Yeah, you heard me. I know, the preceding statement goes against the conventional wisdom that it’s black men who are awash in the affections of throngs of women and have but to show up in a reasonably stain free shirt to get mobbed by intelligent, beautiful, refined women.

But it’s true. Conventional dating theory assumes the world looks something like this:

I love girls, girls, girls all over the globe...

When in fact, it more than likely looks like this:

I love boys, boys, boys...Hey! Sergio! Stop looking at Lance's crotch! Focus!

Hear me out. Men and women work in remarkably different ways when it comes to the date selection process. As the hunter or aggressor, men typically will chase after what they want and end up eating what they can get. Women on the other hand, get the final say in choosing which male she allows to get close to her. If a hundred women offered to sleep with a man, he’d have sex with 101 of them, the 101st being the doorknob he mistook for a vagina in a weed-induced haze. On the other hand, an average of 100 men a day typically offer to sleep with any given women. Sound high?

Now, granted, this is less than a scientific observation, but let’s assume a woman is of average attractiveness and works in the Central Business District of any major city. She takes the train to work. On her walk to the train, she is leered at hard by 7 men, given a respectful but interested eye by 6 and hollered at by two locals on stolen ten speed bikes posted up by the Metro, one of whom is likely shirtless and smells of weed.

That’s 15

She’s lightly sexually harassed by by 2 of her superiors and merely spoken to inappropriately by 3 others in the morning, including the mail clerk who knows he doesn’t have a shot in hell. On her way to Au Bon Pain for lunch, she’s checked out by another 10 men, 1 offers to buy her sandwich, and the fella asking for directions to Neiman Marcus isn’t reeeaaally asking for directions.

We’re at 32.

She leaves work, goes to Happy hour, where she’s glanced at by 7 men, sent drinks by 3, and is flirted with by another 5.


It’s Friday, so she goes out to a large nightclub. A whopping 50 men eyebone, strike up a conversation, grab her arm, buy her a drink, or otherwise, as Chris Rock would put it, offer her some dick. On her way home, she receives sexually charged text messages from another 3 men, 1 of whom she invites over for sex.

That’s 100 men, folks.

You came her to holler at shorty? Me too, bruh. Me too. My dad too. He's getting a hot dog right now.

Sound like a lot? It’s just the tip of the iceberg!!! I heard a great story once about a man asking his grandfather if he ever cheated on his grandmother. His grandfather replies “No.” The grandson says. “Wow. I really respect that. I struggle with the temptation every day. It’s a constant battle. How’d you make it so long without giving in? Why didn’t you cheat?”

The grandfather looks at his grandson and says:

“I didn’t have a car.”

The moral of the story? When you have limited choices, you make do with what ya got. Today’s issue is that with the advent of technology, what you got is not merely the people in your city, or friends of friends, or whose eye you’re able to catch at the Friday night sock hop. Your options are only limited to the number of men that friend you, follow you, or are Matched with you. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if some woman and some man had sex based off a Words With Friends Game.  (if you want to play me, feel free, I’m pretty good, but not great. I always hold the J and the Z too long looking for that triple word score/triple letter score combo.)

Take that 100 number, add 500 DM's

So you’re saying, well, the same thing can be said about men and the expansion of their choices. True. But again, men’s choices are limited to who chooses them back. And while women’s choices may be technically limited to the men she would choose, that decision making process is up to her. she can choose every man who approaches, none, or some number in between.

There’s a second issue, which is the democratization of “fame-by beauty.” Up until very recently, in order to be a female sex symbol, model, socialite, etc, and benefit from the social and financial advantages therein, you had to be one of a very small number of people chosen by Vogue or Estee Lauder or whoever. Now, anyone with a cell phone and some lingerie can catapult themselves to instant notoriety if the right person shares or RT’s the pic. And then what happens?

Here comes Chad Ochocinco a-callin’. And Darnell Dockett. And Bow Wow. And five hundred other random dudes offering a chance at sex with them. And thennnn what happens? Well, worst case, something like this:

A couple weeks ago there was a flareup on black twitter because one of these internet models was arrested for child endangerment because she was apparently leaving her kid at home to fend for himself while she flew around the country getting knocked down by celeb types. Meanwhile, she’s twitpicing (is that a word) photos of herself in Bentleys and bottle service and other things of the type the modern negro seems to be enamored of. Mind you, before social networking, this chick would have had zero access to any celebrity outside of those who live there or are playing an away game. But because of the democratization of fame by beauty, I know who she is, and more importantly, Chad Ochocinco and Chris Brown knows who she is. And where to find her. Pre-1997, her best shot would be well-known local stripper. Post twitter? The sky’s the limit.

Now, granted, this is an extreme example. But I’d venture on a much smaller scale, a lot of women are faced with the same option of a “better” class of man available to them via technology and the interconnectedness of the world than may be available to them locally. I doubt most women are going to up and leave their kid with a TV dinner to go and pursue that “better” class of man, but they very well may decide that the middle class local dude doesn’t really measure up to the possibilities of the guy across the country who owns his own accounting firm. Or the dude who scores 17/night for the Nuggets. Or the old college classmate who done lost some weight and got a hairline that doesn’t look like Lebron and John Legend had a love child.

Ironically, given the way that women choose men, this new optimization of opportunity actually increases the dating wealth disparity (you know, 80% of women choose 20% of men). Because while women will actively gravitate towards choosing these select 20% of men, (many of whom can afford to fly them out wherever without a second thought), men will passively accept these choices. Like I said, we tend to take what we can get. And for some of us what we can get is quite a lot. For others of us, not so much)

What say you, blogoshpere? Am I totally off base here? Have you as a man or women increased your options because of technology? Decreased? Found love? Found emptiness? What ya got?

How far have we come

Posted: January 17, 2011 in Uncategorized

Today is January 17, 2011. On January 15, 1929, Martin Luther King Jr. was born Michael King Jr. 5 years later, in honor of the German Protestant Scholar Martin Luther, King’s father changed both his and his son’s name to Martin Luther King Jr. You know the rest of the story pretty much, or at least should by now. On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated in one of the seminal events of American history. And today, on January 17, 2011, for the 25th time since the holiday was federally passed into law in 1986, We celebrate the life and legacy of perhaps the most important force in the movement to enforce that black people in this country were afforded the same civil rights as Whites.

The question that plagues me during this rather singular day of remembrance is whether or not we’re that much better off now, 43 years after King was shot down by a lunatic (the second assassination attempt by the way. He was stabbed by a deranged black woman at a book signing in Harlem once and narrowly escaped death).

The gap between Black and white household [accumulated] wealth quadrupled from 1984 to 2007, totally discrediting the conventional wisdom that the U.S. is slowly and fitfully moving towards racial equality, or some rough economic parity between the races. Like most American myths, it’s the direct opposite of the truth. When measured over decades, Blacks are being propelled economically downward relative to whites at quickening speed, according to a new study by Brandeis University.

Today, the richest 1% of the US population owns close to 40% of its wealth. The top 25% of US households own 87% -The Guardian-

In 1984, high-income black Americans had more assets than middle-income whites. That is no longer true. -The Guardian-

At the end of 2006 the Bureau of Justice released a group of data that stated that there were 3,042 black male prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,261 Hispanic male prisoners per 100,000 Hispanic males and 487 white male prisoners per 100,000 white males

New York’s graduation rate for its Regents diploma is only 25 percent for Black male students. New York City, the district with the nation’s highest enrollment of Black students, only graduates 28 percent of its Black male students with Regents diplomas on time. Overall, each year over 100,000 Black male students in New York City alone do not graduate from high school with their entering cohort. These statistics—and the other alarming data in this fourth biennial report— point to a national education and economic crisis. The Schott Report-

Yes, we have a black president. Yes, that’s a remarkable accomplishment given that 50 years ago, many blacks weren’t even allowed to vote where they lived. But on balance, to be realistic, we’re a people going backwards. Much like the rest of America, there are huge rewards to be had via exceptionalism. But for the rank and file, tomorrow appears worse than today.

