Should rape/love-making be compared to the slave/immigrant experience?

Sometimes I read a newspaper article in the Opinion section, and while I might not always agree the writer’s viewpoint, it is rare that I feel so compelled to respond- this time, however, is one of those occasions demanding a swift call for clarity on my part. In the Tacoma News Tribune, Sunday March 12, 2017 edition, Section 6B, featured an editorial by syndicated Miami Herald syndicated columnist Leonard Pitt’s reaction to Dr. Ben Carson’s speech before his HUD staffers, in which he compared the experiences of African slaves brought to America as those of European immigrants. While it would be relatively easy to excoriate the former Neurosurgeon for having such a blatantly irresponsible lack of historical perspective, my attention was instead drawn away from that absurdity to one of an even greater magnitude of concern. Mr. Pitts attempt to deconstruct the ridiculousness of the HUD Secretary’s statements was undermined, in my opinion, by his own bizarre and strangely hypothetical narrative of a woman being raped.

After setting up the scene in rather explicit, graphic detail, sparing nothing to the imagination, he writes that the rapist “violently makes to her” –what?? Continuing on, “After all, the basic mechanics of love-making and rape are the same: sexual intercourse. Now, I get what Mr. Pitts was trying to do in this story, and I am sure that he doesn’t think this way on a personal level, but on a professional level I think he should have left this part out. Dr. Carson does a pretty good job of shooting himself in the foot just about every time he opens his mouth to say something in the public sphere; therefore he doesn’t need any outside help to make him look even more of an embarrassment. That being said, I think anytime you chose to use the example of ‘rape’ in public or private conversation, you have to be very, very careful. This reminds me of a former Texas gubernatorial candidate who was scheduled to speak at a campaign rally, and the typically expected sunny day turned out to be overcast with some gray clouds. However, this good ol’ boy politician was unaware while he was standing at the podium before he was to address the crowd, that his mic was inadvertently turned on, and he was recorded saying: The weather is like being raped; nothing you can do but sit back and take it.” Needless to say he lost by a landslide at the polls, and after that his future political career was toast.

Case in point: There is no moral equivalent or comparable social experience between rape/love-making and being a slave/immigrant.  It seems that within the context of the article, Leonard Pitts needs to learn a few things, too.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 15, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Mental Health is a state of the body and not necessarily the mind

The solution to a problem is not always how much money is spent on treatment because if that were the case, then most of society’s ills would be cured by now. In The Tacoma Weekly, March 3, 2017 issue, the front-page storyline was “Bill Could Help with Mental Health, Addiction Funding.” The article mentioned about U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer’s effort in co-sponsoring a bill to help allocate money to fund communities to better provide mental health and drug and/or alcohol abuse services. Part of this legislation is to provide loans to hospitals and mental health agencies to provide psychiatric and addiction facilities and services. On page 5, Multicare and CHI Franciscan are working on a 40 million dollar plan to build a 120-bed facility at Allenmore Hospital that is scheduled sometime in 2018.  All this sounds well and good as far as intention, but isn’t this approach just more of the same as in the example of ‘insanity’- doing the same thing but expecting a different result?

There is such an urgent need to do something about combatting the spiraling trend of mental impairment from substance abuse or a life crisis or traumatic event that leads to homelessness and a spike in property-related crimes; not to mention mental disability leading to anti-social behaviors and learning disabilities in children as well as adults. This in turn causes more law enforcement resources to be used to combat theft, vandalism, burglaries, juvenile delinquency /truancy (??). This repetitious cycle of more beds, psychiatric therapy/counseling and prescription drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Ritalin [ADHD], etc.) are somewhat effective because the side-effects may outweigh their benefits. However, back in 1987, Carl C. Pfeiffer published an interesting book by the title, “Nutrition and Mental Health” in which he establishes a causal link between nutritional deficiencies or imbalances and mental behavior. Dr. Pfeiffer conducted research on patients suffering from schizophrenia (“manic-depressive psychosis”) and found that this condition was due to blood levels of the brain chemical ‘histamines’ (derived from testing high “basophil” count in white blood cells).

