One of Brisenia Flores' KIllers Gets Death Penalty, accomplices still at large, in office and on the radio

This week Shawna Forde, was sentenced to die at the hands of the State of AZ for the brutal cold blooded murder of 9 yr old Brisenia Flores and her father Raul Flores Jr. Fordes accomplices that night Jason Bush and Albert Gaxiola will have their trials in the Spring. Who is not going to trial is the politicians and their AM radio dimwits who spew hate and fear about Mexicans, and are just as guilty even if they were not physically there killing a family for being Mexican.


Forde, along with the two other dimwits, posed as law enforcement and attacked the Flores home in May 2009 to rob and to kill them for being Mexican. They shot and killed the father, they shot the mother Gina leaving her thinking she dead and when Brisenia came out and asked why they shot her father, they shot her in the face at point blank range sending her flying across the room. The dimwits left and Gina called the police. She could hear Forde telling her fellow dimwits that they left her alive, to go back in to finish the job. Gina had by then found her dead husband's gun and when they came back she was able to turn them back.

During the trial Forde's defense attorney tried to use Forde's history of being sexually and physically abused as an excuse. Attorney "Jill Thorpe, told jurors that as a child Forde was abused physically and sexually. Before she was five years old Forde had lived in seven different households. She was molested by her uncle at the age of four, and later by another man until she was 12-years-old. Thorpe also explained Forde has been diagnosed with a personality disorder where she tries to make herself look like an important leader although she's not. Mental illness keeps Shawna Forde from saying she’s sorry."

Like Loghner who shot and killed a Federal Judge, another 9 year old girl and injured others, Forde's mental stability was fertile ground for the hate a spewed by right wing politicians and their legions of dimwits throughout the country on AM radio and mainstream media.

Forde tried to be a member of the Minutemen but even they said she was too unstable. In any case the Minutemen, and anyone else Forde looked up, followed, or listened to, that promote the vigilante persecution of Mexicans, should be put on trial as accomplices. They spew hate and fear knowing very well that their message is heard by (and followed by) the drop outs, abused and low IQs, who will eventually act out. They get the fan mail, they see them at their rallies and hear their gibberish as they call in to the talk shows. They know people are on drugs or damaged in some way and yet they still have the gall to claim they are not responsible for actions based on their rhetoric.

If you are on out there calling for changes in extreme ways, and someone from your flock acts out, take responsibility whether or not that sheeple of yours is stable or not. You put those thoughts in their head, they obviously needed love not more hate in their life.

The End of White America

According to Census data, about 50% of Latinos identify themselves as white. How one identifies themselves is shaped by tons of factors both personal and social. This is why some first generation, de-indianized immigrants check off 'white' in the Census when they get the chance. Claiming white was a step closer to being a real American, even if in reality your brown skin and almond eyes signaled non-white and thus non "American."

This is all changing according to The Atlantic's "The End of White America?" by Hua Hsu. In the article Hsu looks at how white is and will be perceived in this new era of Obama-landia. He is very good at identifing the 'real' America of McCain/Palin, who love their NASCAR and how they are a shrinking population; the white America that is reacting in blogs such as Stuff White People Like and how they suffer for being white and need to beat us to the punch line about their idiosyncracies; and mentions how studying whitness in universities is signaling a fear of what it really means to be white in a world that is more and more non-white and the result is whites hating being white. Hip Hop is given a lot of credit for helping to create this world where non-whites can move on up. Diversity and multi-culturalism is examined as well in the usual form of how will we sell junk to people who are not white.

My initial reaction to the article was that it was good, but ofcourse typical in maintaining the black / white paradgimn of looking at the world. Hsu does good research but misses the fact that Latinos have been the majority in 7 of the 10 biggest US cities since the last Census. Those numbers will have increased and will continue to change the US more than hip hop and a black looking but white by culture president. The fear, debates, distribution of resources and legislation that often punishes Latinos are at the center of what is America today. Since 9/11 Brown has been the new Black.

Perceptions of what an American is will change. Hsu wrote how advertising companies herded consumers to the middle, which was white. And that was as we know wrong. What are they now proposing? Will the new center be some 'beige' non identifiable, mestizo, with more whiter features than blacker or browner features? Will that be accurate? As manufactured as the fading white mainstream, will the new multi culti mainstream be as manufactured and false? Will it leave out the jalape~o, the chicharones and banda music? Will Latinos still check off 'white' when white is a minority?

I have little hope. Just turn your t.v. to a Spanish language station. The faces are all white despite having vast Indian and mestizo majorities in all those countries. Obama may be the first step, but we got hundreds of years of slavery and mind f*&^s to get over bending over for whitey.

(for another review of this article go here, thanks Roker)

20 years!?!?!?

