While looking up articles about Michael Brown and Ferguson, Missouri I ran across an article written by the black conservative Ben Carson. You know, for a man that was an internationally renowned neurosurgeon he sure acts idiotic at times. Like everybody else, Mr. Carson has an opinion of Ferguson and like many he shares it openly. Mr. Carson says the events in Ferguson could have been avoided one of two different ways. Either Michael Brown backs down or Officer Darren Wilson backs down. And since Officer Wilson has the backing of the government officials in Ferguson and the state of Missouri, Mr. Carson believes that he had the legal standing to impose his will on Michael Brown with deadly force. To do otherwise, if Michael Brown was able to say no to the police, would be an invitation to anarchy. I guess Mr. Carson simply dismisses the fact that Ferguson erupted into supposed anarchy with protests (some would say riots because of some people that used the protest as a cover for their own criminal activity) that were met with a militarized police force.
Mr. Carson went on to claim that Michael Brown had the obligation to submit to Officer Wilson. However, because of all the young black men who grow up in the streets of America with defiant attitudes, it is only inevitable that the result would be mass incarcerations and death. The defiance is the result of the large number of black children growing up without a father figure to teach them how to relate (submit) to authority and teach them the meaning of personal responsibility. Mr. Carson said that it is not the case that mothers cannot teach these important social lessons. His own single mother was able to teach this lesson well to Mr. Carson. It seems he learned the lesson a little too well.
It is not too much of a leap to say that Mr. Brown is prepared to absolve Officer Wilson of any responsibility in the murder of Michael Brown. In fact, even though he went on to say that Michael Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, really isn’t at fault because more than likely she never learned the fundamentals of personal responsibility, Mr. Carson puts more blame on Michael Brown’s parents lack of parenting skills than he does the man that hid behind his badge as he pulled the trigger a minimum of ten times to take down the unarmed black teenager. He puts more blame on the socio economic policies of the federal government for the last five years, the years of the Obama administration, for the rise of poverty in the black community that has led to such frustrations that leads young black people to become the antisocial misfits that are endemic to American life. It’s a generational thing that happens over and over in the black community with its vicious cycle of irresponsibility. How he’s able to tie responsibility for generations of black community parenting failure to the past five years of President Obama’s leadership defies logic, but that’s his opinion.
Like a lot of people, mostly socially and politically conservative, Mr. Carson is ready to give Officer Wilson a pass. Officer Wilson has no need to demonstrate personal responsibility when he murders unarmed black men. Regardless of the generations of police abuse of black people and the murder of unarmed black people at the hands of the police, the parents of police do not have to teach their children the rules of socially acceptable behavior. Police are above the law. They are above the social contract that says the killing of people is only acceptable as a last resort. For you and me, that means that we can only take the life of our fellowman when there is no absolutely no alternative. No one would simply take our word that a murder was unavoidable. But police? They are above reproach especially when their victim is a young person from the black underclass that, according to Mr. Carson, have no clue what the social norms are because, without any evidence to support such a conclusion, their single mother parent never learned orthodox social behavior. However, it should be noted that Mr. Carson’s single black mother was able to teach her black son social behavior.
To an intelligent person, Mr. Carson himself is undeniable proof that what he says is total bullshit. Mr. Carson is ready to paint the black community with a very broad stroke of contempt reinforced with racially reinforced prejudice. His conclusions are based on racially charged stereotypes without merit. No police officer is above the law. Yes black people have to exercise personal responsibility, but so do white people and everybody else. If Mr. Carson can look back on his own personal experience as a young black man, toss it all out the window and come to the conclusion that black people deserve to be murdered because they don’t know personal responsibility, then we can use that same yardstick of personal responsibility against a white police officer for the murder of an unarmed black youth.
In fact, we can hold Officer Wilson to a higher measure because not only did he supposedly learn acceptable social behavior from his white parents, he was the one that received the benefit of tax payer financed professional police officer training on top of the acceptable social rules. The community paid to give Officer Darren Wilson a loaded weapon and a badge that said he had the authority to enforce our social laws. He was trained to know the law so that he could enforce the law. He had the power of the badge. The power of an armed police officer is many times greater than the power of an unarmed teenager. In many respects, it is far greater than the power of a parent. And with great power comes great responsibility. Mr. Carson should remember that.
I was tracking the latest news over the string of unfortunate incidents related to the shooting death of the unarmed black Michael Brown by white Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson, Missouri police department when I ran across an article about the shooting death of white Dillon Taylor by a black police officer in Salt Lake City, Utah. After a series of clicks to find more information about this event one thing became more and more evident. After visiting several sites such as The Washington Times, WND, the Inquisitor, FOX News, and others, it became apparent to me that these news sources were more concerned about the disparity in the level of attention about the death of Michael Brown compared to the level of attention to the death of Dillon Taylor than they were concerned about the potential injustice of someone being murdered by police.
Indeed there are similarities between the two events. Both men were shot by police. Michael Brown lived in an area that was about sixty five percent black with a police force that had about six percent black officers while the allegedly white Dillon Taylor lived in an area that was seventy five percent white. I couldn’t find the racial makeup of the Salt Lake City police department but I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that it’s predominantly white.
After reading a few articles it turned out that Dillon Taylor was a white Hispanic with multiple convictions for felony robbery and obstructing justice. The black police officer that is said to have allegedly shot him turned out to be a non white police officer because his true racial identity was not released. He might in fact be black. But it should be noted that a lot of these “news” articles made the assumption that non white meant that the officer was black. I’m sure the reason for the speculation on race is to sensationalize the comparison with the events in Ferguson. While we know for a fact that the eighteen years old Michael Brown was unarmed, the police in Salt Lake City have not released any statement as to whether or not twenty year old Dillon Taylor was armed.
The police officer that encountered Michael Brown had resumed his patrol after responding to a call for an ambulance nearby and was not actively responding to any emergency. The encounter with Michael Brown started when Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street with the potential of hindering the flow of traffic. The officer that encountered Dillon Taylor was responding to an emergency 9-1-1 call about a man waving a gun around. Several officers responded and Dillon Taylor happened to have matched the description of the person reported in the emergency call. Dillon Taylor was wearing headphones and it is possible that he did not hear police orders.
