- New bipedal robot from Boston Dynamics is amazing, terrifying, and pitiful all at once
- We already knew that tech workers can be immature and insensitive, but this suggests that elite wealth/education isn't doing a good enough job on race issues either (and living in the cosmo. Bay Area doesn't guarantee racial awareness either)
- BTW, MS-FB-Google are ~2% black, and Apple is super-diverse at 8%
- This Trump thing has evolved from a joke/curiosity to real national concern; if he wins the nomination, then ALL OF US seriously have to volunteer (and get our networks to do so, also) to help his main rival, if we care about America
- http://youtu.be/DRauXXz6t0YIt is understandable for some to oppose abortion, but this video describes the almost cruel/vindictive ways that some red state governments obstruct patients and providers. America is not even going after ISIS this passionately.
- More John Oliver recently vs. Trump: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/
11132366/john-oliver-donald- trump-last-week-tonight As his GOP rivals said, the guy is a glorified watch salesman; all talk/image no substance. Maybe supporters are voting for the name, just like Clinton I guess (I assume most of her supporters can't really articulate her major career accomplishments and Senate voting record). We buy based on what we think the benefits of the brand are, and brand ultimately leads to happiness more than product features. But Oliver's point was that the "Trump" image has nothing to do with the candidate/man (he can understand why people like the mythical notion of a "Donald Trump" leading America, but that is not what we'll get on inaug. day). Actually his actions only merit the "Donald Drumpf" brand.Very entertaining, but the only downside is that it could help Rubio/Cruz (whose stated policies are not that different to those of Trump). However, I don't know which of these guys pose the greatest challenge to Hillary (I support Sanders, but I know the odds are against him).
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
News potpourri
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Hillary lecturing Black Lives Matter that they need to help themselves more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
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. 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?
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!----
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.Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate
I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/
Maybe
this is a microcosm of the overall race impasse in America. Blacks and
minorities want equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution (not
to mention human decency). They are not calling for special treatment.
Even the arguments in support of slavery reparations are not excessive
and have plenty of precedent.But here is another example of the empathy deficit. Would the critics of "black lives matter" just quietly accept it when their communities get raw deal after raw deal (or unpunished murder after murder)? Of course not. Obama gets elected and you get the Tea Party movement (sure other factors contributed like the Recession, but you know what I mean). You get armed standoffs like with the supporters of Cliven Bundy in NV (but the white cops didn't send in storm troopers and tanks to break them up). So why is it OK for "marginalized" whites to stand up for their rights (even violently), but not OK when blacks do it - and do it mostly peacefully (and they have way more legit grievances to protest about)?
----
Maybe you heard that FNC wants BLM classified as a hate group (after a couple recent high-profile attacks on cops that may have been linked to anger over Ferguson/Baltimore/etc.). I know FNC doesn't speak for all of White America, and they are intentionally provocative, but their hostile overreaction to BLM kind of validates American bias and why BLM is actually needed. Good job, Fox.
https://www.facebook.com/
Let's remember that demographically, it's highly likely that more cop killers are white than minority, and not motivated by politics (I couldn't find data on cop killers' races though). And statistically, being a cop in the US is still safer than the average job. Being a cop in the US is still safer than being a young black man in the US. At least a cop can fight back against attackers, wears Kevlar, and is backed by the law.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-
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.
---
This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/
Friday, June 26, 2015
Taking down the Confederate flag
This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
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.
---
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:
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.
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/
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.http://www.npr.org/sections/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/
---
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?
---
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...
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
This was pretty nauseating but expected from the pathetic field of 2016 GOP candidates: http://www.npr.org/sections/
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.- 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".
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.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Race and America
http://news.yahoo.com/
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.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.
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/
http://www.newshounds.us/to_
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
---
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://mediamatters.org/video/
http://www.newshounds.us/to_
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
---
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-
----
This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
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.
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/
http://www.onthemedia.org/
- 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.
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?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
----
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/
http://articles.latimes.com/
----
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/
---
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-
Here are some conservative responses to the Baltimore unrest:http://abc7news.com/news/bart-
- 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.
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.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
The psychology of police bias and violence
These were some interesting stories about detrimental police psychology and practices.
