Sister of Cop Killers face biased jury at Trial

It was on November 29, 2009 that Maurice Clemmons walked into the FORZA Coffee Shop in Parkland, WA and gunned down four Lakewood Police Officers, marking the worst incident in the State’s history involving the deaths of Law Enforcement officials. The suspect was later killed in a shootout with a Seattle Police Officer. Because of the impact of this heinous crime on the local community it will certainly be difficult to find an impartial juror. Although LaTanya Clemmons has admitted to giving money to Dorcus Allen, who drove the getaway car, to rent a motel room and for bus fare, she contents that her actions were in no way related to the horrific murders that had taken place some days earlier. The Prosecution wants to charge LaTanya with four counts of first-degree rending criminal assistance for allegedly helping evade police capture, but that might prove to be quite a challenge without credible evidence.

It seems that the tactic used by the Prosecution is that it wants to prey on the sympathy of the jury by continuing to replay the circumstances of the murder done by her brother Maurice through calling witnesses to the slaying and playing 911 recordings, instead of focusing on the more narrow scope of her alleged criminality. The Prosecution has the burden to prove “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” that LaTanya had knowledge of the police officers’ murder had happened, or was going to occur, and that her actions were deliberate, premeditated, and solely intended for the purpose of rendering criminal assistance to evade capture. While it is true that LaTanya Clemmons actions did seem to betray a lousy sense of timing and is incriminating, still, this does not prove her guilt or complicity. Since Maurice Clemmons is dead and beyond the reach of Justice, the next best thing to prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the Law is to take it out on the nearest living relative, namely, his sister LaTanya.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
May 25, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Taxing Candy not such a Sweet idea

Effective June 1, a 6.5 percent State sales tax in addition to local add-on taxes will accompany a favorite candy confectionary, bringing a sour taste to someone’s mouth to go along with that sweet tooth. The economic downturn and high unemployment rate in Washington has resulted in a statewide budget shortfall and a shrinking tax base threaten to jeopardize important agricultural, educational, environmental, transportation, social service and other programs. The Washington State Department of Revenue defines what constitutes a ‘candy’ and what does not, as far as ingredients are concerned. It seems that not all candy is created equal, whereas, one could be a candy confectionary and the other a sweet treat. It is interesting that the new Law exempts from taxation candy that is purchased under the Food Stamp Program. Be that as it may, manufacturers of products that are almost entirely classified as a “candy” according to State Law might show a decrease in their bottom line and shrinking market share if consumers protesting this newest ‘taxation’ decide to satisfy their palette with other sweet, non-candy confectionaries.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
May 12, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Don’t use Ken Griffey jr. as Scapegoat

The brouhaha over whether Ken Griffey jr. was asleep in the clubhouse last Saturday is deflecting attention away from the critical question, which is: why are the Mariners bats asleep in Seattle and elsewhere? When the Mariners GM and owner lured Griffey back to Seattle with a reasonably generous one-year renewable contract, it wasn’t to perform miracles. The once stellar and youthful All-Star outfielder and slugger is a forty year-old injury-ridden DH; a shell of his former self. Griffey’s presence on the team is more of inspiration, not perspiration, and he is more of a legendary and living team mascot than the Mariner Moose could ever be.

It is more serious than playing jokes on Ichiro or be featured in a few commercials, but in a more practical sense, it is about increasing ticket sells and good PR with the “GRIFFEY” name brand and hometown recognition. So don’t point the finger at Ken Griffey jr. for the failure of the Mariners to win more games, despite having one of the best pitching rosters in Major League Baseball. Of course, when things are not going as expected, someone has to get the blame, and it appears that at this point, Ken Griffey jr. is the one. As far as his future with the team, Griffey is in the batter’s box with a full count, waiting for the next pitch. Griffey will walk before the season’s end or retire thereafter. Either way, “Thanks for the memories and we still love you Junior.”


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
May 12, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Kagan might not be the best choice for Supreme Court Justice

President Barack Obama seems poised to announce his choice of Elena Kagan to replace ailing 81 year-old Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his plan to retire later this year. All the present Supreme Court Justices have served as a Federal Judge before being nominated to the nation’s highest court, but Kagan has not served in that capacity nor has she been a judge at all. It seems that President Obama is more interested in placing someone on the Bench who thinks like he does as opposed to selecting someone who is willing to apply the rule of law when making judicial decisions which will affect the lives of millions of American citizens for generations. While Kagan might have an impressive resume and doubtless has an astute legal mind as the President of harvard Law School, still, it is not known what her judicial philosophy is, or how impartial she can be; considering the fact that she is the government’s former Solicitor General before the very Supreme Court that she wants to become a member of, and, of which would seem to be a conflict-of-interest (cronyism at the very least). No doubt the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will subject her to some intensive questions and scrutiny, but at the end of the day, who wants to stand in the way of history as Kagan will be the third female Supreme Court Justice in this country’s history. As for experience: “FORGET-ABOUT-IT,” because a Community Organizer became President of the United States, after-all; so why not her?


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
May 10, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Do employees have Right-of privacy when using work-issued communication devices?

Ontario, CA police Sgt. Jeff Quon sued the city for what he considers a violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights, the Right of Privacy, when his boss (the Chief of Police) gained access to his text messages. Quon is a member of the elite SWAT unit and along with all the other communication devices and equipment that each officer utilizes to enhance their ability for rapid deployment in an emergency situation, a pager is the latest additional to their arsenal of crime-fighting tools. Although pagers are not covered in the departments “written policy,” still, all the officers, including Quon, were given sufficient warning that the pagers were covered in the policy as well. Also, Sgt. Quon has signed a letter acknowledging agreement with the city policy pertaining to the fact that there were no “privacy rights” regarding the use of city computers and communication equipment.

Although one could argue that ‘pagers’ aren’t specifically mentioned in the policy but it can be thought of as “implicitly” stated in the draft just as if were mentioned verbatim. This case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States on a “Writ of Certiorari” and the Justices have weighed the evidence and listened to the oral arguments from legal counsel delivered by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The ruling by a majority of the Justices could very well establish legal precedent regarding the broader issue of ‘Privacy’ in general in light of growing technology which seem to blur the otherwise well established line between the public and private domain; especially when it comes to the accumulation, assimilation, and sharing of information, and perhaps more importantly, who is entitled to have access to it. Since the Fourth Amendment is cited as the main “witness” for the Defendant (Sgt. Quon) and counsel Dieter Dammier, it is therefore prudent to examine what this Constitutional provision states.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that a person shall be protected from “unreasonable” searches and seizures by the Federal and State Government without probable cause, and that any Warrant or Oath authorizing such action must particularly describe the (1) place to be searched, the (2) person searched or the (3) things to be seized. In effect, because of the aforementioned stipulations the individual can feel secure in their person, houses, papers, and personal effects against illegal search [personal, private property or residence], and against forfeiture, seizure, confiscation of anything that a person owns or controls. This statute does appear to protect the “right of privacy” is a rather limited way but it certainly DOES NOT pertain to the matter that the Supreme Court Justices have deliberated on. The thing is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it overturned the Trial Court’s verdict which agreed with the city of Ontario, and the original petition filed by counsel for Sgt. Quon [City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332] should have been dismissed because it was without ‘merit.’ The Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Appellate Court and order them to reverse their previous ruling.

The problem is because of the complexity of modern society, some activist Judges have tried to legislate from the Bench instead of applying the Law as it is written, taking into account that not all judicial decisions are forward-looking and changing circumstances may require fresh reinterpretation based upon the values and social experiences of people in present times. That being said, one cannot rationally apply a statute that protects personal property and domicile to a situation outside the home and in possession of and using non-personal equipment issued by an employer. Not only that, but the case fails the “reasonableness” requirement by a ‘tryer of fact’ [Judge or jury] because would a ‘reasonable’ person have an expectation of a “right of privacy” using a company-issued pager, cell phone, computer, telephone, copier, video camera, walkie-talkie, etc.? There are a few legal experts who seem to think that the Ninth Amendment applies to this case as well; and it says: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not enumerate what these rights are at this place, but some of the ones that they might have had in mind could be the ones mentioned in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENCE, second paragraph: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these [not the complete list] are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed [Tenth Amendment??], that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There is another issue which receive brief mention from a few of the Justices, but which has largely gone under the radar, but which is vitally important, namely, the “right of privacy” of those to whom Officer Quon sent and received text messages. It is of little consequence about the ‘content’ of the messages shared between adults, although according to some reports, some of the content has been described as ‘racy,’ which is just another way of saying that some of it was “sexually explicit.” Texting between individuals, whether thru a cell phone, pager, or computer could be viewed as privileged communication and protected under the First Amendment as Freedom of Speech. No agency or employer should have the right to listen to or have a transcript of an electronic conversation between persons, which is tantamount to eavesdropping or wiretapping unless the information is pertinent in some kind of probable cause scenario where there is at least circumstantial evidence or credible information of a criminal conspiracy to act illegally or after the commission of such an act.

It is a little unnerving to think that someone’s personal and intimate expressions have no guarantee of confidentiality and can be available to anyone, even if it is used, just as in this pending case for disciplinary action of the other party. It doesn’t stop with the city and its policy, but what about the responsibility or rather liability of the service provider for the pagers because they were the ones who turned over the information to the police department in the first place? The ruling from the Highest Court in the land will doubtless impact millions of workers in America who use company-issued cell phones, Blackberries, etc., and depending upon the verdict, might just opt out on using devices that they feel might just compromise their right to have what they say or text to remain private; to be shared only just between them and their recipient.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 20, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Why does the thought of "Holy War" have us almost scared to death?