If you’re reading this, it’s not unlikely that your tomorrow is in fact brighter than your today. You’re sitting at a computer, you have time to dick around reading blogs instead of working two jobs to support a family or rotting in jail. Hell, you can read. That’s not a given for a lot of people in this country. You may very well be one of the elite who will acquire and possess more than your rightful share of assets, wealth, and happiness in this country.

The question is, what will you do with that wealth, with those assets, with that extra time? Will you fritter it away on self-aggrandizement? Will you buy more bottles, a bigger car, an exotic woman? A handbag that cost more than someone’s tuition, shoes that inspire envy because their soles are shellacked red?

What can you do, frankly? When I get on the Metro (on the few days I actually use public transportation), I see teenagers, adult children for whom I fear it is too late. I see their mannerisms, their language, the way they interact with their environment and I wonder if they’re not already so damaged by chronic poverty, bad schools, parental neglect, and a narcissistic culture of underachievement masked by swagger, I wonder if there’s anything that can meaningfully be done to bring them back from the brink. I hear stories of a Memphis high school with 90 pregnant girls out of 800 students. The news story qualifies that as meaning 11% of the school  population is preparing to be a parent. No mention is made of the fact that there are fathers there, meaning the number is closer to 22%. Perhaps with the rise of absentee fatherhood as a norm instead of an outlier, that makes sense. Why bother counting people as parents who likely won’t have the werewithall to take care of a family, regardless of their inclination to do so.

Well, here are some things you can do

1. Invest. Like I said, if you’re reading this, you probably have far more opportunities to actually create and accumulate wealth than most people in this country. Don’t squander it. And it’s so easy to squander it. Keeping up with the Combses, projecting your bougie lifestyle, impressing friend and foe alike with the fact that you vacation at Oaks Bluff. I know weaning oneself off a lifestyle is hard. I fail at it more often than not. But I’ve committed to expanding my investments outside of real estate to equities and bonds as well. It can be done. It’ll hurt a little now, but feel great later.

Motley Fool

2. Mentor I worked with Mentors Inc. a couple years ago mentoring a high school student. He’s at NC State now making the honor roll. In truth, he didn’t need that much of my help. But to a lot of those kids, one person can make a difference. your example and counsel can help them make that one decision that will keep them in school, keep them out of jail, or keep them from having babies as a baby. There are a million groups out there that would love to have your help.

Mentorship list

3. Change the Conversation I’ve argued with the Academics about this a million times. Yes, structural and economic forces keep black people in this country down. But we let them. We allow ourselves to be exploited, we waste our time with foolishness, and we compete with each other instead of helping one another. Go on twitter anyday and read the trending topics portion. No one’s forcing us to spend our time participating in the kind of lowest common denominator fuckery that goes on in our public discourse. We willingly choose to join. Opt out. Start a new topic.

4. Bribe your politicians Mother Jones magazine reviewed the Country’s 400 largest political donors in a March 5, 2001 issue. (Exhibit 9a) And while the article began by noting the large number of dollars raised by the Bush campaign ($696 million) and the coincident question of what donors expected in exchange for their largess, Mother Jones seemed to miss the elephant in the room – namely, the large number of Jewish donors. Namely, forty-two of the top one hundred donors were Jewish. What are the odds? Four of the top five (S. Daniel Abraham, Bernard Schwartz, David Gilo and Chaim Saban) were Jewish Democrats and each donated more than $1 million.

Jewish folks aren’t doing too bad in this country. May be a correlation there. Maybe we should take note.

5. Vote your interest Truthfully speaking, if Ron Paul would have won the Republican nomination in 2008, I would likely have voted for him over Obama. Why, you ask? Because he supports ending the war on drugs, the single biggest attack on the black community today. Does Ron Paul care about black people in the way that Obama does? I sincerely doubt it. But his empathy isn’t what I care about. What I care about is what he can do for me and people that look like me, and whose success, for better or worse, is tied to mine. For too long, we’ve given Democrats and friendly faces our votes and gotten nothing in return. Look at the italicized information above. Our politicians are not helping us, despite the fact that we’re the group that usually sends them over the top to electoral victory.

So there was a minor flap of late about rapper Jay Electronica (not to be confused with Jay-Z, J. Cole, Jay Kay from Jamiroquoi, Jay from Orgy, or J. Cooper California) talmbout all women liked to be choked. My feminist friends of course got their boxer briefs in a knot and began carping about sexual violence and patriarchy and such. (Read Sistertolja’s Clutch Piece here) and then there’s this piece from the Crunk feminist Collective.

I get that there are two sides to how people perceive this. And I’m sensitive to the fact that the idea of choking or the way Jay E. (and other men) talked about it may reopen some old wounds. That said, pretty much every woman I know is into being choked and or/sexually dominated in some way or another. Most also like being slapped on the ass. If I were to ask “do most women like being slapped on the ass?” would that constitute me advocating wife-beating? Call it how you see it.

But in the meanwhile, it’s cuffing season. Which means general horniness is at about an all time high. So whether you liked to be choked, spanked, tied up, all of the above, or none of the above, hopefully the following images will make your Tuesday a little more pleasurable. and remember, as always, be safe.

<embed id=”mymovie” width=”550″ height=”350″ flashvars=”imagePath= DeVaughn – She&autorName=Mefer1&embedURL=http%3A//” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowFullScreen=”true” quality=”high” name=”levelupplayer” style=”” src=”; type=”application/x-shockwave-flash”/>

You boys lost?

Sooooo. For all you post-racial America cheerleaders, more bad news. Your team appears to be losing. Badly. Like Redskins getting pounded by Mike Vick badly. So apparently, after the annual Harvard-Yale game, ground zero for the elite (black, white, Asian, and other) of this country and the world, a group of black students and alums from Harvard threw a little afterparty at a new club called Cure in Boston. Now, I attended one of these Harvard Yale afterparties in ’08 when I was in grad school (At neither one of these prestigious institutions, mind you) and it was a fine time. Great crowd, lots of fun, and they were pouring Patron doubles for $12. Probably the best time I’d had a club setting in Boston. Here’s the article from Jezebel

A party for black Harvard and Yale alums at a Boston club this weekend was shut down just after 11pm. Why? The club owner was concerned that a long line of black people outside would make the club look bad.

A group of recent graduates had sold tickets in advance for a party at a new Boston club, Cure, to follow Saturday’s Harvard-Yale game. By 10:30pm, though, club management freaked out and claimed it had seen “local gang bangers” around, despite the strict guest-list policy implemented by organizers. At first they demanded that guests show student ID — not exactly practical given the fact that it was a party aimed at alums — and then eventually shut down the entire club.

“We were perceived as a threat because of our skin color,” wrote one organizer, Michael Beal, in the email below. “I am further dismayed that after having spent the last few hours with the club owner, I do not believe him to be a racist; which only adds to my consternation around what this event says about race relations in our country.”

It echoed a firestorm three years ago, on the other side of the Charles River. In May 2007, called by other students, Harvard University Police asked students at a gathering of black Harvard student organizations on a campus green to show ID. That sparked an independent review and a police restructuring.

