criminal Law Statutes, as in the following:

782.04 Murder.—

(1)(a)  The unlawful killing of a human being:

2.  When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

n.  Aggravated stalking,

784.048 Stalking

a) “Harasses” means to engage in a course of conduct, directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose. “Aggravated stalking” requires the stalker to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or harass another person, and make a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

Also, was there structural racism from the very beginning because the Sanford FL police initially arrested then quickly released Zimmerman at the beginning and the Police Chief refused to even charge George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin until public opinion and comments by President Obama put pressure on law officials to at the very least re-arrest Zimmerman? Although the State has the Burden of Proof and in this trial strategy Prosecution orchestrated the appearance of equal justice, and entertained trial-watchers like a Three-Ring Circus, the outcome had all but been decided, as the evidence submitted during Discovery was flimsy or inconclusive they more or less ensured Zimmerman’s acquittal on all charges?

I think one of the things that everyone seems to gloss over is what the one unnamed juror that has been speaking out about the case. She says that initially 3 of them (including her) found Zimmerman ‘not guilty’ but 2 jurors found Zimmerman ‘guilty’ of Second Degree Murder and the final juror found him ‘guilty’ of Manslaughter. My question is this: “How could 3 jurors after the 16 ½ hours of deliberation reverse their previous positions in such a radical shift of opinion  where all of them completely change their minds and found Zimmerman innocent of all charges?” I can understand if one, maybe two of the jurors changed their minds, but all three; this is highly irregular and I think there should be an investigation into jury tampering because at the very least the verdict should have resulted in a hung jury (5 votes for acquittal and 1 vote for guilty). This would have meant a retrial at a later date and a more reasonable judicial outcome instead Zimmerman walking with no culpability for Trayvon’s death whatsoever.

I am also critical of the media’s role in ‘racializing’ the issue in such a way that everyone is so caught up in this incident that they are using Trayvon’s death, as well as his parents grief to further their own personal agendas.  There has been a lot of talk about possibly revising “Stand Your Ground” laws in about 30 states, and even the NRA has weighed in on this by saying that this is a Second Amendment issue, and still for others it is another case of “racial profiling” (wearing a ‘hoodie’). While all these concerns are legitimate there might be an even bigger debate that needs to be enjoined besides the one race relations, namely-America’s wild, wild, west shoot-em’-up mentality; and walking around with a gun on your hip. All of the frenzy distracts us from the real deal here, and that is George Zimmerman made a stupid decision, a rush to judgment, and because of his careless and reckless abandon of common sense and responsible behavior, unwarranted and unprovoked actions, caused the death of a black teenager.

President Obama was mistaken when he said that if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun when Zimmerman came up on him then he would have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman under the “Stand Your Ground” law. The problem with his example is that if Trayvon would have had a gun, and being a Black teenager, I am not so sure that the FL law and the Prosecutor would have seen it quite so simply. I think Trayvon would have been charged with felony Assault or attempted Murder, and if Zimmerman would have been killed, Trayvon would have been charged with Murder and convicted by an all-White jury. The reality is this-If Trayvon had been a White kid that Zimmerman shot and killed we wouldn’t even be talking about this because Zimmerman would have been charged and found guilty of Murder-case closed. The one good thing about our system of justice is that it has many layers and Zimmerman is not out of the woods yet because the attorney for the Martin family can appeal the decision to the Justice Department on Civil Rights violations or as a Hate Crime -so it’s not over by a long shot.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 22, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

 

 

Is America on the verge of Techmageddon?

