Tag Archives: African American

NYPD’s Ray Kelly: Blacks “understopped” by police

NYPD's Ray Kelly: Blacks

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, left, and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly (Credit: AP)

Really Mr. Kelly?  Really?

Salon

Echoing what Joan Walsh called Mayor Bloomberg’s “ugly” defense of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practice, police commissioner Ray Kelly asserted Wednesday night that African Americans are “understopped” by police. During an interview with ABC, the commissioner and the policing tactic’s greatest defender, said that “African Americans are being understopped in relation to people being described as perpetrators of violent crime.”

While Mayor Bloomberg has been mayor, the NYPD has carried out over 5 million stop-and-frisks. Analysis by the ACLU of official police data found that over 86 percent of the stops were of black or Latino individuals. The analysis of police data also revealed that 88 percent of the stops did not result in an arrest or summons (and of course an even smaller proportion ever lead to a prosecution, or conviction). The number of innocent people stopped alone serves as ample riposte to Kelly’s suggestion that any demographic is “understopped.”

Kelly suggests that since 75 percent of violent crime victims describe the perpetrators as African American males, it is therefore valid to treat millions of black young men in New York as criminals without grounds. The fact that many perpetrators of violent crime in New York have been African American does not in turn mean that per se African Americans in New York should be assumed violent criminals. The logic is not only flawed, but perpetuates a policing system that, through quotas and targeting certain communities, confirms its own bias about who gets to be a criminal.

And, while we’re at it, here are a few relevant facts to challenge Kelly’s “understopped” claim: The number of stop-and-frisks carried out yearly since 2003 has nearly quadrupled. However, the number of weapons recovered from stops each year has remained pretty much constant. Meanwhile, marijuana arrests have spiked (while suspicion of drug possession is cited by police in less than 1 percent of instances as the reason for a stop). Federal statistics also consistently show that marijuana use is more prevalent among young white people than young black people. So: more guns are not being recovered, more young black men are being arrested for marijuana possession, while more white people are users of the drug. And yet, says Kelly (with malleable stats at his finger tips), African Americans are being “understopped.”

Comments Off

Filed under NYC Stop & Frisk, NYPD Police Abuse

Jon Stewart rips apart Rand Paul’s attempted outreach to black students

Jon Stewart screenshot

The Raw Story

On The Daily Show Thursday night, host Jon Stewart and correspondent Larry Wilmore mocked Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) recent speech to black students at Howard University.

Stewart observed that Paul portrayed himself as courageous and heroic for appearing before the highly prestigious students, which was not a particularly dangerous situation.

Stewart also noted that during his speech, Paul condescendingly explained that Republicans had at one point been strong supporters of civil rights for African Americans. But Paul completely ignored the political realignment that occurred in the mid-20th century and the so-called “Southern strategy” used by Republicans.

“You can’t just yada yada yada the last 60 Republican years,” he remarked. “‘A Republican freed the slaves, gave black people the vote, yada yada yada and now all blacks vote Democratic. I mean, what the hell.’”

Employing a relationship metaphor, Wilmore complained that the Republican Party had disappeared for 50 years but now wanted to hook-up with black voters.

“How can we trust that you’ve changed if you’re pretending it was always all good?” he asked, noting a Republican official in Kansas recently used the term “nigger rigging.”

“Black people aren’t coming back until the Republicans admit we aren’t just dealing with ‘accidental racism,’” Wilmore remarked. “Believe me, if the past 50 years had been some of that Brad Paisley, LL Cool J bygones-be-bygones shit, we’d have gone with the tax breaks.”

Watch video, via Comedy Central, below:

Part 1

Part 2

1 Comment

Filed under Jon Stewart, Rand Paul

Five Ways Rand Paul Whitesplained Politics At Howard University

In my mind, Rand Paul has always been and will always be a tool.  I imagined his speech and  the HBCU, Howard University in Washington, D.C. would be filled with innuendos, lies and frankly  propaganda in an effort to win a few Black GOP voters.