OK. Fair enough. Not too different from the story last year of the Chicago club that wouldn’t let the one black fella in because his “jeans were too baggy” and in an epic experiment in double standards, switched pants with a white student, who was let right on in. You and I have been out on the town before. We know this happens all the time.
But it’s not a news story when this happens usually. What makes this particular incident newsworthy is the addition of the phrase “Harvad and Yale” students. If this was “group of UMCP black students” or “group of employed working class black folk” denied entry, no one would bat an eyelid. The reason this story has legs is not just because of the Ivy League slant, but to some degree what it says about elitism, race relations, and class structures in America and Black America.
Here’s why. The Ivy halo is what makes this outrageous because it implies that these were “good” blacks denied admission because of their race. Having Harvard or Yale next to your name is supposed to suggest that you’re unassailable, a different kind of black person from the hoi polloi starting fights, cursing loudly, and assailing white women. Let’s be honest, People are mad because it takes away the justification of racism.
But if they weren’t the “black elite”, in a lot of people’s minds, the justification would be there. Take out the Harvard and Yale and just describe them as a group of black clubgoers and the mental image shifts from Carlton Banks
To something more along the lines of these gentlemen:

I'm on the guestlist. T-Killa plus four

Now, let’s be honest. Do you really want “these gentlemen” at your club? The liberal in you will probably come up with some justification that these fellas are no ore prone to violence, antisocial behavior, or street harassment than any other race of men. But the conservative in you sees these guys in the line, and you decide to turn in early tonight.
Now in truth, the only connecting thread between the above pictures is race. That’s about it. These people have probably almost nothing else in common. But this is where it gets difficult. White people tend to have a very clear level of social stratification. I rarely see townies from South Boston (a violent breed of goon if ever one existed) kicking it on Newbury and mixing with the Harvard crowd. It’s just not done. With us, there’s a bit more social mixing between the classes. I thought this was an extremely interesting comment from the Jezebel article to give the situation a bit more context, agree or disagree:
Reading this article, I can understand why people are so upset and are labeling the club management as racist. However, I think that some background information is essential here.  

In its previous incarnation, Cure Lounge was known as ‘Aria’. Aria was a hugely popular venue for black crowds, among them black gang members. There was frequent gang-related violence in the club, and ultimately a gang-related shooting forced the closure of Aria.

Not all black people are violent gang members, just as not all Muslims are suicide bombers and not all Jews are money hungry. Unfortunately we live in a world where there are always a few bad eggs, and the bad eggs can spoil things for a group as a whole.

In this case, the club owners have had a very bad experience with a small group of people who belong to a particular minority, and that bad experience led to the closure of the club and a loss of revenue for several years. I don’t think that shutting down this event was the right thing to do, but I can understand why they would be so cautious about wanting to convey the right image with the re-opening of their club.

Having lived in Boston for a number of years and attended the clubs these people own, I can attest to the fact that the owners are NOT racist. In fact, it’s the exact opposite: the owners and the staff at these clubs are made up primarily of minorities – there are Jews and Muslims on their staff; people from Israel, people from the Middle East, and yes: black people. Even Michael admits in his letter that he does not believe the owners are racist.

I think the real issue here is one that has always existed and is incredibly difficult to deal with: there is no good way to discern whether an individual is a security threat or not. There was a legitimate fear (based in experience) that black gang members may have seen a large number of black people outside the club as an invitation to return there themselves; and as tight as Michael’s guest list may have been, people do find ways to crash parties.

As Michael mentioned in his letter, better communication with club management would likely have prevented this issue; however the club will also have to think carefully about how they deal with security in the future, and how they prevent gang members from getting in to their establishment without being perceived as racist. It’s a complex problem and I would hate to be in their shoes, but I do not believe for a moment that this was racially motivated.

If anybody has any constructive criticism or suggestions as to how to keep gang members from entering clubs, please post them – I’m not sure how I would go about solving a problem like that.

Read more:

I wrote a piece a while back about Class warfare. Two pieces actually. Our Kind of people vs. You all
The first is probably more germane to the topic of hand as I explained why uppity blacks hate it when non-uppity blacks crash their wine and cheese parties. Kind of like the email that the Harvard Yale promoter sent out:

Dear friends,

On behalf of Brandon, Kwame, myself and Triumph as an organization I want to profusely apologize for the ordeal you were put through tonight with the club shutting the party down at 11:15PM. Please know that we are working with event-brite to refund every person who purchased a ticket for tonight’s event as soon as possible. Asides from an apology I believe it is important to be completely transparent about what occurred tonight and what we are doing about it. I apologize for the verbose nature of the email, and hope that you will take the time to read it in its entirety.

What Happened?

At approximately 10:30PM club management called the owner to say that they saw individuals on line whom they recognized as “local gang bangers” (their words not mine). In response to this, the club owner directed the bouncers to only let individuals with a Harvard or Yale ID in to the club. At this point Kwame and I argued that no alumnus would have his or her expired college ID with them and reiterated that the reason we did the party on a pre-sold basis with strict admittance based solely on the guest list was to guarantee that the only attendees were Harvard and Yale alumni, grad students and their close friends and to ensure that no “bad seeds” could contaminate our party. However, given that this was the club’s opening weekend, the owner was particularly sensitive to anything going wrong.

At approximately 10:45, after we won the argument concerning the amazing quality of our crowd and the strictness of our guest list, management began letting people in but then became worried that as our crowd waited in line it could attract the attention of “local gang bangers” passing by who would try to gain entrance to our party. Furthermore, they feared that if these individuals were turned away for not being on the guest list they could hypothetically cause problems with the bouncers outside of the club and draw negative attention to the establishment. Despite the fact that our Friday night party went off without a hitch and had no problems when we turned people away from the door for not being on our list, management decided to shut the party down as to avoid the hypothetical chance of attracting the “wrong crowd” (again their words not mine). In spite of our attempts to reason with them, we were left in a position where despite agreeing with our logic, the decision had been made and we were left powerless

Please be assured that we are working with event-brite to refund every person who purchased a ticket for tonight’s event as soon as possible. To those who gained entrance and wasted their money on cabs and drinks at the bar I am extremely sorry. As anyone who knows us understands, the only reason we created Triumph was to foster an environment where educated individuals (black and non-black) can congregate knowing that they are amongst like-minded persons. As a Harvard Business School student I am annoyed by the financial loss we will record as a result of the club’s rash decision. As a Harvard college alum I am angry that my college roommate flew in from Los Angeles and my teammate from San Francisco and were denied the opportunity to reconnect with old friends on our homecoming weekend. However, as a black man, these emotions are trumped by an arduous feeling of sadness that regardless of our crowd representing the pinnacle of academic achievement as Harvard and Yale College alumni, Law, Medical, Business and PhD students, we were perceived as a threat because of our skin color. I am further dismayed that after having spent the last few hours with the club owner, I do not believe him to be a racist; which only adds to my consternation around what this event says about race relations in our country.

Kwame and I thought that we had taken every precaution to ensure that this night would go on without incident but have learned a valuable lesson from this. We usually go through painstaking detail to be explicit and transparent about our crowd as to have no surprises the day of the event. We did not do that in this case as we thought Harvard and Yale alumni and Graduate students spoke for its self. We also did not negotiate directly with the owner but rather used a booking agent to secure this beautiful club before it opened to the public. These are lessons learned and we will never make these mistakes again if we ever do another event.

Over the next days and weeks we will work with the club’s management and Harvard student groups to ensure that this does not happen to others in the future. Again, I am sorry for and embarrassed by what happened tonight. We will keep you posted as things progress and appreciate the support you have shown us over the last five years of Triumph. We have sent this email to all those who purchased tickets via event-brite but realize we are missing many email addresses of those affected by tonight. If you know of others who should receive this email please forward it to them. If there is anything I can do to help in the future please feel free to reach out to me or Kwame directly.


Michael Beal (Harvard ’06, HBS ’12), Kwame Owusu-Kesse (Harvard ’06, HBS ’12, HKS ’12) and Brandon Terry (Harvard ’05, Oxford ’07, Yale PhD ’12)

Now, I ain’t no big city lawyer, but there seems to be a great deal of subtext in this email that because the party consisted of Harvard and Yale alums, there was an understanding that the crowd would be suitable enough for white people to forgive their blackness. The phrase “contaminate our party”  I think speaks volumes to the idea that the promoters thought of themselves as “the good blacks” and everyone else as “those other n****s.” And the good blacks, their status being evident through their educational credentials, should not have to suffer the stereotypes or racism those other n****s have to deal with. Because they’ve earned their way out of it. While non-ivy blacks should be viewed skeptically and watched and monitored, a certain class of elite blacks shouldn’t.

