A Hollywood Solution to Crime (or, “I Have a Dream”)

Being a big science fiction buff as well as a Generation Xer, one of my favorite movies of all time is a cult-classic among my kind…director John Carpenter’s 1981 “Escape From New York.”
For the culturally-deprived among you, this classic flick is set in the then-future of 1997, a time when the crime rate in the US had reached 400%, and drastic measures were called for to address the ballooning level of nationwide lawlessness. In the dark world in which the movie takes place, the proposed solution to the runaway crime rate was to transform the island of Manhattan into an inescapable prison, surrounded by 20-foot walls, mined bridges, and guard towers and speed boats encircling the island’s parameter, manned by crack paramilitary troops with orders to shoot-to-kill. The country’s worst criminal elements were sent to the Manhattan Island Facility with the understanding that once they went in, they didn’t come out…a lifetime banishment. Inside, the criminals were allowed to create the world they wanted…a world where the only law was survivor of the fittest.
To me, this movie provided what I have always thought to be an idea solution to the tide of crime and lawless which makes many cities great places to visit, but not live. Why not give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak. Give the criminals what they want; a society without the laws and rules order they so easily chose to disregard anyway. Why not put them in a place where they are allowed to roam free, without rules, without authority of any kind, save that which they themselves craft. Since they chose to prey on anyone they deem prey-worthy and/or easy-pickings, let’s put the worst of them in a place where they take the same chances that many of us take whenever we are simply trying to live our lives day-by-day, a place where they themselves can be either predator or prey among their own kind. In short, let’s outsource the day-to-day maintenance and operation of our prisons to those who know the system the best, the prisoners themselves.
Alcatraz Island provides a great example for this novel approach to crime and punishment. Our government could reopen the former prison, but under an operational scheme radically different from the way it operated under in its heyday. Here’s how the new regime would operate. Provide the facility with electric power, heat, running water and other related necessary functions. However, there should be no guards, no warden, no maintenance crews, no administrative personnel…no direct responsibilities of any kind. Then, give the prisoners free rein of the entire island. The day-to-day functions of the facilities are theirs to maintain. On the first of every month, a helicopter would drop maintenance supplies, food, toiletries, and other essentials to be doled out by whatever would come to pass as authority among the prisoners.
Under this new system, the prisoners would be allowed to create and maintain the society that they want, complete with a prison-based social pecking order, a chance to participate in whatever passes for government on the island, the freedom of association, the chance to engage in same-sex marriage, and the chance to pray to whatever deity they will no doubt wish to express their regret for committing one crime too many to. There would be no direct government violations of the prisoners’ civil liberties. And our society would be provided with the opportunity to abolish the death penalty—a system that clearly has no deterrent value—for this new system, which clearly would deter many would-be bad boys by virtue of the power of imagination alone. The prohibitive effect would be analogous to two kids preparing to fight on a school playground, knowing that an adult is probably within earshot to break up any potential rumble; criminals knowing that they could end up in facility where they would be allowed to fight and survive under what could be considered gladiatorial conditions would be more reluctant to engage behavior which may find them in said situation in the first place. The only law would be survival of the fittest.
There would be many potential advantages to doing this. First, the fear of being sentenced to spend what would surely be an abbreviated life to this facility would eliminate the pride that most criminals have in going to prison. The power and influence of the “no snitching” code among criminals would be rendered moot, considering there would be no traditional authority on the island to inform criminal activity to, and fewer who would care if anyone did. And hinting on an aforementioned notion, the horror stories about life on The Rock would border on legend, scaring any lesser criminal with the slightest hope of rehabilitation feces-less at the prospect of being sent to such a place. Any real expense would be limited to simply keeping the prisoners within the facility. In the case of Alcatraz, expense would be manifested in the form of boats encircling the island, manned with sharpshooters whose orders are to prove that the human body becomes less buoyant when it’s riddled with holes during a water escape attempt.
This could be a model for every major incarceration facility in the country, with the only real expense limited to ensuring that each criminal society within stays there.
Naturally the logistics of such a scheme are open to being tweaked based on feasibility. Maybe the prisoners could be made to wear tamperproof collars of bracelets, which would keep track of their location, as well as their life signs. Maybe sensor nets of could be employed to limit the possibility of escape. But ideally, walls would be reinforced through by way of their physical height and thickness, and each facility itself would be isolated miles from the nearest major population center. And thanks to the geography of America, there are many possible locations to isolate such facilities, such as barrier islands, deep forest, and other distant locales (I’m thinking along the lines of interior Alaska).
Sure, it’s not a perfect solution to the problem of the diehard criminal elements walking among us. And this idea probably has no chance of becoming reality, but I can dream, can’t I?

Read More

Ferguson, Missouri – Enough is Enough!

Last night, for the sixth straight night, the predominantly black city of Ferguson, Missouri exploded in violence. These nightly confrontations between the police and protesters are the result of community-fueled rage at the police shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old unarmed African-American man, Michael Brown. The last 2 nights of violent confrontations came after a lull in the civil disruptions when elements of the Missouri State Police had taken responsibility for crowd control and response to previous protests. The decision to hand over law-enforcement duties related to the protests to the state police was evidently due in part to the barrage of public condemnation (from those on both the political left and right (See: "Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Criticize Ferguson Police" for example) from all across the country) of the Ferguson Police Department’s forceful to protests on the first few nights.

(Both protesters and rioters confront police in Ferguson, Missouri last night amid clouds of teargas)

In most of the cases, the protests started out as peaceful, with those participating adopting a stance with their hands in the air and shouting, “Hands up…don’t shoot!” But as with almost any level of mass protests in America, a small element among the protestors opted to take advantage of the relatively disruptive atmosphere to create trouble. That’s when the looting, gunshots, and flying rocks began to replace the responsible protesting of the shooting. Both community leaders and Brown’s parents have made public appeals for peaceful protesting of the shooting, and an end to the violent confrontations that have taken place in the area.
We all familiar with the issues—race, social stereotyping, profiling, high crime, poverty, individual bad choices, the lack of personal responsibility as well as empathy for the community one works in, and unprofessional policing. These are issues are nothing as they relate to questionable police actions; I have written about them here in other high-profile cases (see: “Here Comes The Fuzz!,” “Another Police Beating Caught On Tape (…or, “Your Tax Dollars At Work.”),” and “The Law, Lies, and Videotapes.”). Additionally, there is the oft-overlooked phenomenon of what I call the “Zimmerman-effect.”
This is the psycho-social mindset among suburban and rural whites—particularly but not exclusively male—to demonstrate their Constitutional right to "bare" (read: carry) and in some cases, use guns in the public based on the perception of a non-existential threat of violence that might occur.  In instances when guns are used by these individuals to neutralize a perceived threat, the "threat" is often found to be either minimal and/or non-existent in retrospect (e.g., The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting, The Florida theater shooting, the Jordan Davis/"Loud-Radio" shooting, etc.).

Some of those who possess this mindset tend to be members of local law-enforcement departments--no doubt there are some on the 54-man Ferguson police force.  The irrational aspect of this psycho-social thinking is that in many of the moderately- and high-crime communities where these particular police officers patrol, many residents--including those who qualify legally to carry firearms (myself included)--don't carry them.  But those who live in areas where crime is relatively low or occurs at negligible-levels seem to be obsessed with carrying firearms, ostensibly as an exercise of their "Constitutional rights."
But enough is enough!
It’s time for the unruly among the protesters to properly honor the memory of Michael Brown by protesting his questionable and tragic death in substantive and meaningful manner—one that doesn’t tarnish the message of a unified community expressing discontent with its public servants.
It’s time for the city of Ferguson to make aggressive moves to bring in some “new blood” in the form of officers who reflect the demographics of the community. I’m sure if the city wanted to, they could advertise across the country, making efforts to target areas and/or groups, colleges, or organizations whose members have a passion for public service.
It’s time for police agencies across the country to stop taking in every gun-ho, overly testosteroned male seeking an outlet for his perceived manhood to set the bars higher for their standards. Training should include mandated sociological—and maybe psychological—college-level courses in order to broaden their perceptions of the communities they chose to work in (I would go so far as to require at least an associate’s degree in these and related fields).

