August 24, 2015--Hillary's Sort of Sister Souljah Moment

After they disrupted her town hall meeting in Keene, NH, earlier this month, Hillary Clinton agreed to meet privately with representatives of Black Lives Matter, the activist organization that emerged in 2012 in response to Trayvon Martin being shot to death by George Zimmerman.

It has gained additional public attention more recently as the result of a series of killings of young black men by white policemen. Black activist members of BLM have been active on the presidential campaign trial, disrupting meetings of candidates of both parties, though mainly Democrats.

The private meeting occurred August 11th and a tape of it was released last week. It showed a very different picture of Hillary Clinton than the one seen on the campaign trail.

Rather than the cautious, heavily scripted, disciplined, insulated Hillary, who would rarely deviate from her notes and talking points or plunge into the crowd, it showed, in the words of the New York Times report, a "spontaneous, impassioned" Hillary, seemingly "unconcerned about potential repercussions."

Considering how essential the black vote is to her candidacy, she gave as good as she got in her encounter. If the media could for one moment have stopped the obsession with Donald TRUMP (which I confess to share) it could have been her Sister Souljah Moment.

That Moment occurred back in 1992 during the presidential campaign when Bill Clinton embraced and even bigger risk when he took on racist comments by Souljah, a popular hip-hop artist and black activist.

Among other things she said, "If there are any good white people, I haven't met them."

Clinton shot back, at great political risk, "If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and you reversed them, you might think [Ku Klux Klanner] David Duke was giving that speech."

Some feel this rare example of courage won the election for Clinton.

At her meeting with the Black Lives Matters group, Hillary Clinton was criticized for her "culpability" in supporting her husband's criminal justice polices that, they claimed, were responsible for the incarceration of disproportionate numbers of black men.

She listened for more than five minutes, nodding as they confronted her for not doing enough to oppose racism and federal polices that contribute ultimately to the killing of innocent black people.

From the heart, she challenged them in return, saying, "You can get lip service from as many white people you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are going to say,'We get it, we get it. We are gong to be nicer.' That's not enough in my book."

Further, she pressed them to move beyond rhetoric to action, citing her own work decades ago with the Children's Defense Fund. Unless young people become directly engaged in efforts that actually make a difference, she told them, if making speeches and demonstration is all that happen, "We'll be back here in 10 years having the same conversation."

That unscripted Hillary could be elected if nominated.

December 8, 2014--A Conversation About Race

Every time there is an outrageous example of how the justice system in America works differently for white people and people of color, political leaders, the press and clergy say that we have to have a serious, dispassionate national conversation about race so that we can at long last overcome our still fraught racial history.

This call was raised after the OJ Simpson trial when it was obvious that whites and blacks experience the justice system almost as polar opposites--the vast majority of caucasians saw him to be guilty of homicide while blacks in overwhelming numbers cheered the jury verdict.

For a week or two after the verdict a version of that national conversation occurred; but here we are again, nearly 20 years later, with two grand juries--one in Ferguson MO, another on Staten Island--failing to indicate two white police officers who killed unarmed black men. Again there are street demonstrations, 24/7 media coverage, and renewed calls for that discourse about race.

But before we can even get started talking across the racial divide, people are criticizing New York City mayor Bill de Blasio (who has a biracial son and daughter) and Barack Obama (who is obviously African American) either, as in the case of the former, for "throwing the police under the bus" (as ludicrously claimed by the president of the NYC patrolman's union) or, as in Obama's case, for not speaking out passionately or personally enough.

The Washington Post over the weekend wrote explicitly about this--"N.Y. Mayor Bill de Blasio Spoke Bluntly On Race, Policing in Ways Harder for Obama."

Yes, the mayor spoke bluntly--actually he was more compassionate than blunt--praising the vast majority of police officers who protect citizens black and white while calling for the need to retrain them in the appropriate use of force and then "spoke from the heart" as a father of a dark-skinned son who sports a huge Afro while Obama spoke more professorially, less as a black man and father of two daughters.

