The screams of dead children -- everywhere


The screams of a thousand dead children wail through my mind. Children in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya killed by empires’ drones; thousands of young men of color America killed by white supremacist occupying armies called police, security guards and neighborhood watch agents; teenage workers from Bangladesh and China killed by corporations for profits; countless babies and young people killed by drive-by shootings and gun violence in communities of color intentionally ghettoized, destroyed and preyed upon by devil-opers, bank gangsters, gentriFUKators; and hundreds of white, middle-class children, youth, and adults killed by more gun violence perpetration, mental illness and the mental vacancy of wite culture.

Thousands of children die for corporate profits, war profits, and prison industrial profits every year in this country. Dead because gun violence is glorified and the sale of guns make some people rich, because parents are tired and don’t have the energy to fight with their kids to turn off the video games, because video games, un-conscious rap, Hollywood movies and corporate news with people killing each other make death look like entertainment -- and with each sale make more profits for tech corporations in Silicon Valley run by the new technological colonizers. Because guns are exciting, especially when you have little else to be excited about.

So shouldn’t the grief for all of our children be the same? Shouldn’t our actions to stop the rise in death by gun violence everywhere be equally urgent and comprehensive?

The president shed tears in a prime-time speech for the 20 white middle-class children from Connecticut. But what about crying for babies killed by drive-by shooters, youth killed by police, and hundreds of teenage workers from China who react to mercury poison and throw themselves out the window while US tech companies make billions in profit? Why aren’t thousands of people shedding tears and sorrow and sympathy for the children in Gaza who die everyday?

In the bizarre naming of poverty positions there is a terrifying concept called the deserving vs undeserving poor rooted in the US crums (welfare) policies that were originally set up for white widows of World War II veterans in the 1930s and 1940s. Due to overt and systemic white supremacist institutional values that undergird everything in the US from its stolen beginnings to now, these white, hetero-normative women were viewed as the deserving poor, or “legitimate” poor people, who had come upon bad times from no “fault” of their own and therefore were deserving of our aid and our sympathy. In contrast, indigenous sisters, sisters of color in diaspora, or divorced, poor or unmarried women were viewed as aberrant, pathological or “lazy,” who had inherently done something to “deserve” their poverty and therefore deserved none of the US crums, only criminalization, incarceration or disgust.

I think we have come to a time, with the meteoric rise in death by gun violence of so many of us of all ages, colors, cultures and regions of the country, where we now have the deserving vs undeserving dead. How about little baby Hiram, 1 year old, who died because he happened to be in the line of fire from a passing car in Oakland? Or Ayana Jones, a 7-year-young innocent baby shot when Detroit police stormed their home with assault rifles to “find a suspect.” Or Derrik Gaines, a young disabled man who was killed by Daly City police? Or the countless children killed in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq or Libya by colonizing empire armies attempting to steal more indigenous resources for the ever-hungry jaws of capitalism? Did they deserve to die because someone calls their innocent bodies “collateral damage?”

What about all of our poor children of color -- sorted, separated, tested, and arrested out of schools -- who roam the streets with no jobs, no hope and endless violent images pumped into their heads from corporate media lies and mythologies in the holding tanks called our ghettoized neighborhoods, pick up guns and shoot each other for something to do until the police arrive to place them into the plantation prisons that await their profitable arrival? Do they deserve to die?

There are many reasons why children and adults are killing each other. My Black Indian Mama Dee used to say, white supremacy and capitalism isn't good for any human, even white people. People have talked about the proliferation and glorification of guns to all young people through mass media, as well as the deep wounds of the cult of independence on a human's psyche, not to mention the gutting by Republicrats of the mental health system. But one of the deepest ones that I see is the factory schools themselves, the separation of youth from elders’ wisdom and the ways that our children no longer even vaguely understand the respecting, honoring, and neccessary reverance of their elders.

Om this society, we are taught how to ghetto-ize and separate our elders from our children in as many ways as possible. This separation and lack of reverence is valued in capitalism as it sets up more products and capital to trade on. I pray and send love and strength to these families and little ancestors to help their still living families decolonize from this myth of separation and capital-inspired death so their may be healing for them.

From this moment and so many more like it, I am drawn to believe that when people like me and my mixed race family in poverty die, we deserve to. My hope and vision is that with this moment of so much sorrow for the families in Connecticut, perhaps the oddly democratizing impact of death will free us all from the unspoken but clearly existent concept that some of us deserve to die and awaken us all to the real-ness that none of us do.


And because the self-selected, cherry-picked convenient data you have used to form that opinion, despite being subject to blatant confirmation bias, is nonetheless much more objective than the opinions formed by those who disagree with you? Again for no other reason that that you say so?

