Democrat Paul Penzone unseats Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio | Cronkite News

Democrat Paul Penzone unseats Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio | Cronkite News: After holding the position of Maricopa County Sheriff for more than two decades, Joe Arpaio has lost his seat to Democrat Paul Penzone.

Election 2016: The Bigger Picture

So Donald John Trump will be the next President of the United States.  What does this mean for the country?

The truth is that we won't really know until after he takes office.  But the more important question is this:

How did we get here? 

There is a traceable line of cause and effect that goes back at the very least 50 years or so.  It really goes back long before that, but for the purpose of this writing, 50 years is sufficient as a starting point.

What happened then that led to this?  And how did it lead to our current condition?

The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education was perhaps the starting point, but it wasn't the cause of today's difficulty.  No, the cause was the reaction to that decision. 

A program of massive resistance was begun in Virginia by political movers and shakers.  This led directly to the creation of "segregation academies".  And the concept spread throughout the country.  Not only in the realm of education, but also in businesses.

This program was designed specifically to circumvent the Brown decision, and to continue the segregation of every institution in the nation, both public and private, including commercial enterprises.  And the program expanded on Jim Crow laws as well as northern de facto segregation most if not all of the other states that make up what we call America.

Segregation academies are still around, and educational segregation is growing via charter schools, though it must be noted that not all charter schools are segregation academies.  Segregation in education, especially in charter and religion-based schools, is not only racial.  It is also based on disability, gender identity/sexual orientation, and economic status.  There are, of course, variations between and within these types of schools, based largely on the ruling principles each school and type of school is founded upon.

Academic achievement has gradually decreased in many, if not most, parts of the country, based largely on the same factors endemic to segregation, although certain segments of the population have shown marked improvement.  Black women, for example, are the fastest growing group of college graduates.  And the lowest scholastic achievers are mostly in the southern states.

Added to all of this is something the establishments of both the Democratic and Republican Parties failed to take note of.  That factor is the rapidly growing dissatisfaction of the people in all parts of the country with the status quo.  People are sick and tired of empty promises and eager for real progress rather than going backwards.  And that includes the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor as well as the perception that our so-called leaders are bought and paid for by the corporate elite.

As a result, more, many more, people in America are ready for a change in leadership.  The two major parties put forth the most disliked candidates for President in our nation's history.  And only one of them was not part of the political establishment that people are tired of.  Too many people saw this election as a choice of the lesser evil, which candidate would do the least damage.
  
But the problem is even deeper.  The Democratic National Convention, through the state conventions, chose a candidate who was not only viewed as deeply flawed, but also shown in every major poll to be incapable of beating most of the Republican candidates, and might... MIGHT... beat Donald Trump.  That turned out, obviously, to not be the case.  The candidate whom polls showed could easily beat Trump was turned away. 

Setting aside the belief by many, including me, that Bernie Sanders was cheated out of the nomination, the fact is that he could have and probably would have beaten Trump, while Hillary Clinton stood a very slim chance of doing so.  As can be easily seen in hindsight, the polls didn't lie.

The Democratic establishment has only itself to blame for this mess.

© 2016 by Don Rice Jr.

The Lesser Evil

Many people have said that we MUST vote for Hillary, or... Trump!  On the other side, people have said we should vote for Trump because... Hillary!

For myself, it's a matter of every election in recent history being billed as a choice between the lesser of two evils. I've reached the point where that is no longer acceptable as a reason to vote for a particular candidate.

The old saying goes, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." While that is true, it doesn't even begin to cover the extent of the issue when it comes to voting for President or any other office.

At issue is the continued validity, or lack thereof, of the two-party system. Both major parties have proven to be corrupt and eminently corruptible. Yet we are told that we must vote for one or the other, or the Armageddon will come.  Either the end of the world predicted by evangelicals of all persuasions, or the end of America as we know it, or some other end of something or other.

I flatly reject that viewpoint. With both major parties being undesirable and the electoral system needing to change, the only rational option is to vote for a third party candidate. At the same time, we need to educate people on how to change the system into a multi-party one that does not act merely as a spoiler.

Otherwise, we will continue our long slide into oligarchy or theocracy. That would truly be the end of this grand experiment we call the United States of America.

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Are you ready for it?

Occupy Wall Street, protesting corruption, the buying off of our political system, and the massive redistribution of wealth from the workers who made wealth possible to the super-wealthy, the big banks, stockbrokers and CEO's.

Arab Spring, the protest expressing deep-seated resentment toward Arab dictatorships, anger at the brutality of the security apparatus, unemployment, rising prices, and corruption that followed the privatization of state assets in some countries.

Black Lives Matter, a response to the racism that is endemic in many aspects of our society, but most especially to the fact that police brutality affects black people more than any other ethnic group in America.

Tiananmen Square, the 1989 protests in China against inflation, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation.

What do these have in common? At their heart, they are all a coming together of mostly young people who have decided that it's time for  change toward real progress in human societal evolution.  And the struggle continues. 

The United Kingdom just voted to leave the European Union.

