Only One Culprit

On Thursday's telecast of  "Democracy Now," the President and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Cornell William Brooks, was briefly interviewed about mass murderer Dylann Roof.  

Roof, who killed nine people in Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17, 2005, stated this week in the sentencing phase of his trial "I would like to make it crystal clear I do not regret what I did. ... I am not sorry. I have not shed a tear for the innocent people I killed."  Co-host Nermeen Shaikh asked Brooks "Your response to what Dylann Roof wrote?" and the reply began

Well, I’d also like to note that I’m also a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. I grew up in and around Charleston. I’m very familiar with Mother Emanuel Church. And it is, quite simply, heartbreaking to hear the killer, the murderer, one person I refer to as a racial terrorist, refer to the taking of lives in such a cavalier, callous and inhumane fashion and show absolutely no remorse.

Brooks should have stopped there. Instead, he added

The NAACP stands unapologetically against the death penalty. We do so as a matter of principle. That being said, we support the prosecution and the punishment to the fullest and the firmest extent of the law for someone who has engaged in what we called a hate crime from the very beginning. I recall standing on the sidewalk outside of Emanuel AME Church shortly after nine students of scripture were slain in that church beside—I should say, including the pastor. And I recall referring to the crime, but also talking about the fact that while there’s a climate of caring in the country, there’s also an environment of hate.

Well, no, if what Brooks said is accurate, the NAACP does not "support the prosecution and the punishment to the fullest and the firmest extent of the law." The maximum penalty for first degree murder in South Carolina is death by lethal injection, which it would appear Brooks and his organization oppose.

But it got worse when Brooks went on to say

So we’re concerned about Dylann Roof and him being punished. We’re also concerned about the racial animus, the sanitized, homogenized, alt-right atmosphere in the country that is giving rise to this kind of sentiment and driving violent crimes. We’ve seen this around the country. We’ve seen it in the FBI hate crimes statistics. We’ve certainly seen it in the numbers reported out by the Anti-Defamation League. And so, as chilling and as concerning and as alarming as the sentencing phase of the trial of Dylann Roof is, we should be chilled and concerned and alarmed about the state of America, because Dylann Roof may seem like an abhorrent aberration, but we’re concerned that that kind of behavior can be normalized because of the racial animus in the country, the xenophobic attitudes in the country, the homophobic attitudes in the country. 

To the contrary: Dylann Roof is an abhorrent aberration.  He killed not one person; not two, three, four, five, six, seven, or even eight individuals, but nine human beings. In the last three years, there have been only three other instances in which nine or more individuals have been killed by another person. That's nine too many, but pales in comparison to the number of shooting deaths in this country, even the number of mass murders in which fewer people have been killed.

We can, and should, be "chilled and concerned and alarmed about the state of America," although it's puzzling how "homophobic attitudes" played into Roof's motivation (puzzling being a euphemism for "ludicrous").  There is little or no evidence the current "alt right atmosphere"  had anything to do with the crime Roof committed nineteen (19) months ago.

Unable or unwilling to leave bad logic alone, Brooks argued also

The point being here is, we cannot separate the tone and tenor of the last campaign from what’s going on in Charleston even as we speak. And so, the NAACP is standing in firm opposition to both the atmosphere that gave rise to Dylann Roof’s crimes, even as we call for his prosecution and punishment. And so, make no mistake: This is not about the trial of one individual; it’s about the state of America more broadly.

It is curious that Roof committed his act the day after Donald Trump announced for the presidency. However, the assailant did not suggest the Trump campaign had anything to do with his actions. Neither had anyone else before Brooks claimed "we cannot separate the tone and tenor of the last campaign from what's going on in Charleston."

As long as the concept of individual responsibility prevails, the trial is about one man. Only one individual pulled the trigger in Charleston, South Carolina. America is not responsible for Dylann Roof; Dylan Roof is responsible for Dylann Roof.  As Cornell William Brooks would put it, "make no mistake about it":  dispersing blame for the offender's action to the country generally minimizes the horrific nature of the crime and of the criminal himself.  There is enough to blame on the alternative right and Donald Trump without making unsupportable claims.











