Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Harris Co. Sheriff Misses The Point Of "Black Lives Matter"
In Harris County, Tex., Sheriff Ron Hickman is in the midst of a difficult time. He's lost one of his deputies to a shooting at a suburban Houston gas station. And while the man arrested in connection with the shooting death of Deputy Darren H. Goforth has yet to provide law enforcement with a motive for his alleged actions, Hickman has provided one for him.
"Our assumption is that he [Goforth] was a target because he wore a uniform," Hickman told reporters at a news conference last week."We've heard 'Black Lives Matter,' 'All Lives Matter.' Well, Cops' lives matter, too."
The implication -- and it's not a new one -- is this: All this talk about the value of black lives and public questions about the way in which law enforcement officers do their work denigrate the merit of policing and fundamentally imperil or splinter public concern about officers' health and safety.
It's an idea that is not only inconsistent with the evidence that we can gather from American political culture, but one that essentially affirms one of the core ideas advanced by Black Lives Matter activists.
To Hickman and more than a few law enforcement union leaders and public spokesmen around the country, it seems that in a world in which Black Lives Matter, police lives accordingly do not. That sounds a lot like saying that effective policing and law enforcement where officers feel and remain safe cannot happen unless those same public officials are free to do their work without regard for the civil rights and liberties of people of color in the communities they police.
If we follow that logic, then public and prosecutorial questions about the conduct of police -- as well as the still-rare occasions when those inquiries lead to charges and, even more rarely, criminal convictions -- interfere with public and police safety. In Hickman's world, police lives cannot matter if the particular and disproportionate peril that black Americans face when they come in contact with police matters to the rest of us at all.
It is a kind of logic that says safety and civil rights sit at opposite poles or are part of a zero-sum equation -- if x matters, then y does not. That not only has never been an idea that Black Lives Matter activists have publicly espoused; it's pretty antithetical to the movement's general push for greater regard for the experiences, injuries and deaths suffered at the hands of police. Existing patterns, these activists argue, suggest that black lives do not matter at all. So they must be spoken for and spoken about with particular fervor.
Yes, Hickman used the controversial -- to some, dismissive -- phrase "all lives matter." It is a phrase that other elected officials, candidates and political activists of very different ideological veins have sometimes deployed as verbal irritant. The phrase can be aimed at those who would dare to speak publicly for and about these incidents, failed prosecutions and many, many decisions not to charge or indict the officers involved in questionable injuries and deaths. It is that very pattern that Black Lives Matter activists believe exemplifies the limited and particularly diminished value of black lives.
Sometimes, an "all lives matter" declaration is a conscious or unconscious attempt to avoid the ugly truth about the country's ongoing challenges around race and equality. The fact that this is an argument almost exclusively exercised by white Americans should, perhaps, give some of these people pause. For the parents of most children and teens of color, having a conversation about how to try to avoid injury or death when in contact with police feels as necessary as the chats other parents have about wearing one's seat belt and avoiding conversations with strangers.
And sometimes, "all lives matter" might come from a principled place that just does not include much regard for the statistics depicted in the police shooting graphic above. And that reality is: Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately killed by police.
Certainly, Hickman might at this moment be in a deeply emotional state. But his is a comment closely connected with the sentiments of officers and in particular law enforcement union representatives in Baltimore and New York. At points this year, they engaged in informal work slowdowns and other types of unofficial work refusal on the grounds that attention to alleged police misconduct made it impossible to do their jobs.
Still, calling for equal and legal treatment for all Americans is not equivalent to sanctioning the ambush murder of police. Requiring officers to abide by the laws they help to enforce should not really be regarded as an extra and unnecessary layer of responsibility for public servants.
And perhaps most notably, there is little to no evidence that suggests that news coverage of alleged police misconduct is making police work more dangerous. In May, the FBI released preliminary data showing that 51 police officers were killed in the commission of felonies in 2014. That's a marked increase over the previous year, when just 27 officers died the same way. But police killings also hit a 35-year low in 2013.
