Certainly, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction! The crackdown on crack cocaine that eventuated in the maltreatment and disparate sentencing of persons of color compared with users of powder cocaine was prima facie racist from its inception. That is why the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project is correct in exhorting the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama to make this new law have retroactive effect. There are countless numbers of African Americans who are in prison for nonviolent offenses because of the presence of crack cocaine in their sentencing. This law is couched in terms of the future, but it should have reparative scope.
The marvelous thing about this new law, if signed by the President, is that it eliminates, for simple possession, mandatory minimums, which have forced the hands of judges who might have given lesser sentences to offenders if they had had the discretion to do so! Judges and juries can look at offenders as individuals and determine what alternatives to incarceration are available and suitable to each case. No longer is being caught possessing equivalent to a prison sentence! Of course, there are a number of drug abusers and traffickers who need to sit behind prison bars for a while, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not the old law, but the new law about to be signed by Obama.
This pending change is a true picture of democracy in action! Individuals, organizations, and institutions have repeatedly argued for the unconstitutionality and racist nature of the double standard with respect to powder and crack cocaine. The debating, petitioning, protesting, and so forth have finally paid off.
However, there are still some problems. The law significantly reduces the disparity between the two forms of cocaine, but it does not eradicate it completely. Furthermore, the law does not get rid of mandatory minimums altogether; rather, it raises the amount of possession that compels judges to levy a five- or ten-year minimum. This quantity disparity notwithstanding, the new law has the potential of reducing the prison population by 3,800, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
With caution, I submit a new day might be coming for the criminal justice system. The attempt to reduce the racial and ethnic minority disparities in sentencing will definitely have a ramifying effect upon law enforcement and indictments as well as on sentencing. The beloved community is not around the corner, so to speak, but finally some justice, fairness, and equity have found their way into the body politic. It’s about time!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
AFGHANIZATION
Some folks seem to be under the impression that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are synonymous. That cannot be further from the truth! The Taliban are Afghan natives, and the members of al-Qaeda are insurgents of various national or cultural stripes. The United States should not be warring against the Taliban; rather, it should diplomatically support the Afghan government to control the cities in the southern and eastern regions so that al-Qaeda will not be able to find succor in those areas.
The sending of more troops to Afghanistan sustains an old policy that historically made little sense and continues to be foolhardy. The United States seeks to be deterministic in world affairs, and the control of the Afghan government has become the goal, it seems, rather than rooting out al-Qaeda and making sure that group does not wreak havoc upon Afghans and others in the area and among our allies. There is much confusion over what to do in the Obama Administration, and this kind of inept handling of complex issues harks back to our involvement in Vietnam.
There is something to be said about participating in conflicts from civil to international wars. What role should the United States play in helping a nation deal with internal strife or supporting one nation against another? When conflicts affect our national security directly, we certainly should be about the business of resolving the crises. However, when the linkages are not that distinct, then we have to evaluate thoroughly whether or not involvement by the United States can be singularly addressed diplomatically and without military utilization. We have such a long history of depending on the military-industrial complex to keep our economy going, and that easy reliance has a way of presaging what we will do in foreign affairs. This fallacious reasoning assails our attending to what is necessary and encourages our nation to continue disproportionately to be amassing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, to find theaters of war to use them, and to export them while deepening our national debt.
The United States and its allies have done a fine job of disrespecting President Hamid Karzai and trying to make him a puppet of Western hegemony. The people of Afghanistan have shown signs of growing disapproval of our relations with their president, and this feeling, if not fixed, can only lead to the intensification of any disaffection with our presence there. After all, we are occupiers, in a very real sense—believing that the tragedy of September 11, 2001, justifies any military escapade in which we engage.
The U.S. population must express its belief that the people of Afghanistan ought to solve their own problems. We cannot police the whole world! Besides, our oxymoronic “war on terror” is diversionary, at best, for what was required after 9/11 was certainly not declared warfare—whether it’d be in Iraq or Afghanistan—but expert police and intelligence action to thwart any future attempts at symbolic humiliation.
The hope many had for the new Obama Administration was that the failed and feckless policies of the President Bush and his cronies would be superseded by a significantly more thoughtful and effective approach. That some of the same people are surrounding Obama as surrounded Bush is far from consoling. Their hopes are not completely dashed, but how can they be realized when that tired, old adage remains true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”?