Share |

Thursday on Democracy Now, the President and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Cornell William Brooks, was briefly interviewed about mass murderer Dylann Roof.   Roof, who killed nine people in Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, stated in the sentencing phase of his trial "I would like to make it crystal clear I do not regret what I did. ... I am not sorry. I have not shed a tear for the innocent people I killed."  Co-host Nermeen Shaikh asked Brooks "Your response to what Dylann Roof wrote?" and the response began

Well, I’d also like to note that I’m also a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. I grew up in and around Charleston. I’m very familiar with Mother Emanuel Church. And it is, quite simply, heartbreaking to hear the killer, the murderer, one person I refer to as a racial terrorist, refer to the taking of lives in such a cavalier, callous and inhumane fashion and show absolutely no remorse.

Brooks should have stopped there. Instead, he added

The NAACP stands unapologetically against the death penalty. We do so as a matter of principle. That being said, we support the prosecution and the punishment to the fullest and the firmest extent of the law for someone who has engaged in what we called a hate crime from the very beginning. I recall standing on the sidewalk outside of Emanuel AME Church shortly after nine students of scripture were slain in that church beside—I should say, including the pastor. And I recall referring to the crime, but also talking about the fact that while there’s a climate of caring in the country, there’s also an environment of hate.

Well, no, if what Brooks said is accurate, the NAACP does not "support the prosecution and the punishment to the fullest and the firmest extent of the law." The maximum penalty for first degree murder in South Carolina is death by lethal injection, which it would appear Brooks and his organization oppose.

But it got worse when Brooks went on to say

So we’re concerned about Dylann Roof and him being punished. We’re also concerned about the racial animus, the sanitized, homogenized, alt-right atmosphere in the country that is giving rise to this kind of sentiment and driving violent crimes. We’ve seen this around the country. We’ve seen it in the FBI hate crimes statistics. We’ve certainly seen it in the numbers reported out by the Anti-Defamation League. And so, as chilling and as concerning and as alarming as the sentencing phase of the trial of Dylann Roof is, we should be chilled and concerned and alarmed about the state of America, because Dylann Roof may seem like an abhorrent aberration, but we’re concerned that that kind of behavior can be normalized because of the racial animus in the country, the xenophobic attitudes in the country, the homophobic attitudes in the country. 

To the contrary: Dylann Roof is an abhorrent aberration.  He killed not one person; not two, three, four, five, six, seven, or even eight individuals, but nine human beings. In the last three years, there have been only four instances in which nine or more individuals have been killed by another person. That's nine too many, but pales in comparison to the number of shooting deaths in this country, even the number of mass murders in which fewer people have been killed.

We can, and should, be "chilled and concerned and alarmed about the state of America," although it's puzzling how "homophobic attitudes" played into Roof's motivation (puzzling being a euphemism for "ludicrous).  There is little or no evidence the current "alt right atmosphere"  had anything to do with the crime Roof committed nineteen (19) months ago. 

Unable or unwilling to leave bad logic alone, Brooks argued also

The point being here is, we cannot separate the tone and tenor of the last campaign from what’s going on in Charleston even as we speak. And so, the NAACP is standing in firm opposition to both the atmosphere that gave rise to Dylann Roof’s crimes, even as we call for his prosecution and punishment. And so, make no mistake: This is not about the trial of one individual; it’s about the state of America more broadly.

It is curious that Roof committed his act the day after Donald Trump announced for the presidency. However, the assailant did not suggest the Trump campaign had anything to do with his actions. Neither had anyone else before Brooks claimed "we cannot separate the tone and tenor of the last campaign from what's going on in Charleston."

As long as the concept of individual responsibility prevails, the trial is about one individual. Only one individual pulled the trigger in Charleston, South Carolina. America is not responsible for Dylann Roof; Dylan Roof is responsible for Dylann Roof.  As Cornell William Brooks would put it, "make no mistake about it":  distributing blame for the offender's action to the country generally minimizes the horrific nature of the crime and of the criminal himself.

Share |

Avoiding "Poor Us, What Have We Done?"

In December, Politico reported

When Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine greet the very top fundraisers and donors to their failed campaign at New York’s Plaza Hotel on Thursday evening, many of them will have one question in mind: Where’s the autopsy?

The call for a deep and detailed accounting of how Clinton lost a race that she andher donors were absolutely certain she’d win didn’t begin immediately after the election — there was too much shock over her defeat by Donald Trump, and overwhelming grief. Her initial conference call with top backers, which came just days after the outcome, focused primarily on FBI Director Jim Comey’s late campaign-season intervention.

