Many are familiar with Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and three of his colleagues killed an innocent man, George Floyd, on Monday, May 25. It’s hard to find any persons besides Donald Trump and William Barr who won’t say that the officers’ acts were criminal.

Most Americans were truly pissed off and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have taken to the streets over the past two weeks. Ninety-nine percent of them have been peaceful, and it’s understandable why the protestors have so demonstrably shown their frustration and their suggestions for change.

But these protests have gone on far longer than most other occasions of citizens taking to the streets, and I’m fearing that there will be an equal and opposite reaction to the fortnight of demonstrable marches. When we’re talking about human behavior, as opposed to physics, the reaction does not have to be exactly equal and opposite. But it will be characterized by significant force and will run counter to the movement that spawned it.

Over the past several days, a new demand / request / talking point, whatever you want to call it, from some of the protestors has been to defund the police. Such a contention makes emotional sense in light of what Chauvin and numerous other white police officers have done, not only recently, but through the entirety of American history, in arbitrarily dispensing violence against African-Americans, in many cases resulting in the deaths of innocent victims. Almost without exception, police officers have gotten away with their misconduct without any penalties or repercussions.

But this does not mean that we should defund police departments. Here are a few reasons why I think that would be a very counter-productive move.

1. There are many police officers who do their jobs well, serve the public well, and should not be penalized.
2. There are many police departments that have transitioned into community policing and by and large have developed practices that honor human rights.
3. Police departments are a lot like teachers in schools. You get what you pay for. We have a lot of police officers who go into the profession for the wrong reasons and are essentially clueless about what is needed if you are a frontline official connecting government with the citizenry. We need to raise the pay of police officers, perhaps double or triple it, in order to bring a whole new breed of individuals into the profession. We need to make policing attractive to individuals who are not by nature belligerent. We need men and women who know the skills of conflict resolution and do not consider the public to be their enemy.
4. It is much easier to hire “the right people” and give them necessary training than to hire those who are less than ideal and then have to spend the time, money and energy to try to train them, with questionable probability of success.
5. Some have suggested diminishing the amount of money that goes into the funding of police departments and transfer that money into providing social services. Again, this might sound right, but I doubt that it’s good policy. First, it would leave us with poorly paid police officers who would not be skilled in conflict resolution, perhaps the most important quality needed in a law enforcement officer. Second, it would set up new social service bureaucracies. That means bringing in universities, administrative agencies, professional this and thats with enormous duplication and inefficiencies. Let’s focus on bringing the best people possible into policing.

We have written before about making police officers into law-enforcement social workers. This can only happen If we get the best and the brightest into the profession. That won’t happen without paying them well. So, let’s not defund police; let’s fund law-enforcement social workers. One other thought. Every time you piss off the police, you give Donald Trump more votes. Is that what you really want?

The post Think Twice Before Underfunding Police appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson sent the United States Army into Detroit to try to calm the streets after rioting and police conduct had resulted in the deaths of forty-three. Fifty three years later, the governmental approach to civil unrest continues to be to send in armed police officers and national guardsmen.

It did not work well in Ferguson, MO in 2014; it certainly is not working well now in Minneapolis and a host of other cities. Are there other ways to deal with citizen concerns besides massive displays of armed power?

Here are a few suggestions as to how authorities in Minneapolis could have, and hopefully still can, try to communicate an understanding of the frustration of the citizens. Beyond that, the police forces still have time to try to make amends.

1. Immediately acknowledge that the cops messed up. Police officers on the street could acknowledge this. If they really wanted to get the point across clearly, some police officers could carry signs saying, “We messed up,” or perhaps even better, “We screwed up,” or “We fucked up.” It’s not what the community would expect to see, but these are not ordinary times. As Mark Twain said, “When everything else fails, try telling the truth.”
2. Instead of having police on the front lines opposing citizens, the municipal leaders could call out other public employees who are more skilled in conflict resolution. Imagine if the city sent hundreds or thousands of public school teachers, social workers, public defenders and others to talk openly with the protesters. They could hear out what the protesters had to say, document it, and commit themselves to passing along the concerns of the citizens to “higher-ups.” In the category of “truth in advertising,” we have to acknowledge that not all teachers, social workers and public defenders are terribly skilled in conflict resolution, but they would be a good group with whom to start.
3. Find ways to organize community truth and reconciliation gatherings. These would be on-going. Minneapolis seems to have an outstanding mayor in Jacob Frey and an excellent Chief of Police in Medaria Arradondo. Begin scheduling meetings now, and be sure to include on the beat police officers. Everyone would have to follow rules of civility.
4. Being somewhat facetious, but what the hell, the Minnesota Vikings could sign Colin Kaepernick to compete with Kirk Cousins to be quarterback. At the very least, Kaepernick could teach police officers the proper way to take a knee. As silly as this may sound, it could be an act of good faith within the community and would probably give the Vikings what they need to become a Super Bowl contender.

