Black high school students in Louisiana threatened with lynching | Campaign for America's Future

Black high school students in Louisiana threatened with lynching Campaign for America's Future

In September 2006, a group of African American high school students in Jena, Louisiana, asked the school for permission to sit beneath a "whites only" shade tree. There was an unwritten rule that blacks couldn't sit beneath the tree. The school said they didn't care where students sat. The next day, students arrived at school to see three nooses (in school colors) hanging from the tree....
The boys who hung the nooses were suspended from school for a few days. The school administration chalked it up as a harmless prank, but Jena's black population didn't take it so lightly. Fights and unrest started breaking out at school. The District Attorney, Reed Walters, was called in to directly address black students at the school and told them all he could "end their life with a stroke of the pen."
Black students were assaulted at white parties. A white man drew a loaded rifle on three black teens at a local convenience store. (They wrestled it from him and ran away.) Someone tried to burn down the school, and on December 4th, a fight broke out that led to six black students being charged with attempted murder. To his word, the D.A. pushed for maximum charges, which carry sentences of eighty years. Four of the six are being tried as adults (ages 17 & 18) and two are juveniles....

Um, wow. Let me digest this. A 'whites only' shade tree. Three nooses in school colors hanging from said tree. A D.A. that tells black kids he could end their lives, and then tries his best to do so.

I live in Kitchener, Ontario. My community, for its size, has a surprisingly varied population, from Eastern Europeans to Jamaicans, from Christians to Muslims. We are not immune from hate crimes; recently a black man was assaulted by a couple of white teenagers in a city park for the stated reason that he was black. Generally, though, the various races and cultures get along around here in relative harmony. Perhaps that is because the standard of living isn't that bad, or because we're all too busy working and living to care much about the color of a neighbor's skin. I have known blacks, whites, Asians, Muslims, and Newfies, and what I know for sure is that each person, despite whatever cultural influences they might have, is their own person, and cannot be safely defined by their host culture. The biggest asshole I've ever known was a white guy. In fact, the top five assholes I've known were all white. I have met good and bad people from many cultural backgrounds, and there are no guarantees that one culture will produce better people than other cultures.

But damn if black people don't scare the hell out of white southerners.

Crooks and Liars » Bong Hits For Jesus

Crooks and Liars » Bong Hits For Jesus

I wish I could say that this Supreme Court ruling surprises me, but of course it doesn't. The best part is that the student unfurled his banner across the street from the high school. He wasn't even on school grounds, so how does a principal have the authority to do anything to the student? As for 'advocating drug use', the banner clearly states "Bong Hits For Jesus". Not for anyone else - just Jesus. I'm also not clear on the specifics of how it's not free speech - instead of a banner, what if the group of students simply chanted 'Bong Hits for Jesus'? Is that also not allowed? What's the difference? If anything, considering America's literacy rate, the chanting would reach more people.

And I don't know if anyone's paid attention to popular culture over the last couple decades, but if you can prevent a kid from saying 'Bong Hits for Jesus', is America going to also prevent Snoop Dogg from rapping about weed? Are the reefer scenes in such popular movies as '40 Year Old Virgin' going to be removed? Where's the line here? What line?

What if the banner had said "Bush is on crack - what are you waiting for?" or "Look out, Cheney's got a gun!" What if the student had unfurled the banner on his front lawn? Does the principal still get to suspend him? How in the fuck did this even get to the Supreme Court, anyway? Oh right - to score cheap political points with the religious right nutbags and die-hard brainless right-wingers. To be clear, I'm not calling all right-wingers brainless. Just the ones that think "Bong Hits for Jesus" is anything other than a juvenile attempt at pothead humor.

WP: Scientists cast doubt on Kennedy bullet analysis - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

WP: Scientists cast doubt on Kennedy bullet analysis

They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the
government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong. "This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."

SNAP, baby!

I still believe Oswald didn't even fire a shot that day. He was a patsy in the complete sense of the word, although who was actually controlling the situation is still a question we may never answer. They had some serious brass balls, though. The subject of the JFK assassination always makes me reflect on how easy it would be to kill someone, particularly if you did not care what happened to you after the deed was done. There are so many times when even the most protected man on the planet is vulnerable that I really feel sorry for the Secret Service. I don't know how they do it, year in and year out, but it must be near impossible to guard against someone who is truly, fanatically dedicated to the task, and is happy to martyr himself in the attempt. Good thing there aren't too many of those people around, right? *cough*

My Way - Sports News

Phoenix Coach Rips Ruling

The NBA suspended Stoudemire and Diaw for Wednesday night's Game 5 of what's become an intense, rough Western Conference semifinal series against the San Antonio Spurs.

