Donald Trump's response to the recent police shootings of black men was to say how he would handle this increasing violence: by reinstating "stop and frisk." That's a police practice where police officers routinely stop people on the street and check their IDs and run a computer check. If any infractions are listed (even a traffic violation), the police then have the power to search them and/or their cars. The practice has been outlawed as unconstitutional by a federal district court judge. So it is no longer allowed. But Trump says, as president, he would reinstate "stop and frisk. . . . It worked so good. We have to do it."
But here the thing. In touting "stop and frisk," Trump said: "And if you find a gun, you take their guns." You take their guns? Isn't a good part of Trump's avid base the crowd that screams about Hillary's going to take your guns? Even Trump himself famously declared that "Hillary wants to get rid of the second amendment," and she will confiscate your guns. Is this a change to an anti-gun stance for Trump?
Oh, I see. Stop and frisk is something you only do in black neighborhoods. So, when he was talking about that, he was talking about taking black people's guns. Now I get it. And I'm sure his supporters did too.
Ralph
Saturday, September 24, 2016
New poll good Clinton news -- yet questions remain
An NBC/WSJ/Telemundo national poll of likely voters was released on Sept. 21, with both two-way and four-way results:
Clinton 48% Clinton 43%
Trump 41% Trump 37%
Johnson 9%
Stein 2%
Demographic breakdown is interesting. Among Latino voters, Clinton leads with 65% to Trump's 17%. But compare Trump's 17% with George Bush's Latino support in 2004 of 44%. And McCain's 31% in 2008 and Romney's 27% in 2012. Trump's getting 10 points less than Romney, who lost.
It's reassuring to show how Trump is faring poorly, even among other demographic groups in which Republicans do well. Unlike the above figures, these numbers are not percentages of the total vote, but the lead Trump has over Clinton, compared with the lead Romney had over Obama in 2012.
Romney Trump
White men +27% +13%
Non-college men +26% +18%
Conservatives +65% +55%
Republicans +87% +77%
He's averaging about 10% less support overall in these groups than the candidate who lost four years ago. The question that remains for me: with these encouraging numbers for Clinton, why are the one-on-one polls still as close as they are?
On issues asked about, Trump leads only on handling the economy, while Clinton leads on handling all other issues. However, this baffles me. On honesty: Trump leads 41% to Clinton 31%. How can people believe that he is more honest when he lies so effortlessly . . . about everything? Perhaps those who only listen to FoxNews and right-wing radio really don't know that he is lying, because the interviewers do too.
On issues asked about, Trump leads only on handling the economy, while Clinton leads on handling all other issues. However, this baffles me. On honesty: Trump leads 41% to Clinton 31%. How can people believe that he is more honest when he lies so effortlessly . . . about everything? Perhaps those who only listen to FoxNews and right-wing radio really don't know that he is lying, because the interviewers do too.
Ralph
Friday, September 23, 2016
White privilege and implicit racism
Would someone please sit Mike Pence down and explain to him what "implicit racism" is and what "institutional racism" means. He made pretty dumb comments last night about the controversy over police shootings of unarmed young black men, saying that there is no discrimination, no racism here. He wants people to stop talking about it, because it only creates unrest; it's "divisive."
I honestly think he simply doesn't understand the concept -- which, in my book, pretty well indicates that he does not recognize it in himself and his culture. And that's the problem. White privilege does not recognize how much it depends on implicit and institutional racism. The first step in doing something about it is recognizing its existence.
Ralph
I honestly think he simply doesn't understand the concept -- which, in my book, pretty well indicates that he does not recognize it in himself and his culture. And that's the problem. White privilege does not recognize how much it depends on implicit and institutional racism. The first step in doing something about it is recognizing its existence.
Ralph
Smithsonium's Museum of African-American History and Culture opens today in Washington
The long-awaited National Museum of African-American History and Culture, part of the Smithsonian complex and located on the National Mall in Washington, DC, opens today. Yesterday's New York Times provided an advance 8 page special section, including an interview with the lead designer, Ghanaian-British architect Freelon Adjaye.
It's message begins with the symbolism in the design itself. Rather than another classic white marble building (the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln monuments, etc.) this building is a bronze, anodized aluminum material fashioned into a metalic fretwork skin, with views of those other buildings through the filigree openings. The triple-tiered silhouette of the building has its origins in Yoruba culture; and the filigree design motif is reminiscent of metal grillwork made by African-American metal workers in Louisiana and South Carolina that had West African roots. The building's color is a dark brown that, in certain light, is said to be "on fire."