We have previously written about police officers also being trained to be social workers. Police are often the first level of government with whom citizens come in contact when there is discord. They should be the best possible representatives of the state. Their jobs put them in positions to be the first line of justice when troubles occur within our society.

Yes, this includes investigating crimes and apprehending those who have broken laws, but it also involves delicate situations such as domestic disputes or daily occurrences such as truancy.  When police interact with citizens who have broken laws, or people who are in distress, they need to be able to address the immediate emotional needs of the people. Additionally, they must be equipped with a wide range of resources that can direct citizens to agencies that can help them with their areas of frustration. In the case of domestic disputes, police should be able to direct parties to effective counseling, the type that can be immediately available. If a person has an alcohol or other drug addiction, police should be able to direct them to rehab programs. If a person just lost his or her job, police know how to help citizens effectively look for new job opportunities.

But, as we all know, most of today’s police are not trained that way. This is why they are perhaps among the least equipped people in our society to deal with the current justified anger on the streets of Minneapolis and other American cities. So, while putting alternate personnel besides police officers on the streets during this current outrage over what four police officers willingly did to George Floyd, the police in Minneapolis and every other community in our country must have their jobs radically redefined. Those who are currently police officer who have to quickly learn to adapt, or they will justifiably be replaced by many others who have the requisite skills to know far more about justice than Officer Derek Chauvin and his three colleagues.

The post Creative strategies that could have worked in aftermath of George Floyd Murder appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In St. Louis, bad behavior by police responding to protests about…previous bad police behavior—has sparked another form of protest: the publicly published protest letter.

Actually, there are two letters: One, from the ACLU, admonishes the St. Louis City Police Department to use restraint when confronting protesters. Another, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, demands that all charges be dropped in the case of the improper arrest, during a street protest, of a fully credentialed reporter who was covering the event.

Here are excerpts from each of the letters:

ACLU

On Friday, the ACLU of Missouri sent each of your offices a letter. We implored you to remind law enforcement to allow the community to continue to express its outrage, pain and grief by protecting their First Amendment right to protest.

They didn’t.

We know there were sporadic moments of violence and vandalism – these are not covered by the Constitutional right to protest. However, outside of these moments, officers broke their vow to protect the public by engaging in illegal activities and actions that violated policies of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and agreed-upon rules of engagement made during 2014 protests.

The letter notes that ACLU of Missouri trains legal observers to monitor demonstrations for violations of civil liberties and Constitutional rights. It then lists some of what the legal observers saw police officers doing, including:

• Attacking people indiscriminately with gratuitous use of pepper spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets, and tear gas when no apparent illegal activity had occurred.

• Excessively using of force, including violent arrests that caused injuries.

  Deploying chemicals, such as tear gas and pepper spray, without warning.

• Deploying tear gas on routes where people were leaving.

• Arresting people with questionable probable cause.

• Illegally searching bags and other possessions.

• Not wearing name tags and not identifying themselves.

• Blocking access to public spaces without apparent cause of officer safety, ongoing investigation, or public safety hazard.

• Forcefully blocking recordings of police conduct in public spaces at safe and reasonable distances.

• Selectively enforcing access to public spaces.

• Entering safe spaces against policy and with questionable probable cause.

• Using intimidating displays of force, explicitly contrary to agreement prior to release of verdict.

Calling these behaviors “unacceptable,” the ACLU urges city officials to require police officers to follow proper procedures, including:

• To not use chemical weapons, such as pepper spray and tear gas, without following the proper protocols to ensure the protection of constitutional rights.

• Officers’ nametags should be visible at all times for police accountability.

• To wear their body cameras and have them turned on at all times.

• Not use force against protesters absent a real and immediate threat of physical harm to others.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The protest letter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch comes in response to the arrest of Mike Faulk, a reporter who was clearly displaying his credentials, during a roundup of demonstrators in the City of St. Louis.

The Post-Dispatch condemned the “inappropriate and highly disturbing” arrest of one of its journalists on Sunday during a mass arrest by St. Louis police officers, and demanded that the city drop charges against him.

The letter, written by attorney Joseph E. Martineau, of the Lewis Rice law firm, said officers should have released Faulk immediately after recognizing he was covering a story, and allowed him to keep working.

Instead, he was arrested with “unneeded and inappropriate force” that caused injury to both legs, his back and wrist. Faulk was “forcefully pushed to the ground by police officers and a police officer’s boot was placed on his head.” After his wrists were bound with zip ties, a police officer “deliberately sprayed him in the face with pepper spray, mace or some other stinging substance.” At some point, an officer reviewed the contents of Faulk’s phone.

Inside the jail, the letter said, jail personnel denied Faulk’s repeated requests for medical attention. The city counselor’s office charged Faulk with failure to disperse, and he was released on $50 bail. He returned to the newsroom limping, knees bloodied and pepper spray still on his skin.

