Showing posts with label black. Show all posts
Showing posts with label black. Show all posts

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Macklemore's "White Privilege II"

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/01/29/464752853/i-guess-we-gotta-talk-about-macklemores-white-privilege-song?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160129

First I blog about a Hollywood movie, and now a rap song. I thought it was very well done though, esp. how touchy a subject this is for a white rapper.

The key quote to me was, "What are [white people] willing to risk and sacrifice to create a more just society?"

Critics say that guilt trips won't change whites and only makes them dig in. But sometime there isn't a more comfortable alternative. 

Real change and progress has to hurt, and sometime it is zero sum. Otherwise it's just a BS Oscars speech and telethon. Show you care for 5 min and then return to the comfortable status quo. Remember that some white man had to give a spot to Medgar Evers, Jackie Robinson, Sandra Day O'Connor, Obama, etc. justice means fairly sharing resources, responsibilities, and hardships.

It's not good enough to not be a raging racist. And it's obviously not all on whites. But anyone who benefits from privileges/advantages that are associated with bias - do we have the courage to shun them, in order to expose them and not perpetuate them? 

It's like $100 on the sidewalk. You didn't steal it from anyone, and no one will notice if you take it, and it will make your life better. But the right thing to do is to refrain, because you are not entitled to it, and maybe you can find its rightful owner or donate it to a good cause. But that takes discipline and caring. This is such a hostile, me-first culture; do we have the courage to do this for different looking strangers who are subconsciously associated with all things bad, because of centuries of bigotry? Can our better angels prevail?

I know not everyone can fight against injustice, but everyone has the power to not partake in privileges that are paid for by the pain and blood of innocent victims of prejudice.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Hillary lecturing Black Lives Matter that they need to help themselves more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-hillary-clinton-and-her-rivals-are-struggling-to-grasp-black-lives-matter/2015/07/22/8b5870e8-2f34-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html

Also, I don't like how Hillary kind of "lectured" some Black Lives Matter activists recently that anger won't cut it; they need to put forth concrete policy proposals to make real impact. That is a BS managerial cop-out IMO. It's like when a boss at work got his yearly upward feedback that he micromanaged too much. He asked the team to give him action items on how to improve and what to do differently. No, the team already did their job and did you a service by pointing out a failing that you should have already known about and corrected. Now you are asking them to do your job and give you the step-by-step plan on how to be a better leader? Then why does the team need you, just promote someone in the team?

Same with Hillary and BLM - African Americans have already done their civic duty of living through all the violence and racism every day, and now assembling and drawing national attention to the problem. But out-of-touch (and not really caring) white leaders like Hillary tell them that's not good enough - give America a plan on how to fix it.

Isn't that like a judge telling the rape victim to teach the rapist how to behave properly and not hurt people? No Hillary, the effective policies for police reform and social justice are already out there and have been studied & available for decades. What, does BLM have to do a literature review for you? YOU are the one who wants to be president. So show some goddam leadership and make your own platform, in consultation with BLM of course. Don't tell them what they need to do. That is a cop out and passing the buck. If you care about the issue, you take action yourself and make a difference. Otherwise I'll vote for Deez Nuts.

----

I don't think Hilary was as bad as you say.  I think that is really how Hilary is as a person and leader.  Black lives matter has shown that yup, black people live in a different america than people like Hilary.  But since many people are effectively learning this for the first time, how can they also be expected to know how to fix it?  And ultimately shouldn't the BLM movement know what they require to be successful?  The better analogy than the rape victim teaching the rapist would be the rape victim teaching the bartender how to watch out for people's drinks or something like that.

So from Hilary's view, there is a problem and the people who are affected have a lot of momentum but they aren't putting their desires into terms she can use.  Likely both sides find this frustrating but I don't think it is either one's "fault".


----

I admit that I'm a Hillary hater (IMO her potential is better than most GOPers, but she's an unauthentic, awkward, uninspiring political animal and not a president who will make big impact on inequality, climate change, global stability, etc.). However I do acknowledge that her candidacy since 2007 was handicapped by bad timing and sexism (and incompetence from her team of course).
As a "progressive" (even though she's center-left, emphasis on the center), she should not be finding out about black injustice for the first time now. That is unacceptable for a former lawyer, senator, head of State, and a generally smart/modern person. The aggressive policing and incarceration issues has been around since "broken windows" and mandatory sentencing - when Bill was president!
Bottom line, the Dems have taken the black vote for granted for decades, and the GOP have given up trying to swing the black vote. So blacks are not really represented nationally. It's not just Hillary of course, do any of the candidates really address racial crime and minority justice issues? Maybe Rand Paul at best, but he's not electable.

----

When I say "find out" i mean in the same way I found out about domestic violence in the NFL by watching a dude knock his girl out in the elevator.  Or the way you "find out" a punch to the face hurts in your first actual fight.

I have always intellectually known that black people live a whole different experience.  But all of the black people (and basically all of the people) i know are relatively well off socioecenomically.  I'm sure Hilary even more so.  So yes she "knew" that blacks have it tough.  But what I think BLM has (largely) done well is represent just how bad it is.  It isn't "I can't get a cab" bad, but people die for what appear to be no reason on an alarmingly frequent basis.  

I'll  bet that, at least topically, dems think they have been trying to help the poor and disadvantaged.  So to have a group come to you and say "help us", someone soul-less like Hilary can only resort to her executive abilities and say "give me actionable policies and I can enact them".  I think that is authentic Hilary.  I don't want her to be president necessarily but the way she responded could be read as much as a positive as a negative. 


----

Yeah that makes sense, thx for the good points. Re: Hillary's executive response - it's a tough call and there are pros/cons as you said.

She's not a technocrat or functional area leader anymore though; the president's main value IMO is inspiration/communication, constituency mgmt (both foreign and domestic), and focusing on important priorities (plus kicking butts so it gets done). Part of constituency mgmt and inspiration is empathy (even people you don't get along with or who are just a pain in your side) - something her hubby was excellent at, and she seems quite weak at. 

Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology

Like the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have written.

Although racial violence is still vastly disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions that are imperceptible to non-blacks.

I suppose there is a fixation in the American psyche (or human nature in general) about getting payback and taking matters into our own hands. If others have hurt you or those you associate with, how is it is "justice" to commit violence against totally unrelated people who just happen to be of the same broad, arbitrary social category or geography? When Hamas sends some rockets into Israel, why does the IDF bomb and bulldoze homes and hospitals full of women and kids who never touched a rocket? Does that make them feel better, or feel safer? Of the 45M blacks in the US, did Roof think that killing 9 would "set things right" for Obama being president and all the other terrible things blacks have done to whites? And then Flanagan killing 2 whites 300 miles away from SC somehow settles that score too? Obviously this lunacy never ends, so such beliefs should never materialize into action in the first place.

Monday, June 29, 2015

More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.
I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions

Friday, June 26, 2015

Taking down the Confederate flag

This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/finding-roots-dylann-roofs-radical-violence/

I wish the guests would have hit harder. Yes, white (men) feel under attack these days - but they should have said that those feelings are utterly baseless and not grounded in fact. Or if some whites are having a harder go these days, it is not due to gains by minorities (and there certainly isn't a minority conspiracy for "payback" against whites - even if it's quite deserved). If they don't outright dismiss these lies, then people will continue to believe them (like how the GOP injects doubt into the global warming issue). You can't give Holocaust deniers and Holocaust historians equal respect just to maintain a "fair debate". Bill Maher said that denying the existence of racism (and accusing others of race-baiting) is a form of racism in itself, and I think that's correct. Some on the right would rather attribute Roof's actions to "hatred of Christianity" instead of hatred of blacks. Speaking of that - to those who don't think the SC massacre (and our reaction to it) was racial, what if a synagogue or a meeting of (white) Wall St. execs was attacked by a black power extremist? If America's response would have been different (and it definitely would have), then that shows bias.