Of course, not all people have the same metabolism and as is the case, high histamine levels are present in individuals with MDP and in others it is the exact opposite. Another contributing factor is low levels of Zinc, based on the presence of “pyrroles” found in urine, indicative of low serum immunoglobulin A. Some of the symptoms of this condition are mental retardation, amnesia, and having learning disabilities. It has also been found that drug addicts have high histamine levels. I think one of the first things to do is to reclassify mental illness as a disease of the body based upon the accumulation of toxic substances instead of based on a function of the mind or socio-cultural factors. This would require an “orthomolecular” approach based on knowledge of ‘integrative’ medicine that treats the whole person, and includes proper nutritional supplementation that heals and detoxifies the body at the cellular level. This is not a one-step cookie cutter solution, but rather part of a holistic approach that combines exercise, proper diet, healthy living, managing stress and making the right lifestyle choices for optimum health and happiness. The old saying, “If it ain’t broke then don’t try to fix it” doesn’t apply in this case because the mental health system has been broke for a long, long time-more bed space, higher Psychiatrists’ fees and keeping people hooked on prescription drugs for the rest of their lives is no real solution at all.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 11, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Some helpful tips about enrolling in Medicare

When a person approaches retirement age a flood of information suddenly and unexpectedly starts appearing in the mailbox, as well as unsolicited calls from insurance companies and independent brokers regarding the best Medicare plan on the market. This is even more relentless than AARP membership offers that end up in the mailbox among other junk mail flyers. Since I have already enrolled in Medicare I felt it might be useful to share my experience with those who already are enrolled in a Medicare plan or are about to at some point in the future. The first thing I recommend is to order the free booklet, “MEDICARE & YOU” from the Department of Health & Human Services Medicaid & Medicare Services at 1-800-633-4227. The booklet will show what services are covered under Medicare as well as some of the Medicare Advantage plans that are available in the state in which you live.

Now here is what you need to know: If you decide to enroll in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) you will have to pay a monthly premium under this plan in addition to having a Medicare Plan B premium deducted from your Social Security (p. 17).  Now here is the real eye-opener: A Medicare Advantage Plan (HMO, PPO, etc.) is offered by “private companies” that are Medicare-approved by the U.S. Department of HHS and the administration of these services are set by government rules. If you elect a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) you get Medicare Part A (Hospital) and Part B (Doctor’s) coverage but it is “NOT ORIGINAL MEDICARE” as administered by the federal government. Additionally, it is not a supplemental plan because when you enroll in a MAP you are essentially dis-enrolled or “NOT” covered under ‘Original Medicare” and as such, you have to meet different deductibles, co-insurance/co-payment limits, and whatever else.

Perhaps the only real ‘Advantage’ in a MAP is that you have a yearly out-of-pocket maximum limit (p. 69), whereas under ‘Original Medicare’ there is no upper limit for annual out-of-pocket costs (p. 64). As with anything of value it is good to get as much information as possible before you choose the best plan for your needs. Contact MEDICARE and ask the representative to give you the cost of your annual deductible for Original Medicare part A (Hospital) and also for part B (Doctor) charges. The one thing that I found puzzling is that if I enroll in a MAP and pay premiums then why part B payments still are being deducted when I am no longer covered under Original Medicare, but when I asked this question all the person on the line did was continue to repeat that I have to have parts A and B to enroll in a MAP; which to me was not a real answer but rather the usual- you know what I mean.

Interestingly, there are no “Medigap” plans listed in the book (at least, for WA State) but quite a few Medicare Advantage plans, and Medigap is actually a supplemental plan because when you enroll in one you are still covered under Original Medicare, too. The thing is though; the premiums are usually quite a bit higher in some cases than either a MAP or Original Medicare but the annual deductibles are a lot lower in most (??) cases. When considering either plan outside Original Medicare try to find out if the annual out-of-pocket costs include deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance and/or other fees to determine if you are getting the most bang for your buck. This is your body and health needs and it doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist, having a representative or independent agent from one of these agencies contacting you, or attending a workshop to choose a plan; the good thing about all of this is you can always change your mind if you learn something else is better, and opt-out within the enrollment period. At the very worst, you can just wait another year and try another plan or remain in Original Medicare.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 1, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

The presidential choices: Bad temperment or Bad judgment?

In one more day the most vitriolic, nastiest and mean-spirited presidential election in modern history will come to a conclusion, and the winner will be president-elect of the United States; much to the relief of almost everyone in America. There are no adequate words to describe what the citizens have endured over these past months but bizarre, astonishing, unpredictable, exhausting and grueling are a few of the adjectives that can be used. This is a two-stage process where the candidate for president wins the popular vote and then sometime around December 8th, electors will meet in their state capitols and cast a vote for the president according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The political pundits, reporters, Talk Radio moderators and pollsters have inundated the public with minute-by-minute coverage but they often just focus on limited talking points which generate ratings and neglect other substantive considerations. I want to focus on some of the things that mainstream and conservative media might not have brought to the conversation.

