Tag Archives: racism

Killer tests anti-death penalty principle

I just can’t stand it when one of my long-standing principles gets tested by sociopathic monsters.

It is happening now as I listen to the rantings of the young man who opened fire in that Charleston, S.C., church, killing nine people with whom he had been praying just moments earlier.

A trial jury has convicted the killer — who I will continue to refuse to identify by name — of multiple murder. The moron then fired his defense counsel and is representing himself in the sentencing phase of the trial.

The judge questioned the killer’s ability to provide himself with an adequate defense. The killer said there is “nothing wrong” with his mind. I guess the judge believes him. Fine.

This individual is going to get the death penalty.

My own view against capital punishment is steeped in my belief that it does nothing to deter people from committing the kinds of acts that occurred in Charleston. The shooter surely knew what awaited him when he opened fire on the people inside the church.

The killer, a racist who admits to wanting to start a race war by killing the nine African-Americans in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, is beyond redemption. He says now he has no regrets over what he did; he will not apologize for it.

Although I still believe that capital punishment is the wrong way to punish this monster, I won’t grieve for one moment when the state finally puts him down.

That’s some non-apology, Carl

I’ve read phony apologies many times over the years.

They usually include the phrase “If I offended anyone ,,.”

Carl Palodino, the New York Republican operative/activist and former GOP candidate for governor, has taken the non-apology to a new level.

He said he wished President Obama would die in the coming year of mad cow disease and said Michelle Obama is really a dude who should live with gorillas in Africa.

Palodino’s explanation? What he said to an alternative newspaper in Buffalo, N.Y., was meant only for his “friends.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carl-paladino-email-apology_us_58629a35e4b0d9a5945920ff?section=politics

What? Huh? Are you kidding me?

This guy has said these kinds of things before. If this latest diatribe isn’t drenched in racist intent, then I have been living in some parallel universe for the past 67 years.

Palodino is a strong ally of Donald J. Trump. To its credit, the president-elect’s transition team has issued a strong statement of condemnation of Palodino’s hate-filled comment, calling it “reprehensible.”

As for this notion that he intended these hideous remarks only for his “friends,” how in the name of all that is holy does this guy’s non-apology make anything right?

No ‘racist intent’? Is this guy joking?

OK, I cannot let this one go.

Donald J. Trump says he wants to bind the wounds that divided the nation during a heated presidential campaign.

Fine. Then the president-elect needs to put maximum distance between himself and individuals such as Carl Paladino,  a fellow who ran his campaign in New York.

Paladino, a one-time Republican nominee for New York governor, has said some hideous and hateful things about President and Michelle Obama. He told an alternative publication he wants the president to “die from mad cow disease” in 2017; then it got even worse. Paladino said this about the first lady: “Michelle Obama. I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortable in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.”

The president-elect’s transition team has issued a statement calling Palidino’s statements “reprehensible.” Yes they are, to the max.

What is utterly flabbergasting in the extreme is that Paladino said he didn’t intend any “racist” overtone in his statements.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311686-trump-ny-co-chair-wishes-death-on-obama

According to The Hill: “Paladino on Friday verified to The Buffalo News that his comments were real, attacking the newspaper for inquiring about them. “’Of course I did,’ he said when asked if he had uttered the remarks. ‘Tell them all to go f*** themselves.

“’Tell that Rod Wilson I made that comment just for him,’ Paladino added, referring to one of the newspaper’s black columnists and editors.”

No racist intent? Paladino said he is “not politically correct.”

He is much worse than that.

Trump loses ‘brown-skinned’ supporter

trump_supporter_cnn

Another mystery has emerged along the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign trail.

It involves a young man who supported the Republican presidential nominee. The young man, Jake Anantha, attended his first-ever political rally in North Carolina the other day.

Then he got tossed out. Trump’s security boss booted out Anantha for — and this is Anantha’s version of it — no apparent reason.

Anantha, whose father is of Indian descent, says he got tossed because he has “brown skin.”

Anantha said he tried to explain to the Trump security goon that he was just there to listen to his guy, Trump, and that he is a supporter. The security guy didn’t believe him, Anantha said. So he kicked him out.