IMO, the debate about the Dixie flag is a red herring. I understand that its presence evokes powerful emotions on both sides, but it's a distraction from the core issue. Fighting over symbols is often a fruitless distraction. We can't change the past (nor its icons) and it's better if we accept it and move on. I suppose it's understandable for Southern folks to feel pride about their roots and the "War for Southern Independence." But they also have to acknowledge that some aspects of their society/regime were evil - and the consequences on blacks persist today. They can acknowledge and find a better path forward like Germany, or they can stick their heads in the sand like Japan and Turkey. I would also hope that African-Americans can see past the flag and not let it consume disproportionate attention. They have more important battles to fight.

---

But unlike Germany the can't kick the flag.  Pride in the south is pride in a flag that was raised because they wanted to keep their slaves.  I get having southern pride but it would be unbelievable to have german pride and use the swastika as your symbol.  And the racist roots of the flag have major events that occurred WAY more recently that WW2 so it just strikes me as incredibly odd that anyone is fighting for this flag.

And i don't think the right answer to white men feeling under attack is to say "your problems aren't real" or anything of that nature.  And ultimately the poor white people of this country are cajoled into feeling this way to keep the powers that be in place.  Gun rights, anti poverty measures, anti voting measures, a lot of that stuff relies on poor white people voting against their interests and to do that they bring up the specter of the great "other" who for pretty much all of America's history has been blacks.  Sometimes we use brown people now-a-days but the tactic is the same.  So we should understand that they feel a certain way and be riled up that it wasn't an accident.
---

Re: the flag - I am not well-versed in 1800's US history, but maybe the Union went too easy on the South after the Civil War. I am sure DC just wanted order and unity again, so they permitted the South to cling to their Confederate heroes and imagery. This was before the advent of hate crimes and war crimes, so it's not like any Southern leaders were prosecuted for their atrocities against blacks. And let's remember that most of America was still fairly racist, even if the South was "more racist." So there may not have been much motivation to chastise the South for clinging to racist icons until post-Civil Rights era (plus they were Constitutionally protected).

Let's also remember that many white-power groups display Nazi symbols to this day. It may be outlawed in parts of Europe, but they make slight mods to the swastika and still march in the streets. And lord knows what they say behind closed doors. This is Greece's Golden Dawn (and there are many other examples):



And this is the Klan of course:

Inline image 1

As Obama said, fighting racism doesn't end with making the N-word impolite to say in public. You still have to discourage racist thought when no one is looking; it's a matter of values. It might be a moral victory to take down the Dixie flag and Robert E. Lee statues, but we haven't gained much if the proponents of those icons still feel defiant and bigoted in their core.

Re: angry white people - yeah I wasn't suggesting that we should dismiss their problems/hardships, but they need to understand that it is not the fault of minorities. Many bigoted mass shooters like Roof are paranoid narcissists - they think that others are out to get them because they are superior. It's a terrible mindset (incited by some third parties) and should be discouraged/corrected.

If anyone can be justified in feeling under attack and wanting to rise up, it's black/brown people. But for the most part they know they can't, because society may not side with them and law enforcement would not stand for it. Yet we condone anti-gov't (mostly white) militias and questionable Southern pride groups.
---
Honestly, I'm amazed at how responsive Southern state leaders have been re: the flag.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/24/417162233/alabama-governor-orders-removal-of-confederate-flags-from-capitol

You'd think that times like this would make people dig in and stick to their pride/ideals. But maybe the sheer horror of the act (and a smart political calculus) convinced them that it's just not worth it to keep fighting modernity.

I bet a lot of right wing media is pissed, but some folks have changed their minds:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-southern-avenger-repents-i-was-wrong-about-the-confederate-flag.html 
---
The secret is you can still be a bigot without a flag.  And there will be no problem finding the people to vote for who agree with you.  Lots of opportunity to ask for their views with codewords like voter fraud protection, welfware waste, etc etc.
The Confederate flag is easier to get rid of than guns, they probably think if they concede on that they’ll show they can “change.”
---
Thx, guys. Yeah Bill Maher said that guns kill people, but flags don't kill people. Though I think that neglects the fact that symbols can be powerful motivators. A flag can inspire people to hate more, which then leads to the desire to use a gun.

Change is a funny issue - I thought that hardcore conservatives want to show that they are in fact totally resistant to change and proud of it. I bet we will see a lot of that in the GOP primaries - who can be the most proud and inflexible? But then again, this is not 2012 and the GOP is even talking about wealth inequality these days. But I really think they haven't done anything substantial to court minorities. I guess they are clinging to their old (and failed) strategy of mobilizing the base. Good luck with this field of hacks - who of them can energize and inspire John Q. Voter?

If I had to, I probably would pick Graham except for his ultra-aggressive foreign policy approach.  

---

I'm glad you guys raised the Nazi comparison. Has that been discussed in the media? Both flags - among others - are symbols of evil and a mindset that their are superior and inferior races.  Both should be banned from state grounds and memorials. In a free society, we can't ban these symbols outright but we can - and should - call people and institutions out when they use them under the guise of praising people with strong moral convictions and enlightened values of a bygone era. Somehow people are nostalgic about an era where the traditional, native, good, naturally superior, white people owned black people and could savagely beat and kill them without facing any justice because it was their innate right based on their race? 

Yes there is racism is Europe and, sadly, in many other parts of the world. There will always be sympathizers and groups who would like to go back to the "good old days"  where they were treated with the "respect" they deserve. 

What angers and frustrates me is that most Americans seem to fail to recognize the similarity between southern sympathizers and other evil groups. Honestly, I don't see the difference between southern and Nazi sympathizers; but I get the impression that the media and the corporate culture doesn't. 
It wasn't until this heinous incident that Walmart and other businesses "realized" that the confederate flag was offensive and a symbol of hatred? It wasn't until last week that the Governor of South Carolina and other governors and state politicians realized that the flag and other confederate memorials were an inspiration to racists and extremely hurtful and offensive to African Americans? 

---

To take a cynical view, I think Walmart and those others stores decided that the scales finally tipped in favor of PR controversy avoidance/respect for their minority customers vs. sales/pleasing their Dixie customers (like how car companies decide to issue a recall only when the cost of suits/damages > cost of recall). I think some companies decided to stop carrying guns & ammo after mass shooting events.

I suppose it's natural that people don't want to feel like they come from a bad/evil heritage. We are proud creatures. The Germans have been exceedingly contrite after WWII, giving huge reparations to Israel (quietly), enacting anti-hate laws, and setting up a lot of domestic education/memorials. But not so for the US. Didn't Obama get flak from the right for "apologizing for America" too much? Maybe Romney said that. Well, the truth is that we have plenty to apologize and repay for (if we actually care about the values we profess), but we haven't because America is exceptional and awesome. Except for:
  • No reparations for slavery, only a tacit declaration that the system was "wrong" (and then there were Tuskegee, Jim Crow, lynchings, war on drugs, etc.)
  • Very few reparations and acknowledgement for Native Americans - who suffered war crimes/genocide and we were no better than Cortez/Columbus really (and we can them savages?)
  • Promising citizenship and pay for Filipinos who fought for our side vs. Japan in WWII, then totally reneging (and doing the same damn thing with many Iraqis and Afghans who helped us)
  • And then there were all the times that we unlawfully and immorally wrecked another people's land
  • The list goes on and on...
Empires are not built with kindness and honorable behavior. I think progressive Americans can be open and honest about our "evil" past, for lack of a better word. Growing up in the US edu system, and despite being a crazy leftist, it even gives me pause to call the US evil. But the facts don't change. So I think some in the South haven't reached that point of clarity and reason yet, and likely never will, even if the flag is banned (which we can't do).

I wonder if our leaders/media even ask the South - how do you feel about slavery and the Confederacy? They refused to attribute race/guns to the SC shooting, and I think they would hesitate to speak negatively about Dixie. They prefer to remember those times as if it was "Gone with the Wind," or R.E. Lee charging gallantly into battle against the evil Union oppressors. So actually the guys trying to free your slaves were the evil ones.