Ever since September 11, 2001, many if not most Americans have become increasingly jittery and paranoid when hearing words such as ‘jihad,’ terrorists, and al-Qaida; which have been added to our social and political Lexicon, but should this really be the case? It seems that many of us have a short attention span and selected memory when it pertains to the Historical and Biblical narratives. To the colonial settlers on the American frontier, the British “Red Coats” might have seemed like they were the ‘terrorists,’ and to the Royal troops these upstart, disloyal and traitorous brigands were waging some sort of guerilla or urban warfare against them.

The American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Spanish-American War, Korean Conflict, Viet-Nam, etc., all have one thing in common, namely: At least one side in the conflict believes that what they are doing is “God’s Will” or that their justification to participate in such horrific acts has some sort of ‘Divine’ sanction or “Higher Purpose.” During the 1970’s, Folk Singer Bob Dylan had a song entitled, “God is on our Side.” Indeed, even that old “Rail Splitter,” “Honest Abe,” President Abraham Lincoln, penned the immemorial words about it is not so much a concern as to whether or not we are on God’s side but rather if God is on our side. This overarching ‘TRUTH’ [religious sanction] is behind just about all the Wars that have ever been waged on planet Earth since people started to make weapons and use these instruments to kill; especially beyond that point used for just mere survival.

It is of special concern for those who study the TANAKH (Christian Old Testament Bible), because clearly, an undeniable “fact” emerges, and that is, Holy War [jihad] is throughout its many pages, and just as startling, namely, that “it is of God;” and not just something made up in recent times by religiously zealous Muslim and Arab fighters from predominately the Middle East countries.

The progenitor of the Israelites, the Patriarch Jacob, and his family grew into a mixed multitude of approximately one and one-half to two million people, doubtless an amalgamation of indigenous Egyptians and other slave laborers, after leaving Egypt became a confederation of 12 uniquely distinctive clans united under a single leader; each with their own clan or tribal loyalties. The one single thing which would unite these disparate groups and their leading families is embracing a common set of rules or conduct [RELIGION] to which everyone pledged loyalty and mutual protection. Under this agreement is belief in the God and His Torah [Law] as revealed to Moses and now these people were given the command to go out and conquer the inhabitants of Canaan and possess the land that God promised to the Patriarchs.

So, this ‘jihad’ or “Holy War” against other peoples (“infidels”) was not really so much different then than it is today. These acts of armed conflict and destruction aren’t so much about a philosophical difference or morality, but rather faithful obedience to one’s God and victory over another people and their god(s). That being said, the one mistake that America makes when trying to understand the seeming inconsistency between Islam [“Peace”] or a Muslim [“submission” to the will of God/Allah] is viewing the religion or the Anti-American rhetoric spewed in the Madrasas by the Imams through the lens of Western cultural values. The warfare against America isn’t retaliation from past Imperialist exploitation by the Western powers nor is it even personal, and it may not even seem rational, but one thing is certain: Muslim zealots take this mandate very seriously and one they are willing to give their very lives for, and in the words of Lao-Tzu in “The Art of War,” WAR IS FOREVER.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 19, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

President Obama and the Members of Congress may need to reread "The Constitution."

One of the things that most Americans can reasonably agree on is their distrust of “Big government,” and according to the latest poll numbers from the Pew Research Institute, that seems to be just about right. In survey after survey, whether it is one conducted by MSNBC or some independent research firm, there is growing animosity among citizens as to the role, or rather, intrusion of government into the public and private sector of American society. With a stagnant economy, high unemployment, record foreclosures and unprecedented personal and business bankruptcies, along with the difficulty in obtaining a bank loan and families who cannot afford to pay for Healthcare or medical prescriptions, its no wonder people feel the way they do; but what is the “solution” to the confusion? The first thing just might be for the legislators in Washington, D.C. to take a refresher course in CONSTITUTION 101.

One of the things that almost prevented the US Constitution from finally being adopted and ratified was the very real concern about the growing power and influence of the federal government (“Federalism”). The statutes under the Articles of Confederation, which protected and upheld State Rights to be independent and autonomous from federal intrusion was championed because it was deemed that the individual State governments [in the South, particularly] were in a better position to address the needs of their citizens [people] than a national legislature in Philadelphia or elsewhere. The thing is, with all the proposals that President Barack Obama has made, and of which a few have passed into Law, with Congress [The Hose of Representatives and U.S. Senate], seemingly acting like the little kitten that plays with a ball of yarn only to become entangled in it, only does the bidding of America’s CEO [Czar Executive Officer-in-Chief] through Democratic partisanship and majority representation in both Legislative Houses.

Be that as it may, a quick review of ARTICLE 1, Section 8. says: Congress [NOT the President] shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. Congress [NOT the President] shall have power To establish uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. Congress [NOT the President] shall have power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

ARTICLE 1, Section 7 & Section 8 says: All Bills for raising Revenue [taxes] shall originate in the House of Representatives [NOT the Oval Office]; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequences of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money [taxes??] shall be published from time to time.

It is all about fiscal responsibility and when the President of the United States has his heavy hand in the financial markets and Commerce (Wall Street, The Big Three Automakers bankruptcy filings, Fortune 500 CEO compensation, The Banking Industry Mortgage foreclosure crisis, NASA exploits to land on an asteroid, mandating Federal or State-run Healthcare Insurance holding company coverage on individual Americans, Clean-Energy initiatives, etc.), this is a little troubling; to say the least. Also, the term “Commerce” is very broad and includes all business, trade, industry, transportation, manufacturing, goods, and services. This is not to indict President Obama as having some sort of Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde alter-ego nor accusing him of succumbing to the adage, “Absolute Power corrupts absolutely,” because considering the ineptitude of Congress nowadays, what he is attempting is more than they are doing; which is to say all these Legislators seem to care about are being wined and dined by lobbyists and voting to give themselves a big raise at the next session of Congress. And, although President Obama may have good intentions during this present economic downturn, but as the old saying goes, “The road to HELL is paved with good intentions.”


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 19, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

The Tea Party: Serious grassroots Movement or just a Flash-in-the-pan?

Not since the colonial days in which protestors dumped bags of tea overboard in Boston harbor to protest the high taxation from the King of England (The Redcoats or British) and the East India Company on this commodity, eventually leading up to the American Revolution, Tea Baggers haven’t been part of the Lexicon. It seems that once again, people are fed up with Government, but this time it is the one on America’s very shoreline, and not in a far away European Monarch. What will determine whether these public gatherings of citizens who want a redress of grievances will transform into a potent and formidable force in America’s political discourse depends entirely on how committed they are towards real “CHANGE” as opposed to what former Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm calls, “A bunch of Whiners.”

Along with that, having former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as ‘Poster Girl’ for the movement is hardly encouraging. Although Sarah basks in the limelight of her celebrity-like status, coincidentally, the same thing that she, as Vice-Presidential nominee mercilessly criticized Barack Obama, which she now enjoys with gleeful abandon. Not only can Sarah Palin draw a crowd but recent polls indicate that she is still quite popular with her loyal base of supporters and constituency. Also, one should not dismiss some of her memorable one-liner zingers like: “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money; You can keep the ‘CHANGE,’" specifically aimed at President Obama, so as to momentarily distract him and get him off his game a little.

Be that as it may, the bigger question is whether the Tea Party has enough of a clear message that will redirect peoples' anger in more productive ways instead of just heaping up more and more criticism of government; which is neither constructive nor helpful. The one thing that Tea Party organizers need to do is to “speak truth to power,” and not just come up with these misleading and outright false sound bites laced with such diatribe as “Death panels for seniors” and President Obama is trying to promote “Socialism” with his agenda. If these "true” Americans want to save the Republic, then they need to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, sharpen their pencils and wits, do their homework or research, and present in a clear and concise manner their better plan. In this way they will become, if not a “third rail” in American political theatre, but rather an amalgamation of a disenchanted, heterogeneous electorate who become energized enough and with their vote and pocketbook become the ‘CHANGE’ themselves that they were looking instead, to come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 16, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Board Game causes protest from Native Americans

The game is called “King Philip’s War” and according to AP reporter Eric Tucker, the Massachusetts Wampanoag tribe is all up in arms about it. The game is based upon a battle between 17th century New England colonists and Native Americans in the area. The game, although designed initially to be an educational tool of an actual historic event, although the objective of the game is to defeat as many Indians as possible, it perpetuates the usual stereotype of them as bloodthirsty, uncivilized savages. Instead of bringing to light the scant attention this little ‘war’ has been ignored in most textbooks and is beneath the public radar, still, it has for a growing number of Indian tribes been a source of irritation and racial insensitivity. The game’s designer, John Poniske, a Middle School Social Studies and English teacher in Hagerstown, MD said that he was surprised that this “incident” was not better known.

This is not the first time controversy has been generated in association with a game because several years ago “Ghettopoly” developer David Chang caused outrage among many African-Americans and the NAACP because of the negative depictions of drugs, guns, 40 oz. beer, buying stolen goods, prostitution and pimping, crack houses, getting car jacked, etc., contained in it. No matter what the intention of the inventor or creator of a product is, its success depends upon how well it is received by the public-at-large and it all comes down to “ethnic branding.” How would Jews feel about a board game depicting the ‘HOLOCAUST’ from the perspective of a former German Nazi soldier or what about a Civil War game from the perspective of a former rebel soldier from the South; better still, from the perspective of a slave living below the Mason-Dickson Line?