Phillip
Goff from UCLA studied a sampling of police deadly force incidents (not
sure the date range and selection criteria), and over 80% of those
incidents involved the shooting victim making direct "threats to the
officer's masculinity." So it wasn't just a disrespect for his authority
("F you, pig!"), but a challenge to his manhood. In the case of
Ferguson, it was alleged that Brown told Wilson, "You're too much of a
[pansy/fag/etc.] to shoot me." If true, obviously that was a bad move on
Brown's part, but also reveals the dangerous attitude that some
officers feel the need to demonstrate their toughness/masculinity/etc.
to the public (like Marty McFly when he's called "chicken"). This is not
Tombstone where gunfighters call each other out to defend their names
and settle scores in the street. The bigger man is sometime the one who
doesn't respond, and cooler heads need to prevail (not to mention cops
are legally bound by certain restraints, though it's very hard to
prosecute excessive force). Cadets and officers who display this
inferiority complex, insecurity, and prideful behavior should never be permitted to
have a badge and gun.
This part is a little fluffy - but this behavior could reflect the stereotypical white-black male tensions of more racist eras: white men may feel especially threatened by black strength, black genitalia, black revenge for slavery, black men taking their white women away, etc. Again, this is not evidence-based and mostly the domain of racial humor, but I think these fearful undercurrents may still be alive in the American psyche. How much of an effect they have on police actions is unclear.
Also,
incidents of police-on-police violence were also studied. In cases
where an on-duty officer shoots an off-duty plain-clothed officer, the
victims are overwhelmingly black/brown and the shooters are
overwhelmingly white. Sorry that is so vague; Reuters got the data from a
police internal study, but did not provide the #s. So it's not just a
cops vs. civilians thing - cops are killing each other and it seems that
race is a major factor associated with the decision to shoot. Much more
numerous than shootings are of course the racial profiling for routing
traffic stops, stop-and-frisk, harassment, etc. Again, this is much more
of a problem for plain-clothed minority officers than white officers.
And these incidents may lead to tempers flaring and a violent incident.
This part is a little fluffy - but this behavior could reflect the stereotypical white-black male tensions of more racist eras: white men may feel especially threatened by black strength, black genitalia, black revenge for slavery, black men taking their white women away, etc. Again, this is not evidence-based and mostly the domain of racial humor, but I think these fearful undercurrents may still be alive in the American psyche. How much of an effect they have on police actions is unclear.
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/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
---
http://ringoffireradio.com/
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/
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/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
---
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/
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://www.pri.org/stories/
http://ringoffireradio.com/
http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/
Monday, February 17, 2014
The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
We know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson for success in America. It presents a certain formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused, doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.
Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist, fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds, and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social mobility and economic opportunity?
Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be correlated with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that data.
However, the authors don't really talk about the blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case, wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural background and customs. You give someone with any race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good. Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great things for others, while also profiting personally.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Silicon Valley as a preview of America's future, for better or worse
First of all, is Snowden the runaway favorite for person of the year 2013? I can't think of anyone else who affected US society more (and likely for the better). A Federal judge ruled that the arbitrary, blanket collection of Americans' phone metadata is likely unconstitutional (unreasonable search, violation of reasonable expectations of privacy) and ineffective (no clear evidence it was critical to preventing attacks). Of course the WH and NSA disagree.
----
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
Now car services like Uber are getting rave reviews from customers, media, and generating decent financials. But what if they render thousands of low-skilled immigrant cab drivers out of a job? What if the Google self-driving car renders the Uber drivers out of a job? In some cases it is a zero-sum game, even if the metrics suggest that society overall is "better off". Does one new billionaire created compensate for 1,000 families who just got the American Dream taken from them? Everyone seems to celebrate the "winners" without considering the collateral damage. Yes, we need innovation to succeed and even survive in the world. And those who succeed should be rewarded. But what about the everyday folks who, through no fault of their own, get suddenly shifted from middle class to destitution? Do the disruptors (and the traditional companies being replaced) have a social responsibility to help those workers transition to the new reality? Does the government? If so, then I think they should fund such programs from the disruptors' stock gains.
-----
Sort of related (in that it perpetuates the massive inequalities of the Bay Area) is education. M Night Shyamalan just wrote a major book on education (hopefully he doesn't write more and his natural follow-up suck strikes!), and it makes a lot of good points.
Basically, he suggests that our education system is actually great - if
you're a a white kid. Our white kids do just as well as the Nordic white
kids or other European white kids. But if you're a minority (and,
typically, poor), the education system sucks and really drags down our
averages. There are a number of ways to address this, but:
1) They take money $$
2) And they mean de-emphasizing putting resources into already highly performing white schools
I've
come increasingly to the conclusion that American politics is all about
race. I'm sure many of you have seen the research that support for
redistribution increases if it is perceived by the voter as going to
"someone like them" - i.e. someone of the same race.
