Author Archives: pandora

About pandora

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

The General Assembly Needs To Override The Governor’s Veto Of Opt-Out Bill

It’s interesting how the biggest proponents of Choice! are the ones now against it. Then again, anyone who understands how Choice came to be and the reasons behind it knows it never had anything to do with giving parents options. Choice was simply the stepping stone to privatizing our public schools. Choice is what has hurt our public schools; it’s what opened the door to charters and privatization (as well as magnet schools). What we’re dealing with now in education wouldn’t be possible if we hadn’t implemented a system designed to create high poverty schools – schools no one has seriously tried to help.

But the point has never been to help high poverty, struggling schools. The point, and one I’ve been making for over a decade, is to privatize/charterize our public schools. It’s no coincidence that the privateers started with the poorest among us – the ones with the least influence and voice. It’s how they got their foot in the door. Take a good long look at the city of Wilmington. That’s the plan for everyone. Yep, all this will spread outward (and is spreading) to suburbia. No one actually thinks that Ed Reformers are going to let all that education money slip through their hands, do they? Of course not. What they’ve done/are doing to our struggling schools sets the precedent. And once that precedent is set it will spread like wildfire.

Which brings me to the point of this post and Mike Matthews’ Delaware Voice column. The Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) is the tool to implement this agenda. This test isn’t about helping children learn; it’s about labeling schools and teachers as failing so the next step in the Ed reformer’s agenda can be implemented. Remember Priority Schools? Remember how ALL roads in that plan led to privatization and charterizatiion? Out of everything in that plan only private/charter conversion was carved in stone. The reason it was carved in stone was because it was the end game.

The way you get to that end game is through SBA. This test (and I’ve written about how awful a test it is before) isn’t about helping children learn, it’s about labeling schools and teachers as failing so the school can be handed over to the business community – which then can tap into all those education dollars – and the teachers replaced by those who will work for less with no union.

But something happened – parents started hearing about this test, and what was going on in the classroom because of this test, through their kids, and what they heard deeply concerned them. My daughter took the SBA when she was a junior in high school, and boy, did I get an earful. My daughter does extremely well on standardized tests. She even received a scholarship from the State of Delaware for her high state test scores, so I was concerned when she came home after taking the SBA and announced it a complete mess, with tons of errors (especially in the math portion) and written in such a way that she questioned if English was the test writers first language. I bet a lot of parents heard the same thing I did. In fact, I know they did.

Which brings us to parents wanting to opt-out (Choice-out?) of the test. Suddenly Choice! – the word ed reformers have built their entire agenda on – is bad. Which begs the question: Was Choice ever really about giving parents choice or was it merely a necessary step to get us where we are now?

I’ll turn this over to Mike’s Delaware Voice column. Go read the whole thing!

The hallmark of Gov. Jack Markell’s education agenda has been to place an unbearable emphasis on standardized testing. In laying out his plans and in his first six years in office, he stacked the leadership of the Department of Education with ideologues whose biggest goals have been to test, label, punish, and “turnaround” schools.

Under Markell’s administration, testing in classrooms has skyrocketed. Teachers and specialists have been faced with obscene amounts of data entry and test prep to prove they’re implementing all standards and curriculum with absolute “fidelity.” Because of this, teachers often have to forego truly fun and engaging lessons just so they can stick to the script given to them by billionaire textbook publishers.

Under Markell’s administration, play and social and emotional learning have been stripped in the classes of our youngest learners. Curriculum is being sped up all in the name of the developmentally-inappropriate Common Core State Standards. Kindergarten teachers in my district and others have reported loss of dramatic play centers because they are told they need to teach more letters and sight words. Students are given inadequate recess time and time to be kids — all because of the governor’s interest in test scores and “rigor.”

This. This is exactly why our kids have fallen behind. None of this is about them. Kindergarten serves many purposes (yes, letters, numbers, etc. are part of it) and some of the most important are being ignored. Kindergarten teaches kids how to go to school, how to get along with others and implements the school structure kids will need as they move through higher grades. These skills are vitally important and we’re getting rid of them… in the name of rigor. I really hate that word, mainly because it’s so meaningless.

rigor:
1 a (1) :  harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment :  severity (2) :  the quality of being unyielding or inflexible :  strictness   (3) :  severity of life :  austerity b :  an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty

2 :  a tremor caused by a chill

3 :  a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable; especially :  extremity of cold

4 :  strict precision :  exactness <logical rigor>

Hmmm… perhaps, given the main definition, ed reformers are using the word correctly.

Back to Mike!

So why is it that the governor would be so shocked that the Parental Opt-Out Movement has picked up so much steam in Delaware? Why did the Opt-Out Bill, HB 50, pass both houses of the General Assembly with such stunning super-majorities?

Here’s the answer: A clear majority of our senators and representatives recognize and value the separation of powers and that they are to do the work of the people and not the executive branch. They heard from their constituents and they voted in a manner that squares with their requests.

I can’t understand why the governor would be so surprised that this grassroots movement would take hold because it’s totally a response to a failed education agenda that hasn’t actually increased achievement levels on the one test that is considered the standard-bearer for measuring student success, the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Please go read Mike’s column. And remember it the next time someone waxes lyrical about Choice! They’re only for it if you choose what they want you to choose and it helps their agenda.

The General Assembly needs to override the veto.

No Indictment In The Tamir Rice Killing

I’m a little late with this post, but this story needs to be heard. Of all the police shootings the case of Tamir Rice – a twelve year old boy playing with a toy gun only to be shot dead by police in less than two seconds of their arrival on the scene – stands out. This incident was so straightforward that not indicting the officers sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Obviously, there’s no line to cross if you’re a police officer. Fire away.

But what really bothers me is how the police always seem to lie about what happened. Then the video tape is released. Let’s look at what the police claimed happened before the Tamir Rice video was released:

1. Police said that Tamir Rice was seated at a table with other people.

2. Police said that as they pulled up, they saw Tamir Rice grab the gun and put it in his waistband.

3. Police said they got out of the car and told Tamir Rice three times to put his hands up but he refused.

4. Police said that Tamir Rice then reached into his waistband and pulled out the gun, and was then shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann.

5. Timothy Loehmann was described as a rookie.

Now let’s look at what the video showed:

1. Tamir Rice as not seated at a table with other people.

2. Tamir Rice does not appear to grab the gun and put it in his waistband.

3. Police shot and killed Tamir in less than two seconds and could not have told him to put his hands up three times.

4. Tamir Rice absolutely does not pull the air gun out of his waistband and brandish it in any way. This fact is so crucial.

