Why 2016 Is The Year I Don’t Want To Remember, But Will Never Forget

In less than three hours, 2016 will be but a harsh memory and 2017 will begin.  What can I say about the year I don’t care to remember but will never forget?  In a nutshell, 2016 has been the year nothing made sense.  Prince is dead and Donald Trump, imp that he is, was elected to serve as the 45th President of the United States. And I don’t understand any of it. Not at all.

It is like I entered into some unparalleled universe on April 21 where the lines of reality, fantasy, and horror were corroded and much of my time since has been spent trying to find my way out of it; or last least find peace and some semblance of sensibility where there appears to be none.  And common sense, such that it is, seems to be on a permanent vacation.

It has left my heart not wanting to leave this year behind even though my head knows better. It was a terrible year, one I wish I could forget. But because of these nonsensical circumstances, I doubt I ever will be able to erase it from my mind.

Everything that happened this year was colored by the loss of my idol, my most favorite musical talent of all time, and a teacher of sorts.  If I had to say one person who taught me as much, if not more than my parents, one person I could look to and say, “he helped raise me,” that person would be Prince.  And he never knew it.  Through his music I learned things about love, sex and that being different isn’t so much the detriment we tend to believe, but a unique gift bestowed on only a select few.  Being different, quirky, is something to be celebrated, out in the open with no regrets.  I also learned from him that it can, at times, be a lonely existence when you are different by societal standards.  He gave us his music and that was often, for me, the gift I needed to make it through many lonely days as a child and teenager.

His influence on my life, through his music, has had a greater impact than can ever be expressed in words and I am hurt beyond belief that he no longer walks this earth and by how he left it behind.  There is a hole here that no other artist or person can fill. I am 42, and I will live the rest of my life in a world he is not a part of.  At midnight, we will enter into the first year of my lifetime where he does not exist, but as a memory, and I am devastated.  The election in November was just insult to injury and solidified my stance that 2016 was the worst year ever.  On some level I am glad it is almost gone. On another, I wish I could go back to March, equipped with all the knowledge April 21st on has provided.

I hope that 2017 will prove to be a lot kinder, more loving and spare us our legends. I hope… but if I learned anything from 2016, there are no promises, no guarantees. And life, as we have learned all too painfully, can be fleeting.

Prince, you were greatly loved and are greatly missed.

***Upon finishing this article, I learned 1977 was a more deadly year for celebrities. I don’t know why The Telegraph, CNN, and others thought this would be some sort of consolation, especially for those of us who can’t remember 1977, but they did. And it was insensitive, to say the least.

Four Years Later and Mitt Romney is STILL the Most Boring Person in the GOP

 

Mitt Romney’s “read” of Trump today was the most boring thing I ever read.  Some in the press have called it “scathing.” Really!?  Let me be honest, I didn’t even bother to watch, I wasn’t a fan of The Munsters when it was on repeats in the 1980’s and I’m not a fan of Mitt Romney’s  real-life version, either.  Instead, I read the transcript, napped midway through and picked up somewhere near the end AFTER watching the rest of a Murder, She Wrote episode.

Mitt Romney stops short of being truthful.  He still hasn’t learned that sugarcoating facts or the past with hyperbole has no place in politics when a presidency is at stake.  It was the mistake he made in 2012 when he lost and he is doing the same now.  Let me remind you, I am not affiliated with the GOP in any way.  I have never voted for that party, ever.  However, I have noticed that the GOP and other voters have been weak in how they address Donald Trump and his racism.

Stop pussyfooting with the lingo, already, and call this man what he is!

Convincing Trump’s supporters at this point is futile, they love him, they love his bigotry and they accept him as being just like them, white sheets and all.  Mitt Romney really needed to speak in the language of the Democratic party, the language that would give Dems even more incentive to get out and vote. Because, see, a Trump win in November is not about how Republicans vote in the primary or what happens at their convention, it will be a direct result of whether Democratic voters, specifically women and people of color make a showing at the polls.  They missed their mark at Super Tuesday, he’s going to be their nominee, they know it and they aren’t happy about it.

