Republican budget hyprocisy

Jackasses

Sade - Soldier of Love

She is my favorite singer behind Bjork. I cannot wait for her new album.

Roll Up Vol. 13

Some more fresh bumps. These beats are ridiculous. Fuck your fixed gear. C Hart gets a pass.

1 - Juelz Santana - Mixin up the Medicine feat. Yelawolf
2 - Clipse - Door Man
3 - Gucci Mane - Stupid Wild feat. Lil Wayne & Cam'Ron
4 - Young Jeezy - Grindin feat. Lil Boosie
5 - Ransom - Pacman feat. Yo Gotti
6 - USDA - Checkin Bank
7 - Big Bank Black - Edgewood feat Alley Boy, Scales & Veli Sosa
8 - Triple Cs - Yams (Remix) feat. Yo Gotti
9 - Lil Haze - Swagg on feat. Dorrough & Rich Boy
10 - Clipse - Showing out feat. Yo Gotti
11 - Young Jeezy - Scared Money feat. Lil Wayne
12 - Brisco - So Roxy
13 - Yelawolf - Good to go feat. Bun B
14 - Lil Scrappy - Too Much
15 - Gucci Mane - Yelp
16 - Yo Gotti - I'll Ride, I'll Die feat. Yung LA, J Futuristic & All Star
17 - B.G. - Chopper City is an Army

Roll Up Vol. 12

My dumb ass thought I uploaded this last month. I've been walking around listening to it for a while now. smh. Oh well. Tweaked it a bit. Here's some new bumps. Fuck Kanye. And Fuck Joe Lieberman.

1 - Styles P - Gangsta feat. Dead Prez
2 - 50 Cent - Psycho feat. Eminem
3 - Rihanna - Hard feat. Young Jeezy
4 - Lil Wayne - Watch My Shoes
5 - Pill - We Outside feat. Alley Boy
6 - Triple Cs - Trick n Off feat. Rick Ross and Gucci Mane
7 - Project Pat - Get Yo Ass Robbed feat. Juicy J and V-Slash
8 - Starlito - Tie the Bag Tight feat. Young Buck and Yo Gotti
9 - Freddie Gz - Gangsta feat. OJ da Juiceman
10 - Red Cafe - I'm Ill feat. Fabolous
11 - Juicy J - Hood Sprung
12 - Styles P - Where my Money feat. Peedi Crakk
13 - Lil Wayne - Ice Cream Paint Job
14 - Freddie Gibbs - Fuck Rap II
15 - Outlawz - Fuck You feat. Young Buck
16 - Lil Wayne - Drop The World feat. Eminem

RIP Republican Party

I've been saying this for months, but I want to write this down for I told you so's sake.

I am a hater. I hate on everything. I sure as hell am not impressed by many people. Especially politicians.

During the primaries, I was all about Kucinich. Still am. But, being a pragmatic liberal, one has to live in reality. So I thought Edwards was the man. His populist rhetoric was too good to ignore. Even though it was mostly hot air, his anti-business vitriol now seems prescient after the Wall Street disaster. The primaries came and he bowed out. Oh well.

Then it was Obama and Clinton. I never heard of this Obama guy, so I defaulted to Clinton. In watching those two square off, something became very apparent; Obama and/or his staff were the most brilliant political operatives this country has seen in a long time. How he kept race out of the discussion, except on his terms, after the Reverend Wright bomb is nothing short of miraculous and will be looked at as the most politically cunning move since the southern strategy.

Ok, he wins the presidency. First black president, and only 4 decades removed from the Civil Rights Movement. Astounding. Incredible. We get it.

His brilliance comes, not from winning the presidency, but from how he has governed. Obama is a centrist. He is to the right of every Democratic candidate from '08. He is pro-business ("I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs willing to take a risk on a good idea. I believe that the role of government is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle markets, but to provide the ground rules and level playing field that helps to make them more vibrant - and that will allow us to better tap the creative and innovative potential of our people. For we know that it is the dynamism of our people that has been the source of America's progress and prosperity."), pro charter school and does not shy from war. Calling him a socialist is almost laughable. But you know what? I think he likes it.

Obama knows the Limbaughs, Becks and Fox News are just in it for the money and will say anything to get fatter. So you know what he does? He says these guys are the Republican party. He wants them to go all McCarthy on us and speak as hyperbolically as possible because the secure Republican base will eat it up. He is acting concomitantly with the right wing smoke stacks to redefine the Republican party as whackos.

The best part of it? The Republican party is eating it up! They embrace the teabaggers and birthers (maybe not ostensibly, but certainly by refusing to deny. Remember "If muslims are against 9/11, where are all of the Muslim leaders decrying it?") in an astoundingly short-sighted political move to try to derail health care reform.

Now, I like conservatives. Intelligent, principled conservatism is a defensible platform. I think a lot can be learned and implemented from this school of thought. I also think conservatives should have a say in the government in order to avoid a single-party dictatorship.

Ok, now my main point. What Obama is doing is successfully branding the Republican party as the party of Limbaugh while simultaneously taking reasonable conservative measures as his own. Since the party of Limbaugh is tantamount to the party of anti-Obama, what is the Republican party going to do when Obama's platform is partly made up of conservative principles? And when he makes moves that anger the political left, where are they going to go? Something tells me they are not all of a sudden going to demand to see Obama's birth certificate. At some point Republican leadership will realize their folly and reign in the crazy. But where will they be? Obama will have his name on health care reform and ending the hugely unpopular wars. And when they suggest reforms... whoops! Obama has already co-opted them as his own!

This is why I have come around on this Obama guy to realize he is working at a meta-political level. He is giving his opposition enough rope to hang themselves when he could easily point out how his policies and actions are anything but socialism. His empty vessel nature also enables him to slowly nudge the hard-left into realizing not all conservative ideas are hell's spawn.

The great unifier? We shall see. But as for now, we'll have to settle for Republican slayer.

The Cleveland Browns select with the number 1 draft pick

Jody Breeze - Oh My God

Can't wait for this dude's album.

Ads on buildings?

Over the summer a building downtown altered its windows to display the message "LIVE UNITED" in lights at night. We still don't know what that meant.

Either way, it got me to thinking. Why is it that downtown landmarks do not often have advertisements on them? Talk about an effective way to get your message out there. Is it like when baseball floated the idea that it would put ads on the bases and everyone flipped out? I wonder if certain spaces are just off-limits to advertisers.

Perhaps we haven't seen ads on landmarks because technology did not exist to make ads as intriguing as the landmarks themselves. Then I saw this and figured we are not too far:

How long until we see ads tailored to individuals based on data from their GPS location and online profiles? Talking buildings coming to a city near you in 2012.

Unbelievable Corporatism

Everyone knows journalism is dead. Profit motive for news organizations can only lead to stories that will make money. But what I saw on 60 Minutes last night shows news organizations to be nothing more than shills for their corporate directors.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood had a record profit year in 2008. Hollywood’s revenue was up 2% for the year to a record $9.76 billion. (I am not paying a subscription to the Hollywood Reporter, so I got these numbers from this guy.) In 2006, the industry’s all-media revenue was $42.6. billion. So it must be good times right? Business is certainly booming. $42.6 billion! Ummm, not so, says 60 Minutes in their fluff piece for the movie industry.




I guess the piracy industry is going to wipe out Hollywood. Because of these evil pirates, the poor behind-the-scenes people are starving and the industry is taking a huge hit. Oh wait, they had record revenues last year? Kiss my ass.

Just in case I ever get that dream PR job, I am going to make up a few arguments for the industry:

"We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the internet and its necessary companion called BitTorrent. And it is like a great tidal wave just off the shore. This internet and BitTorrent threaten profoundly the life-sustaining protection, I guess you would call it, on which copy right owners depend, on which film people depend, on which television people depend and it is called copyright."

I'm pretty good, right?

"Nothing of value is free. It is very easy to convince people that it is in their best interest to give away somebody else's property for nothing, but even the most guileless among us know that this is a cave of illusion where commonsense is lured and then quietly strangled."

I should work for the industry. How about this whopper?

"I say to you that the internet is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone."

Not sure one would see that on the SATs, but how can you argue against that?

Now replace “internet” with “VCR.” Replace “BitTorrent” with “blank video cassette.” Sound familiar to anyone? Reach back to 1982 and this is what THE representative for the movie industry was saying about the nascent technology soon to completely destroy the movie industry – the VCR. A new technology came out and the movie industry freaked because they were afraid they would lose some of their profits. Well according to them, they should just be scraping by at this point.

$42.6 billion comes to mind.

I think we learned a valuable lesson here. Do not trust this industry when they forecast what a new technology will do to their business. Their predictions in 1982 were not just a little off base; they were astronomically wrong. That’s like, Congressional Budget Office wrong (cheap shot). The scary new technology grew into a DVD and Blue Ray industry that made them $22.4 billion last year.

Now think about the 60 Minutes piece. This was an infomercial against net neutrality. Sure it was a reporting piece – it reported PR from the movie industry.

Start with the emotionally captivated interviewer – “He brought a child in there with him to do this?!?” Please. Next thing we know it, the Freakonomics guys will be talking about a correlation between watching dad film movies and violent crime.

Gambling, human trafficking, child prostitution, drug dealing… counterfeiting movies!!

Then the spokesperson tells us, “Piracy is costing the movie industry $6 billion a year at the box office.” Riiiiiiiiiight. If that’s the case, their revenue numbers would have been higher before all of this crazy internet piracy started. Wait… last year they had a record year of $9.76 billion at the box office? Something tells me the accountants from the afraid of VCR days are still working there.

Spokesman goes on to say, “They want to pay less, or close to nothing.” This is the point that illuminates the dishonesty from the MPAA. The people buying pirated movies are not the same as the people going to movies. The spokesman even acknowledges this when saying, “The people buying these are not that quality conscious, that’s not the experience they are looking for.” But when the MPAA complains about lost revenues, it says each pirated movie is a lost sale. See how ridiculous that is? The person buying the pirated copy has no interest in going to the movie in the first place, and this is something their spokesman acknowledges! And how about this – “Virtually every movie is pirated on the internet”? Well if they are recording record profits with every movie on the internet, something tells me piracy is not as big of a problem as they are claiming.

