At This Point, How Can Some Whites Continue To Deny AntiBlack Racism?

Maia Niguel HoskinContributor
Diversity & Inclusion
Providing provocative views on racism, pop culture, and mental health.

FORBES NOT MOTHER JONES


A Protester hold a sign reading "Am I Next?" outside Hennepin County Government Plaza during a ... [+] AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

The recent shooting of Jacob Blake and the killings of Anthony McClain and Trayford Pellerin are analogous to a nightmarish groundhog’s day in which Blacks are being shot and killed at disproportionate rates by non-Black current and former members of law enforcement. Both incidents have been devastating for the Black community considering that many are still railing from the shooting deaths of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and George Floyd. Yet, some refuse to acknowledge the danger of these incidents and have responded to topics related to antiBlack racism and police reform with, “What about Black on Black violence?” or make other baseless claims to deflect, project, and distract from the real issue – the malignancy of systemic racism and white supremacy in America.

On Sunday, after being called to the scene of a domestic disturbance, two Wisconsin police officers drew their weapons on the back of 29-year-old Jacob Blake which resulted in him being shot eight times. After countless hours of surgery on Monday, as of today — miraculously — he is reported to be in stable condition but suspected paralyzed from the waist down and both officers have been placed on administrative leave while Wisconsin police investigate the horrific incident. While it remains unclear why police were called to the scene, it is clear that Blake did not have a weapon, was shot with his back turned to police, and did not pose a threat to the officers. Even worse, similar to Philando Castille, Jacob Blake was shot in front of his three children who are 3, 5, and 8 years of age. Although one of the officers responsible for the shooting was not wearing a bodycam, footage of the shooting was caught on a cell phone and quickly spread across social media. Shortly after the video of the shooting went viral, waves of protests erupted across the Kenosha Wisconsin, a city of 100,000 residents – of which almost 80% are white and less than 12% are Black.

Just days before the Blake shooting, Trayford Pellerin, a 31-year-old Black man, was shot and killed by Lafayette Police in Lafayette, Louisiana after the officers were called to a convenience store Friday evening on August 21 due to a disturbance. According to a statement released by the Louisiana State Police Department, officers found Pellerin in the store’s parking lot with a knife and escaped after police attempted to apprehend him. Similar to George Floyd and Jacob Blake, after video footage of the killing was released, protestors took to the streets of Lafayette to express outrage over what has been argued to be an excessive response by police to Pellerin who was shot 11 times with his back turned toward the officers while walking away.
Recommended For You

Just one week before the killing of Trayford Pellerin and the shooting of Jacob Blake, 32-year-old Anthony McClain was shot and killed by a Pasadena Police officer while running away after a routine traffic stop in Pasadena, California on August 15. The Pasadena Police Department released a statement saying that it is believed that McClain was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting and the officers feared that he would turn around and begin shooting at them. While the police department released body-worn and dashboard video footage with narration of the incident which they argue confirms that McClain was armed, protests have flooded the streets of Pasadena with residents who feel that the video is not clear enough to confirm that McClain was carrying a gun. Furthermore, some question if the officers used excessive force by shooting McClain while his back was turned toward the police and ask why a taser was not used instead. An argument that has been posed for countless other similar incidents.

Although in just five short months there have been over six widely publicized shootings by law enforcement that have killed or seriously injured Blacks who posed no threat to them (e.g. back turned, running away, sleep), some remain skeptical about the need for police reform and question the validity of the Black Lives Matter movement and the existence of antiBlack racism and white supremacy. Tucker Carlson received widespread criticism in June during the height of global protests over the killing of George Floyd for comments he made on his show on Fox News. "This may be a lot of things, this moment we are living through, but it is definitely not about Black lives, and remember that when they come for you, and at this rate, they will. Have fun figuring out who ‘they’ is in that sentence.” Carlson said. During that same segment, he referred to white supremacy as a “hoax” and asked if he was “required to be upset about George Floyd.”

Similarly, conservative activist and Trump supporter, Candace Owens who was previously criticized after denying the existence of white supremacy and citing Black on Black crime and a lack of masculinity in men as the cause for some of the socio-cultural challenges that are prevalent in the Black community was under fire yet again shortly after the George Floyd shooting. Owens called Floyd a “violent criminal” referencing his robbery conviction in 2005 in which he served seven years for armed robbery. Although stating that Floyd did not deserve to die after his neck was knelt on by police for almost nine minutes straight, she said that he should not be seen as a “martyr” and inferred that his past criminal record made him exempt from any form of value or valor. Some argue that Owens completely missed the mark with her conceptualization of the protests that followed Floyd’s death.

The response that echoed around the world was not intended to label Floyd a hero, per se. It was to speak out against not only the savage brutality of his death but to express outrage and profound grief over the hundreds of other Blacks who have been shot or killed by law enforcement at disproportionate rates to all other racial groups. Many have viewed Floyd’s death as the catalyst for a much-needed call to action for police reform and the deconstruction of white supremacy. But Owens is not alone in her perspective on the killings of Blacks by law enforcement. A similar narrative is being used in the Anthony McClain killing. News outlets have even reported the case by using an old mugshot and outlining a detailed summary of his previous offenses which have no bearing on his death. Similarly, when news of the Ahmaud Arbery killing first went viral, some attempted to portray Arbery as a criminal who was caught stealing from an empty home at the time of the incident.