Unless we go on an education blitz, this false narrative will persist. We commemorate the ends of the World Wars, why not remember the end of the Civil War (costliest US war in terms of lives and domestic damage) and have a national dialogue about the causes and teachings? We have the Holocaust Museum in DC, why don't we have the US racism and war crimes museums too? I know there are some black history museums here and there, but maybe the public doesn't think it applies to everyone - it's for the blacks to learn about their heritage, right? Well it's a shared heritage, and if we don't confront it, the bad/evil ideas will linger. Like M said, the flag is only part of the problem - we really need to get Americans to stop maintaining the beliefs that the flag represents.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

GOP candidate cowardice after the SC shooting

In contrast to the president, not a single one of them called the SC shooting terrorism, nor mentioned race or guns, even though the alleged shooter himself cited hatred of blacks as a motive, and Roof's friend said that he was so concerned after hearing a racist rant that he hid his Glock for a while. And let's remember, the Columbine shooters were supposedly into Nazism, and used the n-word before killing one black student.

They collectively said, "let's not rush to blame and policy changes; gov't is not the solution." That's peculiar for several reasons:
  • After OKC, USS Cole, and 9/11, the GOP sure was rushing to blame some Muslims (without any evidence) and use the strong arm of gov't to fight terrorism overseas.
  • When it's whites killing blacks (esp. if the shooter is a cop), "let's wait till we get all the facts." When it's blacks behaving badly - or the media portraying as such (looting/riots after Katrina or Ferguson), then "look at how American values are crumbling, and it's the liberals' fault".
Just putting it out there: these mass shooters seem to have a similar profile - weird-looking skinny white male loners. If we are racially profiling people from the Mideast-South Asia as potential terrorists, and giving them more airport security attention, then why aren't we profiling weird white boys and making it harder for them to possess a gun? The data show that cops are obviously profiling blacks for drugs and other crimes, so why is that OK for minorities but not for whites?


And just to comment on the terrorism issue: the FBI lists heavily-armed right-wing anti-gov't groups as the #2 US terror threat behind Islamists. I think it's a safe bet that many of these groups may not hold minorities in great esteem either.

---

ISIS executes an American journalist on video, and the western world launches a bombing campaign on 2 nations. A slow bleed of domestic gun-toting bigots/psychopaths killing innocent Americans every few months, and our gov't response is nil.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

How media unfairly report police killings, race, and crime

This was a good "On the Media" program about police killings and implicit bias in the media.

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/on-the-media-2015-06-05/
  • It's a sad reality that the Guardian and Washington Post have decided to compile a public database of police killings, as no one in our gov't is willing to do the same.

  • Why do the media and law enforcement describe incidents as "officer involved shootings?" It sounds like the cop just innocently happened to be there when there was a shooting, when in actuality they pulled the trigger and deliberately killed someone. Fortunately the term is falling out of favor after the recent high-profile killings. A large # of killings by officers occurred as an unarmed victim was fleeing, yet ROE states that cops can only use deadly force when their lives are threatened. So what gives? With no video or unreliable witnesses, all a cop has to say is that the fleeing suspect reached for something or made an aggressive gesture. Then in the investigation, it's a peace officer's testimony vs. a dead man (who maybe had a rap sheet). No wonder there are few indictments.

  • In Harvard's implicit association test, even black subjects associated black faces with negative words. Maybe it's an effect of biased media crime coverage influencing America to think black = threat. Like compare the coverage of the Baltimore protests (mostly black folks) and the Texas biker gang fight (mostly whites/Latinos). The MSM would suggest that all hell broke loose in BAL, but it was a minor skirmish in TX. For sure BAL got out of hand at times, but there were no deaths. Whereas there were many shots fired and 9 deaths in TX. But America was more outraged over BAL. Why does this happen? Maybe it's for ratings (stoking fear), acting on their own prejudices, or to "give the people what they want". The vast majority of violent crime is black-on-black and white-on-white, and usually male victims. But the media oversample and preferentially report on black-on-white crimes, especially if the victim is a woman. This leads white people to assume an "under siege" victim mentality, and favor harsher punishments on criminals and more heavy-handed police tactics.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The MOVE bombing and police militarization/misconduct

Have you heard of the MOVE bombing in Philly in 1985? US gov't forces actually dropped a bomb on US civilians on US soil.

MOVE was a Panthers/Rasta-esque militant black group. They armed themselves and built a makeshift fortified compound in a residential part of West Philly. I don't know the group's history, but they probably came about in response to decades of abuse, racism, and neglect by the police and other city authorities. MOVE members allegedly killed a cop in 1978, thereby increasing hostilities.

I'm not sure what transpired in 1985, but it got to a point where the mayor (Wilson Goode, a black man) and police chief gave the OK to forcibly disarm and disband MOVE. About 500 cops descended on the compound vs. about 6 MOVE members who were barricaded inside. Like Waco, they had an ultimatum to give themselves up. Instead they opened fire on the cops, and the police returned the favor with about 10K rounds into the building. They discharged so much lead all day that they needed to call the police academy to get more ammo.

But the MOVE members remained behind their defenses. Eventually the city approved the police to drop an IED from a helicopter above the MOVE building, in the hope of creating a hole that the cops could use to enter the compound. Not making this up. The IED was some sort of gasoline/incendiary device, because it created a huge fire that eventually consumed 61 homes and 11 lives (5 kids). Only 2 people got out of the compound alive. Bystanders compared it to Vietnam. No one was fired or convicted over the decision.

And why have we not heard of this until now? There was no social media in the 1980s, and the MSM didn't want to discuss ugly race issues, police misconduct, and urban unrest (until Rodney King - which was captured on tape). This stuff can't happen in America, right? But the incident did motivate US cops to become more martial. They found that they were rendered ineffective by dug-in suspects, so that likely led to more powers for SWAT like armored vehicles with battering rams (and then 9/11-Iraq took that to another level, as we've seen in Ferguson).

---

Where was the effort at negotiations and deescalation? Is violence their only tool in the kit? Of course community policing and outreach aims to preempt such conflicts, but this was pre Rodney King.
Cops sometime remind me of Marty McFly - if you challenge their manhood, they will react very stupidly. MOVE attacked them, so now they need to be taught a lesson, regardless of the costs to the community. This is especially bad when they are authorized to use deadly force, often with little accountability.

---

Please watch the movie.  I believe it's very even handed since most of the news coverage was very biased toward the police.  MOVE, as a group, did not attack them.  This was collective punishment.  The police under Frank Rizzo's watch were notoriously racist. Philadelphia PD are still notoriously racist. 

SPOILER ALERT:
At one point, a little boy (between 3 and 5, I think) crawls out of the house as it fills with smoke.  He falls and one of the cops wanted to run and help the little boy.  The other cops told him not to do it that it was a trap.  the man's better nature got to him and he ran to save the little child.  That cop ended up losing his job in the Philadelphia PD within months after that incident.  The police wanted to leave the boy to die.  The punishment for death of one of theirs was collective-all MOVE family had to die, women and children.  Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor of this brutal attack, was put in jail after losing her entire family.  If someone shot back from the house,(and, I'm not sure if there's any evidence of that)  was it Ramona? 

Thursday, April 30, 2015

More police killings of black men

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?

Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/

6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he had a major spinal injury (cause unclear, and he died in the hospital a few days later). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

----

Economist has some data on police use of deadly force. The FBI reports that US cops kill over 400 people a year (justifiable cases, and it is on the rise since the '90s), but it is voluntary self-reporting, so the true # is probably higher. In comparison, usually less than 50 cops are killed by gunfire/year (less than the # cops killed in vehicle incidents). Cops in Japan+UK+Germany (cumulatively about the same pop. as the US) kill less than 20 people/year.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/dontshoot

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/30/nation/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230

----

The BAL DA is pressing charges (murder, manslaughter) against the 6 officers who were present when Gray suffered his lethal spinal injury. She also declared that Gray's arrest was illegal.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/01/403496063/freddie-gray-update-new-speculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150501

---

Apparently, it's not just black/brown victims of police violence and stupidity. A fairly non-threatening drunk woman on St. Patrick's Day was taken into custody by BART police and taken to Santa Rita jail. There was footage of the cops slamming her to the floor (or letting her fall hard). They said that they were "guiding" her to the ground. The victim was seriously injured, and is a model so the damage to her face was significant and she is suing. But a review board cleared the officers.

http://abc7news.com/news/bart-officer-cleared-in-takedown-of-woman-at-east-bay-jail/684535/
Here are some conservative responses to the Baltimore unrest:
  • Rush said the cops should be commended for the 18 times they arrested Gray in the past (for minor drug offenses) and DIDN'T KILL HIM. Yes, they deserve a medal for their restraint.
  • Cruz said it's Obama's fault for inflaming racial tensions. Yeah, by being a successful half-black man who won't pretend racial injustice is over, he's more to blame than the cops that do the beating and shooting.
  • A TX Congressman Flores blames Baltimore on gay marriage and the deterioration of family values.
As you can see, Baltimore is attributed to just about everything except police dysfunction and racial/economic injustice. The sad thing is, if you gave some conservatives truth serum, they would probably say that the BAL tragedy is due to the inherent faults of black people (maybe not in so many words).