And now why I think this was an infomercial against network neutrality. Network neutrality is quietly emerging as the next political fight. Large media companies don’t want to be regulated because they want to charge more for certain content. Something like CBS programming, maybe?

But why have a piece on network neutrality, where you would be somewhat required to offer counter opinions? Instead, run a piece scaring people about how the internet is going to take your favorite movies away from you. And what about this new internet technology? The last part of the segment tells us all we need to know about CBS’s opinion – “And things could be even worse unless something is done in cyberspace to stop people from downloading.” What? The reporter stated that as a fact. I hate to use the Fox News style, but some people would argue things are not getting worse, considering they MADE RECORD PROFITS LAST YEAR. I wonder why a company owning several television stations and Showtime would run a piece like this?

We know the movie industry will go very far to protect themselves. We have learned that they will make up numbers and say whatever they want in order to protect their business model. We also know they are too stubborn and dumb to realize how to adapt to new business models, considering they tried to block something that ended up making them $22.4 billion last year.

When the net neutrality discussion heats up, remember this about the industry and think about where most of the reported information is coming from.

QB Madness

QB Disaster

A quarterback drops back to pass 30 times in a row and every time throws the ball into the ground. QB rating: 39.583333333333336.

Derek Anderson's QB rating: 36.201298701298704.

Most uncomfortable interview ever

Gene Simmons is either Andy Kauffman-esque or my hero.

The Assassination of the American Black Female Perspective

This paper deals with the group I feel is most forgotten in society - the black woman. I didn't feel like taking out the parenthetical citations. I wrote it in a day, so forgive any lack of proofreading.



Since the beginning of American history “Silence and invisibility are the hallmarks of black women in the imagery of American life” (Painter 211). Black women were subject to many atrocities throughout their history; arguably more than any other group of people on earth. They were kept as property, raped and cast aside for hundreds of years in this country. In the author’s opinion, the black female voice is the last one taken into account in America. In an effort to shed light on this, this paper will investigate the systematic discrediting and casting aside of the black female perspective in this country’s history. The paper will begin by investigating black female history from their introduction to America, focusing on the stereotypes created by racist institutions. It then looks at sexual assault in this country and investigates the disparate treatment between black and white victims. Next it looks at how society discredits the black female perspective by looking at history and contemporary media practices. It then ends with two studies of high profile cases involving the harassment and rape of black women, tying in the previous arguments to show the common occurrence of disregarding the black female perspective, ultimately leading to a lack of credibility.

The author would like to note race and gender both play a critical role in this society, and it is often hard to distinguish between the two. Kimberle Crenshaw gives a good synopsis:

Black women can experience discrimination in ways that are both similar to and different from those experienced by white women and black men. Black women sometimes experience discrimination in ways similar to white women’s experiences; sometimes they share very similar experiences with black men. Yet often the experience double-discrimination – the combined effects of practices which discriminate on the basis of race, and on the basis of sex. And sometimes, they experience discrimination as black women – not the sum of race and sex discrimination, but as Black women (Crenshaw Demarginalizing… 149).

Crenshaw recognizes both race and gender play roles with the idea of intersectionality.

African-American women by virtue of our race and gender are situated within at least two systems of subordination: racism and sexism. This dual vulnerability does not simply mean that our burdens are doubled but instead, that the dynamics of racism and sexism intersect in our lives to create experiences that are sometimes unique to us. In other words, our experiences of racism are shaped by our gender, and our experiences of sexism are often shaped by our race (Crenshaw Race, Gender… 1467).

This paper will focus on the racial aspect of the black female perspective, knowing the gender aspect still plays a critical role in any analysis.

I. Historical Stereotypes

The discounting and manipulation of the black female perspective in society has been happening since the induction of black women into society. From the early 1630s to the present, black American women of all shades have been portrayed as hypersexual "bad-black-girls”. (Jewell 46) The Jezebel character, in which a woman was governed entirely by her libido, is one of the most prevalent images of black women in antebellum America. This Jezebel was the opposite of the mid-nineteenth-century ideal of the white Victorian lady. She did not lead men and children to God; piety was foreign to her. She saw no advantage in prudery, indeed domesticity paled in importance before matters of the flesh (Phillips 412). In reality, this is based on a bit of truth and a lot of lies and false interpretation. The truth aspect is small; free black women sometimes became the willing concubines of wealthy white southerners in a system called placage, in which the white suitor agreed to financially support the black woman and her children in exchange for her long-term sexual services. The white men met the black women at occasions called "Quadroon Balls” (Id). This is where the truth stops and the lies and false interpretations begin. The misinterpretations began before slavery even existed in America. When European travelers went to Africa they found people dressed not like them, but with far less clothing due to the climate (White 29). Cultural differences led the Europeans to think this type of dress was lascivious. Unable to understand the African culture, white Europeans, locked into the racial ethnocentrism of the 17th century, attributed African polygamy and tribal dances to an uncontrollable sexual lust (Id). The fascination with African sexuality quickly grew with the Europeans. William Bosman described the black women on the coast of Guinea as "fiery" and "warm" and "so much hotter than the men." William Smith described African women as "hot constitution'd Ladies" who "are continually contriving stratagems how to gain a lover" (Id). From these first trips and accounts, the West began its continued practice of looking at blacks as inferior. Not only looking at blacks as inferior, the West used these racist opinions as justifications for enslavement. This was easy to do by claiming blacks were subhuman. The West claimed blacks were intellectually inferior, culturally stunted, morally underdeveloped, and animal-like sexually (Id). This was used as justification for saying whites were the only civilized and rational people, whereas the barbaric blacks deserved subjugation.

The institution of slavery itself further contributed to the idea of a Jezebel character being sexually promiscuous. During times of sale, purchasers requested the slaves to remove their clothing for inspection. In theory, this was done to insure they were healthy, able to reproduce, and, equally important, to look for whipping scars – the presence of which implied that the slave was rebellious (Pilgrim). In reality, this turned into a sexually exploitive function. Nudity, especially among women, implied lack of civility, morality, and sexual restraint even when forced. Slaves often wore few clothes or incredibly ragged ones, whereas white women had clothing covering their bodies. The social impact of this was large, as this reinforced the belief of white civility, modesty, and sexual purity, whereas black women were uncivilized, immodest, and sexually aberrant (Id).

The institution of slavery also called for frequent pregnancies because black women were the suppliers of future slaves. Slaves were encouraged to reproduce by many different means. Many slave owners gave incentives for women to reproduce. Some offered a new pig for each child born, a new dress for each surviving infant, or no work on Saturdays to black women who produced six children (Rawick 228). Owners also encouraged young black girls to have sex as "anticipatory socialization" for their later status as "breeders" (Pilgrim). When they did reproduce, owners viewed their fecundity as proof of their insatiable sexual appetites (Id). One contemporary historian wrote:

Major periodicals carried articles detailing optimal conditions under which bonded women were known to reproduce, and the merits of a particular "breeder" were often the topic of parlor or dinner table conversations. The fact that something so personal and private became a matter of public discussion prompted one ex-slave to declare that "women wasn't nothing but cattle." Once reproduction became a topic of public conversation, so did the slave woman's sexual activities. (White 31)
This shows society did not even look at black women as humans. The black woman was just there to supply future labor. Talk about how to increase efficiency in the reproductive process contributed even more to viewing black women as hypersexual.

This look at history shows the discounting of African women from the beginning of their time in this country. Society treated these women as barbaric, hypersexual, baby machines and thought nothing more of them. One must think of the impact this has on the perception of present day black women. These predominant thoughts of black women as sexually promiscuous remain in society’s consciousness today. Unfortunately this is not just perception; it has real world impacts. This idea of black women being sexually promiscuous has drastic effects in some very sensitive areas. One major area is sexual assault, and we can see the historical untruths and misinformation of centuries ago having a lasting and real impression today.

II. The Black Female Perspective in Cases of Sexual Assault

Race is a tremendous and distinguishing factor between women in sexual assault cases. An initial discussion of data supports this view. In cases of rape, we can look at the race of the victim to see disparate results between races. In cases where a black man is accused of rape, he is historically treated much more harshly if the victim is white. In Rape and Criminal Justice: The Social Construction of Sexual Assault, Gary LaFree confirms these statistics and finds black males receive lesser sentences for rape crimes in which the victim is black. Compared to other defendants, blacks who were suspected of assaulting white women received more serious charges, were more likely to have their cases filed as felonies, were more likely to receive prison sentences if convicted, were more likely to be incarcerated in the state penitentiary (as opposed to a jail or minimum-security facility), and received longer sentences on the average (LaFree 139). LaFree takes into account other factors such as injury to the victim and acquaintance between the assailant and victim and finds unchanged results. Further confirming these findings, Anthony Walsh found the “sentence severity mean for blacks who assaulted whites, which was significantly in excess of mean for whites who assaulted whites, was masked by the lenient sentence severity mean for blacks who assaulted blacks” (Walsh 170).

A Maryland study on rape convictions showed in all 55 cases where the death penalty was imposed the victim had been white, and that between 1960 and 1967, 47 percent of all black men convicted of criminal assaults on black women were immediately released on probation (Wriggins 121). The average sentence received by Black men, exclusive of cases involving life imprisonment or death, was 4.2 years if the victim was Black, 16.4 years if the victim was white (Id). These data confirm black victims are racially discriminated against because their rapists, whether black or white, are less likely to be charged with rape, and when convicted, are less likely to receive significant jail time than the rapists of white women (Crenshaw Demarginalizing… 1277). Growing apparent are ideas of institutional racism and unfair treatment between black and white victims of rape. Because we now know this phenomenon exists, we can examine potential factors leading to this problem.