The galleries are arranged so that one begins in the underground three levels with the history of Africans being brought to this country as slaves. The chronological narrative moves forward as one ascends to the above ground levels. There are public spaces on the ground level, then more museum galleries in the three levels above that, with contributions to sports, arts and culture on the upper level.
Items for the collection were solicited through an open invitation for people to bring what they had -- sort of an Antiques Roadshow meet-up -- where curators examined the artifacts and assembled a collection from the people. There's an outfit worn by Marian Anderson when she sang on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after the DAR refused to allow her to perform in their auditorium. There's Harriet Tubman's hymnal. Muhammad Ali's boxing gloves. Louie Armstrong's trumpet. Althea Gibson's tennis racquet. Oprah's couch. Chuck Berry's red Cadillac.
And it's not only the good stuff. There are slave chains, and a KKK hood. Replicas of slave cabins and jail cells. From what I read, the history galleries include the horrors of what really happened; but there is also celebration of the achievements and contributions, including recognition of the Tuskegee Airmen, the Harlem Hellfighters, and the civil rights heroes. Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. And, of course, Barack Obama as the first black president.
Although there is extensive coverage of the civil rights struggle, sadly, in the article there is little mention and no pictures of any artifacts from Martin Luther King, Jr. I try not to be judgmental, after all the King children went through; but one can't have read the Atlanta newspapers over the last five years and not be aware how often the siblings have been in court, fighting with each other over the sister's wish to treat their father's bible and his speeches as sacred, historical relics to be shared with the public -- and the two brothers' attempts to gain control so they can sell them to the highest bidder. One can only assume at this point that they were not about to donate such valuable possessions to this museum.
The Times article ended with a full last page given over to a reprinting of the Langston Hughes poem, "I, Too," from his Collected Poems (published in 1994 by Doubleday/Penguin Random House; copyright by the Estate of Langston Hughes). It is so powerful, and so appropriate for this occasion.
"I, too, sing America.
"I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen.
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
"Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
'Eat in the kitchen,'
Then.
"Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed --
"I, too, am America."
It's message begins with the symbolism in the design itself. Rather than another classic white marble building (the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln monuments, etc.) this building is a bronze, anodized aluminum material fashioned into a metalic fretwork skin, with views of those other buildings through the filigree openings. The triple-tiered silhouette of the building has its origins in Yoruba culture; and the filigree design motif is reminiscent of metal grillwork made by African-American metal workers in Louisiana and South Carolina that had West African roots. The building's color is a dark brown that, in certain light, is said to be "on fire."
The galleries are arranged so that one begins in the underground three levels with the history of Africans being brought to this country as slaves. The chronological narrative moves forward as one ascends to the above ground levels. There are public spaces on the ground level, then more museum galleries in the three levels above that, with contributions to sports, arts and culture on the upper level.
Items for the collection were solicited through an open invitation for people to bring what they had -- sort of an Antiques Roadshow meet-up -- where curators examined the artifacts and assembled a collection from the people. There's an outfit worn by Marian Anderson when she sang on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after the DAR refused to allow her to perform in their auditorium. There's Harriet Tubman's hymnal. Muhammad Ali's boxing gloves. Louie Armstrong's trumpet. Althea Gibson's tennis racquet. Oprah's couch. Chuck Berry's red Cadillac.
And it's not only the good stuff. There are slave chains, and a KKK hood. Replicas of slave cabins and jail cells. From what I read, the history galleries include the horrors of what really happened; but there is also celebration of the achievements and contributions, including recognition of the Tuskegee Airmen, the Harlem Hellfighters, and the civil rights heroes. Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. And, of course, Barack Obama as the first black president.
Although there is extensive coverage of the civil rights struggle, sadly, in the article there is little mention and no pictures of any artifacts from Martin Luther King, Jr. I try not to be judgmental, after all the King children went through; but one can't have read the Atlanta newspapers over the last five years and not be aware how often the siblings have been in court, fighting with each other over the sister's wish to treat their father's bible and his speeches as sacred, historical relics to be shared with the public -- and the two brothers' attempts to gain control so they can sell them to the highest bidder. One can only assume at this point that they were not about to donate such valuable possessions to this museum.
