Brooklyn False Rape Charges: Darrell Dula

Imagine that you (or a man you love) were wrongly accused of raping someone. You're arrested, fingerprinted and thrown into jail to await formal charges. Now in the 24 hours while you're familiarizing yourself with jailhouse protocol over telephone usage, how to avoid unwanted advances, which gang it would be proper for someone of your race and ethnicity to join, when not to look into another prisoner's eyes, the importance of responding promptly to guard commands and other important orientation action items, the victim admits to the police and prosecutors that she made it all up and actually signs a document stating so. 
Well that's lucky for you yes? You won't have to stay a minute more in jail and perhaps you can see about getting everything expunged from your record. No harm no foul. These things happen and maybe you and the arresting officers can have a beer summit at the White House some day.
But wait, now imagine that the prosecutor decides to go ahead with charges anyway because either they think the supposed victim is lying or because they don't like you very much or maybe they figure they need to keep their conviction rates high and you look like an easy win. And in addition they don't tell you or your attorney that the victim lied. And they keep you in jail for a year...
Such things couldn't happen in this country could they?

But sadly of course they do.

A Brooklyn man spent nearly a year behind bars on charges he raped an Orthodox Jewish woman — even though she recanted her accusation a day after making it.
Darrell Dula, 25, was released Tuesday and will likely have the case against him dropped after being in jail since June 28, 2011.
“I feel good. Thank God,” Dula told the Daily News Tuesday night as he played with his 3-year-old son for the first time in a year in front of his Crown Heights home.“I’m glad to be home with my family,” he said. “I’m still in shock. I’m traumatized. It wasn’t a good experience. They took me away on my son’s birthday. It was heartbreaking.”
The stunning turn of events came after Brooklyn prosecutors turned over a newly discovered statement that Dula’s 22-year-old accuser made to cops in which she says he never raped her. The alleged victim made a complaint to police on March 31, 2010, accusing Dula and his pal Damien Crooks, 32, of being part of a crew who raped, beat and pimped her out since age 13.
A day later, the woman told detectives she was a hooker for five years and made up the rape allegation, records show.
“I once again asked [her] if she was raped,” a detective wrote in a police report after the interview. “She told me ‘no’ and stated to me, ‘Can’t a ho change her ways?’ ”
The woman also signed a recantation, but the case proceeded and in spring 2011, a grand jury voted to indict Dula, Crooks and two others who were allegedly part of the crew.

LINK

And of course the prosecutor who directly handled the case, Abbie Greenberger,  is now blaming her bosses for the situation. I guess that makes sense. No one wants to be the scapegoat. I understand and feel the same way. Of course when I mess up no one spends a year in jail....

Greenberger said she found inconsistencies in the 22-year-old accuser’s account, but couldn’t convince her boss there was a problem.
“When I brought the inconsistencies to Lauren Hersh (chief of the sex-trafficking unit at the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office), I was told that I didn’t do my job right and that I’m trying to dismiss the case and that I should work harder,” Greenberger told the Daily News.

See the problem here believe it or not isn't just that the victim lied, although that is bad enough and she ought to face the same criminal penalties that the man faced. No the REAL problem (and perhaps Old Guru and/or The Janitor can weigh in on this) is that the prosecutor did not disclose this information to the defense attorney and/or judge. I'm no lawyer but I kind of thought that the prosecutor had a duty to do justice, not just win a conviction. Maybe not.

Now why did the prosecutor continue with this farce? Could it have been that the District Attorney has gotten a little too cozy with certain elements within the local Orthodox Jewish community? Could the DA have believed the so-called victim was telling the truth before she recanted? Could the DA have believed this fellow was better off in jail, regardless of whether or not he actually committed this crime? Could the DA have been responding to a feminist constituency that doesn't always seem to understand that women are no more moral than men and are just as capable of mendacity?
I don't know. All I know is that I would like to have believed that if I were wrongfully accused and the police and prosecutors knew that then they would take the necessary steps to stop the machinery of justice from moving forward and throw that bad boy in reverse, to right before the time when they told me "You're under arrest". But honestly I knew that was an unreal expectation even before I read this story. All it takes is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and your life can suddenly change. I don't have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around for bail or attorneys.
How do we fix this?
My ideas are pretty simple. 