Whatever their motives- idealistic, selfish, or a combination- these (mostly) men put a lot of money into what they believed was a fairly sure bet and are getting little or nothing in return.  And so

“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."

Or, in the words of a Midwestern fundraiser who’s kept in touch with fellow donors, “A lot of people are saying, ‘I’m not putting another fucking dime in until someone tells me what just happened.’”

Three weeks later

the Democratic National Committee has yet to announce any plans for a full post-mortem of its own in the style of Republicans’ 2012 Growth and Opportunity Project, causing some party officials to worry that they may not see one at all — at least until a new chair takes over in the spring.

Don't succumb to the temptation.

After defeat in the 2012 presidential election, the Republican Party completed a report cleverly entitled "Growth & Opportunity Project." Assessing the "GOP," in June, 2015 this journalist reasonably observed

If the last few months are any indication, Republicans have done little to pull these voters back into the GOP tent. 

Latino voters are especially critical. The GOP autopsy report called for abandonment of the party's anti-immigration stance, declaring that "we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform." 

More than two years later, however, Republicans are no closer to passing immigration reform, even though they control both houses of Congress. In fact, the party remains bitterly divided over the issue.

A year and a half later, even those more sanguine about the Party's prospects wanted the GOP to be sensitive to the needs and wants of the Hispanic voter.  Charles Krauthammer wrote "The other party thinks it owns the demographic future- counter that in one stroke by fixing the Latino problem." Similarly, Sean Hannity thought "It's simple for me to fix" the immigration issue. "I think you control the border first, you create a pathway for those people that are here, you don't say, 'You gotta go home.' And that is a position that I've evolved on."

Hannity would not have "evolved" to a position not then the dominant view of the movers and shakers of  the GOP.

It is a truism of modern American politics that Democrats suffer from off-year elections but benefit in presidential election years. Yet, roughly ten months after conservative Republicans Krauthammer and Hannity recommended the GOP mollify concerns of Latinos, Democrats gained only six seats in the House of Representatives, even though 37 races had been considered competitive. Although Republicans had to defend 23 Senate seats and Democrats only 10, the Democratic Party picked up only two seats in the upper chamber.

And then there was the presidential race, pitting arguably the most pro-immigration candidate in modern American political history against inarguably the most anti-immigration candidate of the same period. How did that turn out?

The Democratic Party may yet conduct an autopsy, although fortunately it is becoming increasingly unlikely.   It conducted honestly, it would find that determining how to appeal to the Trump voter is not as simple as it might seem.  Huffington Post Polling Director Ariel Edwards-Levy revealed Wednesday that a HuffPost/YouGov poll has found that more Americans support than oppose President Obama keeping sanctions against Russia, with Democrats considerably more favorable than Independents or Republicans.

It isn't surprising that the action of a Democratic President- even if directed against a foreign, formerly Communist, enemy- would be largely unpopular with voters of the other party. But consider

Although few Trump voters approve of Obama’s dealings with Russia, they’re split on what he should have done differently. Thirty percent say that Obama has been too tough on Russia, and 35 percent that he has not been tough enough.

Even those Trump voters who say Obama wasn’t tough enough on Russia, however, also say by a 9-point margin that Trump should lift the sanctions after taking office.

So Barack Obama hasn't been sufficiently tough on the Russians and shouldn't have penalized them for interfering in American elections.

Go figure that one out- or, rather, don't bother. The Democratic Party should save itself some angst. Eschew the self-flagellation of an autopsy, and simply demonstrate its values by opposing Trump Administration policies and dedicating itself to the progressive/populist programs the other party wants to destroy.











Share |

Paving The Way

Tom Englehardt rhetorically asks

Can there be any question that, in the 15-plus years since 9/11, what was originally called the "Global War on Terror" has become a permanent war across the Greater Middle East and Africa (with collateral damage from Europe to the Philippines)?  In those years, staggering sums of money -- beyond what any other country or even collection of countries could imagine spending -- has poured into the U.S. military and the arms industry that undergirds it and monopolizes the global trade in weaponry.  In the process, Washington became a war capital...

Additionally, he notes

.... the president, as Michelle Obama indicated recently when talking about Trump’s victory with Oprah Winfrey, became, above all, the commander in chief.  (“It is important for the health of this nation,” she told Winfrey, “that we support the commander in chief.”)  The president’s role in wartime had, of course, always been as commander in chief, but now that’s the position many of us vote for (and even newspapers endorse), and since war is so permanently embedded in the American way of life, Donald Trump is guaranteed to remain that for his full term.

