Activism Needs Proper Focus

While “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) may be well intentioned, they lack the proper focus, proper objectives and the skilled and savvy leadership necessary to positively impact any meaningful change. 

First, they must deal with their chosen name; “Black Lives Matter.” 

The suggestion that discrimination against blacks in this country should be the only or primary objective diminishes the horrors and importance of others who also suffer discrimination.  Latinos, Muslims, gays, women the underprivileged and poor, and in many cases white males are also outcasts and victims of incredible levels of discrimination.  Ending black suffering and deaths to any meaningful degree requires fighting all forms of discrimination and hatred.  The enemy is bigotry.  As long as it has any kind of a foothold in America, on any level, blacks will be always be victimized.  Therefore, the title, by its very nature, is misleading and shortsighted.  It conjures up doubts as to the proper and the most worthwhile agenda.  

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other historically successful civil rights leaders were keenly aware of this reality.  King’s efforts extended to the horrible and disgraceful discrimination of war.  He railed against the poor and underprivileged being the primary victims of our wars, emphasizing that the privileged - as Robert Kennedy noted – could “hide out” in college while those far less fortunate did the fighting and dying.  This correct and necessary moral high ground resulted in King’s receiving strong support within non-black communities to help with his fight.  Populist support is necessary to succeed against any form of discrimination. 

Next is the problem in attacking the beast at its root causes. 

Let begin by affirming the obvious.  Of course, black discrimination manifests itself through racist police officers.  “Black Lives Matter” is determined to focus on the false premise that that discrimination is the primary and only cause for recent violent police tactics.  A review of the record nationwide demonstrates abusive and violent police behavior toward every segment of our population.    

Unarmed Alfonso Limon Jr., 21, was shot to death by Oxnard, California police officers.  He was of Spanish speaking descent. 

Victor Hernandez, also of Spanish speaking decent, was dragged out of a car, tasered and beaten by Roseville, Minnesota police as he lay on the ground.  The cops weren’t pleased with his slow response to their commands which stemmed from the fact that Hernandez didn’t speak English. 

Then there’s Brandie Redell – a white woman – who was beaten by two Davenport, Iowa cops. 

And, of course, there was Tampa, Florida resident Brian Sterner.  Sterner is a white paraplegic.  He was thrown out of his wheelchair by Hillsborough Country deputy Sherriff Charlette Marshall-Jones.  Three other officers looked on without alarm or objection.  Jones is a black woman and all three of the police onlookers – two females and one male - where all black. 

In reviewing these records, one quickly learns that some police departments and police officers are infused with an arrogant mindset.  This arrogance permeates demeaning and abusive encounters.  Records show time again rude, condescending, disrespectable, obnoxious and intimidating police conduct.   Strong evidence reveals these are just isolated incidents but are commonplace.  Because this uncivilized demeanor and verbal abusive has gone unchallenged for years, police have come to believe they are now also immune from acting in an unlawful manner.  All of this indifference has resulted in the current widespread cruel and extreme violence that plagues us today.  

This entrenched lack of civility, and NOT JUST racism, is the PRIMARY reason for the violent abuse of power exerted by law enforcement officials.  For “Black Lives Matter” to succeed they need to expand their thinking beyond bigotry to include all forms of abusive behavior.  Their demands must center on more effective methods in the selection and hiring of officers, vastly improved training programs designed to instill a proper law enforcement mentality.  They need to demand additional comprehensive training for current police officers along with periodic psychological testing to determine if their experiences have turned them bitter and revengeful toward the public.  They must insist that these and other officers, incapable of the proper mindset and unable to adapt to the rigors of the job, be removed from police departments.  Without this focus and agenda, “Black Lives Matter” will fail in their quest to protect the general public, and thus blacks, from unnecessary and brutal methods of law enforcement. 

Finally, the cruel and wasteful loss of black lives extends beyond police departments and needs to be part of the BLM agenda. 

Literally hundreds of young, principally, black males are killed on our streets every year by those who do not have the force of a badge behind their bloodshed. 

