Three days ago (Sunday) I wrote that so far the police and courts in Ferguson were having a tepid response to the scathing Department of Justice investigation report on racial bias in the city police and court system.
At that point, two police officers and a court clerk who had sent racist emails had resigned or been fired. That was not enough. The problems went much deeper than email racist jokes.
Now, three days later, the three most important key figures have resigned: the Chief of Police, the City Manager, and the Judge of the Municipal Court system.
This should open the way now for new leadership. It won't bring back Michael Brown, but now maybe his loss of life, and the blatant racism it exposed, will lead to some real reform.
Ralph
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
WHAT? That letter is Obama's fault?
In my previous post, I mentioned Sen. Tom Corker (R-TN) as one of the senators who did not sign Tom Cotton's letter to the Iranians. He is chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
But then Corker threw out this corker: The letter is really President Obama's fault, because he failed to consult lawmakers, and he threatened to veto Corker's own proposed bill that gives Congress the final vote on any nuclear agreement.
The message to President Obama in the letter was: 'See, give us what we want -- or we will piss on your fire and put it out. Nyah, nyah, nyah.'
And now, in defense of the stupidity and borderline treason of his colleagues, Corker blames the victim of their vindictiveness. It's like the rapist saying "It's her fault. She made me do it, because she was so provocative in her sexy red dress."
It won't wash, guys -- except with your war-crazed, Obama-hating base. But the adult, reality-based world was appalled by this juvenile, dangerous action that just goes further to prove that the present-day Republican party is not capable of responsible governing. They are not ready for prime time.
Ralph
But then Corker threw out this corker: The letter is really President Obama's fault, because he failed to consult lawmakers, and he threatened to veto Corker's own proposed bill that gives Congress the final vote on any nuclear agreement.
The message to President Obama in the letter was: 'See, give us what we want -- or we will piss on your fire and put it out. Nyah, nyah, nyah.'
And now, in defense of the stupidity and borderline treason of his colleagues, Corker blames the victim of their vindictiveness. It's like the rapist saying "It's her fault. She made me do it, because she was so provocative in her sexy red dress."
It won't wash, guys -- except with your war-crazed, Obama-hating base. But the adult, reality-based world was appalled by this juvenile, dangerous action that just goes further to prove that the present-day Republican party is not capable of responsible governing. They are not ready for prime time.
Ralph
Reactions to "the letter" to Iran and to its author: the new bad boy of the Senate: Tom Cotton
Move over, Sen. Ted Cruz. You have some competition for the role of know-it-all, bad boy spoiler from the ultra-conservative Tea Party crowd: newly elected Sen. Tom Cotton from Arkansas who defeated Sen. Mark Pryor in November. Like Cruz, Cotton is a Harvard Law School graduate, who came into the senate with his guns blazing to prove that he can be the leader of the far-out right. What is it with Harvard Law graduates these days? How could Barack and Michelle Obama be graduates of the same law school as Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton? It just proves that Harvard is not 100% liberal, pinko after all.
Cotton is the author and promoter of the open letter signed by 47 of the 54 Republican senators and addressed to "The Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." The letter has a condescending tone as it explains that "you may not fully understand our constitutional system." It then informs them that any agreement they make with our president that is not approved by congress will be considered "only an executive agreement" between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei and that it may be changed by the next president.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister and counterpart to Sec. of State John Kerry in the negotiations, is a highly educated man who studied international relations in American universities and needs no instructions about governments and international agreements. His initial response was a curt dismissal of the letter as a "propaganda ploy." Later, he released a statement saying that:
A U. S. State Department official clarified that this would be a non-binding international agreement, not a treaty of the sort that requires senate ratification. We have many such agreements with other nations that govern our operations in international relations, like those that protect our troops abroad. Sen. Cotton should know this, having served as a military officer in Iraq.
Even though it does not require senate ratification, many who support the negotiations also think that the magnitude of the issue makes it advisable to get input and backing from the senate -- but not in the middle of the negotiations and not with the purpose of killing them.
Last year, the Economist pointed out that the Iranian cabinet has more people with PhDs from American universities than does the Obama cabinet. So much for Cotton's arrogance in presuming that they need schooling in the U. S. Constitution.