Most of the articles went on to point out that although there was an organized protest in Salt Lake City, but asked why there was no looting, destruction of property, and the all out anarchy that happened in Ferguson, Missouri. Most of the articles asked why Reverend Al Sharpton didn’t go to Salt Lake City. All of the articles asked why didn’t the liberal media, the one that does so much to codify black people, show up and give the same level of attention to the shooting of an unarmed white man by a black police officer?
As a black man I find the willful racial ignorance of people and organizations that claim to want to understand the racial divide seriously frustrating. Supposedly intelligent people act like the dumbest fucks that ever walk the face of the earth. People want to pretend that everything’s equal and we have racial parity because we have a black President or because Oprah is worth billions or for any other exception to the general condition of our social structure that ignores the plight of the black community. These people do their best to make false equivalences between totally unrelated horrible events and then act like a two year old wondering what makes the moon hang in the air with intellectually asinine questions that can be answered if one simply takes the red pill, open their eyes, and shift their fucking brain into gear.
The protests in Ferguson happened because instead of the police responding to a community’s need to mourn the latest loss of another young black man to the apparent heavy handed approach of the police, the police respond with dogs to attack protestors and military vehicles and equipment doled out like candy by our defense department in order to defend against terrorists. Not every protestor in Ferguson was a looter. Most of the protestors were non violent and even did their best to defend property against the criminals that would use the unfortunate death of Michael Brown for their own means. Instead of the police doing police work to protect the community, the predominantly white police force turned on the black community in the very same heavy handed approach that Officer Wilson turned on Michael Brown. People were arrested for exercising their constitutional rights. The local government instituted a curfew. This was the same heavy handed approach the state of Alabama took when the black community tried to peacefully march from Selma to Montgomery.
This whole affair have proved beyond a fucking doubt that we have learned nothing from our racially troubled past and are poorly prepared for a supposed post racial future. Just like it was news worthy back in the sixties when the public saw the televised images of so many peacefully marching black people being attacked by dogs, beaten with batons and nightsticks, and assaulted with tear gas by state troopers in gas masks, it is news now. It was news when we saw the videos of reporters being arrested in Ferguson for not moving fast enough. It was news worthy when we saw the politicians representing their constituents in Ferguson being arrested. That was all news worthy.
All of that happened before Reverend Al Sharpton showed up to insist on calm and non violence from the community as well as justice from the government. Why didn’t Reverend Al show up in Salt Lake City? Did anybody ask Revered Al to come to Salt Lake City? Contrary to popular believe, Reverend Sharpton does not show up where he’s not wanted. The family of Michael Brown asked Mr. Sharpton for help. Did the family of Dillon Taylor do the same?
Tthe bottom line is that we shouldn’t be trying to compare tragedies to see who’s suffering the most. The bullshit from these articles does nothing to help the family of Dillon Taylor. I apologize if I appear unsympathetic. If anyone loses a loved one to the homicidal acts of the police they need to be heard and they need justice. If Mr. Taylor was wrongfully murdered I hope the police officer who did it is charged and tried for his crime. And if the man is found guilty then I hope he rots in jail.
This bullshit asking why is everybody looking over here and nobody is looking over there has to stop. This isn’t a case of a war on whites. It isn’t a case of we only care when black people are murdered by white people. It isn’t a case of black people in Ferguson just rioting at the drop of a hat while the good white people of Salt Lake City are suffering in martyred silence. It’s another case of a police shooting that needs to be investigated and prosecuted. Let’s not play black versus white. Let us all keep our eye on the bigger picture.
I have read tons of comments from a lot of people condemning the black community of Ferguson, Missouri for their protest over the murder of the unarmed black teenaged Michael Brown by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. Despite the suspicious circumstances that led to Michael Brown’s murder, Darren Wilson was protected by the Ferguson police department and was allegedly given paid administrative leave. It is hard work for cops to kill black people and walk away scot free knowing all the local governments got your back. Mr. Wilson needs that time off to get over the exertion of pointing a gun and pulling a trigger on somebody who has the audacity to step out of line while obviously wearing black skin.
But nevertheless, people are entitled to their opinion. A lot of black people in the area of Ferguson believe an unarmed teenaged black male was murdered in cold blood by a police officer. A lot of other people with “traditional” values believe that the shooting of an unarmed black teenaged male was justifiable homicide in the culmination of a series of unfortunate events that started with jay walking.
The police responded with an escalation of hostility by arming up in military fashion. Pictures show officers in military garb and gear, armed to the teeth to take on the worst terrorist imaginable. At the first sign of an unruly protestor or a few unruly people in the protesting crowd, the police stood ready to respond with overwhelming force against any and every protestor in the vicinity along with any news reporter or innocent bystander that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, people are entitled to think whatever. Some people will think that the police acted with total disregard for the community and with unbelievable racial insensitivity. Some people will say that the police response was appropriate.
Like most stories, there are two sides. But instead of all of us stepping back and looking at facts, too many of us are trying to spin the story to fit what we want to believe. The fact is that a white police officer shot an unarmed black male. The officer initiated a confrontation with Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson because the two black teenagers were walking in the middle of the street. The officer was not responding to any police reports or police emergencies or any emergency for any public service. An altercation ensued. There was a physical fight in and/or near the police vehicle. Michael Brown started to run away. Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. In the crime scene photos taken by civilian cell phones shortly after the shooting, Michael Brown’s body laid in the street nowhere near a police vehicle. Witnesses on the scene say Michael Brown was facing the copy with his hands up when the police officer shot him multiple times. Those are facts that have a bearing on this case.