It has been said that life imitates art, and if that is true humanity may well be one the verge of ushering in the dawn of a bleak future; one in which man is not master, but the machine. The technology which has developed surveillance cameras to spy on our activities, almost anywhere people gather there is an electronic, all-seeing “eye” watching and keeping track of our every move.  George Orwell published the book “1984” in 1949 about a society very much like the direction that America is heading. In this account people live under a totalitarian state which uses weapons of propaganda and public mind-control to maintain the status quo. Big Brother is an enigmatic, unseen, semi-divine symbolic leader who lurks in the shadows above the visible ruling party. Popular social institutions are merely tools of the system whose primary function is to reinforce obedience toward acceptance of the politically-correct revisionist history rewritten in newspapers and books (all media sources) of reality. It is the ultimate social control for the greater good. With that in mind, the 911 terrorist attacks was the tipping point and paradigm shift in national domestic policy because it empowered the government to subordinate constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights to The Patriot Act, creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Adding to this point is the political and military influence on foreign policy in the presence of unmanned aerial drones, which are presently used in the “War on Terror” with a mission to seek, search out and destroy al-Qaeda leadership wherever they may be hiding, but once American combat troops pull out of Afghanistan in 2014, what will be done with this expensive and exquisitely sophisticated technology? Will these formidable and deadly toys which were used to kill people (insurgents, enemy combatants as well as civilian collateral damage) in warfare on faraway lands be flying overhead in cities and neighborhoods across America in the very near future?
  

It has been talked about more recently after the terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon on April 18, 2013 that if aerial drones had been patrolling the vicinity and course the Tsarnaev brothers might have been intercepted by authorities, or at the very least taken out by the drone before they detonated the explosive bombs which brought such horror and tragedy. While this might be an interesting consideration and considering the circumstances quite plausible, but what’s to stop a benign and beneficial service to get out of control and become the “Frankenstein Monster” of tomorrow? Is it paranoia or caution to be a little hesitant to cross into that brave new frontier as depicted in the blockbuster “Terminator” Sci-fi movie sequels? Humanity’s demise started off as just a simple computer programmed to play a simple game of chess that ultimately led to Skynet, which was a computer system developed for the U.S. military by the fictitious defense firm Cyberdyne Systems. Skynet was first built as a "Global Digital Defense Network" and given command over all computerized military hardware and systems. Sounds a bit farfetched until you consider the military already has the X-47B pilotless aircraft and what makes this drone so remarkable is that it just might have the ability to indiscriminately initiate its own attack protocols without direct human involvement; in other words it has the capability toward artificial intelligence (independent self-actualization or initiation). There are already video games where the computer digitally ‘learns’ or grows from the moves initiated by an opponent or player. So, as more programming power and capability is built into it, this cybernetic servant for humanity may one day become its metalloid master.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 30, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

 

 

A letter to the NRA

There is no simple answer to curb the escalating gun violence in America and the pain, suffering, anger, mental and emotional anguish that families, friends and loved ones have to endure when faced with attending the funeral of those whom they will never see again in this life. One of the cornerstones of your organization is the “right” to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While it is not my suggestion that the federal government should confiscate every citizen’s guns because such an action would be impractical but the issue of gun ownership is worth looking at again, from a perspective that, at least to my knowledge, has not been introduced into this public debate. There is an old saying in some Christian circles, “Text without Context becomes Pretext.” This relates to interpreting Biblical passages without taking into account the circumstances in which the narratives are written, and the absence of such a technique can lead someone to misapply scriptural standards to a given social situation.

 That being said, the Constitution is more than just the articles and amendments but rather a whole document, including the Preamble, and most importantly, the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it is the latter that provides, at least to my thinking, the moral and legal justification for the colonists, though still subjects to the King of England and British Parliament, which granted charters or legal agreements to establish colonies in the New World, due to abuses from their sovereign, to declare themselves free and independent states and no longer subject to the monarchy. There are at least 17 reasons or categories that those in rebellion gave for their decision, which were reintroduced or formed the basis for inclusion as the Second Amendment, Federalist papers notwithstanding, are as follows:

 The state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions from within (Second Amendment; Article 1, Section 8b).

 He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies (Third Amendment; Second Amendment), without the consent of our legislatures.

 For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states (Second Amendment; Third Amendment).

 He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us (Second Amendment).

 He is at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death (Second Amendment), desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy; scarcely parallel in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation.

 He has excited domestic insurrections among us (Article 1, Section 8b), and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rules for warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes, and conditions (Second Amendment).

