Friday, March 27, 2009

Cops That Give Police A Bad Name

After watching this video, I find that there are a lot of questions swirling around in my head. There is however one big query that dominates all the others. Was the Cop (Officer Powell) that stopped Ryan Moats a racist or was he just big jerk? I'm not sure which it is (perhaps he was both).

I'll say this though; Moats was pretty brave or foolhardy (which is understandable given the situation with his mother-in-law) for arguing with police officer given the hair triggers that some of these guys seem to have these days. Moats is lucky he didn't get 15 warning shots in his chest (we now know that Powell had his gun drawn). I’m just saying, two people could have died that night.


Thursday, March 26, 2009

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right!

White cop kills an unarmed black man in the subway:

Black man kills 4 police officers in a shootout:

What is the common factor between these two scenarios? The commonality is that they display the inherently evil actions of individuals. Another thing that they do is promote a negative stereotype of the group as a whole. Now that is a problem for everybody.

The thing about these incidents between the police (rather select members of the “police”) and minority communities(specifically the black community), is that they are actions taken by individuals that end up reflecting poorly on a whole institution or a whole racial group. The thing about the responses coming from certain voices in the groups to which these individuals belong is that they rarely address the problem with the situation at hand (i.e. individual culpability). Instead they choose to shift blame or make excuses for the incident or individual by pointing out the past faults of those in the other group (usually prefaced with “what so and so did was wrong, but …). Such knee jerk reactions are unproductive, to say the least.

If cops are not willing to call out the bad elements in the police departments throughout this nation, then they are promoting a climate where agents of the state are not protecting and serving all law abiding people. The message basically becomes, it’s ok if agents of the state brutalize and murder certain segments of society (no matter how nonthreatening or innocent they are) because, hey…they’re all criminals anyway. The same thing goes for minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, etc) who want to give dangerous criminals a pass (when it is clear that they are in the wrong), because they don’t want to help the police in any capacity. Never mind that it is those same criminals that make our communities unsafe and unpleasant places for good law abiding folk to live.

A cop murders an unarmed man (age doesn’t seem to matter these days) in cold blood, all police lose a little more credibility with the communities that they are supposed to protect. It is hard to protect a community that will not work with you because it fears you and sees you as a large part of the problem. A criminal (who happens to be black) decides he’s going to have a shoot out with police in broad day light (ending up killing 4 officers), reflects badly on all minorities (no matter what their station in life is). The whole community from which that criminal hails gets lumped into one big category labeled “Dangerous Threat”. That categorization (no matter how unfair) seems to be the natural response of many an individual in law enforcement, and that just ends up putting all of us non-white law abiding citizens (especially the male portion) at greater risk.

We have to weed out the bad elements among us. In order to do that we all have to be honest with ourselves and take a hard look at our communities and precincts, and create a climate wear their actions will no longer be tolerated. Its time we look at Oscar Grant and those four police officers, and declare what happened to them as simply wrong in the strongest possible terms with out any qualifiers or shifting of blame. That, I believe, is the way to progress and hopefully reconciliation between the community and the police.


Wednesday, March 25, 2009

That's Not The Kind Of Persistence I Was Talking About!

In case you missed it here is the video of tonight's press conference with the POTUS.

My favorite line of the night (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) was when the POTUS said in response to Ed Henry's question about why it took so long for the administration to speak out (in outrage I presume) about the bonuses at AIG, "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." Talk about one line zingers. That was essentially a verbal backhand to the face of (with all do respect to CNN’s Ed Henry) a reporter who keeps asking a question to which he has gotten the answer. The best part is that he did it with a smile (albeit with a stern tone). He was essentially saying that he wasn't elected to be outraged, he was elected to be a leader in tough times and such leadership requires a cool head and all the information that can be obtained in the time allowed. I like that!


Friday, March 20, 2009

Don't You Forget Your Way Home!

A message to Rhianna and all the survivors of domestic abuse, from Ghost Face Killa...

I couldn't have said it any better myself.


Friday, March 13, 2009

See En Bee See Still Sucks!!

Ohhhhhh...So that's why you mad...