Mister Romney, we can not forget how you accepted a Trump endorsement in 2012 because it helped to court the racist wing of the party. You made dinner with the two of you a “thing.”  You were basically in speechless awe at the presser where you happily accepted his endorsement, stating, “having his endorsement is a delight.  I am so honored and pleased to have his endorsement.”  Trump’s rhetoric hasn’t changed one bit since 2012, and clearly, neither have you.

Who was Romney trying to fool with that dry milquetoast drivel? I agree with an article in The Nation calling for Mitt to apologize for giving Trump the national stage in politics.  They got it so right, “Donald Trump was to Mitt Romney what David Duke is to Donald Trump.” All that nonsense talk in an unnecessary press conference.  He gave us a speech when what he really needed to say was, “I did this, I’m sorry,” drop the mic and walk away.

 

Donald Trump: The Candidate White Nihilism Created

Reading the commentaries about Trump’s Super Tuesday wins and how he’s now viewed as a problem leaves me with much to say on the subject:

Trump is not an American problem. He’s not. A Trump presidency will be an American problem, but for the duration of his wandering into the political arena, Donald Trump has been and currently is a white people’s problem.  Let me explain.

Trump began laying the foundation for his racist political propaganda campaign back in 2010 with the President Obama “birtherism” shenanigans. Black people collectively called racism on that bullshit. Overt racists joined in that lynch mob. For the most part, white people were silent. Black people knew then Trump as political candidate was coming.

When Trump went after women, liberal women and men/women of color called him out on this bullshit, too. Even GOP women did when he went after FOX News personality, Megyn Kelly. White men stood still and said nothing.

When he went after Hispanics and Latinos, calling them rapists, his racist support reached a groundswell. We tried to call foul on this bullshit. White people said to ignore him because he was a joke, nothing harmless, and could never be President.

When he said he would refuse Syrian refugees, calling innocent children fleeing a region ravaged by war and genocide terrorists, we were disgusted.  You guffawed and said nothing, some of you even tried to rationalize it by saying “let’s care for Americans first.”  Yes, the same Americans you never think about: the poor, the sick, the recipients of hate.

When he made the outrageous proposal to institute a badge system for identifying Muslims, you were tight-lipped and shifty-eyed. It made you uncomfortable because it was reminiscent of Hitler and WWII, but not uncomfortable enough to say anything because truthfully, you still flinch in the airport when you see a man of Middle Eastern descent speed past you trying to make his flight on time.  You clench your purses when that man is seated on the plane next to you.  You imagine he is a terrorist, when he is only a father of three, eager to get home to his family.

When Trump said he had to “research” the background of the Klan, you said not one bloody thing.  American terrorists, domestic killers are supporting this man who pretends in his 60+ years to not know what they are about!?  He sat on several national programs, gave the KKK a “wink-wink” and pretended to be oblivious.  Let me remind you, as he does often, he is a Harvard graduate, he knows better.  Still calls for his disavowal weren’t as fervent as they were for President Obama to disavow Jeremiah Wright before you would vote for him. Wright spoke some very harsh and very real truths about white America and your collective feelings got hurt.  When we say Trump hurts ours, you say he’s not to be taken seriously, or worse “he’s just being honest.” Silence with words.

Now, the day after Super Tuesday, it appears his becoming the GOP presidential nominee is imminent. That means that he could become President and occupy your lives for at least four years, and a maximum of eight. You see this, finally, but the alarm has been ringing about this man and his insanity for more than a year, yet as far as you are concerned only now he is a problem.