 So, in a nutshell this is why the right to bear arms was written into the Constitution because it was adopted and codified during a period based on the aftermath of the Revolutionary War of 1776. All the 13 individual colonies had at this time in the way of domestic security were civilian Militias for protection, and so it would seem prudent as well as practical, to enact into law what was customary practice to keep gunpowder and musket within reach just in case one had to respond to some unexpected internal or external threat. Personally, I don’t know whether fewer guns or more guns are the answer, but at least for the sake of constitutional clarity, before you start yelling about gun rights, read the Declaration of Independence first and stop using the Second Amendment as though it is sacred, like one of the Ten Commandments.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 12, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

America: Multiracial but not Colorblind

The article in The Seattle Times on Thursday, March 21, 2013 by Staff Reporter Jerry Large on two books authored by UW professors Habiba Ibrahim and Ralina Joseph, got me to thinking about the first time the term “post racial” came into popular use in the public conversation. It seems that when the media or academia introduces something then it must be ‘lingua franca’ for the masses. Since Barack Obama suddenly appeared on the political scene, seemingly out of nowhere, to secure the nation’s highest elected office, his ascendancy has to some at least, been the poster child and crowning jewel in celebration of a color-blind America; nothing could be further from the truth, however. There are even those with the audacity to believe that America’s election of a person of color for president somehow fulfills Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream” of living in a country where a person will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character; and thus, the feet of those who marched behind the Drum Major for Justice will finally come to rest, and those who pounded on the drumbeats for freedom will no longer need to beat out a single note against injustice; and the long, twisted and winding road along the lonesome trail for Civil Rights laden with the sweat, tears, and blood of martyrs can be remembered no more. America, the idealists say, is a “meritocracy” where if you work hard and play by the rules then you can achieve success or be all that you want to be. Even President Obama uses that phrase but is it really, really true, for everybody?

While President Obama has been lauded with almost reverential praise he has also received some of the most mean-spirited, vicious, blatantly egregious and hateful mischaracterizations in recent memory, ranging from being like Hitler, the anti-Christ, Illuminati spawn of Satan, or the typical racial epithets voiced by the redneck NASCAR attendees or from far-right Tea Party members. Those who like to espouse ‘post racial’ are just trying to use the term as a psychological cover-up to assuage feelings of centuries-old “White Guilt” from the legal practice of ‘chattel slavery’ and racial bigotry practiced from the beginnings of this nation. Not only that, but this peculiar institution was codified into the very foundational document of our democratic Republic in Article 1, Section 2a (three-fifths clause), Article 1, Section 9 (the 1808 clause), and Article 4, Section 2b (fugitive slave clause), by the noble and enlightened signees who touted such lofty words in the Declaration of Independence as liberty, justice, freedom, and, “All Men are created equal. . .” Besides all of this, Barack Obama is not the only African-American with a White parent or direct bloodline, and whether you call it bi-racial, mixed race, transracial, multiethnic, or two or more races, what’s the big deal? Would ‘post racial’ still be used if Barack Obama had two Black parents, or heck, would he even be president?

What is paramount regarding this entire matter is that in America there still exists a sense of ‘ascriptive hierarchy’ (White privilege) and control over the factors of production as well as all the popular institutions are still overwhelmingly the ‘exclusive’ domain of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) male; for the most part. This practice transcends mere ideology or what one sees or feels. Instead, it puts into practice mechanisms to perpetuate a particular hegemony and control in the formulation of laws, political philosophy, educational curriculum, economic policy, and to a surprising extent, religious practice and theology. What seems to go missing from the conversation is that ‘race’ is a social construct that is actuated within a cultural framework, according to sociologists, and really has nothing to do with skin color or physical features. So, ‘post-racial’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms because any casual observation and experience in reality only serves to repudiate this term in convincing fashion. It is not what you see and feel, as it is what you do; whose interests you want to protect, and what are the incentives for wanting to do so by your participation? Far too often we respond to verbal cues and images from narrative stereotypes that serve as an emotional trigger where we are programmed to react in a certain way, without fully understanding the nature or meaning behind our reactions. America is not color blind or ignorant about race relations because she has had a nearly 250 year history lesson and the only blindness that exists is one that is self-induced.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 21, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com’