Am I wrong here, or was that in fact the tone of the email. Discuss.

The pic from the blog. Look at sad ass buddy in the back while Darth Whitey takes his woman. And probably his farmland too.

The following article written by one LaShaun Williams was posted on a website called Madame Noire yesterday. Like all the bad things in the world, this was brought to my attention by the twitter. Here’s the link (It doesn’t appear on the home page anymore, undoubtedly because of the response, and the front page of the article gives an error message but this still might work. )

Read Madame Noire article here


I am married to a Black man—dark-skinned, 100 percent cocoa. To me, there is nothing more physically beautiful on this earth. Notice I said physically. Outside of that, there are plenty of more financially, intellectually and emotionally stable options. It’s time to taste the unknown. There are just too many—too many bright and beautiful single Black women waiting for their Black prince charming, only to see more and more of them riding off with their porcelain-skinned beauties.

My question is what are you waiting for—a baby and no ring? Black men are obviously seeing a lot in others they like. As an open-minded woman, I can tell you from experience some things about white are right. In no particular order, here are the reasons you should be giving vanilla a chance.

1. They open wide instead of down low

Gay White men tend to be more forthcoming about their sexuality with family and friends. The down low phenomenon is less prevalent, which preserves the battery usage on your gaydar and relieves the stress of dissecting every male relationship.

2. Not looking for someone to take care of them

Thanks to the absence of family, fathers and marriage in the Black community, a great number of our men have backward expectations when it comes to romantic relationships. A higher percentage of White men come from stronger family structures and more traditional gender roles, where the men seek to care for the women.

3. Attend and graduate from college

Black women are graduating from college and Black men continue to drop out. As a result, degrees become intimidating when dating Black men. In White culture, education is valued and expected. Thus, White men have no problem dating educated women with advanced degrees. It is impressive rather than intimidating.

4. At least attempt to marry before making babies

For whatever reason, White men just don’t have children sprinkled all over the world like Black men. And, if they do, most of them were married to the mother at some point. Sure, they divorce but you can only divorce if you at least attempt a marriage.

5. They don’t glamourize ignorance

They may listen to rap music, but they are smart enough not to act it out. The “thug life” is not something to be aspired. White men have a firmer grasp on what really defines manhood.

6. Financial planning and stability

Black people, especially men, are always trying to shine—often spending more money than they have. White men tend to be more educated in the area of finance with a greater understanding of retirement planning, savings, investments, etc. This is mostly due to a higher level of exposure and teaching, but all that matters is they know and make better decisions than Black men when it comes to managing money.

7. Have the ability to look beyond your past

Ever wonder why White people can date the friends of exes and so on? It’s because they don’t let the past hinder the present. Promiscuous Black men think they deserve to settle down with virgins, and allow past relationships to haunt the present. Not White men. They have no problem turning a hoe into a housewife.

8. Don’t take everything as a challenge to their masculinity

Intimidation and insecurity are two reasons for the rift between Black men and women. As a result of their insecurities and low self-esteem, Black men are intimidated by the strength of an educated and ambitious Black woman. Rather than seeing her as a strong teammate, she is a threat to their manhood. Thus, they feel the need to overcompensate. White men, on the other hand, are more secure. What Black men see as threatening is what makes a great wife and business partner to them.

Fair enough. Everyone knows the negro male is a degenerate. Not worth anyone’s time, really. Fortunately for us, you black women ain’t shit either. Allow me to show you eight ways why White Women are clearly your superiors.

1. They open wide. And swallow

Unlike you non dick-sucking black women, the white woman will take cock to the face like a porn star. While you reserve your dry and toothy head for birthdays and anniversaries, she’s ready to slurp up that baby gravy on demand.

Ma, I been hugging the block...hustling rock..

2. They ain’t fat like y’all!

Erbody know all black women are fat. All of em. And if they ain’t fat now, they’re one donut away. Not like the nice white woman, who’s always in the gym, making sure to keep that ass curve free. Smelling like delicious pine-sol and granola chips. mmmhhhh.

Nice Svelte Norweigan Goddesses

3. They’re classy!

Unlike you ghetto trash, the white woman knows how to act in public. She’s genteel, kind, and not a criminal like you all. She doesn’t sit around smoking Newports and eating chicken boxes all day:

Shouts to LiLo

4. They love black people!

Unlike you ungrateful, self-loathing no good so and so’s, the white woman has a great big heart that seeks to heal divides and create peace. She would never do no shit like throwing acid on herself and saying a darkie did it

Um, the suspect? Black between 150 and 300 lbs. definitely black though. maybe 4'11"-7'3", in that range somewhere?

5. Their white male friends do too!

I love you porch mo...uh porch monsoons. I love porch monsoons. Except for those jewish ones. Don't much care for them

6. They go to Good White Schools for book learning!

Always tryna be liek the white woman and go to school. SMH

7. They ain’t Gold-diggers like y’all!

Always trying to take what little a brother has. A white woman would never date someone just cause they’re rich or an athlete, bless their pure hearts.

8. And most of all, they got nice pretty shapes!

Unlike you horrible black women with your big old butts

Ionno if that's a man or a woman, but I like it!

*If perhaps you’re a total idiot, I’ll note for you that this post is what we call sarcasm. Lookit. I don’t have a problem with black women dating outside the race. I don’t even have a problem with black women encouraging other black women to date outside the race. Do you. But why it seems like every proponent of interracial dating for black women seems to want to do it by denigrating and stereotyping black men is beyond me. No one needs you to justify your choices in love. Unless you yourself aren’t comfortable with them. If so, that’s your problem. But keep my mothafucking name out of your mouth while you’re doing it.

How you doing?

Welp. So Eddie Long, pastor at New Birth Missionary Church, one of the country’s biggest megachurched has been accused of being sexually inappropriate with a couple of young mens.

read story here

Am I personally surprised? Not one goddamned bit. Now, I don’t now if Pastor Eddie touched those boys wrongly about the butthole. Probably the only people who do know are the pastor himself and the two accusers in question.

The sad part of this however, is that no one’s surprised. We’ve become so accustomed to malfeasance on the part of super-religious people that it’s almost par for the course. Between Donny McClurkin’s homosexuality and Kirk Franklin’s porn addiction, the motto seems to be “do what I say, not what I do. Cause, me, I get it in.”

That said, those in his church and who generally support these tight suit wearing, Bentley driving prosperity pimps have circled the wagons to defend the pastor. And what else do you expect. These guys have long since ascended from being “men of the lord” to suburban rock stars. And like rock stars, they have a profound effect on people. A friend of mine tweeted how she was depressed, despondent, and suicidal before she started going to New Birth and it was his interpretation of the scriptures that she feels saved her life. As you might expect, she’s come out to voiciferously denounce the accusers and defend a man she feels has helped her spiritually. I can dig it.

What I can’t dig is a man of extreme power and influence using his power to engage in sexual relationships with dudes that are under a mentee relationship with him. If the allegations are true (and I’m not saying they are), that’s an amazing breach of trust and duty. you can’t have it both way, fanatical Christians. You can’t on one hand scream “Touch not my anointed” and in the same breath hedge your bets by saying “we all have sin within us.” Yes, we know your pastor is charismatic. Yes, you have this wild-eyed idea that God himself somehow picked this dude out of everybody else to deliver his word, and not that he just chose that career. But what he’s accused of is repugnant. And victim blaming is not the business here.

But unfortunately, we’re gonna see a lot of it because of this stranglehold the church and religion has on the black community. I said stranglehold. Not important place in supporting the community, not appropriate spiritual place, stranglehold. And Bishop Long is a perfect representative of that stranglehold. Black people (often one step away from economic disaster themselves) go to his church every Sunday to give what few dollars they have in the vain hope that they will be “blessed” with riches. Which last time I checked is completely antithetical to the life and work of Jesus Christ. I’m not suggesting you can’t find a verse in the bible talking about people being blessed with gold and land and Bentleys and shit. But I think if that’s your spiritual motivation, you’re a fucking idiot.