And here in the United States, a huge majority of Republican primary voters has chosen Donald Trump as their presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States.  And on the Democratic side, 45% of primary votes counted so far have been for Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist whose stands on issues are reminiscent of the liberal policies of the Democratic Party of decades past while the present Party is run by corporatists masquerading as liberals, what have been called Neoliberals and New Democrats.

But that's not all.  Many, many voters were disenfranchised as the Democratic Party adopted and adjusted Republican/Conservative/Tea Party tactics to prevent Sanders supporters from voting.  There are official inquiries and even lawsuits about election fraud springing up, as the Media, allegedly in cahoots with the Democratic National Committee, downplayed at almost every turn the progress being made by the Sanders campaign, which began at a serious disadvantage and pulled within a few points of the Establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton, before the primaries were over, taking 22 states and, when all of the mail-in and provisional ballots are finally counted, perhaps more.  

What does it all mean?  Consider that a majority of Republicans chose an anti-candidate, one who is neither respected nor wanted by the Party elites.  And nearly half of the Democratic voters chose a candidate who has eschewed Party membership while harkening back to a truly liberal and progressive stance that the Party's top echelons have apparently forgotten.  Then consider that this accounts for roughly half of the membership of of both Parties who voted in their respective primaries.  Add to that that about 40% of registered voters in the United States are either independent or support a third party. 

This speaks to that same dissatisfaction that led to the four groups mentioned at the beginning of this  More and more people are openly coming out against business as usual and want to see real progress in human affairs. 

As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks Network just said tonight, "Buckle up.  Here comes the revolution."

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Hillary Clinton's Rape Case

Everyone who knows me and/or follows me, in real life or on social media, knows that I do not like or trust what I see and hear of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the "presumptive" nominee for the Democratic run for the Presidency of the United States.  However, in an effort to be as impartial as possible, allow me to present my analysis of one particular aspect of why I don't trust her.

There is a meme running around the Internet about a rape case she handled as a young attorney on Arkansas:

While the meme grossly misrepresents the facts of the case, what stands out in my awareness is that Hillary laughed about lie detector test:

"I had him take a polygraph, which he passed,
which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

She also laughed about saying to prosecutor,
"Well, this guy's (a well-known and highly respected forensics expert) ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice."

Here is the report from CNN that includes those excerpts:

What happened in Hillary Clinton's 1975 rape case?

These facts, all by themselves, show clearly what she thought about the case.  She clearly thought the man was guilty.  Did she know he was guilty?  We may never know the answer to that question; it's not one she is ever likely to answer.  But it's clear that she believed he was.  He passed the polygraph, and that destroyed her faith in the test.

In Clinton's defense, she was appointed as the man's lawyer.  That made her responsible for defending him to the best of her ability.  She did that, admirably, within the system as it was at the time.  She didn't get the guy of completely, but plea bargained the case down so that, instead of being sent to prison for life, he spent a year in the county jail for "fondling".

It must also be acknowledged that the prosecution massively bungled their side of the case.  They lost the actual evidence, the piece of the underwear with the blood and semen stains, and offered Clinton the remainder of the garment as what they had for evidence. 

Apparently they also failed to bring forth the witness statement that the man got on top of the girl and a short time later pulled up his pants. 

So what it comes down to is that Hillary's supporters are going to
 ignore her own clearly demonstrated attitude toward this case.  But her detractors err in the opposite direction, failing or refusing to acknowldge that she had a job she was required by law to do, defend the accused to the best of her ability, and she did that job quite thoroughly.  She can't be faulted for that, because if it ever came out that she didn't offer up her best defense, she could have been disbarred, meaning she would not be permitted to practice law again in Arkansas and perhaps in other places as well.

The CNN report on this issue closes by noting that, according to Clinton, the case inspired her to start the first rape hotline in Arkansas.  Was this a political calculation, as some might say?  I doubt it.  She was a new lawyer just getting started at 27 years old.  I don't believe political calculation applied at all at that time in her life.  But again, I don't think we'll ever really know for sure.

It should be noted, however, that she declined to address the question of her smearing of the rape victim when specifically asked about it.  One can only speculate about that while understanding that this was accepted practice across the country in those days.  It's much less common now due to "shield laws", but it still happens, in court and out.  It's called "blaming the victim", it's a despicable practice that needs to end, and Hillary Clinton engaged in it as a defense attorney.

Here is the clip, again from CNN.  Note how the anchors mention that aspect but don't pursue it at all, concluding that Clinton gave a well-thought-out answer:

Clinton stands by defense of child rapist in the 1970s

In conclusion, while she may have done the legally correct thing in this case, it was not the *right* thing.  Yes, she got her client a reduced charge and a greatly reduced sentence resulting from that reduced charge.  Her methods, while perfectly legal, were counter to the concept of seeking the truth in the matter.  When questioned, she deflects blame and responsibility from herself.  This is not someone I would want to trust in the highest office in the land.