Most people in the Bay Area don't consider
themselves racist and it's probably true - in fact, the Bay Area is one
of the most diverse areas of the country. But poors in the Bay Area are
still "the other" - they didn't go to good schools, they struggle to get
by on bad salaries, their unemployment rate is x3 higher than
well-educated whites. Basically, their experience is completely alien to
most of the tech gods in the Bay Area and their presence is invisible.
No surprise then that the tech gods (which have actual power) use little
of their capacity to help the poors.
You can imagine the national consternation and
outrage by the well-educated press and electorate if the unemployment
rate was 20% and transportation and housing ate up 60-70% of the budget
of native-born, well educated Americans, yet this is exactly the
situation facing a plurality of Bay Area residents - the poors and the
immigrants. I guess it's only a crisis for those that are rich. If
you're poor and face such circumstances, given the media and elite
orientation, it's a statistic and at best regrettable. And the rich
wonder why resentment is on the increase...
-----
Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.
According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
------
Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.
According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
------
Oh the drama of "bus-gate": http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/
Thanks, A. Good to see M. Night making a comeback of sorts, with more social value than "The Happening". Yeah it seems the path to inequality starts from grade school, and maybe even in the womb, as lower income (often minorities) generally don't have access to comparable health, nutrition, and child care as affluent whites. This could set back their development, so that even if they were lucky enough to attend America's best schools, maybe they wouldn't be fully able to take advantage of the opportunity.
I am not sure if it is a generational issue either. After the Baby Boomers exit the labor force, and the younger folks take the helm of the big companies, I really hope for a sea change. Douchebags aside, I think that many Bay Area yuppies would prefer a more diverse workforce and society. CA is great because it's not a stuck up East Coast cocktail party where your alma mater and family name come first. It's boring when you only work with clones of yourself who think the same way (also it's bad for business). The Valley has been successful in recruiting and naturalizing so much foreign talent, but many of them were elites from their native lands (and they tend to self-segregate in the US too). I just don't see black and Latino native residents get recruited in sufficient numbers any time soon.
------
Part of the solutions that M. Night and other education scholars have recommended is longer school days, year round schooling, and early intervention programs like head start, universal Kindergarten, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to get poor/racial minorities with bad home environments and poor nutritional habits into a much healthier system. Of course, doing this takes a lot of money. However, school inequality is still a major issue so there are some resources that could be recaptured from rich white schools.
As you may remember from the George Packer/New Yorker article, even in the Bay Area, public schools such as Woodside and Paly have foundations that parents started to "adequately" fund their school - i.e. they have way more money than they need and marginal dollars there are not doing much good, while schools like East Paly are hurting pretty bad. And of course thanks to restrictive zoning regulations meaning no new housing ever (into which the poors/middle class might move), public schools in Woodside/Los Gatos/Atherton/Paly are only public in name only: effectively they are privatized for the rich white residents. But beyond that, it would take a massive infusion of resources into places like the LAUSD, New York Public Schools, etc. that voters haven't shown the will to spend.
I know you're fairly hopeful about the promise of the younger generation, but I'm more pessimistic. It's true that race will be less of an issue for our generation and some of the issues that the oldsters have with things like gay marriage will dissipate. However, I feel like our generation, while still well-intentioned, is even more clueless about the life and struggles of poor people than any previous generation. While J is right that the gap between the 1%ers and the rest has grown astronomically, I feel like the life experiences of the top 10% is becoming increasingly disconnected from the lives of the rest. Worldly, plugged in, well educated, financially comfortable kids on the Google buses have basically nothing at all in common with day laborers in the Mission. I don't mean that they actively seek to screw them but I think it's easy for many to not even people like that exist. The problems and life experiences of the bottom 90% have basically just don't show up on the radar of your average techie or higher.
And while the top 1% have arrogated for themselves increased power, the top 10% still can drive the political conversation in the media and online. If people don't see the problems of the rest of society or only are dimly aware of them in an abstract way, I'm not optimistic that much progress can be made.
I see where J is coming from on this - I think on matters of economic policy the 1% have the resources to really get whatever they want.
But
I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics
is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of
an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change.
That's how they broke up the robber barons (see Teddy Roosevelt), and
that's how the back was broken of European nobility.