Let’s begin with Donald Trump:

The biggest thing facing Donald Trump, if he becomes president, is about “temperament.” He has proven over and over again that he is thin-skinned, easily provoked and has made on more than one occasion reckless statements. Hillary Clinton was right when she warned Trump that “words matter.” And then there is still the matter of not disclosing his income tax, which is unprecedented for a presidential candidate this late in the game. Also, the TRUMP brand is at risk, which if he won the presidency, could be leveraged to advantage his business interests. There are already signs of some backlash because Ivanka Trump’s line of clothing and accessories carried in upscale stores like Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s and Nordstrom’s have caused customers to threaten to not buy from that line because of the negative association. The politicians who support Trump, especially if he loses may face challenges in their own congressional districts. Some evangelical preachers have put their reputations on the line, such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr and Mike Huckabee who have encouraged their faithful flocks to support this born-again Republican candidate.

 

Now, to shine the spotlight on Hillary Clinton:

The stakes could not be much higher for the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. There is a lot for Hillary to overcome, especially when it comes to transparency, ethics or trust, but perhaps the biggest issue, like a millstone around her neck is that she has “bad judgment.” With all of Hillary’s experience, knowledge and qualifications FBI Director James Comey concluded that her handling of emails was “extremely careless.” While this does not mean she is ‘grossly incompetent’ it should concern everyone that she could have acted this way  unintentionally, but if, on the other hand, her handling of emails was done knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, then this should be of grave concern to every American citizen.

This is Hillary’s second attempt to secure the nation’s highest elected office but her hopes were dashed to the ground by a little-known, African-American male named Barack Obama; a U.S. Senator from Chicago, IL who was serving his second year in office. Imagine the impact of another loss on the Clinton legacy to be defeated by a brash billionaire and one-time supporter, who has insulted so many persons, even the Pope of Rome. If Hillary is defeated this will be the handwriting on the wall, the closing chapter of the Clinton name or brand in power politics in America as well as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. This will be the swan song of a political career spanning over twenty years on the national scene, the setting of the sun, among the fading glories of the past, finally being laid to rest among the forgotten memories of obsolescence, irrelevance, and obscurity.

The winners and losers:

Whether Donald Trump becomes president or not, Mike Pence certainly has to be a serious candidate for a future president bid among Republicans. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway could see her status rise with a Trump victory but a loss would be detrimental to her marketability. She managed Ted Cruz’s campaign and he didn’t make the cut, and if this turns out badly, she will be associated with losers. RNC Riece Priebus has supported Trump and continued to funnel resources into the Trump campaign instead of diverting them toward congressional races when a few Republican candidates are vulnerable. If Trump loss his decision might be questioned by some of the establishment Republicans, especially if their members lose seats in Congress.

And then there are people like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie who will have egg on their face from a Trump loss. In the Clinton camp, endorsements by celebrities like Beyonce and Jay-Z, Katy Perry, Adele or LeBron James really don’t matter all that much, but is does, or it should to Barack and Michelle Obama The president and First Lady have been campaigning tirelessly on Hillary’s behalf in these past few weeks, and in fact, without their impassioned speeches at the DNC several months ago, this presidential race would be a lot different today than it is now. And then there is poor Bernie Sanders, and I wonder how he really feels because he had her on the ropes during the primaries, but let her off by not wanting to hear any more about “those damn emails.” He also pressed her hard or taking exorbitant speaking fees from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and yet promising, if she were elected president, to rein in their behavior.

I almost forgot about former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who already rigged the game in favor of Hillary Clinton; her political future will be toast after all this is over. Bernie Sanders supporters must be having mixed emotions and having been shut down at the Convention, will those who are electors in their respective states vote for Hillary Clinton? A person in WA State has already said he will not even if Hillary wins the electoral votes in this Blue State. And then there is FBI Director James Comey, whom I am sure already has his letter of resignation already written because he has no future at the agency or anywhere else in law enforcement; except maybe as a security guard. With his level of popularity at this point, he probably couldn’t even get a job as a dog catcher. The vacant seat in the Supreme Court is an issue that has caused some concern for voters, especially when it comes to the president. What should concern everyone is what political party controls the Senate because the president “only” makes appointments to the nation’s highest Court but the Senate has to “confirm” or approve the candidate. This is done through hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate majority comprises the committee members and is the tiebreaker on judicial appointments.

