I think that's a big part of why he lost it. Some are asking why he would try to defend a crime bill he had already apologized for and admit made things worse in important ways?
To me you have to cut the guy a little slack. It was the heat of the moment. The Black Lives Matters protesters were hyperbolically calling him a war criminal and insulting his wife.
One characteristic of Bill since the 90s is he hates criticism of his wife-a trait that is admirable. Even Jim Clyburn cuts him slack for their 2008 confrontation reasoning that he was 'protecting his spouse.'
It must frustrate him that the BLM protesters cut him no slack despite his apologies. Evidently BLM doesn't believe in forgiveness and redemption. They have decided that the bill showed his true colors and nothing will change their mind.
They have decided that Hillary's use of the word 'superpredator' shows her true colors and nothing will change their mind.
But it's important to remember that BLM does not speak for all black folks-far from it. As a group, you could say that AAs have often been very forgiving: recall that they voted for George Wallace in the 70s.
The victims of Wallace's segregation could forgive him, but the BLM protesters can't forgive the Clintons.
The jury is out, though, on BLM as well. Many question their tactics and their excesses. They have a tendency to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric-like calling Bill a war criminal.
I think that BLM has been a force for good, but I do think they have this tendency to hyperbole that takes away their credibility. I also think they may be too anti police. While there is a real problem with police excessive force, some of the BLM activists sound like they think things would be fine if there were just no police in the neighborhood at all.
Some have accused BLM as focusing just on police violence to the exclusion of violent crime in black neighborhoods-I for my part stay away from calling it 'black on black' crime which only leads to less clarity. Most recently Ray Lewis went off on BLM for ignoring 'black on black crime'-again an unfortunate formulation that does more harm than good.
BLM's defenders say this is not at all so:
"What McWhorter misses is that this new generation does care about so-called “black-on-black crime,” though it refuses that misleading phrase. Many of the organizations currently lumped together under the banner of Black Lives Matter have as one of their platform goals an end to violence within the community—and not just gun violence among young black men, as “black-on-black crime” is often imagined, but also sexual violence, intimate-partner violence, and violence against trans and gender-nonconforming people. But, they do not, as McWhorter and others have, see the police, prisons, and the carceral state as part of the solution."
"This is what Black Youth Project 100, and several other organizations, were telling us when they were arrested for protesting Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to hire 300 more police officers and give $200 million to the police department. At the same convention where Comey delivered his remarks on the “Ferguson effect,” the organizers “bound [themselves] together by lock boxes while they shut down three intersections surrounding the IACP’s conference location at McCormick Place…and one organizer took down the American flag and replaced it with a flag titled, ‘Unapologetically Black,’”BYP100’s Facebook page describes, while wearing hoodies that said “Fund Black Futures.” “BYP100, allied-organizations, and community supporters conducted…direct actions at the IACP conference to demonstrate an urgency to divest from police departments and organizations and reallocate funds to programs and policies that keep Black communities safe,” the Facebook post continued. The fight to end police violence is not separate from that to end intra-racial violence, because they are direct results of the same system, and must be addressed through the same measures."
"But for those not satisfied with that sort of long-term investment in reducing violence, there are groups likeS.O.S. Crown Heights in New York City that do anti–gun violence work, through a number of different community-outreach programs, including violence intervention and teaching conflict mediation. They also help put communities in touch with mental-health services and assist in the search for jobs. And this is done without arrests, without prisons, without police, without the carceral state."
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-movement-against-police-violence-isnt-ignoring-black-on-black-crime/
But even this is kind of long term and idealistic. What about those who literally fear sending their children to school because of neighborhood violence? Can criminal activity always be stopped by 'conflict mediation?'
How do you mediate between gangs fighting over turf or drugs?
If your kid is threatened by a gang banger on the way to school do you want someone to 'conflict mediate'' between your child and a dangerous criminal or do you want someone who can execute the law and make an immediate arrest?
If someone wants to stab me, I don't want a mediation. Take this guy out. If you're more worried about hurting him than him hurting me, there's something wrong.
Overall, I'm glad that the country is going in a new direction in terms of criminal justice reform. Certainly you don't want people in prison over small, nonviolent offenses. But as far as violent crime, I don't think doing away with the police is the answer. I think it's unrealistic that you will ever be able to mediate all conflicts without an executive arm of the law.
I am happy, however, to see someone like BLM leader, Deray McKesson, running for Baltimore mayor or the victory of Kim Foxx over the infamous DA, Anita Alvarez in Chicago.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160316/little-village/activists-say-anita-alvarezs-defeat-is-first-step-more-equal-chicago
It's going to be interesting to see how these young folks from activist groups do when they themselves try the art of governing. They may find it's not as easy as it may look.
