Archive for election

Mary Norwood’s Race Politics

Posted in Atlanta Politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 21, 2009 by marcg

Mary Norwood is a white candidate for mayor of Atlanta, a city that elected the last white mayor in 1970, almost forty years ago. The one thing the election is not short on is pretense. We field negros are supposed to be pretending that race has nothing to do with any of this. With anything, in fact. Barack Obama is president of a white majority Amurka. Norwood can be mayor a Black majority ATL. See? No difference.

The New York Times reports today that Atlanta may see its first white mayor in more than a generation in Mary Norwood. The article is accompanied by many empty-headed slogans, from Black mouths of course, about it meaning nothing for a politician’s race to be Black. This is a slick move that distracts from the point of their article which is discussing a white mayor. Not meaning as much, or anything at all as some would say, that a mayor be Black is a very different thing than having a white mayor. Inductive reasoning perhaps is not required to become a Times writer. Or maybe the ability to manipulate faulty induction to build an upside down argument IS a prerequisite.

Mary Norwood Aims To Take Back Atlanta

Mary Norwood comes from Buckhead the whitest and richest white neighborhood in Atlanta. The political pundits who get their salaries paid by the advertising dollars flowing out of Buckhead won’t talk about her background much. And if you go looking for details and background info over at her Wiki page you’ll be left wanting. These are coincidences.

Anyone familiar with US politics beyond the superficial coding understands the role played by race and that there is a communication grid that operates just beneath the surface of all political talk. As a good auto mechanic would say, Norwood’s recent ad is hitting on all cylinders. As racist as this country and city are it is not your father’s racism and Norwood’s team understands it can’t win the mayor’s office yelling nigger. The operative phrases are crime, accountability and public safety. That’s nigger, 2009 style.

  • Crime is out of control = Black field negros are out of control. Of course with the implication that she will, finally, do some controlling.
  • City Hall is run poorly = Black politicians are corrupt. Duh. Of course they are. And who do they work for? The white men that graduated Emory with Norwood.
  • Everyone should be able to feel safe = White folks and house negros, it’s okay for you to come back into the city. Things are in good hands. Again. Kathryn Johnston types fiend for yourselves.

To be sure, all of the major candidates for mayor of Atlanta are business lackeys. And I don’t advocate for any of them but I do understand the particular threat posed by Mary Norwood, 1) she will give new confidence to white racism and white supremacy and 2) the increased difficulty field negros will have in protecting our civil liberties under a white mayor that does point 1.

Even Atlanta’s white progressives (whatever that means to them) are showing their true colors. The very first time a white mayor is viable in four decades, they are getting behind that campaign. Which doesn’t do much besides illustrate clearly to others what we already knew. When it comes down to it a white that calls himself liberal isn’t much different than a white that calls himself conservative. When it really comes down to it. He or she might not call me a nigger even behind closed doors but she’ll vote with the people who do.

If things keep moving in the direction we’re told they’re moving in (Norwood is supposedly the frontrunner) Black ATL will get to understand this truism up close and personal. And whites will get to turn the ATL back into Atlanta.

Does Mary Norwood Care About Black People?

Posted in Atlanta Politics with tags , , , , on October 14, 2009 by marcg

MARTA, Atlanta’s public transportation system providing about 400,000 rider a day is in the deepest financial crisis in its 40 year history. On Saturday August 15, 2009 service cuts went into effect reflecting MARTA’s deepening fiscal crisis and on Thursday October 1, 2009 a fare increase went into effect. The service cuts and fare increase have affected hundreds of thousands of Atlantans but if you were watching the mayoral debate that aired yesterday, October 13, 2009 you would not have known it.

Do you know how much MARTA costs? I know how much it costs. I live in Atlanta and use the service everyday. Let’s assume you, like me, know how much a bus ride costs in Atlanta. Mary Norwood does not know how much a MARTA bus fare costs.