It must be remembered in politically-correct American society that traditional values or appropriateness are not so clearly defined and it is prudent to consider how someone else might perceive differently the thing that you take for granted.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 16, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

What’s the real issue in the Health Insurance debate?

When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States and in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, penned these words: “. . . that they [Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . .” Now, these great statesmen and intellectuals did not mention anything about the right of every American to affordable Health Insurance, but rather continued allegiance the King of England and the tyranny imposed upon the colonial settlers by him. Somehow, there are many voices in and out of the political arena today who seem to think that surely this august document written nearly 234 years ago must have had them in mind. The thing is, very few individuals have read and understand all the nearly 2,000 pages of the Health Care Bill, and doubtless, because it was drafted by politicians who included some of their own personal pet projects “pork” among the usually confusing ‘legalese’ (lawyer script); much like the prescriptions written in Latin by medical doctors. Perhaps the first thing that needs to be understood and accepted is that any company which offers ‘Insurance” of any type is underwriting “risk” and like any business, the objective is to make a profit. There is no legal mandate, either at the federal or state level in America that compels any of these organizations to offer this benefit; which by the way, is NOT a ‘Right’ that someone is entitled to.

Before going even further into this matter, it may be a good idea to look at this term called “risk” again. Essentially, it is all about statistical analysis, mortuary tables, age, race, lifestyle, and other demographics, etc. When a policy is issued to an individual/family for a particular coverage of benefits, this same “umbrella” insures or manages ‘risk’ for others who fall into the same category. When a claim is filed, deductibles satisfied, and payments made for medical treatment, premiums paid by the insured are already calculated into the payments because statistically, the chances of a significant number of the insured filing benefit claims at the same time that you do, albeit for different medical treatment, are relatively low. The deductibles that you pay are your part in assuming part of the risk for going to the doctor or dentist. If a statistically high cluster of claims are filed, adjustments have to made; either in the form of increased premiums or a reduction in benefits. Several decades ago, there used to be a much simpler coverage plan: (PLAN A) for a single employee and (PLAN B) for the employee’s family with 90% or in some cases 100% for all medical expenses. Insurers were prone to favor single individuals who didn’t have children because maternity claims were very expensive, especially as more and more females had C-sections (Caesarean births).

Also, if a husband and wife both worked for an employer with health benefits, both of them and their family were covered as Primary beneficiaries; meaning, for any medical or dental claim submitted by either party, both companies would pay as the Primary insurer. Since the insurer paid the claim check to the employee and left it up to him/her to pay their physician, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that they made some money in the deal because more often than not, both checks were an overpayment and was more than the doctor’s charges. Add to that, most of the time when someone made an appointment to see the doctor, one of the ‘first’ questions that was asked by the receptionist or office staff is “Do You Have Insurance?” before they even mention your name or ask who you were. Even on the “New Patient” intake form that you complete, it is not just to list your symptoms but rather as a screening process to see if you have any pre-existing medical conditions or the potential to develop something down the road.

All this fact-finding just adds to the amount on your bill and after-all, as they used to say, you don’t have to worry about it because, “YOU HAVE INSURANCE.” Many of the insurance companies were usually based on the East coast and the rates that were paid out in benefits were calculated based upon the medical charges in this region as opposed to states in the South, Midwest, or in WA and OR. Eventually, the insurance companies caught on to this over-billing scheme, sometimes by hiring medical professionals into their own organizations who are knowledgeable as to what certain costs for services rendered should or should not be. The insurance companies started billing the medical service provider directly instead of remitting a check to the patient and let him/her be responsible for paying off the cost of their treatment for services rendered. Not only that, but these insurers placed a lower maximum ceiling on how much they would pay for any type of treatment, irregardless of circumstances or need; and they transitioned from the “STANDARD/UNIVERSAL” coverage model to the more familiar “CAFETERIA-STYLE” where you pick your own benefits among a sliding scale of reduced coverage and premiums. Usually, the amount of coverage that a person or family may need they cannot afford to pay for nowadays.

PANDORA’S BOX has been opened now, and no one can back all the little gremlins of greed and selfishness; besides all of that, somebody has to pay for all those shiny, new high-tech and life-saving medical devices. So what’s the answer, then? The first thing is: “Don’t Believe the Hype.” Don’t take as the Gospel what you hear from TALK RADIO (AM Radio), ABC/CBS/NBC NEWS, women of “The VIEW,” political pundits, Think Tank spin-meisters, members of Congress, or even President Barack Obama. The best thing to do is find some clear-thinking person who is articulate and can make sense out of this ‘ball-of-confusion.’

Here is a radical idea: instead of trying to insure everyone on a macro level, perhaps it is best to see if there is a plan where people are adequately insured at affordable rates and use this example as a model to be implemented state by state until almost everyone who wants and can afford to pay for insurance coverage will have access to quality medical care. There are already laws in every state where no hospital or clinic can refuse to treat someone who has a medical emergency just because they don’t have insurance; so a lot of this anger, threats of violence, as well as acts of violence is irrational and dangerous. To reiterate: Health Insurance coverage is a privileged benefit that is offered by companies who are in the business of risk management, with the objective to make a profit. It is offered as a service to the millions of individuals who cannot afford to pay for the unexpected circumstances in life when a medical takes them by surprise (in most cases) and they have incurred sizeable financial liability to which they must now pay the costs; but it is in no sense of the word a “RIGHT” to which any Federal, State, City, Township, privately or publicly held company/organization is obligated to provide, and as some “inalienable [‘divine’] right” to which someone is entitled.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 10, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

TESORO Refinery fire in Anacortes, WA

It is tragic that such an event happened at the Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, WA which resulted in the tragic deaths of at last five people and two other workers received severe burns over fifty percent of their body. The thing that probably goes unnoticed is that many of the nation's refineries and chemical plants are at least thirty years old and could present an ever-present danger to some sort of incident that happened here. All of these facilities have to keep up with the ever-growing demand to increase output and meet the latest stringent environmental regulations. There aren't enough inspectors within the Federal and State EPA, OSHA, or DOE to adequately monitor and check the safety of hundreds of plants.

These facilities contain thousands of gallons of highly volatile and reactive chemical components (hydrocarbons) and although reasonable measures are in place to prevent a major catastrophe from happening, it does occur from time to time; with deadly results. Although "SAFETY FIRST" is the mantra of these companies, when it comes down to expenditures for retrofitting old equipment for increased production as opposed to the cost for purchasing newer equipment, as well meeting governmental regulations to reduce pollution of the environment, safety is sometimes compromised.

Of course, it is also true that accidents do happen, and when it does it usually results in significant harm to persons and property. Not all sensors and monitors are calibrated on a regular basis or frequently enough, and some equipment does not always respond the way it should during an emergency. Even workers at these plants know the inherent dangers associated with their workplace and in the industry that they are in, but are willing to take the risk because of earning the big bucks with lots of overtime and other benefits like pension, sick leave, personal days off, etc.

As long as society craves the hundreds of by-products that can be derived from refining or cooking crude oil at high temperatures and pressure, then demand will drive these plants to perhaps take short cuts on safety to meet production goals. This does not rule out human error or lack of adequate training which can result in an industrial accident, but the verdict is out regarding whom to blame.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 6, 2010
253-382-4092
pbks@hotmail.com

Hillary Clinton’s comment may be a wake-up call for Israel

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent statement at the summit called AIPAC should have been a reality check for the Israeli people; not to mention, another glaring example of American ‘hubris.’ While avowing unrelenting support for the nation of Israel, she went on to say that with all the sophisticated weapons and technology being developed by the enemy, [in light of this continually evolving situation], “WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT ISRAEL ANYMORE.” This unfortunate comment should have caused some consternation among the Israeli political leadership including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak; as well as outrage among Israeli citizens and other people as well. It says that if America wasn’t around to scare away all the enemies and haters of Israel who are bent on her destruction or annihilation, she would not even exist. Perhaps Israel needs to rethink its relationship with the United States, Western European countries, and her role within the United Nations as well.

In the Jewish Bible [“TANAKH”] there are some lessons to be learned from the Jews depending on or soliciting for military deliverance from other nations instead of their God. In 2 Kings 16: 1, 7, 9, King Ahaz of Judah paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser to save them from the armies of the Kings of Syria and Israel. Also, in 2 Kings 17: 1, 3-4, King Hoshea of Israel conspired with the King of Egypt to come to his aid against Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, and when the Assyrian King uncovered the plot, he imprisoned King Hoshea and besieged the capitol [Samaria] for three years and carried away the people captive.

Later in 2 Kings 18: 17, 19-21, 32b; 19: 16, 19-22, 32-34, Rabshakeh, the Chief of Staff for Sennacherib King of Assyria taunted King Hezekiah and the people along the wall in Judah [the city of Jerusalem], and speaking for King Sennacherib, said, “Who among all the gods of the lands have delivered their countries from my hand, that the LORD [Adonai??] should [can] deliver Jerusalem from my hand?” (Cp. 18: 35). What is instructive for the political leaders of modern-day Israel is what King Hezekiah did as recorded in 2 Kings 19: 1, 20, 32, 34: And so it was, when King Hezekiah heard it, he tore his clothes, covered himself with sackcloth [and ashes??], and went into the house of the LORD. Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Because you have prayed to me against Sennacherib King of Assyria, I have heard.’ ” “Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the King of Assyria: ‘He shall not come [set foot] into this city [Jerusalem], Nor shoot an arrow there, Nor come before it with shield, Nor build a siege mound against it. “For I will defend this city [Jerusalem], to save it for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake.”