Obama may have tempered his remarks out of concern that they might interfere with his Department of Justice's investigations of both cases, exploring whether or not the victims' civil rights were violated though they will be difficult to press since the DJ would have to prove intent. He may have wanted to avoid the legal storm that arose after Trayvon Martin was killed when he, with emotion and truth, said Trayvon "could have been me."

Yes, any President needs to tread carefully when talking about on-going criminal investigations, but surely there must be ways, there must be appropriate words for our first African-Ameircan president to speak publicly about race in less than his usual dispassionate way. For him, if you will, to testify about what it is like, what it feels like to be a black man in America and the father of teenage children who must worry when his children are out and about, even with Secret Service protection. And how he must have residual fears about his own safety when in public. Fears exacerbated by the fact of his skin color.

I understand that during his first term, for political reasons alone, he did not want to come off sounding like a "black president." He was and is the president of all the people, even those who disagree with and even despise him. Further, considering the underlying racism so pervasive in America, he did not want to give bigoted whites the excuse to have their views confirmed that he is the proverbial boogie man (epithet intended)--a militant Angry Black Man.

But now, with the last midterm elections over (and lost) what continues to hold him back from truly speaking his mind and leading the long-overdo conversation? He has nothing significant to lose. Now more than ever we need his perspective and passion.

July 29, 2013--Midcoast: Self Defense

Perhaps not since the 1995 O. J. Simpson trial has there been anything equivalent to expose the racal fault lines that still separate us. When George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin, blacks and whites reacted in almost as divided a way as when Simpson was set free.

We attempted to have a conversation about this the other morning over coffee at the Bristol Diner.

Though all of us squeezed into the booth were white, Rona and I had a very different take on the outcome of the trial than our more conservative friends and so a version of that same divide opened across the table.

"There's more to what you're saying happened," Bob said to Rona.

"Well, since Trayvon Martin is dead and there were no eye witnesses," she said, "we'll never know what really happened."

"I suppose that's true," Henry said, "but one thing we do know is he was up to no good."

"Which he are you talking about?" I asked, knowing the answer, "Trayvon or Zimmerman?"

"Maybe we should change the subject," Bob suggested.

This often happens here. Most times when we are edging toward a subject that is certain to elicit heated ideological or political differences, someone artfully changes the subject. In small towns such as Bristol, everyone pretty much depends on everyone else and so there is tacit agreement to stay away from divisive subjects that will likely lead to ruptures in relations, relationships with people who plow your driveway in the winter, take your X-ray if you are brought to Miles Hospital's ER, or do your taxes.

But I decided to press on, seeing if we could talk civilly about a hot-button subject without risking our friendship.

"Maybe let's try to put aside the details of this case and talk about the legal issues involved. I know this is hard to do," Henry was nodding vigorously, but smiling. "As I understand it Zimmerman's defense did not depend upon Florida's stand-your-ground law."

"I thought we weren't going to talk about the details of this case," Bob winked, reminding me.

"I promise not to," I said. "I'm just trying to narrow the discussion to the issue of traditionally-defined self-defense. You know, when your life is being threatened, how you determine it is, and when you feel it is legally permissible for you to use force, including deadly force."

"Again," Rona jumped in, "we're not talking about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin but about, say, a theoretical situation."

"Well," Henry was quick to interject, "there you go again talking about that case."

"You're right," Rona said, "I shouldn't have. All I wanted to do was say we're not talking about them but then there I was doing just that." Bob and Henry smiled broadly at her. There is a lot of friendship between us.

"Let me try out a few situations to see if we can agree about a couple of things." Everyone seemed OK with that and I continued, "So, you're walking down the street and someone you don't know approaches you and starts cursing you out. Using the N-word if your black or calls you a 'Kike' if you're a Jew or . . ."

"Or," Bob said, "calls you a 'Mick' if you're Irish like me or . . ."

"Or," Henry added, "a 'Frog' if you're French like my people."

"Right," I said. "You get angry, understandably and maybe even feel threatened. What are you supposed to do? Ignore the person? Walk on? Punch him in the face? Take out a weapon if you're carrying one? Use it?"

"I believe in the First Amendment. Free speech," Bob said, "and sticks-and-bones."