The two violated an NBA rule by leaving the bench area after Robert Horry's flagrant foul on Steve Nash in the final seconds of Phoenix's 104-98 victory in Game 4, a win that tied the series at 2-2.

Horry was suspended for Game 5 and Friday night's Game 6.

Western culture reveres characters that 'break the rules' to get things done 'their way', replacing mindless authoritarianism with common sense. When it comes to professional sports - in this case, the NBA - common sense is generally ignored. I've seen the highlight several times now, and it's clear to me that what Horry did was the equivalent of a sucker punch. It was beyond flagrant - I'd call it a foul with the intent to injure. Let's say Nash is a little more off-balance when Horry hits him; then Steve might have smashed his head against the scorer's table. Horry can say what he wants about Nash over-dramatizing the hit, but when you don't see it coming, any reaction you have is completely instinctive. It's not like Steve thought in the half-second it took to hit the floor, "Hey, this is my chance to flail around like an Italian soccer player." So Horry only getting a two-game suspension is a gift compared to what he would have received if Nash had sustained a serious enough injury to miss one or more games.

But what really bothers me is that David Stern felt that he had no choice but to penalize the two Suns players who came off the bench. This betrays a stunning ignorance of how players relate to each other as people and as teammates. If I was in a bar with my brother, and while he was up getting a beer, some guy punches him in the head, what do you think I'm going to do? Sit on my ass because assault is against the law? Or am I going to tackle that bastard for hitting my brother? There's not even a conscious decision here; no thought is required. Somebody messes with my brother, they're messing with me. I'd be out of my seat in a heartbeat.

Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw see their brother knocked over like a bowling pin, and they're out of their seats in a heartbeat. They're not thinking about the rule that says they can't leave the bench, they're not thinking about anything except their brother is down, is Steve all right, and what the hell is going on here? I'm not suggesting they should have been allowed to tackle Robert Horry, but I'd rather have a player who stands up for his teammate than one who sits on his hands and doesn't want to get involved. It's harder for NBA players to stay on the bench in situations like this because there is no barrier between them and the court. Hockey players have the boards between them and the ice, so that helps to remind them in a keyed-up emotional situation that they have to stay where they are.

If I were commissioner, this would be my common-sense revision of the rule:

If a player leaves the bench area for any reason other than checking into the game or heading for the locker room, he is immediately ejected from the game. Any further punishment will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the commissioner.

The rule as it stands now is designed to eliminate the decision-making process. David Stern wants to be able to point to the rule and say, "See, that's the rule, so this is the punishment. Fnehh." The problem with a blanket rule is that it ignores context. Amare and Boris were upset that their teammate was thuggishly fouled, but they did not come into contact with any of the San Antonio players. The suspensions Stern gave out cost both the Spurs and the Suns two man-games, except that Stoudemire is the second-best player on his team, and one of the best players in the NBA, so you could reasonably argue that the Suns are losing 2.5 to 3 man-games in a tight playoff series, thus giving an unfair advantage to the team that instigated the situation in the first place.

What the NBA is telling everyone is that you can physically target the other team's best player, try to take him out in an unsportsmanlike fashion, and you'll come out ahead on the deal.

That's not common sense. That's just stupid.

My Way News - Warner Bros. Cancels Canada Previews

My Way News - Warner Bros. Cancels Canada Previews

Canadian film lovers hoping to catch an early peek at "Ocean's Thirteen" and the upcoming Harry Potter sequel will be out of luck after Warner Bros. canceled all of its advance screenings and accused Canada of being at the forefront of the piracy market.

Darcy Antonellis, Warner Bros.' senior vice president of worldwide anti-piracy operations, defended the move Tuesday, saying weak Canadian copyright rules have made the country a haven for organized crime syndicates to make and sell illegal DVDs.

It's been pointed out already by Michael Feist that the MPAA's claims of rampant piracy in Canada are at best ludicrous, but of course what this is really about is strong-arming the Canadian government to pass draconian copyright legislation like the U.S.'s DMCA. The idea that Canada has weak copyright law is laughable - it's already against the law to sell or rent an infringing copy of copyrighted material. Uh, doesn't that cover it? Where's the weakness there? From Geist:

The Copyright Act includes severe penalties for violating this provision with the potential for million dollar fines and up to five years in jail. Indeed, the MPAA's own website specifically points to Canada as an example of how many countries have legislation that prohibit illegal camcording. The movie lobby group states that "in Canada camcording is an infringement under the Copyright Act, regardless of whether it is for the public or personal use of the person making the copy."

