ADULT CONTENT DISCLAIMER

THIS IS TO OFFICIALLY ADVISE ALL VISITORS THAT THIS BLOG CONTAINS MATERIAL INTENDED FOR MATURE AUDIENCES.

So if the shit offends you, don't blame me, you stayed to read/see it!

Smooches.

Pharaoh

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Dumb Ass or Dumb for Ass?

Self,

I just heard about a trial that I believe started this week. The trial is in Alabama for Herman Thomas. Thomas is a former judge accused of having sex with male inmates in exchange for leniency in their cases. If convicted, he faces anywhere from 20 years up to life in prison, based on the most serious charges - sodomy and kidnapping.

Thomas' career as a judge was one of some notariety in so much that he had surprised critics by being an African-American Democrat that was elected and re-elected in a county that is overwhelmingly white and increasingly Republican and at one point was a nominee to the first black judge appointed to the federal courts in south Alabama.

These allegations of sexual misconduct date back as far as 1999 (his first year as a circuit judge,) and first surfaced in 2001 during a lawsuit filed by by an inmate, but the lawsuit was dismissed. With the dismissal of the lawsuit, Thomas' reputation continued without any other blemishes.

Supposedly what caught the attentions of the authorities about Herman Thomas is the fact that in 2006 he changed the jail sentence by another judge for his cousin, a county school commissioner. This led authorities to notice that he did the same thing for other cases handled by other judges.

Thomas' defense attorney says that the allegations are an attempt to wreck the judge's career, and Thomas even has the support of the NAACP, which has come to his defense to say that his prosecution is racially motivated. The prosecution attorney denies the racial element, states that the victims were all black, records collaborates inmates visits to Thomas's private office, and there is even court records noting one inmate's seminal fluid on the office carpet.

OK, there are the facts in this situation (as far as I know of them.) So, I have to ask....How in the hell does the court have a record of an inmate ejaculating on the carpet in Thomas' office? I mean I'm no lawyer or anything but doesn't a COURT REPORTER/RECORDER have to be present in order to enter information in to the court records? If that's true....doesn't that mean this is essentially an open and shut case, the details of at least one of those private meetings with these inmates was witnessed...right? At the very least it does lend a strong hand to the prosecution's case.

Seminal fluid aside. I understand the desire to help family when they are in trouble....but how simple-minded is it to think that one can interfere with the case of a relative and not get caught. In some way I think if he left his cousin's case alone, he could still be having his choice of inmates. (I'm not saying that he should have been having sex with the inmates but I think I can....sympathize. I mean I would bet all those country bruhs have dick for days and big bubble asses!) But I'm slightly glad to see that Thomas chose to help his family member over the continued access to sex with inmates.

I would probably agree that these allegations are probably an attempt to ruin Thomas' career, and that this attempt may even be racially motivated. I think the prosecution is stupid for pointing out that the victims are black as a means of disputing the racial motivation for prosecutiing Thomas. I mean SOMETHING/SOMEONE is urging these inmates to talk about it. If Thomas had half the brain it took to become a judge, I'm sure he actually followed through with his deals with these men and gave them a lighter sentence. (Yes, I know he shouldn't abuse his power that way.) The point is that assuming that Thomas did follow through, then it's possible that these men may have seen the sexual favor as a small sacrifice in order to get out of jail sooner. Hell I might trade some of my seminal fluids to get out of jail a few years earlier...but I don't think I would want to broadcast that information to everyone, so it's likely that these men may not have said anything about it on their own either.

That said I am of course inclined to applaud the NAACP for taking a stand to combat racism at any and every turn. However, I think it may actually have been a bad idea. I know and understand that racism still plays a major role in a lot of areas in this country, but I think the race card was played frivolously in this situation. If it is on record that an inmate ejaculated on the judge's carpet...then it would suggest SOMETHING was going on that shouldn't have been. And if Thomas did do something wrong, then he did wrong, he knew he did wrong, and it's the job of the State's prosecution team to address those improper actions. Hell personally, I think he would have a better defense if he claimed temporary insanity by means of having been "dickmatized" by these men, that makes a bit more sense than saying "I'm being accused of having sex with these men because I'm Black." Really, that's suppose fly - is it me or does that sound stupid???? Truthfully I think in this situation using racism makes it seem that Black folks just us racism as a scapegoat to get over. Which makes it that much hard in situations where racism is really at the root of an issue.

Ok so here is the million dollar question: (Drum role please.)
Do you think this man was the top or the bottom in these alleged sodomy charges?



Sincerely,
Pharaoh

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Scared of Relationships?

