black…MYstory

Last year, I shared a couple of articles regarding the highly-suspicious death of Pfc. LaVena Johnson (see here and here).  Pfc. Johnson’s died on July 19, 2005 near Balad, Iraq, just a few days shy of her 20th birthday.  The Army ruled her death a suicide but, there were just too many inconsistencies for the official line to hold true.  From what LaVena’s father, Dr. John Johnson, saw, he had strong evidence to believe that his daughter was raped and murdered.  Last year, Dr. Johnson discussed how his daughter’s body showed signs of a struggle, including loose teeth and what appeared to be indications that someone had tried to set her body on fire.  Additionally, in the report on her death, it noted a blood trail outside of the tent where her body was found (though the Army claims she shot herself in the head) and residue tests indicating that she may not have even handled the weapon that killed her.

After diligently fighting for the truth and enlisting the help of certain concerned politicians and activists, the Johnson Family now has even more cause to believe that their daughter was indeed murdered.

After some questions about Pfc. Johnson’s death were raised by Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay at a hearing regarding Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, Army investigators were embarrassed into relinquishing a CD-rom of the photos they took during their investigation.  From what Dr. Johnson says, he daughter’s death appears more disturbing than originally believed.

According to Dr. Johnson, documents and photos show that LaVena’s body had signs of bruising, a broken nose, burned hands and someone had poured lye into her vagina (presumably to destroy evidence of rape).

Furthermore, the medical examiners noted a bullet lodged in the front of her head, above her left eye.  They cited this as an “exit wound”, calling into question how she could have shot herself in that way with a rifle.

The story goes on to raise more question:

Photos taken of PFC Johnson where her body was found and at autopsy were examined by the American. Although the body was fully clothed and on its back at the scene, nude images taken at autopsy show burns to the right side of the body and lividity (the pooling of blood inside the body after death) on her left side.

The victim’s nose appeared to be broken and pushed inward to the left side. There was an imprint that appeared to be a bullet lodged in the front of her head above her left eye, on the side of what was described by medical examiners as an exit wound.

A copy of a sketch in an official investigative document her father received from the Army, titled “Rough Sketch Depicting Crime Scene,” raises questions about how Johnson could have shot herself with her own rifle, when, as outlined in the sketch, a cot is located neatly between the body and her weapon.

It was obvious from early on that the official story given by the Army was thin, to say the least. Now, we see that, in addition to the story on Pat Tillman’s death, the Army has apparently again lied to cover up a suspicious death.  I certainly do no like comparing deaths but, from what I see, LaVena Johnson suffered a brutal death, very likely at the hands of another American.

Popularity: 17% [?]

I can remember, from many years back, the Congressional Black Caucus railing against subprime lending.  Back then, they called it by a more appropriate term, “predatory lending”.

What they were seeing was evidence, both anecdotal and empirical, that minority homebuyers, particularly Black and Latino homebuyers, were being steered toward these predatory loans, even while White borrowers in similar financial situations were being steered toward conventional loans.

A new report issued by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) sheds light on just how prevalent the racial disparities in these home loans really really are.

Below is a an excerpt of an article discussing this report:

According to the report, minorities are paying more for mortgages, even as their income levels increase. Loan price disparities, as compared to white counterparts, were more common for middle to upper-income (MUI) African-American and Hispanic borrowers than pricing disparities were for low- and moderate-income minority borrowers.

Lending disparities for African-Americans and Hispanics also increased significantly as income levels increased. During 2006, middle- and upper-income (MUI) African-Americans were twice or more as likely to receive high-cost loans as MUI whites in 155 of the metro areas analyzed (71.4 percent). Furthermore, MUI Hispanics were twice or more as likely to receive high-cost loans as MUI whites in 45 of the metro areas analyzed (22.5 percent).

In comparison, while low- and moderate-income (LMI) minorities are more likely to receive high-cost loans than LMI whites, the disparity was less significant than disparities among MUI borrowers. LMI African-Americans were twice or more as likely to receive high-cost loans as LMI whites in 87 metro areas (47.3 percent). Furthermore, LMI Hispanics were twice or more as likely to receive high-cost loans as LMI whites in 8 metro areas (4.9 percent).