No. He’s always been a problem. He’s just the problem you acknowledge, NOW.  See, it’s not the racists who support him that made this possible, it has been the relative silence of the white people who don’t and the refusal to mobilize your privilege of power into a movement against him. You’re always demanding we, as people of color (PoC) police our races and fellow skinfolk.  Well, now is the time you police yours. Donald Trump’s not acting as an individual when an entire group of people who look like him have conspired (yes, conspired) through their silence to create an atmosphere in America where this is tolerable. It’s not just your racist skinfolk’s support of this man that shifted political power to him, it’s also your skinfolk who refuse to speak out who need to accept the blame. It’s you. It’s your apathetic response to a man threatening to be a boil on the butt of America.  It’s too late to fix the fact he will likely be the GOP nominee now, it’s just too damned late. But I am not going to tolerate what I am seeing a lot of on social media by so-called white “progressives”: the blaming and finger pointing at black people, Latinos and women for not supporting Bernie as the reason for Trump’s super Tuesday victories.

Uh-uh. No sirs and ma’ams! We didn’t create that monster. We didn’t let him roam around aimlessly, exuding  his ether of hatred.  We didn’t take him as a joke.  We didn’t allow discomfort on matters of race to overcome and render us speechless.  And we shouldn’t pay for it. That’s all on you and your refusal to tame this beast.

So how can you fix this?  Well, before November, you have the chance to talk amongst yourselves and paint him as he really is and why he is bad for everyone. Your skinfolk always accuse PoC of “dividing by race” when we do it, so what is the point?  Use your voices and stop this madness. The sooner you take responsibility for this sham of a human being, the faster some of your more rational skinfolk will wake up and turn the Trump show off before it’s no longer a show, but a painful reality.

Friday ‘Flashblack:’ To Kill Or Not To Kill: What One Politician’s Fight to Abolish the Death Penalty Reveals about Politics, Race and the American Psyche

From October 2011, X3 Magazine

 

With the recent execution of Troy Davis in Georgia, discussion about the morality of the death penalty as it applies to criminal justice has resurfaced.  Some have challenged the argument that states should have the right to take the life of another human being as punishment for committing crimes, however heinous.  Others have argued that it is an appropriate punishment in some cases and should remain an option for the states to seek as they plan to prosecute.  While these perspectives are totally contradictory, they do have one thing in common.  Both positions bring to light a very serious problem in this country with our politics and with our mindset in terms of how we value the lives of individuals, criminals and victims alike.  

The death penalty discussion is overwrought with emotion so intense that it borders on violence.  However, if you step away from the emotion, and look at the facts, approaching the subject with forethought and logic, you see just how twisted our collective thinking about this issue in America really is.  Here are some facts compiled by the Death Penalty information Center:

• Thirty-four states, the U.S. Government, and the U.S. Military have laws that permit the application of the death penalty in the U.S.
• Sixteen states and the District of Columbia do not have a death penalty statute (while New Mexico no longer has the death penalty, they do have two inmates remaining on death row).
• All of the southern states have a death penalty, and are responsible for 80% of all executions; the south also has the highest per capita murder rate in the U.S.
• From the time the moratorium on the death penalty was lifted nationwide in 1976, there have been 1271 executions (an average of 36 executions per year, though 1999 had the most executions in any one year with 98).
• Of the 1271 executed, a disproportionate number of those were African American (African Americans were found to be almost half of those on death row despite only remaining about 12% of the population in the U.S.).
• The victims in death penalty cases, 76%, were overwhelmingly white.
• In states where racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty was reviewed, 96% demonstrated such a pattern.
• The State of Texas has executed more prisoners than any other state with 475 executions to date; the State of Virginia is second with 109 executions to date.
• In a recent survey, 88% of experts on criminal justice (not the death penalty) do not believe the death penalty deters persons from committing murder.

With facts that are so disparaging why, then, do politicians chose to make the death penalty law?  And why does the country as a whole believe that having such a threat of “justice” makes individuals or potential victims any more safe than would a sentence of life without parole?

“In no case is it about murder, it’s about some murders,” says Connecticut State Representative, Gary Holder Winfield, a Democrat for District 94 in New Haven.  