The city’s failure to establish a protocol to recognize and respect the rights of journalists gathering news was “a grave mistake,” the letter said.

In a comment published in the Post-Dispatch as the letter was making its way to city officials, the newspaper’s editor, Gilbert Bailon said:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalists and other credentialed news media provide critical information to the public. When St. Louis police arrested Mike, after he fully identified himself while covering the protests, they violated basic tenets of our democracy. Additionally, the physical abuse he suffered during the arrest is abhorrent and must be investigated. The Post-Dispatch is calling for our city leaders to immediately implement policies that will prevent journalists from being arrested without cause.

So, is the pen [aka keyboard] actually mightier than the sword [aka pepper spray, Mace, plastic wrist ties]? Let’s hope so. Otherwise, our democracy is in deep peril.

The post Bad police behavior in STL draws protest letters from ACLU, St. Louis Post-Dispatch appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA] is not pleased with Donald Trump’s remarks to law enforcement officers, telling them not to be “too nice” to suspects. He has expressed his displeasure in an email to DEA agents, calling on agents to show “respect and compassion,” and saying that he felt compelled to speak out because “something is wrong.”

Trump made his now-infamous remarks during a speech on Long Island last week. He said:

“Like when you guys put somebody in the car, and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put your hand over their head,” he said, putting his hand above his head for emphasis. “I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?”

The remark gave the distinct impressions that Trump was encouraging police brutality. But White House press secretary later told reporters that Trump was only joking. [That is one of Trump’s standard dodges when something inappropriate that he says provokes criticism.]

The DEA’s acting director, Chuck Rosenberg, didn’t laugh. One day after the speech, he sent an email to the entire agency, instructing DEA personnel to disregard the suggestion that suspects should be roughed up.

In the email, Rosenberg said:

I write because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong….The President, in remarks delivered yesterday in New York, condoned police misconduct regarding the treatment of individuals placed under arrest by law enforcement..

Rosenberg then reminded his agents of their core values, including accountability, diversity and integrity.:

This is how we conduct ourselves. This is how we treat those whom we encounter in our work: victims, witnesses, subjects and defendants. This is who we are.

Rosenburg is among a growing cohort of government officials who are beginning to speak out against Trump’s offensive utterances and destructive policies. Leaders of police departments in several parts of the country have said publicly that the president’s words didn’t reflect their views. For example:

The Suffolk County Police Department issued a statement declaring that the President’s recommendations were at odds with the department’s procedures, as did the N.Y.P.D., the L.A.P.D., and the International Association of Police Chief.

Watch this video montage of his remarks regarding how the police should treat suspects. I don’t see joking here. I see a demagogue, a president, who is off the rails, who wants to appear tough, and who doesn’t really care what he says or what the impact of his words are, and who will try to disavow his id-driven remarks by calling them “just joking” when they are poorly received. It’s not funny, and it’s not normal.

The post DEA says “no” to Trump’s remarks on rough treatment of suspects appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a few weeks, I turn 20. People keep telling me how young I am— how my life is just beginning. But today I can’t help but feel keenly how old I am— how many more years my life has had than millions of lives do.

How many Syrian refugees died before they had to use both hands to count their age? How many Iraqi, Thai, and Congolese children died soldiers before they lost their baby fat? How many Yemeni and Somali children will waste away of malnutrition without ever learning to walk? How many Afghani and Nigerian girls died giving birth to a child while themselves still children? How many trans teenagers in the United States ended their lives before their adolescence ended?

To them, my life has been eons already. By their metrics, I am ancient. I am acutely conscious of the privileges I have as a fluke of my birth that conspired to keep me alive here today rather than in a grave as small as theirs.

A month ago, Jordan Edwards was shot to death by a police officer in Dallas, TX as he drove away from a party. He was only 15 years old.

I am almost 5 years older than he will ever be. But because my body is not Black and male, here I sit. The number of unarmed Black men killed by police is so incredibly high, it is numbing. The number of lives cut short by police brutality is almost unfathomable. The number of birthdays lost to violence because a Black man’s unarmed body was seen as inherently too dangerous to exist is staggering.

How many unarmed Black boys’ and men’s lives were cut brutally short by police before they even left their teenage years?

• Tamir Rice was killed at age 12 in Cleveland, OH (11/22/2014).
• Tyre King was killed at age 13 in Columbus, OH (9/14/2016).
• Laquan McDonald was killed at age 17 in Chicago, IL (10/20/2014).
• David Joseph was killed at age 17 in Chicago, IL (2/8/2016).
• Michael Brown was killed at age 18 in Ferguson, MO (8/9/2014).
• Paterson Brown was killed at age 18 in Richmond, VA (10/17/2015).
• Tony Robinson was killed at age 19 in Madison, WI (3/6/2015).
• Keith McLeod was killed at age 19 in Reisterstown, MD (9/23/2015).
• Christian Taylor was killed at age 19 in Arlington, TX (8/7/2015).
• Dalvin Hollins was killed at age 19 in Tempe, AZ (7/27/2016).
• Dyzhawn Perkins was killed at age 19 in Buckingham County, VA (2/13/2016).