The gospel according to the Church of Oprah

Oprah Winfrey has certainly received praise from her millions of followers but she gets criticized also. Probably the latest and ongoing controversy is the issue regarding her religious, oops, I mean, spiritual perspective. Some detractors feel that because of her public statements she should lose support from fans and corporate sponsors alike; but is this fair? This is America and a person is free to believe or not believe whatever they want to. Before summarizing a few of Miss O’s views the usual response is to line up several passages from the Bible to refute everything Oprah says, but that might not be necessary. Oprah claims that Jesus didn’t come to die on the cross for our sins but rather, to teach us “Christ Consciousness.” This term is not new and has been around for a long time, centuries before its popularity in America by the New Age Movement or Western-style Eastern mysticism. Jesus is seen as just another spiritual teacher in a long procession of others, dating back from millennia, who appeared on the scene to teach humanity some vital truth about reality, our purpose, social relationships, life and death, and about the Creator. Jesus wants us to attain this awareness within ‘ourselves’ and as I try to explain it to the best of my understanding, it’s like falling in love-you can’t put the feeling into words but you know it when you feel it. As Oprah says, “It’s what you come to know for yourself;” in other words, it’s your truth that is real, personal, and you don’t have to explain or prove it to someone else.

Another point she brings out is that God, or rather, knowing God is a ‘feeling’ experience and not a ‘believing’ experience. This statement would make any Christian cringe because “belief” is the foundation of our faith and it is the center from where we project ourselves into this world and social order that we are a part of. She continues, “Religion is all about a ‘believing experience’ then it’s truly not of God.” Oprah, I think, is trying to make too fine a distinction between the two twin pillars of believing and feeling and separating either one of them seems like a Mission Impossible. She does have a point that in some Christian circles there is an overabundance of stressing the word, “BELIEVE” without delineating what the response, expectation, and responsibilities are that go along with this choice. Oprah challenges the notion, or exclusivist proclamation that there is only ‘one’ way or path to God, but to her there are ‘many’ paths to God. Now, before the community of faith condemns her too harshly let’s take an inward look at ourselves before we pass judgment. I mean, how many Christian denominations are there with their own distinct religious literature, theology, liturgy that range anywhere from Hebraic Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Salvation Army, affiliated and non-affiliated, ad infinitim; yet all of us claim to be serving and worshipping the same God and will be joining each other in Heaven, although we separate ourselves and do not fellowship one another while here on earth.

Getting back to the point about “Christ consciousness” an audience member said that to her it is having a deeper, inner connection to the ‘purpose’ that Jesus came to reveal, which is how to be fully human, as opposed to Him coming to die on the cross for sin. If one were to take such a position then Jesus, in fact, need not to have come at all because he didn’t reveal anything new. There were teachers of wisdom long before he came on the scene and have distilled much deeper, exquisite, esoteric and more practical teaching and knowledge than preserved in the gospels. The virtues of Eastern mysticism and Greek Philosophy are more profound than anywhere in the New Testament; so the three and one half year of Jesus’ ministry that culminated in His death just to perform a few miracles and astound mostly uneducated, simple working-class Galilean laborers and other peasants, would seem a great sacrifice if that was all there was to it. The audience member went on to say that if you don’t follow your spiritual calling, then you are lesser of a human. This is almost verbatim from Buddhism which says that a person’s goal in life is to find out what their work (“tikkun”) is in life to fulfill their purpose.

It seems “sin” is a word that makes people feel uncomfortable and it is much easier to simply exclude it from discussion. There are substitutes which men like Dr. Wayne Dyer and Eckhart Tolle like to use instead, like behavior resulting from having negative thoughts or something like that; and even God is presented as impersonal cosmic power, consciousness, or intelligence referred to as the “Source.” Al Gore once said, “We aren’t human beings having a spiritual experience but spiritual beings having a human experience.” To some of the Gnostics or spiritualists, Jesus Christ is a divine principle, concept, or idea that was made known but not so much a personal being; and the same thinking is applied to God as being-ness and without anthropological characteristics such as hearing, feeling, seeing, and so on. While it is true that the ‘spark’ of divinity resides within the human body to animate our physical life, innate moral capacity and sentience (“conscious awareness”), still we are flawed, imperfect, and broken in a spiritual sense compared to the perfectness and holy nature of God, our Father and Creator.