The dangerous myth of Black on Black crime is also often referenced during discussions about members of the Black community being killed at the hands of law enforcement. An argument that is typically used to imply that Black people accept killings within the race, but only take offense when white police officers are responsible for the deaths of Black lives. This argument is highly problematic for several reasons. First, it does not acknowledge the countless efforts that Blacks have put forth to address violent crime in their neighborhoods. Research suggests that Blacks are consistently more likely to be concerned about crime than whites and are also staunch supporters of gun-control laws compared to whites. The Black on Black crime argument is also dangerous because it does not consider the role of mental illness. Black men in low-income inner-city neighborhoods are more likely to act as perpetrators of and fall victim to gun violence. Many of them suffer from PTSD and extreme depression and anxiety due to frequent and consistent exposure to violence, extreme poverty, substance abuse, and other systemic challenges that engender grave feelings of hopelessness and helplessness.

Many argue that perspectives similar to Carlson’s and Owens’ are dangerous and symptomatic of antiBlack racist perspectives in which Blacks are viewed as deserving to be punished. There appears to be a tendency to justify why it’s horrible – but not that horrible that a Black person was killed. Responding to the shooting of someone whose back is turned and is running in the opposite direction by using their criminal history (that could very well be unknown at the time of the incident), implies that the person deserves to be killed on the grounds of having a prior criminal record and therefore their death is not as tragic as someone else’s. This is at the root of antiBlack racism in which Blacks are dehumanized and reduced to either the perpetuation or deviation of negative racial tropes that describe Black people as dangerous, angry, intellectually inferior, lacking self-control, and untrustworthy. Through deflection and victim-blaming — ultimately — views such as these prevent further dialogue and the eradication of oppressive structures that maintain systemic racism in the U.S.




Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.

Maia Niguel Hoskin I am a writer, activist, and college professor who teaches graduate-level courses in counseling. I earned my Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Clinical Supervision and I give keynote speeches and facilitate cultural consciousness seminars and training to staff, students, and faculty at both private and public businesses, K-12 schools, and universities on topics related to oppression, difference, and mental health. The roles that I cherish most are being a wife and mother who fancies online shopping, ice cream, Spike Lee movies, and 90’s music.

OPINION
Why we’re taking the U.S. government to court over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Our lawsuit argues the review of oil and gas development failed to value Indigenous rights and threats to wildlife, as Trump moves forward with lease sales in vital cross-border caribou habitat

Malkolm Boothroyd Aug 27, 2020 5 min read


Malkolm Boothroyd is a writer, photographer and campaigns coordinator for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon chapter.

Two years ago I sat in a windowless convention hall in Anchorage, Alaska, breathing stale air, waiting my turn to speak about the most vibrant place I’d ever visited, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. High-ranking officials from the U.S. Department of Interior sat at the front of the room, emotionless as speaker after speaker described the importance of the Arctic refuge — for caribou, birds, polar bears, and Indigenous communities across the North that depend on the Porcupine caribou herd.

The Interior Department had just begun its environmental review of oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. But even back then, the outcome seemed to have already been determined. The people in charge of the environmental review were closely tied to the oil industry, and the President of the United States had repeatedly claimed opening the Arctic refuge to drilling as one of his proudest accomplishments. All signs pointed towards a rushed and cursory review.


Pacific loons are among the many waterfowl that migrate to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd / malkolmboothroyd.com

Last week the Interior Department released its Record of Decision, bringing its environmental review to a close. To nobody’s surprise, the department gave the go-ahead to the most aggressive scenario imaginable: one that would offer up the entire Coastal Plain to oil companies, and place the fewest restrictions on drilling. This week, we responded. Thirteen groups, CPAWS Yukon included, are taking the Department of Interior to court. The lawsuit is led by the Gwich’in Steering Committee, and will be argued by lawyers from Trustees for Alaska, a public interest environmental law group. Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defence Council have filed a second lawsuit.
Get The Narwhal in your inbox!


People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism
Your emailYour emailSUBSCRIBE


Our lawsuit challenges the legality of Interior’s environmental review. For example, the environmental review gave little heed to the seven original purposes of the Arctic refuge, like protecting wildlife, wilderness and subsistence. Instead it shaped its environmental review to accommodate an oil and gas leasing program, an eighth purpose that was only added in 2017 when the U.S. Congress opened the refuge to drilling. We allege that the Department of Interior broke the law by disregarding the refuge’s original purposes and failing to safeguard those purposes through the design of its oil and gas leasing program.


A calf from the Porcupine caribou herd that migrates between Alaska, northern Yukon and Northwest Territories, and is harvested by Gwich’in communities there. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd / malkolmboothroyd.com


The U.S. government recently confirmed its decision to open the Porcupine caribou herd’s calving grounds, in Alaska’s Coastal Plain, to oil and gas development. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd / malkolmboothroyd.com


The Porcupine caribou herd is one of few healthy herds remaining in Canada. Photo: Atsushi Sugimoto / Arctic Photo Laboratory

We also contend that the Department of Interior broke the law by not adequately considering alternatives, failing to take a hard look at the consequences of drilling and not adequately addressing the threats to Gwich’in subsistence rights. In total, our lawsuit makes eight claims against the Department of Interior for transgressions in its environmental review and associated actions to authorize leasing in the Arctic refuge. If we prevail, we hope the courts will invalidate the Department of Interior’s environmental review, and any decisions that stem from it.