As a last point, if Donald Trump is elected president the smart thing to do is set the tone for conciliation, healing and a peaceful transfer of power, and Hillary Clinton should concede the election and help facilitate a more orderly transition along with President Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton becomes president she should try to bring people together and reassure everyone that she has a lot of work to do to gain the American people’s trust and respect, and that she want to serve everyone to the best of her ability; never taking their vote for granted or her place in history. Hillary should try to build a coalition of Moderate Republicans to be part of her Cabinet and a president Trump should behave more seriously as it pertains to governance, and as a smart thing start listening more to his advisors instead of going off script. Just like Hillary Clinton, he should try to build a coalition of some Moderate or Progressive Democrats to be part of his administration. Although it is still early, the Democrats need to be looking for the next presidential candidate that is well-known and has some national exposure because the Republicans are ahead of them on that one; it seems, possibly with Cruz or Rubio wanting to give it another shot. So, this election will answer one question: Do we, as American citizens live in a country that live in a country where the glass is half full (“we can be stronger together”), or do we live in one that seems half empty (“to make America great again”)? The answer will come sometime late Tuesday night.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are federal mandatory sentencing laws unconstitutional?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits, among other things, cruel and unusual punishment. The statute forbids arbitrary and inconsistent criminal sanctions, which would seem to include: guidelines that are used to impose sentencing; length of incarceration; or the conditions under which a criminal defendant serves time. The so-called “War on Drugs” of the 1980’s, with its ‘get tough’ policies on criminals was a disaster because it caught up a disproportionately high number of Black offenders in its far-reaching and arbitrary drug enforcement dragnet. African-Americans are prosecuted at rates that are out of proportion compared to Whites in the actual use and sale of drugs, through receiving higher conviction rates and longer prison sentences. When it pertains to convictions on drug offenses racial minorities are routinely remanded over to federal authorities, where justices can impose mandatory sentencing verdicts on criminal defendants without the requirement for judicial review.

From 1992 to 1994, approximately 96.5% of all federal crack prosecutions were non-White. The U.S. Sentencing Commission Report (1992) determined that only minorities were prosecuted for crack offenses in over half of the federal judicial districts that handled crack cases. In a survey taken by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), between 1991 and 1993 Whites were twice as likely to have used crack nationwide than Blacks and Hispanics combined. Ironically, powder cocaine was used among upper class and affluent Whites, especially celebrities, with very little concern or interest among the police. When powdered cocaine started being cut into “crack” rocks and made more affordable and accessible to Blacks, especially in the inner cities, then it became a priority target of politicians and law enforcement agencies. As a result, this emphasis helped to initiate a series of aggressive and punitive drug prosecution and sentencing laws that hit the Black community especially hard.

Dan Wiekel, Los Angeles Times reporter wrote the article, “War on Crack Targets Minorities over Whites” (May, 21, 1995), in which his investigation revealed that not a single White offender has been convicted of crack cocaine offenses in federal court in the LA metropolitan area since 1986, despite the fact that “Whites are majority crack users.” He goes on to say that many African-Americans were low-level dealers [small time hustlers], first-time users or accomplices [non-violent??]; not the heavy traffickers in the drug trade with major distribution networks. Also, a 1993 report by NIDA found that African-Americans only comprise 13% of all drug users but account for 39% of all the arrests. Researchers James Lynch and William Sabol found a significant incarceration rate among non-poor Black drug users increased six-fold, while the rates for their White counterparts were the exact opposite (Mauer and Huling 11). The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that Blacks accounted for 84.5% of all federal crack possession convictions in 1993 (Welch and Argulo 9).