What is not a fact in this case is the testimony of friends who may have heard a version of events from Officer Wilson or a friend of anyone else who was not at the scene. What’s not a fact in this case are crime statistics and skewed data that may show that black people commit more crime per capita. What’s not a pertinent fact in this case is the protest that followed the shooting after Mr. Wilson was given a pass and was allowed to leave the scene without being arrested. What’s not pertinent is the surveillance video that showed a figure resembling Michael Brown leaving a convenience store after a hostile exchange with what may have been a store employee. According to facts, Michael Brown was not a suspect for anything that may have happened at any convenience store at the time he was stopped by Mr. Wilson. Within minutes after the shooting an ambulance was called to the scene to assess Michael Brown’s body. No ambulance was ever called to assess any injuries to Mr. Wilson.
Since Michael Brown’s shooting I have read a lot of comments that depict Michael Brown as a thug and a seasoned criminal without a single fact to support such characterization. Many of those comments include racially charged comments about the protestors who are predominantly black and racially charged comments about the black community. The black protestors have repeatedly chanted “no justice, no peace”. The message is simple. Until we have our government acting in a manner that is obviously fair and just there will be people willing to nonviolently break the peace.
In response, people on the other side have described black people as thugs and criminals who would rather live on welfare than find a job. There are so many comments from people who want black people to stop the looting and stealing and get jobs. Note that the comment isn’t for criminals to stop their criminal activity. People questioning the employment status of some of the protestors is nothing more than an attempt to use racially charged stereotypes to distract from the main issue of a police officer going free after the murder of a black teenager. Again, people’s employment status is not a fact that is pertinent. The only person whose employment is a factor is the employment of Officer Wilson.
Some of the comments I have read said that black people need to take more responsibility for what happens in Ferguson. And that’s pretty funny when you stop to think about it. Because when black people step forward to challenge the status quo that tolerates police officers killing black people, a lot of people want to point a damning finger at black people and tell them to shut up. If black people don’t like it they can go back to Africa. The fact is, the majority of black people that are protesting in Ferguson are not from Africa. They are, in fact, from Ferguson.
But the fact of the matter is that black people in America have the right to protest. The fact of the matter is that police do not have the right to violate anybody’s rights without just cause. We shouldn’t assume that police who shoot black people are justified any more than we would assume that black people who shoot police are justified. Police are afraid of black people. Considering the fact that cops are often acquitted for shooting black people, I seriously doubt if that’s true. However, it is true that unarmed black people often die in a hail of bullets by police officers. The fact of the matter is that more black people die at the hands of police per capita than police die at the hands of black people. And if we want to change that fact, we need to stop giving police a pass whenever they kill a black person. The fact of the matter is that we need to hold them accountable.
Ferguson, Missouri is a scant six miles from the house I grew up in. As I write this, it’s less than thirty miles away from me. I know Ferguson, Missouri. I knew it back when it was predominantly white. My parents would take me there often when we visited the old Korvettes store that resided in nearby Cool Valley just down the street off Florissant Road. White flight had kicked in a long time ago. Now, predominantly black, I have family and friends living there neck deep in the chaos that is following the murder of the young, black Michael Brown at the hands of a local police officer.
Despite the despair you might see and/or hear in the news, Ferguson is a beautiful little town with a lot to offer people. The white flight that the town experienced has a lot more to do with the drastic downsizing of McDonnell-Douglas, of the major employer for the area, before it was bought out by Boeing many decades ago. Without the constant infusion of revenue from defense contractor paychecks that fueled city development, a lot of people saw the writing on the wall and fled to greener pastures. As “traditional” America left, a new browner populace moved in ready to take advantage of inexpensive housing in an established area.
What makes Ferguson look like some kind of perdition is not the population, but the heavy handedness of the police against a peaceful African American community. In response to watching a black, eighteen year old Michael Brown and his friend walking down the middle of the street, a police officer initiates a confrontation that results in the young man’s death.
This happens just days after a similar confrontation is initiated against Eric Garner, the forty year old black man who suffered from asthma and obesity and wound up in a choke hold by police officers after he had the audacity to express his frustration at being harassed by the police accusing him of illegally selling cigarettes. Mr. Garner didn’t resist arrest. When the officer grabbed the frustrated black man from behind and put the long arm of the law around Mr. Garner’s neck, the black man put his hands in the air as if to surrender. Never once did he fight back to defend himself. And when he complained he couldn’t breathe the police responded by watching him die. Who knew the penalty for a black man selling cigarettes was death?
Michael Brown probably thought about that when the police officer drove the squad car right up against him. According to witnesses the officer couldn’t even get out the car without hitting the young man that was about to die. Michael Brown probably felt threatened. And if that was truly the case then he was right because the unarmed, young black Michael Brown wound up dead. The police department claimed that there was a struggle for the officer’s gun before the young black man was murdered. An investigation is being conducted so we’re not privy to everything. But we have enough information to know that another black teenager died needlessly because of another gung-ho police officer.
Black people are frustrated and angry. The black community wants swift justice. The police department wants to slow things down to make sure every move that goes down from this point forward is careful. Leaders of the black community say they wanted peace and they asked the black community to respect the memory of Michael Brown and the family of Michael Brown with peaceful protest and prayer. The leaders of the police department said they wanted peace as well. But then the police department responded by pulling out their camouflage uniforms, riot gear, full body armor, assault rifles with rubber bullets and laser sights, and the mine resistant armored personnel carrier that are little more than small tanks. People were arrested without being read their Miranda rights. The police arrested journalists. The police arrested the local state senator and an alderman that were there to support their constituents. The police fired tear gas at people protesting peacefully.
These people were unarmed and exercising their Constitutional right to peacefully protest. Now there have been some opportunistic people using this chaos to loot business and for other criminal activity. And while they might be “inspired” by the death of Michael brown to commit crime, the bottom line is that they are criminals and they deserve to be arrested and prosecuted because they committed a crime. They committed a crime and deserve punishment just like the police officer who killed Michael Brown committed a crime and deserves to be punished. But instead of arresting criminals, the police want to arrest peaceful protestors, politicians, and journalists who have the audacity to question their authority.