So make up your mind, MPAA... Oh, and didn't I read a big news story a few days ago about a movie called 'Spiderman 3' that set box-office records? Yeah, that whole 'piracy' thing is really hurting the industry. You'd think, though, that they might want to tackle 'quality' first. Just a thought.

Gov. Hasn't Reviewed Hilton Fan Petition

Hilton - star of E! network's reality show "The Simple Life" - has called the sentence unfair, and her fans have posted a petition on the Internet urging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to pardon her.

Paris Hilton has fans. I know, this was probably obvious to you, but give me a second. Paris Hilton has fans. Fans of what, exactly? What has she accomplished that would attract favorable attention? She parties. That's what she does. That's her forte. I knew a lot of people in university who majored in partying, and yet they somehow avoided fame and fortune. Yes, fortune, that's what we're talking about here. She's famous for having a rich daddy... Oh, and there was that sex tape thing.

How pathetic is your life if you count yourself a Paris Hilton fan? Oh, yeah, Paris, she gets hammered every night, and she's had so many boyfriends that you'd need the computing power of IBM's Big Blue to keep track of them all. Plus, she has absolutely no talent at anything. And small boobs.

Yeah, she's an easy target, but we're standing at the edge of the pop culture precipice when there are people in this world who think Paris Hilton is all that and a pack of rubbers, who actually take the time to write up a petition to the Governator asking for clemency. These are the kind of IQ-challenged morons that caused people to believe eugenics was a great idea. Paris is nothing. Less than nothing. Except she's a queen-sized distraction, and that makes the wrong people happy. I can only hope that she fades into obscurity with the good grace common to those who were born with everything and gave nothing in return.

I've reached the point where I've realized that it doesn't matter who is running America - Democrat or Republican, it will still be business as usual, with the rich getting richer while everyone else gets the bill. Howard Zinn's book, 'The People's History of the United States', was a real eye-opener for me, as I never knew how thoroughly the upper class has been managing and controlling the rest of us, not just in recent times, but right from the get-go. I never realized how much violence there has been in North American history, and how swift the hammer of government used to come down on dissidents. These last few decades, Americans have been spoiled with freedom (as have us Canadians), and so we do not recognize the warning signs:

Fascist America, In Ten Easy Steps

Naomi Wolf's article lays it all out, plain as day, and of course we are all afflicted with the disease of malaise, of laissez-faire, because it seems too ridiculous to believe. We have too many distractions to see the big picture, and it's so easy to allow yourself to be caught up in the details of everyday life. Bush and his cronies are taking advantage of this by grabbing as much power as they can while assuming that we'll be more interested in what's on TV tonight. They are not wrong in a practical sense, but morally, well, if there is evil in this world, the U.S. government stands at the heart of it right now.

My brother Dave believes that America is dying, and I'm starting to see it, too. Maybe it was never that alive anyway. Zinn's book makes it clear that the supposedly democratic American government has been focused on protecting the rich at all costs right from the beginning. Freedom? Justice? Equality? There has never been a period of time in America's history when those three ideals were available to all Americans - unless they were part of the ruling class. It's ironic that America was founded by a bunch of guys who were tired of being the underclass in England, so what they did was set up a country with themselves as the ruling class. As George Carlin says, America was founded by slave-owners who wanted to be free. Now, what small social and economic gains have been made are being threatened once again by the rich and powerful. The internet scares the heck out of them because their control of the media is becoming more and more irrelevant. They're worried about the burgeoning power bases in China, Saudi Arabia, India, and South Africa. They're concerned that their foreign policy mistakes and covert operation disasters will come back to haunt them again. But mostly they're afraid that they might lose their money and power. Best way to keep it is to concentrate the money and power into a controlling, trustworthy few. Everything that Naomi Wolf says in her article has already happened. They could come for you in the dead of night, or on a bright sunny day, or when you're at work, at play, at peace. They don't need a reason, and they can hold you for the rest of your life. That does not speak to freedom, nor to justice, nor to equality. It's what we feared our enemies would do, what we know the Nazis did in the thirties and forties, what the Soviets did during the cold war, what the Chinese do now.

As long as America is stuck in a two-party electoral system, it remains a virtual dictatorship. As long as the majority of Americans do not vote because they know their views and needs are not being represented, things will only get worse. The powerful will continue to make bold strides forward, while we fall farther behind. What we can hope for is that a potential leader will emerge who is more concerned about his or her fellow man than the almighty dollar. Who actually listens to the people instead of treating them like dispensable cash machines. Who, regardless of his stated religious beliefs, actually performs his duties in a responsible, moral, compassionate fashion. This person... does not exist. Or at least, not yet. There have been people throughout history who have shown such qualities - Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa - but rarely have they ever come close to real power. Western societies are designed to keep such people out of power. Still, stranger things have happened.