5. Timothy Loehmann was not a rookie, but had been an officer for over two years.

That’s 5 lies right there – lies that benefit the police officers. Toss in the lie about the police and the orange tip of the toy gun:

Deputy Chief Ed Tomba said one officer fired twice after the boy pulled the fake weapon — which was lacking the orange safety indicator usually found on the muzzle — from his waistband but had not pointed it at police. The boy did not make any verbal threats, but grabbed the replica handgun after being told to raise his hands, Deputy Chief Tomba said.

“That’s when the officer fired,” he said.

That’s another big lie, and one purposefully crafted to justify the killing. Watch the video. The officers never saw the tip of the toy gun.

TP has an excellent summary of what everyone should know about this case.

1. The officer fatally shot Tamir Rice less than 2 seconds after exiting his police car.

Less than two seconds, and yet they supposedly got out of the police car, saw Tamir Rice “seated at the table with other people” and that he “put his gun in his waistband.” Then they “ordered him 3 times to raise his hands but he refused”, instead he reached for his gun. All of these police claims supposedly happened in less than 2 seconds.

2. A state judge ruled there was probable cause to charge the officer who killed Tamir Rice with murder.

3. The officer who fatally shot Tamir Rice was deemed “unfit for duty” at the last police department where he worked.

Let’s look at the letter in the officer’s file:

recommendation

Not that the Cleveland Police Department actually looked at his file. I bet the guy who wrote the above statement is saying, “I told you so.” That statement is beyond harsh. Can’t manage personal stress. Lacks maturity. Unable to follow instructions. Lack of commitment is disconcerting. Time and training won’t make him better. Clearly saying: Lochmann has no business being a cop.

4. Neither officer involved in the shooting administered first aid to Rice after he was shot.

Matt Meyer, one of the prosecutors, brushed off the officers inaction saying the department “did not train their officers to administer first aid to gun shot victims.” Meyer added that Loehmann was dealing with a sprained ankle he sustained during the incident and Garmback was occupied with Rice’s 14-year-old sister, who he tackled and handcuffed.

So… a police officer wouldn’t give first aid to police officer who was shot? Of course they would, so I guess some lives matter more. We know this so just say it. And Loehmann can’t function with an ankle he sprained himself due to his panic? Meanwhile, Garmback’s excuse for not administering first aid is that he was tackling and handcuffing a 14 year old girl? Talk about tough guys.

And this is where I see red. No way, no how would I ever be tackled and handcuffed running to my injured loved one. Yep, there are two Americas.

5. The officers refused to testify but the prosecutor submitted their written statements to the jury.

Oh, this one’s a doozy.

This unusual accommodation was highly beneficial to the officers, allowing them to present their version of the events without being subject to any questioning.

“Submitting self-serving, unsworn written statements — rather than appearing live before the grand jury so that the officers’ versions of events are subject to vigorous cross examination — shows that these officers know their story will not withstand real scrutiny,” Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the Rice family, said.

Of course their story would not withstand scrutiny. It’s already fallen apart due to their initial lies.

6. The prosecutor commissioned reports from two “experts” with a history of sympathy toward police, then released them to the media.

McGinty commissioned reports of two out-of-state experts with a history of sympathy toward police, Kimberly Crawford, a retired FBI agent, and S. Lamar Sims, a Colorado-based prosecutor. Crawford and Sims concluded the officers conduct was “reasonable.” These reports were presented to the grand jury and released to the media.

McGinty did not explain why he picked Crawford and Sims to produce reports.

Here’s more detail:

Three current and former law enforcement officials hired by McGinty found the shooting was “objectively reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances. They wrote that surveillance video of the shooting appeared to show Tamir’s hands moving toward his waistband as Loehmann got out of the car, which would have given the officer reason to believe Tamir was reaching for a gun.

But the reports that Rice’s family attorneys released on Saturday criticized the officers’ tactical response, saying their “reckless” approach to Tamir made them vulnerable to a threat, and that the video was too grainy to see if Tamir had reached for his waist.

The experts the Rice family commissioned, also former law enforcement officers, wrote that it was improper for McGinty’s experts to guess what the officers perceived. Because Loehmann and Garmback had not given formal statements about the shooting at the time, the experts did not know what the officers saw, the experts wrote.

7. Explaining his decision not to press for an indictment, the prosecutor said “We don’t second-guess police officers.”

And there you go.

Hate Crimes Are Terrorism

It’s time to call “hate crimes” what they really are – Terrorism. There really is no difference.

Here’s a list of reported incidents against Muslims and Mosques since the San Bernardino attack:

Dec. 4: Windows broken at Palm Beach Islamic center

A member of the Islamic Center of Palm Beach discovered that someone had broken about half of the building’s windows overnight and overturned furniture in the Islamic center. Police are not yet investigating the incident as a hate crime.

Dec. 4: Man threatened to cut off Muslims’ heads

A man left numerous threatening voicemails at the Council on American-Islamic Relations in St. Louis, mentioning the attack in San Bernardino. He threatened to cut off Muslims’ heads if they came to his home. The FBI reportedly arrested a suspect, but he may not be charged.

Dec. 5: Muslim store owner punched by man who yelled “I kill Muslims”

A Muslim store owner in Queens says he was repeatedly punched by a man who yelled “I kill Muslims.” The man first asked if a newspaper with a report on the San Bernardino was free, and then asked if other items in the shop were free as well, according to store owner Sarker Haque. Police are investigating the incident as a hate crime, but the suspect told CBS News that he did not say anything negative about Muslims while he was in the store.

Dec. 5: Muslim congressman received death threat

Muslim Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) said that he received a death threat.

Dec. 5/6: Man threw stones at Muslim woman’s car

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab said a man cut her off and threw stones at her car while she was driving away from a mosque in New Tampa, Florida.

Dec. 6: Sikh temple vandalized in California

Graffiti mentioning Islam and the Islamic State was discovered at a Sikh temple in Buena Park, California.

Dec. 6: Woman threw hot coffee at Muslims praying in park

A woman yelled anti-Islamic slurs and threw hot coffee at a group of Muslims praying in a park in Alameda County, California. Police are investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.

Dec. 7: Man asked restaurant workers if they are Muslim, slapped one employee

A man started yelling at workers in a Manhattan restaurant, asking if they were Muslims. He slapped one worker and later returned to smash a glass partition at the restaurant with a chair. Police have charged the man with a hate crime, according to the New York Daily News.

Dec 8: Pig’s head found outside Philadelphia mosque

A pig’s head was found outside the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society in Philadelphia. Surveillance video shows someone throwing the pig’s head at the mosque from a red pickup truck.

Dec. 7: New Jersey mosque received hateful letters

A mosque in New Jersey received several hateful letters, one of which called Muslims “evil.”

