Race and America

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-downtown-charleston-south-carolina-031543897.html

We don't yet know the motives of the shooter (only that he is a 21-year-old white male who is still at large in SC). But authorities are labeling this as a hate crime. I know that one incident does not make a trend, but could this be a signal of growing white backlash against "Black Lives Matter" and other efforts to expose racial injustice?

I worry about white people (esp. men) who feel economically marginalized and dignity-attacked by national events since the recession. The worst thing would be a white-power militant backlash like some of the right-wing European parties that rapidly gained prominence during the Euro crisis.

Of course the hardships and insults that some whites feel in America may be real, but the culprits are obviously not minorities. But the true culprits are really good at concealment/propaganda and letting media deflect attention away from them. All you hear from FNC is that Christianity, white people (men), "US values", guns/cops, and conservatism are under attack. But the data show that evangelical Christianity is as strong as ever (despite declines in all other forms of Christianity), whites still have huge advantages in terms of incarceration rates, income, life expectancy, and most other socioeconomic metrics. Also, 3X more hate crimes are perpetrated against blacks than whites, even though blacks are only 12% of the US.

Obviously many whites are having more struggles in America. If they are ignorant, it's fairly easy to persuade them to blame immigrants, gays, liberals, etc. Much of Rush, Fox, etc.'s airtime is devoted to this. So are they actually the race-baiters who motivate some angry whites to attack minorities? Blood could be on their hands (like the Gabby Giffords shooting, etc.).

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/01/fox-guest-we-will-see-more-white-americans-unde/201727
http://www.newshounds.us/to_bill_o_reilly_white_christians_are_under_attack_but_not_african_americans_actually_killed_by_the_police_041615
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html

---

Also, did you hear about this Supreme Court ruling (TX did not violate the 1st Amend. by prohibiting a Southern group from making a custom license plate with the Dixie flag) where Thomas was the difference maker, siding with the liberals for the first time? If I can assume that his decision was motivated by his race and his deeper understanding of US racial history, is this an indictment that the Court is biased by personal background? I know we are all biased by our backgrounds, but the Court is supposed to be fair and just and blind, right?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/confederate-flag-plates-lack-support-supreme-court

----

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.

Colorado movie shooting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-the-aurora-shooting-wont-likely-change-the-gun-control-debate/2012/07/20/gJQA6qWpxW_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics

My wife and I recently saw "Bowling for Columbine" again and it's sad how not a damn thing has changed in a decade (except that Heston died in 2008), or maybe got worse (gun and ammo sales have spiked since Obama took office http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-gun-industry-secretly-loves-obama-09012011.html). This is despite VT, Oakland, Giffords, and many other incidents. Aurora CO is another suburb of Denver not far from Littleton, but this time the accused shooter is not a local but a neurosci PhD student who grew up in SD. Last time the pundits blamed Dylan and Eric's bloodlust on their enjoyment of Marilyn Manson music and violent video games. I guess this time techno music and Batman will be implicated (or stress and financial hardships from grad school?). Not that those are the real root causes.

If anyone watches "The Newsroom" on HBO, interesting fact that gun paranoia over Obama is totally unfounded: gun control watchdogs have given Obama an F rating, yet some people are convinced that he is coming for their weapons (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f

). I am not sure if "Fast and Furious" is part of that grade or not. Yet the NRA has declared Obama is the most anti-gun president ever. I guess anything to warp perceptions and try to kick him out of office?

It's the middle-class whites and Asians who perpetrate the mass killings in the US, but the public is still most scared of and hostile to poor urban blacks and Latinos.

-----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/obama-gun-control_n_1704246.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Yeah I forgot about Obama's 2008 comment about blue-collar whites "clinging to their guns." I wonder how much those 4 words really affected his future policy.

America is the only industrialized, non-wartorn nation with the following combination of conditions:
- A ton of legally and easily available guns (many with the capacity to inflict mass murder)
- A well-funded and entrenched pro-gun lobby
- A heritage of violence and individualism
- A media-consumer-social culture of paranoia, combativeness, and hostility towards each other
- Apathetic and/or reelection-obsessed politicians

Some nations have one or a few of those conditions, but no nation but us has them all. Maybe that would explain why we have the highest gun violence rates in the G20?

PS - in the slideshow at the bottom about the pivotal moments of the gun debate, for the image of the Reagan-Hinckley shooting, the Secret Service are carrying Uzis! To me that weapon doesn't seem appropriate for politician protection. 

AZ Shooting: shut up, Palin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20110112/pl_politico/47477_1
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s

Maybe you have heard about Palin's TV response to the AZ massacre and how she thinks the liberal media is supposedly blaming the political right and right-wing media for it all. First, Palin is not and should not be a spokesperson for our social consciousness, nor for all conservatives (half of whom oppose her running for any major public office). Just because you are famous doesn't mean we care about what you have to say. She's a celebrity, not a commentator.