As a last point, at least on the merit of it, the most salient point is: “Man has made God in his own image-the eternal, infinite, unnamable was reduced to a mental ‘’idol’ that you had to believe in as God.” Enough cannot be written to counter the damaging psychological effect of European Renaissance religious imagery, iconography and art in portraying supernatural beings graven as images from man’s imagination, regardless of how ‘inspired’ the claims are, or out of the most pious devotion, reverence, and act of worship. It was not without good reason the prohibition in Exodus 20 was given by God regarding making images and idols of anything in heaven. There are even those who worship the angels as heavenly intermediaries between themselves and God and represent these beings in paintings, sculptures, and the like.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 10, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech 2013

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 President Obama was again fulfilling his obligation under the U.S. Constitution according to Article 2, Section 3 (a): “He [the president] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. . .” The president’s address before the chamber of Congress had a little bit of something borrowed and something new. To begin with, president Obama borrowed a speech by John F. Kennedy: “51 years ago John F. Kennedy declared to this Chamber: ‘The Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress. It is my task to report on the State of the Union, to improve it, is the task of us all.’” While not wanting to deconstruct the entire speech there are a few things that need further scrutiny. Who are those members in Congress that have proposed sparing defense costs due to “sequestration” (the fiscal cliff) and instead support cutting education and job training, Medicare, and Social Security benefits? When president Obama said that the biggest cost of our rising deficit is associated with long-term care of an aging population- the need for “modest” reform in Medicare, otherwise our retirement program will crowd out what we need for our children when they are about to retire, the chamber got a lot quieter all of a sudden. Medicare and Social Security is the ‘holy grail’ of federally-funded Entitlements and the mere suggestion of tweaking a system where the recipients are the majority voting bloc is quite risky. Next, there was talk about the Affordable Health Care Act slowing down healthcare costs but they are still spiraling upward. It was interesting to hear about reducing taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies because those same industries were some of president Obama’s biggest corporate campaign donors and influential White House lobbyists.

 Then there was the chiding of Congress because they only passed parts of The American Jobs Act, which according to the president, economists predict would create 1.5M jobs. Of course, there was no mention of what was in the bill, and who are these economists who can substantiate these job figures? President Obama mentioned that he wants to lay out a plan tonight that is “fully paid for” and consistent with budget framework that both parties agreed to 18 months ago, and that won’t increase the deficit by a single dime, but the details were not forthcoming. The statement about developing new technologies and alternative forms of energy generated by the large wind turbines that dot the landscape in some areas, but have become an eyesore to environmental groups, not the mention the birds that are caught in the blades of these large fans, which animal rights advocates are upset about; despite the thousands of jobs that have been created. President Obama went on to talk about establishing a new goal for America: cut in half the energy wasted in our homes and businesses and to encourage this type of energy upgrade and retrofitting, tax incentives and credits are given for energy-efficient homes and buildings. This is certainly not a new idea for homeowners who have been using these deductions for years, and some businesses who plant gardens of their rooftops to lower their utility bills. The thing is, though, what about the federal government; how many government vehicles are hybrids or electric, or how many offices use energy-efficient light bulbs and how many buildings is energy compliant within the guidelines expected for everyone else?

 And then there was housing and mortgages: To put a bill before Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 yearly by refinancing at today’s lower rates [assuming they are not already underwater or delinquent in their mortgage payments]. This is not a new idea because people used to do the very same thing in the 1970’s during the housing boom and the ARM’S (Adjustable Rate Mortgages). Also back then, the IRS tax code allowed for the profit from the sale of a house to not be taxed as ordinary income but rather at the lower rate for capital gains [if it was even taxed at all]. The biggest problem with refinancing today is the unwillingness of banks to renegotiate with homeowners and you have to jump through too many hoops to get it done. President Obama’s “Fix-it-First Program” sounds more like he’s channeling FDR’s “NEW DEAL” by having programs to deal with our aging infrastructure (deteriorating bridges, roads, sewer systems, etc.) through putting people to work on our most urgent repair programs (70,000 bridges across the country). He should have promised “A chicken in every pot and a car [hybrid] in every garage, too.” Continuing with populist themes like the fact that fewer than 3 out of 10 four year olds are enrolled in a high quality pre-K program. President Obama wants a proposal to make high quality pre-school education available to every child [at the states’ expense or 91% of it because the federal government only funds around 10% for public education pre-K through12]. NOTE: Whatever happened to the Head Start program?? Besides, this is not new either.