Significant levels of high-cost lending unnecessarily impede wealth building in minority communities. High-cost loans have significantly contributed to the current foreclosure crisis, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgage equity. The overwhelming and unexplained prevalence of high-cost lending in minority communities suggests that some level of discriminatory behavior continues in the mortgage finance market, as has been shown by other studies, including those utilizing creditworthiness data conducted by NCRC, the Center for Responsible Lending and the Federal Reserve.

The last paragraph is particularly telling.  It states that creditworthiness is not necessarily the determining factore in whether or not a minority borrower would get a more expensive/riskier loan.

Granted, the onus is on us to become more financially-literate but, by no means, does this excuse away discriminatory practices on the part of lenders.

Popularity: 18% [?]

As I have said before, Bush’s bad  economic policies is going to haunt us for years to come.  Now, we can get a better idea of just how bad the damage really is.

The White House released the projected U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2009 and congratulations are in order:  Bush and company have set a new record — when the next president takes office, he will inherit a deficit of nearly $490 billion dollars.

The Bush crew blame it on a slowing economy and the cost of the economic stimulus package.  What they should be blaming is themselves.  Had they actually done the oversight that responsible government leadership does, we could have avoided the housing bubble bursting, soaring energy cost, failed banks, etc.  Had they actually had their eye on the ball instead of thinking that the way to stimulate an economy is to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest top 5%, we might have not seen him and his cronies squander  the $236 billion surplus he inherited after Bill Clinton left office and pile another nearly half-trillion in debt on top of that, to boot.

Oh, but wait, there’s good news: according to this same White House report, we would magically get a surplus three years after Bush leaves office.  Oh, never mind, they forgot to include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this estimate.

So, in January 2009, Bush will be gone but, just like that hooker you shouldn’t have slept with, he’ll leave you an unpleasant reminder of your time with him.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Last week, I shared with you a story about Marvin Jackson.  Mr. Jackson is suing his former employer, defense contractor Northrop Grumman, saying they fired him after he complained when a co-worker referred to him as his “n*gga”.

Since that time, Mr. Jackson has emailed me and, in one of his emails, he sheds some more light on this incident.  If things are as he alleges, and I have no reason to doubt him, this is a saddening peek into the ugly side of corporate America.

Mr. Jackson has kindly agreed to allow me to reproduce that email below:

Dear Mr. Smith,

My name is Marvin Jackson. I want to THANK YOU for posting my story, this means a great deal to me. However,it was Northrop Grumman who shamefully defended this white co-worker. They [Northrop Grumman] defended the co-worker by saying, he was in his mid twenties, and I was a loner who didn’t interact with engineers or technicians. They [Northrop Grumman] went on to say that the co-worker never called me Nigger, but Nigga, as if thats any better. They[Northrop Grumman] said this was all in a teasing manner, and that the co-worker was from New Jersey and would address his friends in this manner. My message to Northrop Grumman is guess what, this isn’t New Jersey, its the workplace, and furthermore, I’m nobody’s Nigger or Nigga.

Regards,

Marvin Jackson

Let’s hope that this story does not die with a brief segment on American Morning. Stories like this one deserve more light because, sadly, incidents like this are not as isolated as we would like to believe.

Popularity: 18% [?]

In 1944, 28 black soldiers where convicted and dishonorably discharged for the lynching death of an Italian P.O.W. in Seattle, Washington.

However, none of them were involved.

In World War II America, Italian (and German) prisoners of war had more privileges that black U.S. soldiers.  In Seattle, it meant that Italian P.O.W.’s were allowed to freely roam the streets of Seattle and charm the young ladies.  On a particular night in 1944, certain white military policemen had enough of these Italian “prisoners” cavorting with the local women and started a riot.  In the midst of this, they hung one Italian P.O.W. from a cable noose.

So, how did these black men take the fall?

This is a narrative that has been repeated time and again in our history in this country.  The Army prosecutor for this case, Leon Jaworski, was not unlike too many of the civilian prosecutors of his time.  He withheld key information that could have exonerated these 28 black men in order to get a quick conviction.