Ironically enough, the remnant of the children of Israel [tribe of Judah, no doubt] wanted to return back to Egypt, the very country which their ancestors were enslaved, as it says in Jeremiah 42: 9a, 10a, 13-14; 43: 7a: Thus says the LORD, “If you will remain in this land, then I will build you and not pull you down, and I will plant you and not pluck you up. “But if you say, ‘We will not dwell in this land,’ disobeying the voice of the LORD your God, saying, ‘No, but we will go to the land of Egypt where we shall not see war, nor hear the sound of the trumpet, nor be hungry for bread, and there we will dwell.’ ” So they went into the land of Egypt, for they did not obey the voice of the LORD.” Eventually Egypt was defeated and Israel went into captivity, anyway (Cp. Jeremiah 46: 1-28).

The people of Israel as well as the rest of the world needs to recognize that God has on occasion punished the Jews for their transgression of His Law [Torah], which included plagues (diseases), military defeat, captivity and exile into foreign lands, but nevertheless, as it says in Proverbs 21: 31: The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but deliverance is of the LORD. God will protect Israel from her enemies and will gather them from all the nations around the world to settle them in the land promised to the patriarch Abraham and codified in the Law [Torah] given at Mount Sinai; irrespective of the negotiations between the United States, Israel, the UN and the Palestinians about the settlement issue in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Finally, it is not about having fighter jets with “STEALTH TECHNOLOGY” traveling at several times the speed of sound or having some of the best pilots in the world, or how many nuclear bombs they have, or equipping their soldiers with the latest in body armor and sensors to detect chemical, radiological, and biological weapons, and other such capabilities to wage modern warfare. The very opposite existed for their ancestors who were at a tactical disadvantage in almost every encounter before their enemies; especially when it came to the development of iron weapons. The one thing Israel had, though, was unwavering ‘faith’ in the promises of God and as long as she trusted in the LORD, Israel was victorious. The people of Israel need to be reminded of this because their sacred Scriptures teach:

Exodus 14: 14
The LORD shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.

Deuteronomy 1: 30
The LORD your God, who goes before you, He will fight for you, according to all He did for you in Egypt before your eyes.

1 Samuel 17: 47
Then all this assembly shall know that the LORD does not save with sword and spear [weapons]; for the battle is the LORD’S, and He will give you into our hands.

Zechariah 4: 6b
So he answered and said to me, “Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of Hosts [YHVH Sabaoth].”

The Jewish people, their military and political leaders need to return [repent] to their LORD God through living according with the Law [Torah] and not adopt the customs of America and Western Europe. When this happens, the blessings which come to Israel will flow throughout the entire world and we will all be better off because of this.

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 23, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Rielle breaks silence, but is anyone really listening or even care?

After nearly two years since her affair with North Carolina Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate, femme fatale and sometime photojournalist, Rielle Hunter has decided to seek public absolution in her tell-all interview and confessional with writer Lisa DePaulo of GQ Magazine. According to Ms. Hunter, the attraction between she and John Edwards was, in her words, “Lust at First Sight,” and within a span of several hours, the illicit affair was in full effect. Never mind that Edwards was a married man with a family and a wife suffering from the most virulent and non-curable form of cancer, but hey, she isn’t such a horrible person or a money-grubbing opportunist who could have sold her story for big bucks.

Of course, Rielle didn’t have to worry about things financially because she was already receiving money secretly from “Johnny,” as she likes to call him, including the purchase of a house in North Carolina not too far from the Edwards’ Estate. Former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky could also say that what she did wasn’t so bad either, and also didn’t try to capitalize monetarily on the scandal and paparazzi over her affair with former President Bill Clinton; although the “Cali Girl” did have to leave the United States from all the intense and mostly negative media attention and go live in Europe (The UK) and start a business selling women’s purses/handbags.

Ms. Hunter says that she and John Edwards “love each other very much” and that, also, according to the interview with DePaulo, instead of the affair resulting in Edwards “Falling from Grace,” he has in her words, “Fallen into Grace” because he is ‘Living a Life of Truth' now. There was no shame in her game and an unapologetic as well as unrepentant Ms. Hunter probably feels that it isn't her fault if the bond between Elizabeth and John wasn't strong enough to keep him from being seduced by her. It seems that Rielle also seeks to portray Elizabeth Edwards in a less than stellar light; as overly controlling, and as a woman who has stripped John of his ‘manhood’ (emasculated him) and pushed him into running for President when he wasn't sure he really wanted to.

In her eyes, John is the real victim in their marriage and like most fairy tales, Ms. Hunter truly believes that she and ‘Johnny’ will Live Happily Ever After; but she may come to find that instead, that her life with John is a tragic Shakespearean drama and the final act will be one filled with betrayal, lust, anger, revenge, pain, and sorrow. Right now, Rielle is feeling satisfied and can exult and celebrate as the ‘other’ woman who finally snatched her Price Charming from the clutches of Elizabeth, but perhaps in about a few years from now, she may find as true that old adage: “What he will do with you he will do to You;" and both of them might come to find out that "Having [someone] is not necessarily so pleasant a thing as Wanting."

As a last point: John repeatedly professed his love for his wfe and family and how much he was so devoted to them and how happy they were, but it did not prevent him from betraying those to whom he pledged his unfailing love, support, and fidelity; so why does Rielle think it is going to be any different in her case, considering the fact that John dishonored his marital vows and abandoned a terminally sick wife just to have sex with her [in secret, no less]?


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 15, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Professor Henry Louis Gates donates handcuffs to Smithsonian

One would think the public has heard the last from distinguished Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates jr., but there he goes again. When “Skip” Gates is not teaching or lecturing on African-American History, or as a spokesman for Public Television (PBS), he is helping famous celebrities, both Black and White, to find out about their ancestral, ethnic, and cultural roots. Now it seems that the esteemed Professor is graciously donating the handcuffs placed around his wrists for the “Disorderly Conduct” charge by the Cambridge, MA police department and Sgt. James Crowley to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.; according to the Tacoma News Tribune section A2, 2/14/2010 and featured in The New York Times Magazine on the same date.

There is just no quit in this man and it seems that he is just determined to write his own concluding narrative of this nearly forgotten and equally insignificant much-to-do-about nothing;’ or maybe it was his opportunistic self-aggrandizing moment, grandstanding, or pompous self-important attempt to grab the public’s attention; which he did rather successfully, including that of his old friend and fellow Alumni member, President Barack Obama.

Preserving the first pair of handcuffs worn by Martin Luther King jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, or some other historic or spiritual icon is one thing; but for “Skip,” the final verdict just might be out on that one. Now, after having said all of this, of course the idea of donating something of value or significance to the National Museum and Library does have merit, and if there is a device large enough to wrap around Professor Gates rather enormously inflated ego, then that would be a rare cultural treasure, indeed.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 14, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Senator Harry Reid’s comment about Barack Obama not all that surprising

It is puzzling why there is such a public outrage and shock when another politician or public figure, usually a White male, makes disparagingly hurtful or insensitive racial remarks. Nevada Senator Harry Reid, leader of the US Senate made reference to then Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s skin complexion and the way he talked (dialect) as being something of a viable asset which separates him from the stereotypical Black man; making him more appealing to White voters. Vice-President Joe Biden said a very similar comment about candidate Barack Obama during the presidential debates, too. Even former President Bill Clinton, the reputed ‘First Black President’ (according to him), mentioned essentially the same thing. What is so interesting is that all of these men think what they said was intended to be a compliment and should not be viewed as anything else but the highest form of
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Barack Obama is nothing ‘special’ among the many men of color who have ever lived in America, but rather just another link in the long chain of distinguishable Black men who have contributed to this country’s greatness. The implication that someone is not a shuckin’ and jivin’ slick Willie, a rappin’ and rhyming Ambulance chaser, or a Preacher, is insulting and ignores the very fact about the diversity, changeableness, depth, potential, and wealth of knowledge that exists within the African-American community. As expected, President Obama accepted Sen. Reid’s apology and mentioned that the effort to pressure the Senator to resign is much ado about nothing; but what else was Barack Obama supposed to say or do? Now what one says in public and how one feels or reacts and discusses in private conversations with family, friends, and confidants is an altogether different matter.

Not to miss an opportunity, the GOP led by African-American Shelby Steele, Chairman of the RNC denounced the statement by Sen. Reid as well as the apology and accuse the Democrats of wanting to have it both ways because of the political firestorm that was set off when then Majority Leader of the Senate Trent Lott’s comment about the country being better off if Segregationist Senator, the late Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948. With the Democrats wanting to hang onto their slim majority in the Senate, the Black Congressional Congress still supports Senator Reed based upon his past position on Civil Rights, which based on this revelation, makes one wonder if his votes on that legislation was because of his deep conviction for equality and justice or rather because of political expediency and advantage. With two Democratic Senators, including Chris Dodd of Connecticut not seeking to run again during the mid-term elections because they won’t win, the Republicans could shift the balance of power in the Senate back to their advantage.

