Indians need not apply. (Pillagers and plunderers welcome.)

"They took the whole Cherokee nation
And put us on this reservation
They took away our ways of life
The tomahawk and the bow and knife"*

And the Lac du Flambeau, Chippewa, Potawatomi, Oneida and other tribes in Wisconsin continue their quest to take away all use of the names "Indians", "Chiefs" and "Redmen" as they pertain to high school nicknames, mascots and logos.

This dialogue (I was going to say "battle" but for the purposes of this article, I'll keep it PC) isn't novel. Marquette University here in Milwaukee, for example, used to be the Marquette Warriors (see logo above - the indian part of it - Al McQuire’s 1977 NCAA basketball champions) until 2004. They’re now known as the Eagles. Or is it the Screaming Eagles? Nope - Golden Eagles. Even their new nickname has gone through revisions. And just when you thought it had quieted down, Wisconsin Assembly Bill 35 is in the news again.

From the Associated Press, a proposal designed to crack down on race-based school mascots and logos in Wisconsin came up for another vote before the state Assembly on Tuesday (the bill was voted on and ordered to a third meeting). The bill must pass both the Assembly and Senate and be signed by Gov. Jim Doyle before it would become law. This refers to high schools only - not colleges.

Click on READ MORE! for the full post, including a transcript of the actual Assembly Bill 35. Say, what about the Nords? Are they pissed about the use of "Vikings" and "Raiders" as school mascots and logos? You know - the Vikings who raped, pillaged and plundered for hundreds of years?

*"Cherokee Nation" by Paul Revere and the Raiders, 1971.

First introduced in 2009, Assembly Bill 35 provides that a school district resident may object to the use of a race-based name, nickname, logo, or mascot by the school board of that district by filing a complaint with the state superintendent. There's a hearing and it has to proved that the race-based name, nickname, logo, or mascot does not promote discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping. The state superintendent must issue a decision and order within 45 days after the hearing. If there's due cause, the race-based name, nickname, logo, or mascot within 12 months after the issuance of the order. Any violation of an order must forfeit not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Each day of use of the race-based name, nickname, logo, or mascot constitutes a separate violation.

"They took away our native tongue
And taught their English to our young
And all the beads we made by hand
Are nowadays made in Japan"

The Wisconsin Indian Education Association "Indian" Mascot & Logo Taskforce (IMLT) site was extremely enlightening, and includes common questions raised concerning this issue, like "Why is the term "Indian" offensive?", "We are paying tribute to Indians", "Aren't you proud of your warriors?", and "This logo issue is just about political correctness", as well as an interactive map of Wisconsin showing the schools who are in violation of this "volunteer" law.

IMLT's opening position statement is: It is imperative that schools teach respect for America’s indigenous cultures by removing stereotypes in the form of "Indian" logos, mascots and nicknames. If we are to have any meaningful dialogue about eliminating racism in our society, we must first stop teaching this form of overt racism in our schools. One other point to ponder - the typical mascot or logo is of an indian in a headdress, which is associated (from a Native Americans' perspective) with religious ceremonies - not sporting events as they're used in schools.

"They took the whole Indian nation
Locked us on this reservation
And though I wear a shirt and tie
I'm still part Redman deep inside"

Here's a list of all the athletic conferences in the state of Wisconsin. As of October 7, 2009, there are 36 schools that have retained their "offensive" logo or mascot. Specifically, these are the names that are deemed offensive: Apaches, Braves, Blackhawks (non-bird), Chieftains, Hatchets (with indian references), Indians, Raiders (non-medieval), Redmen, Red Raiders, Warriors (indian), Warhawks (non-bird).

According to IMLT - and this is interesting - the reason the term "Indian" isn't acceptable is because "that name was given to indigenous people on this continent by an explorer who was looking for India, a man who was lost and who subsequently exploited the indigenous people. "Indian" is a designation we have learned to tolerate, it is not the name we call ourselves. We are known by the names of our Nations - Oneida, Ho-Chunk, Stockbridge-Munsee, Menominee, Chippewa, Potawatomi, etc. There are many different nations with different languages and different cultural practices among the Native American peoples - as in Europe there are French, Swiss, Italian, German, Polish, English, Irish, Yugoslavs, Swedes, Portuguese, Latvians, etc."

