The above is a collective image of the 6 Baltimore police officers who have been indicted for the homicide of Freddie Gray. Although they deserve a fair trial by an unbiased jury, it was interesting to see how political pressure can be used to redress some of the issues raised by some of the disenfranchised in society.
In the followup to the riots, we saw the Baltimore D.A. take an honest look at the evidence and had no choice but to call for an indictment. Gray was not belted into his seat for his own protection. The police van made 4 stops, not 1 before reaching its final destination. And, the knife once labeled as a switchblade was perfectly legal for Gray to possess. There was enough of a stench coming from the police involved, that even the D.A. couldn't avoid seeing an apparent abuse of police power.
Recently, Dr. Phil was on Fox News, and he slipped through a comment that the talking heads didn't notice. Although the kids in the poor neighborhoods may have the same potential as those in the better neighborhoods, environmental factors may be making it impossible for them to achieve this potential. Around 4:20 (or so) in the linked video, he noted that there are fewer opportunities available for these kids, that the school systems are very different for these kids than those in the affluent suburbs, that fewer resources are available for these kids, and that their parents do not have the "societal" skills to pass on to the next generation (as Dr. Phil puts it - "generational pass throughs").
- - - - - -
I have commented before about the warehousing of excess population in our nation's prisons. I have commented before on the economy of the drug trade, and how it is one of the last "industries" available to poor people with criminal records. I have commented about how people have been turned into 3rd class citizens, and denied the right to vote after serving time in prison. And I have commented before on unequal education in our country. But what happens when these factors are not properly addressed by society - Riots.
Why does this concern me? I don't live in the inner city; I live in the suburbs. The answer is simple. We are seeing the gradual breakdown of society from the bottom up. As the segment of society for whom enough opportunity does not exist grows, the more unrest there will be. When this segment swallows up much of what was once the middle class, I am not sure of how long our democratic republic will survive. I am very afraid of an authoritarian government taking the place of the flawed system we now have.
- - - - - -
When the above 6 police officers were indicted, I found it interesting that the people in the inner city were celebrating. Only time will tell if these officers are convicted. But is this a bone being thrown to the masses to keep them quiet? I am not sure. Years ago, we saw the O.J. Simpson trial on TV. It was captivating, if only because a black defendant had enough money and resources to put up a strong defense and win against a prosecution who had virtually unlimited resources. (It helped that there was a mixed race jury hearing the case, unlike the civil trial held in the L.A. Suburbs.) And at that time, one heard the same cheering among the Black segment of America's population as if "one of ours finally won!"
Law enforcement and criminal defense are two things that differ between the better off and the worse off in our society. In the more affluent communities, police treat residents (for the most part) with respect. If someone has to go to trial, that person generally can muster up enough resources to put up an adequate defense. This is not the case in poor communities, where the police are being used to control a disenfranchised population, by arbitrarily enforcing laws. Because the poor do not have adequate resources to defend themselves in court, there is extreme pressure to plead guilty for lesser prison time. And once out of prison, many poor people are now unemployable in the traditional economy. The drug trade becomes the only business open to these people, creating a vicious cycle of crime, poverty, and hopelessness.
- - - - - -
If one doesn't believe that there isn't an arbitrary standard of justice in this country, look at the latest video by Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard. In it, you'll see an action for which white people are rarely prosecuted, but for which black people are often prosecuted. Depending on the state this video was shot, the action would be legal, be a misdemeanor, or even be a felony.
As much as I love Willie Nelson's music, his use of cannabis illustrates the double standard of justice we have for black and white people in this country. The police have caught him and his entourage with cannabis - and he has never (from what I can tell) spent a day in jail. Can you say this about black people who have been arrested for possession/sale of the same substance?
To me, it's about time that we end the so-called "War on Drugs" and begin reinvesting in the inner city (and its residents). If we don't, are we willing to risk losing the freedoms we have left to a future authoritarian government, just to keep the disenfranchised under control?
This image makes it seem like the Baltimore police had the situation under control. However, given 4/27's news reporting on both Fox and MSNBC, this would be the furthest thing from the truth.
Normally, I lean left of center (based on today's politics) when interpreting affairs of the day.When it comes to riots, I have no problems with police being able to "shoot to kill". "Why?" you may ask... To me, the answer is simple - a riot is like a quick moving cancer. If it is not put down quickly, a community gets labeled as a bad place to make an investment. And, as a result, there is a loss of jobs which can force the community into an economic death.
Sadly, the fact that riots are taking place are indicative of a bigger social problem. We have an excess supply of people who are willing to work, but can not find gainful work. We have draconian laws (especially in regard to recreational substances) whose net effect is to disenfranchise large segments of the population, to warehouse them where they can't compete for jobs against a blissfully unaware but shrinking middle class, and to function as a tool to keep the lower economic classes in check.
If we look at the people in places like inner-city Baltimore, we see poor people who have poor educations, who will not be able to qualify for the jobs of tomorrow. They are frustrated, and do not have the ability to articulate their complaints against the larger society. Strangely enough, Fox had a reporter on the ground, interviewing one of the locals in front of the police, while MSNBC only had talking heads in the studio. But the message was clear, no matter which side of the political aisle you were on - the people in inner-city Baltimore are tired of living in conditions of little hope.