God meant me to push a Bentley. me and Sean Combs taking boys home

Unfortunately, because you’re dealing with a cohort that has been so economically deprived, you’re gonna get a lot of fucking idiots. And some of that idiocy is rooted in need. If you’re a poor or almost poor person who sees no real way up the economic ladder, it has to be extremely tempting to hear a man in a $3,000 suit hopping out of a private jet say “hey, give some money and prayer to Jesus, and you can get paid too. Worked for me!”

Creflo Dollar's Wayne Mansion house

Now back to the young mens. That exact promise of prosperity is exactly what they accuse the Bishop Eddie of exploiting to get them to put some dick in his life. He bought them cars, took them on private jets around the world, introduced them to stars and celebrities. He did the same shit a rapper does to fuck a video model. And my guess is, they took the bait. No one’s saying Eddie raped anybody. Or forced anyone to do anything. Eddie, according to the accusations, just dangled the carrot. And to young men who probably didn’t have that much, it was worth it to take the stick to get these things.And about those loud condemnations of homosexuality from the good Bishop: I mean come on, anyone that interested in talking about homo stuff all the time is probably interested in maybe trying it out a little. Just the tip maybe. I’ll spare you all the black church’s blanket hypocrisy on homosexuality. There’s just not a lot there to say anymore.

But don’t worry too much. If Eddie Long really is a sexual predator, he’s smart enough to choose the right people to prey on. We’re talking people with “credibility issues.” Maybe a history of criminal activity or theft or something else. Like burglary. And eventually, the heat will get too hot, and he’ll be exonerated. It is what it is. Until the next time. Enjoy megachurch, folks. Hope that 10% tithe comes back at ya!

May or may not be Dr. Jones

This Letter to the Editor, written by Doctor Jones about health care in America, is from the August 29th edition of Jackson, Mississippi’s newspaper, the Clarion Ledger.

(Caveat: There’s some discussion as to whether the Doctor pictured is in fact the same doctor that wrote the op ed)

Dear Sirs:

During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture – a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.

As you might expect, this letter has gone viral and become something of a lightning rod for the opinions of people on both sides of the political (and frankly, racial) spectrum.

Now, one of the first assumptions everyone makes of course, is that this patient is black and that there’s a racial undertone to this whole thing. I mean, come on, expensive tennis shoes, multiple tats, R&B ringtone, gold teeth. All you’d need would be multiple strangely named children along to complete the Grand Slam of Stereotypes.

Do I think there’s a racial undertone to this? Yes. I know it’s unpopular in this country to point out things that MAY represent racial stereotyping, discrimination, etc. Effectively, you have to show up burning a cross with a T-Shirt that says “I hate Darkies” before someone will try and form an alternate explanation about how “it’s not about race, it’s about (insert big government, personal responsibility, socialism, values,etc…). In my PERSONAL OPINION, as I don’t know this guy and haven’t learned to read minds yet like more advanced Jedi, I believe the choice of descriptors was made in order to ensure that the reader developed a mental image of the person as black.

We’re supposed to think of them:


Not them:

Not ghetto

What strikes me as most interesting about the discussion is the diverse opinions of Black People themselves. Because in truth, this is a conversation, we often have among ourselves. If this was a Black doctor, this would be a different conversation. Many more of us would nod our heads, and say, yup, we gotta do better. Others would argue that this hypothetical black doctor was “airing our dirty laundry” and furthering negative stereotypes.

But because he’s white, the natural tendency is to circle the wagons. And truthfully, there’s a lot wrong with this op-ed. To suggest that health care costs in America are out of control simply because someone buys expensive tennis shoes isn’t something I think most reputable Doctors or health care professionals would ascribe to. The smoking, certainly you have a point there. But this really wasn’t about that.

What it was about was a veiled attack at a “culture.” The doctor never mentioned what the woman’s ailment was, or if it had anything to do with her smoking. We don’t know if she was in there for asthma or emphysema or because she had had skinned her knee.

What we know is that the doctor took issue with her having material things, which judging bu her lack of health insurance, suggested that she couldn’t really afford them and that her priorities were out of order. That she was irresponsible, and because of that irresponsibility, partly to blame for many of the other ills in this country.

And I frequently take issue with this. I see people buying bottles in clubs who can’t afford to live by themselves. People who are in hock to their ears in credit card and student loan debt but have Gucci purses the size of a tent. And let’s face it, they kind of look like me. It’s very easy to attack this kind of blanket materialism, but as one commenter said, people spend money on things that they feel will get them results.

She live wit her muh-va

None of us individually create a a mainstream culture. We live in it, and we choose the depths to which we’ll participate, opt out, or find another cultural group to deal with. And we live in a culture that often has some fairly perverse incentives for behavior which may or not be functional.

A selection of comments I read on Facebook:

JB: I agree…the racist language/viewpoint is much more than undertones in this letter! I do get frustrated when people spend endlessly on luxuries without greater insight into how that affects the entire community….but that spans more than mere “gold teeth” and “R & B” ringtones! There are plenty of other financial irresponsible folks out there—hello, housing/banking crisis!

CB: I agree that his letter is racist, but I have to kind of agree with him on some points. I used to work at Chicago’s section 8 office and I saw this every day. It does eat away at your spirit. Add the fact that I often see a young mother pu…rchase Cheetos for HER CHILD with an EBT card when I’m at Walgreen’s or similar and you’re pouring gas all over the fire. Do I mind that my tax dollars are going towards helping the less fortunate get food? No. Am I embittered about paying for this (almost always) teenage single mom pass on bad dietary habits to her child? Hell yes. I feel that the EBT cards should be coded so that you can’t use them to buy junk.

A better, less elitist letter would examine the reasons we need to reinstate health classes in American schools so that kids learn the value of good nutrition and exercise so that they don’t repeat their parents’ mistakes and stay out of that MD’s emergency room.

DH: I know, his post makes us doctors look bad! Being able to afford a gold tooth and some fashion accessories does not mean that that person can afford a monthly health insurance payment. Our society does not allow people to easily cross the line from total poverty (welfare/medicaid) to a self-sufficient life-style. All of a sudden all benefits are gone and payments make it impossible to meet all the needs.

TW: I can’t front, I kinda agree with dude. I see countless kids in my classroom decked out to the nines, but who are receiving all types of aid. #noshade but umm….really?

What’s your take? Reckless racism, or a timely commentary on a pressing issue?

So I was reading a Clutch magazine article the other day written by Bene Viera entitled “Are you a Rose or a Thorn in the Black Man’s side?” The article itself wasn’t that groundbreaking. I didn’t read anything in it that was wildly controversial or offensive. But the comments section just fucking exploded. You would have thought Al Qaeda wrote a blog titled “Why Jews are evil” and the readership consisted only of ADL members and Hamas loyalists.  Witness one comment:

I’m probably more of a thorn. I regard most black men with an air of disdain. Too many of them are liars, players, and have no interest in black women. The black man you described in your article is somewhere salivating over an Asian, Latina, or white woman… Trust & believe sweetie. He is.

Honestly I barely pay any attention to black men and rarely speak to them unless I absolutelly need to. The only black men I care about are my two younger brothers and President Obama. The rest are sorry ass bums with more kids and baby mamas than money in the bank who always have an excuse and are looking for sympathy. I have no sympathy or praise for them. I like and respect the ones who give me the same in return. Other than that, the black man can keep on stepping. I have no time or patience for their games and schemes.

My natural reaction was one of disgust, disdain, and hatred. My inclination was to rip into her something awful. But I thought better of it. I don’t know her from a hole in the wall and yet, she made me feel some kind of way. So instead I said this:

@cosmoblkgirl: “Honestly I barely pay any attention to black men and rarely speak to them unless I absolutely need to.” Wow. That statement sounds like it comes from a place of deep disappointment and hurt which has turned into some real hostility. I don’t know how or if it’s even possible for you to have a productive relationship with a black man with that kind of worldview, but I hope something happens to lessen your pain. That’s a lot to carry around.