Looking at history, we find rape is nearly just as much an issue of race compared to gender for black women. Throughout much of American history, the law did not even consider black women the victims of rape. This is because the rape of any black woman (considered property) during slavery was not a crime (Harris 599). A case from 1873 illustrates the difference in treatment between victims of rape of different color. Black men often received the death penalty for raping white women in Virginia at the time. However, in the case of a black man raping a black woman, the Virginia Court reversed the conviction by saying the defendant’s behavior, “though extremely reprehensible, and deserving of punishment, does not involve him in the crime which this statute was designed to punish.” Christian v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. (23 Gratt.) 954, 959 (1873). The only difference in the two crimes is the race of the victim; the white victim begets the death penalty whereas the black victim sees her assailant walk away. Take into account black women were the servants of white families during and after slavery, thus putting them in compromising and potentially dangerous situations (rape was the most common form of interracial sex (D’Emilo and Freedman 102)), and one can easily see how the black female perspective is one not taken into account in the public’s perception of rape.

The Jezebel stereotype became a rationalization for sexual relations between white men and black women, especially between slave owners and slaves (Pilgrim). White society often perceived the black woman as having a voracious appetite for sex, one not satiated merely by black men. In society’s eyes the Jezebel then desired white men, which led to the belief that white men did not have to rape black women (Id). Linda Williams feels society justified the rape of black women due to three stereotypes held over from slavery:

(a) A denial of responsibility, in which the attacker actually becomes the victim because he was provoked by a stereotypical black female with a questionable sexual nature and low morals;
(b) A denial of any possible injury to a sexually assaulted black female because of her constant desire for sex and her previous experience with black men, who as the stereotype goes, possess larger genitals than do their white counterparts; and,
(c) A denial that the black woman can possibly be seen as a victim if she provoked the attack and already brings to the encounter a bad character. (Williams)

This perverse way of thinking was prevalent even with the people fighting for the rights of slaves. James Redpath, an abolitionist, wrote slave women were "gratified by the criminal advances of Saxons" (Redpath 141). Even people fighting for the rights of slaves were completely unaware of their eschewing of the black female perspective (or were aware and did not care), something which the author believes is still happening today under different circumstances.

Even the idea of “voluntary” sexual relations between slave owners and slaves is often inaccurate, again showing the black female perspective to be lacking. Owners would give material incentives in the form of gifts or would reduce required labor if the woman would continue sexual relations (Pilgrim). If a woman was not lucky enough to get gifts out of it, she would still “voluntarily” consent to sex with owners, their sons and other white males for different reasons. To understand this, we must attempt to get into the mind of a female slave at the time. In their reality, they had to do many things they would not normally do out of fear. If a woman did not consent to sex, she faced many dire consequences. Since she was chattel, she or any of her family members faced the threat of death or sale. A quote perfectly exemplifying this came from a slave woman, "When he make me follow him into de bush, what use me to tell him no? He have strength to make me" (D’Emilio and Freedman 101). This “voluntary” sex by slave women directly supported society’s view of black women as hypersexual.

Keeping with the idea of the public not taking the black female perspective into account, some argue society now considers rape to be the victimization of black men by white men, aided, passively (by silence) or actively (by “crying rape”) by white women (Harris 599). In the author’s opinion, this appears hard to dispute after only a cursory inquisition of society’s views. Delving further, we can look at past writings as evidence of this. In 1892, Ida B. Wells analyzed rape under the framing that race and gender are inseparable in Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases. She felt the overall patriarchal system in which white males maintained their control led to rape and miscegenation laws: “White men used their ownership of the body of the white female as a terrain on which to lynch the black male” (Id. Emphasis added). She felt white women, even though they often encouraged interracial relationships, were protected by the patriarchal idealization of white womanhood. They were then able to remain silent, unhappily or not, as black men were murdered by mobs (Id). This directly supports the idea of the lost black female perspective in society. These laws were borne from the need to protect the white female and had nothing to do with protecting the black female. We saw much outrage, and rightly so, from civil rights groups after seeing mass lynchings and hard data showing black men were more likely than white men to go to prison for rape of a white female. This outrage led to the repeal of several racial roadblocks in our legal system, including miscegenation laws. But in the author’s opinion, this was done out of sympathy for the historic mistreatment of the black male, evidencing society’s framing of rape around black on white victims and therefore once again forgetting the black female victims. Since the time of this “awakening” the presumption has been the quintessential lynch victim was a casualty of the miscarriage of justice (Painter 209). Lacking access to the means of mass communication, black women have not been able to use their history of abuse as a corrective to stereotypes of rampant sexuality (Painter 212).

Using sexual assault as a framework for looking at the disregard for the black female perspective is beneficial because the examples are so stark. As we have found, the criminal justice system is institutionally unfair to black rape victims. Rape was not even a crime against black females for a long period of time, and the implications of this are far reaching. There is no doubt hundreds of years of a practice (allowable rape of black women) and ideology (the Jezebel woman) must have shaped the mindset of society. It would be naïve to think we are fully over this way of thinking and remnants almost assuredly remain. In the author’s opinion, this is the explanation for the difference in incarceration rates for victimizers of black and white women. Society still holds on to notions of black female promiscuity and this has a direct impact during both prosecution and jury deliberation. In terms of prosecution, this is not just the author’s opinion. A study in Oakland found the police department dismissed over 20 percent of rape cases as “unfounded”, and did not even interview many, if not most, of the women involved (Crenshaw 1281 Demarginalizing…). The vast majority of the victims were poor, black, and often drug abusers and prostitutes. The police remarked, “Those cases were hopelessly tainted by women who are transient, uncooperative, untruthful or not credible as witnesses in court” (Id). Another study demonstrated the victim’s race was a strong factor in the prosecutor's decision regarding juror acceptance of the charges as “prosecutors rejected charges more often if the victim was a racial minority or if the suspect was black.” The researchers found over half - 58.1% - of all rejections and dismissals involved black victims, whereas only 31.1% were white (Pokorak 41). Furthermore, prosecutors were 4 1/2 times more likely to file charges if the victim was white than if the victim was black (Id. at 42). When looked at in a historical context, this immediately draws parallels to the times of the Jezebel. Once again society leaves poor, black women with little or no recourse. In the author’s opinion this is the exact same practice of three hundred years ago wrapped up in the context of today’s society. Males can act in ways not allowable to whites knowing the criminal justice system slants in their favor and against black women. The quote by the police officer brings up what the author thinks is the most apparent and harmful result of centuries of subjugation; the assassination of the credibility of black women. This is a likely result since society stereotyped black women before they even set foot in America. This lack of credibility proves disastrous in sexual assault and harassment cases because it is often one word against the other.

III. How These Stereotypes Affect the Credibility of Black Women

Pervasive stereotypes about Black women not only shape the kind of harassment that Black women experience but also influence whether Black women's stories are likely to be believed (Crenshaw Race, Gender… 1471). This point is crucial because so much of our court system depends on the perception of truth. This court system has a history of disbelieving black women’s words, partially due to the historical connection between chastity and lack of veracity. Historically in America, those who were willing to have sex were not likely to tell the truth (Id). As much of this paper has focused on, the portrayal of black women as lascivious and always willing to have sex had a direct effect on the credibility of black women. Their willingness to engage in sex, in society’s eyes, meant they were not to be trusted. There were even past practices of judges instructing juries to take a black woman’s word with a grain of salt (Id). Once again, it is doubtful that a society can inoculate itself after hundreds of years of a despicable practice. There is no doubt this practice is ongoing when looking at the above conviction statistics of white versus black victims. Getting a jury to believe the account of a black woman is not the end of the problem. Past stereotypes again come into play when people think whether the harm done to the victim is significant or even important. Attitudes of jurors seem to reflect a common belief that Black women are different from white women and that sexually abusive behavior directed toward them is somehow less objectionable (Id). The always asking for sex stereotype is a factor here because even if a jury believes the testimony of the victim, they can ask questions like, “Was it really that bad for her?” and, “Maybe she was asking for it?”

Of importance, the author is not suggesting these thoughts are always conscious, rather, the historic and contemporary treatment of black women has led to collective subconscious thoughts of a diminished black female perspective. Since the abolition of slavery and many other controversial practices occurred many years ago, those methods of subjugating black women have gone by the wayside. However, there are now more subtle ways of discounting the black female victim. We now have a ubiquitous media, capable of influencing the public opinion at large. The media chooses whom it will cover in violence against women cases, and a look at recent events shows an incredibly disproportionate amount of coverage for white women over black women. This phenomenon is sometimes called the “Missing white women syndrome” (Pokorak 3). The following white women have all garnered significant media coverage due to their disappearances:

• Polly Klaas (October 1, 1993) - found murdered; murderer convicted; prompted renewal of Three strikes law
• JonBenét Ramsey (December 25, 1996) - found murdered; cold case until August 2006 arrest of suspect. Suspect was later exonerated and murder is now considered a cold case again.
• Lucie Blackman (July 21, 2000) - A hostess in the Roppongi area of Tokyo that went missing. She was later found murdered in a shallow grave having been drugged and raped beforehand. Suspect was found "Not Guilty". The case gained criticism from Japanese Diet members at the time due to non-white hostesses meeting tragic fates in Japan on a regular basis, but her case becoming worldwide news when it happened.
• Chandra Levy (May 1, 2001) - missing for several months; decomposed body found and foul play/murder is suspected; cold case
• Elizabeth Smart (June 5, 2002) - found alive; kidnapper found incompetent to stand trial
• Laci Peterson (December 23, 2002) - found murdered; murderer convicted; prompted Laci and Conner's law
• Dru Sjodin (November 22, 2003) - found murdered; murderer convicted; prompted Dru's law
• Audrey Seiler (March 28, 2004) - alleged kidnapping in Madison, Wisconsin; Seiler admitted faking the kidnapping several days later
• Brooke Wilberger (May 24, 2004) - still missing, presumed dead; man arrested for murder
• Jennifer Wilbanks (April 26, 2005) - "The Runaway Bride." Went out for a jog and did not return; there was much media speculation that her fiancé had killed her. Found she had staged her own kidnapping when she was discovered alive several days later and admitted what she had done.
• Natalee Holloway (May 30, 2005) - still missing and presumed dead, last known location in Aruba, investigation closed[12] then reopened on February 1, 2008. Has become especially controversial because of the great duration of media coverage.
• Taylor Behl (September 5, 2005) - 17-year-old Virginia Commonwealth University freshman disappeared and was later found dead; murderer convicted.
• Madeline McCann (May 3, 2007) - 3-year-old blonde girl who has been the subject of a Europe-wide and Northern Africa search.
• Kelsey Smith (June 2, 2007) - 18-year-old woman found murdered
• Jessie Marie Davis (June 15, 2007) was reported missing and later found murdered.