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

More police-related killings of unarmed black men in custody

This stuff is literally happening EVERY WEEK in the US. Imagine if minority people were killing a white millionaire (or a cute Jonbenet Ramsey-ish white baby girl) every week - what would the public and gov't reaction be? All people are created equal with the same unalienable rights under the Constitution and our creator, right?
Senior citizen volunteer sheriff tries to taze suspect in cuffs (you guessed it, an unarmed urban African American male), but kills him with his sidearm instead (a la Oscar Grant). Pleads not guilty to manslaughter and judge grants him permission to leave the country for a Bahamas vacation. I am sure a Cripp accused of manslaughter would get similar treatment. How did the geezer become a deputy participating in a sting when he should have been playing bingo at the Senior Center instead? He donated vehicles to the Tulsa Sheriff's Office and is likely rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0o4zZobZg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/21/oklahoma-reserve-deputy-pleads-not-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/
6 Baltimore cops are suspended after they put an asthmatic suspect (and yes, another unarmed urban African American male) in their van to go to the station, and when he got out, he died of a spinal injury (cause unclear). He told police that he was having trouble breathing, but they didn't call any medical staff. Like with Darren Wilson, the cops are now the only ones alive who know what really happened. No camera in the van.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/22/401436003/former-baltimore-police-head-sees-sliver-of-hope-in-freddie-gray-case

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Starbucks' #RaceTogether

By now you guys have probably heard the hoopla about Starbucks' proposed #RaceTogether campaign to encourage customers and baristas to have frank discussions about race issues. Maybe the idea was noble, but the communication and execution left much to be desired, obviously. It comes off as out-of-touch, know-it-all, do-gooder, liberal Seattle rich white men telling the rest of America how to fix its racial issues (without doing any actual work themselves). Or even more cynical, some claim it is a shameless marketing ploy to capitalize on recent racial events like Ferguson to boost their brand and sales among minorities (a demo that is not core to Starbucks).
I will try to avoid getting too deep in the weeds here, but just some points to consider:

  • By focusing on race, Starbucks is unfairly putting the spotlight on their black-Latino employees and customers, who will likely need to play a larger role in the discussion. Why not name the campaign #Tolerance or #MoreUnderstanding, which is the end goal of #RaceTogether but could apply more broadly to any injustice or misunderstanding (like sexuality, religion, and poverty)?

  • If Starbucks expects its relatively low income and low education baristas to participate in complex race discussions, will they at least give them a raise and professional training? They were not hired on to do this job, so if they get new responsibilities, they should be compensated accordingly. 

  • Why not set aside a corner of their cafes for employees on break and customers to sit down and talk about issues, race or otherwise, in a more appropriate environment? It's obviously problematic to expect stressed baristas and impatient customers to engage in meaningful discussions during the morning rush, when all they want is their cup of overpriced Joe and to get on with their day (many comedians have touched on this point).

  • Instead of punting this issue to their baristas, why doesn't Starbucks' leadership actually lead by example? Their exec team and board are almost uniformly white upper-class men, even for Seattle standards. And that's probably why they OK'ed such a half-baked campaign. Did they consult minority groups and race studies experts beforehand? How about they improve the diversity programs within their org, and pay for professionals to hold race discussions among their workforce and customers, when they won't interfere with their core business operations?

  • Starbucks almost has no commercial presence in majority-minority neighborhoods like Ferguson and Harlem (for obvious business reasons, not necessarily racism). If they just want to have race discussions between their 20-something urban baristas and their mostly white yuppie clientele, I am not sure how much good that will do for our society and their company. Magic Johnson franchised many Starbucks in "less desirable" neighborhoods in SoCal, and recently sold them back to Starbucks. So that is a step in the right direction, but it was only because Magic took a chance and demonstrated to Corporate HQ that such cafes could be profitable (Seattle never wanted to expand into Compton on their own). But if Starbucks really cares about inclusion and social change, why is their brand and product so selectively targeted? Heck, even their #RaceTogether print ads were only depicting white hands holding coffee cups (which is about representative of their customer base - do you think many Ferguson folks can afford daily $4 frappucinos?).

  • Bottom line: if Starbucks wants to make a positive impact on race relations in America, they have the resources and influence to actually do it. But they'll need to invest seriously, fix their own house first, consult people who actually know what they're doing, and lead by example - not just pass the buck to their lowest workers while the leaders in their ivory tower pat themselves on the back.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The Horne case with Buffalo PD

Sorry to keep harping on this, but there's a lot of material out there. I guess this was going on all the time, but it's only reaching our eyeballs now due to the media attention and high-profile cases.

https://news.vice.com/article/buffalo-cop-loses-job-and-pension-after-she-intervenes-with-fellow-officer-choking-a-suspect?utm_source=vicenewsfb
I think this episode summarizes what is wrong with police accountability (or lack thereof). According to this Vice report, Cariol Horne, a female black officer with the Buffalo PD (19 years tenure) saw another white male officer striking and choking a suspect who was already in handcuffs. She told him to stop, and may have put her hands on the other officer. The other officer punched her in the face in the presence of 9 other officers. Sounds open and shut, right? She was charged with obstructing an arrest, was fired, and got her pension annulled. Meanwhile, the alleged abusive officer was unpunished.
He later was implicated in 2 violent incidents with other officers (which led to his "forced retirement"), and was recently indicted for past civil rights violations relation to treatment of black youths. Horne is still trying to recover her pension.
So let me get this straight, a violence-prone racist cop gets no discipline and full pension from his department, but the "whistleblower" cop who tried to look out for the rights of a suspect gets fired with no pension? Cops and crooks both seem to espouse the philosophy that "snitches get stitches." Some PDs seem more interested to root out disloyalty/threats rather than actual misconduct. It's a cop's "duty" to look out for each other and cover up crimes if necessary. If they don't, and if they dare go against the blue line, then their career is finished. For the benefit of doubt, there could be more to this story. But still, Horne must not have been that bad if she was on the job for 19 years. As a black female cop, she had a much smaller margin for error on the job. So I don't think this is a case of her just crying wolf.
Obviously, this is not how a public agency (or any org) should function.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man, possibly for revenge

This is terrible news: 2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man (motive possibly revenge for Brown, Garner, etc.).

http://news.yahoo.com/two-nypd-officers-shot-in-patrol-car-in-brooklyn-212637751.html

It won't help the "Black lives matter" movement (may turn off the centrist public to their plight), and will probably make the cops even more angry, fearful, and aggressive. The alleged killer (a younger black man) seemed to be a desperate, distressed person who was wanted in connection with another shooting. What he did was abominable. For all we know, those 2 officers were excellent public servants, and totally nonviolent and nonracist (one Asian, one Latino, both with wives and one with kids).

Sadly, it reminds me of the even more terrible recent Pakistan school massacre. Let me repeat - both attacks were totally unjustifiable and barbaric. But for background, the Pakistani Army had been heavy-handedly raiding and bombing Taliban-held villages as part of a crack-down. Women and children were killed without hesitation. The Taliban fighters were obviously upset and wanted to strike back at a soft target, to make the Army "hurt like they were hurt". When a powerful force shows contempt for you and treats you like a subhuman, and you have no channels for peaceful redress and no one seems to care about your pain, there's only so much a human can take. Eventually some unstable members of that community (with training and weapons) will lash out and strike back to try to get even, because they have nothing to lose. Would they rather just die a slow death and fade away in silence? Or would they rather get some satisfaction that they struck fear and suffering in the hearts of their enemy? Oppression breeds desperation, which could be a catalyst for atrocity.