The Department of Interior could have modelled its environmental review after the Berger Commission. It could have taken the time to visit every Gwich’in community, and learn why oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge poses such a grave threat to the Gwich’in way of life. The Department of Interior could have listened to scientists and the public. It could have written an environmental impact statement that acknowledged the magnitude of damage that drilling would bring. But that didn’t suit the U.S. government’s agenda — since a review in good faith would have found that the dangers of drilling far, far outweighed the pros. Instead, the Department of Interior started with a conclusion in mind, and then wrote an environmental review to justify it.


Caribou is prepared for a community feast in Old Crow, Yukon. Photo: Atsushi Sugimoto / Arctic Photo Laboratory

The coming months will be pivotal for the Arctic refuge—with lawsuits, a potential lease sale and the U.S. election all looming. At the same time we’re working on a parallel strategy, pressuring Canadian banks to rule out financing for Arctic refuge drilling. Our allies in the United States are pressuring corporations there to do the same, and five of the six largest U.S. banks have agreed.

Autumn is spreading across the Arctic, and most of the caribou have departed from the Coastal Plain. I hope that by the time the caribou return next spring, the future of the Arctic refuge will be much more secure than it is today.


PUBLISHED BY

Malkolm Boothroyd

Malkolm Boothroyd is a writer, photographer and campaigns coordinator for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Yukon chapter. He leads…

Lawsuits oppose drilling in ANWR, expanded drilling in NPR-A

Environmental activists filed lawsuits Aug. 24 to challenge Trump administration preparations for oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and expanded leasing elsewhere on Alaska’s North Slope, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

Alan Kovski
Aug 26th, 2020

Environmental activists filed lawsuits Aug. 24 to challenge Trump administration preparations for oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and expanded leasing elsewhere on Alaska’s North Slope, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).

The court filings follow the issuance of a record of decision Aug. 17 that completed the regulatory steps necessary to allow leasing to go ahead on the ANWR coastal plain (OGJ Online, Aug. 17, 2020) and a final environmental impact statement issued published June 26 for a new integrated activity plan for NPR-A.To fight the leasing plan for ANWR, the environmental groups had to deal with the fact that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 mandates a leasing program. The essence of their lawsuit is an argument that the plan violates environmental and land management laws by failing to minimize the acreage that can be leased under the 2017 law, and that the plan fails to include enough analysis.

The suit over NPR-A is narrower, focused on procedural details of one environmental law.

ANWR plan’s scale

The ANWR case is National Audubon Society v. David Bernhardt. Joining with the Audubon Society as plaintiffs are the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Friends of the Earth. Interior Secretary Bernhardt’s codefendants are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The plaintiffs argue that plan as developed in a final environmental impact statement (EIS) and a record of decision violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The 2017 law mandating a leasing program required a minimum of two lease sales and a minimum of 400,000 acres in each of those two sales. It allowed leasing of as much as 1.56 million acres—and BLM decided to include all 1.56 million acres in the leasing program.

That decision, according to the lawsuit, violated NEPA by not adequately considering alternatives involving less acreage and by not articulating an adequate reason for the decision.

The lawsuit also argues that the final EIS should have included a comprehensive analysis of what impacts seismic surveys might have on polar bears, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The final EIS and record of decision did not approve a plan for seismic surveys.

The plaintiffs also objected that the final EIS “relies on studies of other, significantly different, parts of America’s Arctic.”

Wildlife in the state lands west of ANWR has been thriving despite more than 50 years of oil exploration and development. By labeling other areas “significantly different,” the plaintiffs appeared to want to counter anyone who might point to the caribou, birds and other wildlife coexisting with the work at the Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Alpine and other oil fields.

NPR-A details and alternatives

The challenge to the expanded leasing plan for NPR-A has the same lead plaintiff and lead defendant, National Audubon Society v. David Bernhardt. The other three plaintiffs are the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Stand.earth. In that case, too, BLM is one of the defendants.

The lawsuit argues that BLM’s final EIS for the new integrated activity plan “does not analyze or describe the full scale of impacts” and “failed to take a hard look at the significant impacts.”

The “hard look” phrase comes from federal court precedents saying an agency should not brush past issues of potential impacts but rather must give them a hard look, meaning a deeper dive into details, to satisfy NEPA. The question of how deep becomes a point of contention.

The new activity plan replaces a 2013 plan that Alaska’s US senators criticized as far too restrictive. The 2013 plan left 52% of NPR-A available for leasing, while the 2020 plan allows leasing on 82% of the area.

The plaintiffs also argued that BLM failed to consider enough alternatives, including one involving no change and one involving greater environmental protections than the 2013 plan. NEPA requires consideration of alternatives, but court cases often hinge on the number and protectiveness of alternatives.

The Trump administration opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies—but none may bite

Low oil prices, a pandemic-driven recession, and looming elections add up to highly unfavorable conditions for remote drilling operations.
By Scott L. Montgomery/The Conversation August 26, 2020
The Brooks Range sets the backdrop for vital caribou feeding grounds in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.USFW

Scott L. Montgomery is a lecturer at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. This story originally featured on The Conversation.

The Trump administration has announced that it is opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas development—the latest twist in a decades-long battle over the fate of this remote area. Its timing is truly terrible.

Low oil prices, a pandemic-driven recession, and looming elections add up to highly unfavorable conditions for launching expensive drilling operations. In the longer term, the climate crisis and an ongoing shift to a lower-carbon economy raise big questions about future oil demand.