What's happened this time is that many of the people
that might have been expected to join this populist coalition against
the rich and powerful are instead diverted by issues of "other" (i.e.
race). How else do you explain the fact that West Virginia, one of the
poorest states in the nation, voted overwhelmingly for Romney? Or
Kentucky? They're afraid that moochers (of course, moochers from out
groups; in group moochers are fine) and immigrants and gays are wrecking
America. These are precisely the people that Democrats ought to find
common cause with (and previously did, against the Robber Barons and
again during the Depression), yet our politics that are focused on race
and religion and culture have them voting against their economic
interests.
------
Thanks, A. It's ludicrous that there is any opposition to these
youth programs, as the research indisputably shows that the ROI is huge.
So the expenditures are actually cost saving measures in the long run.
There should be no conservative opposition, but of course there is.
Is it just a philosophical/political impasse (block ANY new gov't
programs, even helpful ones), or is it the elites lashing out because
they don't want poor, colored folks to succeed and compete on a more
level playing field with their privileged kids? Sure the rich would
rather have tax breaks now than more education spending, but as I said
these programs save $ in the long run and make a stronger society, which
will reduce the rich people's future tax burden and probably result in
more capital gains for them, as these kids grow up on a better
trajectory and become valuable consumers/workers.
The data suggests that Millennials are more tech savvy,
more socially aware, and more into volunteerism than previous
generations. As you said, they are worldly, and with the internet at
their fingertips, they are on average much more cognizant of global
social issues than their parents and grandparents at that age. So really
there is no excuse for them to turn their back on social problems, even
if they can't fully "relate" to the needy. But residential and
workplace segregation is a terrible problem, because if you don't see
diversity and the struggles of others each day, you are less likely to
do anything about them. I believe that most young adults (and most of us
on this email) would vote for policies and leaders who want to make our
society fairer. The problem is no one is putting such debates up for a
vote (probably because most of the political system is co-opted by the
elites as J said). I think the youth are in the right place morally, but
they just need a spark or a dynamic figure to lead them, like a modern
day "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "We hold these
truths to be self evident..." We don't have that unfortunately. All our
brightest young people are going into the private sector, where they
can't "do good" because they are beholden to shareholders, and fighting
for their lives against cutthroat competition. Only when they're super
rich and semi-retired like Gates will they hopefully give back. Look at
us; we have money and are well aware of the problems out there, but we
don't have the time or courage to advocate for the causes (many
self-imposed or social barriers stand in our way). We will vote the
"right way" if the occasion arises, and maybe even give some money, but
we aren't able to put in the hours (not to mention blood, sweat, and
tears) to lead the populist charge as you said. I admire the few folks
who do.
But maybe all is not lost and there are some leaders with potential. Here's a Fresh Air interview about Pope Francis, and of course the main theme of his papacy so far is social justice and critique of global wealth inequality (and the institutions that perpetuate it). Europe is a powder keg of discontent regarding gov't corruption, voiding the social contract, and widespread unemployment. I will give Obama credit too that he has raised the issues of race and inequality (maybe not by choice) more than any other president since LBJ. Maybe he hasn't moved the needle on the debate in America, but he isn't letting us sweep it under the rug. So we are seeing some top-down emphasis of the race and wealth issues, but unfortunately that hasn't manifested itself into new laws and reforms (the plutocrats can control lawmaking bodies a lot more than individual executives).
--------
As A pointed out, "But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. ", I find it interesting that at that time, communication between groups was limited by lack of technology. Now we have instant communication with anyone in the world. You would think that it would be easy to put all of the pieces together for the oppressed to rise up. But, these same lines of instant communication are also used to manipulate us in ways we'd never seen before, essentially keeping us divided, blaming one another for our lot in life instead of seeing the real picture.
-----------
http://www.insidepolitics.org/
http://gnovisjournal.org/2010/
Thanks, L. Yeah media fragmentation in the US can be a big problem. Families don't tune into the same 3 info sources around the radio or TV set anymore. So of course FNC says that everything MSNBC says are lies, and vice versa (and CNN just talks about the Kardashians) - adding to distrust, misinformation, and most harmful... polarization. Plus we are blitzed with too much info now on our multiple devices (especially entertainment/time-wasting content), which distracts us from thinking, collaborating, and rising up together.
Twitter and Facebook helped the Arab Spring gain momentum, but sadly it can't really do the same for us (even though we invented those services). Well, when commercial crap like Bieber and Coke are the most liked/followed entities on social media, you know we have a problem. It seems US social media is (deliberately or not) functioning to prevent us from mass political debate and assembly, whereas it has the opposite effect in repressive/dysfunctional foreign countries (which is why their state security services try to block/monitor it)?