The following are stories the media failed to address:

• Tamika Huston (May 27, 2004) - a 24-year-old black woman who went missing from her Spartanburg, South Carolina home. Described as "bright and beautiful," Huston's remains were found more than a year later in a nearby town, and her ex-boyfriend was convicted of her murder in 2006. Following her disappearance, Huston's relatives tried in vain to interest the national news media in her case; what little national coverage it received often focused on the relative lack of coverage Huston's story was receiving.
• Stepha Henry, a 22-year-old black woman who disappeared while on vacation in Florida.
• Latoyia Figueroa (July 18, 2005) - a 25-year-old woman of African-American and Hispanic descent who was reported as missing and later found strangled to death. Figueroa, who was five months pregnant at the time, was reported missing after she failed to show up to work. Police arrested Stephen Poaches, the father of her unborn child more than a month after she was reported missing. On October 17, 2006, Poaches was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Figueroa and her unborn child. Figueroa's case is especially relevant because it unfolded at the same time as Natalee Holloway's, and cable news channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel, neglected to cover Figueroa's with the same intensity.

Natalee Holloway provides us with a good example. Between May 30 and July 28, 2005, there were over 500 stories on the major twenty-four-hour news stations related to her disappearance in Aruba (Pokorak 3). The media followed her story in intricate detail. They analyzed every police action and scrutinized every aspect of her life in the United States, providing the platform for broad commentary on our current culture (Id). News outlets even reported live from Aruba even when there was no news to report. Contrast that with Latoyia Figueroa. She had the hallmarks of a “damsel in distress” narrative: she was attractive, five months pregnant when she disappeared, and her disappearance suggested foul play (Id). The police suspected Stephen Poaches, Ms. Figueroa's boyfriend and father of her child, although there was no evidence to support that claim. Many comparisons to the Laci Peterson case arose, which was a major story for two years running. Unfortunately the media ignored Latoyia’s case while being more than willing to spend countless hours on white victims.

By only focusing its attention on white victims, the media is no different from the previously detailed societies’ magnification and admiration of white victims at the expense of black women. In fact, recognition of the relatively benign valuation applied by media corporations is only a second-hand way of identifying the truly pernicious attitude it reveals: white women are more important than black women and other women of color (Pokorak 4). Since the media is so ubiquitous, this valuation of white over black victims in the media must have some psychological impact on society. Keeping in line with this paper, the author once again feels this contributes to society eschewing the black female perspective. If all people see on the news is white victims, they will likely build sympathies for white women at the expense of black victims. Since we build so many of our opinions on past experiences, looking at a sterilized history of violence against women to form an opinion will lead to defining the attributes of a victim along race and class lines as opposed to the victimization itself. The zeitgeist then turns to defining victims as pretty white women, and any victim not comporting to those ideals is automatically disadvantaged. Couple that with stereotypes that black women are sexually promiscuous, liars and incapable of rape, and one can begin to see how far behind black women are today when it comes to recourse for victimization. All of this shows based on color of skin alone, the credibility of black women comes into doubt in any sexual violence or harassment case. Two real world cases, the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill hearings and the Duke Lacrosse team, are perfect examples of this.

IV. Anita Hill

On July 1, 1991 George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the recently vacated seat of Thurgood Marshall. Toward the end of the confirmation hearings NPR's Supreme Court correspondent Nina Totenberg reported a former colleague of Thomas, University of Oklahoma law school professor Anita Hill, had accused him of sexually harassing her when the two had worked together at the DOE and EEOC based on a leaked Judiciary committee FBI report. (Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Nomination) The Senate Judiciary Committee then conducted hearings to investigate the matter. The major players in the committee were white males; Orin Hatch, Arlen Specter and Joseph Biden. Based on arguments posed above, Anita Hill was disadvantaged from the beginning. She was a black woman giving her testimony about Thomas’ sexual harassment to a white jury. Those who attacked Hill had the immediate advantage of not having to confront physical evidence or witnesses (Darwin). A commentator stated in normal hearings with no witness, “normal courtroom defense to such charge is to try to even the score by eliciting details that damage the accuser’s credibility and by testing various theories of her motivation” (Garment). This turned the ordeal into an attack on Hill’s credibility. This was easy to do with stereotypes.

The ordeal involved not only the stereotype of the Jezebel, but also the black matriarch. The black matriarch is the bad black mother who emasculates black men because she will not permit them to assume roles as black patriarchs (Collins 72). Black matriarchs have been held responsible for black men’s low educational achievements, inability to earn a living for their families, personality disorders, and delinquency (King 12). The black matriarch also applies to black women interested in their career and viewed as, “egotistical career climbers, better paid, better educated and more socially mobile than their male counterparts” (Ransby 169). We can look at the testimony for evidence of subversive use of these stereotypes by US Senators. The hypersexual Jezebel stereotype came out in full force during Thomas’ questioning by Orin Hatch. Hatch questioned Thomas if Hill ever asked him for rides home and then asked him inside. Hatch asked, “You never thought of any of this as anything more than normal for a friendly or professional conversation with a colleague. Am I correct on that or am I wrong?” (Bystrom et al 57). This question is an obvious attempt to conjure up the image of Hill aggressively pursuing Thomas. Hatch also took many opportunities to reread the most graphic portions of Hill’s testimony, implanting sexual imagery in any observer’s head. During the hearings white senators called her a heterosexual erotomaniac, a vengeful spurned woman, stridently aggressive, arrogant, ambitious, aloof, tough and opinionated (Darwin 199). Testimony from John Doggett claimed Hill fantasized about him (Id). This was thoroughly debunked days later (Abramson and Mayer 297). Hill’s questioners knew this testimony to be flimsy at best and that it would not be ruled admissible if given in an affidavit (Id at 296). This is direct evidence of her doubters attempting to discredit her through the use of racial stereotypes. They just wanted a man to testify Hill made passes at him, showing her to be a sexually aggressive Jezebel. They knew this testimony would not stand up but all they were worried about was public perception. All of these examples are directly attributable to the Jezebel and black matriarch stereotype used to discredit Hill.

One interesting facet of the hearings is the use of black male stereotypes against Hill. This was an interesting phenomenon because both the accuser and accused were black, but Thomas used racism as an excuse for his perceived mistreatment. Thomas used language conjuring up the imagery of slavery when he said, “I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation” (Flax 88). The largest bombshell came when he said, “This is a circus. It is a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and that unless you kow-tow to an older order this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate, rather than hung from a tree” (Flax 89). To use this imagery was a brilliant move because it immediately shifted the sympathy to him and away from Hill. As argued earlier males have a monopoly on black history, and nothing is more apparent than the lynching of black males in the past. This is a perfect example of the casting aside of the black female point of view. Examining his statement, how is he distinguishing himself from Hill? She can apply to all of the ways Thomas describes himself. She, just as much as Thomas, thought for herself and did not kow-tow to an older order. She is a black conservative and served in a Republican administration. Testifying in front of the Senate committee shows she did not just kow-tow to an older order by accepting the status quo. She also thought for herself when she supported the nomination of Robert Bork. What Thomas did here was position himself as the black American involved in the case (Flax 90). By claiming he was the black American involved in using the lynching imagery, he implicitly denied the painful history of the black woman. The history of lynching was white men hanging black men for having sexual relations with white women. This lynching analogy does not hold up because both the hangman (Hill, not the white committee members) and victim were black. Furthermore, no black man was ever lynched for raping a black woman (Flax 90). The public commiserated with Thomas, thereby denying any potential claims Hill had about mistreatment due to race. Thomas had a long history of denying the ability to play the race card but chose to use it here to completely change the atmosphere of the hearing and discredit Hill in the process. Both the accuser and accused being black, and the male accuser succeeding in his claim of racism just shows how much Society threw away Hill’s perspective.

A final look at why the committee overlooked the black female perspective comes from Hill herself. In her opinion, the public did not believe her because she did not go in front of the committee with a patron (Hill 271). Thomas had the patronage of his nominee President Bush as well as the white senators defending him during the hearings. A patron is a powerful white person willing to vouch for her trustworthiness and worthiness (Id. at 276). In her opinion this is necessary if a black person is to effectively have their voice heard. This comes from the times of slavery and the need for slaves to have a white patron to do anything on their own volition. She points to its lasting effects remaining in the criminal justice system with the practice of the police’s refusal to release a black suspect until a white patron or institution aids them.

V. The Duke Lacrosse Case

A very recent case gives us an up to date look at how the media perpetuates the discrediting of black females. This case arises from a March 13, 2006 lacrosse party. The basic facts involved members of the school's lacrosse team hiring two strippers to perform at the home of several players. Although the events of the evening are hotly contested by the parties, one of the women alleged that she was raped, sodomized, strangled and beaten by three of the partygoers (Kosse 258). This case is germane because the accused are upper class white males while the accuser is a lower class black female. Because this was a high profile case, attempts were made to discredit the victim.

Susan Kosse preformed a lengthy analysis of the press coverage and found some interesting results. She found the media’s statements placed offenders (61%) in a better light than the victim (39%) (Kosse 269). In her study she looked for the Jezebel stereotype. “Primarily, the constant reference to the races of the people involved seemed unnecessary. The media's highlighting the fact that she was black and the men were white insinuates that this is relevant. In one article readers were even told that the men had requested a white and Hispanic dancer but received two black women, as if this somehow was important information to know.” (Id). She also found, “The media's constant reference to the woman as a stripper and exotic dancer created a problem because it took the focus away from the violent sexual allegations of rape, and instead focused on her conduct before the alleged violation. By bombarding the public with those terms, the myth that the woman provoked or deserved to be raped was reinforced” (Id). Again we find lasting imagery of the Jezebel. She continues with, “Such coverage promoted the myth that somehow strippers consent to being raped. Her being black made it that much easier to accept. Although one mention of her profession may be necessary to convey context for the events, repeating the term multiple times in an article becomes pejorative” (Id). This lines up directly with the previous arguments saying black female credibility is attacked by attributing a hypersexual nature to the accuser while also claiming her consent to rape. Criticism comes from Cash Michaels. He said the media only saw her as “trash,” a “false accuser,” “a hooker,” and a “stripper” instead of a “27-year-old-mother of two children, a second-year honor student at North Carolina Central University who hoped to become an attorney, an idealistic young woman who helped her ex-husband learn how to read, worked for low pay on a computer factory assembly line, cared for the elderly in a nursing home, and once enlisted in the U.S. Navy to serve her country” (Michaels).