Why is this a bigger deal than usual? Well, Trump keeps saying he’s going to win 95 percent of the African-American vote, despite only polling about 1 percent among black voters at the moment. Anantha, though, contends he was thrown out of Trump’s rally only because of the color of his skin.

How is Trump’s outreach to people “of color” going to work in that context?

Granted, we’ve only heard Jake Anantha’s version of the story. Not a peep has come just yet from the Trump campaign. The security guy isn’t talking. Neither is the candidate. Same for Trump’s new campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, who came to the campaign after posting some seriously racist-sounding commentary while working for Breitbart.com. Is there a connection? Hmmm. I don’t know.

Some answers, please. Mr. Trump? Mr. Security Guy? Anyone?

Oh, there’s one more thing.

Jake Anantha no longer supports Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292069-trump-supporter-says-he-was-kicked-out-of-a-trump-rally

This is what you call ‘outreach’

RPTThuEve228TT_JPG_800x1000_q100

I hereby crown Barack Obama as the King of Political Outreach.

The president is convening a town hall meeting at the White House to discuss racism in the nation.

Who do you think he’s invited to take part? None other than Texas Lt. Gov. Dan “They Are Hypocrites!” Patrick.

This is awesome, man!

Patrick popped off right after the shooting erupted in Dallas that killed five police officers. He appeared on “Fox and Friends” to criticize the Black Lives Matter protesters for fleeing the gunfire and seeking help from the very police whose conduct they were protesting.

Thus, came the “hypocrites!” charge.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/patrick-attend-town-hall-obama/

It’s good that Lt. Gov. Patrick will attend this event. It will be televised on ESPN and ABC. The White House is seeking to assemble a diverse group of participants to get as many different points of view as possible.

This, I submit, is the real beauty of town hall meetings, which shouldn’t be used as political echo chambers where everyone applauds the views of everyone else.

As the Texas Tribune reports, quoting White House press secretary Josh Earnest: “I think the president is hopeful that those kinds of interactions will both illuminate a variety of perspectives for the American people to see,” Earnest said, according to a transcript of his daily briefing with reporters. “I also think he’s hopeful that it will illustrate what can happen when people open up their hearts to a different perspective.”

The catalyst for all this, of course, is the shooting of the two young men in Baton Rouge and suburban St. Paul, as well as the Dallas march and the shooting that erupted there. Two young black men died after being shot by white police officers and the shooter — another young black man — opened fire in Dallas in an act of revenge against white police officers.

It’s good that the White House is playing host to this town hall.

It’s even better that the president of the United States has invited an outspoken critic — Dan Patrick — to take part.

You want outreach? This is it.

Ali’s era: simple and complex all at once

Mohammed Ali

As I’ve spent the day pondering last night’s sad news about Muhammad Ali’s death, I was struck by a realization of the era in which he was such a dominant force.

It was that he flourished in a simpler and more complex time.

Ali died of Parkinson’s disease at the age of 74. He apparently had become quite frail in the final months of his life. But what a departure from the picture of strength he exhibited back in the day.

The simplicity of his era is marked by this fact: As the heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Muhammad Ali was the baddest man on the planet.

The night he stopped Sonny Liston after the sixth round to win the title the first of three times, he yelled, “I shook up the world! I’m a ba-a-a-a-d man!” Yes he was.

In those days, without the multitude of boxing commissions and sanctioning bodies we have today, you had an undisputed champ. Ali was that man.

Today, well, it’s far different. You’ve got at least three heavyweight champions of the world. There are times when you have something called “interim champion”; I don’t even know what the hell that means.

All these “world champs” are recognized only by certain governing bodies. If you’ve got the patience, you can slog through all of them.

I quit following the sport — certainly the heavyweight division of it — about the time Larry Holmes walked away from the championship.

The complexity of Ali’s prime time is reflected in the political climate of the era.

Ali got his draft notice from the Selective Service Administration. He had converted to Islam. He vowed never to take up arms against people. Ali refused to be inducted into the armed forces to protest the Vietnam War.