Doesn't ride MARTA or read about it apparently

Doesn't ride MARTA or read about it apparently

There is a difference between me and you and Mary Norwood not knowing this bit of information. A big one. There is an election coming up soon here in Atlanta. In 20 days, in fact. And according to polls, if that election were today, of us three, the one of us that doesn’t know how much it costs for transit-dependent Atlantans to catch a bus would be the mayor of Atlanta. MARTA stands for Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. It also known as ‘moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta’ due to the highly skewed racial demographic of the ridership.

What is going on inside Mary Norwood’s campaign for mayor? What is going on inside Mary Norwood’s head? How is it possible that mayoral candidate could be ignorant about such an important piece of policy at such a critical time for MARTA and for its cash-strapped, mostly Black ridership?

I view this foot in mouth incident as a sneak-peek into what a Norwood administration might be like for people like myself who rely on something like MARTA. She doesn’t care and doesn’t seem to see it as a problem not caring. Every other candidate attempted to answer the question of the cost of a MARTA fare. Norwood simply said she didn’t know, making it appear that she doesn’t even care that she doesn’t know. It also appears that she and/or her campaign don’t think it matters much that she doesn’t know. All of these things are worrisome to me and they should be worrisome for Norwood. That they don’t seem to be is even more worrisome for me.

Many people have expressed concern about this majority Black city, with its sordid history and present-day white racism problems, having a white mayor. This clear and present expression of either dullness, disdain or disinterest does nothing to allay the concern and much to validate it. Shame on you, Mary.

News of the Weird

Posted in '08 Elections, Weird News with tags , , , , , on January 25, 2008 by marcg

Corporate news headlines are predictably staid, sometimes silly, always lies and bullshit. But today’s headlines deserve special note.

  • The Financial Times informs its readers that a ‘rogue’ trader at French ponzi bank, Societe Generale costs the company 7 billion plus in behind the scenes ‘rogue’ trading. Supposedly, says the bank and the FT, no one at the French bank knew about the billions in losses except the rogue trader.
  • The Atlanta Journal-Constitution demands its readers suspend disbelief while Rambo endorses McCain. Oh. And by the way, Rambo comes out today in theaters and McCain was once a POW. Obviously coincidences.
  • Black people can’t get cabs in New York, Arabs can’t catch planes but the school that chooses the Nobel Prize in medicine, the famous Karolinska Institute, after turning away thousands, admits Nazis to study to become doctors? Karl Helge Hampus Svensson went to prison 8 years ago for killing someone in a hate crime but had no problem getting around a background check to enter perhaps the most prestigious med school in the world. Refusing to kick Svensson out on the grounds of being a racist murderer, the school claims he was expelled for falsifying his name on a high school transcript.

While the US financial system teeters on the brink of collapse, this is what the country is presented with as news.

Ron Paul and Race

Posted in '08 Elections, Racism, US Politics with tags , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2007 by marcg

I don’t know how Ron Paul feels about black people.

I do know that Ron Paul released a newsletter that printed some very racist and inflammatory comments.
I do know that Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I do know that Ron Paul opposes Affirmative Action.
I do know that Ron Paul, as do all right wing Libertarians, supports eradication of most gov’t social programs that provide a limited safety net to the poor and people of color in the U.S.