"And some day when they've learned
Cherokee Indian will return
Will return will return
Will return will return"

I'm not Native American; I really don't have a say in the manner. But my question is why other nationalities - specifically, Scandinavian - aren't playing the racial stereotype card when it comes to the use of "Viking", "Raider", "Norseman" and so forth? If you add this element to the 36 schools IMLT mentioned, you have over 70 schools with racial-based, stereotypical names (and there were 19 conferences I never checked as their school mascots weren't listed on the website). Why aren't the Scandi's concerned with centuries of rape, pillaging and plundering when it comes to the use of their mascots and logos? Should anyone else be (I don't care, by the way)? Or medieval references to "Knights" or "Crusaders"?

I'm also wondering why Wisconsin's Assembly is spending time on this bill (which was scheduled for another meeting, blah, blah, blah) when it most certainly has an agenda filled with more pressing state issues (jobs, crime, education, health)?

ASSEMBLY BILL 35: "An Act to create 118.134 of the statutes; relating to: the use of race-based names, nicknames, logos, and mascots by school boards, requiring the exercise of rule-making authority, and providing a penalty."

2009 02-12-09. A. Introduced by Representatives Soletski, Pope-Roberts, Mursau, Young, Benedict, Berceau, Black, Colon, Cullen, Fields, Grigsby, Hilgenberg, Kessler, Mason, Milroy, Molepske Jr., Nelson, Parisi, Pasch, Pocan, Radcliffe, Schneider, Sheridan, Sherman, Shilling, Sinicki, Smith, Steinbrink, Turner, Van Akkeren and A. Williams; cosponsored by Senators Coggs, Hansen, Carpenter, Taylor, Risser and Holperin.

02-12-09.
A. Read first time and referred to committee on Education
02-13-09.
A. Fiscal estimate received.
03-17-09.
A. Public hearing held.
03-20-09.
A. Assembly amendment offered by Representative Soletski
03-24-09.
A. Executive action taken.
06-18-09.
A. Assembly substitute amendment offered by Representative Soletski
2010 02-17-10. A
. Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Education, Ayes 13, Noes 0
02-17-10. A. Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Education, Ayes 8, Noes 5
02-17-10. A. Referred to committee on Rules
02-17-10. A. Placed on calendar
2-23-2010 by committee on Rules.

Current law prohibits discrimination against pupils on a number of grounds, including race and ancestry. This bill provides that a school district resident may object to a school board’s use of a race−based name, nickname, logo, or mascot by filing a complaint with the state superintendent of public instruction. The state superintendent must schedule a hearing on the complaint, at which the school board has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the race−based name, nickname, logo, or mascot does not promote discrimination, pupil harassment, or stereotyping. If the state superintendent finds in favor of the complainant, the state superintendent must order the school board to terminate its use of the race−based name, nickname, logo, or mascot within 12 months after issuance of the order. A school board is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 for each day that it uses the race−based name, nickname, logo, or mascot in violation of the order. The decision of the state superintendent is subject to circuit court review.

Legislative History Representative Soletski offered Assembly Amendment 1. On March 24, 2009, the Assembly Committee on Education unanimously recommended adoption of the amendment and recommended passage of the bill, as amended, on a vote of Ayes, 8; Noes, 5.

Read more!

Um...I think I'll just have the water.

This Polack walks into a bar....oops. Can't say that. Wait - yes, I can. I'm Polish (mother's side) - I think. Hmmmm...yep, I am.

I'm not known for my political correctness. I am polite and respectful and I have manners - thanks to my parents. The two are very different. I have gay friends and black friends and Mexican friends (am I not supposed to say that?). I had an Asian friend but he punched me in the face and we no longer talk. But these days, even some Indians, Asians, Blacks, Gays, Mexicans and White folk can't even decide what's correct and what's not. Please - someone, give this white boy some direction (am I not supposed to say that?)? Seriously...I'm lost.