Now all of this is unfortunate. There was no need to kill the unarmed Michael Brown. There was no need to respond to the unarmed protestors with an escalation of police driven violence. How would the police respond if somebody in the Ferguson neighborhood brought out their own armored vehicle? Let’s think about that for a second with an analogy. How did the United States respond when Russia brought their armored vehicles to the border of Ukraine? It was unacceptable. It was a clear sign of defiance and a provocation. The mere presence of peaceful protestors is a provocation to the police. But the police are free to bring their big toys out when they are the ones who are clearly in the wrong.
And if all of this isn’t enough to show the rotten stench of disparity in America, let’s throw one more issue into the mix. Where was all of the police in camouflage and riot gear and military vehicles when Cliven Bundy was stirring up his militia buddies in Nevada earlier this year? Those protestors were armed to the teeth with assault weapons and sniper rifles aimed at federal officials and instead of meeting that force with government sanctioned overwhelming force, the encounter was deescalated and the government is still examining the situation, waiting to exercise its options. Imagine what would have happened if Cliven Bundy was black and the armed people who gathered to support him were black. I’m sure Mr. Bundy would have been dead a long time ago.
Ferguson may look like a hell hole. But it’s not because of the people who live there and walk down the middle of its streets. Ferguson is a hell hole because the black people there are treated like enemies of the state. This is just the latest example of a long list of examples of unarmed black people losing their lives because of some perceived slight by some police officer with a chip on his/her shoulder. Ferguson looks like a hell hole because it is full of black people and black people are truly the enemies of our police state.
You’d have to be just fucking dead or just dead in the brain not to know anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The latest round of fighting follows the age old formula between the two combatants that has changed little since the two have existed. Israel says the Palestinians hate their very existence to the point that Israel feels the need to rule surround Gaza with an economic blockade that chokes the life out of the people there to the point where political leaders feel compelled to fire rockets at Israel that for the most part are destroyed against Israel’s United States sourced iron dome shield but then Israel is compelled to retaliate against the useless Palestinian rockets with its own deadly accurate force with weapons again sourced from the United States against Palestine’s nonexistent iron dome that inevitably winds up killing hundreds of civilian men, women, and Palestinian children to which Israel claims the only reason they wind up killing the children is because the Palestinians hide their weapons amongst the civilians in an effort to use them as shields to which Israel is helpless to do anything but act as a hapless actor in the killing of Palestinians because Israel has a right to defend itself.
The only problem with that scenario is that Israel is far from being unable to control its role in the senseless killing and/or murder of Palestinians. Israel has the right to defend itself. But it does not have the right to needlessly mow down masses of civilians with weapons of mass destruction. On a daily basis we can watch the news for the latest video of Israel’s relentless proclivity for the destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has taken aim and pulled the trigger at the homes of the Palestinian people. Israel has destroyed entire buildings with the claim that a rocket may have been fired from its vicinity. Last night, I saw a video of their precision guided weaponry taking out an entire city block of buildings in order to prevent another launch of an ineffective Palestinian rocket. They have targeted and devastated schools full of Palestinian children trying to seek refuge from the onslaught. They have destroyed mosques. They have even gone so far as to obliterate buildings flying the flag of the United Nations and designated as a safe haven for anyone trying to escape the war. But even the flag of the United Nations offers no sanctuary from Israel’s war machine bought and paid for with great expense by the taxpaying people of the United States.
It’s as if Israel is hell bent on using the Palestinian people as targets in this slaughter disguised as war. The Israelis have bought deeply into the argument that the warmongers in the Gaza strip are using the Palestinian people as shields to hide their weaponry behind. This argument is so ingrained that the warmongers in Israel believe that all they have to do is target the children because, ipso facto, where there’s Palestinian children there will be Palestinian weapons. Destroy the children and you’ll destroy the weapons. And once the weapons are gone and there’s no need to continue with the murder of the Palestinian people the world can go back to ignoring the fact that Israel has an economic blockade around Gaza to continue the slow murder of a people under the tried and far from true theme that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. To be honest, if that’s how they truly felt, who can blame the Palestinian people after the shit
Israel has done to them?
I mean really, who but Israel is afforded the luxury of killing children under the pretense that there was a bad guy in their midst. That’s not how this works. It doesn’t matter if the bad guy has a gun pointed at the good guy. If the bad guy is hiding behind a child, a woman, or any innocent bystander then the good guy stops. It doesn’t matter if the bad guy is holding his/her own child. The good guy doesn’t just shoot with and take a chance of innocent people getting hurt. That’s a rule that even Dirty Harry didn’t break. You avoid killing bystanders because if you don’t, you’re no better than the people you claim you want to stop. Keep your gun pointed. Keep ready to look for an opening where you can take the bad guy out with minimum collateral damage. Intimidate the bad guy with catch phrases like “ask yourself if you feel lucky” or “go ahead and make my day” or “get off my lawn” or whatever. But don’t be so cavalier as to shoot first, kill the suspect brandishing an ineffective weapon at you and the hostage without a second thought, and then point a damning finger at the bad guy while telling the world that you had no choice because you have the right to defend yourself. Defending yourself doesn’t mean you have a right to wanton murder.
It is far past time for Israel to be held accountable for its mass destruction of its neighbor. If this was Syria we’d be all into this mess by now with a military threat to punish. If this was Russia claiming they had to kill the people of Crimea in order to defend their selves we would be talking to the world about providing economic sanctions to stop the madness. But when it’s Israel? We simply give Israel more weapons and more armor and more of our tax paid revenue to impose their will on people trying to hide in United Nations sponsored sanctuaries. If this was Dirty Harry Callahan we would have asked for his gun and badge a long time ago. And if that didn’t stop him from killing people who posed no real threat to his existence we’d throw him in jail. Why is Israel different?
Life always gets busy. At least it does for most people. You think you have time to do all the things you want done. You want to contribute to the community. You want to contribute to your household. You want to be there for your family. You want to contribute to that Ford dealership so you can buy a new Mustang Boss. You want to exercise and take care of yourself. You want to maintain a blog. You want to exist to the point that you grow old and realize that you really can’t do it all and something’s got to give. And you start to realize, that amongst other things, a blog really isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things. If I stopped contributing to my blog as much, I’d free up a little time to do some of the other things that I would later one day realize weren’t all that important to do either.