It’s time for African-Americans to take charge of our communities and eliminate counter-productive activities and mindsets, such as the infamous (and often celebrated) “thug mentality” and the “don’t snitch” attitudes that breed both apathy and high crime. It’s time for individuals to stop making idiotic criminal decisions that feed and fuel negative, often race-related stereotypes that lead to shootings like those that occurred in Ferguson last Saturday afternoon.

It’s time for individuals to stop making idiotic criminal decisions that feed and fuel negative, often race-related stereotypes that lead to shootings like those that occurred in Ferguson last Saturday afternoon. It’s time for parents who make the time to create a child to take the time to raise them properly, with an appreciation for education, and respect for authority.
And it’s time for communities, groups, and individual Americans to take responsibility for our own actions—right or wrong. That’s what responsible people do.

Read More

The Zimmerman Verdict And Our Dueling Perspectives

Congratulations Black America…you’ve just gotten your very own “O.J.” moment! And why should we be shocked? George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin yesterday in a Florida courtroom resonated with many white suburbanites and gated-community types. Such individuals—rightfully or not—harbor fears of creeping “thuggery” from the inner-city areas that they see as chronically infected with socioeconomic pathologies and dysfunctions that they would rather not see in their own well-manicured backyards.
As expected, early opinions about the verdict have come along racial-ethnic lines. Most of those who supported Zimmerman are white, while the majority of those feeling sympathetic toward the death of Martin are black. The verdict speaks to two ongoing issues in our culture: race and guns.
The verdict reflects the fact that America has never truly came to any substantive resolution with regard to its racial past. We see this in the different perspectives that whites and blacks have on many issues, not just the outlook on the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. Blacks were surprised by the verdict; it’s not a stretch to think that whites were not. Black parents did not see a stranger in Trayvon Martin, they saw their own potential sons being gunned down. This is why riots broke out in the wake of the 1992 verdict in the videotaped beating of Rodney King in California. The acquittal of four white policemen—caught red-handed on tape—beating an unarmed and apparently unthreatening black male resonated with many with the black community; they saw themselves being beaten. This ability that identify and sympathize with the Trayvon Martins and Rodney Kings among black Americans is due to the reality that more than a few African-Americans have either experienced or personally know of someone who have had similar experiences with regard to race. Each of these (relatively) recent high-profile racially-charged incidents were, in turn, based on the century’s long patterns of all-white juries acquitting whites—authority or laymen—of crimes against blacks. This is what President Obama meant with his remark, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” What’s sad is the fact that this has to be explained to whites in this country; the president’s remarks were more in line with the resonance such incidents have in the collective black memory and mindset than the political response that many whites felt the president’s remark were.

The assumption by whites that the president’s remarks to the Trayvon Martin shooting was a political statement rather than a statement of personal interest reveals that America has two histories—one white and one black. This duality of perception comes to bear anything such racially-charged incidents arise in the news. During these times, the effects of not coming to terms with the past usually finds blacks and whites talking at and not to one another. The white conservative stance tends to be one based absolution, which minimizes the reality of racial and ethnic privilege, and downplays the propensity for insensitivity to our historical racial past (and present). The white liberal stance is usually an attempt to express sympathy on a weak understanding of the black experience. Am I saying that all whites cannot be sympathetic or understanding of what it’s like to be black in the context of America’s racial history? Of course not; I’m sure there are many. What I speak of are valid generalities that our disparate perspectives support. We see this whenever blacks demand some level of recompense for racial slights that align with historical patterns, such as lawsuits or reparations. Whites tend to see such demands are a handout. These same whites, whom like most Americans of any ethnic, cultural or economic persuasion, have a poor sense (and interest) in history that keeps them seeing any validity in black claims that their actions might fit a pattern of racial insensitivity. And why not? The past is the past…unless it exalts one’s place of self-importance. Americans are quite fond of remembering Paul Revere’s midnight ride, the rag-tag American military over the British superpower in the Revolution, and the triumph of Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders of the Spanish Army. But our history of formerly all-black towns and counties purged or sacked (Tulsa in 1921, Rosewood in 1923) by white mobs, mass lynchings, and race-based laws are not allowed to be the bad taken with the good in American history. Insomuch as the black experience, many whites have then somewhat valid (if not ethnocentric) point that blacks have not taken advantage of the socioeconomic and political environment of self-determination that relative freedom in America affords. Large cities with large numbers of African-Americans are plagued with issues across the socioeconomic scale, from high percentages of public school dropout rates, high crime rates, high unemployment, to high incidents of single-parenthood, incarceration rates, etc. In many instances, whether or not such conditions are exacerbated by legislative policy, the majority of these pathologies can alleviated by personal responsibility. But when blacks view issues of race tied incidents such as the Trayvon Martin shooting and George Zimmerman’s acquittal, they tend to see these socioeconomic pathologies as either perpetuated by the forces of racism and bias, or by absolute design of "The Man." Blacks see that the police drug-tested Trayvon after the incident, and not George Zimmerman. Blacks wonder why whites who live in relatively safe—very much so in comparison to many areas that blacks reside—gated communities feel the need to carry guns under a “stand your ground” law? Whites point to the Second Amendment and being “prudent” as a justification to carry arms against would-be “criminals” such as Trayvon Martin and the underneath-the-surface fear of rioting in the wake of the verdict. Blacks see whites as being paranoid in carrying guns when many of them don’t in areas with actual (as opposed to perceived) threats to life and property.  Blacks see in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman verdict, more of the same old institutional biases and advantages of racial privilege from America's legacy of unresolved racial attitudes.  And Whites ask themselves, "Why can't they pull themselves up like everybody else does?"
These different perspectives speak to the American infatuation with guns. Many of us are too quick to see guns as the solution to crime, fear, the need for personal protection under all circumstances, and as an expression of a “God-given right.” Many law-abiding black Americans are more fatalistic than whites in terms accepting one’s fate, and dealing with reality. This is one of the ways by which many are able to live in virtual war-zones, not to say that they do not have fears about death, dying, and being victimized by crimes. It’s just reality to black Americans. Many law-abiding white Americans tend to adopt the mantra of preparation and anticipation. We see this in not only the various variation of “stand your ground” laws, but the increasing legislation around the country enabling the carrying of guns in school, on college campuses, in churches, and even in bars. What makes one wake up in the morning and decide to carry a gun in much the same way as one would presume to carry a pocketbook? It’s surely not the same thing that makes one get up in the morning knowing they are taking their chances in a high-crime, high poverty area.
Gun sales soared when President Obama was elected back in 2008, and again after his re-election last year, driven mostly by a thinking fear that our precious gun might be "taken away by the government."  Gun sales continue to soar, even as we are seeing a train of high-profile mass shootings. Owning a gun for “protection” is both pathology and a delusion. What such a justification ignores is that for many citizens (law abiding or otherwise), the firing lethal weapons is legitimate entertainment. Our love of shoot-‘em-up movies, rabid defense of the Second Amendment, violent video games, and fear of urban crime testifies to an immersion in a culture of gun fascination. It’s no wonder that individuals on the edge are so quick to take up arms and shoot up malls, schools, and even churches. Zimmerman represents this pathological fetish with weapons that we attempt to write off as a means of “self-defense.”
Why? Because most neighborhood watch volunteers don’t carry weapons—even those who bravely volunteer in areas of higher crime and threat levels than Zimmerman’s neighborhood (See:  Zimmerman's 911 Transcripts). For whatever reasons, Americans don’t seem ready to let go of either negative attitudes or its pathological reliance on guns for a feeling of emotional and personal security. And until such a thing happens, there will continue to be Trayvon Martins, George Zimmermans, and the two Americas divided by perceptions they represent.

Read More

Time To Rethink The Death Penalty

Earlier this week as I watched various newscasts, I took note of two related stories—both about the subject of the death penalty—which forced me to write a long overdue perspective on the subject.
In the first story, syndicated morning radio host Tom Joyner was at the center of an extraordinary story. Two of Joyner’s distant relatives were posthumously exonerated after having been tried, convicted, and executed by the state of South Carolina in 1915 for killing a Confederate Civil War veteran. Almost immediately, the case was riddled with doubt, issues of race, and Southern culture taken to the extreme. It was only after being interviewed for a PBS special on the lives of African-Americans that Joyner was even made aware that he had two great uncles who occupied that sad chapter of American history. After the details surrounding the case of Meeks and Thomas Griffin came to life, Joyner took it upon himself to dig up the proof of the Griffin brothers’ innocence, which led to their exoneration by the state.