President Obama's reaction was a cool observation on the irony of Republican senators trying to make common cause with the hard liners in the Iranian government who want to kill the negotiations. Vice President Biden supplied the heat for them both. He was livid and didn't mind letting it show as he blasted the signers, saying the letter was "beneath the dignity of the institution that I revere." Biden served in the senate for 36 years, and was chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The most authoritative legal opinion however came form Jack Goldsmith, currently a professor in Harvard Law School and former top legal counsel to the Bush administration. Goldsmith pointed out that the letter is not correct in saying that the Senate has to ratify an agreement, which "in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing."
So far, it looks like Zarif, at least, is not going to let this ruin the talks. But it will give ammunition to the Iranian hardliners, who can more justifiably now say that they can't trust the U. S. Let's hope that the Iranian moderates want this settlement badly enough to chalk this up to petty politics and ignorance on the part of some newcomers.
I can't though. What were people like Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Richard Shelby, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham -- all seasoned senators who know better -- what were they thinking? No matter how hawkish, they know better than to let this 2 month old whippersnapper senator lead them into such a protocol sin.
This was a black day for the institution of the United States Senate.
Seven senators, including Bob Corker (Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee), Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, and Dan Coates showed wisdom in not signing the letter. But that's all; 47 lemmings were willing to jump off the cliff. Predictably, the increasingly ridiculous Gov. Bobby Jindal wheedled to get his name added, even though he is not a senator. He just couldn't let his rivals Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz get all the credit with the crazed right-wing base that will see them as heroes.
Ralph
Cotton is the author and promoter of the open letter signed by 47 of the 54 Republican senators and addressed to "The Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." The letter has a condescending tone as it explains that "you may not fully understand our constitutional system." It then informs them that any agreement they make with our president that is not approved by congress will be considered "only an executive agreement" between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei and that it may be changed by the next president.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister and counterpart to Sec. of State John Kerry in the negotiations, is a highly educated man who studied international relations in American universities and needs no instructions about governments and international agreements. His initial response was a curt dismissal of the letter as a "propaganda ploy." Later, he released a statement saying that:
"The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."Further, Zarif explained that an agreement would also involve the five other nations involved in the talks. In other words, 'get your facts straight, little boy, before you start lecturing us.'
A U. S. State Department official clarified that this would be a non-binding international agreement, not a treaty of the sort that requires senate ratification. We have many such agreements with other nations that govern our operations in international relations, like those that protect our troops abroad. Sen. Cotton should know this, having served as a military officer in Iraq.
Even though it does not require senate ratification, many who support the negotiations also think that the magnitude of the issue makes it advisable to get input and backing from the senate -- but not in the middle of the negotiations and not with the purpose of killing them.
Last year, the Economist pointed out that the Iranian cabinet has more people with PhDs from American universities than does the Obama cabinet. So much for Cotton's arrogance in presuming that they need schooling in the U. S. Constitution.
President Obama's reaction was a cool observation on the irony of Republican senators trying to make common cause with the hard liners in the Iranian government who want to kill the negotiations. Vice President Biden supplied the heat for them both. He was livid and didn't mind letting it show as he blasted the signers, saying the letter was "beneath the dignity of the institution that I revere." Biden served in the senate for 36 years, and was chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The most authoritative legal opinion however came form Jack Goldsmith, currently a professor in Harvard Law School and former top legal counsel to the Bush administration. Goldsmith pointed out that the letter is not correct in saying that the Senate has to ratify an agreement, which "in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing."
So far, it looks like Zarif, at least, is not going to let this ruin the talks. But it will give ammunition to the Iranian hardliners, who can more justifiably now say that they can't trust the U. S. Let's hope that the Iranian moderates want this settlement badly enough to chalk this up to petty politics and ignorance on the part of some newcomers.
I can't though. What were people like Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Richard Shelby, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham -- all seasoned senators who know better -- what were they thinking? No matter how hawkish, they know better than to let this 2 month old whippersnapper senator lead them into such a protocol sin.
This was a black day for the institution of the United States Senate.
Seven senators, including Bob Corker (Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee), Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, Thad Cochran, and Dan Coates showed wisdom in not signing the letter. But that's all; 47 lemmings were willing to jump off the cliff. Predictably, the increasingly ridiculous Gov. Bobby Jindal wheedled to get his name added, even though he is not a senator. He just couldn't let his rivals Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz get all the credit with the crazed right-wing base that will see them as heroes.
Ralph
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
47 Republicans senators warn Iran not to trust the US negotiations. Get ready for war and the draft.
We already know that Republicans no longer feel bound by the long-standing dictum that politics stops at the water's edge, that we stand united when dealing with foreign governments. Just ask John Boehner and the hundreds of cheering Bibi Netanyahu fans during last week's defiance of our president and all protocol.