I’ve researched the US energy industry for more than 20 years. As I see it, conservative Republicans have backed oil and gas production in ANWR since the 1980s for two overriding reasons. First, to increase domestic oil production and reduce dependence on “foreign oil,” a euphemism for imports from OPEC countries. This argument now is largely dead, thanks to the fracking revolution, which has greatly expanded US oil and gas production.

The other motive for drilling in ANWR, I believe, is to score a major, precedent-setting victory over government policies that prioritize conservation over energy production and environmental advocacy groups that have fought for years to protect ANWR as “one of the finest examples of wilderness left on Earth.” Capturing ANWR and transforming it into a locus of fossil fuel extraction would be a massive physical and symbolic triumph for politicians who believe that resource extraction is the highest use of public lands.

President Trump seems to understand this, based on his recent comment that “ANWR is a big deal that Ronald Reagan couldn’t get done and nobody could get done.” But global, national, and oil industry circumstances are overwhelmingly arrayed against Trump getting it done

Years of debate

ANWR is unarguably an ecological treasure. With 45 species of mammals and more than 200 species of birds from six continents, the refuge is more biodiverse than almost any area in the Arctic.

This is especially true of the 1002 coastal plain portion, which has the largest number of polar bear dens in Alaska. It also supports muskoxen, Arctic wolves, foxes, hares, migrating waterfowl, and porcupine caribou, which calve there. Most of ANWR is designated as wilderness, which puts it off-limits for development. But this does not include the 1002 Area, which was recognized as a promising area for energy development when the refuge was created in 1980 and left that way after a 1987 study confirmed its potential.

Climate change is causing especially rapid warming in the Arctic, with probable negative effects for many of these species. Environmental advocates argue that fossil fuel production in ANWR will add to this process, damaging habitat and impacting the Indigenous people who rely on the wildlife for subsistence. But the situation is complex: There are also Indigenous groups who support ANWR development for the jobs and income it would bring.

Energy companies’ interest in ANWR, meanwhile, has risen and fallen over time. The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968, followed by two oil shocks in the 1970s, sparked support for exploration and production in the region. But this enthusiasm faded in the late 1980s and ’90s in the face of fierce political and legal opposition and years of low oil prices.

Scientists performed two major assessments of oil reserves in the 1002 Area in 1987 and 1998. The latter study concluded that ANWR contained up to 11 billion barrels of oil that could be profitably recovered if prices were consistently high. But when prices rose between 2010 and late 2014, companies chose to focus instead on areas to the west of the refuge, where new discoveries had been made.

In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, a Republican-controlled Congress directed the Trump administration to open the 1002 Area to leasing. The bill required one lease sale within four years, and at least two sales within a decade. But as the Interior Department tried to comply, it was hampered by political controversies and environmental assessment requirements.

The new Record of Decision, released on August 17, 2020, determines where and how leasing will occur. It represents the Trump administration’s last chance to bring forward a well-designed leasing plan, and is certain to spark legal challenges from environmental and wildlife organizations.

Is ANWR oil worth it?

Today the oil industry is facing its greatest set of challenges in modern history. They include: 

A collapse in oil demand and prices due to the global pandemic, with a sluggish and uncertain recovery
Companies canceling and reducing activity worldwide, with bankruptcies in the US shale industry and drilling rig counts falling back to 1940 levels
New uncertainty about future global oil demand as climate concerns push public interest and government policy toward electric vehicles, and automakers respond with new EV designs
The growing possibility of Democratic victories in the November 2020 elections, which would likely lead to policies reducing fossil fuel use
Increasing investor pressure on banks and investment firms to reduce or eliminate support for fossil fuel projects.

All of these factors compound the challenges of leasing and drilling in ANWR. Well costs there would be among the highest anywhere onshore in the US. Only one well has ever been drilled in the area, so new drilling would be purely exploratory and have a lower chance of success than in better-studied areas. Under these conditions, it would make more sense for companies that are active on Alaska’s North Slope to pursue sites they currently have under lease, which pose much lower risk.

What’s more, as I have argued previously, it’s not clear that there’s a need to drill in ANWR. Energy companies have made new discoveries elsewhere south and west of Prudhoe Bay—most recently, the Talitha Field, which could yield 500 million barrels or more.

Companies that pursue leases in ANWR also will have to weigh the prospects of litigation, investor anger and a tarnished brand—especially large firms with public name recognition. Shell’s experience in 2015, when it abandoned plans to drill offshore in the Arctic under heavy pressure, indicate what other companies can expect.

If Trump is voted out of office, I expect that a Biden administration would quickly move to reverse the directive for leasing in ANWR. In my view, this contested area will have far more meaning and value as a wildlife refuge in a warming world that is starting to seriously move away from hydrocarbon energy.

Do Democrats and Republicans worship the same God?

Sep 1, 2020

by Melinda Henneberger

 

Opinion

Politics

This article appears in the Election 2020 feature series. View the full series.

20200828T1515-TRUMP-BIDEN-1004349.jpg

President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden are seen during their respective 2020 nominating conventions. (CNS composite/Photos by Carlos Barria, Reuters; Kevin Lamarque, Reuters)

After the Democratic National Convention, which already seems like it happened a year ago, the evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham posted on Facebook, "In watching some of the Democratic National Convention on television this week, it has been interesting to see the absence of God. I don't believe America's finest hours will be in front of us if we take God out of government and public life." That post was shared some 97,000 times, and many followers of Jesus and Donald Trump responded with an "amen."

So how could Graham have missed former Vice President Joe Biden talking about God as his guide in all things? ("I found the best way through pain and loss and grief is to find purpose," he said, and "as God's children each of us have a purpose in our lives.") Didn't he hear the same testimonials I did?