This past Wednesday morning I thought I woke up to a nightmare. My clock radio is tuned to KPFK 90.7FM so Amy Goodman's voice brings me out of my sleep at 6:15 am on my work days. I heard a man's voice saying, "This notion that we’ll have water forever is wrong. California is running out. It’s got twenty-some years of water. New Mexico has got ten, although they’re building golf courses as fast as they can, so maybe they can whittle that down to five." I said "WHAT!?!? 20 years of water and then that's it!" Soon another voice came on, "Scientists, through decades of study and millions and millions of pieces of data, now recognize the fact that we’re on the brink of the sixth great mass extinction ever to be experienced on the face of the earth. The fifth mass extinction was the dinosaur age."

DANG!

Extinction.

The big kiss good bye.

I remembered how 5 years ago I heard Rigoberta Menchu speak about how the oil wars were nothing compared to the upcoming water wars. She described how in Latin America companies were already privatizing water.

Back on "Democracy Now with Amy Goodman" and guests, the discussion went to how General Electric and other corporations are developing water reuse and recyling technology which is a very bad thing: "It’s the fastest-growing part of the water industry. And this is the cleanup of dirty water.
And my concern—and the more research I did on this, the more concerned I got—was that this government, in particular, the United States, but many governments, are putting all their water eggs in the basket of cleaning up dirty water, instead of conservation, instead of protecting water at its source. What they’re coming at—the way they’re coming at it now is to clean up water after it’s been polluted. And there’s huge amounts of money to be made. And my concern is, who’s going to control that? Who’s going to own the water itself? If Coca-Cola can own the water it sells you, why wouldn’t General Electric or Suez be able to say, “Well, we own the water that we cleaned up, and we will decide how much money we make, and we will decide how much—who gets it and who’s not going to get it”?"

To me the root of this is the profit motivator: Capitalism. As long as we allow natural resources to be put on the market we will always be at war with someone, somewhere.

The show ended on a good note, "Well, we’re pushing here in the United States for a trust fund for infrastructure. The sewage disposal system in the United States, as in many countries, is in a mess. We’re pushing—we have a “Think Outside the Bottle” or “Take Back the Tap” campaign for bottled water. We’re getting restaurants to agree not to serve bottled water. And we’re fighting the desalination plants, particularly in California, because it’s a bad technology, it’s an admission of failure. And we can do much more with conservation and caring for source water."

For the sake of fighting extinction, learn about this, start here: Blue Planet Project.

Election Schmelections

I am an admitted pessimist, who thinks being jaded about politics is not defeatist, it is being a realist.

The electoral system is rigged. We basically taught other countries how to do elections, they just were sloppy about hiding their corruption. If we are good at anything in this country it is hiding our dirty little secrets. With the help of the textbook publishing cabal, corporate media and voting machines that can add up and exclude by design (for the administration who gives the contract) we really don't know where our votes go or what the real numbers were/are.

From the get go (1787) the Founding, slave owning, Indian killing, Fathers of this country never trusted the possible 'tyranny of the masses' and set up the Electoral College to keep the status quo. Nothing the people have wanted and gotten has ever come from politicians unless there was a ton of people marching and fighting in the streets. This is U.S. history folks.

The drama we are treated to every four years about which rich person gets to pay back his donors at the end of the election has not served anyone but those who get crumbs/jobs from the fallout. To take Obama or Clinton as being different only works on the level of who is smoother in front of a camera and who can deliver the speeches and generalities best.

The Center for Responsive Politics a Washington, D.C. based (whatever that is worth) "non-partisan, non-profit research group" publishes www.opensecrets.org which shows the campaign finance reports for all politrickians. This money web feature is my favorite because it simply "illustrates links between candidates and donors. Included in this web are the 5 top contributors and industries (including ties) to each of the candidates we profile." Looking at the similar donors and the industries that are placing their bets/contributions on both candidates, and in some cases from both parties, you can see which industries will be making the money when the contracts are handed out after all is said and done. You can also look at old election numbers and see the trends there. In short it is all bought and paid for, enjoy the show if you want but don't believe it.

I do vote, but for the candidate who matches my ideals most closely. They never win. This year I began cheering on Kucinich. He matched my beliefs by 93% on this website. Obama comes in at 49% and Clinton at 39%. If voting is about supporting those who best reflect who you would want to represent you, based on having similar beliefs, then my choice is clear. If we have made voting about being a part of the winning team, well by all means play along.

Now that Kucinich is out of the race, I have to go with Ralph Nader. He is a man who has lived a life fighting good fights for the people. If you need to know more about him see "An Unreasonable Man." Or just Google him. Sure he will lose, but the message will be sent. I hope.

Who should you vote for?

All the polls are wrong, all the candidates are bought by corporations, a lot of people feel our vote doesn't matter, since voting machines which are made by Diebold, gave Bush Co. a ton of money to get the contract to make the machines in the first place.

So who should we vote for, or should we vote at all?

I think we should vote, but really vote for who stands with our beliefs. Sure that candidate will most likely lose, but it sends a message that at least I am not swayed by the 'I gotta side with a winner mentality.' If you really listen to the news about the Presidential race it sounds like a sports report. This guy is leading by X points and this one is making moves to close the gap of X points. It appeals the American idea of cheering for the winning team. Screw that.

Check out this website and see who you should be voting for.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/