Dec. 9: Passengers attack ride-share driver in Seattle

Passengers attacked the driver of a ride-share in Seattle, accusing him of being a terrorist and punching him. Police are investigating the incident as a hate crime.

Dec. 9: Man calls woman “trash,” kicks her in the leg

A man confronted a woman at a Brooklyn bus stop and said, “I can’t wait for the U.S. to get rid of you trash.” He then kicked her in the leg. Police are investigating the incident as a bias crime, according to the New York Daily News.

Dec. 10: CAIR receives hateful mail with unknown substance

The offices of the Council on American-Islamic Relations were evacuated after the group received a letter with a powdery substance that referenced a “painful death.” Tests found that the substance was not dangerous.

Dec. 10: Vandals broke windows at Phoenix mosque

Broken windows and a busted light were found at Islamic Community Center of Phoenix on the morning of Dec. 10. Police are not yet investigating the incident as a hate crime.

Dec. 10: Man set fire to Somali restaurant

A man was charged with arson after he allegedly set fire to a Somali restaurant in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The fire came just a few days after Nazi symbols and the phrase “go home” were found painted on the restaurant.

Dec. 10: Muslim woman’s car shot at while leaving mosque

The car of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab was shot at while she was leaving a mosque in Tampa, Florida, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Florida.

Dec. 10: Muslim family had windows of house smashed multiple times

A Muslim family in Plano, Texas, said that they had the windows on their home smashed two days in a row — just six weeks after they moved to the area, according to CBS Dallas-Fort Worth.

Dec. 11: Man set fire to Mosque in California

A man set fire to the Masjid Ibrahim Mosque in Coachella, California. Police are investigating the incident as a hate crime.

Dec. 12: 20 people hold armed protest at Dallas mosque

About 20 people held an armed protest outside a mosque in Dallas, Texas, according to ABC News.

Dec. 13: Two southern California mosques vandalized, fake grenade found in one mosque

A plastic replica of a hand grenade was found in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Baitus-Salaam Mosque in Hawthorne, California. The fence around the mosque was spray-painted with the word “Jesus.” Police also found the phrase “Jesus is the way” painted in front of Islamic Center of Hawthorne.

For a nation supposedly terrified of terrorism it’s obviously our go-to response.

SCOTUS Affirmative Action Case, Or White Girl Demands Affirmative Action For Mediocre White Kids

I have no idea why this case is back in the hands of the Supreme Court. Okay, I do have an idea, and, if I doubted my initial reaction, the Conservative Justices cleared that up for me.

Antonin Scalia:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-­Americans to to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-­advanced school, a less — a slower­-track school where they do well.

One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re — that they’re being pushed ahead in — in classes that are too — too fast for them.

That statement is stunning with its sweeping assumptions, especially when you consider the woman, Abigail Fisher, was a mediocre student with mediocre SAT scores.

Before I continue with Scalia’s racial profiling of black and Latino college students, let’s look at the facts around Abigail Fisher and this case.

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year.

Notice how her problem is with the five (5!) black and Latino students and not the 42 white students who were accepted ahead of her. Those 42 white students were obviously accepted due to merit, unlike the five (5!) black and Latino students.  And what about those 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university? Guess we’ll just toss that 168 number onto the pile of the 42 white students who beat her out.

The NYT’s article is worth your time to read.

Here’s how their admissions process works. First, the university admits all public high school seniors in Texas who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class. These students constitute the overwhelming majority of the entering class — about 80 percent the year Ms. Fisher applied. Applicants who miss this cutoff and lack other exceptional academic credentials, as Ms. Fisher did, move to another stage of the process that evaluates the whole person.

At this stage, the university reviews the applicants’ academic and personal achievement, including aspects of their background — whether they have special family responsibilities, come from a single-parent family or one that speaks a language other than English, along with many other factors, including race. Each applicant receives a composite score for academic performance and personal achievement, which together determine admission. (None of the personal factors are individually scored.)

Because race is considered in the context of a person’s life experiences, any applicant can benefit. In fact, a white student who attended a majority-black high school may stand out based on the relatively unique perspectives that experience can provide in a starkly segregated state like Texas.

College admissions is an art and a science. It has to be since if we just go by the numbers (GPA and SAT) many students are still going to be rejected – Ms. Fisher among them. Would we set up a lottery and draw names from a hat? And isn’t it interesting that Ms. Fisher, and her lawyer, cite all those extracurricular activities (the fuzzy art side) she participated in. They have to because Ms. Fisher’s grades and SAT scores simply weren’t good enough.

Here’s Ms. Fisher’s words:

“There were people in my class with lower grades who weren’t in all the activities I was in, who were being accepted into UT, and the only other difference between us was the color of our skin,” she says. “I was taught from the time I was a little girl that any kind of discrimination was wrong. And for an institution of higher learning to act this way makes no sense to me. What kind of example does it set for others?”

Truth is, her race wasn’t a factor. Her grades and SAT scores were. And notice how she only focuses on the five (5!) black and Latino students and not the 42 white students who got in instead of her, let alone the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university. I cannot stress this point enough, and I have to stress it since Ms. Fisher and her lawyer completely ignore it.

But the real question is would she have been accepted if not for those five (5!) students. Um… no.

Even among those students, Fisher did not particularly stand out. Court records show her grade point average (3.59) and SAT scores (1180 out of 1600) were good but not great for the highly selective flagship university. The school’s rejection rate that year for the remaining 841 openings was higher than the turn-down rate for students trying to get into Harvard.

As a result, university officials claim in court filings that even if Fisher received points for her race and every other personal achievement factor, the letter she received in the mail still would have said no.

If we want to play by Ms. Fisher’s rules than not only wouldn’t she have been accepted to UT, but she would have been further down the list – behind those black and Latino students with grades better than Fisher’s who also weren’t accepted. Hey, if she wants to cite merit as grounds for acceptance she just lost her spot again… and again… and again. Basically, Ms. Fisher (whose injury comes down to the 100.00 application fee) wants special treatment. She could have worked harder in school and snagged one of those top 10% spots, but she didn’t. Basically she is saying, “My GPA and SAT were subpar, but I should be accepted to UT – ahead of any black and Latino applicants – because I’m white.”

Back to Supreme Court Justices. Scalia’s comments that are beyond offensive. Amanda Marcotte of Salon hits the nail on the head:

Fisher’s case only makes sense if you assume that people of color are inherently less worthy than white people. How else do you justify an argument that assumes that every white person should have been given a shot before minority students do?

This assumption of the inherent superiority of white people, even above those people of color who have more appealing applications, was reflected in Antonin Scalia’s remarks during today’s case.