Syndicated radio personality Tom Joyner's recent ancestors are exonerated by South Carolina officials following an investigation into the circumstances surrounding their wrongful execution decades ago.

In the second news story on CNN’s Headline News, it was revealed that Texas Governor Rick Perry (Rep.) has come under scrutiny for his actions regarding the 2004 execution of a man charged with setting a fire in 1991which killed his 3 daughters. Apparently, Perry fixed the outcome of scheduled meeting between the Texas Forensics Science Commission and an independent investigator looking into details of that case, days before it was to hear evidence regarding the findings of that investigation. The investigator’s conclusions, made up of three separate reports, had shed much in the way of serious doubt on whether the deadly fire which Todd Willingham was ultimately executed for was actually caused by arson. One of these reports was presented to Perry days before Willingham’s execution. For his part, Perry promptly ignored the casting of doubt the report brought on the case and denied a stay of execution for Willingham. Perry, in his attempts to “carry out the will of the people of the state of Texas,” chose to disregard the legal safeguards of reasonable doubt and due process, which are inherently intended to limit the possibility that the government would engage in the most extreme violation of the most basic of rights…the right to life. With regard to the case, Perry is guilty of self-serving politics at the very least; at the very most, he’s incompetence incarnate.

CNN Headline News report from 10/14/09. Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) engages in ethically-questionable, possibly politically-motivated actions in order to ensure a questionable execution from earlier this year.

What both of these cases illustrate is that mistakes have and do occur with such an apparatus of finality as the death penalty. Some individuals who support the death penalty, particularly governors of death penalty states and prosecutors who employ its use, would have us believe that the complex legal mechanisms which lead to it being imposed, are infallible…or at the very least has an infinitesimal chance of resulting in a catastrophic mistake like an erroneous execution. And while there have been those who have been successfully proven innocent of accused crimes and exonerated while sitting on the death rows of many states, those individuals were not proven innocent by [the absence of] legal safeguards built into the legal system. In most cases, freed convicts are only spared death by the goodwill of lawyers, private investigators, reporters, or other private citizens who take it upon themselves to look into the facts of such questionable cases.
But the reality is that even entertaining the notion that everyone who has ever been tried, convicted, and executed for a crime in America was guilty is an act in defiance of basic reason, common sense, and not to mention, the law of averages. We’ve all heard the arguments against the death penalty. Yes, it’s applied with racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias. Yes, it’s an outdated as well as barbaric means of dealing with crime. No, it’s not a deterrent to crime. Yes, it’s applied inconsistently. Yes, it’s used often as a political tool. No, it’s not philosophically or ethically moral to execute the mentally-impaired. Yes, it’s hypocritical to consider one “pro-life,” and also pro-death penalty (which many of its supporters often do); I’ll leave it up to you to research the inssues surrounding the death penalty (contact the Death Penalty Information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/).
All life is sacred, and no one, neither individuals nor the state, has the right to give or take life. Providence along brought each of us here, so only Providence alone should be what removes us from this mortal coil. And contrary to popular opinion, no one (consciously or otherwise) “forfeits” their life based on their actions. We all are human, we all make mistakes, and the overwhelmingly majority of us commits a sin, some worse than others. Taking human life to illustrate that taking human life is wrong is not a sign that an enlightened society which values life, but an indication that in some respects, we fail to advance ourselves and our sense of ethics and morality beyond what we embraced when we were far less civilized.

Read More

"Teasing...Freedom of Expression or Crime?"

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” ― Salman Rushdie 

As a blogger and chronicler of relevant social and political issues, perhaps no greater bane to my endeavor exists than censorship. Can’t stand it. Won’t tolerate it.
Since being online, I was forced to censor only a single response to my postings (based on the fact the link to the commenter’s own blog was deemed too graphic for those wishing to inquire about his own personal views on the issue of gay marriage). Other than that, I would vigorously defend anyone’s right to speak their mind, or say what they feel…no matter how distasteful, painful (to some), or unjustified it might be.
On that point, a rather disturbing story came across my desk from earlier this week regarding one of those incidents of distasteful expression. What I found disturbing was not the inherently cruel the message being conveyed by expresser, but the hundreds of comments and responses the man’s actions had incurred from the public supporting actions taken against what this individual had done…or rather expressed by way of his actions.
This past Tuesday, an Ohio judge sentenced 43-year-old William Bailey to a month in jail. His offense? Bailey was convicted of both a first-degree misdemeanor charge of aggravated menacing, a subsequent charge of disorderly conduct, and ordered to pay $400 in court costs and fines stemming from his “teasing and taunting a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy.” As with many other instances of stand-out cruelty, a video was taken of Bailey’s actions and posted online…where it went viral in a few short days.
This video and its popularity was part of the basis of the disabled child’s family filing a complaint with the city attorney’s office seeking legal actions against Bailey.

To put the entire incident in context, it becomes necessary to understand the details of what happened leading up to this. According to published reports:

The taunting occurred on Sept. 26, when Tricia Knight and her mother-in-law were waiting for her children's bus to return from school. Knight's three children, including 10-year-old Hope, attend Walker Elementary with Bailey's 9-year-old son, Joseph.

What happened next was caught on an iPod camera by Knight's mother-in-law, Marie Prince.

William Bailey "was dragging his leg and patting his arm across his chest to pick his son Joseph up," said Knight. "I asked him to please stop doing this. 'My daughter can see you.' He then told his son to walk like the R-word."

The next day Knight posted the video on her Facebook page while Prince uploaded the video they called "Bus Stop Ignorance" to YouTube. Within days, the video went viral. The Knight family has lived next door to the Baileys for the past two years, and the incident at the bus stop, according to Knight, is the culmination of rising tensions and intimidation against her kids" ("Ohio Man Sentenced to One Month After Teasing Disabled Girl").

Yes, Bailey’s actions could easily be interpreted by most as the questionable actions of an ***hole. But being compared to an otherwise nasty body part has not been a crime in this country for a long time. As a by-product of our First Amendment right of Free Speech, people should have every the right to express themselves in any way they so desire…as long as it doesn’t create a clear and immediate danger to public safety or social order (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater, or attempting to verbally incite a riot). With all due respect to the Knight family, to curtail the expression of Bailey’s thoughts and ideas is to potentially curtail their own.
The authorities in Ohio overstepped their legal bounds by caving into social pressure in charging Bailey with a crime for expressing his otherwise gutter level of thinking. But perhaps issuing a restraining order , community service, or some other colorful form of penalty would have been a more appropriate course of action for Bailey expressing his stupidity. Simply put, it sets a very bad precedent to send someone to jail for this showing their ignorance in a relatively harmless (note, I said “relatively harmless;” please put down your rocks). If we sentenced everyone to jail who offended us, we would literally have to build add-ons to the coastal borders of our country to house them.
Let’s face it…bullying is an occurrence that happens every day of the week, and rarely does it result in criminal persecution, unless it results in actual (as opposed to perceived) criminal acts.
As an African-American, being called the “N-word” by some intellectual and cultural Neanderthal doesn’t hurt me in the slightest (trust me, I’ve been called worse). And I wouldn’t condone anyone who dares to do it to be sent to jail as a consequence. As thoughtless and heartless as people can be sometimes, the unfettered freedom and exchange of ideas—both pleasant and odious—is what made this country a world leader. And we cannot and should not allow our sensitivities to weaken our right to say (or express) what is on our mind, in our hearts, or how we feel.
Individuals do not have a right to employ the heckler’s veto against any level of speech. However, we do have the right to build up out tolerance to ignorance and questionable expression for the greater good of exchanging ideas.
Any time we put limitations on our right to express ourselves—regardless of content of the message—we render meaningless every life that was sacrificed for the same right. How we to know what is right, and what is wrong if we are prevented from ever being allowed to express it?
In understanding and respecting the rights of others to express themselves, we can take a lesson from the late child author Dr. Seuss:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

Read More

Too Many Rights Make Wrong

Let’s face it…sometimes, people can be allowed too much freedom. The opportunity to engage in certain behaviors or make certain decisions, just because the law allows us to, does not necessarily mean that that we should do certain things. Freedom of expression should not, and does not mean “anything goes.” Take for example the law in San Francisco. Up until this week, the law in the Golden Gate city allowed public nudity, particularly within the confines of the Castro district, the gay capital of America. But a 6 to 5 ruling by the city’s Board of Supervisors Tuesday ended the practice within the city limits, with the exception of certain street fairs and events. The new city ordinance effectively bans anyone "over the age of 5 from exposing his or her genitals, perineum or anal region" in most public locations. The ban was spurred as a result of the growing number of complaints by citizens of increasing numbers of naked men walking around and/or gathering in public, particularly around the Castro district.