How’s that working out for you Rand?

Think Progress

On Wednesday morning, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) gave an address at the historically-black Howard University designed to convince black voters to support Republicans. While some of his remarks, most notably on harsh drug laws and other civil liberties issues, were well-received, the majority of the speech consisted in Paul condescendingly explaining American racial history to the audience, occasionally incorrectly, and expecting that it would open black voters’ eyes to the real Republican Party. Here are five moments that encapsulated the general problem with Paul’s speech:

1. The Civil Rights movement is actually the “history of the Republican Party”.The thrust of Paul’s speech was a recapitulation of the history of race and racism and a defense of the Republican record on race (representative line: “The story of emancipation, voting rights and citizenship, from Fredrick Douglass until the modern civil rights era, is in fact the history of the Republican Party.”) The problem was that this speech, ostensibly designed to persuade black voters that the GOP was interested in them, was telling the audience things it already knew. Moreover, the speech didn’t grapple with what happened to make the Democrats the more racially liberal party in the mid-40s or the turn towards racially divisive politics on the Republican right, essentially skipping over the real reason the GOP alienated African-American voters.

2. Assumed the audience didn’t know the history of the NAACP. In one of the most awkward moments of the talk, Paul asked the audience if anyone knew that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had been founded by Republicans. The audience responded with a resounding “yes!”

3. Suggested that African-Americans were “demeaning” the history of sergregation by calling voter ID laws discrimination. When asked how African-Americans could trust the Republican Party given its generalized support fordiscriminatory voter ID laws, Rand Paul told the audience to chill out about the measures, suggesting they were common sense. Paul argued that the view that these laws were an updated version of poll taxes was “[demeaning] the horror” of segregation. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous has said voter ID laws are “pushing more voters out of the ballot box than any point since Jim Crow.”

4. Mangled the name of the first popularly-elected black Senator. In what appeared to be an attempt to demonstrate his familiarity with the subject matter, Paul brought up Senator Edward William Brooke III (a Republican mentioned in the prepared remarks as “the first [elected] black U.S. Senator”). He referred to him, however, as “Edwin Brooks,” a point the audience corrected.

5. Misled about his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Paul said “I’ve never wavered in my support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act.” The problem, asMother Jones‘ Adam Serwer pointed out, is that he opposed the law’s ban on discrimination in “places of public accommodation” like businesses, one of its most important planks. As an audience member asking Paul about this issuepointed out, “this was on tape.”

If Paul wants to spearhead Republican overtures to African-Americans, he’s got his work cut out for him. Over 50 percent of black voters in the last election believed Republicans “don’t care at all about civil rights,” while 71 percent thought Democrats were doing strong work in the area. President Obama won 93 percent of black voters.

3 Comments

Filed under Howard University, Rand Paul

“Crazy righty: Karen Finney’s not black enough”: Salon’s Joan Walsh

Crazy righty: Karen Finney’s not black enough

Another RWNJ gets it all wrong…

Salon

Hey, Reince Priebus: Here’s some more top-notch minority outreach from your partners at the right-wing Media Research Center.

MSNBC just announced that Karen Finney, a network political analyst and former communications director of the Democratic National Committee, will host a new weekend show.MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham immediately Tweeted:

MSNBC touting Karen Finney as another African-American host. Would the average viewer be able to guess that? Or is Boehner a shade more tan?

— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 2, 2013

Finney is African-American, although MSNBC didn’t particularly “tout” that in its press release; it mentioned that she was the first African-American communications director of the DNC and is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. I’m not sure what would cause Graham to even muse about her racial bona fides, let alone share his idiocy publicly. When mocked on Twitter, he just dug his hole deeper:

Judge pic here: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/02/karen-finney-named-new-msnbc-weekend-host/ …

Graham’s buffoonery reminded me of when former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown mocked and questioned Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s American Indian background, and when Tucker Carlson accused Barack Obama of exaggerating his “black” accent when speaking to black ministers. “This accent is absurd,” Carlson told Sean Hannity last year. “This is not the way Obama talks. It’s put on, it’s phony.” I observed at the time that there seemed to be an epidemic of white guys ruling on the correct way for other people to identify themselves in ethnic terms. Graham makes it a trend.