Kosse even picked up on the media eschewing the black female perspective. She found, “Several important observations can be made about the media's treatment of the characters in this most recent high profile rape case. Like previous coverage of rape cases, the media seemed overly concerned with the effect the rape charges had on the men while all but ignoring the implications the event had on the woman's life. The Sports Illustrated ten-page article titled, “The Damage Done,” may be the best illustration. Although the writers mentioned in the first paragraph that the players, dancer and the university were forever changed, the article spent five full pages on the accused, the coach and the school with only thirteen paragraphs devoted to the accuser” (Kosse 272). This recent case clearly shows society still overlooks the black female in sexual assault cases. Language from the media shows the accuser’s credibility was attacked by constantly referring to her job as a stripper in an attempt to hypersexualize her.


VI. Conclusion

As the emblematic woman is white and the emblematic black is male, black women generally are not as easy to comprehend symbolically. (Painter 211) Looking at the history of black women in this country, we see them depicted as sex-crazed women who are not to be trusted. For hundreds of years the rape and dehumanizing of black women by treating them as property was not even illegal. Instead of looking at rape as the long practice of white slave owners on black women, society has transformed it to black men on white women, thereby cleansing the longer and more widespread practice from society’s consciousness. This paper shows how this treatment has a continuous effect to this day. Because of the systematic mistreatment and casting aside of the black female perspective, we now have disparate treatment of victims of different races in the most heinous of crimes. Not only that, society automatically questions the credibility of these victims based solely on the color of their skin. We look to the media’s portrayal of victims and see it is directly contributing to this callous indifference to the black woman’s plight. In one high profile case, we see how perceived racism against black men can even be used against black women. In another we see the media still portraying the Jezebel stereotype to this day. Perhaps we will soon see a movement urging society to take into perspective the black female point of view, thus finally promoting “liberty and justice for all.”

Ralph Nader

"Obamacare is a fraud on the American people."

As if he didn't hurt the country enough in 2000? I like Ralph Nader a lot, but he needs to get his arrogant ass off his derailing soapbox and realize he is not living in a vacuum. No matter how much we don't like it, we have to go through a political process in order to accomplish anything. Doing something as big as single payer so fast goes against the best interest of our country. Part of the political process is making sure we do not act too quickly without careful consideration of possible consequences. Remember when we rammed our way into Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA PATRIOT Act without following the political process? Anything that goes wrong (real or fabricated) will be blamed on the person in charge of putting us there. If we go more slowly, the blame is shared by all of us because we as Americans decided to do something together.

Do we really want to give the Republicans ammunition to capitalize on early failings of a single payer plan and enable them to throw the baby out with the bath water? You don't just jump into a hot bathtub. Responsible politics would have single payer in mind as the end result, but taking small steps to ensure we get there. Because we do not agree with the political right does not make them impotent (yes, that was an old, white men need Viagra joke).

The present plan (why do people keep calling it Obamacare when Congress is writing it? As an aside, that seems like horrible long-term planning by Republicans considering, if successful, people will associate the greatest political achievement in modern history with Obama) is not likely the end result. Our country is creeping toward becoming a banana republic, and it is naive to think we can forcibly go up against the established system and oust the leviathan moneyed interests with a 26 page bill. It will take incremental steps; and if it means we have to concede some things in order to move the political process along, so be it. One initial step could be a government option to show people shouldn't fear the idea of the government running something as important as health care. Considering how much Republicans have tarnished the government since Reagan, that will be tremendously difficult. Remember, "Government is not the solution to our problem; it is the problem"? Regardless of the validity of that statement, a huge number of people base their worldview off of it. Believing you do not have to deal with these such people is hiding your head in the sand.

I like Nader and applaud his ideals. But throwing his hat in the ring with the political opposition is doing nothing but hurting his own cause. He is too arrogant to see that.

JT

This is a post for the best offensive lineman in the NFL, Joe Thomas. Yes, the man who decided going fishing was more important than draft day.

Jared Allen from the Minnesota Vikings is currently tearing up NFL offenses. He has 6.5 sacks, a safety, three forced fumbles and a touchdown. The man is an animal.

What did Jared Allen do against Joe Thomas? 1 tackle. The whole game. That's it.

If not for problems at EVERY OTHER POSITION OTHER THAN PUNTER, the Browns would be pretty damn good right now.

White Affirmative Action

Until the 1960s, "white affirmative action" was tantamount to society. People simply chose whites over blacks almost universally.

Redlining was a practice in the early 20th century where the government and banks drew red lines where black people lived and refused to give loans to anyone within those lines. This is one such example of white affirmative action. A bank had two equally qualified applicants and chose the white one over the black one. Classic affirmative action. Clearly, there are innumerable factors at work forming the present state of society. Because it is impossible to take all of these factors into account, I will attempt to show how pernicious redlining was by looking at this practice in a vacuum.

A look into the effects of a simple initial advantage given to A over B propagated over time shows how powerful initial advantages can be.

Imagine 2 different widget makers in 1900 in the same city; A and B. The government and a bank decide to give A money to help grow its business and do not give the same money to B. A can now afford to expand and reach out to new customers. A can buy the new widget machine it needs and this grows their production, creating economies of scale. B remains small because it can only spend its revenues. It has to wait 5 years to make the money it takes to buy the new widget machine. In this 5 years, A has expanded to sell its widgets outside of its original area. It makes multiple times more money than B.

A becomes well known in the community because of its business success. This provides it political connections, only helping it grow its business even further. A’s owners, and many like A, take their considerable resources and move to the suburbs. Their tax dollars go with them. They no longer purchase products in the city. This reduces the already small customer base for B and businesses like B. Schools are funded by property taxes. Higher property values lead to more school revenue, ultimately leading to better schools. Family A receives a far better education and grows up around successful role models. B's family grows up around other less educated, poor people.

15 years pass. Patriarchs of A and B grow old and want to pass control of their business to their kin. The kids need to go to college. A has plenty of money to pay for college because of its business success (far better schools don’t hurt much either). B did all it could to survive, competing with larger A, so it is operating on a shoestring budget. Expensive college is not an option. A's kin goes to college to study business, also developing a social network of successful business types. B's do not. This creates many business advantages for A.

A accumulates more wealth than B over time. Patriarchs A and B die. A leaves more wealth to its kin. A's descendants begin life with more advantages than B's. A's kin can go to summer camp, play musical instruments, travel, hire tutors, etc. B's cannot.

A's community continues to develop economically, while B's remains stagnant at best, depressing more likely. Poverty begets crime. The community leaders think an austere approach to crime is the most appropriate, rather than a look at the underlying problems leading to poverty that lead to crime. They increase police presence in B's community and arrest members of the community at disproportionate rates compared to A's community. Many of the males go to prison, reducing their ability to work. This dulls the economic vibrance of the community even more. They get out of jail and are unable to find work because of their criminal record. They resort to more crime.

This example in a vacuum shows what can happen over time by giving a single advantage to one over another. And this was entirely without race being a factor. Now think of the above scenario where A is white and B is black (You already made that connection while reading it. See how subconscious racial classification works?). Now think of not one single advantage, but a whole society of advantages given to A over B. Hence several hundred years of affirmative action for middle to upper-class Caucasians, leading to where we are today.

I wish those against affirmative action for minorities would think about this practice of affirmative action for people of the majority for hundreds of years. That practice, as the above showed, led to hugely disparate levels of income, education, crime, social status, etc.

Many say, "I didn't do anything to hurt anyone." You are absolutely correct. You personally did not do anything and I understand it is difficult to feel you have to pay a penance when you did nothing wrong. But affirmative action is not about you or the individual. It is about looking at present society and attempting to figure out through TEMPORARY measures the best way to ameliorate historical disparities while making sure the future does not follow the same path.

Affirmative action for minorities is thereby a rudder that attempts to gently nudge the USS America away from the maelstrom and toward more placid waters. As soon as we are on that course, we can stop trying to steer.

Roll Up Vol. 11

Some of us geezers don't like this new Drake, Kid Cudi, Kanye weirdo rap movement. We prefer banal lyrics on top of beats that make our bones shake. Call it tired, played out, whatever; it is still the best music to roll up to.

Volume 11

1 - Yung Joc - Universal Language feat. Young Vett & Shawty Lo
2 - Lil Boosie - Top Notch feat. Mouse & Lil Phat
3 - Yo Gotti - I Be Like feat. Attitude
4 - Cam'Ron - Arab Musik feat. Vado & Byrd Lady
5 - Twista - American Gangsta
6 - Yung Joc - Birds feat. Nikki Minaj, Gucci Mane & OJ Da Juiceman
7 - Ace Hood - Loco Wit feat. Yo Gotti & Young Dro
8 - Joe Budden - We Outta Here feat. Slaughterhouse
9 - Yung Joc - Counterfit feat. Tuck
10 - Raekwon - Broken Safety feat. Jadakiss & Styles P
11 - Tum Tum - I Can't Starve feat. Lil Ronnie
12 - 50 Cent - Ok, Ya Right
13 - Raekwon - Black Mozart feat. RZA & Inspectah Deck
14 - Joe Budden - Blood on the Wall
15 - Cam'Ron - Ric Flair feat. Vado
16 - TI - King on Set feat. Young Dro

Parallel Parking Golf

Parallel parking - one of those moments in life where you get to feel superior to a complete stranger for not doing something perfectly right the first time. But is this really fair? Honestly, how would you do in that situation? Now there is a way to quantify how you would do! Parallel parking golf.