I knew one day I’d write another post. I just didn’t know what it would be about. Would it be about undocumented Latin American children coming across the border? Would it be about a politician hell bent on keeping black people from voting? Would it be about the Affordable Care Act and how it has helped millions of people obtain healthcare despite some people’s best effort to invalidate President Obama’s signature achievement? Would it be about some white guy took a shotgun and shot a young black woman in the face through a door in the middle of the night because he was so afraid for his life? Would it be about some fat assed politician who stood idly by while his closest cronies got together to illegally shut down a major thoroughfare into New York City? Some of these topics and many others came pretty close to pulling me back to the keyboard.
But as quickly as I thought about writing something I would dismiss the thought. I’d to back to my overwhelming thought that it really wasn’t all that important for me to say whatever to the world. Given enough time I would simply go back to watching the news and continue to sit on the sidelines as the world went to hell in a hand basket.
Then I heard Rula Jebreal call out MSNBC and the other “lame stream media” outlets for their skewed coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict currently unfolding half a world away in Gaza. During her appearance on the relatively new Ronan Farrow Daily program, Ms. Jebreal accused the MSNBC network and the entire news network establishment of being supportive of a destructive Israeli policy by giving too much airtime to Israeli officials and not nearly enough to representatives of the Palestinians. Mr. Farrow tried to defend his network’s coverage, but Ms. Jebreal would not have any of it and continued to pounce. When Mr. Farrow replied that there have been Palestinian voices on the air, Ms. Jebreal countered that the Palestinians would be on for thirty seconds while they would devote entire segments of air time to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As I listened to Ms. Jebreal I had to admit to myself that she had a point. I’ve always thought that the news media simply refused to address the underlying issue of what caused the Palestinians to fire their rockets into Israeli territory. The way the story is often portrayed you’d think that the leaders of Hamas, the organization currently governing Gaza, just woke up one day and decided to try and wipe Israel off the face of the earth with relatively crude rockets that would make a Scud missile look sophisticated by comparison. Along with Israel’s Iron Dome defense system that has been credited with literally shooting so many of these rockets harmlessly out of the sky, the idea that Hamas thinks it could destroy Israel out of some ideological fixation on its destruction is extremely simple minded.
The real reason the latest round in this never ending conflict was started goes back to issues revolving around the lack of mutual recognition for each other’s right to exist as well as border security, water rights, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and the control of Jerusalem and holy sites. Because of an inability for Israeli and Palestinian people to come to terms with these issues, Israel imposes its will onto the Palestinian people by force. The Palestinians live under a military blockade that has caused the vast majority of Gaza’s businesses to close. Thousand of factories were closed and tens of thousands of people were put out of work. Poverty is rampant. Unwilling to continue to live under such woeful conditions the Hamas organization retaliated with rudimentary rocket fire. And Israel retaliated with the latest lethal tools of war courtesy of the United States military industrial complex.
Now by no means is anyone here saying that Palestine is right and Israel is wrong. There is plenty of blame to go on both sides. But it should be noted that the number of innocent Palestinian children that have been killed in Israeli’s retaliatory air strikes far outnumber the number of Israeli soldiers killed as they invaded Gaza in a ground assault. And yet, the media will try to convince us that Hamas simply wants to destroy Israel for the sake of ancient doctrine. If that’s truly the case then the people of Hamas are truly the epitome of stupid, and I seriously doubt if that’s truly the case.
It appears that Israel is controlling the conversation. They always have. It is their contention that everything was fine until the Hamas rockets started falling. Now, the entire Jewish state is at risk of being wiped out unless completely devastating force is used to quash the dissent. The Israeli representatives will say that they have no choice but to annihilate the rebellious Palestinians and the media are just too eager to buy into that argument. Where is the counter argument from the Palestinians? Basically, it is my understanding that this is the question, this is the point that Ms. Jebreal was trying to make. In response to Ms. Jebreal’s passionate outburst, MSNBC cancelled all of her future appearances on the network.
Now this is where my goat gets got. By far the vast majority of my news comes from MSNBC. While it is by no means perfect, I prefer the more liberal bias of MSNBC to the rabidly conservative commentary of FOX News or even the dribble of news reporting from CNN. I’ve watched MSNBC back in the days of Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams. I will admit that I listened to the network with just a certain amount of skepticism. Not everything you hear on television is true. But it was a lot better than the network promoting their fair and balanced approach to railroading anything that isn’t the most right winged political agenda possible. I always thought that it would be FOX News that would fire people for not toeing the line. FOX News would hardly let one of their fair and balanced commentators or contributors go off their carefully crafted script. Maybe Alan Combs would be their lone, soft spoken, exception.
Obviously Ms. Jebreal was not toeing MSNBC’s line and MSNBC has the right to turn down her future services for it. My rant is not to say that MSNBC is not so entitled. But in their single minded focus on making sure their contributors speak from a single perspective with respect to this Israeli-Palestinian conflict MSNBC has lost the focus of the bigger picture. This is the only network that can take a right winged conservative like Joe Scarborough and left winged liberals like Rachel Maddow into a single formula for the entertainment and education of the masses. MSNBC had the better reputation for giving multiple views on an issue. But that reputation is now tarnished when MSNBC joins FOX and CNN and all the other media outlets that are on the Israel propaganda band wagon when they punish Ms. Jebreal for being sympathetic to the Palestinian’s plight.
MSNBC proves that it is no different than any other media outlet. They all have a job to do and that job is to make money. And since there is far more money backing the well to do Israel than there is backing the ninety percent poverty stricken Palestine any media outlet would be foolish to allow anything to jeopardize that revenue stream including the truth. Israel wants people to believe that they are just defending themselves regardless of what’s really going on. Anybody who makes the suggestion that there’s another side to this story and it should be heard just as loudly is just asking for trouble. The truth will always take a backseat to somebody’s political agenda no matter what news outlet is used for the delivery medium.