It could start with talking to friends, get them interested and involved. You might get lucky and find someone who fits the profile I outlined above. Hey, maybe you fit that profile. I mean, come on, George Bush was a C student and he's the President. How hard can it be? Listen:

I was playing in a softball game a couple of years ago, and we were losing bad, down by more than ten runs, and it was the last inning. I led off with a single, and as my team cheered, I clapped my hands with a grin as I reached the bag. The first baseman cocked his head and said, "Why are you all excited? We're kickin' your butts." I shrugged and replied, "You gotta start somewhere."

So? Start, already.

Update 2: GOP Senators Introduce Eavesdropping Bill - Forbes.com

The bill would give the government up to 45 days to monitor calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists when one party is in the U.S. and the other is overseas. Like Bush's existing program, the government would not have to get court approval. After 45 days, federal officials would have to stop the eavesdropping, get a court warrant or explain to House and Senate intelligence subcommittees why the monitoring must continue.

Remember when America had a Constitution? And a Bill of Rights? God, those were the days, weren't they? Well, I guess privacy isn't really all that important when placed next to the government's need to control every facet of your existence. Keep swinging farther to the right, America. It'll make it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit. Hey, have you invaded Iran yet? What's the hold-up?

ESA Says, Vote for Video Games - Shacknews

As you have probably noticed, the legal and political climate surrounding video games and the video game industry is becoming absolutely stifling. The number of laws being proposed or passed on a daily basis relating in some way to the restriction or regulation of games continues to grow. Of course, most of them are struck down by the courts, but the fact that politicians feel compelled to keep proposing them, and elected officials continue to pass them at the senate and house levels, indicates that the general sentiment about games is not a good one. When politicians are unable to pass laws that restrict game sales or content, they obtain funding for surveys that will potentially allow them to do so. At this rate, don't be surprised if some of these attempts end up sticking.

The power structure has been waging war on youth culture for as long as youth culture has existed. If it wasn't rock and roll or long hair or tattoos, it was rap lyrics and heavy metal and video games. We fear what we do not understand, and of course authority figures have never understood young people, despite attempts by public figures like Bill Clinton to look 'cool'. Hell, I have a teenage stepson, and I don't understand him most of the time. The paradox is that a serious percentage of the North American economy revolves around youth culture. Movies, music, games, television, comics, clothes - every player in these industries would tell you that without the under-25 set buying their shit, they'd be fucked. The weekly box office is driven by teenagers - older people wait for the DVD. Who's buying those albums listed on Billboard's Top 100? Are there a lot of middle-aged Eminem fans?

The economy relies more heavily on youth culture than any single industry because they have the most disposable income. You know, the money they should be saving for college. So while those in power rail against the evils of video games and rock music and rappers and morally-depraved movies, what they are really doing is making them cool, because nothing attracts teenagers faster than the idea that old people don't like something they like. The youth culture industries know this and subtly encourage politicians to keep up the 'good' work.

The thing to keep in mind is that this war on youth is all about control (just like the Matrix movies, if you were paying attention). Let's turn the debate towards violence in video games so you aren't paying attention to what's happening in Iraq. The Man is controlling you by keeping your attention focused on the stuff they already control. They don't actually want young people to stop buying games and listening to music. But there is a wild card in all this, a new card added to the game that has everybody nervous. The internet. The government and the corporations are desperate to find ways to control the internet, but its very nature makes it virtually impossible. The Man can't stop you from reading a blog from a native Iraqi. The Man can't stop you from getting your news from alternative sources. The Man can't stop you from talking about the things that interest you. Oh, but they're trying. Teenage bloggers getting suspensions for writing nasty things about their school. Internet providers talking about surcharge schemes to freeze out 'unimportant' network traffic. The DMCA, which grants incredible rights to copyright holders, while stomping all over consumer rights.

So when you read about another politician ranting about violence in video games, or sex on television, or the lyrics in a rap song, remember: it's really an attack on youth culture. An attack on freedom.