He could have added that Donald Trump's credibility (his legitimacy, presumably, already having been established) was enhanced when the First Lady (shoveling it, second video below) referred to him as "commander in chief" as she argued

... because no matter how we felt going into it, it is important for t he health of this nation that we support the commander-in-chief. Wasn't done when my husband took office but  we're going high and this is what's best for the country.

So we are going to be there for the next president and do whatever we have to do to make sure that he is  successful because if he succeeds we all succeed.













He will not be Commander in Chief for Michelle Obama, myself, nor probably for you because he is entrusted under the Constitution to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."  That leaves out most of us. Questioning our President, we learned in junior high civics class, is our patriotic duty.  Questioning the "Commander in Chief," however, can be distorted as practically treasonous. Good thing we won't have an authoritarian in the position.

Pledging loyalty to President Trump is not surprising coming from an Obama. As seen in the video below, The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur recognizes "the Obamas don't want to rock the boat. They hate to rock the boat. It's like their least favorite thing on earth."

Not only like their least favorite thing, it is their least favorite thing, as the last eight years and the transition have demonstrated.   Uygur concedes the Obamas must be civil, even helpful, during the transition but thereafter Uygur wants

to fight back against these dangerous ideas- and again to be fair to the Obamas, it's a super tough line to walk. But you know sometimes I get the  sense from the Obamas that you know we're comforable. We tried to fight them and we did our best but we're going oto be O.K. Good luck to the rest of you.

He is

hoping that when it is appropriate President Obama speaks out and speaks out clearly and loudly... that he just doesn't retire to a corner and have the Republicans yell at him "remember, ex-presidents aren't allowed to say anything."

A sentient being the past few decades, Uygur refers to Limbaugh's warning to Obama that he not criticize Trump after the inauguration  and notes "we've seen this trick a thousand times."

Having observed President Barack Obama for over 2900 days, we have reason to conclude: good luck with that thing about ex-President Obama speaking out "loudly and clearly."













Share |

Imagine If He Had Lost

Can we put this conservative myth to rest?

New York City right-wing talk show host Mark Simone tweeted out a graph indicating that each of five influential newspapers and five broadcast networks were overwhelmingly negative in their post-convention Trump coverage. He concluded "It wasn't Russia. We found out who really tried to influence our election."

Spare me. Never has there been so much whining by a winning candidate's camp nor arguably as much about so little.

In a supremely superficial analysis, Trump's campaign received slightly more negative coverage than did that of Clinton.   Reviewing findings of the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center, Politico wrote "Trump was covered slightly more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage. "

But that's only part of the story, and a very limiting part.  As illustrated in the chart below, Media Matters' Eric Boehlert summarized a finding by Andrew Tyndall that "the three network evening newscasts this year had aired just 32 minutes of in-depth campaign policy reporting. By comparison, ABC World News, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News devoted nearly three times as much coverage to the Clinton email story (100 minutes)." This did not accrue to the benefit of the only qualified, informed candidate.

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple shows the chart (below) from the Harvard study:

He recognizes

this equivalency hovers over the category of presidential “fitness for office” and includes themes such as “policy positions, personal qualities, leadership abilities [and] ethical standards.” Consider that the time period for these figures spanned from mid-August to the day before Election Day — which is to say, the weeks during which The Washington Post published the now-famous “Access Hollywood” tape that had Trump boasting about sexual assault, and the resulting flood of on-the-record allegations from women that he did just that. That the media somehow produced an equivalent amount of negative stories regarding Clinton would appear to cement its dedication to the proposition that they’re all bastards.

The concept of both-siderism was elevated to a new level during the general election campaign. Yet, while both candidates received overwhelmingly negative coverage, only one brought it on to himself with remarks which would have driven most candidates- and all Democrats- from the race.

Only one nominee many years earlier argued "laziness is a trait in blacks" and this year, "look at my African-American over here."  The Democrat was not a celebrity who declared "that must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees" and last year "look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”  Only one candidate said years ago that avoiding venereal disease "is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a very great and very brave soldier," and as a candidate  knocked a veteran of Hanoi Hilton as "a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK."








These weren't necessarily the worst things said by Donald Trump, nor were they among the record-setting number of lies he told.