Got it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

Exactly *which* US interventions worked out *well*???

And which other countries' military excursions are you talking about?
Iran doesn't maintain 700 military bases around the world.
Venezuela doesn't go invading other countries and overthrowing their governments.
Gaddafi didn't invade anybody. He gave his neighbors in Africa millions in development aid. Not the IMF/World Bank type of aid that impoverishes nations and piles on debt either, but real development aid.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

achieved in the aftermath of WW2. An orderly decline (there has been on "run on the dollar") is in the best interests of everyone and, indeed, has to happen as Americans overpay themselves relative to their production and competitiveness.

A lower dollar will devalue our paychecks in the least painful way, will reduce the pressure of illegal immigration, and reduce outsourcing. It's the least painful way of addressing our deficits.

What I was opposing here is the idea that America is in some absolute decline. It may be declining in relative terms but we are still much more prosperous then we were one or two generations ago. And we're still the leading military and capitalist nation (405 of global stock market capitalization is the US stock market).

If this wasn't still the most successful and powerful and wealthy nation on the planet, we wouldn't be seeing millions of foreigners clamoring to live here.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:30 am

Right, right, right, a financialized economy that is perched on, what, $750,000,000,000,000 of complex derivatives that make the entire system too big to fail but not too big to suck the life out of the economy.

So long as rent seekers own government, they will press on the cocaine bar like rats until there is no more cocaine or their hearts explode.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:44 am

will fail. Capitalist cycles of expansion and contraction are inevitable.

Too big to fail (now expanded to too big to jail) is a political, rather than an economic, policy.

Will the public tolerate the next bailout at their expense? And will the reaction be more militant than Occupy, which the Obama led state was sure to nip in the bud with paramilitary repression?

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:04 am

interested to hear which form of socialism you think better suits the american nature?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Let's get rid of socialism for Wall Street banksters and warmongers and see how things go from there? We might not need socialism at all.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:57 am

The socialism will be based on a reverence for humanity's full potential and the well-being of our fellow man as well as society in general.

It won't be known as socialism, communism, marxism, or collectivism.

It will be known by a name which suggests fairness to an American people who well understand that the game is currently rigged.

It will be a name which you can't disparage in advance, but will take you by surprise; like "New Deal."

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

massive unfudned liabilities of an entitlement and welfare culture cripple the American economy.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

"Liabilities" are a fiction, a policy choice.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

It is creating liabilities without adequate funding that is leading us into poverty. The entitlement programs (SSI, Medicare and Medicaid) already cost three times what we spend on defence, and it is increasing by the year. By 2050 it will consume the entire US GDP unless we cut back on it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

If the Fed could create trillions to reinflate the housing bubble and to keep Wall Street whole without causing economy-wide inflation, then it can create trillions for retirement and health security just as easily without resorting to the fiction of debt financing.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

It devalues and debases the currency, causes massive distortions in the financial markets, and merely postpones the day of reckoning.

Printing money manages the timing of the problem but not the problem itself. If you do it to fund pensions and healthcare, you will inflate those obligations without addressing them in a material way.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

The government need not resort to selling debt to create money.

The Fed "expanded its balance sheet" and willed trillions of dollars into existence through their computer keyboards.

Wall Street leveraged its assets 30, sometimes 40:1 and willed trillions of dollars into existence as unsecured credit through serialized mortgages.

Nobody has a problem when money printing sprees goose the housing or equity markets. It is thought of subsidizing retirement and health security that threatens to demolish the monopoly that the FIRE economy has over money creation.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

They're not just zeroes on a computer screen

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

No, they don't cost REAL MONEY any more than buying up those MBS and Treasuries costs REAL MONEY. There is no such thing as REAL MONEY, all we're arguing about is what form that it takes.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

I do believe that Tiny has scared y'all w/a new reality that you wasn't aware of before.

Tiny is awaking your CONSCIOUSNESS.

FEEL your conscoiusness under full-fledged renewal, peoples.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 11:29 pm
Posted by matlock on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 3:35 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 7:06 am

I too is feeling the humbling

I is feeling "MoreWe'd" and "LessI'd."

Feeling collectivized.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 11:57 am

I'm no more into fetishizing poverty than I am into fetishizing wealth myself.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 9:13 am

guilt-infused political correctness are in vogue. This is a good example of that.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 9:52 am

No more than the cults of the elevation of cutthroat and anti social self interest that demonize anyone whe is not "economically viable" are as well.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:15 am

Indeed, many would argue we have become much more like the welfare state entitlementism that has ossified Europe.