So for urban black America, day in and day out many deal with prejudice, mistreatment, and in some cases violence (murder rate for US blacks is over 4X that of whites). Obama even said that every successful black professional like him has been mistaken for the help at a fancy event. I can't imagine what it feels like to be constantly surrounded by that negativity, disrespect, and hostility - even though you just want to live and let live, and didn't cross anyone. It's just because you exist. Maybe the media inflamed the racially-sensitive situation, but with unpunished killing and beating after unpunished killing and beating, everyone has a breaking point. To be honest, I'm in awe of the restraint that black America has shown this year. But there are just so many guns in America, and so many temporarily or clinically unstable people going through hard times, and so many soft targets, that an incident was bound to happen unless the gov't and law enforcement made a serious effort to empathize, be contrite, communicate honestly, and reform (which they didn't).

This is the first time a NYPD cop has been killed on duty since 2011, which is pretty amazing considering they have a staff of 49K (not sure how many of those are beat cops). I think the # of civilian killings the NYPD has committed over that time span is far greater (at least 19). There will be national coverage, life insurance payouts, and full dress funerals for the slain officers. Far less respect was given to the victims of NYPD violence. It's obviously wrong to kill cops, but America mourns deaths differently and values life differently, which is also wrong. It's wrong to keep your boot on the throats of people and expect them to just take it forever, like dogs. It's a tragedy for all sides. Look, being a cop can be a damn hard job. Being black in America can be a damn hard life too. I wish both sides could understand that and show compassion, to make things easier on each other instead of more and more negativity. Otherwise the cycle of revenge and distrust will just go on forever, with more innocents suffering along the way. Sadly, it's the same for most protracted conflicts like Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. But if the Northern Ireland factions could forgive and achieve peace, it's possible elsewhere. But it has to start with the two sides giving a shit about each other's plight. 

---

This is a pretty sobering and effective analysis by The Economist on America's violent law enforcement practices. Actually the NYPD, LAPD, and police from larger cities are not the biggest problem (misconduct per capita is lower). They have made huge reforms since Rodney King, although they still have a way to go (Stop and Frisk, though it was recently suspended). It's the small police forces like Ferguson and Albuquerque that are the problem, where the officers are often far less diverse, less competent, having worse leadership, and under far less public/media scrutiny.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/ed/pe/DontShoot

# of killings by cops last year in Japan, Germany, and the UK combined (pop. ~270MM): 8
# in the US (pop. ~316MM): 458

---



Some major sources, like police unions and former NY governor Pataki, are literally blaming Mayor DeBlasio and Al Sharpton for Brinsley's attack on the 2 officers ("Blood is on your hands" - pretty disrespectful stuff). Probably the NYPD have marked DeBlasio as an enemy, and will do what they can to unseat him. While I haven't been following every single statement DeBlasio and Sharpton have made on police violence, I am fairly sure that they did not say anything remotely resembling race-baiting and a call for revenge. And in all of Brinsley's social media posts, I don't believe he mentioned that his actions were motivated by a public figure. But I suppose if you don't declare that you support everything the cops do 100%, and they are always in the right, then you are "anti-cop". That is how Tel Aviv and AIPAC respond to any sort of criticism of Israeli actions and policies (no matter how reasonable and fact-driven). If you're not fully supportive, then you're a vile anti-Semite. There's no place for that rubbish in intelligent conversation.

I suppose that some people want a simple, clear explanation for traumatic events that disturb them. Muslims hate us for our freedom, Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, etc. But that approach is often too reductive, inaccurate, and unhelpful. People are understandably upset and what to focus their anger on someone. But to irresponsibly blame public figures, whose only sins were to show some compassion for the families of police violence and dare to suggest a review of police policies, is not that different from Brinsley lashing out at 2 random beat cops over the Garner and Brown cases. And heaven forbid, but what if an angry, disturbed ex-cop decides to take a shot at DeBlasio or Sharpton over this uproar? Would we be justified to blame the people who called out DeBlasio and Sharpton for inciting violence against them?

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

No indictment for Eric Garner's killer either

Unfortunately the NYC grand jury will not indict the white officer (and his accomplices) who choked the unarmed, nonthreatening Eric Garner to death. And they have video! "I can't breathe, I can't breathe!" What was his crime - being big and black and male and upset in NYC? Did he "deserve" it too, like Brown? Did the officer have no choice?

The officer probably didn't have intent to kill, but he was using a prohibited tactic (chokehold) and I have trouble believing that this was all by the book. No manslaughter, no negligence, nothing? Would the ruling be the same if the deceased was famous? And they wonder why people are upset - totally tone deaf and living in their bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-charges-in-staten-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

---

Why Commonwealth nations have done away with grand juries - they are ineffective for justice and too easily manipulated by the prosecutor

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-04/england-abolished-grand-juries-decades-ago-because-they-didnt-work
The NY grand jury may have failed to indict the chokehold cop (because he got to defend himself for 2 hours in court and professed that it was an accident), but they have indicted the man who filmed the incident (on an unrelated weapons charge), plus his wife. Coincidence or petty cop retribution?

http://ringoffireradio.com/2014/12/grand-jury-indicted-the-man-who-filmed-eric-garners-killing/
The fascinating psychology behind bias, how it sometimes still gets the better of people who are actively trying to not be biased. This is good material for another thread, so let me know if you'd like to discuss.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/02/science-cops-shoot-young-black-men/

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Cop killers

I don't know why many US police officers are so hostile/scared of urban black men, when it's probably more likely they will be killed by a "white trash" man. The Obama admin. implemented some protective measures during their 1st term and police deaths fell sharply since 2011. Statistically, being a US cop is safer now than the overall workforce average. And many police deaths were self-inflicted due to not wearing seat belts or distracted driving.
Not so for being a black man (and you can't really quit that like a bad job). Supposedly a black person is killed in the US every 1-2 days by police. I'm pretty confident that a sizable % of those were unnecessary.

http://www.occupy.com/article/black-man-killed-us-every-28-hours-police

Re: cop shootings, I couldn't get stats on the races of the shooters. But considering US demographics, it's very unlikely that blacks are the majority of them, despite what gangsta rappers claim. So it is just racism/ignorance that explains police perceptions and treatment of blacks?

http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2014

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Donald Sterling's racist comments

I guess you heard Silver's statement today. In a sense, he really had no choice, even if this is "unfair" to Sterling (and Silver more or less works for Sterling and the other owners). I wonder if he will sue or fight this?

If they kept Sterling on, who would want to play/work for him? He would be a distraction and source of tension at every Clippers game (a "black eye" on the league as Magic Johnson said). That's not good anyone, and maybe even Sterling wouldn't want that for himself and family.
But on the other hand, you have guys working in the league now who are known domestic abusers, drug addicts, and had various weapons/drunk driving/criminal charges. Sterling made a statement in private, was kind of entrapped, and broke no laws that we know of. Of course his opinion was outrageous and totally unacceptable (especially since the league has 70% black players, and is an important part of African American culture). The expectations are higher on an authority figure.
Maybe it's similar to the Mozilla CEO who was forced to step down by his board/staff because of his anti-gay-marriage views. People have the right to their opinions, but holding those opinions may bar you from certain professional positions. The difficult part here is Sterling owns the Clippers. So in a sense, the other owners (as part of the monopolistic club that is the NBA) are forcing him to sell his asset (assuming they get the necessary votes to boot him, which Silver is confident of).

The Dodgers fiasco also comes to mind, ironically in the same city, and Magic Johnson may end up having a stake in both franchises now.

-----

This whole thing is a giant circle-jerk.  The dude settled out of court for racial discrimination in his housing projects, no one's opinion should have
changed based on this tape.  And the statement I kept hearing on the news "i hope all the bigots see that if Sterling can fall, so can you".  Who fell?  Dude will wake up tomorrow a billionaire.  Social prestige loss but i don't think the company he keeps gives a hoot.
As for the players/team/whatever.  At the end of the day the NBA players have no real power.  Their skills are simply not worth very much outside the context of the NBA.  So if Sterling says he isn't going to sell will they all boycott?  You are telling me you can't find 10 guys who will play for the clippers at a million a year?  They all quit the team and go free agent, you are telling when no one picks them up they don't have bills?  Kids?  A lifestyle to maintain?  I'll believe it when i see it.