• Hold prosecutors and police personally and criminally responsible when they lie or hide evidence. They do a necessary if often unpleasant job. But they should not be above the law or get a free pass for this sort of thing.
• When someone lies about rape and it can be proven as a lie, send them to prison for the same amount of time that the assailant would have served. 
• Stop with the fiction that women never lie about things. They do. The entire point of the adversarial justice system is to hopefully let the truth come out and in such a way that someone is not convicted of a crime without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires a defense attorney that is going to get after the accuser.
• Stop hiding the victim's (or in this case liar's) name from the public. Perhaps if more people had been aware of who this woman was someone might have come forward earlier. Rape is a horrible crime and should be punished most severely. But in order to do that we must ensure we're punishing the right people. That's why we need as much transparency as possible within the system.

What are your thoughts?

Man, Woman or Other: Miss Universe Pageant

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up, shook up world
Except for Lola, L-L-Lola

-"Lola" The Kinks

What does it mean to be a man or a woman? For me it's pretty simple. Either you were born with a set of XX chromosomes or a set of XY chromosomes. There are other obvious biological differences and of course a tremendous number of environmental differences which may cause and/or be caused by the biological differences. Other environmental differences may be totally arbitrary. There are some people who don't fit into this basic binary pattern but for the overwhelming majority of humanity, man or woman is a baseline accurate though incomplete description of who they are. I don't believe this is all that fiendishly complicated, really I don't.


So when someone has gone through the time and trouble to set up a beauty pageant specifically to celebrate, enjoy and judge female beauty, I don't think it's too much to ask that the would be contestants, actually, well be FEMALE.  Looking for the male beauty pageant? Take a left at the next light, drive two miles down and on the passenger's side you'll find the gathering for the male beauty pageant right beneath the giant sign marked "Who gives a rat's $$$?". But times change and apparently at least one pageant will now let transgender "women" compete. Imagine that.

The Miss Universe organization announced Tuesday it is ending its ban on transgender contestants after coming under scrutiny recently when a Canadian competitor was told she would be disqualified because she was born male.

 Miss Universe officials insist the change is in spite of, not because of, legal threats from women's rights lawyer Gloria Allred made on behalf of contestant Jenna Talackova. 

"We made the decision two days before we even heard that (Allred) was involved," pageant owner Donald Trump told CNN Monday. "Had I known she was involved, maybe I wouldn't have made that decision because she's easy to beat."  

Allred launched a blistering attack on Trump at a news conference a week ago, saying his pageant had no right to question Talackova's sexuality. "She did not ask Mr. Trump to prove that he is a naturally born man or to see photos of his birth to view his anatomy to prove that he was male," Allred said. In a Twitter posting Monday, Trump called Allred a "third rate lawyer" who "actually hurts Jenna." "Is Gloria a man or a woman????---- few men would know the answer to that one," Trump tweeted in a personal retort to Allred.

LINK
Kate Upton and Ariel Meredith are both attractive women. But only one of them would have been eligible to compete for Miss Black America if she so chose. An avowed atheist won't be able to lead the local Bible reading club. If you can't read music or play an instrument you can't be first violin in an orchestra. Men's heavyweight boxing is for male professional athletes above a certain weight. If you're a man, don't bother asking to join the Belizean Grove.
And so on. Sometimes certain characteristics, even if they are biologically set, really are essential to a particular job, association or social exercise. If a heterosexual man asks a buddy to set him up on a blind date with someone who is good looking, young and attractive he is not going to be happy if he shows up for the date and another man is sitting across the table from him. It doesn't matter that the other (gay) man may be good looking, young and attractive; he's not a woman and is thus excluded from a heterosexual man's realm of romantic possibility. That's not discrimination, or at least not the kind that ought to be illegal, shunned or discouraged. Now would anyone take seriously a complaint of discrimination from the gay man in this situation? I would certainly hope not.

I think there are some people that are literally hellbent on making everyone else accept their definition of themselves at all costs. You can call yourself whatever you like and I don't mind. You can alter your body to add or remove things at your pleasure and I'll cheerfully defend your right to do so. It should go without saying that I don't support calling people nasty names or committing or tolerating violence against them for their appearance or the choices that they make. We're all imperfect humans trying to make our way in this world. It's a free country. Rock on with your bad self! Wave your freak flag high! Live your life exactly how you want to!

But if you ask me to pretend that a man is a woman or vice versa I won't do that. If you wish to live by a set of delusions, fine. But don't think you can make me do so.

There are already beauty contests for transgender people. There is no need for a transgender person to try to crash someone else's contest. I don't see such things as a struggle for rights so much as I see them as (per Reg in A Life of Brian) a struggle against reality.  Not everything is for everybody. Pretending that a man who surgically and chemically altered his body to possess natural female secondary sex characteristics is a "woman" makes about as much sense as pretending that Sarah Silverman is black. You can do so if you want to but just leave me out. I think such things are thoroughly ridiculous and do violence against language, logic and simple common sense. But that's just me. What are your thoughts?


