We live in world flooded by information. Technology has made it very easy for us to receive alerts from Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others. In the past we just had news outlets to acquire information. Flawed as they were and are, these outlets attempted to fact-check and give you as accurate information as possible. Now everyone armed with a cellphone and an observation can report their opinion to the masses on social media without a shred of accountability. What is sad - is that media outlets are beginning to compete with these "citizen reporters" and their often uninformed and reaction-only biased opinion. What is even more dangerous is that these social media reports can be easily manipulated to stir up violence by terrorist organizations like Hamas.
The current spate of violence in Israel has such roots. The terrorist organization Hamas was not content with the recent period of calm between Jewish and Palestinian people. So, this organization decided to spread rumors via social media about the Israeli government planning to restrict Palestinian access to the Noble Sanctuary. These rumors were quickly used as a spark to light the fire of the current violent clashes.
The Palestinian people took these rumors at face value, despite no indication from the Israeli government of these rumors being anywhere near reality. What followed was a series of stabbing, shooting, and vehicular attacks by Palestinian individuals on Israeli Jews. Now the situation has spiraled out of control with stones, burning tires and Palestinian mob setting fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34547523). There was one reprisal stabbing as well by a Jewish settler, as well as shooting of Palestinian protesters that threw stones and homemade gasoline bombs at riot police.
The Israeli government has put more police and security forces in and around Israel in order to protect its people. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas stated that Palestinian people are not interested in further escalation of violence. However, he has no real power against the Palestinian governing party Hamas. And what Hamas has done is put out instructional videos (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34513693) on how to stab Jewish people, fueling the hatred and violence even further. Now they are spreading the rumors of a third uprising (intifada).
This is an extreme case. And not every rumor or opinion misrepresented as fact on the internet will cause loss of life. However, glancing at the headlines of posts and blogs does impact people's thinking at a subconscious level. With the bombardment of multiple information sources we have, it is impossible to have time to research every headline you come across. The next time you feel like posting an uninformed fact-less opinion or support a sensationalist story that has no merit, remember that this is a technique that has been usurped by terrorist organizations. Don't be ignorant and don't be an accomplice. Do a little research and know the facts.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Culture of Cheating
It's easy to pay the price via a lost draft pick, cash, or a suspension after you have won the Super Bowl and don't have to give the Vincent Lombardi trophy back. History is written, and the NFL has shown its incompetence in terms of taking action when it would have actually mattered - before the Super Bowl was played.
The NFL, New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and cheating. These words have been bound together over the past decade, and perhaps even earlier. Whether it is spygate, deflategate, or something the Patriots have committed (but haven't been caught for), the verdict is clear - there is a culture of cheating in the New England Patriots organization and it is tolerated by the NFL's lack of decisive and appropriately harsh action.
Despite a plethora of evidence against the Patriots, the NFL and the comissioner Roger Goodell decided to allow the Patriots to play for the title against the Seahawks, stating the the investigation would take place after the Super Bowl. Now, if you want to take decisive action to preserve the integrity of the game - you halt all festivities and work overtime to find out if the NFL equipment has been tempered with and the process of verification of football pressure has been violated before the game. Furthermore, if you find that the Patriots cheated before the game, it makes it that much more simpler to disqualify them from Super Bowl contention.
That is the path you take, if you actually care about the integrity of the game and truly believe that cheaters never prosper. But that did not happen, and the Patriots wound up winning the Super Bowl over the Seahawks on the game's last play. The punishment has to be harsh enough to send a message that you can't win through cheating, as the first punishment for Spygate years ago did not seem to do the trick. After the game is played, unless you take away the Super Bowl title from the New England Patriots, suspend Brady and Belichick for the year (as they are multiple offenders), the only message you're sending to the rest of the league and the fans is - Cheating is a perfectly OK tactic to win the Super Bowl.
Cheaters never win... unless their owner is a really good friend of the NFL Commissioner.
Friday, April 17, 2015
At Taxpayer's Expense
Let me start off by saying - I know it is my obligation as a citizen to pay my fair share of taxes and I make sure my employer withholding every year is right on target to meet my tax obligations. I may not like the amount of money chopped off my paycheck, but neither does any other citizen. It is one of those things we know we must, but wish we didn't have to.
My problem revolves around the "wonderful" legislation that dictates the Highly Compensated Employees (HCE) rules. These rules are applied in a blanket manner across this country, whether you live in Wyoming, Texas, New York or California - you become an HCE if you either own 5% of the business or earn more than $115,000.
Once you become an HCE in the eyes of the IRS, you are no longer eligible for several education related tax deductions - and that is right, because those deductions were designed to protect the lower income population.
However, there is another side to the HCE rules. That side relates to the 401K and IRA tax deductible status. Ordinarily, employees are allowed to contribute money from their earnings towards these retirement plans. For 401K, the contributions are pre-tax and for IRA the contributions can be deducted from your taxable income when filing your return. Both plans allow investments to grow tax-deferred for the life of the plan.