Holder-Winfield began his job as a lawmaker with the eradication of the death penalty in Connecticut.  As a freshman lawmaker, Holder-Winfield’s position was  to look at the policy and demonstrate to the public that “it does not do what we believe it does…we need to take time to think about it, [the death penalty] doesn’t deter crime.”  

Holder-Winfield’s strategy was to generate press.  He  talked to all the advocates, many of whom didn’t take the freshman legislator seriously.  Then by his own admission, he did something vastly different than those policymakers in the past, who shared his views, had done: he listened.  “I went to every one of my colleagues and asked them to tell me their views and then I left.”  According to Holder-Winfield, this strategy “made them think,” and he realized that he actually had the numbers to “move” the bill forward.

But it wasn’t that easy.  The political fight to abolish the death penalty in Connecticut was about to become complicated by raw emotion in a state that still angered by the most highly publicized crime in its history, the 2007 Cheshire home invasion and the vicious murder of a mother and her two children.

In July of 2007, two men invaded the home of Dr. William A. Petit, Jr., his wife Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and their two daughters Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11.  Dr. Petit was beaten unconscious, his wife was raped and strangled, one daughter was also raped and the two girls were bound and left to die in a house that was then covered in gasoline and set on fire.  Since then, the two men responsible have been captured and charged with murder and a host of other crimes against the Petit’s.  One has been convicted and sentenced to death.  The trial of the second began on September 19, 2011 and the prosecutor is also seeking the death penalty in that case.  

However, at the time Representative Holder-Winfield began his journey in 2009 to get the bill repealing the death penalty in the state to a vote the Petit case hadn’t come to trial.  Many believed that a crime so devastatingly vile was worthy of the death sentence and feared repealing the statute would make a such a sentencing option unavailable by the time the case was tried.  Many of Holder-Winfield’s peers in both chamber of the Connecticut legislature were fearful, as well, and about how support or vote to abolish the death penalty in the State of Connecticut would impact their individual political careers.

Holder-Winfield, at first, had several cordial conversations with Dr. Petit.  “He respected my handling of the issue,” says the lawmaker.  “I was respectful. I knew the victims, the names of his wife and daughters, their ages and always [in discussion] put the victims first.”  However, as the trials grew nearer, those conversations dwindled and eventually ceased altogether.  Despite the ongoing trial of the second killer, Holder-Winfield will introduce another bill to repeal the penalty.

“In policy and presenting the death penalty,” says Holder-Winfield, “we offer it as a resolution, not thinking about how the family of the victim may feel 20 years down the road.  [In public policy] we just seek the resolution at the time, but never come to [the] conclusion that the family will never ultimately have resolution, their loved one is still gone.”

Holder-Winfield also cites how important language is in the movement to abolishing the death penalty is and how that language is presented to the public.  He says that the death penalty is sold to the public as protection for an unknown crime that will likely be committed at any time against every person in society, that we are all potential victims.  He says that the propaganda machine that fuels the media’s obsession and ultimately drives public opinion “assumes that the criminal actually recognizes what the circumstances [of the law and its application] are…most acts of murder are not done with the foresight it takes for one to know that they could eventually be put to death.”  

“Typically it is offered [to the public] this way: death penalty or no death penalty.  But when you ask people what they think about the death penalty versus a sentence of life without parole, then the answer and reaction is totally different, but in discussion, they aren’t offered that option.”

The death penalty doesn’t just only shock people into fear.  In some instances, it also brings forth their prejudices.

Holder-Winfield says that theapplication of the death penalty will “always be discriminatory.  People are charged for sins against the state, not crimes against individuals, but when emotions and fears come into play, it then becomes about the individuals and there is never going to be equality.”