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Good cops and bad cops

Yesterday the news broke that the second police officer brought to trial in Baltimore, Edward Nero, was found not guilty in the death of Freddy Gray, a black man arrested for possession of a spring-assisted knife.  Such knives are legal by Maryland state law, but Baltimore has it's own law making them illegal.  The first officer brought to trial, Caesar Goodson Jr., had a deadlocked jury and will apparently be re-tried in September.  Four more officers may or may not be taken to trial.

One might ask, "Why did Gray die in police custody?"  It's a valid question.  But it's not the purpose of this blog post.  The arrest was legitimate; the death was not.  Nor is it the purpose of this post to blame the victims, as far too many people are all too willing to do.  Sure, some of those people had criminal records.  But some had no record, yet were still killed.  Cleveland's Tamir Rice, not even a man but a 12-year-old child, comes to mind.  

With Tamir Rice in mind, one might also ask what a cop is supposed to do when someone aims a gun at them.  It's been said that a cop sometimes only has a split second to decide if they are actually in danger.  But this is a result of training, or rather, a lack of appropriate training.  For example, in many European countries, police are trained to de-escalate and disarm, only firing their weapons when absolutely necessary.  And they're trained to be able to tell when it's necessary.  There's no reason we can't train our police officers the same way here in  the U.S.  None whatsoever.

Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention knows that Gray is not the only black man to die at the hands of police.  Nor is he the only black person, as several women have also died in police custody or by other police action.  Sandra Bland comes to mind immediately, but she's not the only one.     

No, the purpose of this post is to examine the larger picture of the phenomena of black deaths by police involvement.  And that larger picture is the reason for movements such as Black Lives Matter and Black Matters.

There is a major discrepancy, that has been demonstrated multiple times, between the treatment of minorities, especially black people, and whites.  Deny it if you will, but consider that black folks are killed for sometimes petty crimes, or no crime at  all, while the racist murderer of black people in a South Carolina church is led away smiling by police.  You know that if it had been a white church and the gunman was black, he would most likely have been dead, quite possibly after being taken into custody.

How many times have you read or heard a news report talking about arrest records of the black people who have been killed by cops?  Like Freddy Gray, that list is extensive.  But what the media generally doesn't tell us is that Freddy Gray's arrest record is not a valid measure.  What is valid is his conviction record.  Most of those arrests did not lead to convictions.  Furthermore, not one of them, arrests or convictions, was for a capital offense anywhere in this country.  Yet Freddy Gray is dead, as are a large number of other black men and women, at the hands or in the custody of police, and without one capital offense among them.

Are we a nation of laws and justice?  Or are we a nation of bigotry and revenge for all and sundry?

Many times I hear or read that the cops who do these things are a small percentage of the total.  This is probably true.  And there are the occasional stories of cops doing good things, like helping poor people desperate for a meal or facing eviction.  But where are the stories about cops crossing that "thin blue line"?  Where are the stories of cops standing up against their fellow officers who are not good cops?  Where are the Frank Serpico's willing to put their lives on the line to see justice being done, when the justice is against another cop?

Frank Serpico was and is a hero.  We need more of them.  And we need to see more of them.

Namaste',
Don Rice Jr.

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Which way to go?

History informs us that when a nation or ideal or mass movement begins a downhill slide, it reach a point where it has to bottom out before the people rise up to change it.  This basic premise has been repeated over and over.  The Roman Empire had to reach it's nadir before the Renaissance could begin, for example.  The British Empire had to reach the height of arrogance and abusiveness before the colonies would rise up against it, beginning with the American Revolution. 

Each of those falls took a couple hundred years to fully materialize. The much more recent Filipino "peaceful revolution" that derailed the corrupt regime of President Ferdinand Marcos was something of an anomaly in that it took place, not after centuries, but a couple decades. But now we're in the Information Age, fueled by the Internet and the global economy.  Awareness of events in one part of the world moves quickly to nearly every corner of the Earth.  People everywhere can now see what's happening almost as it occurs. 

And here in the USA, the Industrial Age gave way to the Information Age, not by natural progression, but by political manipulation that saw our manufacturing base moved to other countries as part of a power agenda to break trade unions and dumb down education so that the people would not be aware en masse that they were being shafted by the very people who employed them as well as the ones who were supposed to represent them in the halls of government.

With the rapid movement of knowledge of events now taking place, peaceful revolution becomes more possible in some places.  And with more and more people awakening to progressive possibilities, we might yet avoid the long rebuilding that occurs after mass violent rebellions.  Much depends on how many people wake up and participate in the peaceful revolution, and what positions they assume during the rebuilding. 

But one thing seems inevitable.  That is that before this peaceful revolution can be successful, more people must be forced to accept that change is not only necessary, but inevitable.  The means of that force could very well need to be, here in America, the election of a right-wing megalomaniac such a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.  It's a frightening, unpalatable concept, I know; but it may and probably will have the effect of convincing people that we must come together in order to create the change necessary to the furtherance of our nation toward the uplifting of human existence instead of the seeking after power and wealth for it's own sake or for our own selfish satisfaction.

Should such a person become President, it is likely that it will be for only one term, or less, should the person be impeached.  And the people will be the force behind that change, as they see the need to progress rather than regress.  

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.