I was surprised buy what I got: honesty. Not anger, not insults, just what she was feeling:

@ Brandon St. Randy Too much disappointment & hurt to mention. I don’t trust any of them. It is very doubtful I will ever let my guard down again. When I go out with friends and brothas approach our table, I’m the one who excuses herself and goes to the bar or the bathroom. When I’m out and about, I keep my headphones on and my eyes are staring straight ahead. I don’t have time to get off track and fall prey to a man with malicious intent. It may be extreme to you and others reading but the last brotha I was with I gave him all the love, encouragement, and support he needed and in return he used me, lied to me, and played on my sympathy. He broke me. That’s why a black man gets NOTHING from me anymore.

Earlier in the week, over on twitter, I saw this hugely toxic interaction between this guy and Dream Hampton:

  1. I was busy scratching my balls. Couldn’t hear you. Louder. Your Boat to hell leaves soon. #fb @drgoddess @dreamhampton313 11:45 AM Aug 22nd via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to drgoddess
  2. Yawn…. 11:17 AM Aug 22nd via TweetDeck

  3. WHO SHOT BIGGIE AND TWO PAC??? @dreamhampton313 Just ask her home town former mayor @KwameKilpatrick 11:15 AM Aug 22nd via TweetDeck

  4. CUNT I ASKED YOU IF YOU STILL MOTHERING BIGGIE SMALLS BASTARD DAUGHTER!!!!!??? @dreamhampton313 11:08 AM Aug 22nd via TweetDeck

  5. You still mothering Biggie Smalls Bastard Daughter? @dreamhampton313 11:03 AM Aug 22nd via TweetDeck

So another poster on the clutch piece said this:

My field requires me to study a lot of research that covers many different cultural and psychological issues. One of which that interests me is gender mistrust in the Black community. It seems that, when we meet a Black person of the opposite gender, so many walls are put up due to the expectation of “attack”. We are so hypersensitive of being made or expected to submit that we seem to equate natural courtesies with injustice (example here; support/love=submit/degrade). OF COURSE it’s natural in any healthy relationship for each person to want to support and openly love the other; EXCEPT when one thinks that the other person is looking to take advantage (in such cases, the focus switches from sharing love, to self protection). Speaking only for myself, I find myself verbally and explicitly asserting my worth more often with BM than any other group, as if I EXPECT them to automatically think otherwise. From what I’ve read, heard, and experienced, BM seem to think the same about us (BW). I feel that I have so much of this type of baggage that I’ve given up hope of having a fulfilling relationship with a BM (call me bag lady, Erica ^_^). Until we can learn to enter a relationship and dialogue without all of the baggage of mistrust, the issue of “who supports who” is always going to be an area of fiery debate and the simple job of coming together (in terms of culture/gender or relationships) is going to be undercut by fears that The Others are merely out to control and devalue us.

I think she hit the nail on the head. Thoughts?


(For Aiyana Stanley-Jones)

By James A. Britton


That was the piercing cry that shot through the Summer air on that early Sunday afternoon—suspending our Sunday ritual of fried chicken, California blend mixed vegetables, rice, gravy, poundcake, and of course, grape kool-aid.

The voice was unmistakable.  I looked at my brother—both of us still clad in our stocking feet fixing our Sunday dinner.   Without a word, we both ran headlong down the street—my brother arriving at our neighbor’s house first, some seven houses down.

Through the sobs and tears, we learned that my sister’s boyfriend, a teenager still, had earlier that morning  been shot and killed—murdered as he sat with his brother in his car.  His brother, the boyfriend of my sister’s best friend, was shot in the foot but survived.

Too much time has passed for me to remember the motive—if there was one. Doesn’t matter anyway.  What matters is that another young black man, eighteen or so, tall, muscular—A Native Son–would not make it to see his twentieth birthday.  Some years later, his nephew, the seed of his brother and my sister’s best friend, would bear his name . . .

When you grow up on the West Side of Detroit, you know what it is to fear Summer.  Not the heat index or the prospect of summer school, but that Summer, through convulsions and fits of anger, would purge the earth of one its young.  Summer has always had a way of corrupting young idle hands and idle brains that had idle time But the corruption it worked was no idle one.  Summer, too often, played a zero-sum game. It is no wonder then that, when my brother was out of my presence, and perhaps stayed out longer than normal, that I began to worry that my brother had become one of the Summer’s latest casualties. It is also no wonder that I felt a sense of relief when he would come home safely—the same applies to my sister.

It could be anything really—the bad end of a prolonged stare down; because he wanted your shoes, coat, chain, or car; because you bumped each other at the Afro-World Festival; but usually, it was because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  At least that’s what the sonless mothers, funeral preachers, family and friends told each other and themselves. No sense in attempting to further rationalize the irrational.

Honestly, that aggressive, take no mess mentality was with all of us to a certain degree.  It’s with many of us still.   It’s a familiar ritual.  First, there would be the stare down—on the basketball court, at the mall, at Hart Plaza—didn’t matter.  Next comes the throwing up of hands as if to say, “What Next?” a symbolic “Whatchuwannado?”And depending upon which tools one  had been given to express his young, wild, undefined rage, the answer to the “What Next?” could end up being another story about a young black being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And so it was—an endless parade of horribles.  Summer after seemingly endless Summer.  Some names I remember, many I’ve forgotten, or never knew.  Lashern Moorer (his fiancé was pregnant—isn’t that always the case?), Chris Moore, Bimbo who never made it back from Minnesota; my mother in ’88, although hers was a self-imposed violence of a different kind; Russell, my best friend in kindergarten, his father, shot in the head—that one made the news; there were others—My uncle Stony, Easter Sunday 1983 right around the corner on Alpine. I was too young to remember. Sometimes, I didn’t go to the funeral—a couple times I did.  It’s hard though, to stare down your own mortality and see it carried away by six sobbing friends.  I remember Chris and I were about the same age, almost the same height, same complexion and build.  Sometimes it was better not to go.

* * * * * * * * * *

In the middle of May, 2010, Jerean Blake, a 17-year-old high-school student, was killed because he looked at a man too long, too strong, or too wrong.  His life was taken absent any ensuing outrage.

Three days later, the Detroit police, executing a no-knock warrant at the suspected killer’s address, shot and killed Aiyana Stanley-Jones as she slept on the front living room couch.  Before entering, the police threw a flash grenade through the window—normally used to stun the occupants of a building, especially when the police are certain that only the suspect is in the building.  The spark from the grenade set little 7-year old Aiyana’s blanket on fire.  The police entered, made contact with little Aiyana’s grandmother, the police officer’s gun fired, striking Aiyana about the neck and head. She died there.

Unfortunately, this tragedy was a predicutable consequence of a recent ruling from the highest court in the land,

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Booker T. Hudson, Jr. was sitting in his home in Detroit on August 27, 1998 when the Detroit Police, only three or four seconds after announcing themselves, burst in and seized cocaine that was in his pocket and a gun, may have been hidden in a nearby sofa.  Mr. Hudson was sitting on a chair in the middle of the living room and never had an opportunity to answer his door.  The police were executing a search warrant for drugs and possibly a gun. Mr. Hudson was tried for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

At trial, Mr. Hudson argued that the  evidence should be suppressed  because the police officers admittedly violated “knock and announce rule” under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that police officers must first knock, identify themselves and their intent, and wait a reasonable amount of time so that the residence’s occupants may let them in.

The trial court agreed and  ruled that the prosecution could not use the evidence at trial.  The trial court’s ruling, however, was overturned on appeal and Mr. Hudson was tried and convicted of drug possession.  He was sentenced to 18 months probation.

