Disqus - Latest Comments for francislholland

Re: Where Journalism Goes to Die

Francis L. Holland — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 01:30:46 -0000

In summary, what this foreign billionaire and his organization did was to hire a more than a few of the left's best known journalists and then determinedly WASTE THEIR TIME and efforts over a couple of years. Maybe that was the intention all along?

This sounds like the frustration and disgust I felt when I spent time posting stories at DailyKos, only to realize that its "bootstrap" "leftist" owner was a Salvadoran oligarch who opposed gays in the military, worked on Henry Hyde's Congressional campaigns, supported the same "states' rights" that opposes civil rights and gay marriage, and whose uncle in El Salvador had received a million dollar loan guarantee from the US Government to build hotels in protected wetlands. I learned most of what I know about investigative journalism by investigating Markos Moulitsas and his Salvadoran oligarch family. http://truth-about-kos.blog...

Since Markos Moulitsas admits that he was training with the CIA when he started DailyKos, maybe that fact explains a lot of others? It certainly tells me that I could never have been in the right place while writing and publishing in such a person's company.

Maybe that's why I suspect, speculatively and in the alternative, that the purpose of your ex-employer in starting these online newspapers was never to do any actual reporting, but might have been to investigate and disrupt leftist journalists and journalism, or to serve as a front for spying or money laundering, or as a tax dodge, or for some other nefarious motive. That is a conspiracy theory (half a dozen really) that nonetheless would help to explain why someone would spend so much money wasting so many prominent leftist journalists' time.

I would have to suggest that, in the future, before you go to work for ANYONE, you investigate them in the same way that you would a politician whose background you thought suspicious. You have to go through a potential employer's background with a fine-tooth comb before risking casting your pearls upon swine.

Even then, media outlets that were fine when you started with them can be bought and corrupted. Look what happened to Now Public when it was purchased by a billionaire Republican donor (and my posting privileges were immediately withdrawn).

"Phillip Anschutz, the new owner of Now Public, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and Republican causes, including $3,000 to Senator John McCain and the Colorado Republican Party, according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The world's 89th wealthiest billionaire, according to Forbes, has been a consistent giver to Republican candidates and causes since at least 1999." http://truth-about-kos.blog...

No matter how careful you are, you can still get screwed by a corporation under its present owners or their successors in interest.

Re: Silicon Valley Thinks It Can Learn From Skater Culture. It’s a Terrible Idea

Francis L. Holland — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 01:29:08 -0000

Some of the comments of men - comments that are angry, demeaning, insulting, condescending - tend to to prove what the author of this article is saying: that as a woman she experiences hostility coming from men in a sport that she loved.

I don't know a thing about skating, never having tried it, but I feel great sympathy for the author of this article, having experienced marginalization myself a time or two.

I've been reading about the hostility that women face in Silicon Valley, including women who've filed lawsuits against the most outrageous sexual victimization. And yesterday I read about a woman who was going to participate in a gaming conference in Boston but had to back out because she was receiving death and rape threats and the conference organizers ignored her requests for more security.

White men insist that the whole world is a meritocracy, even as they do everything in their power to keep women out and to chase out the few women who are in. They insist that white male privilege doesn't exist while using their privilege as a club to pound others into submission.

Now, some white men will angrily disagree with this comment and some of them may even see my photo and make all sorts of color-aroused antagonistic comments. If so, this will only prove what I and the article are saying: White men exercise privilege all the time to marginalize and exclude others and then they get furious when anyone points that out.

Re: What Does It Mean to be an Ally?

Francis L. Holland — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:26:37 -0000

I share and applaud your sentiments and observations.

In fact, heterosexuals are so afraid of and offended by the possibility that anyone could suspect them of being gay that they sometimes react with violence when they are hit on by a gay person. They seem to be asking, indignantly and defensively, "What is it about me that makes you think that I might be gay?"

In fact, many of the people who so loudly protest that they cannot possibly be gay nonetheless secretly harbor precisely the desire to interact with others of the same sex that they are so afraid of acknowledging. And so they react in anger, as if an angry response proves that they are not gay and would not like to behave as gays do.
Often, that virulent reaction is an indication of the opposite: that they are very afraid to acknowledge and want to distance themselves from some aspect of their own reality.

It is entirely normal among heterosexuals to politely (and sometimes not so politely) decline romantic overtures from other heterosexuals. Sometimes, it's awkward but we get over it. When we can adopt the same nonchalance when it concerns come ons from people who are gay, then we'll have made progress. The truth is, many people are gay and don't show it, so the only way a gay person can find out if a stranger is gay might be to inquire. It's not intended as an insult and shouldn't be taken as one.