The numbers are even direr for females, especially those who are arrested for drug convictions, and crimes committed to support a drug habit. Nationwide, the number of women in state prisons increased 433% between 1896 and 1991. Black women were sentenced on drug offenses overall, with half of the charges stemming from crack offenses; compared to 5% for Hispanic women and 7% for White women. In a study of Black women crack users, Mindy Fullilone and her colleagues at Columbia University School of Public Health, their research found a complex pattern associated with depression and trauma resulting from physical, sexual and mental abuse that were the driving factors leading to drug abuse. So, to wrap this up, the question that needs to be asked is this: Is there an implicit and inherent bias in the criminal justice system that not only disproportionately but deliberately targets non-Whites (esp. African-Americans) with unfair criminal sanctions leading to unfair prosecution and excessive sentencing terms?  This is not only an Eight Amendment issue but also violates the “Due Process/Equal Protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Consuela B. Marshall, said: “We do see a lot of those [crack] cases, and one does ask why some are in state court [Whites??], and others are being prosecuted in federal court [Blacks??]. . .  and if it’s not based on race, [then] what’s it based on?”-Good question.  (Weich and Argulo 9).

REFERENCES

 

Mauer, Mark and Huling, Tracy. “Young Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System: Five Years
            Later,” The Sentencing Project, October 1995, pp. 1-36

Ulmer, Jeffrey T, Kurlchek, Megan C, and Kramer, John H (2007). Prosecutorial Discretion and the

            Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency,
            44.4, 427-459

Weich, Ronald and Argulo, Carlos (2012 November 21). Racial Disparities in the American Criminal
            Justice System. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from
           www.urbanpoverty,qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/.../Ronald-Weich-and-Carlos-Angul...

Wiekel, Dan, ‘War on Crack Targets Minorities over Whites.” The Los Angeles Times May 21, 1995:

            Print.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is the proposal of reparations for African-Americans unrealistic?

I was reading my copy of the Pocket Constitution by TheCapitol.net recently and happened to notice the often overlooked last line of the First Amendment. There isn’t usually much excitement or interest in these words, unlike the earlier part which has received so much attention like in Freedom of Speech/Religion/the Press or Freedom of Assembly. That being said, I decided to take a closer look at what does it mean that the people have a right to petition the Government for a “redress” of grievances-why the Government? I hadn’t given much thought to the word ‘redress’ and figured it meant pretty much the same as petition; or something like it. I decided to get a more technical explanation on the word so I pulled out a copy of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th. Ed) from my shelf, and looked up the word.  To my surprise, the word ²redress 2: compensation for wrong or loss; REPARATION. There are also several words that need to be reviewed, like grievance, injury, petition and injustice. According to the same source, petition 2: a: a formal written request made to an official person or organized body (as in a court); grievance (syn) 2: a cause of suffering or distress (as under unsatisfactory working conditions/labor); injustice (syn)- applies to any act that involves unfairness to another or violation of his [basic human] rights; injury (syn)- applies in law ‘specifically’ to an injustice for which one may sue to recover compensation [restitution/reparations/remuneration??].

Now, putting all these terms together it seems that there is precedent for citizens (the People) to bring legal action against the Government that legalized and codified by statute institutionalized slavery, as authorized by the Constitution. The same document on which this Republican form of governance is built also provides the means for remedy. Sure, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery but it did not eradicate the generational harm that still afflicts the lives of millions of African-Americans suffering from this horrid legacy. A quote from MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech (August 23, 1963) says, “The Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

There are those in and out of the political arena who think it laughable or absurd to suggest such a thing as reparations but the Constitution itself bears witness to the fact that it is our inalienable right as a citizen of this great nation to seek and expect some type of obligation from the Government to make “whole” a class of people who have been systematically disenfranchised and brutalized since their ancestors first stepped upon these shores shackled in iron chains from head to feet. We are not property but people and not only do we demand the right to reparations but the Constitution says we do. If this is not the case, then this document isn’t worth the ink that these words are written with and those who gave their lives for the old Red White and Blue died in vain

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 6, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are we losing the War on Homelessness?

I want to say to all those public policy generals who have been waging the unrelenting war to end homelessness; you are getting your collective butts kicked- why you ask? Well, for one thing, in spite of all the resources poured into this effort you still don’t know what the real enemy is or how to fight it. This is because the methods you use are ‘reactive’ and while you might win a small victory here and there, the battle still rages on as the ranks of the homeless swell almost nonstop and unabated. Would you consider trying something from the playbook of a former president called the Bush Doctrine of waging a ‘preemptive’ first-strike attack instead of dealing with disaster after-the-fact.