The sending of more troops to Afghanistan sustains an old policy that historically made little sense and continues to be foolhardy. The United States seeks to be deterministic in world affairs, and the control of the Afghan government has become the goal, it seems, rather than rooting out al-Qaeda and making sure that group does not wreak havoc upon Afghans and others in the area and among our allies. There is much confusion over what to do in the Obama Administration, and this kind of inept handling of complex issues harks back to our involvement in Vietnam.
There is something to be said about participating in conflicts from civil to international wars. What role should the United States play in helping a nation deal with internal strife or supporting one nation against another? When conflicts affect our national security directly, we certainly should be about the business of resolving the crises. However, when the linkages are not that distinct, then we have to evaluate thoroughly whether or not involvement by the United States can be singularly addressed diplomatically and without military utilization. We have such a long history of depending on the military-industrial complex to keep our economy going, and that easy reliance has a way of presaging what we will do in foreign affairs. This fallacious reasoning assails our attending to what is necessary and encourages our nation to continue disproportionately to be amassing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, to find theaters of war to use them, and to export them while deepening our national debt.
The United States and its allies have done a fine job of disrespecting President Hamid Karzai and trying to make him a puppet of Western hegemony. The people of Afghanistan have shown signs of growing disapproval of our relations with their president, and this feeling, if not fixed, can only lead to the intensification of any disaffection with our presence there. After all, we are occupiers, in a very real sense—believing that the tragedy of September 11, 2001, justifies any military escapade in which we engage.
The U.S. population must express its belief that the people of Afghanistan ought to solve their own problems. We cannot police the whole world! Besides, our oxymoronic “war on terror” is diversionary, at best, for what was required after 9/11 was certainly not declared warfare—whether it’d be in Iraq or Afghanistan—but expert police and intelligence action to thwart any future attempts at symbolic humiliation.
The hope many had for the new Obama Administration was that the failed and feckless policies of the President Bush and his cronies would be superseded by a significantly more thoughtful and effective approach. That some of the same people are surrounding Obama as surrounded Bush is far from consoling. Their hopes are not completely dashed, but how can they be realized when that tired, old adage remains true: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”?
VILSACK, JEALOUS, OBAMA: LEADERS?
When the Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, was Governor of Iowa, he supported making English the official language of the state. He was not adept at addressing issues of race with sensitivity and sophistication, and this inadequacy has reared its ugly head with regards to the remarks made by Ms. Shirley Sherrod, a staffer at the USDA whom Vilsack fired for alleged racism.
Sherrod was discussing an encounter she had with a white farmer twenty-five years ago and what she learned from that experience. A conservative leader of the Tea Party campaign edited the tape and put the corrupted one on YouTube for the world to see. It made it appear Sherrod was discussing a recent episode and making racist decisions from her position of power and authority.
It’s disappointing that Vilsack was not alone in his hasty dismissal without any effort to investigate the matter. Mr. Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, who’s waged battles against the Tea Party movement, initially concurred with Vilsack and the Obama Administration’s demand for Sherrod’s resignation. However, Jealous eventually acquired the presence of mind to recant that support and encourage Vilsack to reconsider his ridiculous peremptory action. After some embarrassment and concomitant resistance, Vilsack indicated he would investigate the matter further.
This sort of acting before thinking, judging a book only by its cover or deciding without research is the type of anathema that has plagued politics forever. It appears President Obama took lessons from President Clinton, who could not deal circumspectly with the issue of gays in the military, the crackdown on crack cocaine, and the criticisms of his nominee for the Civil Rights Commission, Ms. Lani Guinier, and Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Obama fired Val Jones for past comments that had nothing to do with his position fostering environmental justice and placed in administrative advisory posts a number of individuals with whom he theoretically disagrees because it makes him appear more moderate. This drive to accommodate to the opposition rather than work diligently to persuade to one’s own side ineluctably leads to overly compromising and to challenging one’s integrity. Like Clinton, Vilsack, Jealous, and Obama have ventured down that road and must do yeoman work for restoration and redemption.
Sherrod’s remarks will in no wise reduce her ability to perform her duties, unless we allow the shenanigans of Fox News and Andrew Breitbart of the Tea Party to infect us with their routine vitriol. The USDA can use in its rural development director position a person of the caliber of Sherrod, who recognized a problem she had nearly three decades ago and learned from that experience to teach others to be inclusive and anti-racist. In all of this, she is the true leader!