The number of candles on their birthday cakes will never increase to more than mine. How can I not feel too old?

And in none of these instances will the police officer who cut their lives abruptly short be charged with a crime.

And what about the many lives which existed for only a few years beyond 20?

• Terrance Kellom was killed at age 20 in Detroit, MI (4/27/2015).
• Zamiel Crawford was killed at age 21 in Leeds, AL (6/20/2015).
• Christopher J. Davis was killed at age 21 in Milwaukee, WI (2/24/2016).
• John Crawford was killed at age 22 in Dayton, OH (8/5/2014).
• Christopher Kimble was killed at age 22 in East Cleveland, OH (10/3/2015).
• Vernell Bing, Jr. was killed at age 22 in Jacksonville, FL (5/22/2016).
• Deravis Caine Rogers was killed at age 22 in Atlanta, GA (6/22/2016).
• Levonia Riggins was killed at age 22 in Hillsborough County, FL (8/30/2016).
• Sean Bell was killed at age 23 in Queens, NY (11/25/2006).
• Albert Davis was killed at age 23 in Orlando, FL (7/17/2015).
• Calin Roquemore was killed at age 24 in Longview, TX (2/13/2016).
• Ariel Denkins was killed at age 24 in Raleigh, NC (2/29/2016).
• Kevin Judson was killed at age 24 in McMinnville, OR (7/1/2015).
• Ezell Ford was killed at age 25 in Florence, CA (8/11/2014).
• Freddie Gray was killed at age 25 in Baltimore, MD (4/19/2015).

By a fluke of my birth, I was born into this body in these circumstances in this place with these opportunities and privileges, and so here I sit. But by a fluke of their birth, they weren’t given the same privileges as I was.

And that’s not even counting the thousands— the millions— of people whose lives may not be over, but who through a fluke of their birth were not given the opportunities and privileges by which their lives could flourish.

I just earned my undergraduate degrees; I’m going to law school in the fall. How many people could have been world-class lawyers or doctors or engineers or politicians transforming our society but who weren’t given the opportunity to complete their education? Who were put in underfunded school systems that didn’t have the funds or resources to provide a quality education? Who had to drop out of high school? Who couldn’t afford college tuition? Who are so desperately living paycheck-to- paycheck so their children can one day go to school even though they harbor no hopes of themselves seeing a degree in their name?

When I think about the opportunities I’ve been given in almost 20 years that some people are never given their entire lives, I can’t help but think that perhaps the standards we use to measure if someone’s life is “just beginning” are just lies— cold comfort so we don’t have to think too hard about the way our life could have been if not by a fluke of our birth. And the more I think about those names and those dates, I just remember how old I am. Happy birthday.

The post Happy Birthday appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What would have happened in Ferguson on that hot August afternoon had a social worker come upon Michael Brown on Canfield Avenue? What if a social worker saw Eric Garner selling loose cigarettes in the Tompkinsville neighborhood of Staten Island? My hunch is that they’d both be alive today. [NOTE: This is an updated version of a post from December 14, 2014.

Among those who want reform, there is considerable talk about community policing. The Department of Justice defines community policing as:

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.

I went to the Occasional Planet’s Director of Plain Speaking who said that what it means is a cop with a heart. Well, there’s probably more to it than that and we don’t wish to imply that most cops do not have a heart. An effective community police officer has much the knowledge of a social worker such as what approach to take when an individual or a group of people are truly upset about something. He or she is also someone who can brainstorm solutions to seemingly difficult situations. Whether they are on the “mean streets” of the inner city or closeted away in the hidden lanes of the farthest suburbs, there is essential work that community police officers can do.

Several days ago I was working with a group of inner city student about to enter high school. We were talking about the recent events in Baton Rouge, St. Paul, Dallas and elsewhere in the United States. One of the questions we asked was whether any of them had had any positive experiences with police officers. About a quarter of the class raised their hands and had encouraging stories to tell. One boy spoke of a day when he was playing catch with himself with a football. The ball got away from him and rolled out into the street. The boy said that a police officer drove up, and naturally he was scared. What ensued was that the officer stopped his car, got out, retrieved the ball, and tossed it back to him. The policeman did not reprimand him, rather he urged the boy to enjoy his play and to be safe.

We do have numerous examples of community policing, in both our actual history and fictional history. Remember the beat cop that actor Sean Connery played in The Untouchables. He was a guy who would befriend you on the street, but when necessary bop you upside the head with his night stick.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, many police forces made efforts to hire an “Officer Friendly.” While much of the work of these officers was visiting pre-school and kindergarten classes, they also were present at a number of events where they could mingle with the public. But one Officer Friendly does not make a friendly police force.