Nor do they accunt for why the nominee, he of  "Make America Great Again,"  never was asked- as far as I know or was widely reported- why he doesn't believe this is a great country. If any Democrat had merely uttered that phrase, he or she would have been hounded for an answer before the inevitable withdrawal from the race.






Share |

No Bigotry Here. Move Along.

At first reading, it makes little sense when Bill Scher writes "as a liberal, it pains me to say the following: President Barack Obama believes he would have beaten Donald Trump, but he’s probably wrong."

Barack Obama is more likeable than Hillary Clinton, has been a better campaigner with a better campaign team, and as a full-fledged incumbent would have better been able to tout the accomplishments of the last 4-8 years. And even Mrs. Clinton, facing a weak opponent, garnered the most popular votes and came very close to victory in the three states which would have put her over top.

But he presents extremely strong arguments, arguably the most intriguing being

Obamacare looms large, despite the fact that it is one of the most tangible benefits Obama delivered to working-class Americans, regardless of race. Yet the reaction to the program was undoubtedly tinged with racism. Political scientist Michael Tesler uncovered in his book Post-Racial or Most-Racial?: Race and Politics in the Obama Era, that “racially resentful” whites were far more likely to support government-provided health insurance before Obama began his push for the Affordable Care Act in 2009. But once the president led the charge, Tesler found, many “Americans thought blacks would benefit more than whites.”

On" 60 Minutes" Sunday evening, Bill Whitaker presented a report, ostensibly about the explosion of violent crime in Chicago, which no doubt he was unaware bears on the question of whether President Obama would have been re-elected had he been constitutionally eligible. We learn

Gangs, guns and drugs have caused chaos in Chicago for years. But something new caught our attention. There’s been a drop in the kind of police work that law enforcement says is critical to preventing crime. Usually stops and arrests go up when violence is rising. So we went to Chicago to look for an explanation. What we found was a police department on its heels as the city suffered its worst bloodshed in 18 years.

One thoughtful viewer noted

Spend 5 minutes and look up ATF trace data for Illinois and Chicago.  What you will find is that about 72% of the guns traced by Chicago police come from states that allow private sale without a background check.  No matter how strict the laws in Illinois, guns can be easily purchased and transported.

Other comments- far more representative of the group- were revealing and far less informative and included


-Only 800 people shot and killed?  "Well, that's the hood bro!"

-Cultural culling/darwinism at its finest.  BLM, you have a serious cultural problem with your culture and you don't want to deal with it, I'd say the self-killing ain't happening fast enuf.  

-Another biased and disingenuous report blaming the police. Sorry folks, it starts with leadership, and in this case, lack there of. Look no further than the Federal Justice dept, the City of Chicago, and the effects of poor and failing liberal policies. I'll one will need to do is watch NY as this nightmare is going to make it's way their. Tight gun laws that punish the law abiding citizens, sanctuary city policies that basically say that the law does not apply to those that break it, and mandates on the police force driven by the race-bater industry that remove tools they can use to cut this down,  Mix it all together, and you have Chicago. 

-Exactly. Criminals never want to be policed. The major cities in America have been partially destroyed by one ethnic group. Is it "racist" to notice this? Just asking.

-And how is any of this a surprise?  Police are backing down all across the country.  The Black Lives Matter movement is having the effect they desired.  They want police to look the other way, so here ya go.  Police are blamed for enforcing the laws and not enforcing the laws.  You can't have it both ways.  Police are human and they make mistakes, but every mistake is viewed as a national outrage.  Police yourselves because the real police aren't coming.

-So tell me anti-gun advocates this.... Hows those anti-gun laws working out to fight crime in Chicagostan? For so far I haven't seen any armed punks and wannabe gang bangers giving up their guns. Oh wait...my bad! Sorry! How silly of me. The anti-gun laws were not designed to fight crime, but to restrict the Law Abiding Citizens of their rights to own or use firearms. 

-BLM, deocrats, and other radicals have about destroyed America. no respect for the law, the police, or anything that could considered responsible government. time for change. 

-So, let me get this straight. It is not the fault of the violent criminal element committing the crimes, it is the fault of the police?

-Here is my four point plan to end the madness. 1.) Make Sheriff Joe chief of police 2.) kick the ACLU out of Chicago 3.) kick BLM out of Chicago 4.) get rid of Rahm and the rest of the Democrat cabal.