And by 1967, the political mood of the nation had turned against the war. We weren’t winning it the way to which we had grown accustomed. Ali’s refusal to serve rubbed many millions of Americans raw. How dare this brash, young fighter refuse to serve his country, many people said. Why, he had amassed tremendous wealth because of all that the country had offered him.

That didn’t matter to Ali. He stood on principle.

The boxing authorities — the few of them that existed at the time — stripped him of his title. They denied him permits to fight. He was denied an opportunity to do the one thing he did better than anyone on Earth: beat people up.

The Vietnam War raged on while Ali was denied permission to fight.

The champ did not recede quietly into the shadows. He spoke out against the war. He spoke against what he perceived to be the systemic racism that was denying him his right of free expression.

Muhammad Ali became “the most recognizable person on Earth.”

Who today can make that claim?

The U.S. Supreme Court finally would undo the injustice brought to Ali. It voted unanimously to throw out Ali’s conviction for draft evasion. He returned to the ring.

The rest became history … and what a story Muhammad Ali was able to tell.

Time for ‘kinder, gentler’ America

myrna

Myrna Raffkind writes frequently for the Amarillo Globe-News.

Her most recent opinion column appeared in today’s paper. I don’t subscribe to the paper; thus, I don’t see its online edition.

A Facebook friend posted Myrna’ column on his news feed. I picked it up and want to share it here.

If you have a moment, take some time read it. Myrna is one of the more thoughtful and, yes, “kinder and gentler” people I’ve ever known.

***

“An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

After Dylann Roof’s mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in June in South Carolina, the major focus of media attention was on the display/removal of the Confederate flag and the controversy surrounding this issue. Scarcely noticed was another incident following the shooting; this incident being the reaction of the victim’s families when they were allowed to address Roof at the bond hearing. Over and over, the victim’s family members sent the same response — “We forgive him.”

Forgiveness, the willingness to suppress the urge to retaliate, is a concept that seems foreign and almost nonexistent in today’s society.
An “I’ll get you back” mentality seems to permeate the minds and hearts of many Americans. Interestingly, it seems that those who have suffered the most from genocide and abuse are often willing to forgive.

I often think of the words of Elie Weisel, a Holocaust survivor, a man who watched all of his family tortured and killed, a man who speaks for six million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Weisel’s words of wisdom were that we should “forgive but not forget.”

Forgive, but not forget. This is the concept echoed by the greatest leaders of our times — Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Pope Francis. All of these men are speaking on behalf of a minority group that has been abused and mistreated for generation after generation. And yet, they saw the power of forgiveness and the futility of resentment. Their own words send a powerful message.

MLK said, “We must develop the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.”

Gandhi’s words were, “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Speaking on resentment, Mandela said, “Resentment is like a glass of poison that a man drinks; then he sits down and waits for his enemy to die.”

And more recently, Pope Francis stunned the Catholic world and aroused controversy when he declared forgiveness for women who have had abortions.

In Simon Weisenthal’s classic book, “The Sunflower,” he examines the possibilities and limitations of forgiveness. Wiesenthal, while a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp, was taken to visit a dying member of the SS. The German soldier asked Wiesenthal for forgiveness, and Wiesenthal’s response was one of silence. For the rest of his life, Wiesenthal wondered if he had taken the correct action. He asks 53 distinguished theologians, human rights activists, political leaders and writers what they would have done had they been in Wiesenthal’s situation. Their responses are thought-provoking as well as insightful.

Several said that forgiveness was possible, but only if it is accompanied by justice. Those who have committed atrocious acts must be punished so that we will never forget.

Other respondents, thinking of the many Germans who hid Jews in their homes or helped them escape, said that those who have a sense of collective guilt for the crimes that their leaders had engaged in could be forgiven, but never their leaders or those who perpetrated acts of genocide.

Another often-given response was that it made little difference what course of action Weisenthal took; ultimately the only one with the power to forgive was God.

Interestingly, none of the respondents advocated revenge. They note retaliation only hurts. Those consumed by anger lose their capacity for love.

It was not that long ago that President George Herbert Bush argued for a kinder, gentler America — an America that exemplified compassion and respect.