It is simple – establish a par for the spot and the number of gear changes indicates the score for the hole. The initial gear change counts.

You might be wondering how to establish par. This takes a bit of eye judging. After you get into the space, eyeball how much distance is between each bumper. Guys should already be good at this. Girls, you might find out 8 inches is not really what you have been told. (FYI, American currency is 6 inches long)

If the space is under 1 foot total, you just maneuvered a par 5. Between 1 and 3 feet, par 4. Between 3 and 5 feet, par 3. Between 5 and 7 feet, par 2. Anything over 7 feet, turn your car keys in if you cant do that in 1.

Total feet____________Par
<1_________________5
1-3_________________4
3-5_________________3
5-7_________________2
>7_________________kill yourself

Here’s an example:


Johnny Driver gets out and admires his work. It took him 3 shifts to get into this spot. He figures it is about a foot between each bumper and the car next to it. That’s 2 feet total. He looks at the chart… BIRDIE.

That’s not it though. Like golf, there are things you can do to hurt your score. These lower the par:

Touching a car: -1
Touching a curb: -1
Tires up on curb: -2
More than 6 inches from curb: -2

Unlike golf, certain factors can improve your score. These raise the par:

Person in car: +1
You are drunk: +1
3 or more passengers in car: +2
Group of at least 3 watching you park: +2
Parking while holding up traffic: +2

That’s basically it. You can keep a scorecard in the car or just use this system to completely baffle a stranger when he hears EAGLE!!!! yelled at him by a group of drunks from a front porch.

Park em straight.

Whole Foods Insider Trading?

A company's customer base is primarily liberal progressives. What is the worst thing this company can do right now? That's right, the CEO of this company can go all wildwestfreemarkethealthcareisnotaright on us.

Now the CEO of a megamillion dollar company is not dumb, right? Surely John Mackey would know that this op-ed would stir some controversy. Assuming he is familiar with the stock market, he would probably foresee some drop in stock price depending on the backlash.

Hmmmmmm.

When insiders of a company trade their own shares, they have to report this trading to the SEC. I wonder if Mr. Mackey sold any of his shares before submitting the op-ed to the Washington Post?

This site shows he sold 50,000 shares at $27.851 on August 6, 2009 for $1.4 million.

I can't wait for the internet to come up with a screeching tire sound on demand.

So the op-ed is published on August 11. I am guessing he turned it in at least a day before for print. That means he had to have it done by August 10. Anyone buying that he sells all of these shares without any knowledge that he will be publishing an op-ed that will likely enrage the public 2 days later?

What is to be human without true empathy?
Going through the world blindly with no desire to see
Stuck in a time of feudalism and plague
The universe revolves around me, no need to behave
Born in a castle, think you made yourself a prince
Matters to yourself, only you can evince
But progress bestows rules that are golden
The good of others, to that we are beholden

Carbon

A diamond shines, proud to display its radiance
Hard as can be, no flaws to be seen
But a shine has no luster unless you look in the dark
And a spectacle can show there are flaws behind the light
For a diamond cant hide from a well-trained eye
Who realizes what others see is often a lie

Got efficiency?

Health care seems to be the big fight going on right now. I came across this interview with the guy who used to head PR for one of the huge insurance companies.

Let's say there are two different health provider programs. One system has costs at 20% of premiums, the other at 3%. Which of these systems do you think is run privately as opposed to operated by the government? Private industry, known for its efficiency, should be running at 3%, right?

From the interview:
BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

Video.

Transcript.

At some point we are going to have to really start questioning the ubiquitous mantra saying the private industry is more efficient than the government.

Profit brings incentive to compete. Competition increases consumer choices and lowers prices. Isn't that how the free market works? Can any sane person say this is happening? In reality, insurance companies are eliminating coverage for sick people and finding any reason they can to deny coverage. Healthcare for profit creates an incentive for companies to not provide coverage. If a company does not deny enough people coverage in order to boost profits, Wall Street investors will punish them. Private companies are legally obligated to put the interests of their shareholders over the health concerns of their customers. How is this an ethical way to run a system? The way the health care system works is clearly antithetical to the putative goals of the system.

Roll Up Vol. 10

Fire up the subs. This thing knocks.

1 - Gucci Mane - Never Too Much feat. 3-6 Mafia, Yung Joc & OJ Da Juiceman
2 - C-Thug - I do this feat. Dolla & Young Buck
3 - Gucci Mane - I Love my Plug
4 - Paul Wall - Fly feat. Yung Joc & Gorilla Zoe
5 - J Money - First Name Last Name (remix) feat. Young Jeezy & Shawty Lo
6 - Shawty Redd - I be Needin my Bread feat. Drumma Boy
7 - Drumma Boy - I Got em feat. Gucci Mane & J Money
8 - Young Buck - Without me feat. 8ball & MJG
9 - Slaughterhouse - Warriors
10 - C-Thug - Young Thug feat Lil Boosie
11 - Jig-lo - Jiggin em feat. Gucci Mane
12 - Lloyd Banks - Niggas is Trash
13 - Drumma Boy - Aye Yo feat. Gangsta Boo, GK, Allie, B-Hav, Degree, Kristyle & Young Phenomenon
14 - Young Phenomenon - Well Ok
15 - Gangsta Boo - Yank Bitch
16 - Oj Da Juiceman - I Cook feat. Gucci Mane
17 - Clipse - Kinda Like a Big Deal feat. Kanye West

Vol. 9

Haven't had internet at the new place. Here's some new bumps. Heavy in the streets homie.

1 - Young Jeezy - 24 23
2 - Alchemist - That'll Work feat. Three 6 Mafia and Juvenile
3 - Yo Gotti - Women Lie
4 - Allstar - iBall
5 - Jody Breeze - Bitch Get Off Me
6 - Young Buck - Money Rite feat. Bloodraw and Sosa Da Plug
7 - Cam'Ron - Curve
8 - Young Jeezy - My Money
9 - Jody Breeze - You Know What It Is
10 - Yo Gotti - Five Star
11 - Cam'Ron - Cookin Up
12 - Kid Cudi - Rollin (remix) feat. Jackie Chain
13 - Jody Breeze - Oh My God
14 - Young Jeezy - Always Strapped feat. Lil Wayne and Birdman

Coach of the year

Why was Mike Brown standing outside of the huddle watching his players listen to an assistant at a crucial point at the end of game 4? I feel like this is unprecedented.

Also, f Anderson for thinking he was so crucial to the game that he could not foul out in overtime - leading to Howard taking over. Great job.

24 bars

When I die how many will stay in my wake
I pray the lord my soul you’ll take
Influential, I’ll be essential
Always mental, prodigious with a pencil
Show the kids where I went to
To figure out what I been through
Ask who I’m into
But it’s your own breakthrough
Cause religion aint what makes you
It’s what you do from this view
Detach from all you think is due
Enlightenment becomes attainable
Cause what you have is only temporary in time
A foolish mind thinks there’s always something to find
Caught up in a race with no end in sight
Uncertainty about the future blinds your mind with fright
See, dog, the way leads the way, you don’t have much to say
Put down the worries of the future, adopt the pleasures of today
Because at some point, you’re gonna wish you had
Thinking to yourself, man I turned into my dad
Once a young lad, but I only thought about the bad
It made me lose my youth, now all I can think about is sad
But be glad; life can be led on your terms
Life is a dance, let yourself go and enjoy the turns

The Perils of a Colorblind Society

Here is another paper without footnotes. Wrote this on the last day of finals, so that explains any shittiness (aside from me being shitty). When thinking about race in our society, many adhere to the belief that race should not matter. I fundamentally disagree because our country was built on widespread structural racial distinctions, and putting one's head in the sand regarding racial matters will only perpetuate our sordid history. Ignorance is not bliss. This paper looks at this idea from a legal perspective. I wrote this for one of the preeminent scholars on race in this country, so apologies for any turgid legalese.

_______________________________________________

According to its proponents, the colorblind ideal is genuinely egalitarian. By disavowing classifications drawn on the basis of race, we affirm the moral irrelevance of race and honor equal opportunity. If race is truly irrelevant, why do blacks continue to stay at the bottom of nearly any economic measuring device? The post Civil War Amendments were passed in an effort to attempt to put blacks in this country on equal footing with their white counterparts. The Supreme Court since then has changed the way we look at these Amendments and equal protection in general. Have we progressed as a society enough to where race does not matter? The Court thinks so. In reality, this supposed neutrality by the Court ends up harming blacks in many ways. This paper will trace the roots of the anticlassification principle and discuss how it is inimical to the true goals of equal protection.

THE BROWN LINE OF CASES

Like many legal principles, a healthy understanding of the law from its nascent stages is vital. In taking this approach, one can begin to understand the core principles and legal justifications behind the law as well as how it has changed over time. Perhaps arguments supporting the victorious side have fallen on deaf ears or have been manipulated over time to mean something else. Either way, a sound understanding of the early law will enable one to see where the law is heading and potential implications of following the status quo.

In 1951, thirteen parents on behalf of twenty students filed a class action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. These parents were concerned with the law set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which stated separate but equal treatment of races did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents asserted this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. The Plessy Court said segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it inflicted no legally cognizable harm on blacks. The Brown Court considered that argument and, after remarking on the significance of educational opportunity in modern life, said, “To separate children from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” This language seems to support the idea that the Court was interested in the harm done to black schoolchildren. The Court went on to say, Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.

This Court presently interprets this to mean the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any classification based on race, but there is no language from the opinion stating this contention. In fact, a look at the era surrounding Brown suggests leaving this language out was intentional. Contemporaneous with Brown, Fifth Amendment case law dictated close scrutiny of government policies classifying on the basis of race. Bolling v. Sharpe, a case decided along with Brown, said segregation in District of Columbia school systems violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court, in mentioning racial classification in Korematsu and Bolling but not Brown, appears to have done that purposely. The Brown opinion, therefore, can properly be read not as condemning racial classification, but as addressing the consequences of separating schoolchildren in a specific institutional context. Other evidence of this comes from the Court refusing to hear a challenge to Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law in Naim v. Naim. If the Court really did announce classification based on race is presumptively invalid in Brown, surely it would have decided to hear a case dealing with the prohibition of marriage on the basis of racial classification. It is difficult to reconcile the present view that Brown eliminated any classification based on race with the circumstances at the time of the case showing the Court did no such thing. Perhaps the Brown Court meant racial classifications should be looked at on an individual basis to determine if they are appropriate. No matter what one thinks, there is no language from the opinion saying classifications based on race are presumptively invalid. Continuing this analysis of history will help show what Brown has come to mean today.