Ok, so where do we start? I think the cause of many homeless situations involves persons having incurred a felony (conviction or probation). This makes it difficult; if not nearly impossible to finding employment earning a living wage, receive financial aid for attending college or technical training, as well as passing a background check to even obtain housing. Even if someone were employed it is usually a low wage, labor –intensive part-time job with few benefits or stability.  A person might have become evicted in the past and it is unlikely that a landlord or property owner would want to risk leasing a place to an applicant with that kind of history. Now, oftentimes well-meaning, progressive and socially-liberal thinkers who initiate enlightened programs like those administered in King and Pierce Counties (Seattle and Tacoma, WA) think this solve the problem of homelessness; but it won’t. What it does do is act as a magnet, attracting indigent travelers, runaways and people from other areas because they can take advantage of services that they might not otherwise qualify for; or in some instances have exhausted the benefits and services in the places where they previously lived.

This last point is the most difficult to do, painful to think or implement because not only is it controversial but counterintuitive as well. What needs to be done is to scale back instead of increase services because it will force the free riders to seek other means to help them survive and it will help reduce the numbers of people that can be helped to a manageable level. This may not be convenient or the answer that people want to hear; it is certainly not the politically-correct thing to advocate as it is a bitter pill to swallow but sooner or late reality has to be dealt with. The thing is though, even if one disagrees with this suggestion, still it is becoming increasingly apparent that what is in place now is not working.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 16, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Backlash over movie co-star about past rape allegations

In the September 3, 2016 edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, there was an article from WA Post reporter Caitlin Gibson about the controversy in the aftermath of making the movie, “Birth of a Nation.” Gabrielle Union wrote a blistering editorial after she learned of her co-star Nate Parker’s rape trial seventeen years ago. Nate was acquitted of all charges and his female accuser eventually committed suicide four years ago. This situation hit a nerve for Ms. Union, who was a rape victim herself twenty-four years ago when she was forced into the back stockroom at a Payless Shoe Store. Because of her experience and doubtless sensitivity to the issue, Gabrielle wants to spark, as she sees it, a national conversation about misogyny, hyper-masculinity and the embodiment a rape culture that is in overdrive in American society. The center point of her argument rests on what constitutes “consent.” This is a good point in which to begin this discussion because it might seem so clear from a moral or gender standpoint, but maybe a bit murkier or less well defined as a matter of law.

Let’s be clear from the onset, and I will say this without fear of equivocation or disagreement, “rape is not a sexual act.” It is perhaps the ultimate power trip in which sexual means are fueled by violence and brutality to humiliate and degrade another human being [female in this case]- relegating them to the level of a non-person with no sense of value or self-worth. I have even heard a woman refer to the act or experience of it leaving an empty space in your soul; and that may very well be literally true. Any man that would do such a thing, leave such a permanent scarring of someone’s being is not fit to called ‘human’ but rather some ravenous, vicious animal hunting for some defenseless prey; but I digress. Now, returning back to this notion of giving ‘consent,’ does it have to be explicit or implicit? What about extenuating circumstances such as does the consumption of alcohol or drugs lead to impairment or disability where one is not truly aware of the consequences of participation in acts of a sexual nature, and consent in not given a conscious, voluntary act but rather, it is coerced in some manner?

One of the arguments that Nate Parker used in his rape trial is that the victim didn’t say, “No” [or stop]. I suppose his attorney was trying to use her silence as “implied consent” which would not make it ‘rape’ technically speaking. The thing is, though, a non-verbal “no” does not automatically imply “yes” either. Also, just because a woman comes to a man’s room at 2 o’clock in the morning or agrees to meet with him alone in his dorm room that she is, as the colloquial expression, “asking for it.”Another point to consider is whether prior consensual sexual contact (intercourse) with one’s accuser prejudices a rape conviction in the present circumstance. I think Gabrielle Union as well as other victims of rape or sexual assault should join forces and try to get this issue on the front burner, but I am not so optimistic that it will become much of a priority in the bastions of male-dominated power systems. Unfortunately, gender-bias is America’s dirty little secret that no one wants to seriously talk about, so it is conveniently swept under the rug.