As I listen to the Republican presidential candidates, I wonder what has happened to Bush’s advice. It seems to me that the major tone of most politicians, regardless of political party, is one of anger and retribution. In the debates, there is so much bickering that little time is left for discussion of constructive and workable solutions to our nation’s pressing issues. Perhaps this is just “politics as usual,” but I cannot help but wonder if the time could have been spent more productively.

Would our country not be better off if we followed the example set by the Charleston families — of Weisel, Mandela, Gandhi and Pope Francis? If we opened our minds and hearts to forgiveness?

As Thanksgiving approaches, we reflect on our many blessings, some of which are the freedom to think for ourselves, to express ourselves and to recognize the greatness of our country rather than its shortcomings. Let us bear this in mind as we say our Thanksgiving prayers, and as we strive for a kinder, gentler America.

Fear is overwhelming us

Politically-Correct

I am attaching a link to this post.

Here it is: Stop worrying about PC-ness.

It takes a few minutes to read. It’s from a Christian pastor named Danielle Egnew.

The essay isn’t the end-all to the discussion Americans have been having about terrorism and how we should respond to the refugee crisis that’s erupted in the Middle East — not to mention the terror attacks in Paris, Beirut and places elsewhere that have escaped the world’s attention.

But take a few minutes to read this piece. I believe it speaks to what’s going on here as we seeks answers to some very troubling questions.

Enjoy …

 

Flag becomes easy target … with good reason

confederate flag

A flag is coming down today. TV networks are going to cover the event live, such as they did when we launched men to the moon or when we held state funerals for a murdered president.

This is a big deal for an important reason.

The flag — which symbolizes the kind of bigotry that helped launch the Civil War — is an easily recognizable symbol. Its intent today, in many quarters, is to inspire fear and to terrorize Americans.

It has to come down and it has to be placed in a museum, where adults can tell their children about what this flag means to so many millions of Americans.

The flag in question has flown on the state capitol grounds in Columbia, S.C., the state where just a few weeks ago nine African-Americans were slaughtered in a Charleston church. A young white man has been charged with murder; and that same young white man has been revealed to harbor hatred for African-Americans.

And yes, he’s displayed pictures of himself waving that Confederate battle flag.

You see the flag and any number of things come into your mind.

I see the flag as a symbol of oppression. That it would fly on public property — which is owned jointly by African-Americans and white Americans who see the flag as many of us do — is an insult in the extreme.

Moreover, the flag is different from many other Confederate symbols, such as statues.

There’s a statue at the west end of Ellwood Park here in Amarillo of a Confederate soldier. To be honest, I drove by it for years before I even knew what it represented. To this very day I cannot tell you who it represents, and I doubt most Amarillo residents even know the name of the individual depicted by that statue.

Should that artifact come down? I don’t believe its removal is as necessary as the removal of the flag from the statehouse grounds in South Carolina.

We know what the Confederate battle flag represents to many Americans.

And because it is so easily recognizable as what it is, then it needs to come down.

Today.

 

Let’s get to the hard task of tackling racism

I follow a blog that has produced a most interesting essay.

It comes from Adele Stan, writing in the American Prospect.

The essay says, in summary, that removal of the Confederate flag and other symbols of a dark time in our nation’s history, is worthwhile and necessary. But it’s the easy part. The hard part is tackling the issue it represents: insidious racism.

Here it is:

“We Must Examine Our Own Prejudices”: Removing The Confederate Flag Is Easy; Fixing Racism Is Hard

The essay concludes with this: “So, yes, remove the Confederate flag — that standard of dehumanization, treason, and murder — from our sight. But proof of our intention demands great change in the way in which we lead, the way in which we live, the way in which we think; we must be willing to truly open the riches of progressive society and culture to all. To do that, we must — each and every one of us — examine our own prejudice, and be determined to transcend it. Then the real work of a just society can begin.”

It’s good that we’re having this discussion in the wake of the Charleston tragedy. I’m glad to see public opinion overwhelming the minority that still seeks to find legitimacy in symbols of hate and bigotry.

But as it is noted in the essay attached here, we need to look within to rid ourselves of “our own prejudice.”