An incredible amount of controversy arose from the Brown decision. This controversy centered around the rationale adopted by the Court in its decision. As stated above, the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson on the idea that there was recognizable harm to black children. Separating black children created a sense of inferiority, which caused harm; ultimately meaning the practice was unconstitutional. The Opponents of Brown focused on this harm aspect in their criticism. In finding this separation harmed black children, the Court cited several studies in what is famously known as Footnote Eleven. Harm then became the axis on what Brown turned. If critics could diminish the claims of harm, they felt they could diminish Brown. They did just this by providing scientific research showing it was not segregation that harmed black children, but integration. By turning the debate to harms, critics asked what and whose harms are to be protected. One can think of many harms, so multiplying the harms to which the law might attend was a way of putting in issue the question whether those interpreting the Constitution ought to treat the dignitary injuries associated with group subordination as constitutionally cognizable harms at all. Courts in the South then decided several cases either directly conflicting with Brown or severely limiting it. The Naim Court in Virginia said laws prohibiting interracial marriage actually prevented harm. The Louisiana Court followed suit by saying interracial children are so harmed by societal pressures that anti-miscegenation laws are necessary under Brown. Maryland said public beaches and bathhouses could be segregated because members of each race were more comfortable with each other.

A school of thought emerged from the South described as “Neutral Principles”. This way of thinking said constitutional decisions should rest on reasons other than a judge’s sympathy for the claims of contending social groups. Herbert Wechsler’s writings paved the way for this thinking. He offered his own interpretation of Brown - racial segregation is, in principle, a denial of equality to the minority against whom it is directed; that is, the group that is not dominant politically and, therefore, does not make the choice involved. To Wechsler, Brown was a case about the subordination of one race to another. To him, antisubordination was not constitutionally neutral and Brown was incorrectly decided. The issue was about choosing between two groups; something the Court should not be allowed to do. The Court should look at groups based on neutral principles and not choose one over the other. Competing views arose. Louis Pollack argued Brown created a legal presumption against all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group. The Equal Protection Clause therefore prohibited state policies that inflicted the kinds of status harm that whites had historically inflicted on blacks. Pollack disagreed with Wechsler’s idea of neutral principles. He said the three post-Civil War Amendments were fashioned to one major end – an end to which we are only now making substantial strides – the full emancipation of the Negro. Looking at the post-Civil War Amendments in context, they were established to combat the long history of slavery. Therefore, in order to fully restore one historically disenfranchised group, that group’s interests could outweigh a group not historically slighted. Charles Black agreed with this point of view in saying, “When the directive of equality cannot be followed without displeasing the white, then something that can be called a ‘freedom’ of the white must be impaired.”

THE EMERGENCE OF ANTICLASSIFICATION

The 1960s ushered in new ways of thinking. The idea of anticlassification emerged with the Fifth Circuit’s Jefferson County opinion. Here, Judge Wisdom upheld the Department of Health, Education and Welfare’s enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In his opinion, Judge Wisdom obviated the need to follow the controversial practice of balancing harms and choosing between groups. Instead, the Court condemned state-imposed separation by race as an invidious classification and for that reason alone unconstitutional. It said, The Brown I finding that segregated schooling causes psychological harm and denies equal educational opportunities should not be construed as the sole basis for the decision. So construed, the way would be open for proponents of the status quo to attempt to show, on the facts, that integration may be harmful or the greater of two evils. Indeed that narrow view of Brown I has led several district courts into error. We think that the judgment “must have rested on the view that racial segregation is, in principle, a denial of equality to the minority against whom it is directed.” The relief Brown II requires rests on recognition of the principle that state-imposed separation by race is an invidious classification and for that reason alone is unconstitutional. Classifications based upon race are especially suspect, since they are odious to a free people. In short, compulsory separation, apartheid, is per se discriminatory against Negroes.

This was an interesting opinion because it appeared to directly address the Southern opponents of the Brown decision. One interpretation is the Court devised this anticlassification framework as a way to combat the Southern argument that segregation is allowable if they can show whites are just as harmed as blacks. No matter the interpretation or reasons behind the Court’s actions, this decision, along with McLaughlin v. Florida and Loving v. Virginia, established a strict scrutiny framework for classifications based on race.

This new way of approaching equal protection shifted the lens from the harms of racial segregation to the wrongs of legislative classification. The McLaughlin Court evidenced this in its reasoning dealing with antimiscegenation laws. There, the Court did not talk about how prohibiting interracial cohabitation harmed a certain race. It did not connect the prohibition of whites and blacks being together with the history of black subjugation. Perhaps this was because the Court was used to the Southern objection to the comparison of harms approach. Instead, the Court based their decision on a presumption against racial classification. The Court followed this with its decision in Loving striking down laws against interracial marriage. Again, the Court did not address the harms on particular racial classes. It did, however, provide another layer of analysis by saying the law was unconstitutional based on failing the strict scrutiny analysis as well as because it enforced a system of racial hierarchy. This analysis of events shows a progression in the 1960s from looking at group harm to a presumption against racial classification and a demand for legislative rationality. However, Courts still understood equal protection as a race-asymmetric constraint on governmental action; they understood that the purpose of equal protection doctrine was to prevent the state from inflicting certain forms of status harm on minorities.

Questions arose regarding the constitutionality of states voluntarily acting in order to integrate. In the 1960s, Courts repeatedly held that governments could use race-specific measures to break down de facto segregation (racial imbalance) in the nation's public schools even when there was no finding of a constitutional violation. In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education the Court said, “School authorities are traditionally charged with broad power to formulate and implement educational policy and might well conclude, for example, that in order to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society each school should have a prescribed ratio of Negro to white students reflecting the proportion for the district as a whole. To do this as an educational policy is within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities; absent a finding of a constitutional violation, however, that would not be within the authority of a federal court.” This shows Courts viewed the Equal Protection Clause as a tool to protect blacks from harms caused by hierarchal and status-cementing measures by the government. The Clause was not violated when governments used race-based measures to combat segregation.

THE EXPANSION OF BROWN

The 1970s further developed the anticlassification doctrine and brought in new ideas of colorblindness. More questions arose regarding race-conscious efforts to enforce integration. The Court again addressed education in 1976, this time striking down race-conscious admissions at the U.C. Davis School of Medicine. In its decision, the Court brought back the notions of addressing harms to minorities. This was a landmark decision because it effectively expanded Brown to protect whites from discrimination – reverse discrimination. Powell’s opinion was also a rejection of the race-asymmetric and antisubordination frameworks set forth in prior decisions. He even changed the perceived purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment by saying it is “no longer possible to peg the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority.” He continued, “During the dormancy of the Equal Protection Clause, the United States had become a Nation of minorities. Each had to struggle – and to some extent struggles still – to overcome the prejudices not of a monolithic majority, but of a “majority” composed of various minority groups of whom it was said – perhaps unfairly in many cases – that a shared characteristic was a willingness to disadvantage other groups. As the Nation filled with the stock of many lands, the reach of the Clause was gradually extended to all ethnic groups seeking protection from official discrimination.” These abrupt shifts in the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment and the application of the Equal Protection Clause carry many implications. The Fourteenth Amendment was no longer a device to address the inequalities felt by blacks in America. State action was now “neutral” and “equal,” however disproportionately it harmed minorities, unless it employed a suspect classification or reflected discriminatory purpose, a concept the Court related back to forms of racial animus or “antipathy” that the presumption against classification was intended to constrain.

Bakke did much more than clarify the anticlassification principle; it completely changed the way the Court looks at race. Powell did this by looking at ethnicity as opposed to race in his opinion. He disaggregated the white “majority” into “various minority groups” who “struggle” against “prejudice,” while converting racial minorities into groups that shared an identical American experience with white ethnics. The color-line erased, the United States now progressed harmoniously as a “Nation filled with the stock of many lands,” and the Constitution gave equal concern to “all ethnic groups seeking protection from official discrimination.” “Ethnic groups” in Powell's usage constituted no casual synonym for race, but instead a heavily laden term signifying a conception of group dynamics in the United States in which racial hierarchy had ceased to operate. He did this by looking at history through an ethnic lens. He defined this as a nation of minorities and referred to Celtic Irishmen, Chinese, Austrian resident aliens, Japanese and Mexicans as groups protected at one point. Saying all of these groups went through some sort of adversity made it seem like race operated similarly across the board. The logic stated if the Irish and Japanese went through similar hardships, they should be treated equally. The Constitution should therefore be concerned with all ethnic groups seeking protection from discrimination. Powell destroyed the traditional views of majorities and minorities. Instead of whites being the traditional majority and blacks the minority, everyone was a minority at some point. His statement, “The concepts of “majority” and “minority” necessarily reflect temporary arrangements and political judgments,” confirms. He transformed society from a system of dominant and subordinate races to an amorphous plurality of ethnicities. Because this dominant/subordinate framework no longer existed, the Constitution could not choose between ethnicities. If multitudinous ethnic groups stood in relations of shifting competition forming only temporary majorities, no special solicitude for racial groups seemed required. Black was now white.

Powell did this by casting whites as just another subordinated group. He did this by disaggregating whites into discrete ethnicities, insisting these groups faced discrimination in the past, and implying the rights and remedies reserved for preferred minorities threatened white ethnic subgroups. In effect, this elite group behind hundreds of years of subjugation became just as much of a minority as blacks. In fact, these whites were being discriminated against because they were classified as such. Whites then became the victims of affirmative action.

The Bakke Court went on to change the way it thought about integration. Efforts to introduce blacks to exclusively white institutions were not referred to as integration. Powell never even mentioned the word. Instead, he said these efforts were pursuing some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin. He continued by saying, “Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.” This way of thinking meant the Court looked at integration not as a practice of achieving equality, but as a discriminatory preference of blacks over whites. Breaking race down to competing ethnic minorities enabled this reasoning.