I don’t know what the answer is or who should begin the conversation, or where it should start. On this matter, First Lady Michelle Obama or Miss ‘O’ might have some ideas. In the meantime it is an uphill battle for women to get some justice, or like in the movie, Magnificent Seven, the gunslinger portrayed by Denzel Washington asked the lady who hired him if she wanted revenge-she said she wanted righteousness but she would settle for revenge [instead]. Just ask Gretchen Carlson about that one; ok, I digress again.  But this does go to a deeper social issue that is more than oversexed men but how women are “commodified” as sexual objects or things for a man’s enjoyment or pleasure and when he is finished, she is tossed away like a thing discarded and disposable. Even within the marriage some women are nothing more than “Stepford wives” and talk about bizarre- I remember a case that went to trial many years ago, I think it might have occurred in that state of Oregon, but at any rate it went something like this: A wife sued her husband for rape but the judge ruled that a husband cannot be criminally liable for rape because she cannot refuse conjugal obligation rights to her husband. Of course the judge was a man, but since “rape” is not a sexual act in the strictest sense, the wife should have sued for domestic battery of aggravated assault with sexual motivations.

 

As with bringing any suit before the Court, as the Plaintiff the burden rests with such a person to prove with the introduction of evidence that convinces the trier-of-fact (judge and/or jury) that what you claim satisfies the requirements of the law for a guilty verdict, conviction, and incarceration and other criminal penalty or sanction. I just had this thought about all the women coming out of the woodwork accusing Bill Cosby of rape, most nearly forty years later. I wonder what would have happened if the first one or two victims would not have remained silent because their inaction allowed a serial sexual offender (predator) to victimize other women. Yes, this is a conversation that should be happening but when you make that call who is going to be on the other end of the line, and will they be willing to listen?

 

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701

Tacoma, WA 98402

September 17, 2016

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Is the term “racist” mostly overblown?

If there is one word besides the notoriously provocative and socially-offensive ‘N’ word then ‘racist’ would be a close second. Hardly a day goes by that someone isn’t accused of using this term, so maybe it is time to find out what the word means. According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, racism (n) 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capabilities, and that racial differences produce an inherent (natural) superiority [or inferiority??] of a particular race. 2: racial prejudice or discrimination. Let’s try to unpack this meaning within the context of social interaction and experience. So, is it a necessary or essential requirement for White people to love Black people or vice-versa? If a White person or some member of a racial, religious or ethnic nationality thinks their group is at the top rung of human cultural evolution, or social as well as economic development, is such an attitude ‘racist’? Even if it is, who cares but them; and what’s the harm?

I think what should concern everyone is not so much with what a person says or thinks but rather the exercise of power, as demonstrated by what a person does and those institutions in society that reinforce the maintenance of these systems of discrimination, and which denies the same privileges and immunities to all citizens. I do not care what David Duke, the John Birch Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, Knights of Columbus, or any other White supremacist group of individual thinks or says about those they disparage in one way or another- I only care about acts of violence and physical harm because in America freedom of speech and assembly is a constitutional right, no matter how extremist their views might be. You know, when I was in elementary school there was this jingle that went like this: “Sticks and bones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Well, I guess they really can after all, especially in times like we live in today.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 17, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Can the president pardon any criminal offense?

President Obama recently commuted the sentence of roughly 111 inmates serving time in federal prison on non-violent felony drug convictions; and some are serving life sentences. This practice did not start with president Obama but is this sweeping display of presidential and Executive power consistent with the Constitution? In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution stipulates that the President has the authority to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States,” except in the case of Impeachment. Now to better explain the meaning or intent of the statute it is prudent to consider the context. To start with, the presidential oath of office is an affirmation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States- and by extension, the people, territory and integrity of our form of government and laws. The Fourteenth Amendment, Sections 2-4, seem to place quite an emphasis on this notion of insurrection or rebellion; which was always a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER in those days.

In modern times it would be more likely that concerns over espionage (like Julian Assange of Wikileaks), Eric Snowden or any kind of support to enemies of America as in separatist groups or individuals who wage war [like Timothy McVeigh], anarchy and other such acts against what they perceive as government over reach into their personal lives or international terrorism against American citizens here at home or abroad. It would seem that these crimes and others of such nature would be deemed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ within the purview of the scope of presidential power. After the Civil War ended, President Lincoln pardoned the Confederate states that seceded from the United States on the condition that those wanting to rejoin the Union of the Free states would accept the Constitution (“Bill of Rights”). Presidential power to set aside, commute, or give clemency to criminal felons on offenses that are not of such magnitude as trying to overthrow the government or harm the people of the united States is foreign to the Constitution; no matter how passionately one is driven by moral imperative and a sense of fairness, equity and social justice.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Could there be a contested presidential election?

