An interesting perspective from Prager University.
Does race trump truth? In a confrontation between police and perpetrators, what is more important? Facts or skin color? When protests morph into riots, do we excuse bad behavior based on race? If we do, how are we ever going to end racism? Chloe Valdary, a student at the University of New Orleans, confronts these critical questions and offers a compelling answer.
While Baltimore burns and many residents and businesses live in fear from losing their homes and livelihoods, politicians continue to play the fiddle.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has tried to walk back her idiotic statement of:
“I’ve made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and that’s what you saw.”
Rawlings-Blake’s office has tried to explain her remarks and how they were misunderstood:
“What she is saying within this statement was that there was an effort to give the peaceful demonstrators room to conduct their peaceful protests on Saturday,” her office said in a statement released on Monday. “Unfortunately, as a result of providing the peaceful demonstrators with the space to share their message, that also meant that those seeking to incite violence also had the space to operate. The police sought to balance the rights of the peaceful demonstrators against the need to step in against those who were seeking to create violence. The mayor is not saying that she asked police to give space to people who sought to create violence. Any suggestion otherwise would be a misinterpretation of her statement.”
The office also put out an updated version of her comments, edited in a way to reflect what the office said she really meant:
“I’ve made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also [as a result] gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and that’s what you saw.”
Her “clarification” is as bad as the statement as it doesn’t address the fact that she either ordered or allowed the police to stand by while people and property were threatened and destroyed.
Contrasting Rawlings-Blake’s (in)action while looters and rioters took to destroying, Midshipman from the Naval Academy did what the police would not – they protected people: (more…)
At 598 meters (1,962 ft) below the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, ROV Hercules encountered a magnificent sperm whale. The whale circled Hercules several times and gave our cameras the chance to capture some incredible footage of this beautiful creature. Encounters between sperm whales and ROVs are incredibly rare.
Not only did the police rough up some reporters, but reporters were attacked by “protestors.”
A Ruptly producer had their handbag stolen live on camera, after being surrounded by a group of youths, as they filmed a protest over the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Saturday. The producer gave chase to the suspected thief before police intervened.
And then you have the Mayor of Baltimore making a statement during her press conference showing what type of person she is.
This is the full press conference and her remarks are at the 7:40 mark.
“While we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on,” the mayor said of the protesters. “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and that’s what you saw.”
The city gave space to those who wish to destroy as well?
The property owners had to sit back and watch their property and businesses being destroyed while the police did nothing?
And Baltimore wonders why people and businesses are leaving the city.
Eight months after the shooting death Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, the parents of Brown have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Ferguson claiming Brown would be alive if not for the City “foster(ing) a culture of pervasive hostility toward African-Americans that eventually led to the 18-year-old’s death.” (A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.)
The lawsuit is one of those that seeks to shift blame on everyone else. It was the City of Ferguson who forced Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson to commit a strong armed robbery. It was others who demanded that Brown and Johnson walk in the middle of the street. It was others who told Brown to attack Officer Darren Wilson and then later force Wilson to defend himself.
It was that “pervasive hostility” that allowed the grand jury to not indict Wilson. It was that hatred of African Americans that led to the Department of Justice clearing Wilson in the shooting.
Civil trials are funny things where juries can and will ignore facts, but one would hope that if the parents of Michael Brown win one cent, the shop owners and home owners of the City of Ferguson go after any award because of comments made by Brown’s stepfather to “burn this bitch down” to a crowd of rabid protesters looking for any spark to ignite the rage that took over Ferguson.
The death of Brown was not the only death that caught the attention of the American people.
Earlier this month, 50 year old Walter Scott was shot in the back by South Carolina Officer Michael T. Slager as Scott was running away. videos of the events leading up to the shooting, the shooting and following the shooting dramatically contradict Slagers’ statements in the shooting. Slager was fired from the police force and is now facing murder charges.
What is still up in the air is “why did Scott run?”
There is speculation that Scott ran because he was behind on child support payments and would have been arrested and sent to jail for non-payment. How jailing someone for non-payment is going to make a person pay or somehow allows a person who is short on money to make payments is something we cannot figure out. No matter what, we should ponder the idea that Scott’s fear of going to prison over a debt led to an altercation with Officer Slager and ultimately Scott’s death.
Someone is going to have to tell us how killing a fleeing 50 year old and making his kids orphans is a good outcome when the offense is non-payment. One thing is for certain: Scott is not going to make any more child support payments now.
When someone makes an accusation of rape, especially on college campuses these days, the consequences for the accused are often horrific. For the accuser, the actual accusation carries very little risk.
Make no mistake about it, accusing someone of rape or saying that you were raped is a traumatic for the alleged victim and for the alleged rapist.
It doesn’t help that the deck is somewhat stacked in favor of a female accuser. The accused’s name is plastered across news reports and spread via social media. It is something that he can never outrun for the rest of his life. The accuser often remains anonymous, even if their story and charges are found to be not supported and false.
The reason for the disparity in naming victims in other crimes but not in rape is based on several morally repugnant actions of others. Far too often, victims – actual victims – are treated by others as “sluts.” Or “they were asking for it.” In some situations, we have heard of men coming up to a victim of rape and saying “I’m better than he was” or “do you like it rough” or some other comment from a depraved, sick mind.
Somewhere along the line, the burden of proof shifted from from proving a person guilty to “the accusation must be true and the accused must prove their innocence.” The foundation of that switch is the idea that no woman would ever lie about being raped. The accusation is therefore made beyond a wall of anonymity even if the woman’s story turns out to be one massive lie. (FBI stats show that false claims of rape are on par with other crimes. People, for whatever reason, lie about crimes being committed against them.)
But when a woman lies about being raped, what should happen?
One step in the right direction is what happened at the University of Arkansas.
According to a police report, on March 8, Sweetin’s brother called the University of Arkansas Police Department to report that his sister had been sexually assaulted in the garage on March 5.
When police interviewed Lindsey Sweetin, she told them when she was walking back to her car in the deck after class, a man she described as being between 50 and 60-years-old with gray hair approached her and asked if she had any jumper cables. (more…)
Remember about a year ago when the Veteran’s Administration was fudging numbers on waiting times for vets needing heath care?
Remember when Obama administration said they would get to the bottom of the problem, fix the problems and hold accountable anyone who had lied or ”
cooked the books?”
(And to be fair, the problem with the VA has been going on long before President Obama was elected.)
Remember when the head of the VA stood up in front of Congress and swore things would get better? It sticks in our mind because it was one of the very few times when Republicans and Democrats agreed that drastic measures needed to be taken.
How did all that turn out?
We’ll let the New York Times tell you the disgusting results:
The nationwide scandal last spring over manipulated wait times at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals led to the ouster of the secretary of veterans affairs and vows from the new leadership that people would be held accountable.
Then in February, the new secretary, Robert A. McDonald, asserted in a nationally televised interview that the department had fired 60 people involved in manipulating wait times to make it appear that veterans were receiving care faster than they were. In fact, the department quickly clarified after that interview, only 14 people had been removed from their jobs, while about 60 others had received lesser punishments.
Now, new internal documents show that the real number of people removed from their jobs is much smaller still: at most, three. (more…)