Sherrod was discussing an encounter she had with a white farmer twenty-five years ago and what she learned from that experience. A conservative leader of the Tea Party campaign edited the tape and put the corrupted one on YouTube for the world to see. It made it appear Sherrod was discussing a recent episode and making racist decisions from her position of power and authority.
It’s disappointing that Vilsack was not alone in his hasty dismissal without any effort to investigate the matter. Mr. Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, who’s waged battles against the Tea Party movement, initially concurred with Vilsack and the Obama Administration’s demand for Sherrod’s resignation. However, Jealous eventually acquired the presence of mind to recant that support and encourage Vilsack to reconsider his ridiculous peremptory action. After some embarrassment and concomitant resistance, Vilsack indicated he would investigate the matter further.
This sort of acting before thinking, judging a book only by its cover or deciding without research is the type of anathema that has plagued politics forever. It appears President Obama took lessons from President Clinton, who could not deal circumspectly with the issue of gays in the military, the crackdown on crack cocaine, and the criticisms of his nominee for the Civil Rights Commission, Ms. Lani Guinier, and Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Obama fired Val Jones for past comments that had nothing to do with his position fostering environmental justice and placed in administrative advisory posts a number of individuals with whom he theoretically disagrees because it makes him appear more moderate. This drive to accommodate to the opposition rather than work diligently to persuade to one’s own side ineluctably leads to overly compromising and to challenging one’s integrity. Like Clinton, Vilsack, Jealous, and Obama have ventured down that road and must do yeoman work for restoration and redemption.
Sherrod’s remarks will in no wise reduce her ability to perform her duties, unless we allow the shenanigans of Fox News and Andrew Breitbart of the Tea Party to infect us with their routine vitriol. The USDA can use in its rural development director position a person of the caliber of Sherrod, who recognized a problem she had nearly three decades ago and learned from that experience to teach others to be inclusive and anti-racist. In all of this, she is the true leader!
Monday, July 12, 2010
ARROGANT DELAYS!
It takes a lot of gall and moral turpitude to ignore the cries of heads of households and their children for sufficient monies to pay their expenses, keep food on the tables, and maintain their physical and mental health. To filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits during an economic crisis second only to that of the 1930s is antithetical to any code of decency or professional ethics. Couple those misanthropic tendencies with the selfish concern over winning in a political election, and filibustering is downright objectionable!
The economy is not rebounding fast enough, and people are still losing their jobs or had to take jobs, usually part-time ones, in which they are considerably underemployed. This condition does not take into account the many who cannot find work at all as well as those who have become so discouraged that they are not even attempting to look anymore. Rather than search for a solution in some distant tomorrow or completely overlook the dire straits in which people are living, action needs to be taken immediately to ensure these households are getting unemployment benefits to help them to sustain their families and themselves.
I agree with the complaint that government spending is not the only solution to the crisis and that we must assiduously work to find ways to cut the budget. However, when the choice is between increasing our national debt and mollifying the plight of the poor, the favored answer is to relieve the latter’s concerns—hands down! No vaunted or pompous discussion about fiscal responsibility can substitute for the necessity of the country’s attending to the emergent needs of its citizens.
Ultimately, the United States must get out of the business of war and the trillion dollars already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funds directed toward such violent endeavors could be utilized to help us get a better grasp on the socioeconomic causes of poverty, generally, and on how to respond proactively to alleviate the crisis in unemployment and lack of income in the short-term.
To paraphrase Martin Luther as he spoke to the national congress in the city of Worms in 1528: “Here we should stand; we cannot do otherwise, so help us God!”
The economy is not rebounding fast enough, and people are still losing their jobs or had to take jobs, usually part-time ones, in which they are considerably underemployed. This condition does not take into account the many who cannot find work at all as well as those who have become so discouraged that they are not even attempting to look anymore. Rather than search for a solution in some distant tomorrow or completely overlook the dire straits in which people are living, action needs to be taken immediately to ensure these households are getting unemployment benefits to help them to sustain their families and themselves.