From Michelle Malkin's website: "On Martin Luther King Day last month, the Denver Public Schools served Southern-style fried chicken, biscuits, and collard greens for lunch. Despite the fact that MLK was actually from the South and actually liked those foods, the racial grievance crowd raised hell and complained that the menu was RAAAAACIST — prompting an apology from the school system."

So NO fried chicken. NO collard greens. Gotcha.

February is Black History Month. NBC in New York puts out the feast in honor of BHM with this menu (see photo below):

NBC's menu features fried chicken, collard greens and black-eyed peas and NBC didn't get into any trouble. (Thanks, SECupp.)

I love fried chicken. I don't know if I've ever eaten collard greens - but I like salad. And I like peas. I've had refried beans before.

I'm still confused. Would you call this being oversensitive? I mean, if NBC served Irish stew, potatoes, corned beef & cabbage to celebrate St. Patty's Day, is that wrong? Or if a school in Californian were serving Polish sausage and perogi's on...on....well I don't know a Polish holiday off the top of my head. Should I run down to the local school to protest Taco Thursdays? Won't the Catholics get all bent out of shape if some company or institution somewhere decided to have a Friday Fish Fry?

Anyone? Buehler? I need an answer - I'm dying of hunger here. And all I have is a half a jar of gefilte fish in the cupboard.

Read more!

Klan child.

I'm watching the history of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States on the History Channel. There was a modern day video of a child dressed in the KKK robes helping to light a cross. This picture off the Internet was the closest thing I could find to that image on the program.

Disturbing.

Read more!

Jamie Foxx's mistake? He opened his mouth.

"No need to be sad - we want to celebrate this black man," Foxx said. "He belongs to us and we shared him with everybody else...It didn't make a difference what he looked like. It matters what he sounded like."

Those were Foxx's comments about Michael Jackson at the BET awards last week.

I think it's a laugh-riot when folks like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson toss out the race card when discussing Michael J., while others say that Michael J. was all about bridging race, gender and social status issues and getting the world to live in peace and harmony (my words but you get the picture).

Well, Mr. Jamie Foxx. You were good in Ray but you need to hire some handlers who can advise you when to shut your piehole. Saying that he (Jackson) belongs to US (black people) and WE (black people) shared him (Jackson) with everybody else (non-black people) does nothing but perpetuate the race issue that Jackson worked to bridge.

AND Foxx contradicts himself. If "it didn't matter what he (Jackson) looked like", why does Foxx bring race into his little speech about Jackson? Funny how Foxx gives the impression that he's all warm, fuzzy and humble and he's about keeping it real and remaining true to his Texas roots and all. That comment about Jackson proves he's nothing but a fake. Never did like Foxx. Never.

Read more!

Tom Brokaw says, "Take this, rednecks."

So respected newsman Tom Brokaw is commenting on the Obama presidency - not sure if this was after the inauguration or when - this week, and he says this:

BROKAW: I just want to say one thing. Eh, having been in the South in the sixties and Los Angeles and Watts and northern urban areas, umm, uh, when we were evolving as a country. I'm thinking of all the bigots and the rednecks and all the people that I met along the way, and I'm saying to them, "Take this."

Interesting. "Take this, you rednecks and bigots". Is that what the election of Barack Obama was all about to Tom Brokaw? I thought it was about CHANGE and NO MORE and HOPE - not vengeance? First, Robert Reich tells President Obama that white, male construction workers should be left out of Obama's construction stimulus package and now Brokaw anoints himself the conscious of America?

That's reverse discrimination. It's wrong. Just as wrong as the way blacks were treated in the U.S. for hundreds of years. But one doesn't make the other right. That's like blaming all whites for the plight of the black man; it's the same as me getting mugged by a black man and me saying, "I hate all blacks." Isn't it? It is. Does anyone honestly believe that our president wants a stream of consciousness running through America that's akin to "this Presidency is the black man's vengeance on the white man?"

I hope not. For all our sakes.

Read more!

Reich advises President Obama that white men need not apply.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich advised President Obama and others that in order for Obama's stimulus funds package allocated to businesses in the construction industry to be effective, workers other than white men must take advantage of it.