Mr. Hudson appealed his conviction arguing that it was unconstitutional based on the knock and announce violation.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction.  The Michigan Supreme Court declined to review the case.  .

The United States Supreme Court, however, decided to hear the case.

Professor David Moran of Wayne State University Law School represented Mr. Hudson before the Supreme Court. Professor Moran argued that, based on the court’s earlier cases ruling that a violation of the Fourth Amendment renders tainted  the evidence seized as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation, that the evidence seized by the Detroit Police should be suppressed—which would likely result in a dismissal of the charges against Mr. Hudson.

Essentially, the argument goes, because  the “knock and announce rule” is firmly embedded in the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees that persons will be secure in their homes, papers and effects, and will not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, police officers should not be rewarded for violating this core constitutional requirement.   Thus, because the Fourth Amendment insists that an unreasonable search or seizure is an illegal search or seizure, the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure is barred in criminal trials.

Professor Moran also focused the Court’s attention on the protective role the exclusionary rule serves.  Obligating officers to knock and announce, he argued, protects    the occupants of a home from surprise and embarrassment and preserves the dignity of a person who would be otherwise surprised at the insistence of a police officer banging at a door.  Professor Moran also argued that the rule protects both the occupant and the police officer from harm since, in a perfect situation, the occupant would have an opportunity answer the door as opposed to having their door or window broken in order for the police to obtain a surprised entry. (Otherwise, as Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out, an occupant would be justified in using force to repel an officer who doesn’t announce himself since the occupant has no idea that the officer is not otherwise an intruder).

As a practical matter, Professor Moran argued that suppressing the seized evidence would be the only effective way to keep police from violating the “knock and announce rule.”  Contrary to the government’s arguments, the fact that private citizens could sue for monetary damages would not be sufficient to make officers abide by the “knock and announce rule” because, among other things, at the time the Hudson case was heard, there was no single reported case where a private citizen was able to successfully sue the police department and obtain anything other than paltry damages—even in the case where the police had inflicted grave bodily harm.  As such, and because police are most times protected by qualified immunity, if the court ruled that the seized evidence could not be suppressed, police officers would have no practical incentive to honor the “knock and announce rule” rendering nugatory the constitutional mandate that police officers knock and announce themselves before entering a home or building in order to serve a valid search or arrest warrant.

The United States Supreme Court rejected these arguments in a 5-4 majority—Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority.  And while the Court made several observations as to why it chose not to honor the “knock and announce rule”, the Court’s principal justification centered on the rationale that the policies underlying the rule itself, protecting property from being destroyed, preserving a person’s dignity and the sanctity of their home and officer safety (Justice Scalia reasoned that the fact that an officer could be shot would be a sufficient incentive to otherwise abide by the “knock and announce rule”) were not related to the evidence that would ultimately be seized, (i.e. crack cocaine).  And because the “knock and announce rule” was not aimed at protecting the “papers and effects” normally found in a home and protected by the Fourth Amendment, the normal rule that Fourth Amendment violations lead to the exclusion of evidence didn’t apply.

Two things are telling from oral argument (actually, there were two rounds of oral arguments). In the first argument, Justice Sandra Day-O’Connor began questioning Professor Moran with a series of soft-ball questions, asking Professor Moran about other states with no-knock statutes and why a police officer would want to execute a no-knock warrant. However, because Justice O’Connor retired before the Hudson decision was issued, the case was called for reargument, the second time with Justice Samuel Alito in Justice O’Connor’s place. (Professor Moran believed that the case might have turned out differently had Justice O’Connor remained on the Court when it rendered its decision.)

At the second argument, Justice Stephens asked a poignant question: why did the government concede that there was a violation of the “knock and announce rule”?  Because the search warrant allowed the police to search for both drugs and guns, and because one of the principal reasons police officers may dispense with the knock and announce requirement is to prevent the destruction of evidence (such as crack cocaine) and to protect officer safety (such as being shot with guns), Justice Stephens signaled his discomfort with the government so easily conceding that a violation had occurred. (Justice Stephens suspected, rightfully, that, by conceding that there was a violation, that the government was seeking a categorical rule with respect to all knock and announce cases. If the court had found that there was no violation, there would be no need to decide the suppression question, which was the central issue in the case, because as a rule, the court attempts to decide cases on the most narrow grounds possible as to avoid deciding thorny constitutional questions if at all possible In essence, if there was no constitutional violation, there was no need to answer the next question—whether the evidence should be excluded).

Despite Professor Moran’s best efforts (aided by the Michigan ACLU), the evidence seized as a result of the Detroit Police Department’s violation of the “knock and announce rule” was not suppressed and Mr. Hudson’s conviction stood.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

On that warm Summer Sunday night, Aiyana Stanley-Jones did not stand a chance.  How could she?  Weeks earlier, one Detroit police officer, Brian Huff, had been fatally shot and four other officers wounded after responding to a midnight disturbance call.  Weeks later, an elderly woman was killed by a stray bullet after another elderly man tried to protect himself from being carjacked.  Tension was palpable.  On the night they executed the arrest warrant, the police were looking for a man who reportedly killed a teenage boy because he looked at him wrong. (Besides, what business did little Aiyana have living in the same house with a man such as the suspect they were looking for?  And weren’t the people in the house guilty of harboring a criminal?)* It didn’t matter that the home was a two family flat—so the suspect could have been in either unit; didn’t matter that there were children’s toys dotting the front yard; it also didn’t matter that neighbors told the police officers that children were inside the home; it didn’t even matter that there was a camera crew from a major cable television station—there was danger inside. Besides—why would the police officers knock, announce themselves and wait for someone to answer the door as opposed to throwing a flash grenade through the window? The Supreme Court had removed any incentive the police ever had for following the Constitutional rule.    One flash grenade later, Aiyana Stanley-Jones was dead—her grandmother a witness to Aiyana’s horrifying demise.

Whatever there is to be said and done about the almost-suffocating violence that happens in most of our major urban centers, one thing is certain: Aiyana Stanley-Jones did not have to die. And despite the fact that our United States Supreme Court has decided that the capture of evidence is more valuable than the lives and dignity of those persons who reside on the other side of a police warrant, Aiyana’s death does not have to be in vain. There is nothing in the Supreme Court’s Hudson decision that would prevent individual states from strengthening a citizen’s Fourth Amendment Protection with respect to the “knock and announce rule.”  For instance, Michigan could do away with the use of “no knock” warrants altogether. Michigan already has a statue requiring an officer to have “permission refused” before he or she may break a window or door in order to gain entry. MCL 780.656.  This statute could be strengthened to require suppression of evidence where this statue has been violated absent exigent circumstances. (For instance, in the case of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, the existence of children’s toys and information that children resided on the premises would be sufficient proof that executing a “no-knock” warrant would not be proper because the need to secure and protect children in the dwelling would be more important than entering the home unannounced in order to surprise a suspect.)  The City of Detroit could outlaw no-knock warrants altogether. At the very least, as a matter of internal police policy, the Detroit Police Department should be made to abolish the militaristic tactics used to execute warrants in areas where our babies, mothers, fathers, and grandparents reside. There is much that can be done to make sure another case like Aiyana Jones does not happen again.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I am twenty-eight years old now. I have lived many Summers since the last time I went to the funeral of a young black who was in the wrong place at the wrong time—Detroit, Atlanta, D.C. Most of those Summers have been without the attendant grief and anguish  of some of my early Summers in Detroit. There was Clarence about three years ago—we used to play basketball together in the neighborhood. I saw him last at a picnic for my neighborhood high school. He was shot and killed outside a night club. There was also my roommate in Atlanta—carjacked at gunpoint—he wasn’t harmed. Because they had taken his keys and ID, I didn’t sleep well that night.