A nude backpacker walks the street of San Francisco last year. Such an act is now illegal. 

Nudists and other opponents of the new ban argue that it infringes on their “rights.” A federal lawsuit has already been filed arguing the proposal infringes on free “speech” and “expression” rights. However, the Board’s actions interjected a bit of sanity and prudence into an otherwise contentious issue in the city. However, the Board’s actions interjected a bit of sanity and prudence into an otherwise contentious issue in the city. The issue is a metaphor for other’s who defend their otherwise questionable practices as a “right.” No one has a total “right” to do as they wish, even if it is legal (or need I remind you that slavery in this country was legal at one time; it didn’t make it right) for the greater good. Some make the argument exposing the human body, even in public is an expression of “body love.” But how selfish is it tout one’s “right” to expose their genitals—men included—in public view of young children? How can anyone with a level cognitive reasoning justify that public nudity should be a “protected right,” when men exposing themselves to women and children is a crime in every municipality in the country?

We now live in a country where every individual whim, no matter how ridiculous, challenges the law as a protected “right.” The National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile advocacy organization of men with a predilection for sexual relations with underage males says their “rights” are “violated. Homosexuals now claim their desires to be married to others of the same sex as a legal ”right” (as opposed to a recognition). Our public schools are teeming with disruptive students with questionable mental and emotional diagnoses (e.g., Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorders, etc.) whose parents say they have a “right” to bring their particular brands of disruptive hells to our classrooms, and interfere with the learning process of other students.  People who live in relatively crime-free areas have the “right” to own insane arsenals of weapons despite no existential threats to their lives or liberties.
We Americans love our “rights,” but are not willing to take note of their results:

-The nation’s divorce rate is higher than any other industrialized nations. 

-We have the highest rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity—adult and childhood—than any other industrialized nation. 

-We have the highest rates of childhood poverty of any Western nation. 

-We can also claim the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, murder, and incarceration rates of any advanced nation in the world.

We in America are so obsessed with trying to avoid individual discontent that we find ourselves actually being held hostage by our “rights” to freedoms. Our problem as a nation is that we all want to claim special rights, but not recognize that we have responsibilities as well. And the biggest responsibility we have is to protect not our rights, but common sense.
Everyone cannot be allowed to do what they want.  In order to serve the greater good, some individual rights have to be not only curtailed, but denied. As individuals and representatives of various interests groups, we need to break the delusion that most of us live under that we all have a "right" to do what we want.
We don't allow children to vote. We do not legally recognize the right to drink and drive.  Marijuana is still illegal in most states as well as the federal government.   Let's face it...some of us are not going to be allowed to do what we want.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we are willing to take our emotions and beliefs out of the driver's seat of our lives and allow reason to pilot our thinking.

Read More

The Colorado Theater Shooter, The Death Penalty, And Real Punishment

Yesterday in a packed Colorado courtroom, family and friends of victims—as well as surviving victims—of the Aurora theater shooting listened and then applauded as prosecutors announced that they would be seeking the death penalty against the alleged perpetrator of that horrific crime, 25-year-old James Holmes. A fully-bearded Holmes sat and reacted with almost contemptuous casualness as the decision was read. Holmes’ rugged appearance in court was a long way from the orange and red dyed Joker-inspired-hair he sported the night he pushed into the nearly-packed movie theater in Aurora last July. Donned in a get-up reminiscent of the fictional Batman villain, he barged into a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises” and began opening fire on the crowd watching the movie with an assortment of weapons, killing 12 and wounding at least 58 people.

Accused Aurora, Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, shortly after his first courtroom appearance last year and more recently.

In past court appearances, Holmes has appeared to be what can only be described as “detached” in his concern for both the proceedings and his apparent actions.
In an action that contradicted Holmes’ cavalier attitude toward his actions, his lawyers last week indicated that Holmes was willing to “plead guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison in order to avoid death row.” His offer was summarily rejected by prosecutors.

In a perfect (in not imaginative) world, executing Holmes would bring both closure to the families of his victims, as their departed loved-ones back from The Great Beyond. But as it stands, putting perpetrators like Holmes to death does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of violence as well as demonstrate how inconsistent we can be by way of our collective behaviors. We have no problem killing to demonstrate that killing is wrong, but we cannot spank/hit our unruly (and oftentimes deserving) children to demonstrate to them that hitting/disruptive behavior is wrong. Are we “civilized” or aren't we? A couple of years ago, I wrote posted a piece calling for a different way of punishing repeat violent offenders. The punishment was based on the premise of the old John Carpenter 1981 sci-fi flick (one of my personal guilty pleasures), “Escape From New York” (See: "A Hollywood Approach to Crime And Punishment"). The thesis of that particular piece was that the death penalty was neither a true deterrent to such offenses, nor has it even invoked a sense of fear or even concern in the minds of those charged with committing such heinous crimes—especially the way it is administered inconsistently and disproportionately. And for those who invoke the “justification” for capital punishment that “taxpayers shouldn't have pay to support such criminals,” these individuals ignore the fact that it actually costs taxpayers more money to execute those charged with capital crimes.
My suggestion was that a true level of punishment for unrepentant, repeat, and incorrigible criminals should illicit fear. In that previous posting, I suggested that criminals be allowed to live in a society of their rules, where only the strongest survive, and where there is no rule of law and enforcement for the laws they hold such concept for. Due process would still apply, but such criminals would truly get to see and live the consequences of their own thinking and actions.
My point is that punishments should hurt, and they should instill fear of consequences as well as that of punishment itself. A true system of punishment would create an environment of such apprehension of consequences that those like James Holmes who knowingly commit crimes of such magnitude against others would rather die—or simply not engage in such behavior—than experience the consequences. Death is seen as a punishment by some, but wishing for death would be a better lesson.

See also:  "Time To Rethink The Death Penalty"

Read More

How To Fake A Political Issue (And Act "Outraged")...

One of the things that makes me so annoyed with both the political left and right in this country is how they so regularly and transparently try to manipulate our perceptions by either manufacturing outrage over non-issues, or exhibit thin-skinned sensitivity to imagined slights. In the past couple of weeks, issues near-and-dear to both conservatives and liberals—and their political and/or ideologically-based “reactions” to them—illustrate my point.
Last Tuesday the Associated Press (AP), the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, issued a directive amongst all of its journalists that they no longer use the terms “illegal-” or “undocumented-immigrant” when writing a story about the current discourse related to immigration debate. The AP joins many of the major news-related programs on the major networks (ABC, CBS, CNN), as well as many of the nation’s top college newspapers from using those terms, which many defend as “avoiding negative labels.” To this effect, other “non-negative” terms have been likewise designated to avoid labeling other groups and/or individuals; the AP no longer uses the term “schizophrenic” to describe someone with the affliction. They instead now use the term “diagnosed with schizophrenia" ("Associated Press Drops 'Illegal Immigrant' From Stylebook").
Such an uncalled-for move is what fuels the antagonism the political right has in this country toward the idea of political correctness. Now I’m not one to embrace the notion of a vast liberal news media, but such a weak move on the issue of immigration does make it hard to persuade even moderate Republicans that there isn’t some plan afoot to define the political argument of immigration. To be logical about the issue, most of these “undocumented immigrants” (or fill-in-the-blank with your own euphemism since the AP hasn’t provided us with an acceptable term to use to describe these individuals) are illegal; they are in the country illegally, they don’t have legal papers proving they are here legally, and they did immigrate here…”negative labeling” notwithstanding. Trying to avoid hurting someone’s feelings with recognition of one’s status is just overkill on the PC bandwagon. That’s like saying we’re going to no longer call someone convicted of a crime—especially repeat offenders—“criminals.” We’re instead going to refer to them as “those having experienced freedom impairment by virtue of negative choices.” Labels, as long as they aren’t a lame and transparent attempt to obscure the language of a particular political and/or social issue, are as necessary to communication as words themselves. The Left often gets so bogged down in maintaining the notion of political correctness that doing so distorts reality.  Calling an automobile anything else (but a car) doesn’t change what it is or what its function is. People who come to this country without going through the proper and established procedures are illegal immigrants. Furthermore, I have witnessed firsthand the impact their presence has on the employment prospects of Americans who have jobs—unskilled though they are—if not for their being in the country illegally. 
Additionally, we cannot ignore that with the ongoing and nearly unchecked drug-related violence on America's doorstep in Mexico, the issues crime, drug smuggling, and border security are also in the shadow of the conversation.  But these peripheral issues--related to security--on the whole are being ignored as both Democrats and Republicans try gain a foothold within the Latino voting bloc.