I don’t know how Ron Paul personally feels about black people or ethnic minorities generally. The important thing is that it doesn’t matter, really, what Ron Paul personally feels because he supports an agenda that is hostile to these groups. And about that, I don’t have to guess. He proves it year after year in the US Congress. Dr. Paul has proved it with the totality of his life. Dr. Paul has, for the most part, proved consistent in his right wing Libertarian beliefs. Some people give him kudos for this as most politicians are quite duplicitous and blow in whatever direction the campaign contribution winds take them. However, I can offer Dr. Paul no congratulations for consistent support for policies that have proved to harm the most vulnerable while giving an unneeded helping hand to the most powerful. All under the intellectual guise of enhancing and protecting liberty. The same thing most nuanced right wing Libertarians do. I say nuanced because many right wing Libertarians understand that Africans and other people of color will never vote for them and thus don’t concern themselves with rationals for policy positions perceived as racist. They don’t care. Understanding that their target group isn’t people of color nor is it people concerned about people of color, they dispense with any reasoning for things like opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Nuanced RWLs, however, hope to attract moderate to conservative Democrats (who at the very least, feign concern with people of color) and to convince them there must at least be some rationale for that kind of policy. Even if weak. Understanding Ron Paul and race begs a question. If a person or group of people advocate(s) policies that prove consistently to be detrimental to a racial or ethnic group does it matter how that person or group of people personally feel about race if the consequences of his policy actions have race-based consequences?

I don’t think so.

Interesting Ron Paul Support

Politicians, too often with entangling alliances, can hardly be trusted to do the good things they say they will do. No less tell the truth about the bad they have already done. One way that I have found to be somewhat reliable in predicting the future behavior of a political figure is to analyze the individuals supporting him/her. In the case of Ron Paul and race, it is interesting. Ron Paul, like any politician that wants to get elected these days, claims to not be racist. While I have argued that this claim, true or false is largely irrelevant, what are we to do when unabashed racists with overtly racist agendas, support a Ron Paul.

Stormfront is a white pride internet forum with the slogan, ‘White Pride World Wide’. Any internet political veterans reading this know full well who and what they are. Stormfronters are proud bigots. Some Ron Paul supporters will be surprised to discover that their Ron Paul Revolution holds the distinction of being in the company of David Duke, David Irving and other interesting figures supported by the Stormfront community. Why would a person on Stormfront support a non-racist like Ron Paul? Let’s take a look. Scotsman4096 has this to say to Stormfronters with the audacity to claim that Ron Paul is not the real deal,

If anyone expects better than this from the current crop of political candidates who stand a shot at winning, then that person is dreaming, and quite honestly acting as BAGGAGE to the WN movement, because they’re stalling our progress. Is Ron WN? Who knows – his policies help us, and we need action on our issues NOW, not in 2040 when we’re trying to retake California with tanks.

Brandon, who’s username signature is ‘Our skin is our uniform‘, isn’t convinced,

Ron Paul’s priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Bob Whitaker tries to give Brandon some perspective regarding Dr. Paul’s priorities,

Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has for just 10% of its survival, much less America. He is not your enemy you psycho.
And how do you know that’s not his priority? Remember: the game is rigged. Paul can’t come out swinging.

These are a few snippets of page #1 of currently over 600 pages (and counting) of intensely interested and optimistic discussion regarding their hopes for Dr. Paul’s candidacy. And to be certain that this isn’t some misguided (but ultimately innocent) Ron Pauler that wandered into a racist community on the whole hostile to Ron Paul’s candidacy, if you notice the bottom of the page the Stormfront website actually runs Ron Paul fundraising ads. Stormfront, an advocacy group for white supremacy that supports David Duke, supports the Ron Paul candidacy for president of the United States.

While I’m not surprised to read the racist support of the RP rEVOLution something tells me the average Democrat convert isn’t aware or doesn’t want to admit the true nature of the Ron Paul movement. While ignorant in regards to humanity. Stormfronters are very politically astute and are quite capable of analyzing who is and who is not, as they term it, on the side of the white race. If understanding of fundamental RWL public policy initiatives isn’t evidence enough, Stormfront support for the Ron Paul movement should stand as proof positive that Ron Paul, while certainly not public enemy #1, is unmistakably, not an ally to people of color and our supporters.

Is Ron Paul An Anti-Black Candidate?