I agree with the complaint that government spending is not the only solution to the crisis and that we must assiduously work to find ways to cut the budget. However, when the choice is between increasing our national debt and mollifying the plight of the poor, the favored answer is to relieve the latter’s concerns—hands down! No vaunted or pompous discussion about fiscal responsibility can substitute for the necessity of the country’s attending to the emergent needs of its citizens.
Ultimately, the United States must get out of the business of war and the trillion dollars already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funds directed toward such violent endeavors could be utilized to help us get a better grasp on the socioeconomic causes of poverty, generally, and on how to respond proactively to alleviate the crisis in unemployment and lack of income in the short-term.
To paraphrase Martin Luther as he spoke to the national congress in the city of Worms in 1528: “Here we should stand; we cannot do otherwise, so help us God!”
Thursday, July 8, 2010
CORRELATIONS: UNEMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL GRACES
When the employment rate goes unchanged for months, and the number of individuals still seeking jobs declines, is it not understandable why there is a recourse to activities that are not wholesome, productive, and life-affirming? How arrogant is it to expect people who are scarcely making ends meet for themselves and their families, if at all, to remain psychologically well-adjusted and socially responsible? Who is really at fault when a person under such duress and in the public or domestic arena behaves in ways that are antinomian, violent, and ostensibly misanthropic? In this particular sitz im leben, if you will, how can we rightfully indict and convict only the individual, while the causes of miscreant conduct relate to inadequate income, perennial political powerlessness, availability of unhealthy substances, poor neighborhood schools, and no remedy in sight? These are societal forces that are virtually out of the control of the individual.
Certainly, it is difficult to ascertain how to hold both the individual and the society accountable for civilian and criminal offenses. Some may argue that the judicial system is unable to make this type of accommodation, but I disagree. In the 1980s, that very system was allowed to engage in racial discrimination by counting possession of crack cocaine as worse than the possession of powder cocaine–causing an intensification of the crackdown, so to speak, on urban blacks and incarcerating them in record disparate numbers. That policy was wrong, but it demonstrates that the courts can be made to consider alternate ways of attributing and distributing blame!
Black youth between the ages of sixteen and nineteen have been experiencing massive unemployment to the tune of forty-five percent. What type of nation are we that permits pernicious poverty to permeate the core of tomorrow’s adults? The desperation they must feel, the sense of hopelessness and the realization they may not earn a decent living in the foreseeable future, cannot help but incline them towards misadventures antithetical to community and productivity in order barely to survive and sustain their families. A society that is silent and unhelpful when people are experiencing such dire straits is guilty of tyranny and must be held commensurately responsible. After all, it is execrable our nation tolerates this persistent declination of a part of the population, yet responds to their plight by imprisoning a disproportionate number of their young men.
The sheer numbers of people who are poor and who are locked up show that the problem of social dislocation and illegal activity pervades all of human cultures and groupings. Clearly, there is no genetic predisposition here. What is consonant among these categories of people is the interlocking, interdependent nature of economic depression and lawlessness. Because of this mutuality, we as a society must find a way to penalize structures and processes, policies and services, that conspire to alienate people, who resultantly acquit themselves adversely among their neighbors. The violence to which humans in terrible and urgent circumstances resort are symptomatic of the multiple and cumulative causes wrought upon them in systemic ways.
It is a common ethical question whether prisoners of war are generally excused for giving information to the enemy when they are being tortured and tormented by their captors. Many would claim that autonomy is a prerequisite of moral decision-making, and POWs usually have their liberties severely truncated–thereby exculpating them from blame or guilt. Certainly, groups of people such as unemployed African American youth are held hostage by institutionalized racism and the capitalist juggernaut of class separation, so much so that the prosecution of their lives into violence only mirrors the wreckage wrought upon them by the structural and procedural dynamics in which they live. They are similarly constrained as prisoners of war and cannot be expected to maintain a moral compass executed by those whose incomes are stable, habitats are safe, and participation in the body politic unencumbered.
A society worth its mettle assiduously works to eliminate poverty and to provide equitable opportunities for its members to satisfy their existential needs. In this regard, the probity of our country is, metaphorically, insufficiently ironed. And what we promote, we permit!
