I have to apologize, as I was somewhat busy and did not watch the total exchange between Dr. Dyson and Stephen A….
Dr. Dyson made appoint (as I got it) that Mark Cuban erred when he referenced the hoodie. He stressed that it was a reflex by white America, in general to assume the black guy in a hoodie was a menace, and that reflex should not be okay with Cuban or any other person, rich, poor or in between. In other words, the reflex was wrong so “don’t do it again!” And I think Dr. Dyson missed Stephen A’s point about “representing” one’s self and the black community properly IN PUBLIC!!! Dr. Dyson countered with a comment that the black appearance is discussed in beauty shops, barber shops and churches. Smith said “Well, bring that discussion out in the open and so we can measure the results of that discussion!”
This brings me back to my previous discussion about the presentation of young black males; how they carry themselves; how the public at large perceives them. If discussions are going on it’s very quiet to me. But of course, I don’t “hang out” anymore and barber shop I use, is very silent on the issue. Maybe I will bring up the subject next time I go; if you can wait that long. I still say that young black males must come to a measure of compromise in order to avoid the mountain of negativity about their appearance when interacting with the general public. I am not saying that black men have to totally give up their individuality but I think they need to become more “mainstream” in order to make themselves more appealing when competing in the marketplace of availability of employment. What I am saying is, that every company , organization has its protocols and the expectation is that if you want to be accepted, you have to be willing to “go along with the program”; because, in effect, you represent the company, like it or not. People normally associate you with your position or job and the company, by working there, you represent. However if you are not comfortable with those rules and regulations (even the unwritten ones) that particular company may not be the place for you. All I am saying is, give the company a reason to say ”yes” instead of a reason to discreetly, say ”no” when you’re looking for work, qualified as you may be.
Isla Vista CA
My deepest sympathies go out to all the families who lost their loved ones in Isla Vista, CA, including to the family of the apparent murderer, Elliot Rodger, for they too, lost a loved one.
Once again, America is faced with the tragedy of mass murder. I understand that there is no one answer to these horrible acts of violence. As I listen to the “experts” and law enforcement give their opinions, I see one father, in his grief, call out the NRA and gun rights advocates and members of Congress who refuse to do anything about the ungodly proliferation of guns in our society. I cannot understand how these people can go to sleep at night and not feel one iota of guilt about their clear and irrefutable responsibility in this unnecessary loss of life.
As far as Mr. Rodger is concerned, they tell us that he needed psychiatric help but whatever attention the medical profession gave him, it was not enough. I understand that we are in the 21st century, but I cannot remember such tragedies when I was growing up or even when I was in the middle of my “career”. We are in an age of autism, Alzheimer’s and mass murders. I do not have answers as to how we cope. I’m lost. But I do know that when the NRA and its supporters, including the right-wing country bumpkins who pride themselves in owning these war weapons in our cities and suburban areas, will not budge on any rules to limit access to multi-shot, war weapons, they must bear the responsibility.
Perhaps they should accept a law based on how the makers of copy machine companies have become profitable. As you know they will sell you a printer for a small sum, but gouge you when it comes to refills! Exorbitant prices for printer inks! So let’s have a law that says the basic cost of a bullet will be $25 per bullet!!!
How about this; you can own a gun, but it must be left at the gun shop under lock and key (you can’t take the weapon home) until you are ready to practice shooting. It’s a sport isn’t it? Each gun shop must have a gun range and be registered and licensed. Background checks would be a must with a waiting period of two months. If you want to own more than one gun, you must explain why. If you want to take the gun out of the gun shop, you will need a permit from local law enforcement, so long as the weapon has the new electronic lock. Anyone who owns a gun must exchange it for one with an electronic lock within six months.
By the way, gun restriction laws were in effect until our Supreme Court, in error, misinterpreted the Second Amendment in Y2007. Prior to that, in Y1939, the Court ruled that states and (other jurisdictions) could control the ownership of guns. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the city of Washington in a suit, essentially saying that the city could not restrict gun ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling and opened the door to the proliferation of gun ownership. If we remember back to the 19th century, even in fiction, Wyatt Earp posted signs saying cowboys and others had to take off their guns and leave them with law enforcement when they entered a town. So there was a precedent for such rulings. There is a book out by Michael Waldman, which you must read. It is about how the Court ruled in error in Y2007.
The Second amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms and not be infringed.”
Well it’s not that complicated: only the right-wing courts got it wrong. It is very clear, it says: considering that “a well(-)regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state….”
Well, we do not need a “well-regulated militia” for the security of a state in the 21st century ergo, it is not necessary for people to bear arms. State national guards are only necessary in time of uncontrolled unlawful or local crises and those members (of the Guard), when determined necessary by a governor and only then can soldier- citizens bear arms. Of course the Federal government can “deputize” a state guard if there is a national crisis. Over 95% of day to day National Guard budgets are Federal. States only pay a small portion for facilities; and the Federal Government also pays for Guardsmen activated for a State-level emergency. All equipment, training fuel, ammunition, etc; all regular pay, is federal; obviously all mobilization costs are federal. Most of this is in Title 32.
So, like the false IRS scandal, where the agency changed the significant word “exclusively” when considering who qualified for tax exempt status, to generally, we need to insist that the true meaning and intent of the amendment be enforced.