If you don't welcome a come on from a gay or straight person, just say no.

And you're right that congratulating others for coming out must be combined with creating the kind of welcoming atmosphere where coming out doesn't require so much courage.

Consider saying this: I'm not gay, but I have a single friend who is.

Re: A Message for Natural Hair Elitists

Francis L. Holland — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:30:18 -0000

Chemicals are not healthy. That's why they're called "chemicals."

I live in a Brazilian town where 99% of Black women put lye or formaldehyde in their hair, even though it makes their hair become dry and fall out.

This isn't "freedom." This is bondage to "internalyzing the oppressor" and physical self destruction.

If you think lye and formaldehyde are potentially "healthy", then put them in your mouth or your eyes and see how healthy they are!

Have you ever stopped to wonder whether Black children in major cities have three times the incidence of asthma because they are subjected to lye in their own hair, their mothers' hair, their sisters' hair, their aunts' hair at home, and then when they go to school virtually all of their classmates have lye and formaldehyde residues in their hair, whereas for white children in all white schools, this is not the case?

Isn't it possible that hair straightening chemicals are the reason why Black children can't breath and white children (whose mothers and sitster's don't straighten their hair) are able to breathe three times more easily?

Would you stop straightening your hair if you knew it would help your child to breathe 5% better. The answer is, "NO, YOU WOULDN'T." Not even if doctors told you your asthmatic child would stop having asthma attacks. That's not freedom, but it does show who the extremists are.

The American Journal of Color Arousal

Re: How to Wire Money to a Bank Account

Francis L. Holland — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:01:57 -0000

Paypal is a much simpler and less expensive way to transfer money within the United States and overseas. Once you've verified the PayPal account's ability to charge your credit card (four days), all you need is the e-mail address associated with the recipient's PayPal account.

Here in Brazil, I needed to send $300.00 to a business in the United States. The bank manager explained that, with all bank fees, exchange fees, and Brazilian Government taxes, the transfer would end up costing me 125% more than the money I was sending.

With PayPal, where the recipient receives the money instantly, the fees are about 12% of the money sent. That's better than Western Union, which charges a 60 dollar service charge plus a significant percentage fee of the money transferred.

I didn't trust PayPal when I first heard of it, but it enabled me to send money much more quickly and easily than a wire transfer. It can all be done from your home, on your computer.

http://francislholland.blog...

Re: New York Times Front Page Suggests that America Dump Black History Month

Francis L. Holland — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:05:52 -0000

Is White-History Year Still Relevant in a Multi-Cultural Society?
Jack and Jill Politics points out that two well-known Black people with beige skin have proposed an end to the institution that is Black History Month:

John McWhorter of the New Republic says on NyTimes’ Bloggingheads.TV that he’s “beyond Black History Month” and that it’s so “1945 or 1975″. He claims that Americans of all colors roll their eyes at BHM. It’s a ritual and a gesture but not educational.

Glenn Loury of Brown University says he believes Black History Month is “kitsch”, “corny” and “anachronistic”.

I confess that I have not read their articles and I have no intention of doing so. One of the benefits of living in Brazil is that I need not become embroiled and boiled in every trend of American cultural nonsense that has it's 15 minutes in the sun.

To Glenn Loury, I would point out that much of the way American history is taught focuses on whites' "corny," "kitchy" "anachronisms". White History Year always starts with an uncritical and banal discussion the grandiose Foundering Fathers who felt competent to write the nation's founding documents without the contribution of their wives, daughters and the many Blacks present around them, including the slaves.

How did women and Blacks feel about being left out of the Foundering Fathers' selfish and arrogant contemplation, arrogating unto themselves all of the decisions that would govern how women, Blacks, Chinese and Native Americans would be treated in America? We still suffer with their idiotic Second Amendment.

We all know that the need for Black History Month derives from the fact that children who were in school before 1980 or so were not taught anything and certainly nothing positive about Black people in the United States. They were taught that the French colonized Canada and required to learn the names of key French colonizers and adventurers. They were taught that the Spanish colonized Florida and were made to learn the names of Spanish explorers. But the millions of Black people, slave and free, were ignored when I was in grade school, in the 1970's.

We were not required to learn the name of any Black person whatever, which left the impression that Blacks, like cows, had no aspirations and engaged in no action to improve "their lot." Since Black slave revolts were not discussed, all students could be forgiven for believing that Blacks just passively accepted being enslaved. Black History Month is a kind of educational affirmative action, adding Blacks back into American history where they were previously ignored.