With their latest outrage, they have surpassed even the Bibi-Boehner stunt -- and this time it is the Republicans in the Senate, who I thought were less ideological crazed than their counterparts in the Tea Party dominated House.
According to Bloomberg News:
And what then? The hard-line old guard in Iran would be vindicated and politically strengthened; and they would likely rush toward bomb capability. Any hope for trust between our two countries would be set back for a decade at least.
Under the proposed treaty, their nuclear capability would be limited to uranium for peaceful purposes, stringent inspections would be carried out, the more moderate leaders in Iran would be strengthened, and a better economy for Iran would pull them more toward the modern world. In addition, Iran would become part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would bring more accountability.
What, after all, do these Republicans want? War?
Well, here's my answer to that. Do not even think of another war in the Middle East unless you are willing to reinstate the draft AND raise taxes to pay for it. We cannot fight another war on the backs of the soldiers many of whom have done 6, 7, or even 8 deployments in the Middle East. And we cannot afford another major war without raising the revenue from those wealthy people who have been getting the breaks.
So the louder they yell for War, I'm going to be yelling for "The Draft" with no exemptions.
Ralph
With their latest outrage, they have surpassed even the Bibi-Boehner stunt -- and this time it is the Republicans in the Senate, who I thought were less ideological crazed than their counterparts in the Tea Party dominated House.
According to Bloomberg News:
"A group of 47 Republican senators [out of 54] has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won't last after Obama leaves office."This goes beyond political differences and personal disdain for the president. This is, in the words of political organizer and consultant Robert Creamer,
". . . a brazen, breathtaking attempt to sabotage U.S. foreign policy and stampede America into another war in the Middle East. . . . Can you imagine the reaction if members of Congress had sent a similar letter to the Soviets urging them not to sign an arms control agreement because the United States would not keep our end of the bargain?"What are our options if the Iranians are unwilling to sign an agreement because of such a perfidious betrayal by such a large number of U. S. senators? Our other negotiating partners will not likely agree to greater sanctions.
And what then? The hard-line old guard in Iran would be vindicated and politically strengthened; and they would likely rush toward bomb capability. Any hope for trust between our two countries would be set back for a decade at least.
Under the proposed treaty, their nuclear capability would be limited to uranium for peaceful purposes, stringent inspections would be carried out, the more moderate leaders in Iran would be strengthened, and a better economy for Iran would pull them more toward the modern world. In addition, Iran would become part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would bring more accountability.
What, after all, do these Republicans want? War?
Well, here's my answer to that. Do not even think of another war in the Middle East unless you are willing to reinstate the draft AND raise taxes to pay for it. We cannot fight another war on the backs of the soldiers many of whom have done 6, 7, or even 8 deployments in the Middle East. And we cannot afford another major war without raising the revenue from those wealthy people who have been getting the breaks.
So the louder they yell for War, I'm going to be yelling for "The Draft" with no exemptions.
Ralph
Monday, March 9, 2015
Obama's soaring speech; Selma's 50th anniversary
The link below is to a full transcript of President Barack Obama's speech in Selma, Alabama on the 50th anniversary of the Selma march in support of passing the civil rights law in 1965.
http://time.com/3736357/barack-obama-selma-speech-transcript/
It was a powerful, passionate speech, worth reading it all. Here are selected excerpts:
"There are places, and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war – Concord and Lexington, Appomattox and Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character – Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.
"Selma is such a place.
"In one afternoon fifty years ago, so much of our turbulent history – the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham, and the dream of a Baptist preacher – met on this bridge.
"It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the meaning of America. . . .
"We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching toward justice. . . .
"The Americans who crossed this bridge . . . . gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation. They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, and countless daily indignities – but they didn’t seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. . . .
"What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people – the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course? . . .
"Because of campaigns like this, a Voting Rights Act was passed. Political, economic, and social barriers came down, and the change these men and women wrought is visible here today in the presence of African-Americans who run boardrooms, who sit on the bench, who serve in elected office from small towns to big cities; from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Oval Office.
"Because of what they did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for African-Americans, but for every American. Women marched through those doors. Latinos marched through those doors. Asian-Americans, gay Americans, and Americans with disabilities came through those doors. Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past. . . .
"First and foremost, we have to recognize that one day’s commemoration, no matter how special, is not enough. If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done . . . .