Questions
1) Should beauty pageants have the right to limit entry based on biological sex?
2) Are beauty pageants even relevant in 2012?
3) Should Gloria Allred have "ambulance chaser" and "professional virago" engraved on her business cards?

Secret Service Colombia Scandal

As you may have heard the President's recent trip to Cartagena, Colombia for the Summit of the Americas didn't go over so well. Not only did various Latin American leaders snub the US by refusing to attend or leaving early, some of those who did attend made it quite clear that if they had their way this would be the last such summit without a Cuban delegation attending. They took the US to task over the embargo and pointedly refused to issue any joint statement.

However all this was overshadowed by the alleged actions of some of the Secret Service advance security team, who upon arriving in Cartagena and being tasked presumably to scope out the area, determine the safest routes for the President to travel, and ensure the general safety and schedule for the President and his delegation, decided that they had some other things to do as well.

The incident came to light when a Cartagena prostitute refused to leave the hotel room occupied by a Secret Service agent until she was paid, said U.S. Representative Peter King, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee.The 11 agents, part of an advance security team that arrived before Obama, had brought women to their hotel blocks away from where the president stayed this weekend, said King. All have since been placed on administrative leave.At a press conference standing next to Santos yesterday, Obama said the investigation into the agents' actions is ongoing, "and I expect that investigation to be thorough and I expect it to be rigorous."If allegations are confirmed "then of course I'll be angry," he said. "We're representing the people of the United States, and when we travel to another country I expect us to observe the highest standards."

Link

It is completely unsurprising to me that people in a foreign land (even if they are Secret Service agents) would decide to take in some of the local sights and interact with the natives, so to speak. Men and women always find a way to get together. They always have and they always will. Prostitution is legal in Colombia. I really doubt that this is the first Secret Service detail to have allegedly engaged in such activities and I doubt it will be the last. I am a bit surprised though that professionals (I'm talking about the Secret Service agents, not the call girls) would let a situation get to this level. 

Discretion would seem to be the better part of valor here. Was this a new service? Who called the woman? Did the agent(s) who allegedly interacted with the woman know that payment was expected? Did an agent just come back in his room and find a strange woman demanding money? Did a pimp try to shake down an agent for more money than was allegedly agreed upon? Is this really a client/hooker exchange or is it a possible girlfriend trying to embarrass someone?  If it really is a hooker why didn't someone just pay her some money to go away quietly? Of the 11 agents recalled , how many of them had nothing to do with the situation but just had the bad luck to be in the same hotel suites when the stuff went down? Are any of these guys married? Perhaps they have some 'splainin to do...

All of those questions (and more) will be asked and answered in the coming investigation I suppose. People can and do compartmentalize actions and thoughts so it's possible, even quite likely that the President's security was never in question. On the other hand if you're busy thinking about the fun times you're going to have with Maria and Esmeralda perhaps you're not asking questions about why that fifth floor window in the next building is open. To quote Vito Corleone "What's the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft from all that comedy you play with that young girl. Now stop it and pay attention to business".

Questions
1) Is this much ado about nothing?
2) Does this feed into the image of The Ugly American?
3) Do you think this sort of alleged behavior is common for people traveling overseas?

Interview-20 Questions with Debra Devi

I haven't yet done a music post on blues giants Howling Wolf and Little Milton in part because there's just too much to write about them. I'm not quite ready to write something short enough for a blog post. The Mighty Wolf definitely deserves a post all by himself. He was called "The soul of man" and was he ever. So while I was reading about Howling Wolf's recently deceased guitarist, the famed Hubert Sumlin, I was delighted to discover someone else who not only knew a great deal about Hubert Sumlin but had interviewed him for a book detailing the African-American roots of blues and larger African influences on American language and culture.

Every Saturday I  inflict upon share with you my various impressions on music, film or literature. For a change of pace I thought it would be fun to feature an interview with someone who is already a successful professional musician and published author. That's a somewhat rare combination and one which I thought was interesting.


Debra Devi is a musician and the author of the award winning book The Language of The Blues: From Alcorub to Zuzu. This book is not only a collection of interviews with famous musicians such as Little Milton Campbell, Hubert Sumlin, Robert Jr. Lockwood, Bonnie Raitt, Dr. John, Jimmie Vaughn and others but also an "anecdotal dictionary" of blues terminology. Since most blues terminology comes from African or African-American sources this book discusses more than music but please read the interview with Debra after the break.