In a 2010 Huffington Post piece Finney wrote about being the descendant of slaves on her father’s side and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee on her mother’s side.  Maybe it’s too much to ask that Graham inform himself about the biological and cultural diversity of African-Americans. It’s not too much to ask, though, that he shut up about his ignorance, but I won’t hold my breath.

4 Comments

Filed under Karen Finney, MSNBC Hosts

America, You Must Not Look Away (How to Finish Off the NRA)

I’m all for quashing the NRA’s Reign of Terror over politicians and the American People.

Michael Moore’s suggestions in the following article are prefaced by historical context.  He writes about the gruesome deaths and beatings in the south during the civil rights era.  Moore argues that the pictures broadcasted and published all over the country changed the course of that movement.  Moore also argues that pictures broadcast from Viet Nam changed America’s perception of that war.  Moore theorizes that if America saw a lone picture of one of the babies shot with Adam Lanza’s killing machine, it would once again change the face of the gun debate.  Is he right?  I think he is.

Michael Moore

The year was 1955. Emmett Till was a young African American boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi. One day Emmett was seen “flirting” with a white woman in town, and for that he was mutilated and murdered at the age of fourteen. He was found with part of a cotton gin tied around his neck with a string of barbed wire. His killers, two white men, had shot him in the head before they dumped him in the river.

Emmett Till’s body was found and returned to Chicago. To the shock of many, his mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so that the public could see what happens to a little boy’s body when bigots decide he is less than human. She wanted photographers to take pictures of her mutilated son and freely publish them. More than 10,000 mourners came to the funeral home, and the photo of Emmett Till appeared in newspapers and magazines across the nation.

“I just wanted the world to see,” she said. “I just wanted the world to see.”

The world did see, and nothing was ever the same again for the white supremacists of the United States of America. Because of Emmett Till, because of that shocking photograph of this little dead boy, just a few months later, “the revolt officially began on December 1, 1955″ (from Eyes on the Prize) when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. The historic bus boycott began and, with the images of Emmett Till still fresh in the minds of many Americans, there was no turning back.

In March of 1965, the police of Selma, Alabama, brutally beat, hosed and tear-gassed a group of African Americans for simply trying to cross a bridge during a protest march. The nation was shocked by images of blacks viciously maimed and injured. So, too, was the President. Just one week later, Lyndon Johnson called for a gathering of the U.S. Congress and he went and stood before them in joint session and told them to pass a bill he was introducing that night – the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And, just five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

[...]

But I have a prediction. I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child’s body, that’s the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

Of course, there will be a sanctimonious hue and cry from the pundits who will decry the publication of these gruesome pictures. Those who do publish or post them will be called “shameful” and “disgraceful” and “sick.” How could a media outlet be so insensitive to the families of the dead children! Someone will then start a boycott of the magazine or website that publishes them.

But this will be a false outrage. Because the real truth is this: We do not want to be confronted with what the actual results of a violent society looks like. Of what a society that starts illegal wars, that executes criminals (or supposed criminals), that strikes or beats one of its women every 15 seconds, and shoots 30 of its own citizens every single day looks like. Oh, no, please – DO NOT MAKE US LOOK AT THAT!

Because if we were to seriously look at the 20 slaughtered children – I mean really look at them, with their bodies blown apart, many of them so unrecognizable the only way their parents could identify them was by the clothes they were wearing – what would be our excuse not to act? Now. Right now. This very instant! How on earth could anyonenot spring into action the very next moment after seeing the bullet-riddled bodies of these little boys and girls?