In fact, between 1980 and 2014, an average of 64 officers were killed each year, making that 2014 increase in crimes that led to an officer's death no less sad or monumental for the officers and their families but well within the range of a sad normal in the United States that certainly predates the Black Lives Matter movement. You can look at the FBI data summary here and glean some of the details about the circumstances under which those 51 officers were killed last year.
One major takeaway from the preliminary 2014 data: Six officers were killed in premeditated situations where they were ambushed and two during unprovoked attacks that are similar to what officers say happened at that suburban Houston gas station. The previous year, five officers were ambushed and killed, according to the FBI.
These aren't the signs of some growing pattern or problem. They are almost singular and certainly terrible events.
What we do know is that those who are arrested in connection with officer injuries or deaths are often convicted, face lengthy sentences and even capital punishment when caught. In at least one state, New Hampshire, causing a police officer's death is specifically identified as a death-penalty-eligible crime.
The fact that the man who is allegedly responsible for Goforth's death was brought to court to face capital murder charges Monday morning, two days after Goforth's death, would also seem to affirm that officer killings not only matter, but remain a very big deal.
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Public Is More Disappointed In Republicans Than Democrats
Polls have been consistent for a couple of years now. They show that while the president's approval numbers are slightly upside-down, they are hugely better than the approval numbers of Congress. It is Congress that the country holds responsible for the mess the country is in.
This survey from the Quinnipiac University Poll (done between August 20th and 25th of a random national sample of 1,563 registered voters, with a 2.5 point margin of error) verifies this once again. But they take it a bit further, by separating the congressional Republican from the congressional Democrats.
The numbers show that the general public is unhappy with both parties in Congress -- but they are significantly more unhappy with Republicans than Democrats. Congressional Democrats have a 15 point lower disapproval rating than congressional Republicans, and a 15 point higher approval rating. Those are significant numbers (well beyond the survey margin of error). Republicans would do well to consider this before trying to shut down the government again (as many of them want to do to defund Planned Parenthood).
The survey also questioned respondents on their approval of the two major political parties -- and the Republicans didn't do much better there. They had an 8 point higher disapproval rating than Democrats, and a 9 point lower approval rating.
Martin O'Malley Whines That Six Debates Are Not Enough
Martin O'Malley has been in the presidential race for a few weeks now, but he's been unable to garner any support beyond low single-digits. In other words, either no one knows he's running, or more likely, no one cares. And frankly, I don't know where he's going to find any support. Clinton and Sanders are splitting the liberal vote, and Clinton seems to have a lock on the moderate and conservative votes (with a few conservative votes going to Jim Webb).
O'Malley knows he is currently dead in the water (and likely to stay that way), so he's decided to stir up some controversy by accusing the Democratic leadership of "rigging" the election for Clinton -- and his "proof" of that is the fact that only six Democratic debates have been scheduled. Here is some of what he had to say to the DNC at their summer meeting in Minneapolis:
"We need debate! What are we afraid of?"
"While the Republicans put their backwards ideas forward before an audience of more than 20 million Americans. We put our forward-thinking ideas on the backburner...and try to hide them from the airwaves."
"How does this help us tell the story of the last eight years of Democratic progress? How does this promote our Democratic ideas for making wages and household incomes go up again and not down? How does this help us make our case to the people? One debate in Iowa. That’s it? One debate in New Hampshire. That's all we can afford?"
"Is this how the Democratic Party selects its nominee?"
"Will we let the circus run unchallenged on every channel, as we cower in the shadows under a decree of silence in the ranks? Or will we demand equal time to showcase our ideas, our solutions to the nation's problems, and our leadership for the better America we carry in hearts?"
I say that's a load of crap (that stuff that comes out of the south end of a north-bound bull). Having six debates is not "a decree of silence" -- and whether his few supporters (or the supporters of Bernie Sanders) want to admit it or not, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is neutral in the nominating race and have NOT rigged the race to favor anyone.
I realize that O'Malley is just trying to stir up some controversy so he can get someone -- anyone -- to pay attention to his campaign. But his charge is absurd. He will be allowed to debate on an equal footing with all the Democratic candidates, and if he can't drum up enough support to be competitive in six debates it will be his own fault.