Debra Devi

The Urban Politico: There are a lot of modern blues and rock musicians that are interested in aping culture and music but couldn’t care less in understanding where it came from. You are different. So what got you interested in documenting and transmitting the African-American blues cultural meanings?

      Debra Devi: Thanks! I’ve loved the blues from my first exposure to it at a Koko Taylor concert in Milwaukee when I was 17. Son Seals was playing guitar and I literally flew out of my chair onto the dance floor. I had never danced before. Met my first boyfriend that night, too.   

      When I was working for Blues Revue magazine as an associate editor, I realized that a lot of us blues fans bandy about words like mojo and hoodie – but do we really know what they mean? Or where they are from?  I started keeping a list of terms from blues songs like killing floor, juke, hoosegow etc. When I was up to 100, I realized maybe I should write a book. 

The Urban Politico:  When you were interviewing these musical giants for your book did you have any preconceptions going in that were altered after you completed your interviews?

Debra Devi: I was unprepared for their generosity.  Everyone I spoke to gave so much time and attention to my questions. I interviewed elder blues legends like Robert Jr. Lockwood, Henry Gray, Hubert Sumlin,  “Little” Milton Campbell Jr., Alvin “Red” Tyler, Mardi Gras Indian Chief Howard “Smiley” Ricks, and Jody Williams. I also talked at length with prominent crossover artists like Dr. John, Bonnie Raitt and Jimmie Vaughan and Robben Ford. Most of the managers of the older blues artists were not interested in arranging interviews because being in my book wasn't going to sell albums. 

Luckily, one day there was a press conference at the Lincoln Center Barnes and Noble for a big blues concert that night in NYC. Sitting along one wall, in a receiving line, were many of the artists I had been trying to interview. I got in the autograph line. As I moved down the line, I was able to explain this project directly to Hubert Sumlin, Robert Jr. Lockwood, Milton Campbell and other blues legends. I walked out with a dozen home phone numbers.  They wanted to be involved in documenting the history of the blues. 

The Urban Politico: Were you surprised by the amount of African links to American culture and especially blues music that you found?

      Debra Devi: Yes.

The Urban Politico:  What do you think is the most important thing that blues fans (and for that matter non-blues fans or just people interested in African-American culture) can learn from your book?

Debra Devi: The Africans brought here as slaves had incredibly strong aesthetic, ethical and cultural values that not only withstood the shock of their forced transplantation to the New World, but actually transformed and invigorated it.  I had no idea that so much African language has seeped into American English. Just a few examples: jam, jazz, jiffy, boo boo, rock, to dig something, banana, yam, funk, hip, hobo, chick. 

So many African religious concepts, too – to be cool, to have soul – have become part of our uniquely American culture.  Equally important are the aesthetic values and devices from African music that survived in the blues, which in turn birthed jazz and rock ‘n’ roll.  African musicians of the slavery era were actually more advanced in the use of polyphonic, contrapuntal rhythms than their European peers were. While European composers explored harmonic complexity, Africans focused on rhythmic complexity, in part because African languages were tonal, so drums could be used to “talk.”  

Although their drums, songs, and languages were outlawed in the colonies, African slaves held fast to the remarkable rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic features of their music. They continued to employ vibrato, tremolo, overtones, and hoarse-voiced and shouting African vocal techniques to convey many shades of meaning. Over time they mingled all these features and techniques with the work songs they created and with the European hymns and folk songs they heard to create the blues. 

Why is this not taught in our schools? We learn about the Dutch, English and other groups that came here. Why don’t our children learn about the tribes from which most of the slaves came, or the richness of African culture and language, and that Africa’s influence is what has made this country uniquely American? How is this not American history equally worthy of being taught alongside the Revolutionary War? 

If my book can encourage people to explore those questions, I’ll feel I have made some small contribution. 

The Urban Politico: Did your book grow in the telling? Was it much more detailed than you expected it to be?

Debra Devi: Lord, yes! I never imagined I’d wind up with 385 footnotes.

Little Milton

The Urban Politico: One of your interview subjects was Little Milton.  He had a voice which could be described as operatic. Any tricks he passed on to you about vocal projection? I am in awe at the control he had both vocally and instrumentally.

Debra Devi: I wish I had thought to ask him for some vocal coaching; he was indeed a very fine singer. I saw him in his seventies perform live and his voice was still so rich and deep. He was a top-notch bandleader, too.

The Urban Politico: Hubert Sumlin often described Howling Wolf as a stern taskmaster, musically speaking. Can you imagine working for someone like that? Or do you ever see yourself in that light?