Self,

Well I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned it but for the record, "Go-see" has been ghosted. Although he was technically the first to say the words: "This is not working," out-loud, which means he "dump" me, I didn't by any means try to get him to change his mind. So I'd say it was mutual, he just beat me to the finish line...this is one time I do not have a problem having come in last place. Hell it might have been the best thing because I'm sure he feel really good about the whole thing and it played into his control issues. Which may not have been the case if I was the one to say it first, and he felt I had dumped him. Either way the main thing is - he's gone! Sidenote: I think the experience taught me that if I come across someone more that 5 years older than me....they can only be a friend...(lol a few extra benefits might be included, if the person is really sexy, but not dating material.)

Prince Esquire and I had a conversation while I was taking a break from playing with my mom on her new Wii. He raised the question, if maybe I have a commitment issue or lack faith in relationships due to the idea that I keep finding myself involved with men that aren't right for me but specificaly refering to guys who aren't local to me. Of course this question spun off the fact that I had just mentioned my newest gentleman suitor, Mateo. (named thusly because of where he lives - San Mateo, CA. ...Atleast he is in the same state "irreguardless" (LMAO) of the fact that he is still a 6 hour drive away.)

I honestly do not think he's right. However hypothetically speaking if he is right...... my love life and I are doomed. How can someone reprogram/unconditions oneself from that??????

Sincerely,
Pharaoh

Friday, October 2, 2009

A Real Disgrace

Self,

Tuesday evening, my Str8-husband and I went to see a film called, "Disgrace," starring John Malkovich. I don't think that this movie has a wide release so you may not be able to see it, but if you can I suggest you do....if for no other reason than it's a conversation piece.

That said, since viewing engagements are limited let me try to give a synopsis of the story.....in order for us to have some standard ground work for this discussion. Malkovich plays David Lurie, a university professor in post-apartheid South Africa living in Cape Town. Lurie takes advantage/rape a student in one of his classes. (The act is suspect because to me it looked like she was just bored -like he was a dull screw -which makes sense for a 19/20 year old and a 50+ year old, but my str8-husband says she was passed out. Part of the confusion also stems from the fact that she later reluctantly consents to bed him again.)

When Lurie is reprimanded for the "affair" by the university, he goes to visit his lesbian daughter, Lucy who lives on a farm out in the bush/country.

During Lurie's visit to Lucy's farm, they are victims of a robbery. During the robbery Lurie is knocked unconscious and locked in a bathroom, while Lucy is raped by the assailants, three black teenagers. Petrus, Lucy’s black tenant, coincidently was away during the robbery. Lucy and Lurie were not aware of Petrus’ absence until after the fact. Of course, Lourie and Lucy report the crime to the police.

Just as the dust settles (in a manner of speaking) it is discovered that one of Lucy’s attackers is related to Petrus by his “recent” marriage. Which makes the whole think look extremely suspicious. Particularly since Petrus takes the approached that basically since the physical act is over, then the whole situation is over and that things are going to be all right now. Lurie returns to Cape Town for a while during which he seek forgiveness from the family of his student. Lurie eventually returns to Lucy's farm and learns that she is pregnant from the rape and doesn't want an abortion. He also learns that the boy that is related to Petrus is now living on the property with Petrus and his wife. We are led to think that Petrus’ sense of decency lead him to suggest that he’ll marry Lucy (for her and the coming baby’s protection.) Lucy accepts trading Petrus’ protection for her land. And that’s basically how the movie ends.

I had to give the plot of the story to get to the meat of the matter. The problem I have with the film is the message it seems to be trying to convey.

The first and obvious message is Karma. Lurie allegedly raped the young lady from his class, and the crime/sin/disgrace boomerang back on him in the form of Lucy being raped. It also further the theory that the rebound of karma is always worse in the since that Lurie "gently" committed that act against the student but it was done against Lucy violently and threefold. I don't really have a problem with this message, I think at the root of it the main message is that there are ALWAYS significant consequences for your actions, particularly for your negative actions! (And really who can argue against that, right?)

The message that I do have a problem with is that this film tried to portray the representation of the shift of power from whites to blacks in South Africa. The story hints at the idea that Petrus was behind the whole thing with the intent of getting Lucy's land. And that he may have even expected to get away with it.

The two messages combine suggests that whites in South Africa should expect the cruelty and atrocities that were committed during apartheid to come back to them at the hands of their black neighbors.

I have a fundamental problem with that line of thinking. Yes I agree that karma will deal with the atrocities of apartheid/racism, if it hasn’t done so in someway already. However to appoint oneself to be karma’s agent/champion and plot to commit acts in retaliation is ....asinine, but at a minimum it's dangerous. I'm sure I am not the only one to have received the pearl of wisdom that; "two wrongs do not make a right." One that plots to gain vengeance may think him/herself to be right for doing so, but really all the person is doing is staining their heart and soul with a negative act that karma then has to address at a later time. The path to peace and harmony can not be paved with vengeance....the destination will never be reached. And walking the path of vengeance makes a person no better (if not worse) than the ones that initiated the atrocities.

Sincerely,

Pharaoh