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu told the Aspen Ideas Festival that; “something is wrong with our country if young African-American men are being killed in the street in huge numbers and most Americans look away. It’s mass murder in slow motion.   America must make combating violence a national priority.  If we can mobilize to address tragedies around the world, we can do it at home.” 

“Black Lives Matter” has the potential to be an effective movement.  Therefore, BLM needs to step up and pursue these additional everyday non-police street carnages every bit as aggressively as they pursue police violence if they wish to be deemed credible and succeed. 

Dr. King led a movement that demanded an end to the repression of all the poor and underprivileged in our country, NOT JUST BLACKS.  King’s movement included all forms of bigotry and abuse of power.   It is these realities and that mindset, along with the proper understanding as to the exact nature of the problem and the corrective measures needed which are crucial to BLM success.  For without it, any hope to diminish the needlessly loss of human dignity and life, to any real degree, is nothing more than a pipedream. 

Media Deterioration Foretold

In the advent of television, networks executives were willing to accept news programing as a lost-leader.  The noble enterprise was partially steeped in a responsibility to provide for the common good and general welfare of the nation. But in a larger sense, they saw an opportunity to create greater financial gain, through the news, by drawing as large an audience as possible and then by advertising their entertainment programing during the news programs.  This, they hoped, would lead to creating greater viewership for their cash cows.  Then, with the advertising success of “60 Minutes”, that noble endeavor and thought process was abandoned. 

Edward R. Murrow was a journalist in the truest and strictest sense of the word.  He threw stones at giants recognizing it was NOT his responsibility to protect them, as we often see today, but to expose them.  He clearly understood the primary function of journalism to be the preservation of our Republic – a concept that is lost on the majority of today’s so-called journalists.

The finest dissertation on journalism was Murrow’s speech delivered on October 15, 1958 to the Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation.  He foretold of the evolution of contemporary news television programming.  He warned of the dangers that lay ahead if we failed to recognize the real value in television.  His warnings went unheeded and his predictions came to fruition;   “If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge and retribution will not limp in catching up.”

His biggest concern was that money, rather than duty, and responsibility would direct the focus and dramatically dictate the future of broadcast journalism.  “Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict.  And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty.”

“Just once in awhile let us exalt the importance of ideas and information.  Let us dream to the extent of saying on a given…night, (we select a prime time spot) a time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan (or “Survivor”) is given over to a clinical survey on the state of American education.  And a week or two later, a time normally used by Steve Allen (or “Dancing With The Stars”) is devoted to a thorough going study to American policy in the Middle East.  Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged?  Would the shareholder rise up in their wrath and complain?  Would anything happen?  Other than a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country and therefore the future of the corporations.”

Today, this recommendation is viewed as a total absurdity.  Furthermore, any journalist who wishes to remain employed would never even propose such an idea.   

Never mind “a thorough going study” which might jeopardize reports such as the dog that saved Dubuque, or our pressing “need to know” that Charlie Sheen has a plethora of women that shared his home and his bed or the awful threat of jeopardizing Princess Diana’s monopolization of news coverage when Mother Teresa died…“And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or perhaps in color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live…”

The problem that remains is that youthful perspectives by both modern day journalists and consumers are solely based upon contemporary exposure.  This becomes a major concern in a society where history is no longer taught and is therefore absent from most thought processes – an America where it is easy to conclude, by their actions, that most journalists have never heard of Edward R. Murrow.

What Murrow could NOT foresee was cable television.  He saw the threat of manipulation and deterioration of television journalism coming from just three national networks.  Murrow’s cautions are now far more pervasive.  There are far more news outlets – some filling 24/7-timeframes – most employing Murrow’s predicted sickness of titillation derived from the sensationalism of yellow journalism and a political agenda for profits.  Unfortunately, there is only one means to right this ship.  Viewership must drastically dwindle causing a severe downturn in advertising revenue.  If we refuse or are reluctant to shut them off – to heed Murrow’s wisdom – to pursued only agenda free, credible sources; i.e., “60 Minutes”, PBS News Hour, PBS Documentaries, National Public Radio and Television; then we may indeed and very soon; “…see…the whole struggle…lost.”