Debra Devi: I think Hubert Sumlin recognized and respected Wolf’s mastery. I also enjoy working with masters who drive me to be better.  I’m pretty exacting but I’m lucky to work with such great players in my band that I rarely have to crack the whip. I have to work hard to keep up with them! 

The Urban Politico:  If there is one thing you would want non-musicians to know about being a musician what would it be? Same question for non-writers and writers.

Debra Devi: Find your own voice.

The Urban Politico: How does the songwriting process work for you? Do you sit down and determine to write a song and then write one or do you need a stroke of inspiration?

Debra Devi: I usually write a song because I have a strong feeling I can’t express in words. I play my guitar until I hit upon something that expresses that feeling. The lyrics come later. I wrote “Get Free” after I came home from (Zen Guitar author) Phil Sudo’s memorial service, for example. 

I do sometimes also sit down determined to write a song.  If artists only wait for inspiration to strike, they’ll be waiting a long time. 

The Urban Politico: Where do you see modern blues and/or blues-rock headed at a time where pop, electronica, rap and country seem to be commercially dominant?

Debra Devi: I have been encouraged by the popularity of artists like Cee Lo Green, Adele, Amy Winehouse, Joe Bonamassa and Jack White, who have strong blues vibes. I noticed that at the Grammys this year there was more real singing and more real musicians on the stage. I think we’re seeing a backlash against overly processed music. Listeners are flocking to soul again!  At the same time, like Bonnie Raitt said when I interviewed her: “Why don’t we hear B.B. King on the radio?” Good question.  

The Urban Politico: How long have you been playing guitar? Was that your first instrument?

Debra Devi: I started off playing acoustic guitar, which I never found that satisfying. Once I got ahold of an electric guitar I was hooked. To me, it’s like singing through my fingers. I’ve been playing long enough to hope to get to play a lot longer. 

The Urban Politico: Who are some of your influences musically?

Debra Devi:  The Doppler effect, love, breathing, feedback, sex, car horns, cats yowling, pain, rain, thunder, wind, heartbreak, Om.  Freddie King, Son Seals, Jimmy Page, Dave Navarro, Chrissie Hynde, The Sex Pistols, Bonnie Raitt, Prince, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Aretha Franklin, Chris Spedding, Brian Robertson. 

The Urban Politico: Unfortunately even today there are a fair amount of people who get intimidated by the guitar and think you have to be a certain gender or race to play it. It’s just an instrument, like any other. Any advice for fledgling guitarists? Especially women guitarists?

Debra Devi: Don’t be afraid to make unattractive faces! I look like a puffer fish when I’m soloing. My advice is to go to blues jams, get in a band– start playing with other people, start playing original songs, start performing. Dare to suck! That’s how you get good. You should always play with people better than you.   

Playing guitar is not that tough. It doesn’t require massive physical strength or tons of testosterone. The main issue for women is socialization to look pretty above all else, and to avoid expressing certain strong emotions. As my mother said when I asked her if I could play electric guitar when I was fifteen, “It’s just not ladylike!” 

Playing electric guitar is a great way for women to plug into their personal power and to get comfortable being loud.  

The Urban Politico: Do you read music? Are you deep into musical theory? Do you think these things are critical for musicians starting out?

Debra Devi: I don’t read music and never had the patience to learn theory.  I wanted to play so bad that I just picked up the guitar and got started.  I play mostly by ear, which can slow me down some. But I also trust my ear more than my brain, so sometimes I think maybe it’s OK to play by ear.  

I do love jazz and would love to be able to hang better with my jazz-playing friends, so at some point I’m going to dig in and learn a few things.  I think it can be very helpful to learn to read music and to study theory, so long as you don’t let your brain override your ear.

Sumlin and The Wolf

The Urban Politico: Hubert Sumlin famously preferred to play without a pick. Some other guitarists like Marc Knopfler, Albert Collins and John Lee Hooker also usually eschewed picks. What’s your preference and why?

Debra Devi: I dig picks. I use a Jim Dunlop 1MM. I sneak my fingers in there sometimes for a little hybrid, but there’s something fierce about a pick attack that works for me.

The Urban Politico: I see that you endorse Fender guitars so I’m guessing you like the single-coil sound? If so, why is that? 

Debra Devi: I do like the single-coil sound, but I also routed out the back pickup of my Strat and put a humbucker in there. And I added jumbo frets. I like different sounds for different moments. 

The Urban Politico: Do you prefer standard tuning for much of your music or do you ever play in alternate tunings?