So, are the words by Senator Reid inexcusable and should he resign from the Senate because of this statement he made back in 2008? There are certainly more important things to discuss but at least it was a break from hearing about how many women golfer Tiger Woods slept with. As far as Senator Reed, only the electorate in Nevada can decide his fate, and with a still sluggish economy, record numbers of unemployed workers (around 15% overall nationally), Iraq and Afghanistan, Healthcare, Airport security, affordable housing, job creation, Retirement/Pension benefits, Social Security, the Budget Deficit, Medicare/Medicaid, the devaluating Dollar, and the difficulty securing new bank loans, this brouhaha with Senator Reid will pass away like the morning dew on the blades of grass when the sun arises.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
January 12, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com

Dear President Obama: It's about Time to either Put up or Shut Up!

One thing that President Barack Obama is finding out with increasing certitude is that it is far easier to criticize someone than to walk a mile in their shoes; or in this case, the few steps from the Rose Garden to the Oval Office. Notwithstanding the disagreements with Moderate [Reagan] and some Liberal Democrats, Republicans, and Independents within both the House of Representatives and Senate regarding legislation over Health Care, the Economy, and dozens of other domestic as well as foreign policy issues, Barack Obama is looking more like a “lame duck” [legislatively ineffectual] already than a newly elected President.

With nearly a year into his presidency, Barack Obama has achieved very little in the way of steering a sure and steady course toward any coherent, meaningful, and realistic agenda for moving the country forward. Outside of the occasional rhetorical flourishes, he has not shown the very thing that people expect, namely, “leadership.” It is about time that something tangible and sustainable emerges from the president other than him trying to do everything all-at-once, thereby accomplishing very little in the way of achieving ‘real’ results.

During the Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama promised accountability, transparency, doing things right that make sense, reaching out to members across the [political] aisle (bi-partisanship), being deliberate and thoughtful, and bringing economic relief to those Americans on Main Street and not Wall Street. So far, none of this has happened and the printing presses at the US Treasury Department have issued nearly a trillion dollars to keep Insurance companies, US Automakers, and major Banking Institutions from bankruptcy. The average unemployed worker has received an extension of UI benefit checks but none of the optimistically forecasted new "Green Energy" jobs.

Even Federal and State Pell Grant or Worker Retraining funding to go to a College University or Technical School is dwindling and may be unavailable for those who most need it. President Obama is reminiscent of the Nursery School tale of the Little Dutch Boy who tried to plug a hole in the dike with his little finger to stop a leak. When he did that, another leak sprung somewhere else; you get the picture. Just like the little lad in the story, President Obama doesn't know how to "fix" the problem. And in the story, was it that the little boy didn't have enough fingers to plug each leak that formed in the wall of the dike, or was the dike constructed of cheap materials and of such poor quality to hold back the swelling waters, or was it instead, the mounting water pressure on the other side of the dike's protective wall which threatened its eventual collapse?

President Obama’s numbers are plummeting, edging below 50% according to the latest MSNBC poll for the first time since he took office, and is likely to drop even more until the “CHANGE” that candidate Obama promised the electorate truly comes to pass. Internationally, outside of the few mostly positive remarks from Western European countries and their leaders who sing his praises publicly, it is uncertain whether Barack Obama conveys the same kind of confidence and support in private diplomatic negotiations and discussions.

If the United States governmental officials and politicians are at odds with him on the domestic agenda, what chance does Barack have to persuade an International assembly of disparate and separate political entities, ethnic, religious, and economic ideologies, each with their own particular self-interests and priorities? Political representatives and citizens of countries in Central and South America, Eastern Europe, The Middle East, and the Far East as well as in parts of Africa are waiting to see what President Obama is going to do; as they have yet to swoon over the eloquence of Barack’s oratory because as the old saying goes, “Talk is cheap but it takes money to buy land,” or as the slogan in an unforgettable former fast foods commercial asks, “Where’s the Beef?”

Years ago, former President George W. Bush mentioned to a reporter during questioning after one of his press conferences that, "It's a hard job [being President]," and based upon what Barack Obama is dealing with behind-closed-doors and out of the glare of the media spotlight, he would undoubtedly say, "Amen, Brother!" Of course, President Obama is not one who lacks a high estimation of himself, as told to Oprah recently when she asked him to rate his performance in office, and not surprisingly, he gave himself a "B+" grade. That overrating must be for "style" points because it sure is not based on "substance;" and come to think of it, isn't this the very thing that Hillary Clinton pointed out during the Presidential Caucuses and debates? And if this is how Barack does now, what will he do in a real national emergency or International crisis in the future when that "red phone" in the Oval Office actually does ring at 3AM?


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 18, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Slain Police Officers shock Washington residents

The State of Washington has for the third time this year made national news, and once again, not in a positive light. A few days ago, four Lakewood, WA police officers were gunned down, or rather assassinated at a local coffee shop by Maurice Clemons near the town of Parkland, WA. On Halloween night of October 31st, Seattle police officer Timothy Brenton was slain by John Monfort, and back in June of this year, Kurt Husted, a 16 year veteran of Loomis armored cars, was killed by Calvin Finley at a Wal-Mart store in Lakewood, WA. This is all the more distressing because the assailants were Black men and this will undoubtedly not be a positive step towards healings the feeling of animosity, tension and distrust that typically exists between Law Enforcement and the African-American community. It is anyone’s guess as to whether these isolated incidents will increase the scrutiny and racial profiling towards Black males that come into the proximity and attention of White police officers who, despite their extensive professional training, may feel the sting, anger, and frustration of a Criminal Justice system that they feel does not protect the public adequately from criminal activity, and who may feel potentially threatened and act instinctively to protect themselves by what they may perceive as a ‘War’ on Law Enforcement.

Ironically, this latest victim of the fallout and collateral damage from Maurice Clemons apparently unprovoked murderous vendetta is former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee approved the recommendations from the Arkansas Parole Board to commute Clemons 108 year prison sentence to 47 years in 2000, making him eligible for parole; which he made. Maurice Clemons was 16 years old when he was sentenced to the exorbitant and excessive prison time for robbery and theft, a sentence that even the most vicious of criminals would not have been subjected to. For Mike Huckabee, this is like former Massachusetts Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis’ “Willie Horton” moment when he as a first term Governor, furloughed convicted murder Willie Horton who later committed rape and assault in Maryland after his release. So, where do we lay the blame; on the Courts, State Legislatures Criminal Law Codes, Parole Boards, Governor’s Executive authority to pardon, family environment of the criminals, or society as a whole?

Is the disparity that exists in American society which cuts across all educational, economic, and racial sectors to blame for these deadly outbursts; and if so, what is the solution before-the-fact; not after-the-fact? Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of the aquatic telepaths in the science-fiction movie, “Minority Report,” who predict criminal acts of the perpetrator before they happen. No, we are not so fortunate and the laws as they are presently written do not penalize someone for a crime that is about to performed in the future. The slippery slope on which that leads to would be the eventual outlawing of “thought crimes.” No, there is no simple answer and the anecdotes or recriminations are not helpful as they only tend to focus on the problem but offer little in the way of a solution. The thing is that recidivism among those released from incarceration is at 90% or more, and rehabilitation of inmates is quite rare and minimal at best.

Not only that, but the first penal system brought over to the North American Continent from Europe by those beloved God-fearing Quakers is ineffective with regards to reintegrating people back into society nor does it serve as an ideally effective deterrent to antisocial behaviors resulting in criminality. Instead of the dismal failure of civil remedies, perhaps a spiritual solution should be given more serious consideration because the teaching of the holy Koran and Islam seems to have promising results to those African-American prisoners who testify to having a greater sense of peace and less violent tendencies. Also, there are numerous prison ministries among the Christian Church with varying degrees of success also, so why not support these outreaches with more of our prayers and other resources for healing the wounds, pain, anxiety and hurting that is prevalent in American society; besides, what do we have to lose but very much to gain?


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
December 2, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Dear Tyra: Let’s get fiercesome real here, OK!

Earlier this week, former “SUPERMODEL,” ‘Victoria Secret’ spokesperson and Executive Producer of AMERICA’S NEXT TOP MODEL, Tyra Banks, did a segment on her show ‘TYRA’ about the negative discrimination facing women suffering from obesity. Tyra donned a fat suit that her professional makeup artists and staff equipped her with in order to go undercover to expose the harsh treatment, ridicule, and insults that overweight women face in American society. This is not however, the first time that Ms. Banks dealt with this particular issue. In fact, she addressed the same subject about last month in October on her show. Tyra was made to look like a 350 pound woman and was set up on a series of anonymous blind dates to check her potential suitor’s reaction to an unexpectedly plus size female dining guest. The exposé was disingenuous to women because Tyra was in fact, acting out a scene or script; playing a role just for the sake of gathering information.

Tyra broke down a little in front of her guests and studio audience because of the way she was treated and the pain she felt as she emulated the lives of the women she wanted to profile. One of Tyra’s guests was quite astute when she had second thoughts and was reluctant about even appearing on the show because she asked herself why Tyra was doing this in the first place. She did get some conciliation from Tyra’s ordeal and her bravery to at least bring this treatment of women to the attention of the public; but here again, this is not new and there weren’t any greater insights into the issue of obesity or a commitment to treat people differently because of their physical shape or size.