Here's Reich's own headline: "The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers." You can read Reich's rationale here, on his blog. On January 8th, Reich blogged, "...if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most - women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed - will be shut out." Dominated by white males, Mr. Reich? Must be an ivory tower from 1959 in which you reside because that couldn't be further from the truth. USA Today reported as far back as 2007, that "67% of construction workers are Hispanic."

As one Internet article pointed out, if Obama were advised to omit black workers or Hispanic workers, wouldn't that strike a cord with the American public? "Omit", "left behind", "only go to white males"...doesn't matter. I can follow Reich's logic, to a point, but he could've made his recommendations without blatantly attaching the caveat to omit "the white man".

(I didn't include illegal aliens in the mix because they're illegal and shouldn't be in our country in the first place.)

Read his blog post. If I were to propose that both the NFL and NBA, leagues dominated by black males athletes, need to institute a program to get more white athletes on teams, that would be deemed racist. No? Yes it would. What Reich is proposing is nothing more than the 2009 version of Jim Crow, which was repealed in 1965. In case you're not familiar with Jim Crow laws, they helped to segregate blacks and whites - white drinking fountain/black drinking fountain, whites enter here/blacks enter here...only blacks and Hispanics need apply for these construction jobs, that sort of thing. What Reich is proposing then is a methodology of somehow controlling what percentage of a stimulus money goes to white men versus minorities, women, unemployed, etc. That's Jim Crow. Let's not sugarcoat it.

Hey, whoever's qualified for the job should get it - white, brown, black, whatever. What about areas of the country where white contractors and white construction workers are predominant - like my hometown of Waterford, WI? Will they be denied access to the stimulus package because they're white? So it's a regional thing then? And will more illegal aliens be scooped up as job applicants because they're non-white?

Reich should've just proposed what he proposed and left out any mention of "white construction workers" and it would've been fine. I'm all for giving the unemployed opportunities, job-training for the unskilled...regardless of color. I'm all for equal opportunity for women and minorities. What I'm ALL FOR is the best MAN or WOMAN getting the job. Period. Dumb asshole. I never liked Reich when he was working in the Clinton Administration and now I hate him even more. This is part of the "CHANGE" the Obama camp has been proposing throughout the election?

Read more!

Was it really worth THIS, Mr. Henry Louis Gates?

The lynching of Laura Nelson in Oklahoma on May 25, 1911. Her son was being lynched and she tried to protect him. So they were lynched together.

Was it really worth all THIS, Mr. Henry Louis Gates Jr.?

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Humanities at Harvard and director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for Afro-American Research there. He was educated at Yale and the University of Cambridge, taught at Yale and Cornell and joined Harvard in 1991. He is an educated man. He is a black man. I feel awkward attempting to question something he said on the radio. Some feel a white man has no business commenting on the trials and tribulations of the black man. I have no beef with Mr. Gates or what he said generally - just one sentence. I heard him on NPR this past Wednesday, the day after Barack Obama won the presidential election.

By the way - the photograph above. I know...it hurts. The history of black people in our country includes some of the most horrific events in U.S. history. It pained me to put that picture on my website. I thought about it three or four times...'should i or shouldn't i?' - thinking perhaps that I could make my point without the photograph. But I can't. I apologize if I offend anyone. That is not my intention. I don't like looking at it either. But it directly addresses the contention I have with Mr. Gates' one statement. Click on READ MORE! to read an excerpt of Gates' statement, as well as my retort.

(WAIT! There's more...)

Gates stated, "How many of our ancestors have given their lives—how many millions of slaves toiled in the fields in endlessly thankless and mindless labor—before this generation could live to see a black person become president? "How long, Lord?" the spiritual goes; "not long!" is the resounding response. What would Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois say if they could know what our people had at long last achieved? What would Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman say? What would Dr. King himself say? Would they say that all those lost hours of brutalizing toil and labor leading to spent, half-fulfilled lives, all those humiliations that our ancestors had to suffer through each and every day, all those slights and rebuffs and recriminations, all those rapes and murders, lynchings and assassinations, all those Jim Crow laws and protest marches, those snarling dogs and bone-breaking water hoses, all of those beatings and all of those killings, all of those black collective dreams deferred—that the unbearable pain of all of those tragedies had, in the end, been assuaged at least somewhat through Barack Obama's election?