Could be he was refilling the chip bowl when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Joe Biden's faith in God gives him the strength to lead," and again when former President Barack Obama said his friend Joe is "someone whose faith has endured the hardest loss there is." God, as some of us believe is always the case, was everywhere at the Democrats' convention.

But then, maybe Graham didn't recognize the God who was so in evidence at the DNC. Just as, to be honest, I'm not overly familiar with the one evoked at the Republican National Convention.

They were so different, in fact, that I'm afraid that it's no longer true, as Obama suggested in his career-making keynote at the DNC in 2004, that we worship the same "awesome God" in the blue states as in the red.

Biden's faith compels him to get up every day determined to help the people God puts in front of him, from a boy with a stutter to that stranger's Grammy he offered to sit with in the hospital. And then they weren't strangers anymore.

Trump's God is more of a life coach, and one with nothing but encouragement. He has said in the past that he has never really asked God for forgiveness. Even when told that might actually be required of him as a Christian, he said, "Hopefully I won't have to be asking for much forgiveness." Especially, he said, since he does so well with Christian voters. "Jesus to me is somebody I can think about for security and confidence." What his faith tells him is that if he did it, then it must not be wrong. And if someone he disagrees with did it, well then it can't be right. This attitude is contagious, apparently.

The God evoked by Lou Holtz at the RNC was, well, Lou Holtz himself, judging Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris to be "Catholics in name only." (Actually, Coach, she's a Baptist.)

Sr. Dede Byrne's God has assured her that "Donald Trump is the most pro-life president this nation has ever had, defending life at all stages." If life ended at birth, this would be accurate.

Mike Pence's God seems to feel strongly about gun rights, in keeping with "all of the God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." And racially, I'm sorry to say, Pence's God might not even be on the side of the angels.

"If you want a president who falls silent when our heritage is demeaned or insulted," Pence said of Trump, then "he's not your man. "Heritage" in this context is a full-throated shout-out to Dixie, and though white supremacy has always been rationalized by biblical references, that distortion has always been wrong.

Fact-checking a political speech is almost always a workout, but for such a godly bunch, there was an awful lot of flat-out lying from Republican speakers. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said President Biden would "disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home, and invite MS-13 to live next door." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that if Joe Biden wins this thing, the government will even be coming for our hamburgers.

There's quite a difference between believing that we're all of equal worth in God's eyes, and humble before him, and that, as Trump says, "There is no one like us on Earth" and that we refuse to be "tied down, held back, or in any way reined in."

I really don't want to believe that Trump's Republican Party worships nothing more unreservedly than Trump himself; that can't be right.

But listening to one speaker after another praise him as "the defender of Western civilization" and someone without whom we'd be utterly lost — "Can you imagine what would happen to us if President Trump had not shown up in 2016 to run for president?" — I will say that I've never put that kind of faith in any politician, and wouldn't want to.

[Melinda Henneberger is a columnist and editorial writer for the Kansas City Star and writes a monthly column for USA Today.]

Ben Crump, the omnipresent legal advocate for Black victims in U.S. police shootings

• 

  When angry protesters shout the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor or Jacob Blake — U.S. civil rights attorney Ben Crump is listening. | AFP-JIJI

• AFP-JIJI

• SHARE
• Aug 30, 2020

WASHINGTON – When angry protesters shout the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor or Jacob Blake — Ben Crump is listening. He is the seemingly omnipresent black attorney representing the families of all those emblematic victims of U.S. police violence, and others too.

On Friday, the 57th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, he joined thousands of protesters there for a rally to denounce discriminatory policing and demand fairness in the justice system.

It is a cause Crump has ardently embraced, whether in courtrooms or before television cameras.

Crump has repeatedly found himself in the spotlight following high-profile cases of violence against African Americans: the vigilante killing of jogger Ahmaud Arbery, the death of George Floyd under the knees of three Minneapolis police officers and now the grievous wounding of Jacob Blake by a policeman in Wisconsin who repeatedly shot him in the back.

“Every single case is linked to the ultimate end goal: equal justice in America,” longtime Crump friend Sean Pittman said.

RELATED STORIES

• Shooting further strains ties between Blacks and police in Wisconsin city
• U.S. teen accused of killing two in Kenosha thrust into debate over protests
• Kenosha police union gives its version of Jacob Blake shooting

He said that when the lawyer represents a victim’s relatives, “he’s their lawyer, pastor, therapist, advocate, and after a short period of time, he’s extended family.”

The indefatigable 50-year-old attorney is quick to use his standing in the black community and his high social media profile to advance the cause of those he represents.

Jacob Blake Sr. (left), father of Jacob Blake, is hugged by civil rights attorney Ben Crump on Tuesday. | AFP-JIJI

On Twitter, he was one of the first to post the shocking videos of Floyd’s death and Blake’s shooting — posts that were then massively reshared.

He did so even before leaving his home in Tallahassee, Florida, to fly to Minneapolis or Kenosha, Wisconsin, where he denounced what he has said is a “pandemic of racism and discrimination.”

With his colorful ties, eagle-shaped broach pinned to his tailored suit and Southern accent, Crump can be reminiscent of some of the pastoral leaders of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

In the middle of a news conference on Blake, the openly pious Crump doesn’t hesitate to pause for a moment of collective prayer.