We don’t know exactly what those Newtown photographs show. But I want you – yes, you, the person reading this right now – to think about what we do know:

The six-year and seven-year-old children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were each hit up to eleven times by a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The muzzle velocity of a rifle like the AR-15 is about three times that of a handgun. And because the kinetic energy of a bullet equals one-half of the bullet’s mass multiplied by its velocity squared, the potential destructive power of a bullet fired from a rifle is about nine times more than that of a similar bullet fired from a handgun.

Continued here…

Comments Off

Filed under Gun Control Debate, Michael Moore, NRA

Sonia Sotomayor Condemns Prosecutor’s Racially Charged Question

 

 

Sonia Sotomayor Prosecutor

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor answers a question at Chicago Public Library in Chicago, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013. Sotomayor is on a tour promoting her new memoir “My Beloved World.” The book, which was released earlier this month, offers a revealing look at her life before she joined the Supreme Court. It is unusually personal for a justice. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

I’ve seen and heard about this sort of conduct happening more times than I care to remember…

The Huffington Post

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday condemned racially charged language used by a federal prosecutor in Texas.

The justice, appointed to the court by President Barack Obama in 2009, took the relatively unusual step of writing a statement to accompany the nine-member Supreme Court’s announcement that it would not take up a criminal case.

Sotomayor took issue with the unidentified prosecutor who, while questioning an African-American defendant in a drug case, asked: “You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you – a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, this is a drug deal?”

The first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor wrote that the prosecutor had “tapped a deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice that has run through the history of criminal justice in our nation.”

The question was “pernicious in its attempt to substitute racial stereotype for evidence,” she added. Sotomayor also accused the Obama administration of playing down the issue.

The defendant in the case, Bongani Charles Calhoun, wanted the Supreme Court to order a retrial because he said his right to a fair trial was violated when the question was asked. He was convicted of three offenses over his role in a drug conspiracy.

Initially, the administration declined to file a response to Calhoun’s claim, indicating government lawyers did not think it merited attention.

“I hope never to see a case like this again,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer signed on to Sotomayor’s statement.

The court did not take up the case on Monday, because Calhoun had failed to raise his argument earlier in the appeals process, as required under the law, Sotomayor wrote.

At trial, Calhoun’s argument was that, although he was present when federal agents arrested him and several other men, he was unaware of the illegal activity.

The case is Calhoun v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, 12-6142. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Mohammad Zargham)

Comments Off

Filed under Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Colin Powell asks O’Reilly: Why do you only see me as an African-American?

Colin Powell screenshot

I can see the General’s point.  Bill O’Reilly, in my opinion, is a bigot to the nth degree.

The Raw Story

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell chided Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday night for focusing on his ethnicity when discussing his support of President Barack Obama.

At the beginning of a lengthy interview, O’Reilly questioned why Powell, a Republican, had supported Obama in 2008 and again in 2012.

Powell said he was troubled that the Republican Party had moved so far to the right and that Obama was the best choice. But O’Reilly questioned why Powell voted for Obama when the President’s policies didn’t seem to help African-Americans. O’Reilly rattled off a list of statistics to prove life for the average African-American had not improved under Obama.

“Why are you only seeing me as an African-American, Bill?” Powell responded. “That troubles me. I’m an American.”

O’Reilly defended his question, noting that Powell had condemned Republicans for looking down on minorities. Powell, apparently trying to change the subject, said the economy had improved but not enough.

“Not for African-Americans, not for minorities” O’Reilly interrupted.

Powell explained that the economic situation of minorities would improve once the economy recovered from the recession and financial crisis.

The two Republicans also clashed over voter ID laws. Powell alleged the laws were a cynical attempt to disenfranchise minority voters, a claim that O’Reilly dismissed.

See video here…

2 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

Limbaugh Tarnishes Civil Rights Movement To Advance Pro-Gun Agenda

Rush Limbaugh has never espoused truth, logic or common sense.  So, surely he has no incentive to start now…

Think Progress

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh sought to equate the fight for African American civil rights with opposition to gun safety on Friday, suggesting that the movement could have better protected itself from segregationists had it been armed. Limbaugh specifically signaled out Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a nonviolent civil rights activist who was beaten during the 1965 voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery.