Debra Devi:  On the Get Free album, I used Drop D on “Demon in the Sack” and “When It Comes Down,” and DADGAD on “Love That Lasts.” I love alternate tunings. I find them very inspiring for songwriting. Soloing in them is pretty fun, too! 

The Urban Politico: What is more important to you: your writing or your music? Do you see yourself continuing to pursue both paths simultaneously? Does one feed into the other?

Debra Devi: Right now I’m more focused on music, but I’m sure a book idea will torture me into writing it at some point. Writing is very isolating, but music gets me out of the house and hanging with other people. The two balance each other out nicely in my life.

The Urban Politico: On your album “Get Free” is “Howl at the Moon” an Ellen McIlwaine cover? She's been mentioned around these parts before as someone people should know about. 

Debra Devi: Actually, I wrote the “Howl at the Moon” on my Get Free album. I’m not familiar with Ellen McIlwaine, but I’ll check her out!

The Urban Politico: The best blues performances have often been live. Why is that?

Debra Devi: As I say in the book, “The defining experience of Vodou--possession--is the source for the idea in the blues (and later, in rock ’n’ roll) that the musician’s highest attainment is to connect with the soul beyond the body and the mind, and be so possessed by this connection that it animates and drives the artist’s performance.” It’s easier to get there live!

The Urban Politico: Thanks so much for your time, Debra!

Debra Devi: Thank you, great questions!

Learn more about Debra's music and writing at http://www.devi-rock.com/
Debra is a former associate editor of Blues Revue and has also written for Rolling Stone, Guitar World and The Village Voice, among other publications. 
When It Comes Down (Live)
Guitar Solo (live)

Racism: Beauty and The Beast

It is occasionally comforting to imagine that the people of evil spirit all look evil or ugly. That way you can tell who they are ahead of time and avoid them. It is also comforting to imagine that the election of a black President meant that America was finally starting to move past its ugly history of white supremacy and racial hatred towards a "post-racial" era. However, both of those ideas are complete fairy tales. Racial hatreds persist. And it's not just the stereotypical obvious skinheads or toothless inbred Southerners driving pickup trucks who spew racial hatred of the other, especially black people. Nope this stuff is nationwide. It's found in high-class and low-class people. People of great beauty and people of astounding ugliness can agree on how much they hate blacks. People who are living paycheck to paycheck and people who can light Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills can find camaraderie in their shared disdain for citizens of African descent.

I am talking of course of two recent incidents. One incident involved mathematician and conservative columnist John Derybshire. The UK born Derbyshire (who is a walking example of why I think the US should have a more restrictive immigration policy) has a long history of writing hateful pieces about Black people. But in a recent piece for Takimag, he outdid himself in a scornful rebuttal to the idea that Black parents have to caution their children how to behave around whites, particularly white police officers. You can go read it there if you like. Basically his "argument" is that most black people are stupid and violent. He also thinks blacks are lazy and primarily have jobs via affirmative action. He sums up by saying he warns his children to avoid black areas or events with large numbers of black people. This is a typical excerpt.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.

There was actually some conservative push back. A conservative economist was actually one of the first people to call for The National Review to fire Derbyshire for his Takimag article. The National Review did "fire" Derbyshire. Derbyshire himself did not seem too bothered by this. He has self-identified as a racist since at least 2003. No one who has ever read a representative sampling of his work can honestly say they weren't aware that Derbyshire has a special dislike for Black people and NAMS (Non Asian Minorities-Derbyshire is married to a woman of East Asian descent and evidently makes exceptions for that group).

The second incident of note was that a Chicago area bartender named Jessica Harr, decided to share with the Facebook world how much she hated Black people. She called for expulsion of blacks, used racial slurs, talked about how ugly and dumb black people were and said she'd never hire any blacks. Of course when the s*** hit the fan this MENSA member made her page private but by then it was too late and her employer decided that it was probably best if Harr found a new place to earn money.

UPDATE: Proof owner Mike Bloem, who waited almost 24 hours to respond to the situation, had this to say about the incident: "Proof would like to confirm its belief in equality, fairness and tolerance to all our friends and partners. Sadly, on occasion, we are all exposed to ignorance and racism. We believe that by continuing to be true to our ideals and leading through our actions that each of us can be an agent for positive change." 

Yeah, whatever. The truth of the matter is that women who look like Harr usually don't have a problem getting hired in the nightclub/food service/hospitality industry. I am certain that in a short period of time she will have a new gig. And perhaps she will only share her racist rants in person instead of on Facebook. Problem solved, right?