Certainly, it is difficult to ascertain how to hold both the individual and the society accountable for civilian and criminal offenses. Some may argue that the judicial system is unable to make this type of accommodation, but I disagree. In the 1980s, that very system was allowed to engage in racial discrimination by counting possession of crack cocaine as worse than the possession of powder cocaine–causing an intensification of the crackdown, so to speak, on urban blacks and incarcerating them in record disparate numbers. That policy was wrong, but it demonstrates that the courts can be made to consider alternate ways of attributing and distributing blame!
Black youth between the ages of sixteen and nineteen have been experiencing massive unemployment to the tune of forty-five percent. What type of nation are we that permits pernicious poverty to permeate the core of tomorrow’s adults? The desperation they must feel, the sense of hopelessness and the realization they may not earn a decent living in the foreseeable future, cannot help but incline them towards misadventures antithetical to community and productivity in order barely to survive and sustain their families. A society that is silent and unhelpful when people are experiencing such dire straits is guilty of tyranny and must be held commensurately responsible. After all, it is execrable our nation tolerates this persistent declination of a part of the population, yet responds to their plight by imprisoning a disproportionate number of their young men.
The sheer numbers of people who are poor and who are locked up show that the problem of social dislocation and illegal activity pervades all of human cultures and groupings. Clearly, there is no genetic predisposition here. What is consonant among these categories of people is the interlocking, interdependent nature of economic depression and lawlessness. Because of this mutuality, we as a society must find a way to penalize structures and processes, policies and services, that conspire to alienate people, who resultantly acquit themselves adversely among their neighbors. The violence to which humans in terrible and urgent circumstances resort are symptomatic of the multiple and cumulative causes wrought upon them in systemic ways.
It is a common ethical question whether prisoners of war are generally excused for giving information to the enemy when they are being tortured and tormented by their captors. Many would claim that autonomy is a prerequisite of moral decision-making, and POWs usually have their liberties severely truncated–thereby exculpating them from blame or guilt. Certainly, groups of people such as unemployed African American youth are held hostage by institutionalized racism and the capitalist juggernaut of class separation, so much so that the prosecution of their lives into violence only mirrors the wreckage wrought upon them by the structural and procedural dynamics in which they live. They are similarly constrained as prisoners of war and cannot be expected to maintain a moral compass executed by those whose incomes are stable, habitats are safe, and participation in the body politic unencumbered.
A society worth its mettle assiduously works to eliminate poverty and to provide equitable opportunities for its members to satisfy their existential needs. In this regard, the probity of our country is, metaphorically, insufficiently ironed. And what we promote, we permit!
WILL THE REAL BYRD PLEASE FLY RIGHT?!
It is always quite challenging to figure out the trajectory of a person’s life. The choices of what to include/exclude and what to criticize/laud are commonly burdensome and muddled. Arguably, one of the most challenging issues to grapple with is when the recently deceased held a position in one’s past that is morally wrong and still has debilitating effects upon the body politic. Such is the case with the esteemed, legendary, and oftentimes revered legislator, Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
Byrd was a Democrat from the South who endorsed the subjugation of African Americans through Jim Crow Laws: a Dixiecrat. In congruity with this political posture, Byrd shored up his racial bigotry by being a member of the most notorious hate group in the United States, namely, the Ku Klux Klan. How can any individual who believes in the intangible ideal of the so-called American Dream and who holds onto the conviction that a person’s skin color does not determine that person’s character indulge in the activities of racial hatemongers? Either one would have to be unusually forgiving or one would have to be dismissive of the extent of that person’s commitment to the dehumanization of fellow human beings.
In 2001, Byrd used the N-word to discuss his upbringing and he confessed to being a member of the KKK. He indicated both the use of the racially insensitive descriptor and participation in the hate group were mistakes. At the time, Byrd was already an old man at 83. In his mid-to-late twenties, Byrd stumped for membership in the KKK because he believed it promoted traditional American values. In addition, during the same decade of the 1940s, he adamantly opposed desegregation of the armed forces. During the now-celebrated Civil Rights Movement, already well into his forties, he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is a man who seemed to be fairly clearheaded about his view of black people as unworthy of first-class citizenship. Before that turbulent decade ended, Byrd stood tall in opposition to the nomination of the first black justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e., Thurgood Marshall.