And of course there is the the old standard/golden oldie- JacksonSharpton- merged with the new boogeyman, Arabs and Mexicans:

The only reason Democrats care about Chicago (and Detroit and L.A. and Washington DC) is the fact that they can use gun violence statistics to try to ban guns in America.

Obama and #BLM and the ACLU hate the police officers who put their lives at risk every day when they go to work.  They have no problem with the number of officers that have been assassinated by black people who have been convinced of American racism by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama.

As a matter of fact, Obama has been releasing a record number of criminals from prison who are convicted of drug crimes.  What the media doesn't mention is that a large number of these people are violent criminals who also have owned and used firearms in the commission of a crime.

Democrats want illegal aliens from Central America into the U.S., whether they're members of MS13 or not.  Democrats want "refugees" from Syria and all over the Middle East, whether they're ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorists or not.


These were typical responses to a report which was not on Fox News or Breitbart News but on a traditional network, CBS. They belie the conventional wisdom that the President would have been relected, given those swing, working class counties in the election's determinative states which went for Obama in 2012 and for Trump in 2016.

This was not a scientific survey.  Perhaps conservatives disproportionately watch 60 Minutes and respond online to a televised news segment. Still, the common reaction of the vieweres helps confirm that there is something going on in the country which goes well beyond economic discontent, and it is ugly.













Share |

No Hate Here

Language matters. It's how chemical and biological weapons are linked with the far more devastating nuclear weapon as "weapons of mass destruction," healthcare reform becomes "government takeover," and the earned benefits programs of Medicare and Social Security become "entitlements," in a manner suggesting anyone depending on them is akin to a spoiled child.

And now in the narrow corner of the ethno-left, it's Latinx, Tanisha Love Ramirez in Huffington Post argues

Latinx is the gender-neutral alternative to Latino, Latina and even Latin@. Used by scholars, activists and an increasing number of journalists, Latinx is quickly gaining popularity among the general public. It’s part of a “linguistic revolution“ that aims to move beyond gender binaries and is inclusive of the intersecting identities of Latin American descendants. In addition to men and women from all racial backgrounds, Latinx also makes room for people who are trans, queer, agender, non-binary, gender non-conforming or gender fluid.

No, "Latinx" is not "quickly gaining poularity among the general public" and hopefully it never will. Altering language to suit one's political perspective or fill an individual's psychic need does not change facts or circumstances, promoting instead a distorted or narrow view of the issue.

Ramirez links to a an unsigned post, "Mapping Hate: Tracking the Explosion of Hate in Trump's America," from Think Progress, the creation of the Center for American Progress. Included is an interactive map in which hate," a generic term applicable to all matter of human relationships, would have been helpfully replaced by the more specific, measurable "bias."   The bloggers(s) accordingly pleads "to keep the project manageable, our bar for inclusion is intentionally high."

Evidently not, however, because the map

focuses on moments of more targeted harassment and hatred — such as verbal abuse, physical assault, threats, vitriol-filled protests, vandalism, and attacks on houses of worship — committed against specific marginalized groups of people.

This is a grab bag of categories.  Vandalism and physical assault are criminal acts. "Attacks on houses of  worship" can range from the extremely serious, such as arson, to the extremely mundane, depending on interpretation of "atacks." Similarly, "threats" can range from a suggestion of murder to- well, virtually anything.  "Vitriol-filled protests" can be a particularly clear expression of bias and simultaneously protected under the First Amendment.

"Hate" comes in all forms, in all circumstances, for all reasons, between or among any number of persons. Yet, as the interactive map notes, CAP's categories are limited to "Black, Jewish, Litinx, LGBTQ, Muslim, Other."

This haphazard study is not only what the right terms "politically correct." It is bad scholarship, far less meaningful than would be a comparison of affronts to these groups to those of other groups- e.g., white, Christian, or straight.  Presumably, in "Trump's America" there will be more attacks upon individuals in minority groups than upon others. If so, that is significant; if not, still significant, indicating a general explosion of intolerance.

So, too, is it crucial to distinguish between attacks motivated by "hate" of what the individual, group, or building represents and those which are not.  Candidate Trump's hysterics about crime notwithstanding, there are many criminal acts, most of which are not motivated by the narrow interpretation of "hate" given it by the Center for American Progress.

If you think you "hate" this post, think again. You may not do so. Ask CAP.







Share |