Every day of my life is Black Presence Day, and every day I morn that in Brazil, which is 50% Black, no one whose skin is darker than a beige keyboard can be found on national television shows, unless they are playing soccer or dancing half-naked during Carnival.

I don't know about these McWorther's and Loury's motives in proposing to end Black History Month, except perhaps to set up a wedge issue that will torment and destabilize President Obama on his way to re-election next year. Or maybe they just want to get their names in the newspapers?

I wish they had discussed this matter with the hundreds of thousand of Blacks who fought for the institution of Black History Month and Martin Luther King Day, including Stevie Wonder. Should we also end Martin Luther King Day? Aren't photographs and busts of Martin Luther King, Jr. just "kitsch"?
What a strange argument. I have never heard any aspect of white-history being described as "kitsch" and even if it were, that would be no reason in most people's mind to remove it from the curriculum.

If the effect of ending Black History Month is nine uninterrupted months of White History Year for students, then I strongly, adamantly, vigorously and unstintingly oppose that. When I was a grade school student, there was no mention of Black people at all in the context of the discussion of the founding, enlargement and wealth of this nation.

Then, Black History Month became and remains an effective way of compelling teachers and textbook corporations to include a substantial discussion of the participation and substantial contributions of Blacks in the United States. Black History Month changes textbooks and textbooks change curriculum. Acknowledgment of outstanding Blacks in textbooks is as crucial as desegregated trains and lunch counters.

I would be glad to endorse their idea if they would endorse having one Black Presence day per week for every four days of white history. On that weekly Black Presence Day, in courses such in Civics, Sociology, Science, Political Science, Physics and all other areas, professors and students would be obliged to research and explain what Blacks were doing, slave and free, at every moment in White American history in all of the above content areas, and the others as well.

This year would seem a particularly auspicious time to focus on Black history and to answer the question, "How did America elect a Black president, and can it happen again?"

On each week's Black Presence Friday, professors and students, after research, would explain how Blacks were and are contributing to every single event and advancement in American history. I'd like to see history books constantly mention Blacks' contributions to things like the invention of the traffic light and heart surgery procedures.

Black History Month is nice, but White History Year remains oppressive. I would prefer to see the acknowledgment of the contributions of Blacks integrated into every facet of the telling of the American story. On one Black Presence Friday, for example, students could talk about all of the structures that were built with Black slave labor and how those structures are being used today.

As I said, what most offends me is white-history year.

Re: The Past Ain't Even The Past... - Ta-Nehisi Coates - National - The Atlantic

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:54:26 -0000

I think this might be driven by Haley Barbour's desire to mobilize and win the hard core color-aroused anti-black antagonists nationally for his 2012 presidential campaign.

Re: Hey MSNBC: How Come Ain't No Black People on the Walls?

Francis L. Holland — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:18:57 -0000

If media talking head show hosts were elected, as Presidents of the United States are, then there might be a chance for a Black person to win of those positions. However, the first questions networks ask when one white man leaves is, "What white man can we get to replace him?"

It's true that we've recently seen more white women as news anchors here in Brazil, but even here there is an unwritten rule that anyone darker than Jada Pinkett is to dark to appear on television here, in soap operas, movies, and even in the audience during talk shows.

Remember why no Black person will be chosen to replace Olberman. The key question at times like these is, "What white man can we find to take this white man's place?"

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

Francis L. Holland — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:16:08 -0000

I'm utterly disgusted with where I see President Obama going on the issue of the renewal of Bush era tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. It's entirely fair to say that these super-wealthy people are the some of the same ones supporting the super-expensive US interventions and occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Venzuela (with seven bases on Columbia soil for the future invasion of Venezuela), and the list goes on and on.

Some of the billionaires even want to try and take out Iranian nuclear weapons with "bunker-buster" "tactical" nuclear weapons. (Has there ever been a nuclear weapon that wasn't tactical?) These millionaires and billionaires want to spend tax money but they just don't want to contribute any tax money.

The Washington Post says:

Democrats have not yet agreed on a tax plan. One group, led by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), is pressing Obama to forge a compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for household income up to $1 million. Other Democrats want to limit the extension to household income of $250,000 or less. Republicans have demanded an extension for all income levels.

Obama is believed to favor a two- or three-year extension of all the tax cuts, accompanied by an extension of unemployment benefits.