When applying the HCE rules, which were advertised by our Washington legislators to the public as "making sure lower income individuals benefit from retirement plans as well as the HCEs", they were actually trying to apply the proverbial 'defibrillator' to the US Treasury investment (as most safe components of any retirement plan contain a healthy dose of Government Bonds and Treasury Bills).
Their crazy way of thinking was explained - each company will have to undertake a 'stress test' to make sure that their lower earners benefit in no lesser proportion than their HCEs. Meaning if the lower earners don't contribute to the 401K plan or don't contribute enough, the HCEs become ineligible for the tax-deductible status of their 401K contributions and will have a refund of those contributions issued (which will then be considered taxable income).
The rationale was - the company HR and the HCEs should encourage the lower income employees to participate fully in the 401K program. Sounds like a collective social pressure applied to a work environment in order to pump up the Government's Treasury bottom line. Don't worry, comrade, the government has your best intentions in mind.
But this idea backfired - you cannot convince lower earners, some of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, to contribute to 401K the money that they simply do not have to spare. As a result, the lower earners will not contribute because they cannot afford to and the HCEs will not contribute because they have been flagged as ineligible. In conclusion, unless this legislative mess is corrected, the 401K and IRA plans will suffer a contraction - one which will negatively impact the US Treasury investments (the exact opposite of what this legislation intended to do).
P.S. Consider the inconsiderate nature of this legislation - the HCE 'stress test' will surely pass an Investment Bank or a Law Firm, where every HCE will remain eligible for 401K's tax deductible status. Then consider a consulting company, where a lot of workers are per diem, don't earn enough to be considered an HCE and typically do not contribute to the company's retirement plans. The people who just barely meet the HCE criteria (through pulling in a lot of extra overtime) will now be unfairly punished simply because of the per capita income composition of their company. Also, geographically a non-HCE employee earning under $115,000 will probably be able to contribute to a greater degree in remote areas of Texas and Florida (where there is no state income tax to chop off your paycheck and the cost of living is relatively low), as opposed to New York and California (where state taxes are quite high and so is the cost of living).
My problem revolves around the "wonderful" legislation that dictates the Highly Compensated Employees (HCE) rules. These rules are applied in a blanket manner across this country, whether you live in Wyoming, Texas, New York or California - you become an HCE if you either own 5% of the business or earn more than $115,000.
Once you become an HCE in the eyes of the IRS, you are no longer eligible for several education related tax deductions - and that is right, because those deductions were designed to protect the lower income population.
However, there is another side to the HCE rules. That side relates to the 401K and IRA tax deductible status. Ordinarily, employees are allowed to contribute money from their earnings towards these retirement plans. For 401K, the contributions are pre-tax and for IRA the contributions can be deducted from your taxable income when filing your return. Both plans allow investments to grow tax-deferred for the life of the plan.
When applying the HCE rules, which were advertised by our Washington legislators to the public as "making sure lower income individuals benefit from retirement plans as well as the HCEs", they were actually trying to apply the proverbial 'defibrillator' to the US Treasury investment (as most safe components of any retirement plan contain a healthy dose of Government Bonds and Treasury Bills).
Their crazy way of thinking was explained - each company will have to undertake a 'stress test' to make sure that their lower earners benefit in no lesser proportion than their HCEs. Meaning if the lower earners don't contribute to the 401K plan or don't contribute enough, the HCEs become ineligible for the tax-deductible status of their 401K contributions and will have a refund of those contributions issued (which will then be considered taxable income).
The rationale was - the company HR and the HCEs should encourage the lower income employees to participate fully in the 401K program. Sounds like a collective social pressure applied to a work environment in order to pump up the Government's Treasury bottom line. Don't worry, comrade, the government has your best intentions in mind.
But this idea backfired - you cannot convince lower earners, some of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, to contribute to 401K the money that they simply do not have to spare. As a result, the lower earners will not contribute because they cannot afford to and the HCEs will not contribute because they have been flagged as ineligible. In conclusion, unless this legislative mess is corrected, the 401K and IRA plans will suffer a contraction - one which will negatively impact the US Treasury investments (the exact opposite of what this legislation intended to do).
P.S. Consider the inconsiderate nature of this legislation - the HCE 'stress test' will surely pass an Investment Bank or a Law Firm, where every HCE will remain eligible for 401K's tax deductible status. Then consider a consulting company, where a lot of workers are per diem, don't earn enough to be considered an HCE and typically do not contribute to the company's retirement plans. The people who just barely meet the HCE criteria (through pulling in a lot of extra overtime) will now be unfairly punished simply because of the per capita income composition of their company. Also, geographically a non-HCE employee earning under $115,000 will probably be able to contribute to a greater degree in remote areas of Texas and Florida (where there is no state income tax to chop off your paycheck and the cost of living is relatively low), as opposed to New York and California (where state taxes are quite high and so is the cost of living).
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Righteous, Pretentious and Dangerous
I often do a thorough job of exposing the media and its ratings-fueled buy-me-a-sponsor sensationalist broadcasts. The entertainment news outlets rarely fact-check, promote divisive opinions and rarely provide an objective journalistic perspective that Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite would approve. Having said that, it is important to note the types of individuals these news outlets serve - those who feel their efforts and opinions are righteous, but in the end are just pretentious lemmings who try to ride the coat-tails of what they believe will be the next great revolution of consciousness.