To me you have to cut the guy a little slack. It was the heat of the moment. The Black Lives Matters protesters were hyperbolically calling him a war criminal and insulting his wife.
One characteristic of Bill since the 90s is he hates criticism of his wife-a trait that is admirable. Even Jim Clyburn cuts him slack for their 2008 confrontation reasoning that he was 'protecting his spouse.'
It must frustrate him that the BLM protesters cut him no slack despite his apologies. Evidently BLM doesn't believe in forgiveness and redemption. They have decided that the bill showed his true colors and nothing will change their mind.
They have decided that Hillary's use of the word 'superpredator' shows her true colors and nothing will change their mind.
But it's important to remember that BLM does not speak for all black folks-far from it. As a group, you could say that AAs have often been very forgiving: recall that they voted for George Wallace in the 70s.
The victims of Wallace's segregation could forgive him, but the BLM protesters can't forgive the Clintons.
The jury is out, though, on BLM as well. Many question their tactics and their excesses. They have a tendency to engage in hyperbolic rhetoric-like calling Bill a war criminal.
I think that BLM has been a force for good, but I do think they have this tendency to hyperbole that takes away their credibility. I also think they may be too anti police. While there is a real problem with police excessive force, some of the BLM activists sound like they think things would be fine if there were just no police in the neighborhood at all.
Some have accused BLM as focusing just on police violence to the exclusion of violent crime in black neighborhoods-I for my part stay away from calling it 'black on black' crime which only leads to less clarity. Most recently Ray Lewis went off on BLM for ignoring 'black on black crime'-again an unfortunate formulation that does more harm than good.
BLM's defenders say this is not at all so:
"What McWhorter misses is that this new generation does care about so-called “black-on-black crime,” though it refuses that misleading phrase. Many of the organizations currently lumped together under the banner of Black Lives Matter have as one of their platform goals an end to violence within the community—and not just gun violence among young black men, as “black-on-black crime” is often imagined, but also sexual violence, intimate-partner violence, and violence against trans and gender-nonconforming people. But, they do not, as McWhorter and others have, see the police, prisons, and the carceral state as part of the solution."
"This is what Black Youth Project 100, and several other organizations, were telling us when they were arrested for protesting Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to hire 300 more police officers and give $200 million to the police department. At the same convention where Comey delivered his remarks on the “Ferguson effect,” the organizers “bound [themselves] together by lock boxes while they shut down three intersections surrounding the IACP’s conference location at McCormick Place…and one organizer took down the American flag and replaced it with a flag titled, ‘Unapologetically Black,’”BYP100’s Facebook page describes, while wearing hoodies that said “Fund Black Futures.” “BYP100, allied-organizations, and community supporters conducted…direct actions at the IACP conference to demonstrate an urgency to divest from police departments and organizations and reallocate funds to programs and policies that keep Black communities safe,” the Facebook post continued. The fight to end police violence is not separate from that to end intra-racial violence, because they are direct results of the same system, and must be addressed through the same measures."
"But for those not satisfied with that sort of long-term investment in reducing violence, there are groups likeS.O.S. Crown Heights in New York City that do anti–gun violence work, through a number of different community-outreach programs, including violence intervention and teaching conflict mediation. They also help put communities in touch with mental-health services and assist in the search for jobs. And this is done without arrests, without prisons, without police, without the carceral state."
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-movement-against-police-violence-isnt-ignoring-black-on-black-crime/
But even this is kind of long term and idealistic. What about those who literally fear sending their children to school because of neighborhood violence? Can criminal activity always be stopped by 'conflict mediation?'
How do you mediate between gangs fighting over turf or drugs?
If your kid is threatened by a gang banger on the way to school do you want someone to 'conflict mediate'' between your child and a dangerous criminal or do you want someone who can execute the law and make an immediate arrest?
If someone wants to stab me, I don't want a mediation. Take this guy out. If you're more worried about hurting him than him hurting me, there's something wrong.
Overall, I'm glad that the country is going in a new direction in terms of criminal justice reform. Certainly you don't want people in prison over small, nonviolent offenses. But as far as violent crime, I don't think doing away with the police is the answer. I think it's unrealistic that you will ever be able to mediate all conflicts without an executive arm of the law.
I am happy, however, to see someone like BLM leader, Deray McKesson, running for Baltimore mayor or the victory of Kim Foxx over the infamous DA, Anita Alvarez in Chicago.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160316/little-village/activists-say-anita-alvarezs-defeat-is-first-step-more-equal-chicago
It's going to be interesting to see how these young folks from activist groups do when they themselves try the art of governing. They may find it's not as easy as it may look.
No comments:
Post a Comment