Yes MSNBC has hired activist Al Sharpton to be their talking head. Mr. Sharpton’s reputation for speaking up for people who are being railroaded by the establishment is well known. MSNBC wanted to capitalize on Mr. Sharpton’s reputation to strengthen its appeal to people who can sympathize with the downtrodden. The network went out of its way to develop an environment of political progressivism. The network even promoted itself with the tagline, “What Progressives have been waiting for”.
But when MSNBC is given an opportunity to truly develop its own reputation for speaking up for the downtrodden in Palestine it does just the opposite. Truth be told, if this latest attempt to put a leash on journalism is any indication, progressives will just have to continue waiting.
President Barack Obama learned a long time ago of the dangers associated with being a black politician at a national level and vocalizing anything about the institutionalized racism of the United States. While obviously racially non black politicians are free to remind the public of America’s racial shortcomings, a black politician doesn’t have that luxury out of some perception that the black politician would appear too close to the black community. When such an observation starts to manifest, the fear is that the black community’s need would trump the white community’s wants and America would never tolerate such a circumstance. It wouldn’t matter if the entire black community was slipping further into the oblivion of poverty and all the social ills associated with that condition, if white America wants ice cream somebody better make sure there’s a national plan to provide ice cream. To hell with black people!
When the news broke that candidate Barack Obama’s pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a closet racist who hated white people, regardless of how inaccurate the story was, Mr. Obama had to stiff arm his spiritual mentor for his political survival. When Mr. Obama weighed in on the arrest of his friend Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr. and called the behavior of the Cambridge police stupid for arresting the prominent black American out of his own house, Mr. Obama was so vilified by his political opponents and many across the country that he had to back pedal his comments like Michael Jackson in a Billy Jean video. And when Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in cold blood and his killer was allowed to go home with his murder weapon and protests were being held all over the country, Mr. Obama’s rather benign comment that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon, his political critics again pounced on him calling the President a race baiter as they did their best to inject race into the matter as they rallied support for the black teenager’s murderer.
But all of that happened prior to Mr. Obama being reelected for his second term as commander-in-chief. Now that he’s been reelected and is no longer eligible to run for the highest office in the land again, Mr. Obama is a little freer to express himself more openly about issues of race. Before being reelected he would do his best to quell the specter of racism by saying that he didn’t think race was a factor in any happenings no matter how racially charged. But if Mr. Obama’s latest venture into the unwelcomed discussion of America’s racial dysfunction that many loath to have is any indication, things might be a little different now from the President’s perspective.
Six days after a six women jury acquitted George Zimmerman of any wrong doing in his assassination of Trayvon Martin the President surprised the White House reporters by appearing before them during a routine press conference being conducted by Press Secretary Jay Carney. Unprompted and unscripted the President extended his sympathies to the parents of Trayvon Martin. The President actually empathized with the murdered teenager saying that he could’ve been Trayvon thirty five short years ago. Thirty five years ago a young Barack Obama could have been murdered as he was walking home minding his own business and somebody thought it a good idea to snuff his life out and his murderer could’ve been acquitted because young Barry foolishly thought he could rebel against the establishment like so many other teenagers do, black and white.
Mr. Obama talked about how people responded to him in his earlier years by locking their car doors as he walked through the neighborhood, by people crossing the street as he walked towards them on the sidewalk, by women clutching their purse closer to their body as he got onto an elevator, and by being followed through a department store as if he would shoplift at any moment compelled to do so driven by his black skin. Mr. Obama knows all too well that being black is not even close to being some kind of benefit in our social construct. It is a curse that makes it possible for a black teenager to be murdered in the darkness of the evening.
Mr. Obama is ready to talk about his racism of the past. But he still needs to acknowledge the racism he continues to experience to this day. How else can anyone explain how the most powerful man in the free world is constantly hounded to produce his birth certificate as proof that he belongs in America and is eligible to serve as President unlike every single President that has come before him who were all accepted to be a citizen without question? Even though he doesn’t have to run for office again he still needs the support of the American people in order to do his job and hold his political opponents at bay. And the last thing America wants is to support any black person who is willing to say that they can’t do their job because of the racism that runs rampant in this country. Too many people are too ready to dismiss claims of racism as little more as whining in order to cover incompetence. Pull yourself up by your bootstrap is the knee jerk, overly simplistic response to racism regardless if it can be proven or not. The question is can you prove it beyond a shadow of doubt. And for many people, that shadow is so long it can never be overcome.
Americans want to hear that everything is good and racism is in our past or at least it’s getting better. In fact, Mr. Obama said as much when he gave his impromptu press conference. Despite our racial dysfunction, Mr. Obama says he looks at his daughters and their friends and comforts himself with the belief that things have gotten better and will continue to improve with time. We believe things have gotten so much better that we don’t even recognize the horrible fact that nothing’s changed. Just like Emmett Till was murdered way back in 1955 accused of doing something unseemly and paying for it with his life, Trayvon Martin was murdered today under accusations of attacking the man who was stalking him. Just like black people testified about what happened to Emmett Till and were dismissed, according to juror B-37 Rachel Jeantel’s testimony was dismissed as unreliable because of her lack of proper diction and the fact that she wasn’t properly educated. It’s a fair bet that the fact that she was black had something to do with her lack of credibility as well. Just like back then somebody got away with murder even though he was standing right there with the gun in his hand.