The Times article ended with a full last page given over to a reprinting of the Langston Hughes poem, "I, Too," from his Collected Poems (published in 1994 by Doubleday/Penguin Random House; copyright by the Estate of Langston Hughes). It is so powerful, and so appropriate for this occasion.
"I, too, sing America.
"I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen.
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
"Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
'Eat in the kitchen,'
Then.
"Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed --
"I, too, am America."
Thursday, September 22, 2016
What next? Lynchings? Part 2
Part 1 of this question on Tuesday, Sept. 20th focused on Trump's hint that we should deny due process (fair trial, legal representation) to Ahmad Rahami, the man charged with the bombings. Schoolyard bullies have picked up Trump's racist rhetoric; now his toxic fascism is infecting the media as well.
CNN ran this crawl beneath its newscast asking: "Does bombing suspect deserve due process?" That should not even be a question in the United States. You don't have to "deserve" due process.
It's a constitutional right -- for citizens and non-citizens alike. We should resist the effort of the political opportunists -- leading Republican politicians, not just Trump -- to undermine what makes us who we are as a country. It's what Hillary Clinton meant when she responded to yet one more police shooting of an unarmed black man: "It's not who we are."
Ralph
CNN ran this crawl beneath its newscast asking: "Does bombing suspect deserve due process?" That should not even be a question in the United States. You don't have to "deserve" due process.
It's a constitutional right -- for citizens and non-citizens alike. We should resist the effort of the political opportunists -- leading Republican politicians, not just Trump -- to undermine what makes us who we are as a country. It's what Hillary Clinton meant when she responded to yet one more police shooting of an unarmed black man: "It's not who we are."
Ralph
Another point of view: "Clinton is correct, but Trump understands the public's concerns."
Timothy Stanley is a British journalist, historian, and blogger. Formerly a member of the Labour Party in Britain, he has left it and now writes often about U.S. politics, usually from a Republican point of view -- not a crazed point of view, however. (Note how it has come to be important to make that distinction, as "moderate" and "sensible" have almost been severed from our associations to the word "Republican.") Here's a piece Stanley posted about Trump's and Clinton's responses to the recent bombings.
There's a tradition of not injecting political comment into terror incidents, out of deference to those affected. But let's not be naïve. The wave of attacks that occurred over the weekend are the context to this presidential election. They are one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton's politics seem out of date and Donald Trump's seem more relevant. . . .
It's precisely because the terrorists want to cause panic that many officials choose to react with calm and precision. Compare and contrast the reactions of Clinton and Trump. Trump told supporters that a bomb had gone off in New York hours before any details were confirmed by the police. He added: "We better get tough folks. We better get very, very tough." Clinton also referred to a bombing, but urged patience and discouraged speculation, saying: "I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this."
In a normal election, we might say that Trump failed a character test: he pre-empted expert analysis and riled the public up rather than calming them down. When he speaks off the cuff like this, he's simply being negligent.
Liberals may condemn Trump for exploiting such worries, but they would be fools to dismiss the concern itself. It is real. It is justified by the Islamist campaign. And liberals might need to rethink how they articulate their own response to the situation. Technically, Clinton's was correct -- thoughtful, authoritative. But in the present circumstances, Trump's was emotionally more apposite.* The context to this election is terror in every meaning of the word. Trump has understood that from the very beginning.
* I never quite remember the definition of "apposite," which makes you think of "opposite." But it's very different (I looked it up, again). Merriam-Webster defines it as: "highly pertinent or appropriate." Colloquially, I would say it comes close to "exactly right," which I think would fit this author's meaning. I find this piece by Timothy Stanley "apposite." He's not saying Trump is right; he's saying Trump is on to something very important to pay attention to, and Democrats will ignore it at their peril. Not to jump on the Trumpism bandwagon; but to acknowledge the fears and offer your own interpretation.
-----------------------
"Terror and Fear Play into Trump's Hands," by Timothy Stanley, reprinted from CNN.com
There's a tradition of not injecting political comment into terror incidents, out of deference to those affected. But let's not be naïve. The wave of attacks that occurred over the weekend are the context to this presidential election. They are one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton's politics seem out of date and Donald Trump's seem more relevant. . . .