"[A] common mistake is to suggest that racism is banished, that the work that drew men and women to Selma is complete . . . . We don’t need the Ferguson report to know that’s not true. We just need to open our eyes, and ears, and hearts, to know that this nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. . . .
"This is work for all Americans, and not just some. . . . All of us will need to feel, as they did, the fierce urgency of now. All of us need to recognize, as they did, that change depends on our actions, our attitudes, the things we teach our children. And if we make such effort, no matter how hard it may seem, laws can be passed, and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built.
"With such effort, we can make sure our criminal justice system serves all and not just some. . . . With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity. . . . And with effort, we can protect the foundation stone of our democracy for which so many marched across this bridge – and that is the right to vote. Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, stands weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor.
"How can that be? The Voting Rights Act was one of the crowning achievements of our democracy, the result of Republican and Democratic effort. President Reagan signed its renewal when he was in office. President Bush signed its renewal when he was in office. One hundred Members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right it protects. If we want to honor this day, let these hundred go back to Washington, and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore the law this year. . . .
"America is not some fragile thing; we are large, in the words of Whitman, containing multitudes. We are boisterous and diverse and full of energy, perpetually young in spirit. . . . [T]he single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. . . . ."
-- the words of Barack Obama, March 7, 2015
http://time.com/3736357/barack-obama-selma-speech-transcript/
It was a powerful, passionate speech, worth reading it all. Here are selected excerpts:
"There are places, and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war – Concord and Lexington, Appomattox and Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character – Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.
"Selma is such a place.
"In one afternoon fifty years ago, so much of our turbulent history – the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham, and the dream of a Baptist preacher – met on this bridge.
"It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the meaning of America. . . .
"We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching toward justice. . . .
"The Americans who crossed this bridge . . . . gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation. They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, and countless daily indignities – but they didn’t seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. . . .
"What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people – the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course? . . .
"Because of campaigns like this, a Voting Rights Act was passed. Political, economic, and social barriers came down, and the change these men and women wrought is visible here today in the presence of African-Americans who run boardrooms, who sit on the bench, who serve in elected office from small towns to big cities; from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Oval Office.
"Because of what they did, the doors of opportunity swung open not just for African-Americans, but for every American. Women marched through those doors. Latinos marched through those doors. Asian-Americans, gay Americans, and Americans with disabilities came through those doors. Their endeavors gave the entire South the chance to rise again, not by reasserting the past, but by transcending the past. . . .
"First and foremost, we have to recognize that one day’s commemoration, no matter how special, is not enough. If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done . . . .
"[A] common mistake is to suggest that racism is banished, that the work that drew men and women to Selma is complete . . . . We don’t need the Ferguson report to know that’s not true. We just need to open our eyes, and ears, and hearts, to know that this nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. . . .
"This is work for all Americans, and not just some. . . . All of us will need to feel, as they did, the fierce urgency of now. All of us need to recognize, as they did, that change depends on our actions, our attitudes, the things we teach our children. And if we make such effort, no matter how hard it may seem, laws can be passed, and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built.
"With such effort, we can make sure our criminal justice system serves all and not just some. . . . With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity. . . . And with effort, we can protect the foundation stone of our democracy for which so many marched across this bridge – and that is the right to vote. Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, stands weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor.
"How can that be? The Voting Rights Act was one of the crowning achievements of our democracy, the result of Republican and Democratic effort. President Reagan signed its renewal when he was in office. President Bush signed its renewal when he was in office. One hundred Members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right it protects. If we want to honor this day, let these hundred go back to Washington, and gather four hundred more, and together, pledge to make it their mission to restore the law this year. . . .
"America is not some fragile thing; we are large, in the words of Whitman, containing multitudes. We are boisterous and diverse and full of energy, perpetually young in spirit. . . . [T]he single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. . . . ."
-- the words of Barack Obama, March 7, 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Netanyahu now behind in Israel polls
NEWS FLASH: A new poll released today by the Jerusalem Post shows that Benjamin Natanyahu's Likud Party is running behind the Zionist Party 22 seats to 24 seats for the parliament. The election is less than 10 days away.
In the parliamentary system, the people elect representations to the parliament; the winning party chooses i6s leader to be Prime Minister and form a government, usually having to form a coalition with another party to achieve 50%. If Likud doesn't get the most seats, however, it would not be the leading party and Netanyahu would not be the PM.
