AFAM Newsbits-December 2014

Share this:

OTHER’S BITS
A PRAGMATIST:  “If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re probably on the menu.”

A POLITICIAN:  “If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re on the menu.”

A CONCERNED PARENT:  “You can’t make the same mistake twice. The second time it’s not a mistake; it’s a choice.”

THE BIGGEST CRIME:  “The soft bigotry of low expectations.”

THE RULE OF LAW
The outcome of Vikings football player Adrian Peterson’s encounter with the law for “switching” his kid is a perfect example of why I prefer the rule of law over the rule of mass hysteria. The repentant Peterson was allowed to plead “no contest” to a misdemeanor charge of reckless assault and received no jail time. He was originally over-charged with a felony and the mainstream media whipped up public sentiment to make it appear that Peterson beat his son with a branch. Now, some people don’t know the difference between a switch and a branch but you can bet that members of the media who chose to use the “branch” term knew. And they also knew that use of the term “branch” would outrage and attract more readers. Now that the law has held sway, let’s get (Peterson) back to football.

AND THE RULE OF “OUR LAW”
There is no competent attorney in his honest right mind who doesn’t know that the cop in Ferguson, Missouri, who shot Michael Brown, should be tried. But many who know, as well as many non-attorneys, will stretch the law even beyond its limits to protect “one of their own.” A cop protecting a cop. A White man protecting a White man. A biased prosecutor, whose cop father was killed by a Black man, seeking revenge and protecting his memory of his father. Bigots, who consider a Black man’s life as expendable, protecting their belief. All of the self-serving nonsense notwithstanding, the standard for “probable cause” is so low under the law that there are no rational set of interpretations of the facts in Ferguson that would justify a lack of probable cause finding. Under all normal legal standards, the cop should be tried. Not in a secret probable cause hearing but by an open and public trial. Even though I believe the White cop is guilty as hell of executing Michael Brown, as many others understandably do, if he is acquitted at trial, I can accept it without nearly as much bitterness because the legal system, which is not perfect, will have worked. (After all, O.J. Simpson was acquitted.) And that is the problem with the Ferguson fiasco that is riling up the crowds. The rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of “our law” and justice is not being served.

THE RULE OF MALCOLM X Michael Brown’s parents are taking a chapter from the life of Malcolm X whose frustration with the failure of the American legal system to address Black grievances led him to bring his complaints to the United Nations. Malcolm understood, like few others did, that when it came to civil rights for Black Americans, the civil law did not apply because White folks in power wouldn’t allow it to. Which is why Malcolm defined the Black condition in America as a “human rights” issue and, therefore, a worldwide issue. And, accordingly, he was planning to take it to the United Nations just before he was assassinated.  When White cops in America can kill Black men with such regularity as they have been allowed to do with near impunity, whether the killings are justified or not as determined by the cop, America has a human rights problem and I applaud the Browns for bringing the problem before a world body that might give their son and all other Black Americans, who fear their own cops, justice.

LIGHTEN UP!  THEY WERE GREAT JOKES
White folks need to lighten up. If Jay Leno had told the same jokes that White media are attacking Chris Rock over, they would have labeled Leno a genius. But when the Black Chris Rock made two of the funniest jokes I’ve heard about the Boston Marathon bombing and the Twin Towers bombing, he was a bad guy to the Fox News type and even to the “rational media.” The fact is Chris Rock is one of the brightest comedians of all time. He tells the truth with humor like few can or ever could. He’s a genius. The Leno’s and the like can’t hold a candle to him. And I’m certain he is smart enough to feel honored by the invectives thrown his way by the mainstream media hysterics. About the Boston Marathon: “You’ve been training for a year; you finally get to the finish line, and somebody screams, ‘Run!’” About the Freedom Tower: “There is no circumstance that will ever get me in that building.” Chris Rock’s jokes are truth dressed in humor which is what good comedy is all about and to treat them otherwise is absolute nonsense.