Well, not really. The issue is that Derbyshire and Harr both appear to have lots of supporters, judging by the comment boards of some conservative websites. And as I stated Derbyshire's attitudes have been crystal clear for years. He didn't all of a sudden decide that he hated Black people. So I don't really understand why now The National Review decided that it could no longer publish his work. The other interesting thing to me is that Derbyshire's relative openness about his attitudes is almost of benefit to me. I know exactly where he stands. I know that he doesn't like me and won't give me a fair shot. But Harr is the sort of person who smiles in your face but goes home to rant about how she wants you expelled from the country. Unless I'm looking for it, I may miss it. I have worked with and for people like Harr in the past. There's always some seemingly non-racial reason they have for why they're moving forward and you're not. And it's always delivered with a smile. Such people are dangerous.

QUESTIONS
1) Do you think the US is more racist now than before the 2008 election or are people just dropping their masks?
2) Is it fair to fire someone for what they wrote on their Facebook page? How about private email?
3) Had you heard of Derbyshire before now? Is there anything he said that was true? Do you think his attitudes are common among conservatives?
4) Why did The National Review decide to sever ties with Derbyshire now?
5) Ever worked with open racists? 

Music Reviews-Curtis Mayfield

Curtis Mayfield

Even among talented creative folks there are people who specialize and know their limitations. There are great singers who couldn't write a song to save their life. There are incredible musicians who can't sing. There are excellent songwriters who are far too shy and retiring to ever perform their own works. There are skilled performers who have zero business sense and defer all financial decisions to their managers, agents, attorneys and promoters. There are talented bandleaders who really shouldn't be trusted to engineer or produce their own recordings. And so on.

But sometimes, along comes a man who is capable of doing just about whatever is necessary to create his music and bring it to the public. Curtis Mayfield was such a man. He was at various times and oft simultaneously, a singer, songwriter, producer, arranger, bandleader, guitarist, A&R man, record company executive/owner, promoter, multi-media tycoon and social activist. So he was a giant among giants.

Curtis Mayfield had a masterful career both with The Impressions where he had become the primary songwriter and lead vocalist and later as a solo artist. If someone could be said to have his pulse on the feelings of Black America and transmit that musically it would have been Curtis Mayfield as much as anyone, and that includes heavyweights like James Brown, Donnie Hathaway and others. Songs like "Move on Up" , "Keep on Pushing" and "We're a winner" did become mainstays of the Civil Rights/Black Power movements.

As mentioned Mayfield was a very inventive guitarist. His peculiar chord structures and rhythms were picked up on by among others, Jimi Hendrix (just listen to Little Wing or Electric Ladyland) and Jeff Beck and provided an interesting different approach to the guitar than was common in the late sixties and early seventies. As a solo artist Mayfield often sang in a falsetto register, which was miles apart from his normal speaking voice. Again, Hendrix put this to great use, especially in Electric Ladyland.

There is occasionally a controversy about whether someone who describes brutal conditions of being black or poor in America and/or negative responses to those conditions is indeed endorsing such responses. This dinged Mayfield a bit with his songs "Superfly" and "Pusherman". But people who knew his work knew that the positive but realistic Mayfield was just telling it like he saw it. So in that way he was a forerunner of people like The Last Poets or the Watts Prophets or other rappers that would later come on the scene. He was also a collaborator, patron and producer of Donny Hathaway.

If you have the opportunity I would pick up just about any of Mayfield's music-starting with his gospelly/doo-wop with The Impressions thru his sixties soul with that group and the late sixties/early seventies movement into funk and funk rock as a solo artist. I'm a little iffy about some of his late seventies work as it's in the same universe as disco but even "bad" Mayfield work is better than "good" disco in my book. So if you're not hip to his work, please check him out. Sadly he's no longer with us, having passed away after a freak accident left him a quadriplegic, but he left more than enough music to show that he was indeed a master of 20th century music. You don't get inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice by just showing up. He worked. The below songs are just a very small sampling of Mayfield's solo and group work. His music takes me back to a more positive time.

People Get Ready   Miss Black America  Move on Up  When Seasons Change

Billy Jack  Get Down  Give Me Your Love(Live)   If there's Hell Below  Sad Sad Girl

Superfly Doo Doo Wop is Strong in here Pusherman We're A Winner

Stone Junkie  Fool for You  Big Mac Makings of You We People who are darker than blue

Meet the New Boss: Obama and Domestic Spying

I'm your new boss. I'm SO happy to see you!!!