At the end of the day, Tyra can take off her fat suit and go about her business as usual lifestyle, but there are countless women who have to live every day of their lives the way Ms. Banks was pretending to do for a few hours, so how can what she experienced be of any real benefit to these women who have to suffer with not only the verbal and mental abuse, guilt, and shame, but the serious medical health issues as well? To be honest, Ms. Banks might not be the best choice because she is not the girl-next-door and is not representative of the average woman, nor can the average female relate to her anyway. Even Tyra admitted that she discriminates and have said some unflattering statements against women who are like the one she portrayed, but she vowed that she would never do it again.

One can only wonder if she came to that conclusion based upon what she experienced or because she knows that it is wrong, and how many of Tyra’s close friends, and not just a casual acquaintances are large-and-in-charge, are in her inner circle; or are the spaces reserved only for those svelte, waif-like nymphs who are nimbly able to slip through in their famous fashion designer Haute Couture clothing and accessories. As a side note: Talk about an irony of contrasts; just within a day or two after the airing of that show, two of the most beautiful women in the world, Halle Berry and Beyonce Knowles were Tyra’s guests, and of course, Ms. Banks just had to show out a little with the “GIRLFRIENDS,” “Miss THANG,” and the ‘Diva’ conversation going on. When Beyonce was on the show, Tyra talked with such pride about being considered as part of the Knowles’ family, like a play big sister and all of that, but would she also be as enthusiastic to be adopted into the family of someone like Gabourey Sidibe starring as Claireece Jones in the movie, “PRECIOUS?” You be the judge.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 13, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

African-American females and the controversy surrounding having ‘Good Hair’

On the ‘TYRA’ show, airing Monday, October 26, 2009, KSTW/CW11 from Seattle, WA was an hour-long segment of what is considered “good hair” in the Black community. This is actually an ongoing dilemma and source of discomfort as well as embarrassment among African-Americans, but it is usually not played out before a national audience as it was on today. Without going into all the viewpoints that were discussed by the invited guests and Tyra’s culturally referenced explanation based on her experiences as a person-of-color to her White audience members who, for the most part, really didn’t get it or understand what all the fuss is about. Even comedian Chris Rock did a two-year documentary on this very subject after his young daughter asked him why she didn’t have ‘good’ hair. It is not easy to explain something that even the most distinguished Social Scientists, Historians, and Mental Health experts are not in total agreement as to the cause of this perspective.

One could attribute it to psychological enslavement, imperialism, or economic exploitation by the dominant culture, because that might just be a little bit too simplistic and shortsighted. It is more than a young, little Black girl identifying with “HANNAH MONTANA” some “WALT DISNEY” character or even among adults with the mantra, long-haired “Blondes Have More Fun,” but rather it is about having good role models, self-esteem and a positive body image that you can relate to instead of embracing substitutes. It is about a historical narrative that probably reaches back into prehistoric Egypt, among other places of antiquity. Styling hair is a custom that has been around for eons as well as grooming techniques, implements, and oils and pomades, etc. Beauty standards, social status, and access to political or economic power are doubtless contingent to a certain extent on physical appearance. What makes this so difficult for Blacks is not just the experience during “chattel slavery” in America or under-representation in popular mainstream broadcast and print media, but, as it may be a surprise to some, in interracial or mixed race marriages.

One reason that many Black men impregnate and marry White females (mostly) is not necessarily because they are more supportive, understanding, sexually adventurous, less demanding, less retaliatory when they are abused, or more attractive than a Black female, but simply that the child(ren) of the couple will have physical characteristics (esp. lighter skin complexion, hair texture) that appear to evoke a sense of satisfaction or pride based upon these criteria as ‘better’ and more valued than generally what is usually the case accompanying a child whose parents are both African-American. It is of course not unusual even when both parents are persons of color to have a child or children whose features are closer to the accepted standard of White, but this may be attributable to either miscegenation during slavery where the slave master impregnated some of his African female slaves, or it could be DNA and genetic mutations passed down throughout millennia from the migrations out of Africa into Europe as early as 20,000 to 100,000 years ago, or more; according to Anthropologists and Geneticists.

Be that as it may, the issue is deeper than just the ‘hair’ but inclusive of a range of other sociological or psychological factors. Noted Black Psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussaint and Drs. Nathan & Julia Hare sounded the alarm over thirty years ago about the internal damage done to Black children without the proper cultural images, and the negative social scripts they tend to act out is perhaps indicative of some type of mental disorientation, impairment or disease. The emphasis on hair is a symptom of what is hidden, repressed or suppressed, and the root is not located on the scalp but it is found in the very core of a person’s being, spirit, or self that is in pain, hurting, and crying out for help; but the victim is in a self-deluding state of denial. This is why the White shock Jock Don Imus’ tongue-in-cheek comment about the Rutgers Girls Basketball team were a bunch of “nappy-headed ho’s” received such blistering condemnation and outrage is because it hit a ‘nerve’ by bringing to the surface what many Black girls are taught to hide, namely, pride in who they are; especially those who are dark-skinned, with full lips, big butts, small ankles, skinny (chicken) legs, pigeon-toed, knock-kneed, and whose skin is not creamy smooth, and whose noses are not small, and their pupils are not blue or green, and instead of having straight, long and flowing hair, the hair is short or doesn’t usually flow along the shoulders and down the back to the waist, and doesn’t blow in the wind, but is curly, coiffed, kinky, frizzy, or nappy.

Even Daytime talk show hosts Tyra Banks, Wendy Williams, and the Queen of Confessionals, Oprah Winfrey like to flaunt their professionally-styled and chemically-treated hair or wearing wigs which do not represent what they are culturally or ethnically. As a matter of fact, when was the last time any person of color really publicly defied the status quo to assimilate; but then again, that person would not be seen in any kind of privately-owned and corporate-sponsored media source (TV, magazine, movie, etc.). Even President of the United States, Barack Obama is not immune to this problem and doubtless he is considered by quite a few of those in the Black community as having a ‘good’ grade of hair. It is more than teaching little girls of color not to play with Barbie dolls, or about any or all dolls because none of them are accurately and culturally representative; even including ‘Barbie’ herself because no White woman has those physical proportions.

Author Toni Morrison’s first bestseller, “The Bluest Eye” is a very honest portrayal of the ugliness one internalizes in favor of the beauty that one sees through the eyes of someone wanting to be other than the race of which they were born. As long as the dominant culture in America and Western Europe as well is predicated upon a particular set of values and physical norms which inundate us at almost every turn, and even Black sit-coms like “The Game,” “Half and Half,” “Everybody Hates Chris,” “Desperate Housewives of Atlanta,” and a few others do not draw the same kind of interest, viewer responses and demographics of “One Tree Hill,” “Melrose Place,” “90210,” “Gossip Girl,” “Laguna Beach,” “Smallville” and the more recent “Vampire Diaries.”

In the 1960’s, along with the “Black is Beautiful” and “Black Power Movement” it seems that young people of color were finally breaking the shackles of their forbearers who were categorized as COLORED and NEGROES, and rebelled by wearing their hair (Afros) and clothing style (Dashikis, apparel made from ‘Kinte’ cloth) in such a way as to attest proudly and give witness to their pride in establishing their own norms of beauty and acceptance; but it didn’t last but a generation. Black females started to wear green or blue contact lenses in addition to wearing straight hair wigs which were longer than their normal hair length in some instances as well as getting the blonde streaks in their hair or even having their hair chemically-tinted to Auburn, Redhead, or Brunette at the local Black Beauty Salon. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a ‘Fashionista’ or appeasing the ‘Glam Squad’ because nearly everyone wants to be contemporary and in style or vogue, but not at the price and nonsense of trying to escape from the reality of your race. There are people, when they are asked as to what ethnicity they are either refuse to answer, evasive or say they are a mixed race (two or more) and will even go as far as to recount as many as five; when it is simply, what is your father and what is your mother? In truth, if one can go unnoticed as being a member of the Black race or African-American, one will do so as long as possible until discovered because to identify with this group is to be vicariously imbued with all the distorted and misrepresented negative stereotypes within the Black community when the successes, good works and triumphs are barely mentioned or known.

So, the answer then is to find who and what you are, in spite of what your parents, friends, co-workers, and what society tells you or tries to impose upon you. You have to be strong, courageous, defiant, and unwilling to let others define you. It does mean overcoming your fears and self-loathing and being open to improving yourself as well as learning from positive people with some real knowledge to impart; and it also means avoiding as much as possible those who are negative, the drama queens, provocateurs, the haters, social parasites, and those who are phony and are just playing games. It means accepting who you are naturally and loving your beautiful Black self, and not needing anyone to approve or validate who you are or to complete you because you are a whole person as you are; just like the Creator made you and as we all know, God doesn’t make a mistake.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 26, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Should School Districts lower Graduation requirements?

The Seattle School District is the latest one in an alarming national trend to consider lowering the standard “C” to a “D” grade to boost the number of students graduating from High School. As if eliminating the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) or SAT scores as it is administered in other states isn’t enough, now is the latest salvo to further ‘dumb’ down the Public Education System. Ironically, although America is one of the best places in the world to get a first class education, yet ranks somewhere around the lower percentile among Industrialized Nations when it comes to academic test scores and student performance. In many countries there is a much greater emphasis on learning Foreign Languages as well as developing more of an interest in Science and Math courses.