Why is it difficult for some police officers and many of their supporters to pick up the nuanced meaning of Black Lives Matter? It’s easy for anyone to say that all lives matter, but it becomes a throwaway line when intended to imply that everyone’s life is in equal jeopardy. Police officers are aware of the statistics showing that African-Americans are much more likely to die from gunshots, from disease, even from the hands of police. But if those officers’ only engagement with the African-American community is with a criminal element, then it can easily follow that they have a lower regard for African-American lives.

On the other hand, when officers are on the streets in both good times and bad times, they get to see a more realistic picture of the community. When they can informally interact with citizens, they get to know people in a way that goes beyond stereotypes. And if officers were to get to know individuals and families in a way that social workers do, the officers might see their roles entirely differently. They would become problem-solvers in a much broader way than they are under the current definitions of their jobs.

In a perfect world, we would neither need police officers nor social workers. But people have problems. Sometimes they can be addressed with love and compassion; other times they require physical restraint. The way out society is currently structured, we have different professions to address different problems. But who determines under what category a problem falls? Really there is no one. What we need are individuals who have skill sets of both police officers and social workers. The fact that this is currently possible in only a few locales does not make it an unworthy goal. We need to put our efforts towards creating a new group of community police officers who are resourceful, compassionate, and also firm when needed.

Consider what President Obama had to say about community policing in a speech last year in Camden, New Jersey:

So I’ve come here to Camden to do something that might have been unthinkable just a few years ago — and that’s to hold you up as a symbol of promise for the nation.  (Applause.)  Now, I don’t want to overstate it.  Obviously Camden has gone through tough times and there are still tough times for a lot of folks here in Camden.  But just a few years ago, this city was written off as dangerous beyond redemption — a city trapped in a downward spiral.  Parents were afraid to let their children play outside.  Drug dealers operated in broad daylight.  There weren’t enough cops to patrol the streets.

So two years ago, the police department was overhauled to implement a new model of community policing.  They doubled the size of the force — while keeping it unionized.  They cut desk jobs in favor of getting more officers out into the streets.  Not just to walk the beat, but to actually get to know the residents — to set up basketball games, to volunteer in schools, to participate in reading programs, to get to know the small businesses in the area.

If the system that we have elsewhere for policing is flawed, then perhaps it has to do with those whom we recruit to become police officers and how we define their jobs.  We need to recruit individuals who have more of a holistic view of society rather than one limited to dividing us into “good guys” and “bad guys.” We need people who see their role as being arbiters on the streets of their community. We need people who represent the best of our societal values to the many varied kinds of people whom they encounter.

In order to do this, we are going to have to pay community police officers more. We’re also going to have to improve their working conditions so that there is more joy and less trauma. We’re going to have to set expectations so that they receive high regard from the public when they earn it; not just because they wear a badge.

These ideas are not particularly new; they’re just ones that were frequently thrown in the trash heap during the era of a singular focus on law and order. When the primary representatives of “we the people” who interact with citizens are solely hell-bent on keeping law and order, we should expect more than occasional miscarriage of justice. If Ferguson, Baton Rouge and St. Paul have taught us anything about policing, it’s that we need to thoroughly re-think it. Let’s start with community policing.

The post We need police officers who are also social workers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders met on Thursday, June 9, 2016 to discuss “where do we go now” following the primaries and caucuses in California and five other states. Shortly thereafter, he endorsed Hillary Clinton, in a paid video by the Clinton campaign.

In the announcement, the president said that the differences that exist in 2016 between Clinton and Sanders are no different than those that he and Clinton faced eight years ago. This sounds nice; it has a certain symmetry to it, but it may not be accurate. In fact, it is likely an inconvenient truth that it is not so and failing to recognize that will make it more difficult to garner the backing of Sanders and his supporters in the fall campaign against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Acknowledging the differences between 2008 and 2016 can be key to bringing the Sanders – Clinton – and Obama wings of the Democratic party together and fashioning not only a successful campaign this fall, but developing a renewed purpose with a progressive perspective for the future.

The differences are spelled out quite well by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone:

But, looking back on the 2008 campaign, the substantive differences on policy were vanishingly small. There were big fights over judgment (the Iraq War) and the claim to history (the first African-American versus the first woman nominee). But on policy grounds, Clinton and Obama were all but the same candidate.

Their most salient disagreement was whether the Democratic plan for universal health care ought to include a mandate to buy coverage. Clinton insisted the mandate was essential; Obama opposed as a matter of principle. They debated it ad nauseum. But in the end, this squabble was much ado about nothing. When Obama became president, Clinton’s top health-policy adviser was tapped by the White House to run point reform — and the individual mandate became a bedrock principle of Obamacare. 

This is relevant today, because falling in line behind Obama in 2008 required Clinton to swallow little more than personal pride. It did not require sacrifice of any dearly held principle or policy stance — only surrender of the idea that she would have made a better president.