THE END OF SOCIETAL DISCRIMINATION

Bakke displayed a solidification of anticlassification principles and used them to limit antisubordination values. But a large question remained unanswered – is a government allowed to remedy societal discrimination against a race by using racial classifications? Consider the City of Richmond in the 1970s. Its population was fifty percent black, but only two-thirds of one percent of its construction projects went to minority owned businesses over a five-year span. A federal government study found racial nepotism virtually defined the construction sector, and a near total exclusion of minorities receiving dollars from local trade associations. The mayor even said, “I can say without equivocation, that the general conduct in the construction industry in this area . . . is one in which race discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race is widespread.” The City felt it should do something so it, noting this historical pattern of discrimination, created a program setting aside contracting money for minority owned businesses.

Could a city employ race-conscious measures to combat societal discrimination? The Court found in the absence of proof of a particular act, racism could no longer be used as an explanation for societal action. Societal discrimination is an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past. This is a threshold moment – taking action to alleviate societal discrimination suffered over hundreds of years is no longer allowable. This is effectively a pronouncement that racism is over in our society. To suspect whites of discrimination without specific proof is now stereotyping whites. Without this specific proof, the Court presumes racial neutrality governs social and economic life. The Court came to this conclusion by again disaggregating race into small ethnic groups and looking at them through a colorblind lens. It said, “To accept Richmond's claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for ‘remedial relief’ for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs.” Because the City was classifying whom to give money based on race, the Court found strict scrutiny applied in order to protect minorities. Which minorities though? Taking the new ethnic as opposed to race viewpoint, the Court again found it necessary to protect the white minority.

Bakke and Richmond show the Court now views whites and blacks as the same. This tabula rasa for racial attitudes in American society dictates we forget all of the societal and institutional racism from the beginning of America. Slavery, Jim Crow, poll taxes, redlining antimiscegenation laws and lynching simply no longer matter. Even with a government study and quotes from the mayor confirming racial discrimination in the area, the Court will not find discrimination unless there is specific proof of intent.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE COLORBLIND, ANTICLASSIFICATION PRECEDENT

Suppose a fire department in the South creates a new position. This new position requires education at a high school equivalency so the company decides it needs to administer a test to any applicant. After administering the test, a manager notices something does not seem right. More whites seem to be passing than blacks. The manager thinks to herself and realizes one experiment does not prove anything. The company hires new people to replace the ones who failed. They take the test too. Again, whites seem to outperform blacks. A few months later the manager tests another round of employees. The same thing happens again; blacks fail much more often than whites do. Eventually the manager realizes out of the twenty positions that require a passing score, whites occupy nineteen. A reasonable third person would look at this scenario and think something was up. This is a fire department in the South, long known for its problems with race relations. The position only requires a high school education, so the pool of applicants is not significantly limited. Why is it that so many whites are passing and blacks failing? How can we fix the problem? Anticlassification and colorblind principles limit the options available. It seems logical to take note of the historical practice of limiting minority employment and enact measures aimed at evening out the racial makeup. But these principles say it would be discriminatory to help the blacks failing the test in any way. Confirmation of this criticism came when the Court saw a case similar to this scenario. It involved a challenge to an employment exam that excluded four times as many blacks as whites applying for a position on the District of Columbia police force. The Court made clear that proving discriminatory purpose was now not only permitted, but required in all cases challenging facially neutral state action having a disparate impact on protected classes.

Now imagine a state passes strong new drug laws. It feels one drug is more caustic to the community than others, so it enacts harsher penalties for possessing this drug. The state then does a study and finds 98.2 percent of defendants convicted of possessing this drug are black. A reasonable person would probably look at a law that is virtually only enforced against black people and think something was amiss. Following the anticlassification doctrine, only a showing of discriminatory intent by the legislature would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Again, a real world example confirms this. The Eighth Circuit argued that Congress did not adopt the sentencing differential “because of” its impact on African-Americans; rather, Congress had reasons for determining that crack cocaine posed a greater societal threat than powder cocaine, and this judgment in turn supplied justification for adopting the 100 to one sentencing ratio despite its foreseeable adverse impact on African-Americans. The Eighth Circuit's opinion in Clary is especially striking because it overturned a lengthy lower court decision that explored the history of racial bias in the criminal justice system and the sociology of the recent war on drugs, striking down the sentencing guidelines on the grounds that they manifested unconscious racial bias.

PROBLEMS WITH THE ANTICLASSIFICATION, COLORBLIND PRECEDENT

In the author’s opinion, a legal position dictating no classification based on race along with looking at the world through colorblind glasses leads to disastrous results. Furthermore, these legal principles are inimical to the goals of the post Civil War Amendments. After the Civil War, America realized it needed to take action in order to ensure blacks achieved equal footing with their white counterparts. The way the Court has interpreted the Brown line of cases has led to policies that directly contradict the goals of the post Civil War Amendments. Instead of allowing practices aimed at achieving racial equality by helping a historically subjugated group of people, the Court has made these measures unconstitutional. This precedent equates laws designed to subjugate with laws designed to end subjugation. Integration of racially homogeneous areas is now discrimination. This is clearly an absurd result. The present line of thinking appears to directly contradict the goals of Congress shortly after the Civil War.

The author contends this is such a disastrous result because colorblind thinking presumes blacks and whites are now on equal footing. This is far from accurate. The percentage of blacks under the poverty line in 2006 was 24.2 percent. That number is 8.2 percent among whites. That is even with thirty years of economic development in the black community since the solidification of anticlassification principles. No one can doubt this country has a history of institutional and societal racism that has led to discrimination en masse. Hugely disparate poverty statistics are prima facie evidence of this. To use the discriminatory intent logic, because this country took intentional discriminatory measures such as slavery and Jim Crow laws to retard the economic progress of blacks in this county, this country is presumed to continue this practice until a showing otherwise. The difference in the poverty level percentages above implies this country has not taken this affirmative action and is direct evidence against the colorblind principle claiming we are all equal.

This way of thinking not only says race is no longer a problem, it effectively destroys race. As the Bakke and Richmond cases showed, the Court now views America as a nation of ethnic groups all in competition with one another. This ideology often results in whites becoming the “minority” in areas where there is direct evidence of past white economic hegemony. It seems absurd to say whites are being discriminated against when a state acts to remedy hundreds of years of white discrimination against blacks. This new ethnic way of looking at people will only further harm blacks. A court will now always be able to find an ethnic group in competition with blacks and claim it should not pick between the interests of either group. This puts minority groups against each other even more so than the present fight for limited economic resources between the groups.

Colorblindness also does not address the externalities of race problems. There is much ongoing scientific research attempting to figure out the reasons behind such differences in racial economics. Blacks might not be getting the same jobs as whites because they do not have the same education. A black school could be lagging behind because the kids do not pay attention. The kids could not be paying attention because they do not have father figures at home. The father figures could not be at home because of selective enforcement of laws by police. The police might have myriad laws to enforce because of discriminating legislative bodies. The point here is there are countless inputs going into the equation to figure out a problem. Anticlassification rules are so pernicious to the black community because when a body figures out the reasons behind one of these problems, they are not able to efficiently assist the group most in need by helping them specifically. Any measures doing that would be classifying based on race and therefore unconstitutional.

Anticlassification ideology also does not address inherent racial bias. Requiring discriminatory intent severely limits the ability to investigate racial bias. Emerging studies in the medical world show racial bias in the medical community. A recent study found white medical students were less empathetic toward black patients in one-on-one interviews. Another study showed 79 or 80 percent of white Americans show a preference for white over black. One more tested implicit bias by having participants identify the race of racially ambiguous faces. When faces were seen to display relatively hostile expressions, individuals were more likely to categorize them as black. When identical facial expressions of African Americans and European Americans changed from hostile to positive expressions, white viewers often perceived the hostility to linger longer in black faces. These studies show racial bias is alive and well in America. This is significant because anticlassification and colorblind ideology presumes neutrality until a showing of discriminatory intent. This is problematic because racial biases might be influencing actors much more than they realize. A law can pass that is considered facially neutral even though it was subconscious racial bias that was really behind the action. Since the Court demands conscious discriminatory intent, this effectively eliminates any investigation into what was really behind the policy.

This paper has shown how the Court has interpreted the Civil War Amendments to go completely against what they were tasked to do. Through its rulings, the Court has made several dangerous claims, proclaiming racial inequality is all but dead. Today, doctrines of heightened scrutiny function primarily to constrain legislatures from adopting policies designed to reduce race and gender stratification, while doctrines of discriminatory purpose offer only weak constraints on the forms of facially neutral state action that continue to perpetuate the racial and gender stratification of American society. We see cases such as Richmond where a city was not allowed to take action to correct hundreds of years of obvious and known discrimination because it discriminated against white people. The anticlassification principle is not tied to a utopian ideal in which the visibility of racial difference disappears. Rather, it is a tool for dismantling white supremacy and eradicating social practices that disadvantage historically subordinated groups. However, in application we see it is doing anything but.

The author suggests a system that takes race into account on a case by case basis and eschews the present competing ethnic groups worldview. Race is not something to run away from. It is naive to think we have achieved racial equality and therefore we can no longer assist certain racial groups because of past transgressions against them. Present disparate poverty statistics are directly connected to hundreds of years of discrimination and racial bias studies show this discrimination has not stopped. Because of this, disparate impact should be considered a violation of equal protection principles. Requiring discriminatory intent makes it far too easy for bodies to circumvent the true spirit of equal protection. A law against crack resulting in blacks comprising 98.2 percent of convictions confirms this. Furthermore, violation of equal protection in matters of race should also carry criminal sanctions. This would immediately make people think twice about enacting policies they know will disparately impact a certain race.

Much has changed in the fifty years since Brown. Unfortunately, the Court believes much more has changed than really has. In its attempt to look at everyone the same, the Court has failed to realize many problems subsist making us not the same. Hopefully the Court will realize its actions might potentially lead the march of civil rights in the opposite direction.