 He further adds: “Every $1 invested now will save $7 later on by boosting graduation rates [from H.S. but what about college??], reducing teenage pregnancy [and drug abuse, gangs, prison incarceration etc.], and violent crime. Funny though, there was no mention of alternatives to improve student learning outcomes such as Charter schools, Academies, private boarding schools, Magnet and Montessori schools. Speaking of the dollar costs, that makes a lot of sense because what the public is dubious woefully in denial of is the “pay me now or pay me later” principle- The prison population in America is around 2M and the incarceration cost of a bed and meals per inmate is, say, $25,000 a year (2,000,000 x 25,000=$50,000,000,000 annually); that is $50B and this doesn’t even include the costs of operating all the prisons in America, which when you consider all of that, it might be closer to $200B. A study of the inmate population at the Pennsylvania State Penitentiary showed that 68% of prisoners did not have a high school diploma. Besides, all this talk about placing such an emphasis on redesigning high schools to emphasize Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), has some educators concerned that this would be at the risk of jeopardizing the liberal arts, which might get defunded or felt less important and thus receive little attention.

 If you want placate the concerns from supporters of the fastest-growing minority group in America who caused you to be reelected, and then you have to tell Hispanics what they want to hear, thus, President Obama, not missing a political opportunity, says, “I recommend Congress to pass ‘comprehensive’ Immigration reform legislation. Along with the proposal he wants to:
-Reinforce stronger border security south of the U.S. border. He mentioned that illegal crossings are at a forty year low (what about border agents killing illegal immigrants??)
-Provide a responsible pathway to earn citizenship (criminal background check, paying taxes and penalties, learning English [many students already enrolled in ESL classes, anyway], and go to the back of the line behind those who applied for legal citizenship.
-Fix the legal immigration system (reduce long waiting periods) and attract highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow the economy. NOTE: Isn’t president Obama talking about the Dream Act or Amnesty and some countries just might not want to allow their most skilled and educated citizens to immigrate to America.

And what about the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (a)? “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Some who interpret the Constitution as “strict constructionists” say that this provision applies to African-Americans [slaves and their descendants] because this was part of the post-Civil War/Reconstruction Amendments of the late 1860’s -1870 (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth) and anyone else would be subject to provisions of the 1790 Naturalization Law, superseded by the 1920 Immigration Origin Act, superseded by the 1952 Immigration Law, or superseded by the latest Immigration and Naturalization Law of 1965.

There was also the curious mention of: “I want to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrence for low income couples and encourage fatherhood (how??).” “What makes you a man is not the ability to conceive a child but having the courage to raise one” NOTE: This quote was essentially taken from the movie, “BOYZ N THE HOOD” and the words were spoken by actor Lawrence Fishburne, but he said it in more of the street vernacular. When President Obama said, “We will strengthen our own Missile Defense Systems”this brought back memories of Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars Initiative” about erecting a missile defense shield around America and allied countries in Western Europe. Then there was the comments about The United States will partner with our allies to reduce extreme poverty in undeveloped countries within the next two decade by connecting people to the global economy; including empowering women [how??].Saving the world’s impoverished children from preventable deaths (AIDS-free generation). NOTE: Wasn’t the United States largest foreign aid package ever to Africa for the prevention and treatment of AIDS promoted by President George W. Bush?

 Near the conclusion of the speech president Obama made the case for a need to counter “Cyber-attacks” to prevent sabotage to our power grid, financial institutions, and air traffic control systems. He would be issuing a new Executive Order to strengthen cyber defenses by increasing information-sharing and developing standards to protect our national security, jobs, and privacy. Congress must pass legislation to give the federal government [Is this to give more authority to the Justice Department, Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, or to the Executive branch to invade our ‘privacy’??] to secure our computer networks and deter cyber-attacks. He talked about wanting to support military families, just like First lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden, but exactly what have they been doing? Having a photo taken with a few military families at select times of the year is not the same as meeting with families of veterans, listening to their concerns, and being advocates in behalf of them before Congress and the VA, as well as asking their husbands to use their influence to help soldiers and their families struggling with a range of issues [mental, physical, and financial]; and somehow it seems that such activities have not been reported in the media, and if this is even an ongoing concern for these two women is anybody’s guess.