 

“War on Women” Untenable

  It’s a “War on Women” is the contemporary battle cry used whenever any viewpoints or programs offered run contrary to the thinking of a particular segment of our population.  It has been used so often and misused so egregiously that it is losing its desired effect.      

“War on Women” is dragged out and bandied about to elicit an emotional response.  Those who disagree with what certain radical female elements support are typically painted as bigoted.  In some cases, they may be bigoted.  However, what is lost in this tired old cliché is the fact that most are not bigoted.  This has the effect of hiding the central facts and arguments – of shutting down any and all discussion surrounding the actual nature and truth of the disagreements.  In some cases, those making the accusation are unable to formulate a rational argument in support of their positions.  So, they just paint opposition as bigots and no such arguments are necessary.  There is no need to present any evidence as to the opposition’s flawed thinking.  Afterall, nothing a bigot says should be given any weight – any credibility.  This is extremely disingenuous. 

Women have always been paid less than men in the workplace.  It is also true that American businesses have always strived to do whatever they can to lower and keep labor costs down.  

This mentality gave rise to labor unions.  It has also been the major impetus for closing American based factories and reopening them is countries where slave labor wages can be paid. 

Women where gladly embraced in the work force in a number of positions primarily because they could be hired for far less than their male counterparts.  This also allowed companies to pay less to their male employees.  This in turn created a viable environment that wasn’t previously present to lower wages.  With male wages lowered and as never-ending America inflation continued, a two-income family became necessary. 

Rates of pay for women in the workplace have nothing to do with a “war on women.”  It is precisely what has been transpiring in the American workplace for decades.  This is what must be addressed if we truly desire to correct the problem and not some silly notion of bigotry.  

The effort to close planned parenthood clinics, the supreme Court “Hobby Lobby” ruling, limiting abortions to within the first six weeks of gustation and a whole host of other state restrictions on abortion practices is not a “War on Women.”   It is a war on abortion.  

There are Americans who see the practice as immoral.  They want abortion abuses stopped.  In some cases, they want all abortions eliminated. They are focused on what they believe is the saving of human life.  None of this has any scurrilous connection to hating women.  Finding common ground for reasonable compromises to this contentious issue must be the goal.  Adopting a “War on Women” mentality only makes that exceedingly more difficult to accomplish. 

Finally, discrimination is discrimination.  There is no hiding it, and there should be no tolerance or acceptance of it on any level.  Yet we ignore it with regards this issue.

Women have, through their long struggle to gain equality, managed to build a discriminatory environment.  There are now various strongholds that only women occupy.  There are professional positions and in variety of industries that would never consider a male for employment – ONLY A WOMAN.  To be sure, these women are, for the most part, eminently qualified to hold their positions.  That is not the concern.  The concern is that whenever a woman leaves a position another woman will inevitability fill that vacancy.  That certainly is not common when a man leaves a position.  What is common is that if the man is replaced by a woman, a man will never again occupy that position. The outrage here is that there is clearly a discriminatory practice that is now acceptable in hiring.  No outrage is expressed. 

There are so many professional women organizations the list could stretch from New York to Los Angles.  “Women In Engineering,” “Women In Broadcasting,” “Alliance For Women in the Media,” “Association for Women in Science” and easily a hundred others.  All of these titles clearly communicate that NO MALES are welcome.  They are female bastions only.  Again, we as a people, have been reluctant to call this behavior exactly what it is – Discrimination. 

To further exasperate the problem, women attack anything resembling a male bastion.  They demand that any such organization be disbanded and/or severely altered.  The “Augusta National Golf Club” in Georgia serves as the best example and therefore the many others references are hardly necessary.  

There can be little doubt that anyone who might challenge this thinking and behavior would be charged with initiating a “War on Women.”  This intimidation allows for the despicable silence necessary to nurture these injustices. 

It is time to move for an end to the double standard we have adopted toward discrimination and bigotry.  It will be almost impossible to progress on many important issues is we fail to allow for far more reasonable and rational discussions to ensue.  Such an approach would obviously demand the suspending of any and all references to a “War on Women” along with any other forms of bias and bigotry.