Certainly, individuals can evolve, and the kleagle for the KKK surely did. He supported President Lyndon Johnson’s administration’s escalation of the Vietnam War, but vigorously challenged President George W. Bush’s executive decision to go to war in a country not responsible for the terrorism of September 11, 2001. As a thoroughgoing pacifist, I found myself rooting for such swinging of the U.S. Constitution, albeit unsuccessfully, against the unmitigated gall of Bush’s to arrogate to himself powers of the executive branch of government that do not exist.
When looking back over a person’s life, it is probably best and fairest to take into account major commitments, reforms, regrets, failures, and achievements—for all render the most realistic picture. Those who resort to hagiographic, rosy, and doctored depictions do a disservice to the public—squeamishness aside. Byrd, a boy from a poor Appalachian coal-mining family, orphaned at one, the pork-barrel “dean of the Senate” who served 51 years, as well as three terms in the House of Representatives, was a man with many flaws, great oratorical skills, who brought dignity into the chambers, and, for what it is worth, all irony aside, was dubbed the “conscience of the Senate.”
Byrd was a Democrat from the South who endorsed the subjugation of African Americans through Jim Crow Laws: a Dixiecrat. In congruity with this political posture, Byrd shored up his racial bigotry by being a member of the most notorious hate group in the United States, namely, the Ku Klux Klan. How can any individual who believes in the intangible ideal of the so-called American Dream and who holds onto the conviction that a person’s skin color does not determine that person’s character indulge in the activities of racial hatemongers? Either one would have to be unusually forgiving or one would have to be dismissive of the extent of that person’s commitment to the dehumanization of fellow human beings.
In 2001, Byrd used the N-word to discuss his upbringing and he confessed to being a member of the KKK. He indicated both the use of the racially insensitive descriptor and participation in the hate group were mistakes. At the time, Byrd was already an old man at 83. In his mid-to-late twenties, Byrd stumped for membership in the KKK because he believed it promoted traditional American values. In addition, during the same decade of the 1940s, he adamantly opposed desegregation of the armed forces. During the now-celebrated Civil Rights Movement, already well into his forties, he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is a man who seemed to be fairly clearheaded about his view of black people as unworthy of first-class citizenship. Before that turbulent decade ended, Byrd stood tall in opposition to the nomination of the first black justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e., Thurgood Marshall.
Certainly, individuals can evolve, and the kleagle for the KKK surely did. He supported President Lyndon Johnson’s administration’s escalation of the Vietnam War, but vigorously challenged President George W. Bush’s executive decision to go to war in a country not responsible for the terrorism of September 11, 2001. As a thoroughgoing pacifist, I found myself rooting for such swinging of the U.S. Constitution, albeit unsuccessfully, against the unmitigated gall of Bush’s to arrogate to himself powers of the executive branch of government that do not exist.
When looking back over a person’s life, it is probably best and fairest to take into account major commitments, reforms, regrets, failures, and achievements—for all render the most realistic picture. Those who resort to hagiographic, rosy, and doctored depictions do a disservice to the public—squeamishness aside. Byrd, a boy from a poor Appalachian coal-mining family, orphaned at one, the pork-barrel “dean of the Senate” who served 51 years, as well as three terms in the House of Representatives, was a man with many flaws, great oratorical skills, who brought dignity into the chambers, and, for what it is worth, all irony aside, was dubbed the “conscience of the Senate.”
VIOLENCE BY ANOTHER NAME
When we think about violence in our society, we are quick to talk about physical violence such as assault, domestic abuse, rape, shooting, stabbing, fisticuffs, terrorism, warfare, and so forth. We have been socialized to think of violence in these terms. In addition, we are also prone immediately to credit such violence to the individual and to absolve communities or systems from any responsibility or accountability whatsoever. We are not astute when it comes to dealing with forms of violence that are covert and subtle, i.e., structural, procedural, and subsidiary. The lack of opportunities, information, community policing, social services, employment, justice in the courts, and so forth invalidate the claim that violence is individual and not societal in nature.
Just because we are unable to find an easy fix to address these deficiencies does not exculpate us from the responsibility. Whereas it is challenging for us not to separate the players in an armed robbery into merely direct perpetrators and victims, that is exactly what we must do in order to execute fairness and equity in the land. We don’t know how to do it, so we lock up the perpetrators, force them sometimes to engage in restorative justice programs, and continue to humiliate them for the rest of their lives–as if their criminal activities happened in a vacuum!