And no, I am not slamming foreign-born illegal immigrants. I actually have a great deal of respect for them (especially after having grown up working side-by-side with them in the fruit and vegetable fields in Michigan). Most unskilled immigrants have a work ethic that most Americans should have. But their propensity to work physically-labor-intensive jobs for only a portion of the amount that native-born Americans (not to be confused with Native-Americans) could work creates an incentive for employers not to consider American workers (at the risk of sounding anecdotal, I have witnessed this firsthand more times than I care to relate).

But the political Left aren’t alone in manufacturing discontent for political theater. Earlier this week, entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z made a controversial trip to the island of Cuba, one of the few remaining communist countries in the world. For the last half century, Cuba has been has been-almost unilaterally—on the U.S.’s crap-list based on an outdated policy of isolation. This isolation encompasses a total economic, commercial, and financial embargo by the U.S. on the Caribbean island nation. That means no trading, no vacationing by American citizens, no diplomatic relations (or recognition), and no business with any Cuban entity by American companies and their subsidiaries “so long as the Cuban government continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights.’” This policy of U.S. isolation of Cuba was enacted after the government, headed by then revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, nationalized properties of American citizens and corporations who had holdings or were doing business on the island nation prior to Castro’s seizure of power. However, this policy of continually to isolate the communist country when 99% of other nations do not is a stubborn holdover of U.S. government policy based on the now non-existent Cold War. This perception was, in turn, based on the now irrelevant reality that Cuba was an ally of America’s Cold War enemy, the non-existent Soviet Union. America’s foreign policy toward Cuba has been rejected by the rest of the world. This is demonstrated every year when the vote on the U.S. embargo comes up in the UN General Assembly. With the exception of Israel and maybe 1 or 2 other countries symbolically, the UN votes to rejects our nation’s policy. We are alone. And when officials on our government are called to justify this outdated adherence to an outdated tradition of isolation, they respond with the ambiguous call for “human rights reforms.” But Cuba is no longer an ally of the Soviet Union. And America has routinely and regularly tolerated human rights violations in some of its own allies and trading partners while conveniently turning a blind eye to this reality of fact. However, when entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z traveled to the island nation over the weekend in celebration of their 5th wedding anniversary, there were calls from multiple quarters on the political Right for an investigation (“Beyond And Jay-Z’s Trip To Cuba”).

The reality is that  Republicans calling for an "investigation" of Bey and Jay's trip to Cuba are just placating their reactionary (and gullible) constituents.  The fact of the matter is that criticism wouldn't be as vocal if most knew that the Obama Administration had already loosened American travel restrictions to the island nation via it's "people-to-people" initiative.  Under this federal rule--created to open relations with the Cuban people--"Each traveler must have a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba." Guidelines dictated by the Treasury Department limits any potential leisure activities by requiring that "tours" (which such trips to Cuba are recognized as) operate under a planned itinerary, with every every moment of the trip, and it's "people-to-people" travel, documented. Sure, those given this request are bound to take vacation-like liberties with such a trip, but who wouldn't given that Cuba is comparatively exotic? And no one called such "investigations when other high-profile celebrities traveled to Cuba.  It's only the connection of support that these two celebrities have with Obama that critics ignore the fact that Sean Penn, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Jack Nicholson and a host of other high-profile Americans have visited Cuba--some even given an audience with 'ol Fidel himself.
Given the realistic and logical weaknesses inherent in blindly adhering to (and supporting) such an equally blind and outdated policy toward Cuba—just because “it’s always been that way”—is nothing more than a way to manufacture outrage over a policy that has very little bearing on the country’s political and/or economic interests. Fidel Castro is no longer the president of Cuba (yes, his brother is now the de facto head-of-state, but still…). The country is no longer the ally of Soviet Russia. It is no longer exporting revolution and/or communist ideology in the name of overthrowing other governments across the globe. It has diplomatic relations with most other countries in the world, including many of our own allies. And Cuba has been swept up in the tide of globalization within a (more) market-based economy. The world has changed since our government began isolating Cuba. The only two things that remain frozen in time are our government’s policy toward Cuba, and our elected leaders’ propensity to manipulate public policy for personal and political gain. The bottom line is that everything our leaders claim to be an “issue” is not always so.

See also: "Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, & American Foreign Policy"

Read More

Here Comes The Fuzz!

As a—for the most part—law abiding citizen, I am every bit a supporter of having a competent, professional police department protecting and serving us. It’s an often difficult, often thankless as well as dangerous profession that I myself would not want to perform. However as a minority male, seemingly always the target of questionable police actions, I must confess that my feelings are somewhat conflicted. Quite often, when I hear about instances of police misconduct such as the several high-profile examples in the news in recent times, I am torn between applauding their protection, and being appalled by the prospect of needing protection from them. Sadly, given the examples of unprofessional behavior exhibited by various police departments around the country, it’s not as if anyone’s hesitation to support all law enforcement activity isn’t without reason.


- This past Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the arrest of Morgan County Alabama Sheriff Greg Bartlett after skinny and underfed inmates testified that their ill-health and emaciated appearance was due to being fed illegally small food portions, ordered by Bartlett. Still more unbelievable was the fact that the Bartlett was acting totally within the limits of Alabama law, which permits letting sheriffs pocket money left over from feeding (or in this case, underfeeding) inmates, which he did to the tune of $212,000 over 3 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/national/main4706215.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4706215)


- On New Years Day in Oakland, California, unarmed Oscar Grant III was shot and killed by one of the city’s transit officers. What makes this tragedy stand out is that at least four transit riders who were witness to the shooting caught the incident on their cell phone cameras, which showed grant lying down on the pavement, handcuffed and apparently not resisting. This shooting led to civil unrest this week in downtown Oakland.





- In recent weeks in Berrien County, Michigan, county prosecutors were forced to petition the court to dismiss some 15 drug-related cases because of federal charges pending against a former police officer for, among other allegations, embezzling money and drugs from the Benton Harbor, Michigan police department. The officer in question, Andrew Collins, is alleged to have given false information in arrest reports as well as perjured testimony, which led to the dismissals.


Admittedly I’m no police officer, and as a consequence, am in no position to second guess the professional judgment of one, especially in crisis situations. However, I am aware of ethical human behavior and know that withholding meals from individuals to the point of ill-health, shooting unarmed men in already in custody, and stealing money & drugs do not require rocket-science-level thinking. As a society, we hold police officers to such a high level of esteem that we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in most cases, where their actions give pause for scrutiny. But one has to wonder that if tangible proof in the aforementioned (as well as other) cases were not available, would our predisposition to give these public servants the benefit of the doubt when it comes to acting within the law and the bounds of their duty blind us to official misconduct and dereliction of their duties? Even beyond wonder, a level of cynical scrutiny should be applied to this observation. Considering that police officers are fully aware that in this modern era of information and technological proliferation, dashboard-mounted video recorders, cell phone cameras, and internet-based websites that afford worldwide distribution of any newsworthy incident they are involved in, some bad apples still act with reckless and unprofessional abandon. It’s almost as if such a mindset reflects a level of arrogance that their more questionable actions will be not only understood by a public that is fear-ridden of being crime victims, but that such actions will be dismissed as being within the scope of their duty to “serve and protect.” It doesn’t help that police officers under such scrutiny will always fall back on the customary defense of, “You don’t understand what it’s like to be a police office (in a neighborhood where you’re not respected/liked).” Honestly I don’t, and I’ll wager that neither do most people who put their lives on the line on a daily basis. However, I do understand that anyone given discretion to act in defense of the law, who are armed with guns, tasers, nightsticks, body armor, backup, and other assorted implements capable of inflicting major injury or death are expected to act with a higher level of professional judgment and due care. Although no amount of training or screening can prevent every potential instance of police misconduct, such cases should signify a need to increase the standards and levels of training when it comes to recruiting police officers, especially in high crime areas. At the very least, a minimal of an Associates Degree should be required for those entrusted with protecting both their own lives as well as those of the public they serve, with perhaps an emphasis on sociology. Supplementing the education requirement should be ethics training, where failure would immediately disqualify a candidate. Probationary periods, where rookies are teamed up with veterans, should be extended. And (I know this one will elicit catcalls of disapproval) there should be a requirement that at least 50% of the street level police officers in any given area should be comprised of residents from that area. The logic of this last suggestion is that people from a particular area often have a particular view or insight of their neighborhood that outsiders would not. Finally, to prevent bad officers from hopping from one jurisdiction (where he/she is terminated for misconduct) only to find employment in another, there should be a national database listing such officers and their records, including reprimands, awards, and other performance distinctions. As a minority male, I am sad to say that I will never have the same admiration and respect for the police as I did when as a child. However, with a higher standard of qualifications for the police officers out there protecting my interests, I can at least gain a small level comfort knowing that the man or woman behind the badge won’t be as quick to mistake my reaching for my wallet as threat to his or her life…or my own.