Schumer led a small delegation to the White House on Monday to urge Obama to support his proposal, which would allow Democrats to make the claim that they are raising taxes on millionaires to pay down the deficit.

"The million-dollar divide creates a very bright line and makes it very clear: You're either supporting multimillionaires and billionaires or you're supporting the middle class," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

If the history of Public Option health care is any indication, President Obama has already agreed to perpetuate Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich and is only doing a dance to show liberals and leftists that he tried to protect us but was ultimately compelled to agree to Republican demands that he approach the issue in the same way that Mitt Romney did, instead of acting like a Democrat and giving Americans real choices.

I smell it coming and it stinks to high heaven. Obama will agree to re-up on all of the Bush tax breaks, just as if Bush were in his third term in office. Go ahead, Obama! Make the Republicans proud of you and forget the Democratic Party issues that got you elected in the first place.

President Obama is not a stupid man, so his agreement to stupid Republican policies and approaches must mean that some part of him has been bought and paid for by the super-rich and they will makes the decisions on everything of importance:

* wars (4 at present, depending on whether you include Iran and/or US/Columbian preparation for war with Venezuela);
* Public Option health care was a goal that some say Obama bargained away before the public spectacle had even begun;
* And even police targetting of Black people, when Obama invited a white policeman who arrested a Black Harvard University professor on the professor's own front porch, for nothing

Is Obama bought and paid for? Watch for the results of this renewal of tax cuts for the super-rich. If Obama were a Democrat, he would veto these tax cuts and make the Republicans look like pro-billionaires for insisting upon these tax breaks for the rich. But, if (or because) Obama is a Republicrat, he will accept tax breaks for the super-rich, claiming that it was a deal that he couldn't avoid. He won't explain why he couldn't simply veto it.

And we will have gotten precisely the same tax plan that Bush II proposed and implemented.

Some choice: A Black Republican policy President (Obama)or a white one McCain. I wish Hillary could have let me vote for Hillary Clinton, but see sidebar at my blog for an explanation of why I, Color of Change, and virtually all Blacks simply couldn't vote for Hillary, even though she probably would have been a Democrat as president.

Watch how these tax cuts for the super-rich come out. If these Bush-era tax cuts for the extremely rich get extended, then we might just as well have Bush II in his 3rd term as President.

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

Francis L. Holland — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:23:04 -0000

Sasha and Malia don't look very happy in some of the photos of the basketball game, particularly the one in which they are compelled to place their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance. I can perfectly understand their disinterest since I personally refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance starting in third grade. I had to refuse. No one could give me a comprehensible explanation of the term "witchetstand". I never understood why we needed a republic for witchetstands, when I wasn't aware that witchetstands had ever asked for a republic in their interests. But I knew that Black people were promised all sorts of things in the Pledge of Allegiance that we had never experienced individually or as a group.

Re: Jamal Parris, One Of Eddie Long's Accusers Speak; And I Understand And Believe Him

Francis L. Holland — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:15:12 -0000

Just remember that girls can be just as vulnerable and there probably even more men wanting to take advantage of them.

Re: Jamal Parris, One Of Eddie Long's Accusers Speak; And I Understand And Believe Him

Francis L. Holland — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:13:45 -0000

When I was eighteen and deeply into studying Spanish and knowing people who spoke Spanish, I met a guy at a gas station who spoke Spanish. He invited me to his house, as so many people had done as I traveled in Latin America, and we sat in chairs side by side as he showed me some written materials. Then he put his hand on my leg and asked me to touch his crotch.

I couldn't believe this was happening. I could not believe and had never imagined that this man had invited me to his house so that he could try to have some sort of sex with me. It had never happened before and it has never happened again since.

When the guy asked me to touch him and I refused, he said he was becoming very "enfadado" which kind of means impatient and sick and tired with me. If I gave a damn how he felt about me, then he might have been able to manipulate me that way. Instead, I just got up, went home and called the local prosecutor about this man, because of my experience and because he had access to the several children of his girlfriend. Still, I felt very ashamed of myself for letting myself get into such a situation, even though I've visited other men's houses innumerable times without anything of the sort happening.

Had I been to law school and known what I know now, I would have gone to the police station and filed my own complaint against him for "assault" (he caused me to experience fear when he touched me) and "battery" (he touched me without my consent).

The case would probably have gone nowhere, but it would have advised his girlfriend of the danger to her children, and it would have advised this assailant that tricking young men into coming home with him, when he had an ulterior motive, could lead to unpleasant consequences, e. g. criminal charges filed against him.