While there is a great deal of people who actually know that there is more to a story than the headline, these people are highly analytic calm individuals who will not jump in Al Sharptonian fashion on a platform of Racial Divide and 'Great Injustice'. As a result, we are left with the bottom-of-the-barrel knee-jerk reactionaries who are willing to perpetuate uninformed feelings-based divisive opinions to wave their flag of righteousness. Not many actions can be more pretentious than to carry forward the ignorant opinion of others in the name of outrage and/or seeking justice.
Which is why my column is a bit delayed, respective of the events it addresses. I take pride in my due diligence of research before any analysis is performed... plus I have a day job. I try to provide an objective analysis, and express my feelings in the form of question(s) at the end. That way I am not predisposing my readers to any conclusion. I am not saying that I am completely impartial, but I always try to reach that mark and constantly improve my approach to reach this goal.
But there is a higher level of responsibility that exists, beyond the bloggers, beyond the news outlets. It is the responsibility of Publicly Elected Officials to protect the people they serve. A large part of that responsibility falls into what such an official says and doesn't say. With respect to the Eric Garner death, where the Police Officer (Daniel Pantaleo) used an illegal tactic to subdue the suspect, there was clear misconduct on the part of the officer. There is no question that he is responsible for the suspect's death and I wrote about this incident in my December 10th column (Real Crime). Regrettably, the mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, decided to dive into the racially divisive outrage head-first and fuel the fire further by sharing his feelings, instead of doing his job - isolating the incident as an improper action by a police officer and attempting calm the situation to a peaceful end.
This kind of commentary by the city's leader validates the reactionary sensationalist vigilante feelings of a mob of people. These people were already on edge and now they have the city leader's validation of their feelings. These feelings of vigilante justice manifested themselves in the 'Dead Cops' protesters in New York City. Eventually, such validation reached the mentally unstable youth, Ismaayil Brinsley, who wound up ambushing and executing two NYPD Officers this past weekend.
While Mayor De Blasio has the right to share his feelings as a citizen of New York, he has a higher obligation that trumps that right as the Mayor of New York. And this month he has proven unwilling or incapable to fulfill his obligation as Mayor. Being a leader means you have to do and say things that are in the best interest of the people who elected you, which don't necessarily reflect your own feelings or agenda. Bill De Blasio - you failed the people who elected you.
While there is a great deal of people who actually know that there is more to a story than the headline, these people are highly analytic calm individuals who will not jump in Al Sharptonian fashion on a platform of Racial Divide and 'Great Injustice'. As a result, we are left with the bottom-of-the-barrel knee-jerk reactionaries who are willing to perpetuate uninformed feelings-based divisive opinions to wave their flag of righteousness. Not many actions can be more pretentious than to carry forward the ignorant opinion of others in the name of outrage and/or seeking justice.
Which is why my column is a bit delayed, respective of the events it addresses. I take pride in my due diligence of research before any analysis is performed... plus I have a day job. I try to provide an objective analysis, and express my feelings in the form of question(s) at the end. That way I am not predisposing my readers to any conclusion. I am not saying that I am completely impartial, but I always try to reach that mark and constantly improve my approach to reach this goal.
But there is a higher level of responsibility that exists, beyond the bloggers, beyond the news outlets. It is the responsibility of Publicly Elected Officials to protect the people they serve. A large part of that responsibility falls into what such an official says and doesn't say. With respect to the Eric Garner death, where the Police Officer (Daniel Pantaleo) used an illegal tactic to subdue the suspect, there was clear misconduct on the part of the officer. There is no question that he is responsible for the suspect's death and I wrote about this incident in my December 10th column (Real Crime). Regrettably, the mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, decided to dive into the racially divisive outrage head-first and fuel the fire further by sharing his feelings, instead of doing his job - isolating the incident as an improper action by a police officer and attempting calm the situation to a peaceful end.
This kind of commentary by the city's leader validates the reactionary sensationalist vigilante feelings of a mob of people. These people were already on edge and now they have the city leader's validation of their feelings. These feelings of vigilante justice manifested themselves in the 'Dead Cops' protesters in New York City. Eventually, such validation reached the mentally unstable youth, Ismaayil Brinsley, who wound up ambushing and executing two NYPD Officers this past weekend.
While Mayor De Blasio has the right to share his feelings as a citizen of New York, he has a higher obligation that trumps that right as the Mayor of New York. And this month he has proven unwilling or incapable to fulfill his obligation as Mayor. Being a leader means you have to do and say things that are in the best interest of the people who elected you, which don't necessarily reflect your own feelings or agenda. Bill De Blasio - you failed the people who elected you.
There are columnists who consider themselves righteous and try to protect the right to hateful speech of the 'Dead Cops' protesters. Fact is, those rights have not been infringed upon by anyone - the group was allowed to carry on, demanding the indiscriminate death of Police Officers unopposed as they marched down the streets of New York. But as advocates of hate speech, these same columnists validated the broad target of the vigilante mob outrage, which has been irresponsibly placed on the heads of the men and women who protect your sorry asses.