With global competition and the increasing advancement of technology and computers mandate learning an even more rigorous curriculum so why are some School Districts lowering the bar to raise the number of graduates just to have them unable to meet the minimum admissions standards for college? Not only that, but with the economy being where it is now with the loss of 15 million jobs, employers are seeking only the very brightest and best applicants to fill the few scare jobs that exist and someone with a mediocre and poor academic record will be at a significant if not insurmountable disadvantage. Schools should provide all the available and necessary resources to equip students with real-world skills that prepare them to either continue learning until achieving scholastic mastery in college of some specified discipline or for the few entering the work force after High School, to be able to offer their employer a diverse knowledge base that will make them an excellent employee and a valuable asset to the company operations.

In consideration of the foregoing statements, it is unconscionable that any rational-minded person would even remotely consider relaxing standards that would only further handicap our children with unsound policies that ransom their future, placing them at the mercy of a technological mandate, which, if they are unable to meet, will leave them forgotten, discarded, left behind, homeless and living in the streets, eating the scraps of food that people throw away; or even worse.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 16, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Elizabeth Edwards: Don't feel sorry for me

It’s like that old school Heinz ketchup commercial, “Anticipation is making me wait;” Well, the same thing can be said for this latest modern-day Shakespearean tragedy, about a beautiful American family and a talented, charming, and handsome young former North Carolina Senator whose personal life became a political and moral train wreck. Now, according to unsubstantiated reports by the National Enquirer, John Edwards is preparing to announce the baby that former Mistress Reille Hunter gave birth to is in fact his. Maybe this should not come as too much of a surprise because he denied the affair, too. Not only that, but he has said, “the baby is not mine as far as I know and I would be willing to take a paternity test to prove it.” Of course on one level, his defense in this latest embarrassment is understandable, even if it is disgraceful.

Of course, the victim in all of this is Elizabeth Edwards and doubtless the book she authored, called “Resilience” is her way of coping with this betrayal of trust, but also in her battle against incurable breast cancer. It does seem quite appropriate for the crucible of suffering and pain that she is going through but in a sense this entire ongoing struggle has made her strong internally; forged to a very fine degree of mental and spiritual toughness like iron or steel. There is no doubt that Elizabeth has forgiven John in “Love,” which can only come from the grace of God. Perhaps Elizabeth even punishes herself a little bit for John’s indiscretion by blaming it on her health condition which prevented her from being the kind of wife, lover, and partner that she wanted to be and which in her mind at least, John very desperately wanted and needed her to be for him.

Perhaps a lesson can be learned from the famous Mexican painter Frieda Kahlo’s marriage to Diego Rivera, who although her husband was a “Lothario,” nevertheless, in Kahlo’s words, “he was loyal.” It isn’t always about whether someone loves us or is in love with us, but rather, will that person be there when someone needs them. There is no question that in spite of all the sex, lies, and thankfully, no videotape, this imperfect and flawed man can provide the comfort, devotion, and yes, ‘Love’ to Elizabeth that is true, sincere, and constant. When Elizabeth appeared on “OPRAH” several months ago in her first publicly televised interview since John withdrew his name as a Vice-Presidential candidate as well as later revealing the affair with Ms. Hunter, she told Oprah, “No one has left the house yet.” No, and it seems that neither one of them is in a hurry to pack up their suitcases and in-spite of “baby mama” or baby girl, no one is going to be heading out the door anytime soon. John and Elizabeth have something truly special and irrespective what others think or feel about what should be done or who should leave, it seems to work for them; and this is all that matters.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 20, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Usain Bolt: Faster than a speeding. . .

Usain is just insanely fast; like a lightning bolt, if you excuse the pun. It does of course arouse suspicion of PED's when an athlete continues to shatter his own world records in a sport that continues to be tainted by the use of illegal substances. Hey, maybe someone should check his shoes because they might be constructed of materials that have been engineered to give him a competitive edge by almost eliminating surface tension or friction on the track, or reduces stress level and torque in his ankles and knees, etc. Better still, make him submit a sample of his blood to check for microscopic nanobytes; you never know, he could be part "Borg" or one of those human-looking Cylon duplicates from "BATTLESTAR GALLATICA." Anyway, I don't know about you but whether Queen Elizabeth of England confers Knighthood upon Usain or not as he jokingly mused about, but as far as 'Track and Field' goes, "He's still the King."


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 20, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

Dear Professor Gates: You may need to read Matthew 12: 37

Although this controversy is behind us for the most part, there still remains the matter of the esteemed Harvard Professor’s reputation, professionally and as a notable African-American educator, scholar, and distinguished citizen. It was he who raised the issue of “racial profiling” by the Cambridge Police department and Sgt. James Crowley. Is the charge justified or is “Skip” Gates a provocateur who saw an opportunity to play the “race” card in pursuit of his own personal agenda which has even embroiled the President of the United States, his friend and fellow Harvard Alum, Barrack Obama. A lot has been made about the different versions of what really happened on that meeting between Henry Gates and James Crowley, but the professor appeared as a guest on the Gayle King OPRAH Radio Show. Before the interview even got started, Professor Gates laid out his major points of grievance with the Cambridge Police; which are: (1) Racial profiling, and (2) arbitrary capricious acts by rogue police officers. Excerpts from his on-air comments will be weighed against his allegations to determine if there is any validity or merit to what he asserts in the following transcript conversation.

First, it might be prudent to include Sgt. Crowley’s brief account of what occurred on that day. After receiving a 911 call from a neighbor about a break in and burglary at a residence in “Harvard Square” the officers proceed to the address where a Black man was seen in “Plain View.” Sgt. Crowley asks the suspect [Gates] to step outside. The suspect [Gates] refused and asks, “Why; is it because I am a Black man in America…?”

Now, this is Professor Gates’ words: “I refused the officer’s command because I knew that as soon as I stepped outside I knew I could be arrested for breaking and entering. “I knew that without a warrant he [Crowley] or the police couldn’t arrest you inside your house. COMMENT: Why was Gates concerned about being arrested if he didn’t do anything wrong? This seems paranoid and irrational. Gates says that he was offended by Crowley’s bluntness by asking him [so tersely] to step outside, instead of asking him politely and respectfully. COMMENT: Why would “Skip” expect such deferential or special treatment since the police were there to investigate a felony criminal complaint and he was the prime ‘suspect’? He said that he felt that Sgt. Crowley should have addressed him as Professor Gates. COMMENT: Sgt. Crowley didn’t know who he was initially because he hadn’t been identified as of yet; even if the address on his report indicated who the homeowner was. It would seem that the professor was presumptuous, arrogant, and, did I mention irrational?

It seems that “Skip” tripped because Crowley didn’t ask if he was ‘ok,’ or if anybody was holding him hostage, but rather that Crowley just looked at him and told him, “To step outside.” Professor Gates told Sgt. Crowley, “No.” Gayle asked him why he did that and he reiterated his concern that he knew he could be arrested [if he stepped outside], and said that Crowley was “hostile.” Gates said that he could see it (the hostility) in Crowley’s face and hear it in his voice. COMMENT: If a police officer issues a legitimate command and you refuse, it is only reasonable that the officer would be peeved off. Then Gates goes on to say that he was on the phone in the kitchen talking to a lady from Harvard Real Estate about the problem with the lock on the door when he saw the police (Sgt. Crowley??) initially come up to the front door. Gates, recounting again, the command from Sgt. Crowley to step outside, and he says, “All of a sudden I knew that I was in danger.” COMMENT: Why did the Professor harbor such antipathy or is it pathology regarding mistreatment from the police, especially since he hadn’t done anything wrong?

Gates [upon seeing the police at the front door], says, “May I help you?” He mentions that the police told him that they are investigating a 911 Breaking and Entering call, to which he tells them, “That’s alright; “I’m Professor Gates and I live here and I am a Harvard Professor.” COMMENT: Was it necessary to volunteer this information that he was a Harvard Professor? Gayle asked him, and rightly so, if he didn’t get hostile with the police since he says they got hostile with him, Gayle said that she just couldn’t see him just calmly talking to the officers [Sgt. Crowley] since they were acting in the way Gates described. The professor said, “No,” and that he didn’t get “firm” with the police [Sgt. Crowley??] until later on. Gates said that he ‘never’ got hostile with the officers, but that he did get very, very firm. COMMENT: Does this sound like Slick Willie’s play on words? I didn’t get “hostile” but I got loud, belligerent, angry, and my body language suggested that I was pissed off and ready to take a swing at Sgt. Crowley??

Now Gates says that Sgt. Crowley asked him if he could prove that he was a Harvard Professor, but he didn’t ask Gates if he could prove that he lived at there. Gates said that he said ‘yes’ to the question about proving he worked at Harvard. Gates walks away from the front door to retrieve his wallet with his driver’s license and Harvard ID on the kitchen island and Sgt. Crowley enters the house behind him. Gates mentions that Crowley is inside the house and didn’t ask his permission. Gates says that he handed Sgt. Crowley both pieces of ID and notices a certain expression on the officer’s face, and says that he is trying to “unpack a narrative” [in his mind??]. Professor goes on to tell Gayle, “This is where ‘racial profiling’ comes in because Crowley was so sure he had a “catch” and that all of a sudden, he (Crowley) [because of his disappointment to find that Gates was who he said he was??] had to “unwrap” that story. As Sgt. Crowley starts to ask gates another (??) question, Gates interrupts him with, “Enough!” Gayle asked Gates what Sgt. Crowley was asking, but he said that Crowley started to ask about… but that he interrupted him and said, “That’s enough! “This is my house, you have my ID’s, and I want your name and your badge number.”