I feel for the guy in this video above, but I'm sure that speaking out against it will help the victim to overcome it and maybe prevent it from happening with this pastor again.

Re: Sad News

Francis L. Holland — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:46:39 -0000

I'm sorry that you and your family and community have suffered this loss.

Re: THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Street Meet: Black Women, Black Men, & Everyday Sexual Harassment

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:47:53 -0000

I guess I should let the author of the above article address that question, because it was she who described the people who harass her in her neighborhood.

At the same time, Justice Clarence Thomas' pre-US Supreme Court sexual innuendo and come-ons were apparently very unpleasant, even though he was a fairly wealthy and highly upwardly mobile person.

I think the reason we focused on smelly and nasty men on the street is because those are the men who the author of the above article said were most virulently menacing and insulting her.

Re: Where There’s Smoke….

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:26:01 -0000

My wife and step-children are Brazilian; have always lived in Brazil; and have no desire to live anywhere else--least of all the United States. When you consider that we have whole blogs devoted to discussing color-aroused antagonistic ideation, emotion and behavior cases in the United States, why would anyone want to leave Brazil for the "Deep North" unless they simply had no choice financially? Read the last ten blog posts at this blog and you will find thirty reasons why I live in Brazil.

In Brazil, we don't have anyone threatening to burn the Koran; we're not a war with any country; we don't have anyone except the Pope and his gay bishops speaking publicly against homosexuals, and when the Pope did come here, President Lula said before the Pope arrived that he wasn't interested in focusing Brazilian politics on ways to limit homosexuality or on the agenda of the Catholic Church. President Lula said to the Pope, in a nice way, STFU.

When the depression now occurring in the US began as a result of lax and ridiculous US banking practices, Lula told George Bush and the media that it was a problem "made in America" and that's where it should be resolved. Lula took steps to prevent the US's problem from becoming Brazil's problem, like temporarily reducing the sales taxes on the low-range domestic appliances that most Brazilians buy, and that are made in Brazil. He reduced the tax on new cars, and people bought more new cars made in Brazil.

Lula pointedly told international corporations as well as national corporations that there was no depression in Brazil and he would not tolerate government-supported corporations firing thousands of people just to take financial advantage of a depression that was happening overseas.

For these reasons, Lula has 70-80% public approval in Brazil. He tells it like it is and he refuses to let the United States export its 2nd Great Depression to Brazil. Brazil is not at all perfect, but it hasn't gotten any worse over the time when the US unemployment rate rose dramatically while poverty increased dramatically.

If I told my Afro-Brazilian wife that I wanted to live in the US, she would say, "Well be sure to write often and tell us how you're doing."

Re: Where There’s Smoke….

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:07:28 -0000

I don't always know who's gay just by looking at them. I don't have that "gaydar." I rented an apartment from a man who had what in Brazil would be considered a common law male spouse. I couldn't tell that by looking at him. Somebody told me.

I guy in my church in the US once told me he was gay. I had no idea.

Re: http://www.rippdemup.com/2010/02/myth-of-unwanted-unloved-unattractive.html

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:11:48 -0000

The whole idea that there is a lack of candidates for Black women to marry comes from and is premised upon one big lie: "race". If you assume that a Black woman has to "marry within her race", then that obviously cuts down the alternatives in a country that is 70% white and 15% (or more) Latino. Many Black women are choosing only brown-skinned men, and must believe they MUST choose to mate only with brown-skinned men to avoid "miscegenation". So, Black women choose from among about 6% of the population (that's what Black men constitute) while white women can choose white men from among the 30% of the population that is comprised of white men and obviously can marry others as well..

This whole "problem" is based on the premise that Black women must marry Black men, to avoid "miscegenation". Has anyone noticed that the word "miscegenation," like the words "miscarriage" and "mistake" all begin with "mis"? Well that's simply because the prefix "mis" means BAD and WRONG! Everything that starts with "mis" does so because it is considered "bad and wrong".

The "bad and wrong" nature of marrying and having children with someone whose skin is of a different color is deeply embedded in our "racial" language.

In our society, skin color, facial morphology, hair type and the size of a woman's behind still have great importance economically, politically and socially.

Does that mean that "race is important"? NO, IT DOES NOT! Because "race" does not exist and it never did. It is an anacronistic fallacy of junk pseudo-science created and left over from a time when it was illegal to teach Black people to read.