EXPLAINING THE 2014 ELECTIONS
“But the biggest secret of the Republican triumph surely lies in the discovery that obstructionism bordering on sabotage is a winning political strategy. From day 1 of the Obama administration, (Sen. Mitch) McConnell and his colleagues have done everything they could to undermine effective policy, in particular, blocking every effort to do the obvious thing – boost infrastructure spending – in a time of low interest rates and high unemployment. This was, as it turned out, bad for America but good for Republicans. Most voters don’t know much about policy details, nor do they understand the legislative process. So all they saw was that the man in the White House wasn’t delivering prosperity – and they punished his party.” (New York Times’ Paul Krugman, The Republican, November 10, 2014)

JOKE?
“If I get to be president, white men who are in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency.”  (Comment to an all-white crowd at the Hibernian Club of Charleston by Senator Lindsey Graham as reported in The Boston Globe, October 31, 2014). To be fair, in context, Senator Graham was joking. But what a joke.

GOOD QUESTION!
“If overcoming slavery and discrimination lies at the heart of the black American experience, who will we be once the battle is won?” (Farah Stockman, The Boston Globe, November 4, 2014)

IT IS A BIGGER SUPREME COURT CASE THAN MOST KNOW
An Alabama case challenging the Voter Rights Act could have a major national impact on Black officeholders around the country who benefited from the reorganizations of voting districts to accommodate their elections. And it is White Democrats who are complaining because the Republican Alabama state legislature outfoxed them in the redistricting battle by configuring the electoral map so that Black Democrats and Republicans were assured of election at the expense of White Democrats. And it was all done with the purpose of expanding White Republican districts while keeping Black districts static. In Alabama, the creation of Black districts was originally compelled by the Voter Rights Act which was fine as long as Alabama, like much of the South, was predominantly Democratic. It is now predominantly Republican (Southern Democrats by another name). And the remaining White Democrats have been sidelined and are crying foul because they can’t command the numbers to win an election. The White Democrats have a point because the Republicans did more than just create Black districts. They created “supermajority” Black districts in which Black candidates have far more votes than needed to be elected and re-elected which, in the process, drained the voter diversity that White Alabama Democrats needed to be elected. To put it another way, when the Democrats were in the majority, they complied with the Voter Rights Act by creating Black districts while minimizing the number of Black voters it had to gerrymander into the Black districts. When Republicans gained control of the legislature, they packed more Black voters into the districts who would have otherwise been in White Democratic districts and left the White Democrats without enough votes to win office over their White Republican opponents. How do you argue this before the Supreme Court? Black folks might argue: “Your Honors, the Democrats gave us what we wanted and what was rightfully ours under the law. The Republicans gave us much more of what we wanted that was rightfully ours under the law. The “much more,” however, is unnecessary and should be declared illegal.” The White Democrats might say: “Your Honors, we did the right thing under the law and created Black districts. Now, the Republicans are using the right thing in excess to keep us out of office. You should disallow excessive race considerations in redistricting.” And the White Republicans might say: “Your Honors, we’re just following the racial rules left to us by the former Democratic legislature.” It’s a strange case that could have far reaching implications. What if the justices rule that race should be eliminated from all electoral districting in the country? It really is a mess! But it is a mess that has huge implications.■

Recent Stories

  • What Does My Community Need?

    When I was pregnant, my husband and I wanted to give birth and welcome our baby in our home. We looked in Springfield – and then in the adjacent towns in the lower valley – for a homebirth midwife to assist us. There wasn’t one. We needed to search for that service in the upper…

The Outwin

Upcoming Events

[tribe_events view=”photo” tribe-bar=”false” events_per_page=”2″]


Af-Am Point of View Recent Issues

March 2024

Cover of the March 2024 issue of Af-Am Point of View News Magazine

February 2024

Cover of the February 2024 issue of Af-Am Point of View News Magazine

January 2024

Cover of the January 2024 issue of Af-Am Point of View News Magazine

December 2023

Cover of the December 2023 issue of Af-Am Point of View News Magazine

See More Past Issues of Af-Am Point of View Newsmagazine

Advertise with Af-Am Point of View

Ener-G-Save