Furthermore, these same columnists are pretentious enough to point out the comments of the PBA president (who was furious at Mayor De Blasio for his actions) are meant to incite reprisals by police. This conclusion is so pretentious, so far-fetched and ridiculous, that I am actually angry that I have to teach the ABCs of reason and rationale to people who claim to be intelligent. The Police department is trained to serve and protect. They arrest and imprison criminals, including vigilantes. They possess a professional tolerance that prevents them from seeking out "vengeance". They will protect you, regardless of your pretentious and dangerous rhetoric that incites and validates those who do harm to others.
While I disagree with some of the comments made by the PBA president Patrick Lynch, for the most part he was looking out for the welfare of the police force. I will strike down the 'blood on the hands of mayor' inference, but it is at the very least irresponsible to fan the flames of racial divide as the Mayor before any fact of racism is even confirmed with respect to the Eric Garner case. But to say that the PBA president incited police vigilantes is an ignorant statement in itself. The PBA president has a responsibility to his police officers, while the Mayor has a responsibility to the entire population of New York City. PBA president has been locked in a battle with the Mayor regarding the treatment of officers for some time now - attempting to protect his officers.
Carefully crated words that evoke strong feelings disseminated through media in the modern world can be powerful - they can start movements and bring governments to their knees. And there are people who believe they are pursuing a just cause, because it "feels right", writing opinions that fuel the racial divide using history and presumption of guilt. However, remaining ignorant of factual evidence and drawing far-fetched parallels to suit their narrative, they are simply pretentious and, in the case of the two slain police officers, dangerous.
While I disagree with some of the comments made by the PBA president Patrick Lynch, for the most part he was looking out for the welfare of the police force. I will strike down the 'blood on the hands of mayor' inference, but it is at the very least irresponsible to fan the flames of racial divide as the Mayor before any fact of racism is even confirmed with respect to the Eric Garner case. But to say that the PBA president incited police vigilantes is an ignorant statement in itself. The PBA president has a responsibility to his police officers, while the Mayor has a responsibility to the entire population of New York City. PBA president has been locked in a battle with the Mayor regarding the treatment of officers for some time now - attempting to protect his officers.
The excuse being used by advocates who badly want to see a vindication and rightfulness of protesters here is that - "it was just a couple of dozen protesters who chanted Dead Cops Now, the rest did not promote violence". A question to those advocates - Did you witness the rest of the protests in New York City to make that statement or are you pulling another ignorant opinion from your blooming ass?
Carefully crated words that evoke strong feelings disseminated through media in the modern world can be powerful - they can start movements and bring governments to their knees. And there are people who believe they are pursuing a just cause, because it "feels right", writing opinions that fuel the racial divide using history and presumption of guilt. However, remaining ignorant of factual evidence and drawing far-fetched parallels to suit their narrative, they are simply pretentious and, in the case of the two slain police officers, dangerous.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
The Root of Evil
Recent Events
Many of you are well aware about the recent Taliban attack in Peshawar Pakistan that has killed 145 people, including 132 children. This unspeakable atrocity has been treated as a planned operation to oppose the Pakistani security force activity against Taliban in Pakistan. Taliban is essentially targeting the children of the people who are fighting them. However, the Taliban has been targeting the Education system in Pakistan for a lot longer.
Poison in Education
The root of all evil in this world can be found in the degree and scope of education a society provides for its youth. One of my classmates in college once told me - "my parents did not want me to be educated in Lebanon, which is why I went to school here (Hartford)". The reasons that Syed's parent's didn't want him to be educated in Lebanon was due to the narrow view of humanity, a steady dose of hatred, and the lack of value for a human life that the local education set for the young. His parents did not want him to see his neighbors as sub-human, hate those who are unlike him, and sacrifice his life in the name of some holy war. So they smartly shielded their child from this poison and immigrated overseas to provide a better chance for their child to succeed. The result - when I met Syed he very much valued human life and treated his peers as equals regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or religion. But not all children of Radicalized Islamic areas of the world are as fortunate.
Taliban
There is no better example of education specifically catered to Radical Islam and Terrorism than that of the Taliban. The very name translates to 'Students'. However, the material they disseminate among their own followers is nothing short of repressive Jihadist propaganda that teaches a very narrow sliver of Islam, skewed toward fostering hatred. They teach a repressive diet of conservative Islam with a repressive view of women's rights and intolerance toward those who do not conform. The Taliban are so opposed to female education in Pakistan, that they were inclined to shoot a defenseless girl, better known as the Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, in the head. This organization is so opposed to freedom of education, that they are willing to kill their young to get the point across. And, sadly, this vile commitment has again manifested itself in Peshawar this past week. The Taliban, 'Students', know very well that their poisonous rhetoric cannot hold up to scrutiny when confronted by freely educated youth and they are afraid.
Enlightenment
Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel, once said: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us". She was specifically talking about opponents of Israel using children as front-line soldiers and/or shields. These actions epitomize the Terrorist mindset of taking the value of even a child's life as a 'shahid', a martyr, dying for a cause and rejoicing in the death itself. This concept is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Taliban itself advocates such acts of martyrdom for their own purpose and regard the militants who died in the Peshawar School siege as such martyrs. We must seek a higher level of understanding as human beings across this world - such atrocities have no place on this planet.