"Race" is not "important" because nothing that does not exist can be important beyond the degree to which feeble human beings give fantasies power. "Skin color, facial morphology, hair type and the size of a woman's behind" remain important because human being (not nature or genetics) continue to make decisions based on the mistaken belief that "race" exists and based on greed, envy, laziness, the desire to exploit others and even simple historical habit.

Human habit does not make "race" "real" any more than a child's belief in Santa Claus makes Santa Clause and his sled a reality.

Black people use the word "real" in a couple of ways: In one sense of the word, we mean that something exists in the natural world, like gravity. In another sense of the word, we mean that a human-created phenomena exists and has power because humans give it power, and so it must be treated as an important factor in our environment even though it is a create of human cultural creation.

In that sense "race is real." Unfortunately, when we say "race is real", others (including our own children) don't know for sure whether we are referring to biological "race," sociological and political "race", or all of the above.

The fact that our society gives inordinate importance to "skin color, facial morphology, hair type and the size and shape of a woman's behind" is not the same thing as "race" and does not equal "race" any more than "white" is the same thing as "intelligent" or synonymous with intelligent.

If you believe in "race" at all, then you will probably be among those who insist that "race matters". But if you believe that we are all members of the same species and neither Blacks nor Asians are a subspecies of the human species, then you understand that the only part of "race" that matters is that "skin color, facial morphology, hair type and the size and shape of a woman's behind" are given particular importance in our society at this time, but this is slowly (sometimes it seems like glacially) changing.

Ultimately, if Black women are from a different "race" than white men, then there are lots of good reasons why they shouldn't marry and have kids, starting with "miscegenation."

If you insist, as I do, that you are from the same species as white people and all other humans, and you are NOT part of a subspecies of the human species, then you realize that the only thing stopping Black women from getting with white men is the hopelessly anachronistic belief in "race" and the fact that, to a persistent but changing degree, "skin color, facial morphology, hair type and the size and shape of a woman's behind" continue to be given inordinate importance. The "Eminen" generation does not think like you, and you will see even more dramatic cultural changes around the time when you begin walking with a crutch.

I could refuse to go to college and law school because "skin color, facial morphology, hair type and the size of a woman's behind" are still considered important in some quarters. Would that be a logical decision? No! It would be a decision that reconfirms in my mind and the minds of others that I am from a separate subspecies from white people and THEIR subspecies is BETTER than ours. I don't except that crap, but I know there are a lot of people who still believe in "race."

People who believe in any and spend their lives practicing a theory, premise, set of ideas or profession have the suffix "ist" after their name, as in scientist, biologist, chemist , as well as "sexist," and, yes RACIST If you believe in the existence of "race" and live your life accordingly then by the rules of English grammar (and the grammar and syntax of all Romance languages), you who believe in the existence of "race" are "racists". You are "racists" because you accept the premise that "race" exists, you teach this premise to others, and you live your lives accordingly.

A Black woman who is a racist and believes that the races should not mix in order to avoid "miscegenation" is a woman with decreased chances of finding a mate. The statistics are not against her principally because she has brown skin. The statistics are against her because she is a racist and lives by the social rules and dogma of other racists. Having dated women who had white skin on various occasions and having even considered marrying some of them, I know that skin color is an important reality in our cultural environment. I have been called very ugly names by whites for being seen walking with a white woman, and I have experienced my aunts' anger at my uncle for marrying a white woman. SKin color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior are "real" in a very real sense. Skin-color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior are present in all of us and "color" the way we see and interact with people around us. Anyone who says this isn't true, insisting that they "do not see color" and that other people "do not see" their color is a person who is living in a fantasy world. People DO see our color and virtually everyone has at least one piece of ideation, emotion or behavior that depends on the skin color of themselves and others.

The reason I can say that "race" does not exist is that I understand that skin-color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior DO exist. However, a Black woman can meet many white men and find one whose ideation, emotions and behavior are compatible with her own, unless she believes that "the races shouldn't mix". If she believes that, she probably has no business raising children in the first place.

Re: Breaking News: Fourth Man Files Suit Against Bishop Eddie Long

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 05:31:26 -0000

Some people say Bishop Eddie Long is "innocent until proven guilty." They forget that Constitutional Due Process includes the right to be considered innocent BY THE GOVERNMENT until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing compels private citizens to refrain from drawing our own conclusions from the evidence that is available, and nothing compels us to accept or wait for the decision of a jury or judge, in our own opinions and beliefs.