Race is a very complex issue in America.  It is also a very profitable one.  News outlets use it to make money by shocking viewers in to buying a product to “protect” their families.  Politicians use it to get elected.  In criminal justice it’s what Holder-Winfield calls “the replication of the history of this country,”  and that with regard to the death penalty it is “sold as protection to white people against some mysterious dark criminal hiding in the shadows…blacks have been on the wrong side of this thing for years.”

How do the complexities of race play into the application of the death penalty?  

First, consider that the youngest person ever sentenced to death in the U.S. was a Native American boy named James Arcene.  Arcene was convicted for his alleged role in a robbery and murder committed in 1872 when he was just 10-years-old. Arcene was executed at age 23 in 1885.

Next, consider the case of George Stinney, Jr. who was executed in South Carolina, accused of murdering two young white girls in 1944.  According to official accounts, Stinney was offered ice cream in exchange for a confession.  He was only 14 and the youngest person executed in the history of the United States.  This revelation coming in the wake of the Troy Davis execution, the Stinney case has renewed interest as there appears to be evidence the murders were committed by another individual.  

Now, consider the case of Susan Smith, the Union, South Carolina mother who at first accused a black man carjacking her and kidnapping her two young children who were in the backseat.   Smith confessed to murdering her children on November 3, 1993 by letting her car roll into a lake and drowning them.  It has been written that her alleged motive was to rid herself of the children in order to continue an affair with a wealthy man who wanted no children.  Smith was convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in prison.  She will be eligible for parole in 2024.

In Holder-Winfield’s state, as in most others, there is not statewide application of the death penalty.  The sentence request is left to the discrimination of the prosecutor who decides whether or not to pursue it.  This is where the discrepancy lies in the application.  But why have a need for a death penalty?

The why is a far more complex issue.   Some politicians mislead the public into thinking that the death penalty saves taxpayers the money it would cost to incarcerate a prisoner for life.  On average, it costs $40,000 annually to incarcerate one individual.  However, states still spend upwards of $4 million annually just do all the legal work associated with death penalty cases.  In some states this amount does not include the annual $40,000 to incarcerate individuals awaiting execution.

“The money is allocated incorrectly because our thinking is incorrect,” says Holder-Winfield.  He believes that if the investment was made on the front end in education, in reducing poverty, than there would be less need for these types of sentences as crimes because people would be better educated in general.

And that is ultimately what Representative Holder-Winfield has, as a policymaker, has taken up the challenge to do—educate the public when it comes to the death penalty and a host of other issues.  As a community activist, he recognizes the length of time it takes for change and chooses to spend his time talking to the people first rather than the politicians.

“I keep the perspective of the people in mind…you can’t fix a problem when you don’t know one exists.”

With a Year Left in Office, People are Asking “What’s Next for Obama?”

Published in Atlanta Blackstar, January 7, 2016

With less than a year left in office, people have begun speculating as to what President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle will do once this final term in office is over. The Obamas haven’t announced their plans, but political pundits have offered their opinions about what the couple will do once the new president is sworn in on January 20, 2017.

Read full article: http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/01/07/with-a-year-left-in-office-people-are-asking-whats-next-for-obama/

Being Selective About Terrorism, The New American Hypocrisy

Yesterday, President Obama called the attacks in San Bernardino an act of “terrorism.”  Some have called this declaration  bold on the President’s account.  Those who disagree are using it as fuel for their political platforms. I, like some others don’t believe it goes far enough.  I think it ignores the very real problem of calling out the everyday domestic terrorism here in America, and I don’t mean the Muslim variety, although most Americans want to believe that is the boogeyman terrorist.  It isn’t.  I am talking about the terrorist I am afraid of every day, the one whose microaggressions and social media predatory terrorism is far more scary than ISIS. Why? Because it goes unchecked and is often brushed away or excused as “mental illness.”  I have a degree in clinical psychology, there is not that much crazy in the world.

This is the great American hypocrisy, because it’s only terrorism when people of color do it, right!? No. NO! That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works!