"Even if you're getting called the worst names in the book and the guy is looking real threatening?"

"I think, if we're speaking legally," Bob said, "and maybe moving into a discussion about self-defense, you're supposed to try to back off or break off a situation like this before you're legitimately allowed to use various kinds of force."

"Like punchin' 'em in the face?" Henry said.

"That's what I understand," Bob said. "You're not supposed to haul off on someone or, more, stab or shoot him for your just getting verbally abused."

"I think you're supposed to behave in a proportionate way," I said, feeling good about the way we were conducting ourselves. "But let's go to the next step and say the guy who confronts you on the street moves quickly from cursing you to jumping on you."

"Like what happened in Florida," Henry said.

"I thought we're trying not to talk about what happened there."

"You're right," Henry said, "I'm sorry. Please proceed."

"OK," I continued, "say he takes a swing at you or pushes you in the chest? What are you legally allowed to do in that circumstance?"

"If you hit 'em back," Bob said, "I'm sure no court in the land would convict you of anything. That's a clear case of self-defense."

"I'm not sure about that," Henry said with equal assurance. "There are all these cases where the guy who's attacked gets in more trouble than the person who does the attacking. Like in those liberal courts where the person who's the victim--depending on his color--is the one who winds up in trouble and the perpetrator gets off scot-free."

"I don't know if that's true," Rona said. "To convince me you'll have to give me some examples."

"Didn't an opposite version of this just happen in Florida?" I caught myself and apologized for breaking my own rule not to talk directly about that case. But still continued, "Meaning the black youngster is the one who wound up dead and the white guy, Zimmerman, got off?"

"If I have this right," Henry said, ignoring me, "I think whatever the response, it is supposed to be like you said, proportionate. Which to me means that if you get cursed, you can curse back. If you get shoved, you can shove back."

"There's a long tradition of that in the law that goes way back to Roman times," I said. I had been doing a little reading on the subject. "What you do to protect yourself also needs to be reasonable. The problem, obviously, if it comes to this, if you wind up in a courtroom, there are a lot of interpretations about what 'reasonable' means."

"And 'proportionate,'" Rona added, "And I think it gets more complicated if there's a robbery going on in your house, even if the robber is unarmed and attempting to run away. When it's clear he's no longer directly threatening you. I believe it's generally all right with the the courts to shoot the burglar even if he's fleeing."

"I think you're right," I said, "According to the law in most places running away from robbing a house means you're still engaged in the crime."

"I can't help myself," Henry said, all excited, "But I have to talk about the case we're not supposed to talk about."

"OK," I said.

"So let's say--as I'm sure you'd say--that the kid was walking along just minding his own business when Zimmerman approached him and maybe asked him what he was doing, or whatever."

"That's what I think most likely happened," I nodded.

"Then, from Zimmerman's injuries, it appears that maybe the kid jumped him or at the least knocked him down."

"Could be," I conceded.

"So what was the other guy supposed to do? Just lay there and take it?"

"No," Rona said, "to claim self-defense he was supposed to do something proportionate and reasonable. Isn't that what you were just saying?"

"Yes, I was," Henry said. "But how do you determine what's proportionate and reasonable if you've been knocked down to the sidewalk and someone is on top of you, banging your head on the cement?"

"And, to make matters worse," Bob said, "you have to think about this in real time, in the heat of the moment. I'll bet in this situation even you'd feel your life was being be threatened. No?"

"Could be," I again conceded.

"Let me make it more complicated," Rona said. "Since we're talking again about Zimmerman, if there is a stand-your-ground law in Florida . . ."

"There is," Bob said, cutting her off.

"If Trayvon Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman--as he surely could have been, being followed and confronted by Zimmerman--if Trayvon had been armed, citing stand-your-ground, what would have happened if, to defend himself, he had shot George Zimmerman? I think it's a bad and dangerous law, but it's on the books, so what would have happened to Trayvon if he had done that? Shot him?  Do you think he would have gotten away with it? Meaning, we're back to black-white issues."

"I have to admit it's all pretty complicated," Bob acknowledged while Henry nodded in agreement. "Why don't we have another cup of coffee? And let me buy you a donut."