What has your experience with the police been like? Post Comments.

Read More

The Boston Bombings, White Males, And Random Violence

WARNING: If you are sensitive to issues of race, then avoid reading this posting (because regular readers know I have no problem writing objectively about observations critical about any and every ethnic group, including my fellow African-American demographic).

Almost all of America knows or has heard about the rampant, bloody, mostly gun-based violence in my hometown of Chicago. As of this past Thursday, the city logged its 100 homicide of 2013—with only a third of the year having come to pass. And sadly, this type of violence is emblematic of many urban areas around the country. However, this type of everyday violence if often overshadowed in the news by acts of random violence of individuals we can only described as “deranged.”
Within the past 48 hours, a video-taped shootout that happened in a small Ohio town last month has been a part of the news. The video shows a middle-aged white male getting out of a car without warning, which had been stopped by police officers, and proceeded to unload a volley of gunfire from an assault rifle at the officers. The officers responded with returning fire, killing the man. On the video, the man could be heard yelling, “Kill me” (see video below).

Such events seem to reflect an undercurrent of disaffectedness among white males—those who primarily perpetrate such destructive actions their fellow citizens.
The events three weeks ago during the Boston Marathon—an outrageous tragedy to be sure—got me thinking about life in America as an African-American. More so, as an African-American who has spent much of the last 2 decades so working with both underprivileged youth and adults, I have both experienced and bore witness a level of social reality that on the surface would seem to generate anger and frustration that should have many more individuals setting off deadly bombs in effigy at “the system.” No, I’m not advocating killing or maiming as an instrument of protest. What the bombings at the Boston Marathon got me to wondering about is what makes otherwise privileged—or potentially so—white males so dissatisfied with American society that they would lash out in destructive ways, while far more troubled black Americans endure real trials with a comparatively better social grace?
In what seems of late to be a regular occurrence, we often read or hear about white males like Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarmaev—the brothers alleged to have been responsible for the bombs at the Marathon—who feel disenchanted by their experience in America. In extreme cases, these disgruntled white males have proceeded to take out their perceptions of discontent on society (as it were) in destructive ways that usually end-up being invariably lethal to innocents.

                                    Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarmaev
James Holmes, the orange-hair-dyed perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting that resulted in some 12 deaths and 58 injuries, was a graduate student in neuroscience at the University of Colorado. In fact, before committing the mass shooting in a theater, he’d previously declined the university’s offer of acceptance into its PhD program—complete with a $21,600 grant from the National Institute for Health.

                                          James Holmes
into its PhD program—complete with a $21,600 grant from the National Institute for Health. Holmes had an opportunity to pursue an advanced and decent education of his own choosing that many black males rarely get. Dzhokhar Tsarmaev, the younger of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects attended the prestigious Cambridge Rindge and Latin school, one of the region’s premiere competitive public schools, with a student body comprised of young people from over 70 nations and counts among its alumni the likes of actor Ben Affleck, NBA legend Patrick Ewing, and author E.E. Cummings. Tamerlan was an inconsistent student at a local community college. When so many black males are forced to attempt to learn even the basics in schools with limited funding located in high crime and poverty areas, learn in overcrowded classrooms with disruptive “special needs” students, all the while resisting the various social pressures that reduces learning to a secondary purpose of attending schools (while struggling to graduate), Holmes, the Tsarmaev brothers, and other white males’ educational prospects puts them in an enviable position in life more so than many of their black male contemporaries. The bottom line is that many white males—disgruntled or otherwise—have choices in their education that many black males do not. That translates into better life opportunities…the like which makes one wonder why some become ticking time bombs that inflict pain on others.
The disconnect between how black males endure life’s trials versus the perceptual pains of dangerously frustrated white males goes back past the recent mass shootings and bombings. Whatever problems these individuals have couldn’t possibly come close to say, experiencing the ineptitude of the government response to basic needs in the immediate aftermath of post-New Orleans Katrina, or to the indignity of being systematically denied equal accommodations (or respect) under the law of the old segregated South. When lynchings, unprovoked racial violence, and de facto/de jure denial of basic rights and human dignity were commonplace in America, there was plenty of vocal criticisms leveled against the federal and local governments, but there were no retaliatory bombings of government offices as a show of protest. There were no mass shootings of innocents, or armed individuals attending the public meetings between Congressmen and their constituents. During times when there was a true violation of Constitutional rights by state and local (and in some instances, the federal) governments, black male anger never boiled over into acts of wanton violence—even against the system that turned a blind eye. And as white males have never been subjected to such wholesale indignity on a level even close, it makes me wonder what levels of comparatively lesser frustrations could trigger the desire to inflict hurt on those who have nothing whatsoever to do with hindering an individual’s chances for success…especially when the cards are stacked in his favor by virtue of birth?

 
 Civil Rights-era voting rights protestor attacked by police and attack dogs

Black anger and frustration, even during the most trying of socio-political and economic times, has rarely elicited anything in the way violent rage-against-the-machine-type reactions that destructive-minded angry white males are willing to engage in (sadly, most of our destructive tendencies tend to be self-directed). The closest thing to explosive anger that can even be remotely compared as an example of brink-level frustrations that some angry white males exhibit was the formation of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. And to put this into perspective, the Panthers were formed only after a couple centuries of oppression that included lynchings, disappearances, race-riots (which many African-Americans caught the business-end of), government inaction (or collusion in the car of local police departments) with regards to violence perpetrated against blacks.
What is it about disgruntled white males that find them seemingly unable to cope with something as common as—for instance—a job loss in manners which doesn’t cause American society to rewrite the rules of workplace safety? A generation ago, the phrase “violence in the workplace” was unheard of. But today, how often have we seen instances of violence in the workplace perpetuated primarily by disgruntled white males? African-Americans have our share of socioeconomic problems, but being unable to handle something like being dismissed from employment, unjustly or otherwise, is not one of them. We weathered the disproportionate levels of higher unemployment among our ethnic demographic during the Carter and Reagan years, as well as during the recent economic crisis and the resulting economic downturn.
Even among many white males who do not resort to mass shootings, bombings, or poison-spiked mail deliveries, their alarmist mindsets tend to reflect either frustrations and/or paranoid preoccupation with their well-being simply doesn’t gel with reality the way the average African-American see it. And realistically-speaking, these white males have never really had any real cause to be vigilant (or hostile) towards any particular state or the federal government as a “tyrannical” force looking to “suppress” their civil liberties or “rights.” Coming from the perspectives of those who have had to endure arrests, physical violence, and fear of death just to sit on the front of a public bus, the concern for these white males have for their dignity and their “rights” to be potentially “violated” by any government seems unreal to African-Americans. In fact, compared to the African-American historical experience, their knee-jerk penchant for challenging innocuous laws as being a “violation” of their “rights” is akin to someone looking for an enemy to fear…one that simply isn’t there.