Then came the part regarding one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy, that is “the right to vote” and being denied that right because you can’t wait 5, 6, or 7 hours to cast a ballot is unacceptable. . .
President Obama wants the establishment of a non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience, to be headed by the top attorneys for the Obama and Romney campaigns [what about states’ rights because such activity is under their sovereign jurisdiction unless some electoral practices violates the U.S. Constitution??]. Saving the “best for last” was invoking the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre as well as Hadiya Pendleton being shot to death in a Chicago Park, but her parents were invited guests in the Congressional Chamber, and there was the mention of former Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, along with other such incidents and their families to pressure members of Congress to just cast a vote, one way or the other, regarding legislation on changing existing laws on access to handguns, assault weapons, and the type of ammunition. A beginning remark might have been better saved for the last: “We must put the nation’s interest before that of either political party.”

 
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 15, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

The Supreme Court and same-sex marriage

It is only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court, finally upon Writ of Certiorari to hear oral arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the United States. Despite passage of President Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) through the Congress which protects “traditional” marriage while recognizing civil unions for same sex partners, it is still less than having a real ‘marriage’ in the usual meaning of the word with all its social implications and legal rights. This is probably one of the most important decisions that the Justices will make in a generation and it will leave its mark upon the Court for years to come. Several states have already legalized same-sex marriage through the process of direct democracy where a majority of citizens through ballot initiatives or popular referendums voted in favor of it, regardless of how their state constitutions define marriage or what the legislatures previously passed into law, as far as banning legalizing same-sex marriages as well as performing marriage ceremonies that the state recognizes as valid. The first thing the Court will probably do is declare DOMA as “unconstitutional” based on whether Congress and the Executive branch of government can pass laws that distinguish between classes of people by disenfranchising the equal marital benefits of one group in preference over another.

Article 4, Section 1(a) says: “Full faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
Article 4, Section 2 says: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to the Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states.”
Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (b) says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 Since marriage is a contract with the state it is unlikely that in this day and time that there can still continue to exist discrimination like the pernicious ‘miscegenation laws’ which did not allow race-based relationships, particularly when it came to recognizing a marriage. It is not a matter for the Supreme Court to define or redefine “marriage” but rather to affirm and decree that each state must follow the Constitution and not deny a same-sex couple the right and privilege to marriage, and to enjoy all the same protections and rights “equally” (both state and federal jurisdictions) under the laws as any other couple. The thing the many court watchers want to know is how will each justice decide the matter? There are 3 Jewish Justices (Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsberg) and 6 Roman Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayer, and Roberts).

Justice Thomas votes the same as Scalia, and Scalia is a strict constructionist, namely, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically state a thing then it isn’t constitutional. Not to mention there are 6 Justices appointed by Conservative presidents and 3 by Liberal ones. It is almost certain that the “nay” votes are Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Kagan, Sotomayer, and Breyer are the “yea” votes, and although it would be almost a slam dunk to include Ginsberg as the fourth vote, but her age and failing health might affect her judicial perspective. Besides all that, she has her own independent philosophy and some public comments that she has made in the past has run counter to the expectations of some liberals. On the other side is Justice Kennedy who has been known as a possible “swing vote” based on his more moderate positions. The one thing, though, is that I am sure Justice Roberts doesn’t want to be the deciding vote as he was on ObamaCare.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 8, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Some plain talk about creating jobs and the employment data

The economy is probably one of the most significant issues in America today, especially with an estimated 15M citizens who are no longer in the job market. And yet, there is a sort of nostalgia for the supposed 'good old days' under former president Bill Clinton when we were awash with an abundance of good jobs,but is this credit given to him somewhat exaggerated? In researching the matter by information supplied from the Bureau of Labor Statistics it reveals that the overall job market during the term of Bill Clinton to G.W. Bush was not extraordinary or the exception but followed the national trend for the most part since 1970; as in the following details:

YEAR      EMPLOYED      JOBS CREATED       PRESIDENT

1970        78,687,000
1980        99,303,000        2,062,000 (avg.)
1990      118,793,000        1,949,000                    CLINTON
1995      124,900,000        1,221,000 (avg.)
1996      126,708,000        1,808,000
1997      129,558,000        2,850,000
1998      131,463,000        1,905,000
1999      133,488,000        2,025,000
2000      136,891,000        3,403,000                    G.W. BUSH
2001      136,933,000           420,000
2002      136,485,000          -448,000
2003      137,736,000        1,251,000
2004      139,252,000        1,516,000
2005      141,730,000        2,478,000
2006      144,427,000        2,697,000
2007      146,047,000        1,620,000
2008      145,362,000          -685,000                   OBAMA
2009      139,877,000          -549,000
2010      139,064,000          -813,000

STATISTICS: 5 NUMBER SUMMARY
Min=427,000
Q1=935,000
M=1,714,000
Q3=2,062,000
Max=3,403,000

IQR= Q3 - Q1= 2,062,000 – 935,000= 1,127,000
LL= 935,000 – (1.5 x 1,127,000) = -755,500
UL= 2,062,000 + (1.5 x 1,127,000) = 3,752,700

OBSERVATIONS:
The average job creation from 1970 to 1990 was a little over 1, 031,975 while for 40 years (1970-2010) it was 1,559,500 annually. The standard deviation from 1980 to 2010 was 1,021,840 jobs increase/decrease from the median value of 1,714,000 yearly. There were several job growth spurts above the nominal 1.7M (1996-1997, 1999-2000, and 2004-2005). The data suggests that the economy can absorb an extra 2M jobs or so but anything greater than that level tends to result in contraction as the economy was growing too fast and not sustainable at that rate. This was especially true in 2000 when the national job growth doubled from the nominal 1.7M jobs to 3.4M; which was also an increase of 68% from the previous year. Because this was probably some kind of artificially inflated number or due to some market forces that cannot be explained, even by the election of G.W. Bush or 9/11, there was significant retrenchment from 3.M jobs created in 2000 to a mere 420,000 in 2001. It gets worse because there was a negative job growth in 2002 of -448,000 jobs that were no longer in the economy. Afterwards, there was anemic job growth well below the national trend. There was significant recovery in 2005 and 2006 (2.5M and 2.7M jobs respectively) but this was more or less making up for the previous year’s losses. Again, when there is too much rapid expansion of job growth in the economy in a given year or two this results in a pullback and readjustment back to the level that is sustainable overall, such as: 3,403,000+420,000-448,000 [2000-2002]=3,375,000/3=1,125,000.

Now, continuing the mathematical or statistical inferences: 1,251,000+1,516,000+2,478,000+2,687,000+1,620,000=9,562,000/5=1,912,000 [2003-2007]. In 2008 and afterwards the numbers are unprecedented because there has never been negative job growth like this since 2002, which would seem, at a first glance to be precipitated by the events of September 11, 2001 and the economic policies of President G.W. Bush’s first year in office, but that might just be too simplistic because it is doubtful that all of this could affect the $11 Trillion macro economy of the United States in such a short span of time. When President Obama came into office there was a negative job growth that saw shrinkage from +1.62M to -685,000. The trend continued to -548,500 (2009) and -813,000 (2010) and so when President Obama talks about creating 1M new jobs that figure doesn’t make up for the prior years’ loss of 1.36M jobs.

Another surprising fact in the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data calls into question former president Bill Clinton’s touting all the jobs that were created during his administration, but this is not necessarily all the facts. It is true that there was a fairly consistent and sustainable job growth during 1990-2000, but this was consistent with the national averages since 1970. In fact, during his first term jobs slipped below the national average at around -36.8% (1.9M to 1.2M on average). There were a couple of extraordinarily good years, namely 1997 and 2000 when the economy added an extra 1.0M to 1.4M jobs above the preceding year, respectively. During the presidency of G.W. Bush the economy grew between 2006 and 2007, adding 5,1M jobs total, above the national average for 2 years. So in essence both Clinton and G.W. Bush’s economic policies created more jobs in their second term but there is not as significant a difference as one might think.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 29, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com