As people of the earth, each an every one of us must fight to provide free and independent sources of education to every corner of the earth. We live in the age of the Global Internet, where such collective action should be possible. We must similarly fight to expose these false prophets (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) for the scum of the earth they are and eradicate them from existence - for they are the true poison of this planet.
Many of you are well aware about the recent Taliban attack in Peshawar Pakistan that has killed 145 people, including 132 children. This unspeakable atrocity has been treated as a planned operation to oppose the Pakistani security force activity against Taliban in Pakistan. Taliban is essentially targeting the children of the people who are fighting them. However, the Taliban has been targeting the Education system in Pakistan for a lot longer.
Poison in Education
The root of all evil in this world can be found in the degree and scope of education a society provides for its youth. One of my classmates in college once told me - "my parents did not want me to be educated in Lebanon, which is why I went to school here (Hartford)". The reasons that Syed's parent's didn't want him to be educated in Lebanon was due to the narrow view of humanity, a steady dose of hatred, and the lack of value for a human life that the local education set for the young. His parents did not want him to see his neighbors as sub-human, hate those who are unlike him, and sacrifice his life in the name of some holy war. So they smartly shielded their child from this poison and immigrated overseas to provide a better chance for their child to succeed. The result - when I met Syed he very much valued human life and treated his peers as equals regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or religion. But not all children of Radicalized Islamic areas of the world are as fortunate.
Taliban
There is no better example of education specifically catered to Radical Islam and Terrorism than that of the Taliban. The very name translates to 'Students'. However, the material they disseminate among their own followers is nothing short of repressive Jihadist propaganda that teaches a very narrow sliver of Islam, skewed toward fostering hatred. They teach a repressive diet of conservative Islam with a repressive view of women's rights and intolerance toward those who do not conform. The Taliban are so opposed to female education in Pakistan, that they were inclined to shoot a defenseless girl, better known as the Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, in the head. This organization is so opposed to freedom of education, that they are willing to kill their young to get the point across. And, sadly, this vile commitment has again manifested itself in Peshawar this past week. The Taliban, 'Students', know very well that their poisonous rhetoric cannot hold up to scrutiny when confronted by freely educated youth and they are afraid.
Enlightenment
Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel, once said: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us". She was specifically talking about opponents of Israel using children as front-line soldiers and/or shields. These actions epitomize the Terrorist mindset of taking the value of even a child's life as a 'shahid', a martyr, dying for a cause and rejoicing in the death itself. This concept is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Taliban itself advocates such acts of martyrdom for their own purpose and regard the militants who died in the Peshawar School siege as such martyrs. We must seek a higher level of understanding as human beings across this world - such atrocities have no place on this planet.
As people of the earth, each an every one of us must fight to provide free and independent sources of education to every corner of the earth. We live in the age of the Global Internet, where such collective action should be possible. We must similarly fight to expose these false prophets (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) for the scum of the earth they are and eradicate them from existence - for they are the true poison of this planet.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
White Privilege: Reality and Myth
The Background
Even if you only casually pay attention to the news, you have probably heard the term white privilege being used more frequently, as racial tensions have been heightened across the country due to incidents of alleged racial injustice. These racial tensions tend to drown out the underlying catalysts, the fire-starters, below a flood of public outrage that grows so strong, that it becomes nearly impossible for ordinary people to objectively distinguish fact from opinion or emotion.
It is while I was presenting the facts of one such incident, free of opinion or emotion, that an old high school friend of mine remarked to me: "How does it feel to be bathed in White Privilege and Ignorance?"
White privilege is a term that summarizes any and all advantages that the white population experiences above common experiences of the non-white population under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Such advantages are unearned and are applied based on the values of the white population. Furthermore, white people may not recognize some advantages as they are passive in nature (i.e. greater social status, freedom to move, buy, work, play and speak freely). Lastly, the concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, making others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.
Racism - History and Present Day
Schools across our nation have the history of Slavery, the Ku Klax Klan, Segregation, Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, South African Apartheid, etc. as class syllabus. The racial injustice in our history is important to understand and remember in order to prevent future generations from repeating the same behavior. In historical context, minorities in any country have been discriminated against in a wide variety of ways. Historically, entire communities and countries have been responsible for atrocities and discrimination on a massive scale.
Though gradually, through education, integration, and legislation, we have been able to overcome the mass prejudice and discrimination with time. We haven't eradicated it yet - various white supremacist groups still exist and certain parents choose to pass down racial hatred to their children. However, racism in modern day is an exception, not a blanket policy anymore.
Erroneous Premise
The basis for white privilege is misplaced. Poor white people have more in common with poor black people, than with any upper class of their own race. Case in point - in the very same manner that an unarmed black teenager is shot, a white teenager is shot as well. Dillon Taylor was an unarmed white youth in Utah who was gunned down outside of a convenience store.