                                  Tea Party protestors marching during the first Obama Administration

Our mistake is in assuming that such deranged individuals are “crazy.” I believe this to be hardly true. Those particular white males who harbor feelings of disaffectedness, and who engage in mass shootings and other such destructive demonstrations of their extreme angst tend to pick and choose targets who have little or no chance of fighting back. They chose locales where their potential victims are caught completely unawares, and who are not capable of preventing this cowards from potentially interfering with their plans to inflict maximum pain. And that is what these individuals are…cowards! If they were truly unhinged from reality, they would chose targets that would truly reflect their seemingly “I-don’t-care” attitude with their lives, and life in general. Why not walk into a police station, a gun show, or even a public housing project and attempt to randomly inflict pain? Because they fear the same pain they seek to inflict would be visited upon them. Shooting a classroom of early grade elementary students; a house of worship; bombing an annual sporting event…all in the name of expressing dissatisfaction? Not “insanity,” not “protest,” and not “justice.” Its cowardice.

                        Sandy Hook Elementary shooter Adam Lanza

Granted, African-Americans has a myriad of socioeconomic woes (and yes, tend to inflict these problem on ourselves), but there is a lesson that these dangerously disgruntled white males can learn from us. If any should feel encouraged to express their frustrations and personal failings by bombing, shooting, and/or poisoning others, look at how black people have handled real oppression, real problems, and real suppression by “the system,” not embrace the paranoid imaginings of one’s emotional distress.
Additionally, our lawmakers may be entitled-minded, self-interest-driven, ideological, money-motivated, egotistical elitists, but their own individual love of liberty makes it hard to believe that any of them would concertedly work to suppress our rights, so white males really need to come off that conspiracy-level thinking. Yes, its fine to be vigilant, by not to the point of paranoia. And definitely not to the point where one feels guns are the only way our government is willing to listen to us.

Read More

Sandy Hook, Guns, & Questions!

When I see tragedies like that occurring in Connecticut yesterday, it becomes somewhat difficult to defend my thoughts that limiting gun ownership only hurts legal gun owners, and not the criminals…who tend not to follow the laws of gun purchasing anyway (see: "Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?").  But with 27 people killed by one lone gunman—including 20 children and 7 adults, including the shooter’s own mother—we are left with nothing but questions instead of answers.

Unidentified Sandy Hook Elementary School staff member leads students to safety

What can we do when our resources for mental health are being limited by cuts, and money becomes the primary concern over potential public (or self) safety? How do we balance privacy laws with the public's right to know when dangerous mental illnesses are a factor with unstable individuals?  How do we compel those with mental/emotional issues to seek help when such issues are so stigmatized that individuals who suffer from them—both marginally and extremely—would rather embrace denial than assistance? How can we balance the right of individuals, particularly those with mental and/or emotional illnesses, and the greater good?

What do we do when legitimate gun owners reflexively scream, “My rights..!” in defense of their legal right to own a weapon…no matter how ridiculous some of the gun laws are? How can we maintain the balance of gun owner’s rights to potentially defend themselves, while limiting the number of guns on the streets?

Is it healthy to create a siege mentality within our public school in the name of safety?

How can we craft gun crime laws in such a way as to make any act by gun-toting criminals prohibitive by way of punishment?

As I said a couple of posting ago, sometimes our “rights” get in the way of the greater good (see: "Too Many Rights Make Wrong.").  And maybe as individuals, we should start considering focusing less on our individual wants and likes and more on what’s best for everyone involved.
No matter how “pro-gun” you are, the deaths of 20 young children is just a little hard to defend, either politically, ideologically, or realistically.

Concealed gun laws, state-by-state (click to enlarge)

Maybe there should be a means testing for gun ownership...the weapons and amount of weapons one is allowed to purchase should be in proportion to the threat of one's environment or their actual profession...it would maintain gun ownership, BUT limit the amount of available weapons in the streets possible criminals and nut-cases to acquire. Maybe under such a policy, people living in the violence in gang-infested Chicago would have the means to defend themselves, while the George Zimmerman's of America wouldn't have to overreact to imaginary threats!

Read More

Here Comes The Fuzz, Part 2!

Sometimes, just when you think the world has gone irrevocably to crap, an occurrence happens to give even the hardiest cynics and skeptics pause to think that their might actually be some level of hope for mankind. Such an even happened 2 weeks ago in New York City.
On a cold November 14th night, a selfless act of humanity by NYPD officer Lawrence DePrimo briefly overshadowed the news of wars, potential financial catastrophe, and crime. DePrimo, a 25 year-old, 3 year veteran of the city’s police force walk on foot patrol in Times Square when he’d spotted a homeless man sitting on 42 Street. The man was wearing no shoes and no socks. According to DePrimo, "It was freezing out, and you could see the blisters on the man's feet. I had two pairs of socks, and I was still cold." At that point, DePrimo could have just as easily did what the hundreds of other New Yorkers going about their way had did—ignored the man.
However, DePrimo walked over to a nearby shoe store, and purchased a $100 pair of all-purpose boots and brought them back for the man.

A New York City police officer is photographed giving boots to a homeless man on Nov. 14. (NYPD/Facebook)

An out-of-town tourist visiting New York (who incidentally works for a local Sherriff’s department in Arizona) had observed and had managed to capture the entire episode on her camera. She took a picture of DePrimo “squatting down on the ground and proceeding to put socks and the new boots on this man.”
The story and the accompanying photo taken by the tourist chronicling this random act of kindness by a true public servant has since gone viral all over the ‘net.
In the past, I have posted reflections on incidents of past police abuse (see: "Here Comes The Fuzz, "Another Police Beating Caught On Tape" and  "The Law, Lies, and Videotapes"). It truly is a nice change-of-pace to see what real “public service” is supposed to look like…duty tempered with a smidgeon of humanity and genuine concern. Hats off to Lawrence Deprimo…and take notes bad cops…this is what real policing looks like!

Read More

Let's Talk About Race...Again! (...or, "Get Ready To Be Pi**ed Off...Again!")

Allow me to lay the foundation. I’m an adherent to the politics (and thinking) of pragmatism. This is to say that I cannot abide by dogmatic- or emotional-based thinking. I shun it. It’s as much as abhorrence to me as stupidity and emotionally-based thinking. As such, I believe that public—and in most cases, individual—policy should be made based on what’s in the general interests of those involved, and not based on some narrow ideology…whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, religious, socialist, or whatever (with the acknowledgement that on occasion, a policy may originate from and/or be a platform of one of these traditions of thinking). I extend the following examples:

-The taking of a human life is wrong, whether its an individual decision, such as in the case of abortion, or by the state-sanctioned taking of a life in the case of the death penalty (neither of which addresses the personal or societal issues they stem from).

-Gun ownership should not be restricted among qualified and reasonable individuals (i.e., without criminal/psychological records or unsavory intentions). Personally I wouldn't feel safe living in a house without a gun to defend myself. Simply put, the police cannot be everywhere, nor can they always prevent crime.

-Government cannot solve every problem. And neither can the Free Market.

-There is no Constitutional provision which says that America must be a Capitalist/Free Market society...that's based solely on tradition.

-O.J. did it (Mark Fuhrman's racism not withstanding).

-Religion has no place in public policy (although there may some influence based on the level of tradition it has on a particular policy).

-Our government spends too much. So too do individuals; neither seems to have a sense of what it means to work within a budget, or save for a rainy day.

-People need affordable health care, not some ideological preservation of “American values." And simply put, 230 plus years of medical services being another commodity of the market economy, and an exploding amount of health care spending as a percentage as a part of our Gross Domestic Product proves that the Free Market is not wholly up to the task.

-Based on reason and a passing knowledge of history, there is no way that anyone—outside of an emotional argument—could have concluded that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, in their wildest dreams, have imagined or even anticipated the reality that two adults of the same sex would want to ever get married, thus negating a “Constitutional Right” for them to do so (this is not to say that gay people don’t merit the same legal rights and/or protections against discrimination and persecution that all other Americans have, because they do).

I felt it necessary to establish the thinking behind this post. It is not about beliefs, emotions, or ideology, neither yours or mine. Policy should be based on what people need, not some ideological dogma...not reason, not passions. Setting the parameters is a way of heading off the accusations that I know are bound to come when one reads this; now you know that accusations of "Conservative," Liberal," "Fascist," "racist," or whatever are not going to fly. And now my rant.

I am an African-American.

And race is still an issue in America.

Given scope of issues in the news recently, once again I feel compelled to bring a little objective sanity into an otherwise contentious discourse (or lack thereof).