Instead of telling her where to shove it, the Supreme Court sent Fisher’s case back to the appeals court. Now she and her lawyers are back again. This time, they’ve tweaked their argument a bit, trying to argue that diversity itself is an illegitimate goal for schools and, to add a bit of extra nastiness sauce to it, they’re claiming that diversity is bad for students of color.

In other words, Fisher and her lawyers are concern-trolling the Supreme Court.

[…]

When you read about this case, it quickly becomes self-evident why the admissions committee didn’t think Fisher had some hidden potential that wasn’t reflected in her grades. Fisher, however, has decided her unparalleled genius is going unnoticed because of the notorious racism against white people. But since that argument hasn’t gotten her very far, her lawyer, Edward Blum, is now trying a different tactic to argue that schools should admit mediocre white people over talented students of color: His claim is that  giving students of color an opportunity somehow hurts them.

[…]

“Rigorous judicial review,” Blum’s new petition argues, “would have revealed that UT’s ‘qualitative’ diversity interest is in fact illegitimate.  It depends on the assumption that, as a group, minorities admitted through the Top Ten Percent Law are inherently limited in their ability to contribute to the university’s vision of a diverse student body, merely because many come from majority-minority communities.”

Translated from legalese to English: It’s supposedly racist to let students of color with middling grades  into UT Austin, because you’re assuming they can’t do better. It’s a particularly rich argument, considering that Fisher is arguing that she should have been given the first shot, before any students of color, at getting in with middling grades.

[…]

Blum’s argument says more about his and Fisher’s racial prejudices than it does about the school. It’s they who assume that non-whites students must have been given a leg up because they couldn’t hack it on their own. But when it comes to Fisher, they employ a different assumption, believing, against all evidence to the contrary, that she must be good enough to deserve a spot. There’s a word for casually assuming the worst about people of color while assuming the best, even in the face of contrary evidence, of white people.

Forgive the cut and pasting, but Marcotte sums it up perfectly.

Scalia wasn’t the only Conservative Justice to raise eyebrows.

Alito: “It’s kind of the assumption that if the—if a student—if a black student or a Hispanic student is admitted as part of the top 10-percent plan, it has to be because that student didn’t have to compete against very many whites and— and Asians.”

Wow. There’s that nasty assumption again – the assumption that black and Hispanic students (no matter what their GPA/SAT are) are naturally inferior to whites… and Asians. (Love the way Alito quickly tacked on “and – and Asians” at the end.)

Roberts asked, “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?” as if black and brown students exist in a physics class for the sole purpose of expanding a white students perspective and not, you know, to learn physics.

Roberts also wondered when all this Affirmative Action stuff would be done? I can answer that. Affirmative Action will end when 1) racism ends, 2) Legacy admissions and donor admissions ends, and, most importantly, 3) we fund all our K-12 schools equitably so every student has access to education that makes them competitive. I have been pointing out for ages how Choice, Charters, Magnets and the Neighborhood Schools Act have created high poverty schools and how the children in those schools are placed at a disadvantage. Scalia’s solution is for these children to go to a “less-advanced school, a less—a slower-track school where they do well.”

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli pointed out that Scalia’s plan was basically Separate but Equal (or rather, unequal):

“If you look at the academic performance of holistic minority admits versus the top 10 percent admits, over time, they—they fare better,” he said. “And, frankly, I don’t think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they’re going to inferior schools.”

It was quite clear that Scalia and Alito begin with the premise that black and Latino students are naturally inferior to white students. That’s vile. It’s also a lie, one that mediocre student Abigail Fisher believes with all her heart. Should have hit the books harder, Abigail, and you wouldn’t have been in this position. Talk about entitlement.

 

 

Donald Trump: Radical Islamic Terrorist = All Muslims

Everyone knew the Republican hysteria over President Obama (and others) not using the exact words “Radical Islamic Terrorists” was the stepping stone to condemning all Muslims. They needed those words to be said in order to morph Radical Islamic Terrorist into Muslim. Donald Trump just sped up the morphing process.

Via TPM:

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump released a statement Monday calling for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims immigrating into the United States in light of recent terrorist attacks.

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” Trump said in the statement. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”

Trump spokesman Corey Lewandowski confirmed to the AP the proposal would apply to Muslims who are tourists as well as those seeking immigration visas. Another campaign spokeswoman told The Hill the ban would also apply to Muslim-Americans traveling abroad.

And with that… my bet is Trump wins the GOP nomination.

You know, for a group that goes on and on about the Constitution they sure haven’t read it.

I’d chalk this up to fear, and that is part of it, but most of this racism and bigotry is due to hate. Donald Trump has tapped into this fear and hate and every vile, racist, bigoted thing  he spews forth (to cheers and increased polling numbers) brings him one step closer to winning the nomination. He knows his base.

There’s been a lot of discussion on DL, and elsewhere, about Islam and terrorism. I haven’t waded into that discussion too much. Something keeps holding me back. First, I don’t think there can actually be an honest discussion when we lump all Muslims (or blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, etc.) together. To me that’s lazy and extremely unfair. Second, we do not apply this standard to Christians. If religion (or race) is a reason for San Bernardino then it is a reason for Planned Parenthood shootings and black church shootings and school shootings. If the religion of the shooter matters then it has to matter across the board. And that’s why I hesitate in these discussions. Christian terrorists get a pass on their religion because most people in this country are Christian, or know Christians. It’s familiarity with Christianity that allows us to distance ourselves from that sort of terrorism. It’s why every single time a white guy shoots up the place we say, “We can’t believe that happened here!” even though it always happens here. Cities have their gang violence, but suburbia is the domain of mass shootings. Perhaps we should be discussing that? No? Why not?

And that’s really my point. We are quite selective in discussing these events. White suburban/rural males and access to guns is not open to discussion – that’s a mental health issue. Imagine if most mass shooters were Asian women. How do you think that conversation would go? Would it be mental illness? A lone wolf? LOL, of course not. We’d be drowning in discussions about Asian culture and tiger moms.

Hmm… I sorta went off track. Sorry. Back to The Donald and his latest toss of red meat to his ravenous supporters. No more Muslim immigrants or tourists. And if you’re a Muslim American who has left the country (for vacation? for business?) then you don’t get back in. My husband travels abroad for work. A lot. What if he were Muslim? He has Muslim co-workers, what of them? I have Muslim friends who vacation in Cancun, what about them? If you’re an American Muslim are you under country arrest?

But… we can’t have people on the No Fly list unable to buy guns? WTF???? And it’s not that I have faith in the No Fly list, it’s that if we are as afraid as we claim to be, then banning people on the No Fly list from purchasing guns is a no-brainer.