In 2016, the contested terrain is not symbolic. Consider Sanders’ call to break up the big banks against Clinton’s proposal to better regulate Wall Street.

This is a difference of orientation, not degree. And it is but one of many such differences.

The profound differences between Sanders and Clinton, coupled with Obama nearing the liberation of the post-presidency provide an opportunity for more progressive change. In a nutshell, here is what each of them have to do to make this happen.

1. Sanders, who has good reason (at least in his own mind) to be spiteful about how the race for the nomination turned out, needs to drop his issues about 2016. He ran a good race (at least before the New York primary) and now is the time to make peace. I think that most of his criticisms of Hillary are legitimate, but there is no point in further hammering them home. Let’s learn to live with Hillary; she may surprise us and be a more progressive president than Obama.It is time for Bernie to turn his attention to more structural changes in our democracy, changes that cannot be implemented in 2016, although some might be promoted at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. These could include:

a. Promoting dramatic change in the way in which we choose our nominees for president. What about developing a plan so that in 2020, Democrats choose their nominees through four regional primaries beginning in March or April? No more caucuses, no more inflated importance for small states, no more parochial messaging for tiny portions of the country.

b. Promoting concrete ways to reduce the role of money in politics. Sanders is the master of fashioning a national campaign based on small donations. This could be coupled with supply-side democracy to eliminate the financial connection between Wall Street and other vested interests in the business of the people.

c. Working with schools to help students develop into more active and informed citizens in our democracy. This will include drastically reducing (or eliminating) the role of standardized tests and replacing them empathy and concern about the common good.

d. Addressing the issue of the “angry white males” who have gravitated to Donald Trump when a New Deal or Great Society agenda would have been much more beneficial to them.

e. Explaining to the American people who the word “socialism” is not a bad word, and in fact is an option for addressing most of our economic problems.

2. The President can take off the shelf all the progressive ideas that he had to put away because of a recalcitrant Republican Congress and Supreme Court. His memoirs will provide an outstanding opportunity to join with Sanders and millions of others in placing a genuine progressive agenda before the American people. He can write his memoirs with no fear of having to submit them to Congress and having them mired in gridlock. He will be free to speak his mind. He might also say that getting cozy with Wall Street and other big donors was a necessity for him to become president, but that the American people are now willing to conduct politics without big money. Perhaps most importantly, in his retirement, he would be wise to follow the outreach path of Jimmy Carter rather than Bill Clinton so that he is no longer entangled with shady moneyed interests.

Perhaps Obama and Sanders discussed some of those ideas on June 9. In all likelihood they didn’t. But Bernie can push this agenda and perhaps Obama will be a willing follower, knowing that Hillary will be his likely successor.

The post What Obama and Sanders can do to keep “the Bern” alive while helping Clinton appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that described the way that the small St. Louis County municipality of Pagedale was condemning inhabited, livable houses and levying fines for petty housing code violations. A subsequent editorial  drew an explicit line between this practice and the over-reliance on revenue generated by traffic violations which was condemned in a recent Department of Justice report. In both cases, poorer citizens bear the brunt of the abuse of municipal power.

With my sincere apologies to those good people who have really tried to bring the lessons of Ferguson home and act upon them, a particular aspect of the misdeeds described seemed emblematic of how many in the St. Louis region have reacted to the issues that have risen in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent protests. This passage among others in the article struck me as jaw-dropping:

At a recent demolition hearing, Mayor Mary Louis Carter told one homeowner after another where they needed to focus their work if they wanted to keep their property: “The first emphasis should be the exterior,” she said repeatedly. One house needed new plumbing, electrical work, a new roof and foundation. Do the outside work first, Carter instructed the homeowner’s lawyer, “it’s a long time before he’s going to be able to use lights or plumbing.”

The mayor explained: “We want to bring our property values up and make our neighborhood look nice.”

Fix the outside and we don’t need to worry about what is on the inside. The folks who live in the houses can deal with the lack of plumbing as long as we don’t have to see or hear about it – and God forbid, as long as it can be kept from anyone looking to buy a house in the neighborhood.

Isn’t this emphasis on keeping up appearances what lies behind the bellyaching of those folks who, beginning a few days after Michael Brown’s death, began moaning about how all this negative publicity would “hurt” Ferguson and the St. Louis region in general? I can’t help but think it’s funny how I didn’t hear too much about any of these concerned citizens going out of their way to deal with issues of race and abuse of police power before the protesters who were the genesis of Black Lives Matter made a little noise. Maybe if anybody had been paying attention before, we might never have had had to deal with front page “Ferguson” on the national – and international – stage.

And isn’t it possible that it is genteel annoyance that our plumbing problems are out in the open for all to see that animates the desire to bring charges against the reporters who witnessed and told the world about the inept response to the Ferguson situation? According to Think Progress:

St. Louis County police are suddenly levying an onslaught of charges against journalists who covered the Ferguson protests last year, accusing them of minor offenses days before the statute of limitations is up. This week alone, three journalists have been charged for interfering with on-duty officers – a full year after their arrests. The recent developments follow an ongoing trend of criminalizing journalists for doing their jobs.