“He brings a sense of pastoral passion combined with legal strength and skills,” RB Holmes Jr., a Baptist pastor in Tallahassee, said.

Holmes said Crump has worshipped at his church on Martin Luther King Boulevard for more than 20 years.

Crump often steps up to the pulpit to offer a spirited description of his cases, Holmes said.

Attorney Ben Crump speaks during a news conference alongside Tamika Palmer, Breonna Taylor’s mother, in Louisville, Kentucky, earlier this month. | Courier Journal / via AP

Crump’s life has long been interwoven with the struggle for racial justice.

Born in North Carolina in 1969, he grew up in a city where a railroad track divided the white community, to the north, from black residents, to the south.

The oldest of nine children, he saw his mother work on a tobacco farm while his uncle, he says, suffered a beating at police hands.

During his law studies in Florida, Crump joined Omega Psi Phi, a historic black fraternity whose members have included basketball legend Michael Jordan and civil rights leader Jesse Jackson.

As a lawyer, he quickly took on cases defending those he said were victims of the “legalized genocide of colored people.” They have included a black driver killed by a white police officer in 2002, a young African American beaten by prison guards in 2006, and others.

He was unable to gain a conviction against the man who shot and killed unarmed adolescent Trayvon Martin in 2013, but the case provoked a paroxysm of anger, giving rise eventually to the Black Lives Matter movement.

Crump represented the family of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was shot and killed in 2014 by police as he played with a toy gun.

He was called on that same year after police shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and again after the killing this year of Breonna Taylor, shot eight times when police mistakenly burst into her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky, to serve a warrant in a case involving a man who lived elsewhere.

But for each case taken on by the energetic Crump, he has had to reject dozens of others, he says.

His objective is clear, he has told The Washington Post: He selects those cases most likely to “shock the conscience” of the American people.

Spoiled Rich Kid Jared Kushner Needs to Keep His Silver-Spooned Yap Shut


•
Filed to:WHITE PRIVILEGE

Asshat.Screenshot: CNBC

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand

Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh

On Thursday, Jared Kushner, when asked about the NBA players’ protests for racial justice on CNBC, made a pointed remark:

“The NBA players are very fortunate that they have the financial position where they’re able to take a night off from work without having to have the consequences to themselves financially.”

Look, someone at Fox News needs to coordinate these right-wing talking points better because that directly contradicts Deadspin superfan Laura Ingraham.

Kushner, son of a rich criminal who married the daughter of another, has never worked an honest day in his life, is a man who has created horrible financial consequences to countless people in this country, both from his work as White House senior advisor but also as the owner of several rental properties, his shitty antics detailed in season two of the Netflix series Dirty Money entitled “Slumlord Millionaire.”
Using “intrusive construction” (such as constant, nightlong noises) to harass tenants in rent-stabilized apartments to move out and then jack the prices up.
Sending letters threatening tenants of eviction if their payments were late.
And if you can’t scare them out, you could always try choking them with lead dust.

Kushner’s comment is swollen with privilege and reveals a mindset of utter disdain.

As a member of the elite ruling class, Kushner comes pretty close to saying the quiet part out loud here: They should just be grateful that they’ve been allowed entrance to the rich kids’ club.

Never mind that NBA players make hard-earned salaries based on what a market with artificially imposed limits will bear. Is he forgetting the part where they’re supposed to pretend this is a true meritocracy?

In that Netflix docuseries by Alex Gibney, an investigator talked to a representative of Kushner Companies and questioned its predatory, harassing treatment of its tenants. He was told simply:

“We have a fiduciary duty to our ownership partners to collect as much money as we can.” In another scene, Kushner, owner of The New York Observer, brushes off a 20-year employee’s greeting by telling him, “I’d like to talk to you, but I have many far more important people here for me to talk to right now.”

Apparently he deems LeBron James important enough to talk with, as Kushner plans to call the Lakers superstar.


The problem for Jared is that when you’re The Translucent One, everyone can see right through you. Doubt LeBron has time for insignificant fools like you.
Chris Baud
PostsTwitter

Managing editor. Former N.Y. Daily Newser. Former broke poker player.

Retired Gen: Bolton lied, nearly started conflict with Iran

1. Politics

August 29, 2020 - 11:6

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg called former National Security Adviser John Bolton 'an architect of failure' and said that he watched him lie to US President Donald Trump to nearly starting a military conflict in Iran.

Kellogg, the national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, spoke on Wednesday night at the Republican National Convention to endorse Trump for making 'the right choices when faced with difficult decisions'.

He took a veiled swipe at Bolton, using the title of the former national security adviser’s book, a scathing portrayal of Trump titled 'The Room Where It Happened', saying: "He was in the room when the decisions were made."

"(Bolton) is actually an architect of failure," the 76-year-year-old Kellogg said on Fox News Thursday, adding: "He had his own agenda. He pushed his own agenda, and when it didn’t work, he tried to basically stifle the discussion going forward or lie to the president of the United States."

"I was there when it happened. I saw him when he fabricated information and nearly caused us to commence military operations in Iran because of the loss of a drone that we knew he had incorrect information and he passed that incorrect information to the president. I saw him on several occasions do that," Kellogg said.

He added that Bolton single-handedly 'destroyed negotiations' to end the war in Afghanistan.

"So, is John Bolton a liar? Yeah, he is," Kellogg said.

A source close to John Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, said Bolton had a verbal altercation with the US president shortly before he was expelled from the White House.