Watching the Fox interview of the unnamed Baltimore local, I noticed that the local mentioned that he just got out of prison on a trumped up drug charge, where the policeman planted the evidence that was used to convict him. In the past, I'd be inclined to think that this would be someone lying to save face. However, with these incidents (and others) on file, I'm not so certain we can put the word of the police above the average citizen any more:
Can we assume that the police are telling the truth? Not anymore. Yet, I believe that most of the police are getting a bad reputation from these "bad eggs", and from policies meant to detect crimes, even when no crimes have been committed.
Let's assume that this unnamed Baltimore local's statement is true. Then this is the tip of a very nasty iceberg. The people we've entrusted the duty to protect us have become part of the problem. In an article on where Baltimore's police went wrong, the author notes that dealing drugs is the only "industry" left in the inner city - and that our current drug laws are creating a police force that no longer polices neighborhoods to keep them safe, but instead, becomes a tool used to keep the poor and disenfranchised in line, and afraid to challenge the corrupt status quo.
Most policemen starting out are good people who are put under a lot of stress every day. However, our elected leaders set policies that often demand that the police meet quotas to show that crime is being reduced - and our police oblige them, out of fear that they will become victims of politics. Instead of being the trusted members of the community that one could count on to find out who is committing crimes, they become the distrusted outsiders responsible for keeping a sector of society out of public sight.
The big question is - how long will it be before the lower classes in American society rebel, as the French did in their 1784 revolution? I have no idea, but I hope that we can humanely fix the problem with the disenfranchised poor before they find a way to create a successful revolution of their own....
One thing common to both illegal immigration and illegal drugs is that our total lack of realistic governmental policies has resulted in the growth of criminal activity along our border by gangs who would have otherwise remained petty thieves.
Drug smugglers, having perfected the art of transporting illegal substances across our border, are nor transporting people across the border. "Coyotes", having perfected the art of smuggling people across the border are now taking on higher profit drug shipments. In short, our demand for both illegal immigrant labor and illegal recreational substances has again created a rich "Mafia", not unlike what happened during Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920's.
The very people who gain most from our porous borders are not the illegal immigrants who simply want to feed their families and are not the people who consume the recreational substances imported by the smugglers. Instead, the criminal gangs, businessmen (of dubious ethics), and government bureaucrats (on both sides of the border) are the people who gain most from the porous border. According to the Daily Mail, it costs from $4,000-$10,000 to move one illegal immigrant to the USA. It is no coincidence we hear meaningless drivel coming out our political leaders saying that the voice of the people is wrong. They claim that Arizona is racist. But if it is, why are 30+ percent of Hispanics living in that state supporting a law which puts them at greatest risk of being profiled and hassled by the law? Yes, one can make the racism argument based on the percentage of Whites supporting this law. Yet, when the law has significant support among minorities, it means something else is at play - and must be understood.
As I am more familiar with the costs of educating a child, I'll use some slightly dated statistics to illustrate my points. Let's say that it costs $10k to educate a child in a high cost state such as New York. Special education (ESOL - English for speakers of other languages, Handicapped education, etc.) may double that price for affected students. What happens to a state that is burdened with educating large numbers of illegal immigrant children? Well, a rough breakdown for educational funding is - Local Government: 45%, State Government: 45% and Federal Government: 10%. In the mainstream class in which I student taught, 25% of the class required ESOL assistance. That's a lot more than 10% of the costs for the 20 kids in the class. Is the Federal government properly compensating the school systems for the added burden of educating these children? No!!! So who gets suck with the bill? The state and local tax payer. Is this fair? No!!!! The above noted situation is quite common in areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants - and the states are being crushed by the under funded mandates imposed by Uncle Sam....
But what should we do about this? The problem is not just illegal immigration, but it is a vicious circle of problems related to drug crime, people in need of jobs, and people on both sides of the border profiting from illegal trade. First, we must defang the drug cartels - legalize the controlled substances, tax them, and destroy the profit margin that makes it possible to ply their trades. Next, we need to slow down the rate of immigration of low skilled labor. I propose making Mexico a buffer zone, where these immigrants would be required to attend certified English language training schools before coming to the USA. All immigrants would be required to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon tongue before being allowed into the USA. But this would not be enough - they would have to bid for the right to come to the USA - market based visas. Instead of the money going to the Coyotes (and associated criminal enterprises), it would go to the US Government instead. And finally, all of this money gained from market based visas would need to be distributed to the states providing services for these immigrants.
Of course, there are political concerns. I'd want for the immigrants coming to the USA using these visas to be ineligible for US citizenship. They would have the protection of American law, but not affect American politics, as they could not vote. This would blunt the impact of immigration for at least one generation - probably enough to eliminate the fears from the states most affected by immigration.....
Please note that this is only an incomplete starting point for a thought experiment. We need better solutions than we have now, and our government is ill equipped to provide them without meaningful public participation in political debates.