Two of the reporters possibly face $1000 fines and up to a year in jail for “interfering with officers.” Their crime?:

On a separate occasion, several officers – many of whom were armed with assault weapons – entered the restaurant and ordered patrons to leave. Journalists, including Lowery and Reilly, were told they could stay, but the officers later returned and told them they had to leave. Both were arrested and detained for not leaving fast enough, and were released without charges hours later.

As Martin Baron, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, which employs one of the Reporters, Wes Lowery, noted, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/arrested-in-ferguson-2014-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-is-charged.html?_r=0 he “should never have been arrested in the first place. That was an abuse of police authority.”

Let’s see. Abuse of police authority? Wasn’t that the problem to begin with? Only this time it doesn’t have anything to do with us getting our metaphorical linen all dirty, but about punishing and/or impeding folks who expose our dirty linen. Because if nobody knows we soiled our underclothes, doesn’t that mean we’re as bright and shining clean as a new penny?

The post The Ferguson dilemma: When keeping up appearances is not enough appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the interesting differences between the discord following the deaths of unarmed black men in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore is to what extent African-Americans are full participants in the police and justice system in each community.

In Ferguson, justice was certainly delayed, if not denied, because of a white power structure that did not question itself after Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. Wilson was one of 54 white officers out of a total of 57 police in Ferguson. The police chief was an old-guard white man, Tom Jackson. The mayor of Ferguson is James Knowles, III, who is also white. The Prosecuting Attorney in St. Louis County is Bob McCulloch who is white.

A clear picture of what exactly happened on that hot August afternoon in 2014 was not presented until the U.S. government, specifically the Department of Justice, became involved. It is no small coincidence that the U.S. Attorney-General was an African-American man, Eric Holder, and his boss is of course our African-American president, Barack Obama. The Justice Department issued two reports, both in March 2015. One detailed the incidents on Canfield Avenue on August 9 that led to the death of Michael Brown. The other was a critique of the police department in Ferguson and the North County Justice System.

It was not until these reports were released that we received an honest understanding of what really happened on August 9. The DOJ applied the kind of critical thinking to the testimony of Grand Jury witnesses that the St. Louis County prosecutor’s office did not. Some might have expected the DOJ under Holder to conclude that charges should have been pressed against Darren Wilson, but instead it methodically explained that there was not sufficient evidence to do so. But in the separate report, it took to task the judicial system in Ferguson and surrounding North St. Louis County communities.

In Baltimore, the judicial power structure has far more African-Americans in vital positions. The chief of police, Anthony Batts, is African-American as is the State’s Attorney, Marilyn Mosby. The city’s mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, is also black. Forty-three percent of the police officers are African-American compared to Ferguson’s five percent.

In Baltimore, all six of the police officers (3 white; 3 black) who were involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray were indicted by the state’s attorney with a range of criminal offenses. Five of the six are charged with second-degree assault. The indictments of these officers indicates to citizens of Baltimore that justice has the potential to be fair in their city. The same cannot be said about Ferguson.

If the police officers in Baltimore are convicted and sentenced with real penalties, it will be strong evidence that the justice system can function well in that city when it comes to use of excessive force by police officers. In another sense, it will be a tribute to the significance of black power.

But black power can only do so much in Baltimore or any other community. Even if the judicial system works to perfection, it does not automatically raise people out of poverty, provide them with affordable, comprehensive health care, humanize the schools, raise the level of the housing stock, or open up thousands of new job opportunities. Only if the judicial system could rule that the country needs a massive redistribution of wealth in America could the problems of Baltimore and other communities like it be fully addressed.

It is not advisable for any of us to sit around and wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately rule that wealth is unevenly distributed in the United States and that this situation must be remedied “with all deliberate speed.” (borrowing language from their school desegregation ruling in Brown v Topeka in 1954). Yet such a ruling, if enforced, would give society the tools to correct many of the economic injustices that currently exist in the United States.

A second way to bring comprehensive change to Baltimore, Ferguson, and any community in economic distress, is for the United States Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a massive stimulus bill that would create millions of jobs, provide adequate health care universally, modernize our housing stock, update our infrastructure, sensitize our schools, and ensure an adequate economic and social safety net for all citizens. This is a much more realistic approach than a Supreme Court ruling, because it is doubtful that the Court would find economic disparity to be unconstitutional.

As much as we can cheer the racial justice that seems to be happening in Baltimore and applaud what Eric Holder’s Justice Department has brought to Ferguson, we cannot lose sight of the reality that to bring a more complete justice to impoverished communities, the federal government must lead the way with economic redistribution. Only the federal government has the taxing and spending power to do this. To focus on local solutions to national problems is paradise to conservatives because local communities cannot enact economic justice. Neither can most states. We need more progressives at the national level who can help solve our urban problems through more economic fairness.