For the most part though, those that I love and care for no longer find themselves in those “wrong place/wrong time” situations.  We live above the fray so to speak. That is not to say that, like me when I was growing up, there aren’t some kids who look forward to, not only the warm days of summer, but its passage without incident.  (Jerean Blake had friends. There were grief counselors at the school I’m sure. That’s normal. Aiyana Jones had friends too. What can a grief counselor say to a seven year old?) But for the most part, the Summer and I have a satisfactory, even if tenuous, relationship. Work slows. Vacations are planned. And the vestiges of a cold, hard Winter are shuffled off. I consider myself fortunate, blessed. Like Equiano, “a special favourite of Heaven.” Somewhere though, a young black boy looks out of the window in mid-June–the jump rope twirls, the basketball bounces, the bikes glide along—and he hopes for September.

* As my friend and colleague Michael E. Carter, Esq. has pointed out, in the case of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, there is no evidence that the occupants of Aiyana’s home knew that the police were looking for the suspect. Without the knowledge that the police were actually looking for the suspect (or that he had allegedly committed a heinous murder just days earlier), no one in the house could be charged with knowingly or willfully concealing or harboring persons who are the subject of arrest warrants–which could be an actual crime if the occupants of the home actively concealed the identity and whereabouts of a police suspect.

Sooooooo….The Big Boss of the Nawf is in a wee bit of controversy lately. From a recent Vibe magazine interview:

The way Black people think in general is messed up. Both men and women need to change their way of thinking. It’s hard to trust a Black woman [sometimes] because a lot of Black women’s mind frame is that the man gotta do everything for her⎯ he gotta pay for this, he gotta pay for that, and if it ain’t about money then a lot of them ain’t fucking with him. If that’s what you’re here for then I don’t want to be with you.

Most single Black women feel like they don’t want to settle for less. Their standards are too high right now. They have to understand that successful Black men are kind of extinct. We’re important. It’s hard to find us so Black women have to bow down and let it be known that they gotta start working hard; they gotta start cooking and being down for they man more. They can’t just be running around with their head up in the air and passing all of us.

I have a brother that dates a White woman and he always be fucking with me about it saying, “Y’all gotta go through all that shit [but] my White woman is fine. She don’t give me no problems, she do whatever I say and y’all gotta do all that arguing and fighting and worry about all this other shit.”

My girl is Black and White. I guess the half White in her is where she still cooks and do all the shit that I say, so we make it. She just takes care of me and I like that. She don’t be begging and I don’t gotta buy her all this crazy ass shit. And she’s a smart girl too. She graduated from Columbia [University] and I like that about her so it’s cool. I’ve dated girls that will buy a $3,000 bag and don’t know how to pay it off on their credit cards. They walk around in these Louis Vuittons and red bottoms but they’re riding around in raggedy cars, so it’s just getting your priorities right.

White women treat they man like a king and Black women feel like they ain’t gotta do that shit. Black women need to stand by their man more. Don’t always put the pressure of if I’m fucking with you, you gotta buy me this and that. Black men are the ones that motherfuckers need [but] I think a lot of them need to step it up too. A Black man who gets a little bread will go make it rain in the club and be broke the next day or instead of him going to invest in a business he gonna go buy new jewelry or a new car and still live in the hood. Black peoples’ mentality is real fucked up in general [and] it’s affecting everything.

Black women need to be more genuine and be more 50/50 [but] It should be a fair exchange in a relationship period or eventually somebody is gonna feel like they’re getting fucked over whether it’s the woman or the man. I think that will help Black relationships out a lot.As Told To Starrene Rhett

As expected, the peanut gallery, and in particular, black women, came out hard against this one, citing it as yet another example of a black man stereotyping black women and extolling the virtues of “others.”Mediatakeout reported the story, but they did an interesting thing. They switched the paragraphs. If you look at the interview as it was spoken, The Big Boss started out with the phrase:

“The way Black people think in general is messed up. Both men and women need to change their way of thinking.”

But MTO started off with

“It’s hard to trust a Black woman because a lot of Black women’s mind frame is that the man gotta do everything for her – he gotta pay for this, he gotta pay for that, and if it ain’t about money then a lot of them ain’t ****ng with him”

Kinda changes the tone of the whole thing a little bit. But let’s actually explore the meat of what he said , as opposed to the usual mock outrage and teeth-sucking.

“The way Black people think in general is messed up. Both men and women need to change their way of thinking.”

Anyone care to disagree? I mean, isn’t this why we have all these relationship blogs, internet macking gurus, and Essence magazine in general? If we’re going to point to statistics and anecdotal evidence of black people having relationship issues that are more acute than others, I find it hard to argue with this premise.

“Most single Black women feel like they don’t want to settle for less. Their standards are too high right now.”

Isn’t this a constant refrain from Black men about black women? Steve Harvey et al have gotten it down to a science of what the expectations vs. reality game looks like. Hell, if you were to argue against this premise, your cause was set back 10 years by “A Real Chance at Chili”, or whatever that show was called. I don’t think the “standards too high” thing is the epidemic it’s purported to be, but I have met more than my share of lonesome single woman on the “equally yoked” bandwagon. By equally yoked, they typically mean education and income. It is what it is.

“I have a brother that dates a White woman and he always be fucking with me about it saying, “Y’all gotta go through all that shit [but] my White woman is fine. She don’t give me no problems, she do whatever I say and y’all gotta do all that arguing and fighting and worry about all this other shit.””

You know, they say there’s an element of truth in all stereotypes. And damn if this isn’t one of the most pervasive stereotypes regarding black women vs. other women. While a lot of people may find this quote distasteful, it’s clearly not out of the mainstream of thought. In many ways, black women are taught to take extra pride in being sassy and independent and to take no shit from no man. This is more a survival mechanism than anything else, but I’d wager most black women, when pressed, can name more than their fair share of women they call friends who are over-aggressive, ball-busting, or just generally ornery.

“My girl is Black and White. I guess the half White in her is where she still cooks and do all the shit that I say, so we make it. She just takes care of me and I like that. She don’t be begging and I don’t gotta buy her all this crazy ass shit. And she’s a smart girl too. She graduated from Columbia [University] and I like that about her so it’s cool.”

Here’s where I think the outrage comes in. He’s clearly attributing the positive things about his girl to her “white side”: education, compliance, non gold-diggery, and cooking. But I mean, are these really values shared by mainstream black women? By mainstream, I probably mean working class to lower middle class women who read Zane and think Nikki Minaj’s life is something to be envied. I think pegging it as a race issue is troublesome, because I think this is more of a class/upbringing issue than anything else. All the girls I date are black, they’re all educated, I wouldn’t call any of them gold-diggers, and some of them cook. I’m a very good cook, so this is less important to me, but when I cook, they’re unilaterally willing to hit the dishes or set the table. All of the girls I date are also solidly middle class or higher. They also usually have good relationships with their fathers. Now, if you’re surrounded by the HoustaLantaVegas crew of women who typically hang around rappers, well, they’re culturally different. But I imagine the mixed and white ones are just as bad as anyone else.

“Black men are the ones that motherfuckers need [but] I think a lot of them need to step it up too. A Black man who gets a little bread will go make it rain in the club and be broke the next day or instead of him going to invest in a business he gonna go buy new jewelry or a new car and still live in the hood.”

Oh, what, no one’s complaining that he takes Black men to task too? Surprise Surprise.

Again, there’s an issue here of people not wanting to listen to criticism. It’s easy to shove it aside and blame it on stereotyping or self-hatred or any of a number of factors. But if you are, in fact, the stereotype, and things aren’t working out for you, maybe you should listen a little. Truthfully, I know women who fit into the exact box Slim Thugga Mufucka’s talking about. And they’re single. I know reformed users and leeches who are much happier now and are enjoying successful relationships. It’s not because they railed against any critics of black women as being too broad based or indicting, it’s because they looked at the course of their lives and their behavior, and saw a correlation. I also know black men who fit into the boxes he mentioned. Spent every dollar stunting. And they also reflected on that, and made a change. And they’re doing much better. So yes, even when the message is clumsily delivered or slightly offensive, There can still be value in earing it.