...His victory is not redemption for all of this suffering; rather, it is the symbolic culmination of the black freedom struggle, the grand achievement of a great, collective dream.

Would they (ancestors) say that surviving these horrors, hope against hope, was the price we had to pay to become truly free...that "great gettin' up morning" in 2008 when a black man—Barack Hussein Obama—was elected the first African-American president of the United States?

I think they would, resoundingly and with one voice proclaim, "Yes! Yes! And yes, again!" I believe they would tell us that it had been worth the price that we, collectively, have had to pay—the price of President-elect Obama's ticket."

See - this very last statement by Gates is the one I have a problem with. He should have stopped after paragraph #2.

According to the Tuskegee Institute figures, between the years 1882 and 1951, 4730 people were lynched in the United States - 73 percent were black. On the average, a black man, woman, or child was murdered nearly once a week, every week, between 1882 and 1930 by a hate-driven white mob. Unthinkable by today's standards. It should've been unthinkable by ANY DAY'S standards.

Barack Obama's presidential win is, without question, a monumental and historic event. As would be any issue that helps move forward the advancement of black people or other minority. Fine. But to say, in so many words, that it was worth the murders, beatings, and discrimination...I mean, is anything really worth all that? Given the choice, what do you think Laura Nelson's (pictured above) family would've done back then? Would they have preferred to have Laura and her son safe at home - alive, or would they have chosen to have a black man as President in 1911?

Yes - Mr. Gates, the sufferings of black people in our country's history and the discriminatory practices and brutality toward them has culminated, finally, to the first black man being elected President of the United States. For that reason, the black culture should be proud. Yes - blacks have struggled and this event certainly is light at the end of the tunnel. Yes - it has put an exclamation on the point that anyone can dream and dreams do come true. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream was a hope that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last!..."

But no - having a black president of these United States of America does not suddenly set the black man "free". Nor does it set free other minorities from their oppressors or the things they are oppressed by. What it gives black people is hope - as Dr. King stated - just like the hope I have and my family has. I commented on a Wall Street Journal article written by another black man which stated the Obama's promise of "change" during his election does not mean "change" for blacks. Any rational person would concur that a black president would not say, "for too many years we've been beaten and murdered and discriminated against and just plain treated like shit; black people everywhere will, from now on, have a free ride to make up for all the injustices we as a people have suffered".

Advancing that thought might be the equivalent of me saying my opportunities as a white man have lessened now that Barack Obama is President OR my opportunities would have been greater had John McCain been elected. Is that lady swinging from the tree limb above really worth it just to say "we now have a black man sitting in the White House?"

Gates is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Humanities at Harvard and director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for Afro-American Research there. Educated at Yale and Clare College of the University of Cambridge, he taught English literature and Afro-American studies at Yale and at Cornell before joining Harvard in 1991.

Gates co-edited Africana; The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience and is general editor of The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, co-editor of Transition magazine, a staff writer for The New Yorker and the author of essays, reviews and profiles in other magazines, scholarly periodicals and newspapers. Gates' honors include the George Polk Award for Social Commentary and the Tikkun National Ethics Award. He has been a Mellon Fellow at Cambridge and the National Humanities Center, a Ford Foundation National Fellow and a MacArthur Prize Fellow. He is also a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board.

Read more!

"But I don't wanna be thought of as a racist." The "New America".

If you've read this blog, you know I've commented at length on the illegal immigration issue facing this country. I was on my 5-mile walk today and I suddenly thought, "perhaps I'm being too negative". "Perhaps I AM a racist." So right now - with this post - I'm going to attempt to be more positive - and helpful in the process. As the old adage goes, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". So...nice.

Since our government and Corporate America have turned a blind eye to the illegal immigration issue (and thus, ignoring our laws in the process), I say we should all turn a blind eye as well. Open our borders so anyone can come and live in the United States freely, without ever becoming legal citizens of this country. It will be the birth of a new nation...a New America!