The opposite is also true - rich and ruling elite people have more in common with each other, than with any lower economic class of their own race. Rich athletes, entertainers and politicians often get away with a warning, probation, suspended sentence or community service. Whereas any common person would serve time in jail for similar offenses regardless of race.
What are perceived as advantages specific to the white population, are in fact advantages associated with the dominant group in a society - the rich and ruling elite. As such, the correct term should be 'Elite Privilege', not 'White Privilege'.
While that term is not as 'sexy' for getting media ratings, re-tweets, or feedback; it is the most accurate one when talking about injustice in the modern age. The correct term also does not serve the purpose it originally intended it to serve.
Purpose
The true intent of the white privilege term is to gain the sympathy of ordinary white population and join the cause against perceived injustice of minorities, regardless of facts in the given case. This method provides greater volume of support and shapes the public opinion as being overwhelmingly against perceived injustice. What is important in these cases is to evoke the sense of guilt, while focusing more on emotions, opinions, and history; rather than the facts at hand. When you focus on emotions, opinions and history; you can rationalize and justify anything to support the 'just cause'. It is the modern version of the proverbial 'race card'.
Another related common use of 'White Privilege' is the Carte Blanche justification it provides for any actions committed by a member of a minority, no matter how unlawful they may be. Anything from robbery, grand theft auto, abuse of law enforcement, to drug trafficking and beyond can simply be justified by being blamed on injustice stemming from white privilege. And because the concept nicely closes out its definition with the 'universality of one's own experiences', it states that a white person cannot possibly relate to a person that belongs to a minority, while still soliciting that white person's sympathy.
Reality and Myth
Going back to my friend's remark to me: "How does it feel to be bathed in White Privilege and Ignorance?". That entire statement was the culmination of a passionate man's frustration who felt just in his cause, who stated his opinions, feelings and history on the matter we have discussed. In the end, they could not compete with concrete facts, so he did the only thing he could - shift the focus on me with the Myth of White Privilege. All the while, ironically, he was the one Ignorant of the Facts.
The reality is that I am a white first generation legal immigrant from Ukraine. I had to learn the English language almost from scratch when I arrived in the United States. I worked hard in High School to earn grades good enough to get a scholarship to offset the cost of Higher Education, as I knew my parents needed to save for my younger sister's education. There were no racially advantageous scholarships categorized for my white skin color. My parents paid next to nothing for my University thanks to my academic efforts and the various jobs I undertook while attending. For the amount(s) I could not pay immediately, I took out loans. When I graduated with a Computer Science degree in 2000 (after the dot-com bust), there was no Affirmative Action initiative to get white graduates jobs right out of the gate. Instead, I worked wherever a paycheck was available for a period of time. As soon as I was able to do so, I repaid all my school loans. All the while, I never blamed anyone for the hand I was dealt and took a fair account of my standing in life.
So to answer my friend - I have no idea, because that's a bath I never had.
Final Thoughts
Just because some individuals of a minority group are mistreated, doesn't mean that all individuals of a majority group enjoy a 'privilege'. Why did the creators of the term White Privilege chose to focus on the alleged advantages of the white race, instead of focusing on the disadvantages of the minorities? The answer is simple - focusing on the Minority Disadvantage does not evoke a sense of guilt from the white people and it does not accuse anyone of benefiting from the alleged systematic mistreatment of minorities. The guilt-evoking aspect, coupled with alleged beneficiary of mistreatment, provide the perfect media tool to gain traction and popular support.
Be a critical thinker and use facts, don't just follow the trend/herd. For the population at large - No matter how just it may feel, it is important to get the facts before voicing and promoting an emotional misinformed opinion. Otherwise, you may find yourself accusing a friend of yours without merit and having to support your position, while realizing that deep down inside you are wrong.
Finally, I want each and every one of you to ask yourself just one question - Do I want to live in a world that holds each individual accountable for their actions based on facts or do I want to live in a world that holds trials of public opinion based on emotion and history, rather than the facts at hand?
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Real Crime
Media Madness
Due to the profit-first nature of the modern news era, the real crime committed is by the news media, both conventional and internet-based. This crime manifests itself as a tidal wave of suggestive reports that tend to focus on the worst sensationalist aspects of our society, even when they're untrue. As a result, majority of the population's minds are already set, before any real allegation is put forth. In the world of modern news, everything that glitters is ratings gold.
The problem with Law Enforcement is that it rarely receives the accolades for getting the difficult job done right on a daily basis. However, it always gets crucified in the media when there is even a hint of wrongdoing. It is especially lucrative for the media ratings if that wrongdoing could be made to look racially motivated.
Due to the profit-first nature of the modern news era, the real crime committed is by the news media, both conventional and internet-based. This crime manifests itself as a tidal wave of suggestive reports that tend to focus on the worst sensationalist aspects of our society, even when they're untrue. As a result, majority of the population's minds are already set, before any real allegation is put forth. In the world of modern news, everything that glitters is ratings gold.
The problem with Law Enforcement is that it rarely receives the accolades for getting the difficult job done right on a daily basis. However, it always gets crucified in the media when there is even a hint of wrongdoing. It is especially lucrative for the media ratings if that wrongdoing could be made to look racially motivated.