Posted in racial, Racism, Sexism, US Politics with tags , , , , , on November 8, 2007 by marcg

Let me get this out of the way right off the bat. This post and these thoughts are not for white Ron Paul supporters. I’m saying this just to be clear as to whom I speak. I don’t expect any white Ron Paul supporters to agree with any of this. And since we all know that 99.9% of Ron Paul supporters are white, I have a very narrow audience with which I hope to communicate some critical thoughts about what is being called the Ron Paul phenomenon.

I don’t know if Ron Paul is sexist.

I don’t know if Ron Paul is racist.

I don’t know if Ron Paul is an imperialist.

But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck….

In the next few minutes I will cite Ron Paul’s congressional record as well as campaign and political history to explain each of these points. The purpose being to make plain that this candidate is to be avoided. Since there are so very many white men (and a few white women as well) that love Ron Paul and are avid supporters of his candidacy, it is important that brown, black, red and yellow people, and women generally, understand what is happening here. Understand precisely what the Ron Paul Phenomenon really is.

Is Ron Paul An Imperialist

I’ll start with this point because of all his political vices this is the negative feature about him that affects the most people, folks inside the United States and internationally. Ron Paul has voted the right way many times on a key issue, the touchstone of contemporary US imperialism, the Iraq war. His votes on Iraq have fooled a lot of people. As a starting point, I will assume that anyone reading this has analytical skills exceeding those of a 10 year old. That is, in my conservative estimation, about the age at which a child can certainly be said to understand and judge the difference between what an adult says and then actually does. If you think that Ron Paul is an anti-imperialist, you fail my test and should maybe click here. If you have doubts about Paul and his anti-imperialist credentials, then read on and not waste time with what Rep. Paul has said but look at what he has done. In this, a period of global anti-imperialist sentiment, structures have been erected that have the power to curb imperialist behavior from rogue states. One of these structures is the UN, a coalition of nations from all over the Earth. Another structure is the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ron Paul hates them both. The UN is for the most part, controlled by the United States so when Ron Paul complains that the UN is an infringement on US sovereignty, don’t take it seriously. It’s sort of like the white southerner that complained that his rights were being trampled on when those he oppressed attempted to ascertain some semblance of control over their own lives. This is, to a degree the check the UN provides. And this is what folks like Ron Paul hate. The UN allows nations historically colonized and victimized by European and US imperialism, to democratically assert themselves in opposing bullying. Keeping in mind that the US, being a superpower, almost completely controls the UN, this function of saying no to US bullying hardly works at all. But even having it exist is too much for Ron Paul. The UN could help curb US imperialism.

Because it could, Ron Paul hates the UN.

To be sure that it isn’t my (or your) imagination regarding Ron Paul’s disdain for global democracy, look at the ICC and Ron Paul. The court would do a great service towards anti-imperialism. It would allow smaller countries without the firepower to push invading countries out, a mechanism to hold them accountable for the crimes they commit in their acts of aggression. The court cannot come into a country and do anything to citizens in the country unless those citizens have reached outside their home country and attacked others. What could possibly be wrong with that kind of system? Nothing, unless you are an imperialist and are concerned about your troops being held accountable for their crimes.

Ron Paul also hates the ICC. And in 2002, just as the US govt was about to kick off its imperial war of aggression against a country with almost no army, Iraq, Ron Paul praised George W. Bush for his stance in rejecting the International Criminal Court. Can’t be a part of something like the ICC when you’re about to invade a country. So, like 10 year olds, if you not only listen to what Ron Paul says but look at what he does, things are clear.

We remember the 80s when US imperialism was running roughshod over Central America. In the 90s and up til now, over US imperial military aggression has been blistering the Middle East. Next up is Africa. Black men and women, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters (who might end up fighting our brothers and sisters in the Motherland) beware!

Is Ron Paul an imperialist? Who can claim to know another’s heart? Not I. Regardless of his personal belief, why vote for imperial policy?

Is Ron Paul Sexist?