-----
That was a pretty well written article by Kareem.  Shows the importance of getting a college degree before playing pro ball.  The NBA as an enterprise is ultimately powerless in this situation.  At the end of the day, I don't think sexual discrimination, racial discrimination or religious discrimination will be the entity that brings down a business empire.  After all, Chick-Fil-A is still thriving after their religious fiasco.  It'll just create more frivolous lawsuits earning settlement money for the accuser and their lawyer(s).  Businesses will keep booming regardless of the insensitive actions of their leaders, so what will make anyone think this incident will be an exception to the rule?
------
Thanks, guys. I disagree that NBA players don't have power - as their lockouts and relatively high salaries indicate. NBA players would have 90% of the power if sport was a free market instead of a monopoly (or "new slavery" as some people have commented, albeit quite inaccurately). Guys like Sterling think they ARE the league, but that is BS. Like most of stale corporate America, these fossils are only relevant because they engage in anti-competitive activities to make them appear more valuable than they are. At the end of the day, what is Sterling but a guy who signs checks? Not exactly a rare skill set. And remember that he was voted the worst owner in ALL major pro US sports for decades while the Clippers were a laughingstock. The GM, coach, and players determine success, and of course the fans/media provide the revenue. "Owners" are just leeches who take a disproportionate cut of profits, because they wrote the rules to enable that. Imagine if franchises were publicly traded companies - then the Clippers could have 1,000 different small, non-racist owners and still achieve the same level of performance. Heck the GB Packers have been a public nonprofit since 1923.
Sterling is now bad for business, and that is why the owners are getting rid of him. They can't risk their image and perceptions of racism when their talent base is majority black, as are many of their fans/customers (and they need to have a "good image" in the community, always). Yes, of course Sterling could find guys to fill his roster next season, but would they be the best players available? Would they feel motivated to play at a high level, amidst distractions and negativity (you can imagine their friends/peers/family would keep asking, "Why do you play for that guy?")?
It's true that probably old/rich/white America is more racist below the surface than they would reveal, though the Obama presidency is likely bringing some of that to the surface. That is another more complex issue; it's pretty hard to eliminate all bigotry from a society, especially private bigotry. But at least our public policy should not be prejudiced.

Maybe what Kareem failed to comment on is the tremendous injustice (disproportionately) for young blacks in college and pro sport. He is the exception, but many athletes:
(a lot of good sports links below if you have time; obviously I am interested in this stuff :)

- Don't get a degree or semblance of education
- Are obviously underpaid and under-represented during their short time on campus
- Do not make really big money in pro sports unless they are stars who stay healthy
- Have few years of real earning power, and often end up broke and physically hobbled (more of a problem with the NFL of course, who may have criminally misrepresented the concussion risk for decades, and recently settled for chump change)
- And of course consider the 99.9% of aspiring athletes who chase the hoop dream (sold a scam?), never make it, and find themselves fairly unemployable for the rest of their lives
But mainstream society puts up with this wicked system because we want to be entertained, and there is a lot of money at stake.
-------
Just throwing my two cents in here.

I've seen the first amendment and the legality of the recording get tossed around but those two issues are irrelevant. The NBA is a private association and has no obligation to care about those things in this context. Sterling isn't going to jail for his comments (obviously), and even if the recording is illegal having Sterling around as an owner after it's been released would be very bad for business, which is all the NBA cares about. On a side note, he probably knew and agreed to being recorded: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-donald-sterling-tapes-20140429%2C0%2C7072200.story#ixzz30JHOzKXK

M: "This whole thing is a giant circle-jerk.  The dude settled out of court for racial discrimination in his housing projects, no one's opinion should have changed based on this tape.  And the statement I kept hearing on the news "i hope all the bigots see that if Sterling can fall, so can you".  Who fell?  Dude will wake up tomorrow a billionaire.  Social prestige loss but i don't think the company he keeps gives a hoot."

I agree to a certain extent about it being a giant circle-jerk but that's only true for people who are aware of Sterling's history. The racial discrimination lawsuit isn't necessarily widely known. People inside NBA circles certainly knew about him but the average person probably wouldn't know or even be able to name him as the Clipper's owner previously. Making some awful comments are of course, not the worst thing he's done but it's the most public thing he's done, hence circle jerk. If you want to accuse the other NBA owners of jerking themselves off in a circular fashion, I wouldn't disagree. They must have known about his shit for a while. Of course this isn't some grand blow against racism everywhere, although I hadn't heard that sentiment in my online travels today, but it's still a victory in that an obvious asshole gets a little comeuppance.

To your other paragraph/point it turns out the NBA can actually force him to sell. Sterling doesn't have a choice if 3/4 of the other owners vote to force him to sell. Sterling is called the owner but in reality the NBA does have the power to force him to sell, which is apparently a very real possibility. http://deadspin.com/nba-owners-are-lining-up-to-vote-donald-sterling-out-1569445125

The analogy I've seen thrown around is that being an owner of an NBA team is like owning a franchise from McDonald's. You have a lot of control over what happens there, you can call yourself the owner but the powers that be can still take away that franchise from you.

Although maybe Sterling can try to fight it and go to court, dragging it out for a few years the NBA could simply lock the Clippers out and declare all of their players free agents. As long as most of the other owners agree to it, Sterling has no real options. And yeah, he's still going to die a rich man. Hell, selling the Clippers will probably get him a 5000% return on his investment. I still think it's impressive the NBA is doing this to him nonetheless.

In fact I'm even more surprised about the lack of surprise surrounding his punishment. If this was the NFL Goodell would absolutely not force any real punishment on an owner like that. A lifetime ban, 2.5 million fine, and most likely being forced to sell is way beyond what I expected. Commissioners are almost always stooges for the owners, so I was absolutely shocked that the NBA was willing to go this far. I'm glad they were willing though, better late than never.  

As for your latest comments, I largely agree and wanted to write more about college athlete issues but I've run out of steam. Maybe next time.
-----
Thanks, D. It's true that the NBA commish works for the owners, and I think that's what Silver was doing by firing Sterling. He was looking after the interests of the other owners. So I am almost sure they will get the 3/4 votes to force the sale of the franchise, otherwise Silver would not risk looking like a fool by proclaiming something without having the votes to back it up (that would be Obama and gun control).
I agree that what Kareem and others said about "shame on us for not knowing Sterling's past" is unfair. As you said, most people can't name an NBA owner besides Mark Cuban. And if Sterling was so notorious prior to this incident, then why didn't Kareem and others in the know do something about it (and tell the world about it)? It's not the common fan's job to investigate everyone's dirty laundry. But I do think that the league mgmt. ignored the problem for too long.

Hypothetically, what do you think the league and society would have done if Sterling acted differently? Say immediately when the tape was released, what if he made a sincere public apology, offered to meet with black leaders, enrolled himself in sensitivity therapy, and pledged to donate a good portion of his wealth to anti-racism programs and initiatives to help black communities? Would they have still taken the Clippers from him? It would be a tough call, IMO.
I think this is a pretty sad over-reaction. UCLA Nephrology is rejecting Sterling's $3M donation. Just because you don't want to be associated with a racist, you are hurting patients and research? Who cares where the money came from - if it can accomplish good, why refuse it? Taking a racist's money doesn't make UCLA racist. And if Al Sharpton vilifies them for it, well you can't please everyone. Heck, right wing radio personalities say almost as nasty stuff on a daily basis, and they get rich for it.
Maybe this is a small "victory" against overt, antiquated racism. But unfortunately, more subtle socioeconomic racism is far from beaten. 