We all need to understand that those who engage in humor with bite (be it satirical, sardonic, political, etc), don't do it to make light of bad situations or bad people (though it may seem that way at first glance). They do it out of frustration, anger, worry, confusion, and that general sense of "WTF" that we all feel when our leaders (in politics, entertainment, business, etc) engage in douchebaggery. These late night talk shows and sketch comedy shows are really our last hope of getting information on what is going on and why we should be outraged. It works so well because often times the comedians on those shows are outraged.

It's why Letterman was on fire when he lit into John McCain for cancelling on him at the last minute to do an interview with CBS news (he was angered by the snub). Its why those skits with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin were such a hit (the possibility of her being our next VP was THAT frightening). Its John Stewart is able to kill it every night with his expose on the hypocrisy of certain institutions (i.e. political parties and members of the MSM), the most recent of which being CNBC (his expression of that general "WTF...Am I the only one seeing this for what it is?!?" type of feeling that we all get). The angrier the comedian is the more biting his/her jokes become and the louder we all laugh, because we are just as angry. Sounds paradoxical, but that's how this type of comedy has worked since the days of feudalism (and perhaps before that time).

And its not like those in power can scare these shows into being the sycophants that many in the MSM sometimes (well...most of the time) are. Danielle Belton explained the situation best on her blog. They don't have to kiss the butt cheeks of those people for fear of getting shut out from talking to those people again. If they do ever get Zero Access to any these stars, personalities, or politicians, they’ll just make fun of those people until those people have to come on their show in an attempt at damage control (McCain on Letterman, Cramer on the Daily Show, Palin on SNL). In the end its all done to give you what the news used to do back in the day (when it was on for one hour every day) give you the information about the world around you(only with lols attached).

So next time you watch one of these shows and your laughing your butt off, stop and think for a minute about why its all so funny. After you've done that, think about why perhaps you should be mad!


Thursday, March 5, 2009

See En Bee See Sucks

I tell ya, when he's on it...HE IS ON IT! Tell 'em why you mad son...


Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Who's In Charge Here!?

I have one simple question. Who runs the Republican Party? Who runs it?

People could give me the full list of the usual suspects (Lott, McCain, Palin *snigger*, Romny, Huckaby, Joe the *insert occupation here*, etc) and I’d just be shaking my head. Those fine people, while still being heavy weights in the game, are just politicians who failed to bring home the championship belt. The Elephants suffered a crushing defeat the night of November 4th, 2008 and their generals have not really made any big news since.

So I ask again, who is in charge of the elephants?

Is it Michael Steele? No! It is certainly not Michael Steele. Steele is at best a figure head (a last ditch effort of a dying party desperately trying to stay relevant). He is essentially a Palin*. Yeah sure, they’ll let him drive the Cadillac around, but they won’t ever let him take home the keys. Here’s an example of my point...

Steele's Remarks:

Limbaugh's Retort:

Steele of course, promptly apologizes!

I am of the opinion that Steele is well aware of the game being played here (I’ll give you a hint, its not checkers) and what piece he represents. That is why he sent Darth Rush (kidding) that hasty apology for his comments on the D.L Hughly show.

The leader of the Republican Party is not Rush Limbaugh either. He is of course an immensely influential man and certainly Politicians are wary of going toe to toe with him, but he doesn’t lead the Republican Party (or the conservative movement for that matter). He can’t possibly be the leader of…well…anything, because he can’t lead. Rush is no more than a mouth piece, the voice of plebeians in the Red States of America in the form of a rich fat balding white man with drug issues. steele was right about Rush just being an entertainer with a gift of being able to move the masses with his rhetoric. A leader on the other hand is someone who not only moves the people, but has a vision/goal for those people and convinces them to follow him/her in order to accomplishing that vision/goal. I don't believe Rush has the ingredients to be such a person.

So who’s in charge of the GOP? Who is the man (or woman) behind the curtain? Someone please let me know!


* A term that denotes a person who is the embodiment of the Republican’s version of a winning strategy successfully used by the Democrats, yet with moderate success (when compared to the Democratic success) or no success at all. Named after the governor of Alaska, who appears to have only been chosen as a running mate for John McCain in response to the nearly successful primary campaign of Hilary Clinton.