The post Black power can only do so much to solve our racial problems appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week, I fired a handgun for the first time in my life. And for those of you hoping to learn that my experience transformed me from a gun-phobe to a gun-lover: Sorry. I never want to do that again.

My 20 minutes at the firing range were part of the nine-week Citizens’ Police Academy I enrolled in this spring. To qualify for the firing range experience, we had to attend a two-hour session on firearms and firearms safety. I learned a lot at that session, but perhaps not exactly what our hosts—five local police departments, and our instructor, the departments’ “firearms guru”—were hoping for.

At the firearms safety session, Lieutenant Finn [not his real name] started with a detailed explanation of how guns work. As he spoke, I realized that most of the people in our session seemed to know exactly what he was talking about and were eager to demonstrate their familiarity with guns. It seemed to me that Lieutenant Finn assumed that most people knew these things. I began to sense that I was in a small minority of non-gun-owners.

Halfway through the presentation, Lieutenant Finn offered us the opportunity to come to the front table, where an array of [disarmed, of course] police weaponry was on display for viewing and handling. He created a virtual stampede. And for the next 25 minutes, everyone—except about four of us—clustered around the weaponry, holding, pretend-aiming, pulling triggers and, if I didn’t know better—fondling [the guns, not each other.]

I was supremely uncomfortable. I sidled up to the police officer who was coordinating the citizens’ police academy and told her that I was contemplating not going to the firing range. She was understanding, but she noted that, if I didn’t, I’d be the first participant–in the 13-year history of the Academy–to not shoot. I began thinking that being the first to opt out might earn me—in my own mind—a moral badge of honor. But as the week went on, and the firing range loomed, I opted out of opting out. I told myself that I should at least try it, to know how it feels. So I did.

The next week, we went to the range in pairs—each of us assigned to a firing range instructor. I got Lt. Finn, whom I hadn’t particularly liked during his firearms safety session, as he was very ex-Marine-ish and a bit too gung-ho about guns for my taste. But at the range, he was very gentle and understanding with me, showing me how to grip the gun, how to stand, how to aim, how to slowly pull the trigger, etc.

Then, he hung up a paper target [human upper-torso outline] 20 yards away, helped me don my ear protection, and turned me loose to fire five bullets, as he stood next to me, the handgun virgin.

The last time a fired a gun—it was a rifle, not a handgun—was in 1957, at Camp Wingfoot for Girls, somewhere in rural Ohio. Back then, we engaged in something called “Riflery,” sponsored by the NRA, from whom I received “Pro-Marksman” and “Marksman First Class” medals for rudimentary, accurate target shooting from the prone position.

Back then, I had no idea what the NRA was, what it stood for, or that “Riflery” was designed as a gateway drug for future gun ownership.

Looking back, I have to admit that I sort of looked forward to Riflery—it was a lot more fun than falling off a horse [which I did multiple times] or feeling like I was drowning in the deep end of the pool, where my co-campers tossed me even though I didn’t know how to swim.

Nevertheless, knowing what I know now about guns, nearly 60 years later, I fired my handgun at the police firing range. Bang. The gun jumped, and so did I. The noise and the explosion scared the shit out of me, undoubtedly causing Lt. Finn to chuckle at my naivete and inexperience. Still, there were four more rounds in the magazine, so I went back to the line and fired again.

When Lt. Finn retrieved my target guy, I realized that I had been scarily lethal. Should I feel proud or ashamed? I’m really not sure.

Now that I’ve done that, as I said earlier, I have no desire to go back. I wouldn’t want to feel comfortable with a handgun, and it scares me that so many other people actually do. I am somewhat comforted to know that, according to our Citizen Police Academy presenters, the vast majority of police officers have never fired their weapons outside of the practice range.

But, given what Lt. Finn told us about police-department firearms training, I’m also somewhat distressed. Lt. Finn said that his department requires its officers to retrain and re-certify on firearms every quarter. Other departments do it twice a year, he said, and there are a lot of opportunities throughout the year to learn more about weapons via seminars and training meetings.

What disturbs me is this: There seems to be a great deal of emphasis on training for a circumstance [drawing and firing your weapon] that is, in everyday policing, somewhat of a rarity. Lt. Finn, for all of his expertise, told us that he has never been called upon to draw his weapon or fire it in the line of duty.

I do acknowledge that, given the proliferation of guns in America [thanks, NRA], police officers need to be ready to face the worst-case scenario in even the most routine-looking situations. But I’m wondering if the training is too skewed toward weapons training, and not focused nearly enough on things like de-escalating situations or, just simply, learning how to create more positive interactions between police and the people of their communities. Those would be targets worth shooting at.

The post I’ve lost my handgun virginity appeared first on Occasional Planet.