African-Americans

Although African-Americans have a right to be angry over last month’s shooting death of 16-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, every American should not only be just as angry but in the mood to engage in deep introspection. This includes African-Americans.
For African-Americans, such outrage should be a daily occurrence. Throughout many urban areas, we see or read about killings of children every bit as tragic Trayvon’s, almost on a daily basis. Maybe if Americans were to exhibit as much outrage over these murders, maybe we could make an impact. But sadly, most Americans—especially African-Americans—have adopted a level of fatalism with regard to life in the ‘hood. Many of us have come to see the senseless death of children as part of our daily existence.
Yes, there are instances of organized protests and candlelight vigils in these areas whenever there is a particularly brutal or senseless murder of an innocent occurs, but in general all such murders are senseless. If traditionally recognized “black leaders” such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were as motivated to travel around the country and address the deaths of young black children who are victimized by similar violence almost daily as they are at appearing at higher-profile murders, they would soon have to be hospitalized for exhaustion. And the lack of even acknowledgment from black conservatives speaks for itself; it gives the appearance that it’s not even a concern for them.
As a matter of priorities, black leaders—both locally- and nationally-recognized leaders—should be as quick to organize and shame those criminal elements in black communities who would engage in the same level of unreasonable behavior as George Zimmerman.
Yes, there is an acknowledgement that revealing the identities of perpetrators of such violence on black children may result in violent reprisals against would-be responsible individuals, the “don’t snitch” mentality which feeds this insanity needs to be eradicated See: "Stop (Not) Snitching! Part 1" and "Stop (Not) Snitching! Part 2").
Black parents need to be more responsible and not validate such counter-productive thinking. They need to be even more of an influence in the lives of their children than their children’ friends.
Black mothers and relatives need to treat their hearts like the enemy. If black-on-black murder is to stop, blood relationships can no longer be allowed to influence blood allegiances. If these individuals know that their relatives are responsible for the murders of young black children, they should be not only obligated but pressured to turn them into the authorities. Such behavior needs to be shamed like the community offense and threat that it is.
Black churches, and in particular black clergy need to do more than, in the words of the late great James Brown, “talking loud and saying nothing.”
More professional police officers are needed in communities where getting to know the people who reside there is more of a tactic than profiling those who live there. Working relationships with organized groups are needed.
If you want a more radical solution, I would propose that responsible black people arm themselves and start patrolling the streets in groups, and enforcing order. The Black Panthers did it in the 1960s and early 70s. Perhaps the “New Black Panthers” would be more constructive in redirecting their anger into the black community and threaten those who would disrupt the lives of law-abiding black citizens instead of putting a monetary bounty on the head of Trayvon Martin’s killer, or shouting to the rooftops how they “hate Whitey!” (See: "New Black Panther Leader Arrested as Group Sets Bounty in Florida Shooting"). Maybe if African-Americans were just as willing to patrol their communities with the same fervor of George Zimmerman, then maybe Trayvon Martin’s murder could be placed within the context of an abhorrent single instance instead of another senseless taking of a young black life. Maybe black child murders need to be the ones living in fear for a change...

White-Americans

No, soul-searching is not just for blacks. White American thinking with regard to race is something of mystery, not just for myself, but for most blacks.
But before I make my points, allow me to say that I like President Obama. I admire his intelligence, his cool-under-pressure-demeanor, and his desire to want the best for all Americans. Is he perfect? Of course not…and no, I don’t agree with every policy he proposes or enacts. Among the policies I have issues with was his decision to involve America militarily in what was essentially an internal matter of Libya. I don’t agree that enhanced interrogation techniques employed against suspected and confirmed terrorists should be banned or discouraged (when at war, fear is every bit an option as any other when it comes to matters of security…especially against foes who are willing to die for their cause anyway). And I don’t agree that America should have closed down prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay (enemies willing to die to inflict harm on Americans need something to fear). But I still like him. He means well.
However, a great many whites do not—or are not able to—view their opposition to (seemingly) every policy proposed or enacted by Obama, our nation’s first African-American president as being problematic, especially in regards to race relations. Indeed, some of these individuals have successfully managed to convince themselves that their opposition to policies such as health care reform is nothing more than ideological differences. And while any difference of agreement is not meant to imply that the President should be given a “pass” with regard to his policies being scrutinized, make no mistake about it; much of this opposition is just a proxy for racial-based animosity.
Without question, President Obama is the most disrespected American president since Abraham Lincoln…an ironic observation considering that many of those who opposed Lincoln’s policies did so based on their racial animus also. One would be hard-pressed to find a president in recent memory that has had his credibility assailed in the most non-traditionally disrespectful of manners—remember South Carolina’s conservative Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst, “You Lie!” from the president’s 2009 address in front of Congress (yes, there have been occasional “boos” or jeers from other Congressmen toward other presidential addresses, but nothing in the records like Wilson’s)? Then there was that famous picture of Republican Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer pointing her finger in the face of the president of the United States. Simply put, if these individuals had tried that with most other African-Americans of lesser stations, their actions would have rated an immediate (and probably illegal) response. And then there are the thousands of unflattering caricatures of the president meant to (ostensibly) mock his policies, but in many cases, amount to attacks on Obama’s ethnic heritage, without appearing as such.

Aside from the caricatures, President Obama has had nearly every aspect of his life either challenged or impugned in ways that white presidents have rarely experienced. Despite long-ago revealed evidence proving otherwise, many people still continue to think that the president’s birth certificate is a forgery. And of course, those willing to believe such paranoid insanity don’t offer an alternative birth certificate showing his “true” birthplace (hint birthers: instead of trying to prove the president’s birth certificate is a “forgery,” try providing a birth certificate from Kenya…it would go a long ways to proving your assertions. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to produce one). Many Americans also still continue to believe that Obama is a Muslim partially because non-Anglo name, despite the fact that he had to distance himself shortly after taking office from the church of Chicago Pastor Jeremiah Wright…a Christian pastor!
President Obama is also the most threatened American president in memory. He's the former presidential candidate who's required the earliest Secret Service protection, and also the most. Please don't tell me this all about "ideological differences."
And sadly, the issues surround the president’s legislative Pièce de résistance, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—health care reform—has given white xenophobes a great policy issue to mask their racial animus toward Obama. We see this most often in how they accuse him of being a “socialist,” which for many is a proxy term for the “N-Word.” More so, they mask their fears and racial apprehensions behind a paranoid fear that health care reform someone is a “threat to individual liberties.” Really? In reality, when have whites in America ever had their individual liberties “threatened” on a wholesale level? On the other hand, history showcases many instances where government entities have actually—not implied—to not only threaten the lives and livelihoods of African-Americans, but done so.
Shall I cite how Southern states conspired to keep blacks from enacting their right to vote, to be represented in the South up until the early 1970s? How about the instances in American history where entire black towns were wiped off the map due to racist mobs because local government’s complicity in refusing to intervene (or because of government intervention)? The Greenwood district of Tulsa during the May 1921 race riots? The Rosewood Massacre of 1923? How about the various gun control laws that were enacted when blacks opted to (legally) pick up weapons and defend themselves against lynchings in the South and official abuse by authorities elsewhere back in the 1960s? The upshot is that whites possess a phantom fear of having their liberties threatened (that health care reform is supposed to do) in a way that has never happened to them on the same scale in which blacks have experienced them. So where does such fear and paranoia stem from? From the fact that an African-American occupies the Oval Office, and their intolerance of that fact. The health care debate is just a convenient vehicle for many whites to voice this point without having to be vocal about it in the way they would like.
Think about it this way: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are seen as “race baiters” by many whites, who invariably (and ironically) do not see the same tactic being employed by white politicians who pander to white suburban fears. In much the same way, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum recently made subtle racial innuendoes pandering to these white fears:

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money" (Rick Santorum at a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa, January 1, 2012).

“I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps” (Newt Gingrich at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, January 5, 2012).


These are the same white suburban paranoid fears which caused George Zimmerman to carry a weapon whereas many black neighborhood watch volunteers—who operate in far worse neighborhoods than Zimmerman’s—leading to the death of Trayvon Martin.
These are the reasons that radio and television demagogues like Rush and Glen can surreptitiously slide in a subtly but racially-insensitive remark and not be called on it; it takes something more blatant, such as calling a law school student “a slut” before people react.
Yes, both black and white America has some serious soul-searching to to. Sadly, it was needed before Trayvon Martin was killed, and it will no doubt be needed long after.

Read More