Don't get me wrong - sometimes criticism against the Police is well deserved and there certainly is a history of racial profiling such as traffic stops and searches. However, more often than not, the perceived notion of wrongdoing is promoted by the media for the sake of ratings. Furthermore, if you can get a connotation of a Racially motivated crime by the Police, the ratings will be off the charts. You can get a lot more viewers to tune into the news later in the evening if you pitch a racially motivated crime by the Police, than you can just by simply presenting the news objectively. The concept of a sensationalist story that has no conclusive evidence, just the perception of wrongdoing, is the trademark template of the top prostitute in the 21st century - the news media.
Recently, we have had two decisions by grand jury not to indict Police Officers in separate and distinctly different cases. I am talking about the tragic deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri and Eric Garner in New York City.
Both cases have been sensationalized by the media with suggestion of white Police Officer misconduct that lead to the deaths of black males. However, upon further review these cases are more about decisions made by individual police officers, rather than a racism epidemic suggested by the mainstream media and Al Sharptonians - (those who seek personal gain through false championing of civil rights).
Both cases have been sensationalized by the media with suggestion of white Police Officer misconduct that lead to the deaths of black males. However, upon further review these cases are more about decisions made by individual police officers, rather than a racism epidemic suggested by the mainstream media and Al Sharptonians - (those who seek personal gain through false championing of civil rights).
Michael Brown and Darren Wilson
The Ferguson Missouri case involved Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson, who robbed a convenience store and were on their way back. The officer, Darren Wilson, initially told the two men to walk on the sidewalk, as opposed to the path of moving vehicles. He then remembered about the convenience store robbery and decided to confront the two men, pulling his vehicle across the path of Michael and Dorian. At this point, Michael Brown approached the vehicle and began and altercation with the Darren Wilson, which led the the first discharge of the officer's firearm. Michael ran away from the vehicle after the first shot was fired. When Darren Wilson called Michael Brown back to the vehicle, Michael Brown proceeded to charge at the officer presenting a threat to his well being. This is the point at which Darren Wilson discharged his firearm in the direction of Michael Brown, mortally wounding him in the process.
As soon as this story broke out, the news outlets focused on statistics about black and white, about perceived prejudice and racial inequality that had nothing to do with the key factors in this incident. As a result, in the minds of many young adults who seek out perceived injustice, Darren Wilson was already tried and convicted of a murder and a hate crime. While it is certainly true that the deceased in this case was black and the police officer was white, this information is secondary and inconsequential to the sequence of events here.
Matter of fact is that Michael Brown committed a crime and Darren Wilson attempted to apprehend him in connection with that crime, when Michael Brown resorted to violence striking the police officer in the process and wrestling for his firearm. In this country, when someone resorts to violence, everyone has the right to self-defense. There's almost no doubt that Darren Wilson protected himself and the community by using his firearm to stop a criminal in his tracks. It is tragic and unfortunate, but Darren Wilson was doing his job fairly and justly. The grand jury also reached the correct decision in this case. While the assistant District Attorney's conduct was inappropriate in presenting the grand jury with an inactive law, it simply did not apply in this case. At the end of the day, in this case justice was served.
Eric Garner and Daniel Pantaleo
The Staten Island New York case involved Eric Garner who was previously sighted selling loosies (loose cigarettes), which is considered a petty crime. Eric Garner was visibly upset at the officers approaching him repeatedly and went on a rant pleading to Police Officers to leave him alone. When he refused to be taken in to custody, the Police Officers approached him and Eric Garner came up behind him, putting him into a choke-hold (which is a technique that has been prohibited by the NYPD since 1993). Eric Garner was then seen on the ground saying "I can't breathe". He was pronounced dead at the hospital. The coroner's report read the cause of death as the compression of the neck and chest. There is no doubt that other health issues contributed to the cardiac arrest and death of Eric Garner, but the main catalyst was the illegal choke-hold by Daniel Pantaleo.
Once again, the news media was salivating at the prospect of disseminating toxic and divisive perceived racism in this case. It was all in the name of ratings, it usually always is these days. The news outlets and online publications became awash with opinions as facts that were so inflammatory, it sparked protests. In this case, however, as opposed to the Ferguson Missouri case, the officer Daniel Pantaleo has been summoned to court before on racial profiling charges and misconduct with respect to minorities.
Regardless of any real or perceived racism, let's proceed to the matter at hand. The video reveals the entire incident, which leaves very little to no room for any ambiguity. There was more than enough manpower available to apprehend Eric Garner without the use of an illegal choke-hold. The tape shows Daniel Pantaleo using the choke-hold to take down Eric Garner, as Eric Garner notes he has difficulty breathing. In this case, the grand jury decision is the highest forms of injustice toward Eric Garner and his family. There is more than enough evidence in this case to proceed to trial and level a conviction.
What we have learned
Regardless of whether any misconduct occurred, the news media puts forth a highly suggestive case of racism any chance that presents itself, because it is good for the ratings and ultimately the news company's bottom line. This kind of reporting makes the public conduct it's own trial based on suggestive misrepresentation, feelings and public opinion, and not all of the facts at hand. It is a dangerous phenomenon that must be dealt with by education and tolerance.