Donald Trump, Wyatt Earp and police brutality

BY STEVEN LUBET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 08/31/20



In his speech accepting the Republican nomination for president, President Trump praised the pioneers who “picked up their Bibles, packed up their belongings, climbed into covered wagons and set out West for the next adventure.” “Legends were born,” he said, naming “Wyatt Earp, Annie Oakley, Davey Crockett, and Buffalo Bill.” Perhaps it was only a coincidence that Trump identified four figures whose over-hyped reputations far exceed their actual accomplishments and are known today mostly from old movies and television shows. For Wyatt Earp, however, there is also a story of police brutality. Although seldom told for almost 140 years, it may still reveal a great deal about Trump’s choice of heroes.

On October 26, 1881, Wyatt and his brothers – Virgil and Morgan – along with Doc Holliday, confronted four petty criminals in the dusty streets of Tombstone, Arizona. Wyatt and Virgil had previously earned reputations as lawmen in Dodge City and other Kansas cowtowns, where their preferred methods involved using pistol butts to “buffalo” suspects into quick submission. They had employed that technique earlier in the day on two of the so-called “Cowboys,” then an insulting term for cattle rustlers, in an attempt to chase them from town.

The beatings had not worked. The four gang members – the McLaury and Clanton brothers, with whom the Earps had been engaged in an ongoing feud – defiantly remained in a vacant lot near the OK Corral. Two of them were carrying six-shooters in flagrant violation of Tombstone’s gun control ordinance.

Virgil Earp, Wyatt’s older brother and the town marshal, was actually in charge that day. Approaching within 10 feet of the Cowboys, he called out, “Boys, throw up your hands. I want your guns.” According to witnesses, the Cowboys began to comply. Tom McLaury opened his jacket and shouted “I ain’t got no arms.” Billy Clanton raised his hands and cried “Don’t shoot me. I don’t want to fight."

For a moment, everyone froze. Then Wyatt thought he saw a false move from one of the Cowboys. “You sons of bitches have been looking for a fight,” he yelled, thinking Frank McLaury had reached for his gun. Drawing his own pistol, Wyatt began firing, and then, in his words, “the fighting became general.” Two of the Cowboys returned fire, but only after they had both been hit.

Thirty shots were fired in 30 seconds. Three of the Cowboys lay dead or dying (the fourth had run away). Virgil and Morgan were both wounded and Doc Holliday had been grazed. Only Wyatt remained standing on the fighting ground.

The residents of Tombstone were deeply divided in the aftermath of the gunfight. Some saw the Earps and Holliday as heroic lawmen, defending their town from disorder. Others saw them as badge-wearing bullies who had gunned down innocent men frantically trying to surrender. The funeral cortege for the slain Cowboys featured a banner reading “Murdered in the Streets of Tombstone.”

Had Frank McLaury reached for his gun or merely flinched? The answer, such as it was, would be determined by a court. Based on testimony at a coroner’s inquest, the Earps and Holliday were arrested and charged with murder. The first step in the proceedings would be a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to bind them over for trial.

The hearing before Justice of the Peace Wells Spicer was treated as a virtual trial by both sides, with numerous witnesses called over nearly a month. The prosecution witnesses, including the county sheriff and the surviving Cowboy, painted a fearsome picture of the defendants. They described the Earps’ long-standing vendetta against the Cowboys, including the reckless deputization of Doc Holliday, a reputed killer whose menacing presence may have provoked Frank McLaury’s fatal gesture.

The defendants were fortunate to have retained attorney Thomas Fitch, a nationally prominent trial lawyer who happened to be living temporarily in Tombstone at the time. Guided by expert counsel, Wyatt testified that he had seen a Cowboy pull his pistol, then “I knew it was a fight for life, and I drew in defense of my own life and the lives of my brothers and Doc Holliday.”

Spicer’s ruling chastised the Earps for overly aggressive police work, calling it “injudicious and censurable.” In killing the Cowboys, the defendants had acted “incautiously and without due circumspection,” which was the definition of manslaughter under Arizona Territory law.

The charge was not manslaughter, however, but murder. Calling the victims “bad, desperate, and reckless men,” the court accepted the defendants’ claim that they “honestly believed” their lives were in danger. Spicer therefore decided there was insufficient evidence of murder and dismissed the case.

It proved impossible, as it would repeatedly over the decades, to convict police officers who were nominally acting in the line of duty.


It is likewise impossible, 140 years later, to assess Wyatt’s culpability for the deaths of the Cowboys, who may or may not have intended harm to the lawmen. Spicer noted that although the truth “will probably never be known,” tough law enforcement was demanded under the “conditions [in] a frontier country.”

Trump accuses Biden of blaming police for violence instead of '...
Trump says Black Lives Matter is 'bad for Black people'

Whatever rationale there may have been for brutality on the frontier, that era is long past. There is no justification today for the Earps’ style of law enforcement, pistol whipping suspects and shooting at the first whiff of trouble. Trump seems to think otherwise, having once told assembled police officers not to be “too nice” to arrestees, and instead to bang their heads against the door frame in “the back of a paddy wagon.”

Wyatt Earp is indeed legendary, but he is a terrible model for modern police. Perhaps that explains why Donald Trump admires him.

Steven Lubet is Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and author of “Murder in Tombstone: The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp.”

New research provides solution for the 'Dust Bowl paradox'

THE NATURAL PHENOMENA MISNAMED AFTER STALIN

by Katie Courage, Colorado State University

Experimental drought shelter near Hays, Kansas Credit: Alan Knapp

Almost 100 years ago, there was a strange, slow-motion takeover of the Great Plains. During the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, as a historic heatwave and drought swept the middle of the United States, there was a dramatic shift in the types of plants occupying the region.