Let’s be clear, it has been well discussed in the media the last week since this shooting that there have been 355 mass shootings in this country in 2015 *.  We have also seen an alarming rate of black and brown people assaulted, maimed and killed by law enforcement who can offer no excuse other than what become apparent in the public sphere.  Yet and still, our society will only tie the minimally deficient stigma of mental illness to these individuals who cause carnage.  Dylann Roof slaughtered nine people in a Charleston church because they were black and—to be honest—because he could, THAT IS TERRORISM!  In Ohio police officers surrounded Tamir Rice and shot him before he knew what was going on, before he could ask for his mother, did not let his sister—who watched—get to him to help him, nor did they administer aid in time, THAT IS TERRORISM! George Zimmerman stalked, confronted and killed Trayvon Martin who was minding his business, THAT IS TERRORISM! Daniel Holtzclaw abused his position as a police officer to rape more than a dozen black women and on Facebook there is a group asking for justice for him because everyone knows how sexually provocative black women are, THAT IS TERRORISM!

And the list goes on.

None of these terrorists are Muslim. None are recruited by ISIS, but they all have one thing in common: hate and the understanding that their skin privilege grants them an inherent right in this country to exercise and act on that hate without fear of being labeled a terrorist; they know society will just call them crazy and to a terrorist, that ain’t half bad!

 

Those who do not support gun control legislation want to point to the catastrophic events like San Bernardino and Charleston where more than three victims are killed, however, I agree with most who study these events that whenever a shooting involves multiple casualties, it is a mass shooting and every loss of life should be regarded in this manner under those circumstances. 

So Black Pastors Met with Donald Trump…And!?

This may come as a surprise to Donald Trump, but NO, you are not getting the black vote. N-O! You can beg, borrow, steal and pimp our pastors…and in fact, he tried.

So one pastor who, for whatever reason, believes his relationship with Trump will flourish into something more than nothingness agrees to get a “coalition” of black pastors together to “endorse” this blowhard. That’s not even the laughable part.  As African-Americans, we know this political tactic all too well of trying to buy our vote from the pulpit. Not only do we know, but we have openly said as much. Apparently Trump didn’t get that memo.

Anyhow, this pastor then goes and sends invites out to the pastors. He gets few responses.  They then resort to texting —YES, TEXTING— these pastors and ask them to attend (insert laughter here). So they get responses. Now, the pastors are told it is just a meeting to discuss the issues that are important to the black constituency in this election cycle, NOT that their attendance at said meeting will be viewed and publicized as an endorsement.

The Trump folks and Preacher Nobody then release a list of the “100 black pastors to endorse Donald Trump,” only the list is copious in the number because it included invitees, not those whose attendance was actually confirmed, and it also stated that they were endorsing him and that did not go over so well.

The pastors began to speak out and in a “yessir, Massa Trump, I’s sorry” moment, Preacher Nobody then says that it was his fault, he led the campaign to believe it would be an endorsement.

The dissent from the pastors who publicly spoke on this sham of a press conference was not a good look for the Donald, he then cancels the media spectacle and holds a private meeting with those who agreed to show, all the while saying that there were 100. A preacher who was in the room confirmed the table held 20, there were 15 chairs against a wall, 5 by a door, and 5 outside the room. Forty-five is a far cry from 100, but when you are Donald Trump a campaign rally of 2,000 is 10’s of thousands. At the end of the meeting, the pastors were given endorsement cards to sign. Again, only a few (less than a dozen) signed, but in Trump talk this was blown up to “many, many endorsements.” Of course he did not give a specific number, he gives specifics on nothing, and is rarely called on his bullshit why expect him to change course now?

After this whole saga, I am with Rev. Corletta Vaughn who was one of the pastors who vehemently refused to grace that low-class wannabe politician with her presence:  “this was a get-played moment for the preachers. Put them in the same room, take pictures, and then you can put anything you want, in terms of content, with a picture.”

No doubt he will!