Focus on the case, not the race. In both cases, just by dealing with the matter at hand and how the law enforcement representatives conducted themselves, you could reach the correct decision without getting the racial aspect involved. Would it have mattered if Michael Brown or Eric Garner were white? No! Law enforcement misconduct is the same across the board and must be treated as a failure in terms of conduct, without racial connotation.
If it's not black versus white, the mainstream media doesn't care. Nobody in the mainstream media even blinked at the death of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City, Utah on October 1st of this year. He was a white youth shot and killed by the police outside of a convenience store. However, the news outlets mostly did not pick up this story as it wasn't relevant to their agenda of higher ratings and internet traffic. If the story doesn't evoke raw emotion and spirited opinions, it's simply not newsworthy in the 21st century drowned by sensationalist news norm
My Hope for the Future
One of my greatest desires is that the general population will become a little smarter and more skeptical of the information which the news outlets feed them. It is important to take the news media with a grain of salt these days, realizing that in the end these are corporations that need to make a profit. This leads to them being more of an entertainment news machine, rather than real journalists that report genuine news that have to undergo sufficient scrutiny before being presented to the public as factual information.
Matter of fact is that Michael Brown committed a crime and Darren Wilson attempted to apprehend him in connection with that crime, when Michael Brown resorted to violence striking the police officer in the process and wrestling for his firearm. In this country, when someone resorts to violence, everyone has the right to self-defense. There's almost no doubt that Darren Wilson protected himself and the community by using his firearm to stop a criminal in his tracks. It is tragic and unfortunate, but Darren Wilson was doing his job fairly and justly. The grand jury also reached the correct decision in this case. While the assistant District Attorney's conduct was inappropriate in presenting the grand jury with an inactive law, it simply did not apply in this case. At the end of the day, in this case justice was served.
Eric Garner and Daniel Pantaleo
The Staten Island New York case involved Eric Garner who was previously sighted selling loosies (loose cigarettes), which is considered a petty crime. Eric Garner was visibly upset at the officers approaching him repeatedly and went on a rant pleading to Police Officers to leave him alone. When he refused to be taken in to custody, the Police Officers approached him and Eric Garner came up behind him, putting him into a choke-hold (which is a technique that has been prohibited by the NYPD since 1993). Eric Garner was then seen on the ground saying "I can't breathe". He was pronounced dead at the hospital. The coroner's report read the cause of death as the compression of the neck and chest. There is no doubt that other health issues contributed to the cardiac arrest and death of Eric Garner, but the main catalyst was the illegal choke-hold by Daniel Pantaleo.
Once again, the news media was salivating at the prospect of disseminating toxic and divisive perceived racism in this case. It was all in the name of ratings, it usually always is these days. The news outlets and online publications became awash with opinions as facts that were so inflammatory, it sparked protests. In this case, however, as opposed to the Ferguson Missouri case, the officer Daniel Pantaleo has been summoned to court before on racial profiling charges and misconduct with respect to minorities.
Regardless of any real or perceived racism, let's proceed to the matter at hand. The video reveals the entire incident, which leaves very little to no room for any ambiguity. There was more than enough manpower available to apprehend Eric Garner without the use of an illegal choke-hold. The tape shows Daniel Pantaleo using the choke-hold to take down Eric Garner, as Eric Garner notes he has difficulty breathing. In this case, the grand jury decision is the highest forms of injustice toward Eric Garner and his family. There is more than enough evidence in this case to proceed to trial and level a conviction.
What we have learned
Regardless of whether any misconduct occurred, the news media puts forth a highly suggestive case of racism any chance that presents itself, because it is good for the ratings and ultimately the news company's bottom line. This kind of reporting makes the public conduct it's own trial based on suggestive misrepresentation, feelings and public opinion, and not all of the facts at hand. It is a dangerous phenomenon that must be dealt with by education and tolerance.
Focus on the case, not the race. In both cases, just by dealing with the matter at hand and how the law enforcement representatives conducted themselves, you could reach the correct decision without getting the racial aspect involved. Would it have mattered if Michael Brown or Eric Garner were white? No! Law enforcement misconduct is the same across the board and must be treated as a failure in terms of conduct, without racial connotation.
If it's not black versus white, the mainstream media doesn't care. Nobody in the mainstream media even blinked at the death of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City, Utah on October 1st of this year. He was a white youth shot and killed by the police outside of a convenience store. However, the news outlets mostly did not pick up this story as it wasn't relevant to their agenda of higher ratings and internet traffic. If the story doesn't evoke raw emotion and spirited opinions, it's simply not newsworthy in the 21st century drowned by sensationalist news norm
My Hope for the Future
One of my greatest desires is that the general population will become a little smarter and more skeptical of the information which the news outlets feed them. It is important to take the news media with a grain of salt these days, realizing that in the end these are corporations that need to make a profit. This leads to them being more of an entertainment news machine, rather than real journalists that report genuine news that have to undergo sufficient scrutiny before being presented to the public as factual information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)