The truth lay buried for more than 60 years, until Jack and Leslie Hammon published their book, “On American Soil”, detailing the true events of that night.

A fight broke out between a black soldier and an Italian POW.  A larger melee ensued and, according to the Hammons, white soldiers took it upon themselves to lynch an Italian P.O.W. out of spite because, unlike them, the Italians were allowed to drink alcohol and date local girls.

When the dust settled on the trial, 28 black men were unjustly convicted and sentenced to a combined 200 years in prison.  After their time was served, these men were dishonorably discharged from the Army, which, as one put it, was a “death sentence” for them in terms of employment.

It was not until this past Saturday that the Army officially apologized for this travesty.  Sadly, only two men lived long enough to receive this apology for themselves.  One of these men, Samuel Snow, died just a few hours after receiving his exoneration.

The rest have long since passed on so, some of their families stood in their stead.

These soldiers have had their dishonorable discharges changed to honorable discharges and their survivors will receive their back pay but, this will by no means cover their lost honor and opportunity that six decades cost them.

When we honor soldiers for their service, we need to remind ourselves that some soldiers fought wars not only abroad, but at home, as well.  This is one of those stories.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Marvin Jackson is nobody’s “n*gger”.  Right now, defense contracting firm Northrop Grumman is finding this out.

Jackson says he was fired after complaining that a co-worker referred to him by than name.  According to Jackson, a white co-worker came up to him and said, “What’s up, my n*gger.”  Jackson told CNN that this person was no friend of his and that he and his real friends don’t use that word with each other.

Jackson went on to say that the co-worker tried to justify his comments by saying that he was using it as a term of endearment.

Let me guess…somebody’s going to blame hip-hop for this.

The video appears below, courtesy of Raw Story.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Obama did his thing in Germany.

As part of a trip that included stops in the Middle East, Obama next made is way into Europe and spoke to the German people.  In a speech that drew an estimated 200,000 people, Obama articulated a vision in which America rejoins the world community as a true global citizen.

The McCain folks are already trying to spin this with criticism against Obama but,  the fact is that this trip, which was mostly based on McCain’s criticism of Obama’s foreign experience and his daring of Obama to visit Iraq, has shown Obama to appear in a much more presidential light than McCain, much to his opponent’s chagrin.

Perhaps, next time, McCain will keep the dares to himself.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Popularity: 11% [?]

One of the funniest things I saw over the past weekend was the political dance by the Iraqi Prime Minister when the White House found out that, in a recent interview, he seemed to be endorsing Barack Obama’s timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

At first, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tried to deny that he had done so (I presume Bush and Co. made a very heated call to Iraq) but, in the end, after the audio of Maliki’s comments to the German magazine Der Spiegel was made public, the Iraqi government had to relinquish the fact that they favored Obama’s plan.

This leaves John McCain with egg on his face.  McCain has often tried to paint Obama as naive on Iraq and tried to tell the public that he has his finger on the pulse of our foreign policy.  However, despite what he wants to present, it appears that McCain really doesn’t know the political realities of Iraq as well as he claims. Or, to put it in the words of a senior McCain Advisor, “We’re f*cked”.

On Friday, the McCain campaign. tried to salvage his position by issuing the following statement, off the record:

“His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out…The military says ‘conditions based’ and Maliki said ‘conditions based’ yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.”

Translation: The Iraqis agree with us…not that we care what they think about it, though.”

However, after al-Maliki’s meeting with Obama in Iraq, Iraqi government spokeperson Ali al-Dabbagh, stated the following:

“We cannot give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal of forces.”

For the record, according to this spokesperson, Obama and al-Maliki did not discuss Iraqi government policy, as this would have been inappropriate but, this pronouncement by an Iraqi official falls much more in line with Obama’s proposed withdrawal time frame of April 2010 than McCain’s date falling somewhere in 2013.

In the end, no matter how they try to spin this, McCain has lost some ground on the Iraq issue.  It’s clear that America wants to leave.  With Iraq saying it’s ready to stand on its own, it will be even harder to justify our occupation of that country.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Bobby Brewster

Popularity: 16% [?]