While we're breaking that law, how about not having ANY laws. Laws = Old America. All the products we buy should be free. Food, homes, cars, clothes, household goods, computers, books, health care. No rent. No taxes. No surcharges. No fees. There are no laws to set prices remember? If you wanna work you can and if you don't want to, that's fine because everything's free. And if you choose not to work, everyone gets welfare, no matter who you are. And finally, finally we can stop bitching and moaning and sounding like racists about illegal aliens who are getting tuition to attend college in the U.S. because in New America, tuition is free. Gas? Free. That'll make lining up at the pumps real fun these days as they'll be taken over by the gangs that are now running the gas stations and the black market. After all, gang activity would be legal in our New America and there wouldn't be a need for a police force or military to protect us as - well, as no activity is illegal in this country. Guns are free. Drugs are free. Prostitution is legal. Murder is rampant because people can take by force the things they don't have if they so choose. Speed limits and other motor vehicle laws? None. Our New America is a veritable Autobahn. There is no judicial process - no legal system - as there are no rules or laws in place to be broken. My family and I can now hunt and fish for free and rape the land of every living creature with no consequence for the laws of nature. No rules. No regulations. No laws. Absolute freedom. Freedom anyone can enjoy if they live in the New America.

If other countries want to set up corporations here to do business, be our guest. It's free. Soon New America will be another colony for foreign countries to pillage as they see fit. If we're lucky, it won't be too long before our country resembles the landscape seen in the movies Escape from New York or The Road Warrior - or that of Iraq, and no country will want to pillage us any more.

With all these illegal people coming into New America (I guess they're really not "illegal" anymore) what if we run out of food? I mean, the millions of extra mouths to feed would surely become taxing on our food supply. And since everything's free in New America, do we really need money? Granted, it might be tough to import food and other goods into New America unless another country is willing to barter with us. Hmmmm. We could do as Jonathan Swift suggested in his treatise, "A Modest Proposal" - eat all the anchor babies that the newcomers (the former illegal aliens) produce. After all, it's an endless supply - they're used to coming here and having baby after baby after baby, right? They won't really miss their own babies because they can just steal someone else's if they want. And the babies could be used as a commodity - trading babies to countries whose baby production is down could be all the rage. Two babies for a barrel of oil? Three? How many babies for a 2010 Mercedes? With a continual influx of illegal aliens (now legal citizens in the New America) into New America, we'll have baby illegal aliens coming out of our assholes. Eat'm or trade'm! Hey - it's the New America! And everyone benefits.

Did I miss anything? Probably. Life in New America is a wonderful thing, isn't it? See, and you thought I was a racist. Gotta run. I thought I'd try out an illegal alien baby on the barbecue for dinner tonite - a taste of New America.

Read more!

A sound observation - from Darth Vader.

James Earl Jones was interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning news show by Michelle Miller, a respected black journalist:

VO of MICHELLE MILLER
Between stints as a pitchman, he found work in soap operas, rarely turning down a chance to create a role - any role.

MICHELLE MILLER
"You've been...the groundbreaker - I mean, the first black doctor on a soap opera, first black..."

JAMES EARL JONES
"Who got excited about that? 'Cause I sure didn't."

MICHELLE MILLER
"You didn't?"

JAMES EARL JONES
"No. 'Get a life'...isn't that the expression the kids use? Get excited about me being the first black doctor on a soap opera? As the World Turns. I got a job. And I had a chance to work in front of a camera..."

Bravo, Mr. Jones - for dismissing the "first black" syndrome. I'm tired of hearing about the first black coach in the Super Bowl or the first black ref to work a Super Bowl, or the first black man/woman to win Oscars in the same year or possibly the first black Democratic Nominee to the White House, etcetera, etcetera. If I said Mike Holmgren was the 31st white coach to win the Super Bowl or that I'm looking into forming the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People), or The White College Fund, I'd be admonished for being a racist. But for some black people who want to be treated like a human being and not discriminated against because of his/her color, it's OK to perpetuate the "first black" whatever or attach "negro" or "black" to an organization or even refer to other black people as "nigger".

I'm Czech and Polish (among other things). I'm gonna start the Dumb Pollack Society of Los Angeles. Yeah. 'Cause that's my heritage.

Enough. I'm bored.

Read more!