It is true that if we assert to others that private citizens are guilty of a crime or shameful behavior when they are NOT GUILTY of that crime, then we may be liable for slander and/or libel. But TRUTH is a complete defense to a legal action alleging slander or libel. And a fact-based belief that a public figure has committed horrid acts is enough to go on, because public figures criticize homosexuals in the public square and they must expect public scrutiny of themselves as well.

So, if I have enough information to say with some level of certainty that satisfies me that a very public minister figure's actions have been horrid, there is nothing that prevents me, as a private citizen, from saying so, even before the "minister" has been found guilty in a court of law.

Moreover, when the "pastor" is a public figure, his right to allege slander or libel are reduced. When he steps into the national fray to express his opinions about homosexuality, others have a right to express their opinions about HIS sexuality.

I, however, am content to let the information come out, as it sometimes does, and let the public come to its own conclusions, one person (or thousands) at a time.

Many of us are afraid to "smear" public figures, and we define "smear" as "reporting true or false information that makes someone look bad." To me, a smear is reporting FALSE information that makes someone look bad. Meanwhile, reporting TRUE information is what blogs are made for, even if the truth of a public figure's sexual behavior challenges the carefully crafted lies of omission that he has presented to the public. We must never let gay-bashing serve as an alibi for those who have naked children in their closets.

Take Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, for example. Am I smearing him by pointing out to the public that he published a letter in his college newspaper in which he vehemently opposed ALL gay service in the US military, calling it "inherently uncomfortable" and and an assault on his "sensibilities" to serve in the Armed Forces alongside gay people? That's what he said, and while having said so makes him look bad, I am not smearing him by publishing the Truth About Kos.

As quoted at Jack and Jill Politics, one group decided to confront public figures' gaybashing this way:

"Each day for one week Keith and I profiled a Black pastor highlighting his relationship with the Bush Administration, recent homophobic gay comments, and ending with the question, is this pastor gay? "

Hmmmmm. Maybe we should give all public figures, especially people like US Senator Larry Craig and Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, the same treatment. If we don't know what the 'C' in Moulitsas Zúñiga's name stands for, there's probably a lot more that we don't know.

One thing MAMZ and the minister have in common is that they have both publicly inveighed against gays and for a Republican President Bush.

Re: THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Street Meet: Black Women, Black Men, & Everyday Sexual Harassment

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 05:26:23 -0000

I'm sorry it's like that, but I know it is. Black male strangers (and probably some white ones) started talking shit my niece, on the street, when she was eight or ten years old.

I can only imagine how I would feel if a lot of raggedy, toothless women who were significantly taller and stronger than I were constantly verbally assaulting me. No one wants to be harassed all the time, and "helpful" suggestions in the comments are always lame.

I can promise you this, though: If someone screams crap at you in the street, it won't be me.

Re: Where There’s Smoke….

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:56:06 -0000

A lot of people forget that Constitutional Due Process includes the right to be considered innocent BY THE GOVERNMENT until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing compels private citizens to refrain from drawing our own conclusions from the evidence that is available, and nothing compels us to accept or wait for the decision of a jury or judge, in our own opinions and beliefs.

It is true that if we assert to others that private citizens are guilty of a crime or shameful behavior when they are NOT GUILTY of that crime, then we may be liable for slander and/or libel. But TRUTH is a complete defense to a legal action alleging slander or libel. And a fact-based belief that a public figure has committed horrid acts is enough to go on, because public figures criticize homosexuals in the public square and they must expect public scrutiny of themselves as well.

So, if I have enough information to say with some level of certainty that satisfies me that a very public minister figure's actions have been horrid, there is nothing that prevents me, as a private citizen, from saying so, even before the "minister" has been found guilty in a court of law.

Moreover, when the "pastor" is a public figure, his right to allege slander or libel are reduced. When he steps into the national fray to express his opinions about homosexuality, others have a right to express their opinions about HIS sexuality.

I, however, am content to let the information come out, as it sometimes does, and let the public come to its own conclusions, one person (or thousands) at a time.

Many of us are afraid to "smear" public figures, and we define "smear" as "reporting true or false information that makes someone look bad." To me, a smear is reporting FALSE information that makes someone look bad. Meanwhile, reporting TRUE information is what blogs are made for.

Take Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, for example. Am I smearing him by pointing out to the public that he published a letter in his college newspaper in which he vehemently opposed ALL gay service in the US military, calling it "inherently uncomfortable" and and an assault on his "sensibilities" to serve in the Armed Forces alongside gay people? That's what he said, and while having said so makes him look bad, I am not smearing him by publishing the Truth About Kos.