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The New Yorker: How Chicago Shaped Obama


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

Some interesting tidbits about Obama's political experiences in Chicago prior to his US Senate run. Not sure if they're all true, but they certainly paint him in a different light than we usually see. Instead of the idealistic dreamer and agent of change from his acclaimed autobiographies, we find a shrewd, cunning insider who is very skilled at playing the connections and money games in politics. Actually, it seems he has gone with the flow and accommodated the establishment more than he has "worked for change". He is a cocky tactician who is able to reinvent himself when advantageous, adapting to various constituencies and aggressively pouncing on opportunities for upward movement. And his strategy has been tremendously successful. He came from nothing and has risen faster than most politicians in US history. In a sense, he is quite like Bill Clinton.

Since his early days walking the streets as a community organizer, he often took career advancements as springboards towards the next larger goal (some say that he dreamed of becoming president since the 1990's), instead of doing his best in the current position he had just won. Some former allies and supporters even felt that Obama was quite disloyal, shunning them and not showing appreciation for their help after they had outlived their usefulness to him. He often clashed with and sidestepped the "old guard" of black politicians who lived through the civil rights struggle, and actually he was more popular with white professionals in Chicago. I don't really fault him for these aspects of his record, as it mimics the biographies of 99% of politicians out there. The ascendancy stories of people like Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, and Richard Nixon are fraught with conflicts. Obama still might become an excellent president, and frankly one needs a big ego and ruthless ambition to win the head of state job. But when his campaign and some in the media seek to paint him as cut from a different cloth and a visionary who will clean up Washington, I am now a little skeptical. Well, I guess a great leader has to be a tough-nosed asshole to fight his or her way out of obscurity, and once they reach the top, then they finally have the power to do a lot of good?

Excerpts from the long-ass New Yorker article in italics, my synopsies in normal text.

----------
Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago's churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. "You have the power to make a United States senator," he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war.

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.

Obama's establishment inclinations have alienated some old friends. During the 2004 Senate primary, Obama sometimes reminded voters of his anti-machine credentials, but at the same time he shrewdly wrote to Mayor Daley's brother, William, who had backed one of Obama's primary opponents, asking for his support if he won the primary. As he outgrew the provincial politics of Hyde Park, he became closer to the Mayor, and this accommodation, as well as his unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reëlection, have some of his original supporters feeling alienated and angry. "I am not thrilled with Barack, simply because we elected him as an Independent, and he switched over to Daley," Alan Dobry said. Ivory Mitchell, speaking of Obama's Senate race, said, "When he won the primary out here and he went downtown, it appears as though Daley took over the campaign for him. . . . We were excluded." David Axelrod told me, in response, that some of the Independents on the South Side blame Daley for just about anything. "I think there's kind of this Wizard of Oz mystique," he said. "Daley had virtually no role in the Senate campaign."

Another transition from primary to general election is now under way for Obama, and it is causing him a similar set of problems, all of which stem from a realization among his supporters that superheroes don't become President; politicians do. Judging by the reaction to Obama's most recent decisions—his willingness to support legislation to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, his rightward shift on interpreting the Second Amendment, his decision to "refine" his Iraq policies—some voters will be crushed by this realization and others will be relieved. In another episode that has Obama's old friends feeling frustrated, Obama recently blamed his first campaign manager, Carol Anne Harwell, for reporting on a 1996 questionnaire that Obama favored a ban on handguns.

Obama's rise has often appeared effortless. His offstage tactics—when he is engaged in the sometimes combative work of a politician—are rarely glimpsed by outsiders. Penny Pritzker, a friend and fund-raiser for Obama, remembers meeting with him at her office in 2006 to discuss his Presidential campaign. "We were talking about whether he was ready to do this or not," Pritzker told me. She was blunt, telling Obama, "As I see it, the two things that you're going to need to address are your executive leadership skills, because your résumé doesn't have that in it, and the second would be your credentials in national security." Obama returned with an organizational chart indicating how the campaign would be structured—one of his great tactical advantages over the disorganized Clinton campaign—along with a list of advisers. Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair. Obama has frequently been one step ahead of his friends and the public in anticipating his own rise. Perhaps it is all those people he has met over the years who told him that he would be President one day.

----------
Although many of Obama's recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn't. "I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors," she told me. "I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure that's the way that he approached his public life—that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have."

On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. "It's a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners," she said. As we talked, it became increasingly clear that loyalty was the issue that drove Preckwinkle's current view of her onetime protégé. "I don't think you should forget who your friends are," she said.

There was also a more general belief that, after Obama won the 2004 United States Senate primary, he ignored his South Side base. Preckwinkle said, "My view is you have to bring your constituency along with you. Granted, you have to make some tough decisions. Granted, sometimes you have to make decisions that people won't understand or like. But it's your obligation to explain yourself and try to do your supporters the courtesy of treating them with respect." Ivory Mitchell, who for twenty years has been the chairman of the local ward organization in Obama's neighborhood—considered the most important Democratic organization on the South Side—was one of Obama's earliest backers. Today, he says, "All the work we did to help him get where he finally ended up, he didn't seem too appreciative." A year ago, Mitchell became a delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Some Obama supporters professed shock when, recently, he abandoned a pledge to stay within the public campaign-finance system if the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, agreed to do the same. Preckwinkle's concern about Obama—that he is a pure political animal—suddenly became more widespread; commentators abruptly stopped using the words "callow" and "naïve."

----------

In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year's long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, "Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn't respect their role"—Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—"in the struggle and the movement. He didn't engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack's cheap, too. If you can't do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you're not going to work with him." Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama's neighborhood, says of Obama that "he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that 'I can do anything and I'm willing to do it overnight.' "

----------

If Project Vote and Miner's firm introduced Obama to the city's lakefront liberals and South Side politicians, it was his wife who helped connect him to Chicago's black élite. One of Michelle's best friends was Jesse Jackson's daughter Santita, who became the godmother of the Obamas' first child. Michelle had worked as an aide to the younger Daley—hired by Valerie Jarrett, who is now one of Obama's closest advisers. It was also through Michelle that Obama met Marty Nesbitt, a successful young black entrepreneur who happened to play basketball with Michelle's brother, Craig. Nesbitt became Obama's closest friend and a bridge to the city's African-American business class.

----------

Many people who knew Obama then remember him for his cockiness. He had good reason to be self-assured. A number of his accomplishments had been accompanied by adoring press coverage. When he was named president of the Harvard Law Review, in 1990, he was profiled by, among others, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Vanity Fair, and the Associated Press. Even then, the essential elements of Obama-mania were present: the fascination with his early life, the adulatory quotes from friends who thought that he would be President one day, and Obama's frank, though sometimes ostentatious, capacity for self-reflection.

His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded. In 1993, Crain's Chicago Business reported that Obama had "galvanized Chicago's political community, as no seasoned politico had before," and an alderman told Crain's, "Under Barack's leadership, we had the most successful, cost-effective and orderly voter registration drive I've ever been involved with." When "Dreams from My Father" was published, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive; Booklist included the memoir in a "guide to some of the best books of 1995."

----------

In October, he was one of the thousands of African-Americans from Chicago who travelled to Washington for the Million Man March. (Obama criticized the march, telling a local alternative newspaper that it was a waste of energy.) When he returned home, he had more immediate problems. In December, 1995, the South Side coalition that he had cobbled together began to fall apart. Palmer's congressional campaign was eclipsed by her Democratic-primary opponents—Jesse Jackson, Jr., who had star power, and Emil Jones, a longtime leader in the State Senate. The Chicago Defender reported that Obama was asked "to step aside like other African Americans have done in other races for the sake of unity and to release Palmer from her commitment"—so that she could reclaim her State Senate seat. Obama left the meeting noncommittal.
But, almost as fast as the threat to his campaign appeared, Obama stamped it out. The Dobrys were surprised that Palmer had so quickly gathered the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. They went to the Chicago board of elections and reviewed her petitions; as they suspected, they were filled with irregularities. One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine's tactic of challenging ballot petitions, and the Dobrys were experts at this Chicago ritual. Publicly, Obama was conciliatory about the awkward political situation, telling the Hyde Park Herald that he understood that some people were upset about the "conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms." Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer's name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well. "He ran unopposed, which is a good way to win," Mikva said, laughing at the recollection.