What needs to be done? We need to find ways to prevent violence by teaching alternatives to it as well as by addressing and redressing the multiple and cumulative causes that make resorts to violence seem palpable and necessary. More research should be done in connecting the dots between impoverished neighborhoods and criminal activity disproportionately numbered. Economic strife, political disengagement, familial discord, illness, and other plights conspire to distort the affected person’s thinking and consequently to compel or make easier the engagement of that person in miscreant or illicit activity. These issues–the stressors of the economy, politics, family, and sickness–inevitably point to the involvement of those institutions fundamentally responsible for these poor life changes and bad choices. The heads of local businesses, elected officials, relatives, friends, health care centers. law enforcement personnel, public school principals and teachers, etc., must come together to address the intensification of violence, particularly by youth and young adults, within the community.
There are a few individuals who have been proactive in this type of cause for many years, but many, many more people, from working professionals to unemployed citizens, need to come to the table and enter into the discussions and participate in the action items in order to improve people’s lot and to stem the growing stalk of violence. Summer is upon us and, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated it was preceded by a winter of delay. We always tend to wait until the last minute to start to get nervous about how the rise in air temperature might affect groups of folks in the public arena. By then, it is too late and many lives have been lost. Having some type of coalition of the above is needed to take a holistic approach to what ails the young ones and contributes to their seasonal blues. The fact of the matter is that the problems are perennial and do not ebb and flow whether the temperature’s 100 degrees or minus 15. Despair is ubiquitous; it is not time sensitive. Every day is replete with moments of seizure to make real the promises of democracy. Carpe Diem! Si Se Puede!
Dr. Benjamin E. Mays said it well in his poem, “God’s Minute.”
I’ve only just a minute,
Only sixty seconds in it.
Forced upon me, can’t refuse it,
Didn’t seek it, didn’t choose it,
But it’s up to me to use it.
I must suffer if I lose it,
Give an account if I abuse it,
Just a tiny little minute,
But eternity is in it.
Just because we are unable to find an easy fix to address these deficiencies does not exculpate us from the responsibility. Whereas it is challenging for us not to separate the players in an armed robbery into merely direct perpetrators and victims, that is exactly what we must do in order to execute fairness and equity in the land. We don’t know how to do it, so we lock up the perpetrators, force them sometimes to engage in restorative justice programs, and continue to humiliate them for the rest of their lives–as if their criminal activities happened in a vacuum!
What needs to be done? We need to find ways to prevent violence by teaching alternatives to it as well as by addressing and redressing the multiple and cumulative causes that make resorts to violence seem palpable and necessary. More research should be done in connecting the dots between impoverished neighborhoods and criminal activity disproportionately numbered. Economic strife, political disengagement, familial discord, illness, and other plights conspire to distort the affected person’s thinking and consequently to compel or make easier the engagement of that person in miscreant or illicit activity. These issues–the stressors of the economy, politics, family, and sickness–inevitably point to the involvement of those institutions fundamentally responsible for these poor life changes and bad choices. The heads of local businesses, elected officials, relatives, friends, health care centers. law enforcement personnel, public school principals and teachers, etc., must come together to address the intensification of violence, particularly by youth and young adults, within the community.
There are a few individuals who have been proactive in this type of cause for many years, but many, many more people, from working professionals to unemployed citizens, need to come to the table and enter into the discussions and participate in the action items in order to improve people’s lot and to stem the growing stalk of violence. Summer is upon us and, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated it was preceded by a winter of delay. We always tend to wait until the last minute to start to get nervous about how the rise in air temperature might affect groups of folks in the public arena. By then, it is too late and many lives have been lost. Having some type of coalition of the above is needed to take a holistic approach to what ails the young ones and contributes to their seasonal blues. The fact of the matter is that the problems are perennial and do not ebb and flow whether the temperature’s 100 degrees or minus 15. Despair is ubiquitous; it is not time sensitive. Every day is replete with moments of seizure to make real the promises of democracy. Carpe Diem! Si Se Puede!
Dr. Benjamin E. Mays said it well in his poem, “God’s Minute.”
I’ve only just a minute,
Only sixty seconds in it.
Forced upon me, can’t refuse it,
Didn’t seek it, didn’t choose it,
But it’s up to me to use it.
I must suffer if I lose it,
Give an account if I abuse it,
Just a tiny little minute,
But eternity is in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)