I don't have a problem with holding six debates, but personally I doubt that even that many are needed. I doubt that anyone who can't decide which candidate they want to support after three debates is unlikely to be able to do so after six debates, or ten debates, or even thirty debates. Democrats are not stupid, and I imagine they will watch the first two or three debates in large numbers. But after that, most of those watching will be there just to cheer on a candidate they have already decided to support.
Sic debates are plenty -- and anyone who can't convince Democrats of his/her candidacy after six debates should realize that it is not the process that is at fault -- it is their own campaign.
Is Carson The New GOP "Flavor Of The Month" ?
In the last few months, there have been several "leaders" in the GOP race for their party's nomination to be president (although none of them have been able to get anywhere near a majority). The current leader is Donald Trump. But is he about to give way to a new leader? If the results of this new poll are correct, that may be the case -- at least in Iowa.
The numbers in the chart above are from a new Monmouth University Poll -- done between August 27th and 30th of a random sample of 405 likely Iowa Republican caucus attendees. It has a margin of error of about 4.9 points.
The survey shows that Ben Carson and Donald Trump are now tied in Iowa at 23% apiece -- far ahead of any other candidates. Carly Fiorina finishes third with 10%, and Ted Cruz is fourth with 9%. Scott Walker, who led in Iowa for quite a while, is now fifth with 7%. No other candidate got more than 5%.
Looking at the top three finishers, none of whom have ever been elected to any government position, one might assume that Iowa Republicans are mad at their elected officials. And that seems to be true. The survey also asked if those queried want someone with government experience or some from outside of government. Outside of government was the overwhelming choice (66% to 23%).
"Emperor" Obama Renames Highest Mountain In U.S.
President Obama has changed the name of America's highest peak -- from Mt. McKinley to Denali (the original name given the mountain by Native Americans). Some people like this, and some don't (especially Ohio Republicans). But the funniest piece I have read about this comes from Evan Hurst at Wonkette's blog. He has written a hilarious post, and I urge you to read the whole thing. Here is a part of it:
Emperor Obama has issued another fatwa, and this time it is about how it’s no longer okay for North America’s highest peak, which is located
Why is the tyrant president doing this???
Okay, so fun fact. The mountain was named “Mt. McKinley” in 1896 by a prospector, and the U.S. American government officially recognized the name in 1917. But, studies show that the mountain actually existed before 1896! And native Alaskans (the real kind, not the Palin kind) had called it Denali for YEARS, long before they were forced to call it some white guy’s name. In fact, they used that name both for the 20,237-foot summit of the mountain (according to Alaska the 20,320 number is wrong), and also for the mountain’s slightly shorter BFF, which is currently called Mt. Foraker. Alaska formally removed the white American president’s name from the mountain in 1975, but the federal government (read: FUCKING CONGRESS) wouldn’t change it, because they didn’t want to make Ohio cry.
Who mad about it?
Ohio Republicans. Yes, you see, McKinley was from Ohio (and so was Sen. “Foraker,” so COMIN’ FOR YOU NEXT, probably), and, though most Ohioans will never visit Alaska, and many couldn’t pick it out on a map, it apparently is very important to them for this one mountain to be named after a president. They could, of course, name something in Ohio after McKinley — like maybe that giant Touchdown Jesus statue they have — but boo hoo and waaaaaaaah, that’s not good enough. They have to have their special mountain in Alaska, just like every other state doesn’t have.
. . .
This is probably just the beginning, isn’t it?
Almost certainly. Obama thinks all our Americas are belong to him, so we can expect many other beloved landmarks and red states to get new names before the president leaves office (IF HE EVEN LEAVES).
Possible ideas: the Rockies could be renamed “William Ayers Is My Boyfriend In A Gay Way,” the Appalachians could be renamed “Socialism Is My Favorite, Also In A Gay Way,” and Texas will, of course be renamed “ISIS,” like that wasn’t already happening anyway, duh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)