Friday, July 19, 2013
Obama comments about race and the Zimmerman Martin case
Obama said it would be useful ‘‘to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of confrontation’’ that led to Martin’s death. He questioned whether a law that sends the message that someone who is armed ‘‘has the right to use those firearms even if there is a way for them to exit from a situation’’ really promotes peace and security. -boston.com
THERE YOU GO! THAT'S THE OBAMA WE KNOW HE CAN BE! Use the bully pulpit and tell the country what it needs to hear (and what it isn't getting from other leaders and the media). He doesn't have to be tough or shocking, because truth and decency are on his side (unlike the drones-PRISM issues). Now if only he could do this with Congress and the Pentagon.
http://www.theatlantic.com/
http://www.boston.com/news/
I was about to call out No-Drama Obama for cowardice for being the first minority president who seemed to be avoiding comment on the Zimmerman case (though he is conscientious, and probably wanted to let things simmer down a week after the verdict before commenting). He didn't event spend 24 hrs in Africa during his first term (and that was for the Cairo speech with a predominantly Arab audience), despite a massive outpouring of love (and need) from that continent. For how much Obama discussed his identity in his books, now he tends to duck race, unless he has to diffuse controversy over Rev. Wright or Prof. Gates. And in those situations, he shone - so why not talk about race more (within reason)? I think America wants it and needs it, and he is the right messenger for it. With so much political hostility and economic uncertainty, maybe race is the best medium for Obama to fulfill his promise to bring America together - and part of that involves letting go of bitterness, misinformation, and defensiveness, to start replacing pain with understanding. Only the most douchebag conservatives would cry "race baiting," which is ironic because I think they are some of the biggest bigots in politics and the most opposed to reconciliation.
Obama hasn't really done much that particularly benefits minorities during his time in office, apart from the Dream Act mostly meant for Latinos. Since blacks already vote overwhelmingly Democrat, could they be taken for granted, even by Obama? Martin is the biggest racial crisis of his presidency, so I was glad to hear his presidential and candid comments today. The goal was clear and necessary: provide context and explain to mainstream America why the black community is so upset over the case (they're not just hotheaded rioters, but this is the latest preventable tragedy in a long sad history of highly targeted prejudice). Show them what it's like to be a young black man, feared and under suspicion (and maybe harassed/attacked) even though you're doing nothing wrong. Life is a lot harder and crappier when many signs around you are telling you that you are inferior, scary, and even evil. Though it's sad that we need Obama and the gravitas of his person/office to communicate this to America. This should not be breaking news, unless you have your head in the sand. But that is the first step towards reconciliation and harmony, empathy/acknowledgement for others, even if it's hard to do - freaking obvious but sadly lacking in much of society. We can't keep using our racist past as a crutch/excuse/cop-out, but we can't sweep it under the rug either. So we can't worsen matters, and increase the risk of another ugly incident to set us back, with stupid policies and false beliefs.
On Real Time, Maher mentioned some stats that in the history of SYG in all the states that have it, a white defendant is >300% more likely to be found not guilty for shooting a black person vs. a white person (I know the context of each case could be different). A Tampa study of 200 SYG trials in Florida found that the defense worked 73% of the time when the victim was black. His guest said that 70% of the US prisons and 90% of NYC stop-and-frisk targets are non-white, yet the overall US population is 72% white. So that touches on the profiling and equal justice for all issues.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/
---
http://www.commonwealthclub.
Jonathan Alter: The Obama Presidency
Bloomberg View columnist and author Jonathan Alter uses his unmatched access and deep knowledge of politics and history to produce an unparalleled account of America at the crossroads. Peering behind the curtain at the White House and the presidential campaigns with exclusive reporting and rare historical insight, Alter reveals the twists, turns and high-stake political decisions of the Obama presidency. Alter also examines Obama's adversaries, providing fresh details about the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and the "online haters" who suffer from what Alter calls "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Alter goes inside what he calls the GOP "clown car" primaries as well as Obama's disastrous preparation for the first debate. The program also meets Obama's analytics geeks working out of "The Cave," and the man who secretly videotaped Mitt Romney's infamous comments on the "47 percent." The conversation is moderated by Joe Tuman, professor of legal and political communications at San Francisco State University, and political analyst for CBS 5 Television.
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 -- 8:00pm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)