Muslim registries for American citizens, monitoring Mosques, limiting travel (and probably gun purchases by Muslim Americans because we all know the 2nd Amendment really only applies to white people) stuns me. These things are exactly what Republicans have been screeching about when it comes to themselves and their guns and their “War on Christmas” and Christians. And yet, here they are, turning their faux nightmare into somebody else’s reality. And I think that’s the reason they are so afraid of any sort of gun control and the phrase Happy Holidays. They’re afraid because it’s on their to-do list for others. It’s why they can see it happening.

This fear and hatred oozing from the Republican base is what’s dangerous. Seriously, if we can’t manage more than a shrug for white male Christians shooting up the place then I’m not comfortable with us losing our minds over Muslims – and please notice how Donald Trump has pulled back the curtain and showed the world that the concern isn’t about Radical Islamic Terrorists. It never was, and that’s probably the reason I avoided certain discussions. I heard the dog whistle, loud and clear.

My Muslim friends are afraid and I don’t blame them. Donald Trump, the GOP front runner, has put a target on their backs.

I’ll leave you with this comment posted by Rick on Frank Knotts’ post at Delaware Right:

And we’re supposed to reley on our government to “vet” the refugees. The San Bernardino killer made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That should at least cause a blip on the Homeland Security radar. Did it? No.

There was a time when the United States was pretty much immune from Islamofacism. In these times of international travel and mass communication, that is no longer the case. They are coming for us, and more are coming- many are already here. Eventually, we will be seeing events like this weekly. Islam, in accordance with the Koran, is at war with the infidels of the West.

Muslims are not moving to Europe for economic opportunity. They are using the power of demographics to conquer Europe. The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said as much. That is the plan. And, barring an epiphany within the European population if not their governments, the plan will succeed. Europe will join the Caliphate.

Islam is dedicated to the Koran’s call for conquest. And they will never, ever stop. The West had better recognize that fact. “Liberals” and other deniers had better understand that all of their pet causes- abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, artistic freedom and so on- are not recognized by Islamic states. As a matter of fact, engaging in the aforementioned is punishable by death.

The Christian church was reformed centuries ago. There are no more Crusades, no more conversions at the point of a sword. Conversely, Islam has not changed one iota. Submit or perish.

Oh, the irony. Like the GOP “recognizes” abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, and artistic freedom as rights. Is he for real? Banning these things is the Republican agenda. They’ve been very clear on this. Did he type this with a straight face? Funny how the GOP’s to-do list once again has more in common with the tactics of those they claim are a threat. If Islam is a threat due to their views on abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, and artistic freedom then so are Conservatives. They really do agree on a lot. If they were on a dating website they’d be matched up for having so much in common.

I want my country back.

Breaking: Terrorist Attack In Colorado

Via TPM:

Multiple civilians and police officers were reportedly injured after Colorado Springs, Colorado officers responded to reports of an active shooter at a local Planned Parenthood location.

A reporter on the scene for The Gazette, the city’s local newspaper, tweeted confirmation from the Colorado Springs Police Department that at least three officers were wounded in the shooting, along with multiple civilians. It was not immediately clear if there were any fatalities.

 

 

How Many TV Series Are You Watching?

Me? I think I might be juggling a bit too many. But let’s face it, television series have become really, really, good. And there’s a lot of them. The problem in the pandora household is that I’m a binge watcher. Mr. Pandora is not. Which means… either I go at his pace (which is ridiculously slow, imo) or I ditch him and watch them on my own. Right now we’re doing a bit of both.

So which series am I watching? Right now I’m hooked on:

The Walking Dead – Mr. P and I watch this series when it airs because the internet will ruin it if you don’t watch it immediately. I absolutely love, love, love this show and could discuss it endlessly. FYI: It isn’t about zombies.

House of Cards – Can’t believe we haven’t finished this season yet. Have I mentioned my husband’s slow pacing? It’s killing me. Even though every character is awful, I love the show. I read somewhere that the two most frightening/tough characters out there are Claire Underwood and Carol from the Walking Dead. Agreed.

The Leftovers – I’m watching this series on my own. It’s really depressing, but super interesting and the acting is great. I just started this series (yep, binge watched it while Mr. P was away on business) and I have no idea where it’s heading, but the role belief and religion play in this show keeps you guessing.

How To Get Away With Murder – This show is a crazy ride, but I love every minute of it. I did like season one better, so far, but Viola Davis is an amazing mix of strength, arrogance and vulnerability. She really makes the show. When she’s on the screen everyone else fades in the background.

Breaking Bad – I might have to abandon Mr. P and binge watch this show. We’re still in season one and I want to move on. I’ll admit that right now I can’t stand any character other than Jesse, but I’m sure that will change. I’ll even admit that I’m having trouble going back to the show. It just hasn’t grabbed me, but I know it eventually will. Everyone I know loved this show and I respect their judgement. If you’re reading this, Mr. P, you’ve been warned. I’m moving on with or without you!

Game of Thrones – I started watching this show for the same reason I started watching The Walking Dead – I was looking for something that would appeal to my son. I love this show, and am considering re-watching all the episodes because I know I missed a lot. (Not sure how I’ll fit this into my schedule!) This is also a show you must watch when it airs or the internet will ruin it for you.

Orange Is The New Black – This show is amazing. Yep, I totally binged watched this season with my daughter and nephew. I re-watched it with Mr. P this fall. He did finish this season, so I guess that means he really likes this show!

Outlander – I started this series with my daughter (she banned her father from watching with us due to the sex scenes. LOL) and we binged on it. Talk about a guilty pleasure.

Sherlock – If you haven’t watched this series you are missing out. There’s a special airing on New Year’s Day and my entire family will plan our day around it. This show is so smart and funny. The dialogue is brilliant and the dynamics between Sherlock and Watson are perfect. Go watch it!

Mad Men – Just finished this series (binge watched with my daughter) and while I hated the ending I guess it made sense. But what I really liked was watching this with an 18 year old who thought all of it was fantasy (we’ve come a long way, baby!) and had no idea what a re-run was. When I explained a re-run to her she couldn’t wrap her head around a world without On-Demand, Netflix, etc.. She felt very sorry for us.

Transparent – I haven’t finished season one, but I think I will. On my own. Mr. P walked away from the show saying everyone was too messed up and he would have liked the show to focus more on the trans parent, and her struggles and accomplishments, and not make everyone so dysfunctional. He has a point. Everyone in that show has major issues. Everyone. And it does take away from the main character. It also sends a message that I’m not comfortable with. Perhaps if they had one well-adjusted character it would be better, and I would like to see a story where the focus is on the transition rather than the completely screwed up family. But I may be speaking too soon since I haven’t finished season one. So, yeah, I’ll go back and give it a chance.