Things might look like they’re getting better. But the simple fact that to this day we continue to let our black children die and their murderers walk free proves that it isn’t getting any better at all. In fact, if you add the lies that things have gotten better, the deception of racial equality that we live under, things are far worse now than they’ve ever been. Back in Emmett Till’s day black people knew that they were second class citizens and no amount of sugar coating about how black people weren’t slaves anymore was going to make it better. Our measure for discrimination is not how good or bad our ancestors and elders had it. The measure for racial discrimination is the fact that we still do not live in a racially equal society. Our black children will continue to die until we wake up and recognize this simple fact and really begin to do something about it.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a very disgusting man. The country was cursed to suffer this man on our highest court by no other than the pope of conservatism, President Ronald Reagan, in 1986 and has been doing his best to roll back every social gain achieved by this country in the past half century. Mr. Scalia was never one to hide his disdain for minorities or for anybody who needed advocating on their behalf. He prefers a strict interpretation of the country’s Constitution. In this small man’s opinion, if the founding fathers were okay with it, it’s good enough for the rest of us almost two and a half centuries later. And if the founding fathers thought it was okay for the people of African descent to be less than human or considered white people’s property, it is reasonable to assume that it is Mr. Scalia’s expert justice opinion that the black people of today are just going to have to learn to deal with second class citizenship as their lot in life in the United States.
It has been said that Mr. Scalia is the type of justice that revels in his ability to illicit a shocking reaction to his outlandish statements. He loves the attention it garners. Leave it to Mr. Scalia to say something kooky enough to take the nation, if not the world, aback.
But Mr. Scalia’s latest statement for the sake of shock and awe appears to have crossed the line of reasonably acceptable for a justice. Mr. Scalia made the comment that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act was a perpetuation of racial entitlement. The law that protected black people’s right to vote, because that right was being routinely sabotaged by white people intent on keeping black people from being able to vote, was a form of perpetual racial entitlement. Mr. Scalia went on to say that, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”
Now a sense of political entitlement is an assumption of political privileges that don’t apply to everyone. Racial minorities having their rights protected because some, notably state politicians with an overblown sense of white privilege, wanted to unfairly eviscerate the voting rights of black people, leaving that right as a privilege of being white. So in a sense, without even realizing how appropriate his words were, Mr. Scalia hit the racial nail on the racial head when he said that it is difficult for a society that adopts racial entitlements to get out of them through the political process.
From the very moment white people felt entitled to lord over black people it has been a fight for them to relinquish that sense of entitlement. The problem isn’t protecting black people’s right to vote. Anybody who cares to look at this country’s history of institutionalized racial discrimination will know that people across the racial spectrum had to fight and die for black people to be recognized as white people’s equal. From the very moment black people were injected into this country’s social makeup against their will, white people had assumed, had adopted a sense of racial entitlement and privilege. Too many people have adopted the idea that black people wanting what white people have claimed as their own is an attempt to change the status quo and skew our social construct into black people’s favor. Anything that challenges white people’s sense of racial entitlement is in itself racial entitlement.
This closed circuit circular argument of illogic is the root of Mr. Scalia’s thinking. In his attempt to point a damning finger at people who understand the need to protect people from the racist whims of state legislators who would have no qualms about using their position of authority to run roughshod over the rights of some for the benefit of others, Mr. Scalia bares his gnarled skewed soul for the world to see. And to their credit, many people are aghast to see the new depth of injustice that lies at the pit of this man’s heart.
Any other justice in any other court in this country would have the good sense or, at the very minimum, the responsibility to their job to recues his or her self from the trial in question if they had vocalized such a totally biased statement. But it should be obvious by now that Mr. Scalia has no true sense or understanding of justice. Or, if there is some kernel of legal propriety within his comprehension, it takes a way back of the bus seat to his need to perpetuate his racial entitlement. It would be no surprise to see the Voting Rights Act go down in flames under the whim of this current version of our high court. Indeed, it would be surprising to see the Voting Rights Act survive in its intended form to protect the rights of all people to influence their government in a fair election process. It will be no surprise to see Mr. Scalia leading Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Anthony Kennedy to undo one of the pillars that actually gives meaning to our pledge of justice for all. If there was ever a case for term limits being given on our Supreme Court, Mr. Scalia has made the case most ineloquently as any single person could. God deliver us from such small minded people.
Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu decided to wear his racism on his sleeve after former Secretary of State Colin Powel went public with his decision to endorse Barack Obama for a second term as President of the United States instead of his Republican associate former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Way back during the GOP primaries Mr. Powell was critical about Mr. Romney. After Mr. Romney made the comment that Russia was the number one geopolitical foe of the United States Mr. Powell made the suggestion that Mr. Romney should actually think about what he’s saying if he wants to become President. Instead, Mr. Romney doubled down on inconsistent nonsense and conservative rhetoric meant to excite the Republican faithful but few others. In the end Mr. Powell made his critical endorsement.
Like a pit bull trained to attack, Mr. Sununu leapt to criticize Mr. Powell. During an interview with CNN’s Pierce Morgan, Mr. Sununu made the suggestion that Mr. Powell suffers from being black. Mr. Sununu said that when some black people are conditioned to support other black people in a key position or role no matter what. Mr. Powell supports Mr. Obama only because of the commonality of their skin color and not because Mr. Powell made an honest assessment and concluded that Mr. Obama as the better choice to lead the country. Mr. Sununu wants people to believe that a black man that served three conservative white skinned Presidents is now so color struck for another black man that he can’t think straight.
Later, Mr. Sununu offered an apology to his “good friend” Mr. Powell and retracted his statement. Like a lot of conservative politicians these days, he says his words filled with race baiting rancor were being taken out of context. But the message was clear to the racially bigoted voters who could be motivated to keep a couple of Negroid boys from working together to keep America out of the hands of people who are most assuredly more competent simply because we know that they aren’t black.
Yes it is true that a lot of black people have a lot of pride in the fact that Mr. Obama is our first black President. And it is also true that there are black people who will support Mr. Obama for President no matter what simply because of the color of his skin. But Mr. Powell hardly fits into such a category. Mr. Powell is one of the many black people who understand facts from their personal perspective and have decided that Mr. Obama is a better choice for the black community as well as the larger community of America as well as the world. And in the grand pantheon that comprises the black community, some black people might isolate between the two conditions of color struck and thoughtful analysis.