Second, will the GOP ever get over their infallibility and persecution complex? Nixon was not a crook, Bush never made a mistake, and now Palin can't even shut her mouth. Yes, when a centrist Dem gets shot in the head by someone who was only able to do so because of loose laws imposed by the gun lobby and its GOP supporters, of course the first thing I think of is, "Oh those poor Republicans." Can they ever just be gracious, or at the very least shut the hell up if they have nothing useful to add? No one directly blames Palin et al. for what that deranged shooter did. But when she was responsible for 2010 campaign ads that showed gun cross-hairs targeting Rep. Gifford's district, at the very least she could have apologized to the victims for such inappropriate imagery, and caution others to not follow that example. Many other Republicans have called for restraint, toning down rhetoric, and cooperation in order to promote healing during this difficult time. But I guess that's too much for the Momma Bear.

Third, I find it insulting that Palin spent most of that drawn-out TV spot defending the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Considering the context, is she trying to defend the right to voice political extremism? Now is not the time to politicize a tragedy, especially when she is accusing the left of doing so already. I suppose the killer was trying to express himself too with his atrocious actions. We may have the right to say stupid, offensive, inflammatory things, but that doesn't mean we should celebrate it while a victim of possible political extremism is still clinging for life. And if I recall, it was the GOP that keep saying dissent against Bush and his wars was unpatriotic (Palin wasn't really part of that conversation in 2001-2004, but I'm sure she wasn't speaking out in defense of GOP opponents' right to protest). Well, everything changes once your party loses power.

For argument's sake, what if the shooter was an ultra-liberal, or a MUSLIM, and the victim was Glen Beck or John Boehner? Can you imagine the reaction from Palin and the right? Would their defense of free expression, and belief that the shooter was not politically influenced, still hold? All this makes me sick.

------

Sorry, below is my "politicization" of the recent tragedy now. I am not blaming anyone for what happened, but I am merely arguing that it was potentially preventable if our leaders made different decisions. Plus I don't speak to an audience of millions, so I should be able to get away with more than Palin does.

Yes, Palin was correct that we Americans enjoy more political freedom than most humans today and throughout history, and despite that, political violence is exceedingly rare on our soil (I realize that the tragedy of this weekend has not been definitively classified as political, but the attack was not random and Giffords is a public official). Our fairly clean track record in recent history (excluding Kent State, Blair Mountain, etc.) is a testament to the strength and wisdom of our system. But one may argue that this shooting may have never occurred if the political vitriol of the past few years was not so nasty, and the dysfunctional Congress was able to pass or at least seriously discuss immigration, budgetary, and economic reforms. People in AZ and elsewhere are under a lot of stress from this long recession borne of greed and political irresponsibility, tired of bickering fools on the TV, and those living on our southern border are also very upset about the immigration impasse that affects their security and other aspects of their daily lives. Maybe the accused didn't care about any of that, but if America took better care of its finances (don't engage in wars you can't pay for) and cared more about improving quality of life for citizens (instead of giving tax breaks to the rich), maybe there would have been more opportunities and support services available for that individual to seek help instead of resorting to violence.

Or maybe in a nation with millions of guns in circulation (many which are not accounted for due to NRA resistance to gun tracking) and millions of disturbed people (many of whom are not monitored due to logistics and privacy), things like this are bound to happen now and then, even if we had a perfectly harmonious society. After all, in one-party-system, dissent-snuffing China, people stabbed and killed innocent school kids also. School shootings took place in Finland, ranked by Newsweek to be the best country in the world for having a productive, healthy, happy life. In fact, to me it's kind of amazing that tragedies like Tucson and VA Tech are not more frequent. More people die in America from auto accidents and Rx drug abuse/misuse than from gunshots if you can believe (http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101070900). So these acts of violence can't just be attributed to violent video games, angry political rhetoric, or problems at home. There are unfortunately just random and chance components.

Among a certain population of people who have access to weapons, there are going to be a few who are willing to use them on their fellow man. Their motives may vary a lot, which makes it very hard to prevent them from harming others. Since the Tucson and VT shooters were both students (or recently students), now there's debate on whether to monitor for warning signs and force young people to seek help. Well, the VT shooter was seen for his mental issues and it didn't prevent his rampage. Surely it could have been handled better, but now are we supposed to turn each other in the minute we start to exhibit depressive, withdrawn symptoms? Educators estimate that amazingly one fourth of all college students exhibit some manifestations of mental illness or are on behavioral medication (http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101120900). Student-vs-student murders have taken place from MIT to community college, and the weapons, student backgrounds, and circumstances have varied. Preventing an Al Qaeda attack is much easier in comparison, with far fewer variables.