Grasses more common in the cooler north began taking over the unusually hot and dry southern plains states that were usually occupied by other native grasses.

At the time, of course, this shift in plant cover was not the top concern during a disaster that displaced some 2.5 million people and caused at least $1.9 billion in agricultural losses alone. And, in fact, it didn't seem all that strange—until scientists started learning more about these types of plants.

"What happened only became a mystery much later, based on our subsequent understanding of the traits of the species that replaced each other," said Alan Knapp, a University Distinguished Professor in Colorado State University's Department of Biology in the College of Natural Sciences and the senior ecologist for CSU's Graduate Degree Program in Ecology.

During the 1960s, researchers found that there was a distinct ecological difference between these two types of what were thought of as warmer- and cooler-climate grasses (one group, known as "C4" use photosynthesis to produce a compound with four carbon atoms, compared to the other, known as "C3," whose first photosynthesis compound is composed of just three carbon atoms). The C4 grasses grow best in warm temperatures and are more efficient at using water. The C3 grasses tend to be most abundant in cooler and wetter climates.

Which raised the question: Why, during an infamous drought and heatwave, would C3 grasses suddenly invade some 135,000 square miles of the south-central U.S. Thus was born the "Dust Bowl paradox."

This is not just a matter of historical curiosity. As climate change accelerates, grasslands, which cover some 30% to 40% of the globe's land surface, are already seeing rising temperatures and extreme variations in rainfall and are expected to experience even more extreme droughts. And, noted Knapp, "they are a vital part of the local economies wherever they occur." So, understanding what precipitated the Dust Bowl's sudden shift in grass species—and their knock-on effects—is an increasingly pressing question.

"Because such extreme droughts are predicted to be more common in the future with climate change, it's important to understand why these grasslands responded the way they did, which was exactly the opposite that one would predict based on their traits," Knapp said.

Now, Knapp and his colleagues have found an answer to this question. In a new paper, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a four-year artificial drought experiment carried out in Kansas and Wyoming grasslands that offers a solution to the mystery of the Dust Bowl paradox.

"This study unlocks a puzzle about why C3 grasses can outcompete C4 grasses in hot, dry conditions," said coauthor Yiqi Luo of the Center for Ecosystem Science and Society at Northern Arizona University. "As the global climate shifts and precipitation patterns change, this new lens is an important tool to predict future vegetation dynamics and carbon storage."

Colorado State University researchers record plant species in an experimental plot Credit: Alan Knapp

This gets us back to the mystery. Why would these cool-loving, less-water-efficient C3 grasses have come to dominate the central U.S. during a historic heatwave and drought? Knapp and his colleagues discovered that it had less to do with the amount of precipitation and much more to do with when that precipitation falls.

During a normal growing year in the southern U.S. plains, the bulk of the moisture falls in the summer, during the growing season. But in the northern grasslands, precipitation patterns are more even throughout the year. It turns out that this is also what happens during extreme drought—precipitation is much less tied to the warm months, occurring more evenly through the year.

So, with precipitation falling in patterns more like the northern plains during a drought in the south, C3 grasses found the bounds of their preferred rainfall dynamics extending southward. And they proliferated.

The researchers also found that the encroachment of C3 plants has a sort of self-fueling power. Because they start growing earlier in the year, "they can preemptively use soil water before C4 plants become active, further reducing the growth of C4 species," Knapp said.

These results are not simply a question of counting and tracking species. The different types of grasses also have different characteristics that can lead to changes in the overall ecosystem, climate, and land use.

For example, C3 grasses tend to green up an average of a full month before C4 grasses but die back sooner, shifting the region's soil-air carbon exchange. Being less efficient with water, C3 grasses suck up more moisture from the soil, which has a compounding effect, particularly during years when water is already scarce.

The time of year they grow matters too.

"All plants, when actively growing and green, evaporate substantial amounts of water from their leaves," Knapp explained. "This has a local cooling effect. Because C3 grasses grow when it is cool (in the spring) but not in the middle of the summer, the cooling effect is lost when it is needed most—during the hot summer months. This means that the shift from C4 to C3 growth patterns could result in hotter summers."

The team plans to continue studying the impacts of these seasonal changes—and recovery from them.

"After the decade-long Dust Bowl drought, remnants of the drought's impact on the plant communities were evident for 20 years," Knapp said. So the group is now monitoring how long it will take their experimental plots to recover after their four-year experiment.

"As such a globally extensive system, grasslands play a large role in the global carbon cycle and vegetation-atmospheric interactions," Knapp said, which is why understanding such large-scale historical events will be critical in preparing for climate changes of the future.

The paper, "Resolving the Dust Bowl paradox of grassland responses to extreme drought," appeared Aug. 24 in PNAS, along with a paper by a fellow Department of Biology faculty member, University Distinguished Professor Diana Wall, who coauthored a paper titled, "Genetic diversity of soil invertebrates corroborates timing estimates for past collapses of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

---

Explore further

Warm springs bring early, rapid plant growth, and severe droughts

---

More information: Alan K. Knapp et al, Resolving the Dust Bowl paradox of grassland responses to extreme drought, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1922030117

Gemma E. Collins et al. Genetic diversity of soil invertebrates corroborates timing estimates for past collapses of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2007925117

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

Provided by Colorado State University