But just like some black people may suffer from a color struck condition that will drive their preferences, this malady is far more prevalent in the white community. Far more white people will see a black person and respond instinctively to skin tones. White people’s penchant for judging people by the color of skin is so strong that they have an entire history of enslaving people for nothing more than having the wrong skin color. And with white people’s history of blatant, disparate racism, why would a white person like Mr. Sununu feel compelled to accuse Mr. Powell of overt racism? Mr. Powell explained his position in thoughtful detail and yet Mr. Sununu felt compelled to play the race card and say that it all boils down to black people wanting to see each other do well.
So do white people ever feel compelled to see other white people do well? Or more appropriately we should ask do white people ever feel compelled to make sure black people don’t do well? All we have to do is look at America’s racially polarized history to find the answer to that question. American history proves that white people will go out of their way to keep black people from being successful or credible. For some white people, to see a black person do well is to see a target that needs to be attacked and taken down at all cost. Some white people are so driven by this instinct that they would be willing to throw the country into chaos just to keep a black man from being successful. How else would you explain why four years ago a group of white politicians got together to make sure the term of America’s first black President would be as ineffective as possible and do their best to block his every move with filibusters and legislative maneuverings meant to being government to a screeching stop.
Mr. Sununu’s assessment of Colin Powell was a twofer. He knocked the black former Secretary of State for being so racist that he would support a black President with nothing to base that decision on but the color of his skin. Both Mr. Powell and Mr. Obama have a history of working for white people and with white people that should prove their willingness to put everything else to the side for the bigger picture or the issue at hand.
The same can’t be said about Mr. Sununu. In his eye, the only reason black people support other black people is the commonality of skin color. Unfortunately, Mr. Sununu is one of those white people who cannot stand to see black people do well and is driven by an inherent need to follow his racially biased instincts at all costs.
Years ago I was in a Home Depot store trying to buy eight feet of heavy chain for a home project. Home Depot sells chains by the foot off of a large spool of chain hundreds of feet long. You have to get some assistance in order to have the chain cut to your specific need. After the chain was cut the Home Depot employee handed me the chain and I asked if all I had to do was take it to the cashier and checkout. The guy replied that he had to give me a sales slip that indicated how much chain I had and how much it cost. Then in a rather pitiful attempt at humor, as he handed me the sales slip the guy said that if I took the chain upfront without the slip that they would put me in chains.
I’m sure the guy didn’t mean anything by what he said. He was a young black guy, probably still in high school, and there was a good chance it was probably his first job. Nevertheless, I was somewhat offended by what he said. It wasn’t that he didn’t know how to give good customer service. When I first arrived in the hardware section he was helping a white couple with whatever it was they were purchasing. Without trying to eavesdrop as I waited for my turn for service I could hear how courteous and professional he could be. When he started to help me he started with the same customer service demeanor. The quip was totally jarring. Without another word I snatched the sales slip out of the guy’s hand and left to complete the purchase.
I was reminded of that incident in the Home Depot when I heard the news about Vice President Joe Biden’s reference that the Republican’s repeal of Wall Street regulations enacted since the financial crisis that threw the country into economic crisis would throw people back in chains. The remark was made in front of an audience of supporters with many African Americans. I thought Mr. Biden should not have gone there. Whatever excuse he had for the inspiration of the metaphor he should have thought twice about it. For me it didn’t matter if it was a reference to the some conservative saying that Republicans should unshackle business from the burden of unnecessary regulations imposed by the Obama administration.
At first glance the remark could be construed as somewhat racially insensitive. But kind of like the young black guy back at the Home Depot a few years back who probably wasn’t trying to offend a customer, I’m pretty certain that Mr. Biden wasn’t trying to offend his supporters. Mr. Biden has a reputation for making gaffs and his speech the other day is just one of the latest in a long line that goes back decades. Generally speaking he has been the type of politician that supports the view of the black community on most issues. If his words can be judged to be racially insensitive it is more than likely a momentary lack of judgment and not just the latest manifestation of a personal philosophy of racial insensitivity or a possible hostility towards black people.
Compare Mr. Biden’s single sentence remark to the recent philosophies of conservative politicians who wear their disdain for black people on their sleeves. Compare Mr. Biden’s single sentence to Newt Gingrich’s core belief that black people need to give up their pursuit of welfare checks and start earning an honest living. Compare Mr. Biden’s remark to Ron Paul and his newsletter with its plethora of racist statements like black people will stop rioting when the welfare checks arrive or that young blacks accused of crimes should be treated as adults because they are black. Compare Mr. Biden’s remark to Herman Cain’s contention that black people are too brainwashed against the conservative philosophy of the Republican Party. Compare Mr. Biden’s remark to the conservative’s current political strategy to disenfranchise black people from voting under the guise that voting fraud is so rampant that new standards for voter identification are required to combat the problem. In all honesty the slip of Mr. Biden’s lip is nothing compared to the long chain of political attacks against black people as well as the institutions and policies that support a large portion of the black community.
Now some conservatives want to point at Mr. Biden’s statement and say that he’s the one that is now being divisive and insensitive. Some claim that Mr. Biden telling people that the Republicans want to put people in chains is out of line. It is an affront to the party of President Abraham Lincoln who freed black people from America’s nationally institutionalized racial enslavement. But these same people don’t have a problem saying that President Obama has chained or shackled businesses with regulations. These are the same businesses that continue to show record profits and distribute massive executive bonuses while at the same time shedding jobs for workers. When Mr. Obama took office, the stock market was trading somewhere down in the eight thousand range. Now it is trading over thirteen thousand. That’s a healthy improvement for anybody forced to operate under the burden of shackles.
So I guess we can wrap this all up real quick by saying Mr. Biden shouldn’t have said what he said. We all know he wasn’t trying to be literal just like we all know that the conservatives who accuse liberals of trying to shackle business to the burden of regulation weren’t meant to be taken literal. If some conservatives want to act like they’re so offended, after all the shit that they have said about and have done to the black community, join the fucking club. Whatever Mr. Biden said pales in comparison to what many conservatives have said and done. Some of these people have made political and personal attacks against black people an art form.