The attacks came just after the country marked the 15th anniversary of 9/11 and before a summit at the United Nations on the refugee crisis. An ISIS-linked news agency has already claimed that the man who stabbed nine people in Minnesota was one of theirs. In the murky world of Islamist terrorism, it's hard to distinguish between trained operatives and lone wolves who act almost on impulse. But the intention is always the same: to create an atmosphere of tension in order to intimidate the West into withdrawal from the Middle East.
It's precisely because the terrorists want to cause panic that many officials choose to react with calm and precision. Compare and contrast the reactions of Clinton and Trump. Trump told supporters that a bomb had gone off in New York hours before any details were confirmed by the police. He added: "We better get tough folks. We better get very, very tough." Clinton also referred to a bombing, but urged patience and discouraged speculation, saying: "I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this."
In a normal election, we might say that Trump failed a character test: he pre-empted expert analysis and riled the public up rather than calming them down. When he speaks off the cuff like this, he's simply being negligent.
But 2016 isn't a normal election. America isn't living through ordinary times. Before 9/11, the country had some experience of domestic terrorism but seen few foreign attacks on its own soil. In the last two years they have become increasingly common.
And the tone of officialdom -- once so reassuringly objective -- now sounds anodyne. For instance, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio initially described the bombing in his city as "intentional" . . . . The choice of words was odd. What kind of bomb isn't "intentional"? And why, many Americans will be asking, be so reluctant to speculate that terrorists are involved when terrorists have been so active of late? . . . .
In short, Trump sounds like he understands the public's concerns. Clinton sounds bureaucratic. Worse, it's the bureaucratic tone of a foreign policy establishment that has presided over the apparent decline in American security. Some voters feel that Clinton and her ilk put the US on the frontline of the terror conflict by voting for the Iraq War. That she helped expand that conflict with the bungled removal of Gaddafi from power in Libya. And that the US's vacillating involvement in Syria both weakened dictator Bashar al-Assad yet failed to remove him, stoking a civil war that gave rise to ISIS. All of these readings of history are highly subjective and questionable. But they are believed verbatim by a significant rump of voters and have bled into wider public opinion. It can be summed up as: "Hillary's been around ever since this trouble started. Trump wants to end it."
Security is his strongest issue. His economic protectionism appeals mostly to those affected by foreign competition in the declining rustbelt and won't be what he wins on if he wins. His pledge to build a wall along the Mexican border, however, might be couched as a defence of American jobs and sound like xenophobia -- but it subconsciously taps into concerns about security. A nation that can't control who comes in or out isn't a nation at all. Nativist campaigns against immigration in the past have often accused arrivals of importing foreign conflicts. Italians were thought to bring the mafia, for instance. So by linking the threat of Islamism to open borders, Trump is articulating ancient fears of "the other".
Liberals may condemn Trump for exploiting such worries, but they would be fools to dismiss the concern itself. It is real. It is justified by the Islamist campaign. And liberals might need to rethink how they articulate their own response to the situation. Technically, Clinton's was correct -- thoughtful, authoritative. But in the present circumstances, Trump's was emotionally more apposite.* The context to this election is terror in every meaning of the word. Trump has understood that from the very beginning.
------------------------------
Ralph
* I never quite remember the definition of "apposite," which makes you think of "opposite." But it's very different (I looked it up, again). Merriam-Webster defines it as: "highly pertinent or appropriate." Colloquially, I would say it comes close to "exactly right," which I think would fit this author's meaning. I find this piece by Timothy Stanley "apposite." He's not saying Trump is right; he's saying Trump is on to something very important to pay attention to, and Democrats will ignore it at their peril. Not to jump on the Trumpism bandwagon; but to acknowledge the fears and offer your own interpretation.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Quote of the week -- until it's displaced by another
This is from Seth Meyers, host of "Late Night" tv show. He's referring to Donald Trump's one sentence attempt to put an end to his five year crusade to discredit the president of the United States by spreading false rumors and claims about his place of birth.
Meyers" "You don't get to peddle racist rhetoric for five years and decide when it's over. We decide when it's over -- and it's certainly not over after a 30 second statement in the middle of a hotel commercial. . . . The bottom line is this. Trump built his career on a racist lie because he's a racist and a liar."
Meyers" "You don't get to peddle racist rhetoric for five years and decide when it's over. We decide when it's over -- and it's certainly not over after a 30 second statement in the middle of a hotel commercial. . . . The bottom line is this. Trump built his career on a racist lie because he's a racist and a liar."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