So, according to this major newspaper in Israel, Netanyahu's speech to the U. S. Congress did not help his party's reelection chances.
Ralph
In the parliamentary system, the people elect representations to the parliament; the winning party chooses i6s leader to be Prime Minister and form a government, usually having to form a coalition with another party to achieve 50%. If Likud doesn't get the most seats, however, it would not be the leading party and Netanyahu would not be the PM.
So, according to this major newspaper in Israel, Netanyahu's speech to the U. S. Congress did not help his party's reelection chances.
Ralph
So far, Ferguson police and courts responses have been tepid, more like a shrug
So far, from reports I'm reading, it looks like the "withering" Department of Justice report on racial bias in the Ferguson, Missouri police department and court system is falling more or less on, if not deaf ears, at least on shrugged shoulders. Sort of like, 'Yes, but everybody does it; that's just the way the system works."
Here's an example. The DoJ report mentioned several racist jokes that had been emailed around as a mere introductory illustration of some of the blatant racism. So they're now saying that the people who sent those "no longer work here." They either resigned under pressure or were fired.
As if that fixed the problem. But that is not even scratching the surface. It's equivalent to giving aspirin for a fever, and thinking you've cured the infection. Here's just one example:
Black drivers are stopped and their cars searched far more frequently than whites. Officers write tickets for minor violations, like maybe a tail light out, that would just get a warning to a white driver to get it fixed. Instead, blacks get ticketed. They're supposed to appear in court and pay a fine. If they don't pay the fine on time, then the fines start escalating along with court costs; and they are charged with another crime, for not paying what they can't afford.
What started as a simple traffic ticket for minor violation now accumulates to hundreds of dollars that the person cannot pay. Pretty soon, they put this person in jail. Then they're faced with even more court costs.
Meanwhile, the municipal judge who oversees all this trades favors and fixes traffic tickets for police officers and his friends. And, worse than that, this particular judge owes $170,000 in back income taxes. Why isn't he in jail with the black man who owes a few hundred in traffic fines?
Outrage overflows. A racial joke on an email is bad. But this -- putting people in jail for a tiny fraction of the offenses of the judge who orders them there: that is despicable.
I can only imagine the sense of vindication felt by the black community of Ferguson as they see all of this exposed by the Justice Department of the United States. It cannot stop with firing a few low level people for emails. They've got to sweep the whole system of the judges and the police chiefs who allow this to happen -- and are often guilty themselves of worse than what they are putting people in jail for.
They're right -- that it isn't just in Ferguson or even St. Louis county. It is a nationwide problem -- as the news of the epidemic of police killings of young, unarmed black men across the country testifies so tragically.
Ralph
Here's an example. The DoJ report mentioned several racist jokes that had been emailed around as a mere introductory illustration of some of the blatant racism. So they're now saying that the people who sent those "no longer work here." They either resigned under pressure or were fired.
As if that fixed the problem. But that is not even scratching the surface. It's equivalent to giving aspirin for a fever, and thinking you've cured the infection. Here's just one example:
Black drivers are stopped and their cars searched far more frequently than whites. Officers write tickets for minor violations, like maybe a tail light out, that would just get a warning to a white driver to get it fixed. Instead, blacks get ticketed. They're supposed to appear in court and pay a fine. If they don't pay the fine on time, then the fines start escalating along with court costs; and they are charged with another crime, for not paying what they can't afford.
What started as a simple traffic ticket for minor violation now accumulates to hundreds of dollars that the person cannot pay. Pretty soon, they put this person in jail. Then they're faced with even more court costs.
Meanwhile, the municipal judge who oversees all this trades favors and fixes traffic tickets for police officers and his friends. And, worse than that, this particular judge owes $170,000 in back income taxes. Why isn't he in jail with the black man who owes a few hundred in traffic fines?
Outrage overflows. A racial joke on an email is bad. But this -- putting people in jail for a tiny fraction of the offenses of the judge who orders them there: that is despicable.
I can only imagine the sense of vindication felt by the black community of Ferguson as they see all of this exposed by the Justice Department of the United States. It cannot stop with firing a few low level people for emails. They've got to sweep the whole system of the judges and the police chiefs who allow this to happen -- and are often guilty themselves of worse than what they are putting people in jail for.
They're right -- that it isn't just in Ferguson or even St. Louis county. It is a nationwide problem -- as the news of the epidemic of police killings of young, unarmed black men across the country testifies so tragically.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