Mozart In The Jungle – This is an Amazon series that all four us watched last winter. I liked it, but didn’t love it. That said I will watch season two. There’s an energy there, altho I’m not sure where it’s heading.

American Horror Story – I haven’t watched every season, and I’m way behind on this season (it just hasn’t grabbed me), but it’s rare to find a show with such strong, older female leads – Jessica Lange, Angela, Bassett, Kathy Bates, Frances Conroy. That’s awesome!

I’m sure I’m forgetting something and I haven’t included series I’ve finished a while ago (Dexter, True Blood, etc.) or series I gave up on several years ago (Downton Abbey, Reign) OR the series on my to-be-watched list (Fargo, Sons of Anarchy, The Wire). There really isn’t enough time in the day!

So… what are you watching? Are you like me, wondering if you’re watching too much TV? I haven’t watched many movies in the last few years. Given a choice I’m always choosing series.

Missouri Football Players Strike, Call For School President To Leave

Via Deadspin:

The University of Missouri’s Legion of Black Collegians released a statement tonight from the collective athletes of color on the Tigers football team stating they are on strike from football-related activities until the school president steps down in the wake of several racist acts on campus.

Many Missouri students believe school president Tim Wolfe has failed to act in response to several months’ worth of alleged racism on the Columbia campus—the most recent and controversial of which was a swastika of human feces found in a residence hall. The debate is mostly happening over on Facebook, where views both nuanced and not can be found under the #concernedstudent1950 hashtag.

A graduate student has also embarked on a hunger strike.

The coach supports the decision:

http://

That seems like a big deal. And now the faculty is organizing a walk-out:

COLUMBIA — MU Faculty plan to walk out of class Monday and Tuesday in support of student activists.

[…]

“We, the concerned faculty of the University of Missouri, stand in solidarity with Mizzou student activists who are advocating for racial justice on our campus and urge all MU faculty to demonstrate their support by walking out on Monday, Nov. 9, and Tuesday, Nov. 10,” the statement, sent out by Associate Professor Elisa Glick, said.

“Faculty will meet at the Carnahan Quadrangle starting at 10 a.m. and will be present throughout the day to respond to student questions in the form of a teach in,” the statement said.

I’m interested in seeing how this works out.

Now let’s talk about the School President, Tim Wolfe. First, watch the video below.

http://

Hey, the guy did say he’d give an answer that he was sure the questioners would consider the wrong answer, and boy, did he. Tim Wolfe defines systematic oppression as: “Systematic oppression is that you don’t believe that you have the equal opportunity of success…” See? He warned everyone that he’d give the wrong answer! Love his word choice – believe. That pretty much sums up his views on this issue.

Yeah, I’m seeing a problem with this guy. He did release a statement:

It is clear to all of us that change is needed, and we appreciate the thoughtfulness and passion which have gone into the sharing of concerns. My administration has been meeting around the clock and has been doing a tremendous amount of reflection on how to address these complex matters.

Clearly, we are open to listening to all sides, and are confident that we can come together to improve the student experience on our campuses. We want to find the best way to get everyone around the table and create the safe space for a meaningful conversation that promotes change. We will share next steps as soon as they are confirmed.

In conjunction with campus representatives, the university began work on a systemwide diversity and inclusion strategy, plan and metrics for the University of Missouri System as part of my strategic goals (see 1.4.i of the System Strategic Plan) as approved by the Board of Curators in summer 2015.

Our due date for announcing the strategy was April 2016, having allowed for multiple stakeholders (e.g., faculty, staff, students, consultants) across the system to provide input into the plan.

The majority of items listed on the Concerned Student 1950 List of Demands were already included in the draft of the strategy.  While the student list provides more detail and more specific metrics than had been established in the UM System plan, we had anticipated providing specificity and detail to the plan over the coming months.

In the meantime, I am dedicated to ongoing dialogue to address these very complex, societal issues as they affect our campus community.

First, his plan to address the racist incidents, that have been going on for months, is April 2016? What should students do in the meantime?

Second, take a look at this line in his statement: “Clearly, we are open to listening to all sides, and are confident that we can come together to improve the student experience on our campuses.” All sides? Is he going to listen to the side of the swastika of human feces artist? Is he going to listen to the side of the people who hurled racial slurs? What does that statement even mean? What is the other side?

Yeah, I’m thinking the School President needs to go. He’s obviously not up to the job.

Does Anyone Really Believe Reince Priebus Is In Control Of The Clown Car

No way. No how.

Via TPM:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Monday morning said that the committee still has control over the Republican presidential debate process despite reports that the Republican campaigns want to reduce the RNC’s role.[…]

Stephanopoulos asked if the RNC expects candidates to propose changes other than demands for opening and closing statements, equal number of questions for candidates, and approval of graphics.

In response, Priebus said that the RNC won’t make changes to the debate contracts or schedules going forward.

“The ability to sanction or de-sanction a debate is with the RNC. And the candidates want that to be with the RNC because we’ve got the leverage to make that happen,” he said.

He said that he will communicate with the campaigns and “fight for what the candidates want” when they reach a consensus.

“When we started this process, we only wanted to do a few things: One, we wanted to set a reasonable calendar. We didn’t want 23 debates,” Priebus added. “We wanted some say over who the moderators were. And we did all that.”

Which is it? The RNC won’t make changes to the debate contracts or schedules, or the RNC will “fight for what the candidates want” for the debates? Or is he saying that the RNC won’t make any more changes once these yet unknown candidate conditions are implemented?

Good luck with that. This appears to be the shiny new thing in GOPland. Contest everything and whine about how everything is a plot to make you look bad. Remember the skewed polls. This is the skewed debates. And if Republican candidates can’t succeed in an environment outside of their complete control then they have proven they are incapable of holding the Office of President. Can you imagine their memo of conditions to Putin? Stop picking on us! You’re breaking the rules! We’ll only meet with you if you agree to be nice to us and not make us look bad.

Now imagine the debate between whoever they pick as their nominee and Hillary Clinton. Sheesh, you’d think they’d want practice (all of them desperately need it). You’d think they’d want to get to hone their arguments and policies. And while I wasn’t thrilled with the CNBC moderators (Hardly surprising. Hello, it was CNBC – the birth place of the Tea Party) the idea that the questions asked weren’t policy driven was nonsense.

Don’t believe me? Read this from Vox:

 “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” Ted Cruz said with considerable disgust. “This is not a cage match.”