“Try this,” Limbaugh said. “If a lot of African-Americans back in the ’60s had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, you think they would have needed Selma? I don’t know. I’m just asking. If (Rep) John Lewis, who says he was beat upside the head, if John Lewis had had a gun, would he have been beat upside the head on the bridge?” Listen:

http://soundcloud.com/thinkpro/limbaugh-on-gunsLewis has issued a response to Limbaugh, noting that “Our goal in the Civil Rights Movement was not to injure or destroy but to build a sense of community, to reconcile people to the true oneness of all humanity.” “African Americans in the 60s could have chosen to arm themselves, but we made a conscious decision not to. We were convinced that peace could not be achieved through violence. Violence begets violence, and we believed the only way to achieve peaceful ends was through peaceful means.”

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr — a strict disciple of nonviolent resistance — was shot by an assassin in 1968. In the wake of his death — as well as the murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Malcolm X — Congress passed, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the nation’s first comprehensive federal firearms regulation. Unfortunately, gun advocates have seized on King’s legacy to prevent gun safety reforms and are hosting a Gun Appreciation Day for the weekend of President Obama’s second inauguration. Larry Ward, chairman of the event, claims that it “honors the legacy of Dr. King.”

3 Comments

Filed under Guns, Race-Baiting, Rush Limbaugh

Gun Appreciation Day Sponsored By American Third Position, White Supremacist Group

Gun Appreciation Day

The Huffington Post

Firearms enthusiasts around the country are being encouraged to head down to their local gun shops on Saturday, constitutions and American flags in hand, to send a message to President Barack Obama about Second Amendment rights — and, of course, to buy more guns.

The event is being billed as Gun Appreciation Day and has backing from white supremacist group American Third Position (A3P), Media Matters reported on Friday.

A3P, which is listed on the Gun Appreciation Day website as a sponsor, does little through its own content to veil the fact that the political movement is dedicated to white supremacy.

In its mission statement, A3P writes that it “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”

It goes on, saying that the group aims to “stop the immigrant invasion” in order to put “America first!”

A3P has been listed as a white nationalist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In an email to The Huffington Post last year, A3P’s chairman candidly admitted to his white nationalism, saying that he found it a “just and proper position for all white people to hold.”

(For more on A3P’s controversial history, click over to Media Matters)

Gun Appreciation Day has raised some eyebrows for reasons apart from its questionable ties. The event’s founder, Larry Ward has rejected claims that he’s an extremist, but earlier this week he sparked outrage when he suggested that slavery could have been prevented in the United States if African Americans were allowed to carry guns.

“I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history,” Ward said.

3 Comments

Filed under Gun Appreciation Day

“HOW COME THERE’S NOT A WHITE HISTORY MONTH???”

When I first ventured on to the internet” via AOL political chat rooms, the same question came up…a lot!  That was back in 1994.

It always puzzled me because common logic and reasoning would have made the question a moot issue.   Everything we read about history in elementary, junior high school, high school and college is about “white history”.

I often wondered, back in those early days of the internet, where do these people come from, don’t they understand that?

My very first website ( 1995) was a portal for Black Websites on the internet.  I was literally chastised and verbally castigated for having something labeled “Black” on the internet.  Folks wondered why there had to be “Black” websites?   It was all too complicated to explain since no matter how careful and detailed I tried to be with my explanations, they still had no clue why there had to be “Black” websites and “Black” History month.

It was all too exasperating for me so I left them in their own tiny world and ventured out to research everything I could think of (admittedly mostly Africentric searches) via Yahoo’s search engine and later Google.

So…imagine my surprise when I found that nothing had changed in almost twenty years:

Tumblr

H/t: Boring as heck

More…

11 Comments

Filed under Things that make you say - "Huh?"