How Racist Is America?

 David Brooks asks “How Racist Is America?” (Editorial, July 23):

He begins his answer by accurately describing the historical and continuing barriers to economic and cultural advancement faced by Black and Native Americans. Then he clouds the issue by describing the success immigrant groups have had in moving up the economic and social ladders of American society. He compounds the confusion by broadly defining “people of color”. While he may be technically correct, the simple fact, as Mr. Brooks seems to acknowledge in other parts of his essay, is that persons who are visibly identifiable as Black, whether native or immigrant, continue to face discrimination in the broader society.
The more Black a person appears to be, the more likely she is to face heightened barriers spawned by racial prejudice. That prejudice is baked into the structure of American life and is, thus, systemic. Yes, the concept of “color” is a complex one, made more so by disparities in self-identification. And yes, the growing phenomena of interracial marriage may change the future. But for now, despite the fact that America may continue to be a land of opportunity for an astounding diversity of groups from around the world, it remains a land of white privilege that stamps it as a white supremacist nation.

New Racism Won't Fix Old Racism

 

Put aside, for the moment, the notion that basic fairness may require some table-tipping to offset centuries of disadvantage driven by racial animosity. When Chief Justice John Roberts uttered his infamous truism, that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”, he was, in the best light, guilty of gross naïveté.
States dominated by white legislators who put retention of power above preservation of democracy, will not stop discriminating as demonstrated by their continuing passage of laws limiting the voting rights of non-whites and reshaping voting districts for political (racial) advantage.
Since the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and declined to prevent partisan gerrymandering, the only remedy must come from Congress. And we all know that Congress, as currently constituted and as likely to continue being constituted, will provide no legislative relief. So, Mr. Stephens, if raising public awareness of racism and the role it plays in our society is a form of new racism that won’t fix the old racism, what do you see as the solution?

Biden Narrows Plan To Rebuild Infrastructure

 

In his vain attempt to achieve "bipartisanship" on infrastructure legislation, President Biden is violating a cardinal principle of effective bargaining; don't negotiate against yourself. By repeatedly reducing the scope of his plan to revitalize and rebuild the nation, without any meaningful concessions from Republicans, Mr. Biden is likely to jeopardize the success of his initiatives and further embolden Republican obstructionism. The end result is foreseeable. Should the president get any legislation at all it is likely to be a watered down version which fails adequately to advance the goals of the program or rekindle  a scintilla of bipartisanship.

Philip Morris Ad

 Philip Morris International, having knowingly created and promoted, for many decades, products that caused unimaginable suffering and premature death, now poses as the champion of a smoke-free future. In a full-page ad in the NYTimes (5/11), the company’s CEO ballyhoos its move to replace cigarettes with “better alternatives”.

First, cigarettes should not be any kind of alternative; they are deadly poisons that should be banned (and no longer be produced) just as other carcinogenic products have been banned. And the proposed smoke-free alternatives the company hails (presumably e-cigarettes or “vapes”) have been found to pose their own health risks, especially for young persons.
So, if Philip Morris really wants to perform a life-saving public service it should immediately stop producing cigarettes, shelve its smoke-free alternatives and further develop its other lines of business.

Pot Use Made Anti-Semitic Killer Unfit to Stand Trial

 The ruling by the highest court in France, that the brutal killer of an older woman, because he identified her as Jewish, may not be tried and held accountable  by reason of impairment of his judgment by chronic use of pot, is both wrong-headed and dangerous. The court found that French law does not allow a person to be held criminally responsible if, at the time of the crime , he was suffering from a neuropsychic disturbance that deprived him of control over his actions. The court relied on the fact that the law, as written, does not distinguish between a condition occurring naturally or one that is voluntary, as in the present case where the perpetrator’s voluntary use of drugs induced a delirious state. If the court is correct the law must be changed.

The law in the United States varies from state to state. In most jurisdictions voluntary intoxication, by drug or alcohol use, is not a complete defense to criminal prosecution. It may result in a reduced charge which doesn’t require specific intent, such as a charge of manslaughter instead of premeditated murder. Allowing a killer to avoid responsibility entirely, if he chooses to get “high” before engaging in murderous acts, is a recipe for disaster. You can’t confine him once he is sober so he walks away without punishment or constraint on future acts of violence.
Yes, fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

Backlash Against NYPD Use of Robotic Dog

 The negative  reaction to the use , by the N.Y.P.D., of a robotic dog in standoff encounters with potentially armed persons is misplaced and mainly mistaken. While there is a valid concern for possible invasions of civil liberties and a reasonable argument that the money spent on such devices might be better used for other needs, the use of these robots can help address the epidemic of police shootings of unarmed Black persons.

Properly regulated to insure compliance with the civil liberties of citizens and avoidance of discriminatory use, such devices can be used to defuse dangerous situations with a lowered risk of deadly force. For example, the police may gain assurance that a self-barricaded person is not armed and, therefore, may be apprehended without the use of deadly weaponry.
Though the use of these robots may be useful in very limited circumstances and will hardly remedy the distressing increase in police shootings, every life saved is sacred.

America Has a Ruling Class

 

 Samuel Goldman, in his column, argues that persons of privilege and power often masquerade as common folk and disrupters of the status quo because that allows them to distance themselves from the consequences of their decisions. Another reason, he postulates,  is their discomfit with the dominant positions they achieved given their rebellious youth. While these proclamations may be accurate they miss the greater myth perpetrated by the powerful, that they have the interests of the common man at heart.

Somehow, the Republican party, which for generations has promoted and protected the concerns of the wealthy and privileged, corporate and individual, has managed to persuade the working class (or at least a large segment thereof) that it is their champion. This bewildering achievement has been gained by, among other things, not so veiled appeals to racial and religious bigotry, fracturing the working class.

While the Democratic party has its own exemplars of intolerance and power-hungering politicos, it has, in many respects, advanced programs benefitting the less privileged. Still, today a substantial percent of the Hoi Polli regard Democrats as elitist and out of touch their concerns around religion, guns and right to life. Now these masses march behind Republican banners and identify with the most regressive elements of that party and with outsiders whose vision for America is even more invidious

The successful impersonation of Every Man by the privileged class will be the ultimate undoing of our civilization.