As quoted above, one group decided to confront public figures' gaybashing this way:

"Each day for one week Keith and I profiled a Black pastor highlighting his relationship with the Bush Administration, recent homophobic gay comments, and ending with the question, is this pastor gay? "

Hmmmmm. Maybe we should give all public figures, especially people like US Senator Larry Craig and Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, the same treatment. If we don't know what the 'C' in Moulitsas Zúñiga's name stands for, there's probably a lot more that we don't know.

Re: Where There’s Smoke….

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:47:25 -0000

accidental repost

Re: Where There’s Smoke….

Francis L. Holland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:30:57 -0000

accidental repost

Re: Charlie Rangel Must Resign

Francis L. Holland — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:56:11 -0000

I haven't read the accusations against Rangel and I'm not going to do so before I defend the necessity for him to remain in the US Congress. The greatest accusation I have heard against him is that he used his office and office stationery to round up money for a Rangel Library/Monument in his Congressional district, so that he could die or retire without being forgotten.

That doesn't seem like a big deal to me. As he pointed out recently, white Republicans have done far worse and remained in the US Congress.

If Rangel has used public money to hire a woman to sex him while he was on the campaign (like John Edwards), the I could see a problem there. But, raising money for a library doesn't raise my hackles.

Meanwhile, another Black Congresswoman from California is being attacked by a Congressional ethics commission.

Can anyone remember the last time a Congressional ethics committee did anything at all? It seems to me that these commissions are starting work just before an election in order to reduce the already anemic representation of Blacks in the US Congress.

If the Democratic US Congress simultaneously prosecuted these two Black members and ten times as many white members, while also compelling US Senate candidates to run in one of two districts in each state, instead of holding Senate elections on an at-large basis (which dilutes Blacks' voting strength) then perhaps the Democratic Congress could convince me that its trials of Rangel and the California Rep. were even-handed. As it is, I think this is just an attack against Black people in general.

Re: How Breitbart Won — and Why We Must Rethink “Racism”

Francis L. Holland — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:50:33 -0000

I pretty much agree, particularly with this:

"When was the last time we heard progressives call for projects that heal the class divide? No, on class we get it."

I agree, but I believe that individual color-arousal needs to be treated systemically and individually just as much as diabetes does, because many people--Black, white and other--are debilitatingly aroused by their own color and the skin color of others, such that they have ideation, emotion and behavior that can, taken together, comprise a mental disorder that should be treated.

Field Negro points out the unthinkable number of murders of Blacks by Blacks in Philadelphia. Although that clearly is the result of systemic problems and individual circumstances, can we say with certainty that there is nothing emotionally disordered about blithely killing other people while also expecting to be killed someday in the same way?

And what about the white people who hate white women for going out with Black men, sometimes so much that they engage in illegal behavior to enforce their ideation and emotions about bichromatic relationships. (If you spend some time in Bahia, Brasil, you'll realize that it is not an inherent aspect of human nature to become enraged when you see two people of different skin colors holding hands, wearing identical wedding rings, and walking in polychromatic groups of family and friends.

However, if you have been brought up in the United States, you could even be deeply mistakenly convinced that intra-chromatic antagonism and antagonism as a response to intra-chromatic relationships are hard wired. Come to Bahia, Brasil and see just how much that which we take to be "inherent" is really just a reflection of where you live and what your experiences are.

If you tell bichromatic couples here in Bahia, Brazil that they are "inter-racial", they'll understand that you're talking about their skin color, but they won't understand what your problem is.

Re: The High-Tech Lynching of Shirley Sherrod: What's worse, Right Wing Lies, or Liberal Fears?

Francis L. Holland — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:20:52 -0000

I'm six thousand miles away and have been trying to step away from US media in order to see if that relieves my chronic major depression. (My brown-skinned Brazilian wife says it just makes her angry and sad when I tell her about the latest color-aroused outrages from the United States. If it makes her sad and depressed, maybe it's doing the same thing to me?)

I've been unable to cut the strings and have found myself immersed in the latest color-aroused incident from the United States. There's a lot of shame to go around in the controversy, from right-wing anti-Black political commentators to the Barack Administration.

The only person who did nothing wrong in this is Shirley Sherrod. It's sad and I certainly hope the White House will make amends to her, in a face to face meeting in the Oval Office and the new title of Under-Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, or some such promotion, along with a raise.

The proposal to make her outreach supervisor was an insult added to injury. It would have been a demotion three rungs down the latter that he has been climbing over the last two decades.