So if we can't identify and prevent attackers, then we have to control the weapons, right? I know that the gun lobby is one of the most powerful in America, but if the government was able to break up Standard Oil, put a man on the moon, and freely give rights to minorities and women, it is possible. There is really no 2nd Amendment justification for high-capacity magazines and they should be prohibited (they were used during Columbine, VT, Tucson, and probably many other cases). Congress may take this up this term, but it will be an uphill battle. Fewer bullets mean fewer victims, and on the bright side for gun enthusiasts, it will encourage them to become better marksmen to make every shot count. Also, if we need licenses to drive cars, we should require certification to possess guns (basic competency, safety awareness, mental health). If employers make workers pass credit checks and drug tests, then the same should apply for gun buyers. We're just trying to protect ourselves and make sure only trustworthy people are armed. Even these measures won't prevent every attack, but it may help.

-------

I know what you mean. It's like when a coach fires up his players that we hate rival team X, they're a bunch of no-good punks, they're trash, let's kill 'em. When one of his riled up players pulls cheap shot in the game and sends a guy to the hospital, the coach can't just throw his hands up and say he never told him to do that. If you incite, you're partly responsible.

But for AZ, I am not sure if it's even established that he knows anything about Palin or watches FNC. He had some history with Giffords going back some years, so maybe it was just a personal obsession rather than a blind targeting of liberals or elected officials. After all, he killed a judge and a kid and others totally unaffiliated with politics, but maybe by then he was just berserk.

Those yahoos who interrupt town hall meetings or shout epithets at Obama and such are more likely directly influenced by right-wing media, but as far as I know they haven't really engaged in political violence. Maybe there were some assassination plots vs. Obama that we don't know about, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

-------

Just some updates on the AZ shooting story:

Apparently Loughner did say that he admired Palin and the Tea Party on some social media. He also liked Das Kapital and Mein Kampf, so like most semi-ignorant rebellious college-age kids (like I was), he's a bit politically confused. I think he distrusted government/establishment and viewed them as the enemy (yet he tried to enlist in the military?). It's too bad that he manifested his feelings on Gifford, who really contributes very little to government injustice. I guess this is a fairly common portrait of a paranoid schizo, unfortunately. Interestingly, some classmates thought of Loughner as a liberal pothead, but that was subjective of course.

FYI, the GOP opponent that Giffords ran against (and defeated) in Nov., Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event where he let supporters fire an automatic rifle, and used language like "targeting Giffords". Not sure if Loughner knew about it, but apparently people were ok with that type of campaigning until this weekend. Palin has also used gun references like "Don't retreat, reload". I have no idea what that means politically, but I doubt that she does either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11district.html

I was wrong about conservatives/Teabaggers not being violent. Here is a local case with circumstantial evidence linking Fox News to political violence:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/21/oakland_police_shooting_beck_tides

Apparently Glen Beck has often railed against the leftist Tides Foundation (I've never heard of them until this week, but apparently they are on Professor Beck's famous blackboard of the liberal conspiracy). So one of his listeners (Byron Williams of rural Groveland, CA near Yosemite) was on his way to SF to shoot up the ACLU and Tides buildings in July, but was stopped by Oakland PD and got in a firefight with them instead (he had body armor and several guns). Beck had referenced Tides 5 days before the Williams shooting. I know it's not causal, but we invaded Iraq with less.

From Salon:

Williams' mother Janice told a local ABC affiliate her son often became angry watching TV news and "[h]e feels the people of this country are being raped by our government and politicians." She told the San Francisco Chronicle that Byron Williams was also upset at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." 

If Williams was indeed motivated by anger at the government -- and it's important to note that police still haven't commented on motive -- then this is, by our count, the third recent case of people angry at the government or the Obama Administration opening fire on police. The other two cases share some strands with the Williams case (bullet-proof vests, lots of guns, traffic stops), but they resulted in the deaths of several police officers.

In April 2009, 22-year-old Richard Poplawski allegedly opened fire on police who responded to a 911 call from Poplawski's mother. Poplawski, who was wearing a bullet-proof vest and was armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, survived the ensuing four-hour gun battle -- but three police officers were killed. His friends said he feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

This past May, Jerry Kane and his teenage son Joe opened fire on police, killing two officers, when  after they were pulled over on the highway in West Memphis, Arkansas. Kane and his son, who were killed by police later that day, traveled the country giving debt-elimination seminars based on an anti-government theory that all bank loans and modern finance are fundamentally illegitimate. Kane had also complained about being stopped at a "Nazi checkpoint" in New Mexico and fantasized about beating up IRS agents.

Let's say the GOP held Washington, and right-wing media was in defense mode rather than attack. Then if McCain implemented the exact same policies as Obama/Pelosi (and he certainly would have done some), would we still have these incidents from angry conservative people ostensibly fighting gov. tyranny? If the answer is no, then we could arguably conclude the right-wing media and hateful political rhetoric led to violent acts against the police and innocent citizens. What's terribly sad is that the shooters were mad at government and Obama on false pretenses. I am not sure if FNC ever alluded to Obama taking our guns, but if they did (likely) then they are contributing to misinformation that led to deaths. If, without evidence, you tell a deranged person that the government is spying on him, and he gets all paranoid and shoots the postman, you are on the hook right? I know there are free speech considerations, but where do you draw the line?