Cruz ticked off the insults the CNBC moderators had lobbed Wednesday night at the assembled Republicans. “Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues?”

[…]

Cruz’s attack on the moderators was smart politics — but it was almost precisely backwards. The questions in the CNBC debate, though relentlessly tough, were easily the most substantive of the debates so far. And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks — but that’s because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.

Let’s look at the questions that led to Cruz’s rant:

Take the question to Trump. He wasn’t asked if he was a comic book villain. He was asked why his policies sound like “a comic book version of a presidential campaign.” And the question was specific. Moderator John Harwood asked, “Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it. Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit.”

Trump declined to explain how he could cut taxes by $10 trillion without increasing the deficit. Instead, he appealed to another CNBC personality for support. “Larry Kudlow, who sits on your panel, who’s a great guy, came out the other day and said, ‘I love Trump’s tax plan.'”

As for the wall, Trump didn’t get very specific there, either. “A politician cannot get them to pay. I can.” That is … not an answer.

It most certainly wasn’t an answer. Not even close. And what about the claim that the moderator implied that Ben Carson couldn’t do math? Here’s the exchange:

“You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes,” said moderator Becky Quick. “This is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I’ve had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. If you were to take a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you’re gonna bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it’s gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?”

The ensuing exchange is worth quoting at length:

CARSON: The rate — the rate — the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.

QUICK: 15 percent still leaves you with a $1.1 trillion hole.

CARSON: You also have to get rid of all the deductions and all the loopholes. You also have to some strategically cutting in several places.

Remember, we have 645 federal agencies and sub-agencies. Anybody who tells me that we need every penny and every one of those is in a fantasy world.

So, also, we can stimulate the economy. That’s gonna be the real growth engine. Stimulating the economy — because it’s tethered down right now with so many regulations…

QUICK: You’d have to cut — you’d have to cut government about 40 percent to make it work with a $1.1 trillion hole.

CARSON: That’s not true.

QUICK: That is true, I looked at the numbers.

CARSON: When — when we put all the facts down, you’ll be able to see that it’s not true, it works out very well.

The question was extremely substantive. Carson’s answer was laughably vague. The problem here isn’t that Carson was asked whether he can do math, but that he couldn’t show that his tax plan was based on sound math. And that’s because it isn’t.

Can anyone make sense of Carson’s answer? If you can, please show your work.

Moving on…

Meanwhile, Cruz himself was also asked a substantive question. The moderators asked why he was opposing a bipartisan budget deal that would avert a debt ceiling crisis, a Medicare crisis, and a Social Security Disability Insurance crisis. Rather than answer that question, he attacked the moderators for refusing to ask substantive questions, during which he pretended a slew of unusually substantive questions were trivial political attacks.

Cruz’s strategy was smart, and he was arguably the debate’s big winner. But it bespoke a deeper weakness. Republicans have boxed themselves into some truly bizarre policies — including a set of tax cuts that give so much money to the rich, and blow such huge holes in the deficit, that simply asking about them in any serious way seems like a vicious attack. Assailing the media is a good way to try to dodge those questions for a little while, but it won’t work over the course of a long campaign.

Can someone explain how the eventual Republican nominee plans to survive the Presidential debate where their whining will be shown as the weakness it is? Do they (the nominee and The RNC) actually think they’ll be able to pull this nonsense against the Dem nominee? Are they really this clueless?

 

Guest Post: Delaware’s Government Channels Its Inner Trump

This is a guest post from Steve Newton. Sounds like the News Journal turned this down. Wonder why? Read on…

Secretary of Finance Tom Cook’s recent op-ed epitomizes the strategy of hiding things in plain sight.  Secretary Cook and Governor Jack Markell’s revenue review panel has concealed among its recommendations for making Delaware tax revenues more “elastic” an ideologically driven agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy and out-of-state corporations at the expense of our state’s middle class, senior citizens and local business owners.  That our governor could sanction such recommendations is a prime example of how politics in Delaware has been hollowed out in favor of profit taking.

Let’s first notice that in a era of declining revenues and increasingly challenging budgets to balance Governor Markell’s instructions forbade raising new revenue:  “if a recommendation was made that could be expected to generate additional revenue for the state, then a corresponding revenue reduction would also be proposed to offset it.”  This means (in English) that Cook’s panel was not interested in providing more money to balance our budget, but in changing who pays the bills.

First, consider the cuts.  The panel recommends (in appropriately stealthy language) rolling back previous revenue-generating raises to the corporate franchise fees and reducing the corporate income tax rate.  This change benefits primarily huge corporations and large institutional investors.  The panel also suggests complete elimination of the Estate Tax, which is pretty much only paid by the wealthiest 1%.  Here’s a multiple-choice question (in keeping with Governor Markell’s spirit of relentless standardized testing):  Would these recommendations be most likely found in the political platforms of (A) Hillary Clinton; (B) Bernie Sanders; or (C) Donald Trump?

To “offset” the revenues lost from Delaware’s wealthiest citizens and out-of-state corporations, Governor Markell, Secretary Cook, and the panel recommend “the elimination of itemized deductions and a scaling back of elderly tax preferences” from our state income tax.

Itemized deductions are the primary tool that middle-class families use to reduce Delaware’s already high income tax burden; the 1%, whose income derives chiefly from non-salary sources, really don’t care about itemizing.  The elderly (nearly one-quarter of Delaware’s population is on Medicare), now there’s a tax cow waiting to be milked.  Retirees exist predominantly on fixed incomes, which our governor proposes to fix at a lower level so that the residents of Greenville can keep more of their dividends.

The other “offset” against those corporate income tax reductions is to be Delaware business owners (you know, the people who actually live and work here), who will be gifted with higher business license fees.

Secretary Cook notes that this kind of “prudent” financial management (read:  transferring the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, local businesses, and the elderly) has benefited Delaware with a AAA bond rating purported to have saved us “$58 million in debt service payments since 2009.”  That amount roughly equals what the State wasted in the Fisker deal plus one-year’s worth of subsidies to Bloom Energy, collected through your electric bill as a hidden tax.

Meanwhile, those six years have seen child poverty increase, our roads deteriorate, our streams become more polluted, middle-class incomes decline, and the “fiscally responsible” General Assembly balancing last year’s budget by stealing millions meant for Delaware homeowners who lost everything in the Great Recession.

Recalling Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous dictum that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” I read this soulless analysis and wonder why Delaware voters continue, year after year, to return to power the individuals seemingly more interested in destroying our middle class, our elderly, and our local businesses than in finding real solutions for the problems that beset us.