So Crash wins for Best Picture, and that's fine, but let's be real - this was a weak year for movies. Check out this list of films from 1994:

The Shawshank Redemption
Pulp Fiction
Forrest Gump
Ed Wood
Heavenly Creatures
Hoop Dreams
The Lion King
Quiz Show
The Madness of King George
Speed
The Mask
Clerks
The Crow

1994 might just have been the best year for movies in the last half-century. I saw Crash, and it would have been lucky to make the bottom of that list. I'd take just about any of those movies over Crash or Brokeback Mountain. Forrest Gump won Best Picture for 1994, but I think in hindsight you'd agree that it's really a fight between Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption, and that's a tough call. Pulp had the greater influence on the industry and the art of filmmaking, but Shawshank had Morgan Freeman and the always awesome Clancy Brown. Damn, I can't pick. Call it a tie. Crash couldn't hold either movie's nutsack, though.

In fact, the 90's were probably the best decade for movies ever. Along with the list I quoted above, we got some amazing movies: Schindler's List, The Usual Suspects, Seven, Heat, Toy Story, L.A. Confidential, The Matrix, Fargo, Goodfellas, The Silence of the Lambs, Fight Club, Reservoir Dogs, Saving Private Ryan, Terminator 2, Unforgiven, Boogie Nights, Trainspotting, The Big Lebowski, JFK. In IMDB's top 250 movies list (voted on by registered IMDB users), 12 of the top 50 movies are from the nineties, the largest percentage from a single decade.

This decade started out strong with the Lord of the Rings movies, but it's got some catching up to do. God, I hope V For Vendetta doesn't suck...

CBS News | Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low | February 28, 2006

34 percent. Oh, and 58 percent of Republicans think the Dubai port deal is a mistake.

I watched 'Good Night, and Good Luck' last night, the movie about the conflict between Edward R. Murrow and Senator McCarthy. It was a reminder of a time when people actually trusted journalists, instead of thinking they're just as full of shit as the politicians they cover. When Murrow told you the truth, you believed it. Now, if Tom Brokaw told you the truth, you'd wonder if it was the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God. I think that those in the media - and I mean the real media, not Fox News - know that they've done an absolutely shitty job the last couple of decades, and an astoundingly horrible job the last six years. They know the Bush administration lied to Americans many times; they know the War in Iraq had no justification beyond 'Let's Get Saddam'; they know Americans shouldn't be torturing anybody, nor should they be denying anyone their civil rights; they know the government shouldn't be eavesdropping without a warrant, even from a rubber-stamp court like the FISA court. They know these things, but they have not been reporting them. They have not been making them news. The reasons for this are not truly important, because there is still time to change, to ask forgiveness, to make up for their past sins. It's hard to admit when you've done wrong. It's hard to admit that the neocons used you like a two-dollar-whore to beat the drum for war.

Here's what I'd like to see:

Get the most prominent newscasters and journalists in the country together for a single, multi-network broadcast. I'm talking Brokaw and Rather and Koppel and Stossel and Bradley and Williams. Throw in Stone Phillips and Barbara Walters and Mike Wallace. Each of the three networks will get equal air time, and what I'd like them to do is go through, point by point, in simple, clear language, the lies that the Bush administration has told. Expose the bullshit. Take everything they've ignored for the last six years and cast a spotlight on it. And at the end, apologize to the American public and the world for not doing their jobs. Acknowledge that 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' does a better job of holding the powerful accountable than they do. Promise that corporate interests will no longer compromise journalistic ethics.

THEN GO OUT THERE AND DO YOUR FUCKING JOBS!

We're suckers for the truth, you know. All we want is someone to have the balls to give it to us.

U.S. Government Shuts Cuba Out of World Baseball Classic

The U.S. government is keeping Cuba out of the inaugural World Baseball Classic, citing the standing embargo against the communist island nation. ... In the tournament schedule announced last week, Cuba was to play its three first-round games in San Juan, Puerto Rico, facing Panama on March 8, the Netherlands on March 9 and Puerto Rico the following day. If the Cubans advanced, they would also have played their second-round games in Puerto Rico.

Last time I checked, the Cold War was effectively over. Why does the Cuban trade embargo still exist? There are plenty of countries run by dictatorships that America does business with, so what's the deal? Oh, right, it's because it's Castro, not just any old dictator, it's Fidel, the guy who's been thumbing his nose at America for decades. Can't make that guy happy, now can we? If the embargo is lifted, the terrorists win. It's funny - Canadian tourists have been visiting Cuba for years, and many are surprised at the higher standard of living versus some of the other 'free' Caribbean countries like the Dominican Republic. Their emergency response system is highly organized and efficient; just compare how well Cuba made out during hurricane season versus Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Of course, the real story is that the U.S. government is being predictably petulant about not allowing Cuba to compete in a series of sporting events. "We don't like you, so you don't get to play." What horseshit. They're playing baseball, not hawking cigars rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins. Is the U.S. government capable of not being dicks for any appreciable length of time?