One of the most intriguing things about human nature is how we respond to surface changes while the substantive policy remains the same. In short, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

In New York City for example former Mayor Rudy Giuliani made no pretense of having much use for the black community or so-called black leaders. Under his leadership the NYPD was unleashed to harass and search black and Hispanic citizens, primarily men or boys, who could literally just be walking down the street minding their own business. Occasionally this aggressive attitude would lead to brutal or even deadly uses of force on citizens. People were outraged. They marched, protested and called the snarling churlish lisping Giuliani all sorts of nasty names.


Enter Mayor Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a "feel your pain" kind of guy. He's (usually) articulate, soft spoken, reasonable and can insult you in such a nice way that you'll thank him for doing so. He had no problem meeting with black leaders and making the requisite noises of regret any time there was a questionable NYPD incident. But the underlying policy of stop and frisk, agitate and intimidate wasn't changed. If anything, it expanded. But because Bloomberg's surface persona was much more pleasant than that of the belligerent Giuliani, much of the public controversy over police stops initially subsided. Now, however, thanks to Commissioner Kelly's pugnacity and the aggressiveness of the NYPD in crossing jurisdictional and legal lines, people may finally be starting to resist and fight back.

There's a lesson there. You may recall the Total Information Awareness Program that was aborted under then President Bush. Democrats and civil libertarians all of stripes raged against this in editorials. They thundered against it in on the airwaves. They called it creeping fascism. So the program was "dropped". Soon afterwards Hope and Change arrived.

And then people went back to sleep, content that they had stopped this wicked idea dead in its tracks. But much like the Terminator or the car Christine, ideas like this don't die. They just slowly and patiently rebuild themselves until they are reborn. Now they might have a modified name or use slightly different people as fronts. But that's all window dressing. The bottom line is government is " like fire, a handy servant but a dangerous master". The government will now be storing information on you for five years. The previous limit was 180 days.

The U.S. intelligence community can now store information on innocent Americans for up to five years under new Obama administration rules, expanding previous authority to hold details on individuals with no ties to terrorism.
The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was previously supposed to immediately destroy intelligence information about Americans when there were no clear ties to terrorism, but now new rules that basically justify spying on innocent Americans are being justified by terrorism fear-mongers.

But wait there's more!!! Behind door number two we have this prize for you!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: A new exposé in Wired Magazine has revealed new details about how the National Security Agency is quietly building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah, as part of a secret NSA surveillance program codenamed "Stellar Wind." According to investigative reporter James Bamford, the NSA has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas. The Utah spy center will contain near-bottomless databases to store all forms of communication collected by the agency. This includes the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases and other digital "pocket litter."

AMY GOODMAN: In addition, the NSA has also created a supercomputer of almost unimaginable speed to look for patterns and unscramble codes. James Bamford writes the secret surveillance program "is, in some measure, the realization of the 'total information awareness' program created during the first term of the Bush administration," but later killed by Congress in 2003 due to privacy concerns and public outcry.

Do you get this? EVERYTHING that you communicate electronically, everything that shows who you are, what you read, where you go each day, what sorts of purchases you make, etc is being gathered up in databases where it will be perused and sifted through by government agents.
Now how is this possible if we have a Democratic President, one that taught constitutional law, someone who theoretically has an understanding of the Bill of Rights, of privacy, of individual rights?

It's possible because the neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any real commitment to or understanding of the Bill of Rights. Sure both sides will mouth pious platitudes to certain constitutional guarantees when they are important for some other purpose or to a favored interest group (Republicans and the gun lobby or Democrats and the abortion lobby) but ultimately neither side could give a mosquito's tweeter about the Bill of Rights as a general limitation on the executive branch's ability to investigate, monitor, arrest or compel behavior by the individual. The current President may not have southern swagger or Texas twang or other characteristics or behavior patterns which some progressives didn't like. But when it comes to civil liberties, make no mistake, President Obama is just as dangerous as any right-wing zealot and perhaps more so. Too many people are willing to give him a pass on things they never would have tolerated from President Bush. For example, that recent Supreme Court decision that allowed strip searches of all people arrested, even those arrested for minor non-violent offenses, was supported by the Obama Administration. This cartoon puts it perfectly.

If the below bill were to be proposed today as is with no other changes I don't think it would get passed. I think that Republicans would openly oppose it as a law which protected terrorists. Democrats might say (in front of the cameras) it was a good idea in theory but in practice (once behind closed doors) would carve out so many exceptions while CLAIMING they supported the law that even if passed it would be meaningless.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What's your take?
Are you bothered by the government gathering information on you?
If Republicans were doing this would we have heard more outcry?

Why aren't civil liberties important to more people?