Instead of arriving in Springfield as the consensus candidate of his district, Obama was regarded as a troublemaker. "He had created some enemies," Emil Jones, who in 2003 became president of the Illinois Senate, said. Burns described the fallout of the Obama-Palmer race this way: "It established a reputation that 'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.' I think it established him as a threat. You have his independence with Project Vote, you have his refusal to knuckle under during the Alice Palmer thing, and so now you have a series of data points that have some established leaders in the black community feeling disrespected. And so the stage is now set for the comeuppance during the congressional race. That was their payback."

The payback refers to the 1999 US Congressional race between Obama and Bobby Rush in their home district of South Side Chicago. Obama thought he had a good chance, because Rush had recently lost a mayoral race against Richard Daley and was perceived to be politically weak. Then-Senator Obama was trailing badly in the fundraising battle (which, by the 1990's, became much more important to winning elections than the door-to-door get-out-the-vote battle), and eventually lost to Rush (who had the support of the established black community that was hostile to Obama) by 30 points. He was also plagued by bad luck, as Rush's son and father both died during the campaign, making him a sympathetic figure. Obama also went to Hawaii to visit his ill grandmother during a crucial gun-control debate in Springfield that failed without his vote, which caused a lot of negative press for him (the media accused him of going "on vacation" to the islands, instead of fighting for a bill that he had previously endorsed in the papers). This was his first big defeat, a defining moment in Obama's young political career, and he almost considered quitting politics.

But instead of leaving the game, he decided to play differently. He honed his oratory skills (before 2000, he rarely had a memorable speech). He shed his roots as an inner-city Hyde Park politician, and courted white voters more than blacks. And most importantly, he enlisted a Democratic consultant to help him redraw his Senate district in Chicago after the 2000 census. His old district encompassed poorer, black neighborhoods and the University of Chicago (a by-product of the 1990 Republican redistricting to concentrate black Democrat voters into the fewest districts). His new district still encompassed his home neighborhood and was majority black, but also contained some of the Gold Coast - richer North Side lakefront property. The poorer areas in the district also belonged to Tony Rezko and other developers friendly with Obama, who were in the process of gentrifying those blocks.

In an article in the Hyde Park Herald about how "partisan" and "undemocratic" Illinois redistricting had become, Obama was asked for his views. As usual, he was candid. "There is a conflict of interest built into the process," he said. "Incumbents drawing their own maps will inevitably try to advantage themselves."
The partisan redistricting of Illinois may have been the most important event in Obama's early political life. It immediately gave him the two things he needed to run for the Senate in 2004: money and power. He needed to have several times as much cash as he'd raised for his losing congressional race in 2000, and many of the state's top donors now lived or worked in his district. More important, the statewide gerrymandering made it likely that Obama's party would take over the State Senate in 2002, an event that would provide him with a platform from which to craft a legislative record in time for the campaign. Obama's political activity from 2001 to 2004 reveals a man transformed. The loss to Rush drained him of much of the naïveté he once exuded.

----------
Obama has benefitted from impeccable timing. As the national Party entered a period of ideological timidity, he was at the vanguard of a Democratic revival in Illinois that had begun in 1992, when Clinton and Braun won the state, and grew stronger when, four years later, Democrats took over the Illinois House of Representatives. It continued through 2002, when Democrats won the State Senate and the governor's office. By 2004, when Obama ran for the United States Senate, Illinois was a solidly blue state.

Not all of this was due to Democratic ingenuity; during this period the state Republican Party collapsed under the weight of corruption scandals. That is something of an Illinois tradition: four of the last nine governors have been indicted on charges of corruption, and three were convicted. As Saul Bellow once remarked, "Politics are politics, crime is crime, but in Chicago they occasionally overlap. The line between virtue and vice meanders madly—effective government on one side, connections on the other."

----------
E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. "They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest," Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

----------

Almost as soon as he got to Springfield [as a State Senator], he was planning another move. He was bored there—once, he appeared to doze off during a caucus meeting—and frustrated by the Republicans' total control over the legislature. He seemed to believe, according to colleagues at the time, that he was destined for better things than being trapped in one of America's more notoriously corrupt state capitals. Obama spent little time socializing with "the guys basically from Chicago," the veteran senator Emil Jones said. "He hung around a lot of the downstaters. They became good friends."
Obama voted—a parliamentary error, Obama says—to block funding for a child-welfare facility in [rival Senator and Alice Palmer-ally Rickey] Hendon's district. Hendon rose and criticized Obama for the vote. The two men became embroiled in a yelling match on the Senate floor that looked as if it might become physical; they were separated by Courtney Nottage, then the chief of staff for Emil Jones. Nottage led Obama off the floor to a room that legislators used to make telephone calls. "It looked like two men that were having a serious disagreement and they had walked up to one another really close," Nottage told me. "I didn't think anything good could come of that."

Hendon told me, "He's the one that got mad, because he said I embarrassed him on the Senate floor. That's when he came over to my desk." Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, "I'm going to kick your ass!" Hendon said, "He said something like that." He added that more details will appear in a book that he's written, entitled "Black Enough, White Enough: The Obama Dilemma."

---------

Obama took at least one concrete step to turn this notion of the legislator as community organizer into a reality. In his first column in the Hyde Park Herald, the same one in which he addressed welfare, he announced that he was "organizing citizens' committees" to help him shape legislation. He asked his constituents to call his office if they wanted to participate. That kind of airy talk about changing politics gave way almost immediately to the realities of the job. I asked a longtime Obama friend what ever became of the committees. "They never really got off the ground," he said. By 2001, if there was any maxim from community organizing that Obama lived by, it was the Realpolitik commandment of Saul Alinsky, the founding practitioner of community organizing, to operate in "the world as it is and not as we would like it to be."

---------

In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama's speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, "He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!"

The sensitive language of his September 11th statement was gone. Instead, Obama distanced himself from the pacifist activists who were surely present. "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances," he told the crowd. He then went further, defending justifiable wars in almost glorious terms. "The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars." It took some nerve to tweak the crowd in this way. After all, it was unlikely that many of the protesters knew who Obama was, and in a lengthy write-up of the event in the Chicago Tribune the following day he was not mentioned. Yet the speech reads as if it had been written for a much bigger audience.

During this period, Obama also became more of a strategist, someone increasingly comfortable discussing the finer points of polls, message, and fund-raising. According to his friends, Obama does not delegate campaign planning. This was in 2002, and things seemed to be going his way. The incumbent Republican, Peter Fitzgerald, was unpopular, and the race was attracting a large field of Democrats. "He didn't start telling people he was interested in running for Senate until he figured out what the road map was," Nesbitt said. "He had a good sense of the odds, and he knew there were certain things that had to happen. . . . The first thing he said was, 'O.K., nobody with approval ratings like this has ever been reëlected, so it's not gonna be him, right?' And then he said there's a bunch of candidates who can potentially run, one of whom was Carol Moseley Braun. And he said, 'If she runs, I probably don't have a chance, because there's gonna be certain loyalty within the African-American community to her, even though she had some mistakes, and I'm probably not gonna get those African-American votes, which I need as my base if I'm gonna win. So if she runs, I don't run.'

"Then he just laid out an economic analysis. It becomes about money, because he knew that if people knew his story they would view him as a better candidate than anybody else he thought might be in the field. And so he said, 'Therefore, if you raise five million dollars, I have a fifty-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise seven million dollars, I have a seventy-per-cent chance of winning. If you raise ten million dollars, I guarantee victory."

---------

In the State Senate, [Senator Emil] Jones did something even more important for Obama. He pushed him forward as the key sponsor of some of the Party's most important legislation, even though the move did not sit well with some colleagues who had plugged away in the minority on bills that Obama now championed as part of the majority. "Because he had been in the minority, Barack didn't have a legislative record to run on, and there was a buildup of all these great ideas that the Republicans kept in the rules committee when they were in the majority," Burns said. "Jones basically gave Obama the space to do what Obama wanted to do. Emil made it clear to people that it would be good for them." Burns, who at that point was working for Jones, was assigned to keep an eye on Obama's floor votes, which, because he was a Senate candidate, would be under closer scrutiny. The Obama-Jones alliance worked. In one year, 2003, Obama passed much of the legislation, including bills on racial profiling, death-penalty reform, and expanded health insurance for children, that he highlighted in his Senate campaign.