But Americans don't do socialism.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:31 am

The US had historically been only been 3/5 of a meritocracy.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:42 am

I also have no idea which nation you think has done better in the last 250 years.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:07 am

were counted as 3/5 of a person in the constitution for the purposes of determining the number of representatives each state received.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:21 am

Clearly these traitors don't even know the US CONSTITUTION!!!!


The Fed manipulating markets and printing trillions of dollars, freebies to the rich, the part that is not in the Constitution, they have no problems with.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:43 am

Just like I was with Lilli's idea of a flat income tax.

It's startung to look like my time here hasn't been wasted after all.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

The Fed is not needed and is a delegation of constitutional authority from the Congress to private banksters of questionable legality and with no legitimacy.

The public creation of money for public purposes would more than cover retirement and health care security.

Talk of a gold standard is laughable, there is no such thing as accumulated value in a currency when the cost of commodities is determined by supply and demand more than exchange rates.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

I too believe that the Fed should be abolished. It should never have been created but was created by politicians so they could print fand borrow money rather than earning it.

But of course it's abolition would require a return to the gold standard, else our currency would rapidly be worth little more than confetti.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

No, a fiat currency not mediated through private banksters' debt is another option, the gold standard was abandoned for good reasons.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

If you base a currency on something other than gold, then you have to give someone the authority to print that currency, and that is so tempting for a politican to resist. The only way to stop the politicians debasing our currency is to adopt one that politicians cannot control - gold.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 11:29 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

And the 3/5 compromise at the origins of the Constitution was not "playing the race card?"

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:57 pm

isn't too helpful or productive.

But Africans were being sold into slavery whether they were sent to America or elsewhere. Slavery was an indigenous African business long before the whites arrived.

Those slaves who came to the US were the lucky ones, and now enjoy a standard of living that is orders of magnitude better than those who remained in Africa.

Which is why so few US blacks would go back to Africa. And why the states of Liveria and Haiti have been such dismal failures - US blacks can't go home any more, and are too fat and happy to surivie outside of the US.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

at the time.

Will you publically express to the descendents of slaves that their ancestors were the lucky ones? Or only in the safe anonymity of a website comment page?

Your comment is a fine counter example to the existence of a meritocracy in present time. And the subject of slavery came up because you claimed that the US has always been a "meritocracy."

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

statistically he is much better off than he would have been had his ancestors not been transported here. Why wou;d I be afraid to utter an obvious statistical fact?

And yes, notwithstanding the odd blip along the way, America is a meritocracy. Those with a sense of undustry tend to rise above the rest. Those who can't be assed, generally sink.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

social mobility here?

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

I've had no difficult moving socially, economically ans geographically. Certainly easier than in Europe.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

about the relative lack of social mobility in the US:

There are plenty more studies like this one.

I prefer evidence to personal anecdotes.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

I've talked about this myself. Didn't knoiw Wiki had an article about Social Mobility. This quote is priceless:
"At least five large studies in recent years have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in America than in comparable nations, belief in America as a land of opportunity not withstanding.[10]"

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

Africans "deserved" to be slaves.

The greatest indicator of economic position in the class system? The place in the hierachy at one's birth. Social mobility in the US is lower than almost any other industrialized nation:

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 10:48 am

They were enslaving each other long before the europeans arrived. They just bought what was on offer in African ports. Who do you think captured and sold all those slaves in the first place?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 12:36 pm

Gregg, using the Mussolini Fascist "but he kept the trains running on time and got people working" argument:

Gaddafi dramatically improved access to health and education and improved the country's infrastructure. Under his regime the nation was economically prosperous and had the highest HDI on the entire continent. Life expectancy in Lybia was 77 under Gaddafi, and in case you think it's just about oil, note that the life expectancy in Equitorial Guinea, another oil-rich African nation (richer than Lybia on a per capita basis) is only 50..."

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 11:52 am

and got rid of him by sticking a bayonet up his ass and then shooting him in the head the first chance they got. Much like the well-deserved end of Ceausescu and his wife in Romania, the only people moaning over Gaddafi's demise are deluded Western leftists and the terrorists he supported like the PLF, who enjoyed shooting elderly, wheelchair-bound American Jews in the head and dumping them overseas from civilian cruise ships.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Why don't these people think before they spout?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

Perhaps she needs to get her head checked.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

Not that I blame her for having weird, anti-American views. I reserve more blame for the SFBG editorial staff for allowing Tiny to hijack the national mouring for those kids in CT with yet another diatribe against Americans and white people.

Shame on Tiny, but more shame on Tim.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

Also from this author

  • SF Stories: Tiny

    A party without my friends

  • Gated communities of hate

    When did we start believing that only certain people deserve to be out in public?

  • Making black herstory, every day

    Let's make February count this year