Thursday, September 6, 2012

SF Mayor Ed Lee drives away the youth vote.

     After the wave wave of power gained by the GOP in the Mid-Term elections, and the election of Barack Obama the emphasis placed on voting, from both sides is at an all time high. The outreach to gain the inner-city youth vote to match the enthusiasm of the republican base is more than important it's a difference maker. But how do you get young people to engage when overwhelmingly the impression is, no matter who's in office the general conditions where they live doesn't change. The average young adult doesn't vote for deficit reduction or medicare, they expect tangible change in their everyday lives. Realistic or not.
      But democracy is slow, and immediate positive changes are few and far between. The logical school of thought is, I more than my vote is more consequential to the direction of my everyday life. We get some comfort when a person is in office that looks like we do, or seems to support our values but that isn't always what it seems. Case in point San Francisco mayor Ed Lee.
     Lee, a Civil Lawyer. The first Chinese American Mayor of San Francisco and a Democrat. And though government is always larger than one man. One could reasonably expect our most basic fundamental rights not be infringed upon. Especially by someone who litigates civil issues. So when Ed Lee proclaimed his admiration of New York's stop and frisk program, to the point where implementation was an option. The justification of non participation begins to rear its ugly head. The implied logic that states regardless of the person or party, the important will still stand on the backs of those deemed less significant.
     How could it be viewed any other way. A person makes his career fighting for civility seeks to implement one of the most unproven cruelly  un-just laws in recent history. Off the wall for some, and par for the course for those seeking an argument to justify forgoing their right to participate. Way to rally the base Mayor Ed Lee, only you did it in the wrong direction.

Equally stopped and frisked

     Ever wonder why we still hear about the Aurora shooting, but we hear nothing about those cops that were shot in Louisiana by that separatist grouphttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/terry-smith-6-other-suspects-linked-sovereign-citizens_n_1806598.html. Or anymore about the guy that shot those Sikhs in Michigan http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0806/Sikh-temple-shooting-renews-fears-over-white-supremacist-groups-video. Did we ever hear anything about the guy that put the bomb in the path of the MLK day parade in Washington State http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/09/announcement-expected-break-through-mlk-bomb-probe/
. Is it because the Aurora shooting is a safer subject. The act seems so abstract and random, rendering all commentary speculation because clearly the shooter has mental issues and left no clear motive why. Whats leftover becomes a debate on gun control, although important, it all but excuses the shooter and whatever drove him to commit his deranged act. There could be thousands of people on the verge of walking his path, but we will never know because our analysis in on gun control not the individual who commits the act.     The Temple shooting and the other two noted cases are different animals all together. These crimes were committed by separatists and supremacists with clear visions and motives of what they thought should be done. With more facts in these cases it seems a reasonable discussion can be had on how these feelings are being nurtured and acted upon. So why no discussion? In order to properly discuss these types of crimes, the subject of racism why it exists and how it recruits needs to be placed on the table.
     Generally speaking race is a tabu subject for mainstream news, it's usually reserved for special reports or lower rated minority centric shows. The mainstream speaks of racially tinged comments or dog whistles, but subtle slurs should get the same attention as the guy who wears the I hate N-words shirt with the confederate flag on the back. In some ways the under-coverage of these organised hate groups lends them some sort of warped justification that by not exposing them it's some kind of cry for help from the masses.
     If properly covered how could profiling not be an option or topic of discussion. There's a database of these guys. Why aren't militia types stopped and frisked? Tim McVeigh, that MLK bomber and the guys that shot those cops aren't criminals, they're terrorists. What percent of citizens sympathize with these guys, without meaningful discussion we'll never know. With no applicable spin and the ongoing culture of new racists the best option is silence and hope it all goes away.