Ron Paul is an obstetrician. So unlike other white male right wing politicians, his experience with mothers and understanding of what it means to have to carry a child isn’t abstract. This, unlike other white male right wingers, makes his acid anti-choice position all the more interesting and all the more vicious and toxic. The women’s freedom group, NARAL, the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws rates lawmakers based on their votes on critical legislation seeking to restrict a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has to carry a pregnancy to term. Earning a failing mark isn’t easy. Ron Paul has proved himself up to the task somehow managing a 0% rating in 3 of the past 10 years. And a 30% rating overall. Only a Republican would think himself fit for the presidency of the country with such a gruesome record on an issue so critical to women’s lives. If one hangs ar

Women of all colors (and the men who love them enough to help them in the fight for reproductive freedom) take note. Based on his declared positions opposing a woman’s right to privacy regarding her body and access to health services, does Ron Paul deserve a woman’s vote?

Is Ron Paul a Racist?

If a person or group claims to not be racist but consistently supports policies detrimental to another group categorized racially or ethnically can the question of race continually be ignored? Both then and now Libertarians opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming then and now that encroachment of the Feds in state affairs deprived the states of the liberty and freedom promised in the Constitution. This is a central component to many Libertarians political ideology. Rarely do they bother to answer the charge that questions their absence and total lack of outrage at the deprivation of liberty and freedom to blacks (in the case of the CRA) and other minorities generally. Ron Paul continues this tradition of promoting a policy, states’ rights, that has proved to be functionally racist inside the US. Shay Riley over at Black Prof sums it up nicely,

Such libertarians act as if there was no conflict before Civil Rights Act of 1964. Did the “racial strife” & “racial balkanization” (Rep. Paul’s words) caused by denial of freedom under Jim Crow mean nothing? What about blacks’ individual freedom? Those of whites who wanted to associate with blacks? Here we have Jim Crow’s massive human rights violations — the state as evil oppressor, tyranny running rampant in the South — and yet white libertarian capitulation and appeasement.

Shay Riley of Black Prof

How does Ron Paul answer this charge? He doesn’t. An indication that Ron Paul, like many other candidates in the US political system, believes that the lack of good candidates will force people who if given alternatives would not vote for someone so in opposition to core principles of freedom and fairness. Ron Paul and other Libertarians don’t acknowledge the contemporary or historic obstacles to freedom and liberty faced by blacks and other people of color in this country. Some say they celebrate those obstacles. At the very least they do not acknowledge them. The Libertarian position of states’ rights that Ron Paul supports has been the veritable banner of black oppression inside the United States. This is fact. In 2004 there was a vote in Congress for passage of a 40 year commemoration of the Civil Rights Act, the act that gave expanded, but not full, liberty to and freed millions of black people from white supremacist rule.

Libertarians say that black people don’t understand what they are doing and that they are really trying to help by creating freedom for everyone. This is insulting to those who lived through the blatant tyranny of Jim Crow, which the CRA was enacted to stop. And insulting to those who maintain the struggle against the racially biased employment and criminal justice systems of today.

Ron Paul was very clear about his feelings on the black struggle in explaining his vote against the 40 year commemorating of the Civil Rights Act,

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

Didn’t enhance freedom? Diminished individual liberty for whom? Rep. Paul argues that whites’ freedom and liberty was diminished by the CRA. He certainly could not be talking about black people’s liberty and freedom for without a doubt the CRA enhanced it far beyond the Jim Crow conditions they were enduring. Paul’s statement is a kick in the teeth to those alive who endured that period and were, to a degree, liberated from state tyranny by the federal legislation.

Does a person who argues against the Civil Rights Act on the basis that it diminished the freedom of the oppressor class, deserve a single vote from a black person? From anyone?

These are the questions I would hope Ron Paul supporters and potential supporters will consider. These questions regarding women’s reproductive freedom, imperialism or ethnic minority freedom are fair and reasonable. And I would hope they would be met with fairness and reason, considered and weighed. And that those considerations will then translate into logical, moral and just conclusion.