If You Are Okay With Officer Field’s Behavior Then You Are Part Of The Problem

There is no excuse. Not one. And if you think there is an excuse for Officer Field’s behavior then you really are part of the problem. Know who else is part of the problem? The teacher and the administrator. Not one of the adults involved demonstrated skill in deescalation. All of them demonstrated the art of escalation. Talk about an adult pissing contest. And I’m fine with all of them being fired. No loss there.

Not kidding. If you think kids don’t pull out their phones during class then you don’t know kids. (My daughter was so guilty of this in high school and yet no one laid a hand on her. They. Wouldn’t. Dare. And that is what privilege looks like.) Hell, this isn’t even a kid problem. Mostly everyone is guilty of this behavior. If you’re okay with Officer Field’s behavior, hope you’re okay if you’re flipped out of your chair and thrown across the room at a restaurant that doesn’t allow cell phone use. That’s okay, right?

The truth is this would never have happened to a white, middle class girl. Not. Ever. It’s why white boys accused of crimes are shown in their yearbook pictures while Tamir Rice (a 12 year old) is portrayed, not only as a potential criminal threat, but far older than his years.

And this incident is a flippin’ pattern that those parsing this horrendous video ignore.

University of Virginia student Martese Johnson misstepped earlier this year when he tried to enter a bar while underaged. He was beaten bloody. Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice misstepped last year in Cleveland, Ohio when he was playing with a toy gun in a park. He was executed at close range. John Crawford III misstepped in Beavercreek, Ohio when he picked up an air rifle off a shelf in Wal-Mart. He, too, was executed at close range. Jonathan Ferrell misstepped in Charlotte, N.C. two years ago when he banged on doors for help after a car accident. He was shot 10 times. Less than two months later, Renisha McBride misstepped in Detroit, Mich., when she got in a car accident of her own and also sought assistance. She was shot in the back of the head.

From an early age, blacks learn their lives can be taken casually—almost accidentally—and learn to focus on what they can control. Blacks are taught humility in the home—always with words and often with whips—and in the black Christian church. Black humility is often conflated with the Christian kind, but the two couldn’t be any further apart. Christian humility is affirmative, rooted in equality and the idea that God loves whores and kings all the same. Black humility is borne of pragmatism, of self-preservation in the face of mechanized brutality. To be black and humble is to be outwardly subservient, to tiptoe around the authority of a teacher, or a cop, or a neighborhood watchman, or just a white person ambling past. When blacks choose defiance, no matter how small, over humility, they are proving their black criminality. Bad things happen.

Sandra Bland, and Eric Garner, and Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown, and Jordan Davis, and Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott were all recently defiant to authority in their own ways, and they were all killed.

Compare their fates to that of James Eagan Holmes, the heavily armed gunman who was taken alive, tried, convicted, and sentenced after walking into an Aurora, Colo. movie theater in 2012 and shooting into the crowd, killing 12 and injuring 70 more. Or compare their fates to that of Dylann Roof, who walked into a Charleston, S.C. church earlier this year and killed 9 churchgoers. Officers arrested him, threw him in the back of their car, and then bought him Burger King.

And there are many, many more examples. Go read this article.

If you can’t handle a cell phone in the classroom – get out of the classroom. In fact, you might need to get out of society all together, because cell phones aren’t going away.

Still wanna defend this monster on a power trip… then ask yourself if this would ever happen to a middle class white girl from Hockessin. Just for fun pretend the officer was a black male. Good luck with that.

 

The Benghazi Hearing Scorecard: Republicans – 0, Hillary – Gazillion

11 hours. That’s how long the Republicans took to question Hillary Clinton on Benghazi. And what did they walk away with? Let’s let Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, tell us:

“I think some of Jimmy Jordan’s questioning — well, when you say new today, we knew some of that already. We knew about the emails,” Gowdy said in response. “In terms of her testimony? I don’t know that she testified that much differently today than she has the previous time she testified.”

Shorter answer: They got nothing.

But Hillary Clinton got something. In fact, she got a lot. I watched the last three hours of the hearings last night. Talk about keeping your cool and looking Presidential. In the end, Republicans basically gave Hillary 11 hours of free press. Their hope was to bring her down, instead they strengthened her.

This letter from a TPM reader sums up my thoughts:

Re: “It helps her”, I think I would add that it’s hard for me to imagine any of the Democrats running against Hillary pulling this off as well.As an active Democrat who has remained, thus far, undecided, her performance here and at the debate have gone a long way toward convincing me to support Clinton instead of Sanders; even though, politically, my ideals line up more closely with Sanders’ democratic socialism than Clinton’s quasi-third way centrism.

If a Democrat wins the 2016 election, her or his main job as I see it will be defending the achievements of the Obama adminsitration, which will surely be under even more sustained attack once he leaves office. Any major expansion to that legacy will need to be incremental given a hostile, partisan Congress that, at least in the House, is pretty much “locked in” by gerrymandering until the next redistricting cycle.In that light, I’m increasingly leaning toward Hillary, not so much based on what she believes but on her competence, both as a public official and as a politician who knows how to punch back.

That’s where I’m at. Good lord, the woman has stamina. Bet she wouldn’t whine about a 3 hour debate being too much! And she kept her cool under the GOP idiocy – Me? I was yelling at the TV. So much of the Republican questioning was unacceptable – and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings shamed them beautifully. (Go watch the video. Not kidding, go watch it.) And that was the entire point behind the 11 hours. It was a form of torture. It also was the Republican’s entire strategy: Wear her down and hope she cracks, then use the footage for their guy’s campaign. She didn’t give them that – and, let’s be honest, that was all yesterday was about. Don’t believe me? Reread Trey Gowdy’s statement. They got nothing. Because if they had something they would have been screaming it from the rooftops.

I was always going to support the Dem nominee, but I wasn’t that excited this time around. Her performance definitely pumped me up. The Benghazi issue is over. Hillary put it to bed.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Claims Holocaust Not Really Hitler’s Idea

Can’t. Make. This. Stuff. Up.

During an address Tuesday to delegates at the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu posited that the Nazi fuehrer did not initially intend to annihilate the Jews, but rather sought to expel them from Europe. According to the prime minister’s version of the events, Hitler changed his mind after meeting with Husseini — who was grand mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948, and president of the Supreme Muslim Council from 1922 to 1937 — in Berlin near the end of 1941.

“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time [of the meeting between the mufti and the Nazi leader]. He wanted to expel the Jews,” Netanyahu said. “And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here [to mandatory Palestine],’” continued the prime minister.

“‘So what should I do with them?’ He [Hitler] asked,” according to Netanyahu. “He [Husseini] said, ‘Burn them.’”

Um… okay. I got nothing. Talk about going Godwin.