Professor Gates said, “This is when everything turned.” He said to Sgt. Crowley, “I am filing a complaint and I want your name and your badge number.” Gayle asked him why he was filing a complaint-why did he say that he wanted Crowley’s name and badge number. She added, “There had to be something between the two of you.” Gates said, “It all started on that front porch.” Gates said that he shouldn’t have been treated that way; and what about his security? Professor Gates goes on to say, “If he (Sgt. Crowley) is investigating a 911 call, I am the innocent person and he needed to greet me with ‘respect;’ not presume that I am a “Perp” as they say on television. “And I wanted to file a report so that their police instructions (Investigative Procedures) would be “transformed.” He continues, “Just because a Black man answers the door and you [the police] are responding to a 911 call or charge, treat him or her, in the case of an African-American woman, with respect; don’t go presuming anything else- “Protect me!” Gayle asked him, “You would say that you were not treated with respect in that moment?” Gates said, “Not at all.” Then he said, “It got worse.” He continues, “I kept saying, ‘Sir, I want your name and badge number; saying it over and over again.’” Gates said that Crowley just stared or rather glared at me; and mentioned that Sgt. Crowley turned his back and just walked out of the house. Gates, following after him, said, “Are you not answering me because I am a Black man and you are a White police officer?”

After listening to this confessional dialogue by Professor Henry Louis Gates jr., Sgt. Crowley and the Cambridge Police department just might not be the villains they have been initially portrayed to have been. Indeed, Jesus said in Matthew 12: 37, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned [“judged”]. Although President Obama has called this incident a “teachable” moment, it appears that what is revealed is not consistent with the facts as first reported. For one thing, Professor Gates is not a Psychologist, Criminal Law Professor, nor is he knowledgeable in Criminal Investigative procedures. It seems that a “reasonable” person might conclude that the professor’s expectations and unfounded fear of arrest was predicated upon presumptions that are not rational because lacking any other criteria, he was a suspect in a Burglary and Criminal Trespass investigation and the police were legally authorized to be there. His complaint about police misconduct is, under the circumstances, not based upon any “Rule of Law” and is without merit. It is unlikely that he remained calm with the police but instead became belligerent with Sgt. Crowley that his verbal tirade escalated to such an extent to nearly incite some sort of potential physical altercation or confrontation with the police on the front porch; all in full view of the public. This disturbance and unwarranted misconduct complaint threat against police officers could indeed, at least in the technical sense, lead to a “Disorderly Conduct” charge and arrest.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 8, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

What does the “Second Amendment” really mean anyway?

There probably isn’t a more contentious issue in America than that of gun ownership; and for many, it is almost a “sacred” right. Due to the ‘cowboy’ attitude from territorial days when the original thirteen colonies and European settlers were located across the rugged terrain of the American frontier, there arose a need to arm oneself, protecting property and family from marauding bands of hostile Native tribes, invading foreign armies or acts of war and from other Whites as well. It was a time when the only organized law enforcement officials might be too far away to be of any real benefit in an emergency or during impending danger; so a person had to learn to defend themselves.

When the document that has become known as the Constitution of the United States was finally ratified in 1788, superceding the former Articles of Confederation of 1781, certain provisions had to be included to ensure that people would be safe, secure, and protected in their dwellings and personal effects from that which would not deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, it is interesting to hear the NRA, members of Congress, gun advocates and others quoting part of the Second Amendment, but they do so by not considering the fullest context of the document or its real meaning.

First of all, a careful reading of ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 of the U.S. Constitution should precede the Second Amendment; which reads as follows: [THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER] To provide for (1) organizing, (2) arming, and (3) disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, {reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress}. Now, continuing with the SECOND AMENDMENT: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One of the important things that have to be considered is the definition of a “Militia,” which by definition is: a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. In modern terminology, this would be analogous to an official Militia, composed of citizen soldiers such as the Army Reserve or National Guard. So, the next time someone yells about violating their Second Amendment rights by attempting to confiscate their guns and leave them at the mercy of criminals, although a reasonably valid concern, still it has nothing to do with this Constitutional issue but rather, better police enforcement, Criminal Law legislation, the Court System, and better societal values.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 7, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

President Obama: Why won't you set the record straight?

It seems that minor controversies continue to nip at the heels of the 44th President of the United States. There have been accusations of shady character acquaintances such as millionaire slumlord Tony Rezko, ‘domestic terrorist’ William Ayers of the “Underground Weathermen,” religious firebrand Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the organization ACORN, and several Presidential Cabinet appointees who were revealed to having had tax troubles, conflicts-of-interest or other issues which disqualified them from being an officeholder. The one recurring interest which resonates with some Americans and is being kept alive by the “birthers” is Barack Obama’s citizenship; and this goes right to the heart of his legitimacy to be occupying the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is a serious issue that one should not take lightly or dismiss outright because it has to do with that cherished document and bedrock of our Democracy as a representative Republic, namely the Constitution of the United States. According to Article II, Section 1, it states: NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. . . The funny thing is that no copy of Barack Obama’s ‘original’ birth certificate has been made available nor facsimile thereof. Although under the Freedom of Information Act anyone can request to have a copy of this document, it doesn’t guarantee that the petitioner will be granted what they seek.

Hawaii State Law forbids the release of an original birth certificate to anyone without a “tangible interest” in obtaining this personal information from the State Department of Health and Director Dr. Chiyone Fukino has resisted all attempts and pleadings to produce a copy of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate; thereby averting a violation of State Law. The thing is though, it is not a matter of curiosity but rather whether there has been an abrogation of the Constitution. It does not satisfy the requirement of Law to merely post a so-called “official-looking” copy of President Obama’s Birth Certificate with critical information that is missing and saying that it is proof positive that he is a natural citizen and born on American soil.

It is surprising that no one has brought a lawsuit in behalf of the American people against the Hawaii Department of Health (Vital Records Department) and Dr. Fukino for a copy of the “original” birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama because it is in the “vested interest” of all Americans and to neglect this duty tends to undermine the Constitution, and if this is not done we might be living under the leadership of an “illegitimate” President (Imposter-in-Chief”). Also, the Legislative Branch in Congress as well as the Supreme Court should be involved in this matter, too; especially the Supreme Court because it is the Chief Justice who swears in the President by administering the Oath of Office.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
August 1, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

President Obama’s Alcohol Stimulus Plan

The kiss-and-makeup racial misunderstanding “mini-mee[ting]” between Sgt. Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates jr. seemed more like a Mexican Standoff than anything else. It doesn’t appear that any substantiate issues on race relations were discussed or resolved and neither Mr. Gates nor Sergeant Crowley offered an apology for their respective behaviors that gained national attention nearly two weeks ago; so what was the point of them coming together except as a photo opportunity to take some of the political heat off the president. It was truly damage control for the Imbiber-in-Chief who inadvertently was drawn into this local Cambridge Massachusetts police matter by a reporter’s surprise question. The President had a COORS LITE, Sgt. Crowley a BLUE MOON, and Professor Gates had SAM ADAMS. Vice-President Joe Biden was there and had something non-alcoholic for his “Non-Role” in the matter.

After the meeting, Sgt. Crowley said that although he may respect Mr. Gates but they will just have to “agree to disagree;” which means that things didn’t go over so well and both of them are still deeply entrenched in their belief of the rightness and legal standing of their actions. Perhaps the problem is that President Obama didn’t know the right kind of drink to serve his guests because if everybody had downed a 40 ounce (“OLDE ENGLISH 100”), then the conversation would have gotten a lot livelier but then again on the other hand, Gates and Crowley would have started brawlin’ afterwards for real. So, after another Presidential Stimulus Plan offered by President Obama, “beer” in this case, the lasting result of this allocated resource helped two people get their ‘buzz’ on for about an hour but nothing productive or lasting has come out of it nor has anything changed; and for a presidential Candidate who ran on a platform that was all about “CHANGE,” it may very well be that the American people may come to find out in the final analysis that they have been SHORTCHANGED instead.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 31, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com

The honeymoon with President Barack Obama is likely over

Well, it has taken a little over six months for the love affair between the American people and President Barack Obama to finally “hit the rocks.” According to the latest MSNBC opinion poll, the president’s approval rating has dropped to around
40%; so what is the cause? Is it because of the high unemployment rate, slumping housing market, the “War on Terror,” Immigration, Global Warming, the National Debt, or how the Federal Stimulus money is being spent? Perhaps it has more to do with the question posed by reporter Lynn Sweet of the Chicago-Sun Times newspaper during President Obama’s July 22, 2009, Press Conference on Healthcare reform, when unexpectedly she asked regarding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates jr., "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?" That poignantly explosive question as well as the response to it had ramifications which still reverberate since then and continue to be an issue of conversation at the office water cooler.

Is this a watershed moment when people get a dose of ‘reality’ and finally start to “smell the coffee?” President Obama did not volunteer the information and would not have weighed into the matter at all but like those great moments of historic irony; one simple, seemingly innocent, harmless or awkward moment can change everything. It seems that way too much has been made out of the President’s spontaneous and unscripted comment, but what of the reporter? Why did she ask this question and frame it in the particular way that she did; what was her purpose and motivation? In some way all of us got ‘punkd,’ because as a result of this mess, the contentious issue of “racial polarization,” not so much racial ‘profiling’ is front and center in American political and civic discourse. One can only wonder if this is the effect that Ms. Sweet wanted to achieve because like it or not it is here to stay and it isn’t going to go away that easily. Thanks a lot for bursting our bubble.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 30, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com