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the highest unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in modern American history. Each ballot cast will essentially be an anti-vote against the other contender and not necessarily for the person deemed most qualified to be president. It is a matter of choosing between someone who wants to build a wall to keep people out, and another who has built a wall of political intrigue and near-immunity to keep secrets from getting out. This election will be like Gore v Bush (2000) when the Supreme Court decided the outcome after Al Gore won the popular vote but not the Electoral College delegate count.

It is doubtful that Clinton or Trump will get 270 of the possible 538 votes in the Electoral College to become president, so according to the Constitution, the Twelfth Amendment is invoked and the president as well as vice-president has to be chosen through the House of Representatives. As Donald Trump likes to say, “It’s going to be huge, really, really huge.” Yes, Donald, it will be and whoever becomes POTUS may not win us over, but when this election is finally over it will surely wear us out. To take a page from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “You don’t vote for the candidate that you wish you had but for the one [choices] that you have.”

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are police actually the greatest protector of Black lives?

It was during a segment of the nationally televised Town Hall discussion between president Obama and American citizens that Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn made this incredibly bold statement. I thought he made the case quite passionately, articulately, and convincingly; at least, as it seemed to me. Although president Obama seemed to struggle with his answers as he went through his encyclopedic reasoning, and seems to get bogged down in his own thinking and then when he does answer a question it seems that the question and questioner seems to get lost in all of the carefully worded response; which is understandable in light of the recent events of the past couple of weeks. Chief Flynn, on the other hand, while defending Black Lives Matter and the experience of people of color within the context of this nation’s past historical narrative, nevertheless chided the movement for not being more vocal in denunciating Black on Black crime in the African-American community.

During the unexpectedly long discourse he made the bold statement that the police are the greatest protector of Black lives, and the Calvary is not going to come rushing over the hill [to save them/Blacks] because there is no one else. That was a poignant moment that resonated with me, and I wonder if the moment was lost on the audience and the viewers watching at home .or on their mobile devices. And it’s like in the movie, Ghostbusters, which invokes the phrase, “Who [else] you gonna call?” I mean, if the racist police are the enemy and if Black lives are not important or valued, then why call 911 emergency when a dangerous situation is imminent or crime occurs or is about to occur? Why not organize local community or block watch groups and patrol the neighborhood as well as provide security for the residents? And as a last point, during the shooting melee in Dallas by Micah Johnson at the Black Lives Matter demonstration, White [and other] police officers braved the hail of bullets, placing themselves in the line of fire to shield the attendees, including children, with their own bodies. Five officers gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect and keep others safe, minimizing further casualties. So, the Dallas police didn’t scatter and run for cover but by their actions they proved, without saying a word or carrying a sign, placard, or poster that ‘Black Lives’ as well as all lives matter, too.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 16, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

The paradox of law enforcement

In Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Ed.), the word paradox is defined as a (noun) c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions from acceptable premises. So, with that understanding I think this a good place to begin with, because the results derived from combatting crime proves this very point. There are those get tough on crime proponents in society who advocate hiring more police officers but there aren’t any statistical data or studies that I am aware of which prove that this approach results in lower crime rates. This may sound convincing on the surface of it, and there might even be a correlation to substantiate lower incidents or reports of crime, but that is not the same as causation. The only thing hiring more police officers do is that it means there are more of them to dispatch to a criminal incident or threat, which is reactive; not proactive.

The way to deter or prevent crime is to address the conditions or environmental factors that provide the fertile ground from which these behaviors sprout. The favorite talking points of politicians of “get tough on crime” or policy makers in the legislative, as well as administrative branches of state and local government do not fully understand, or choose to ignore the problem in favor of other considerations. For instance, instead of hiring a police officer and paying an annual salary of $50,000 why not take that same money and put it to better use in the community for job training, technical education, mental health services, and other needed programs? The new ‘paradigm’ should not be more police or boots on the ground, but rather, more books and other educational materials to help someone pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Let’s help create a society that moves away from the approach derived from the Old Europe of medieval times to one of positivity and self-actualization.  As it pertains to the old ways, when the guillotine was introduced in Europe crime rates actually went up, not down; as one might would have expected.

Enforcement is not prevention nor is it a viable strategy and it is counterproductive as it is presently implemented, Crime will only be deterred and reduced, though not totally eliminated, when the conditions and socio-cultural factors that inhibit lawful behavior are significantly minimized and alternatives and incentives are provided that reward self-empowerment toward achieving positive outcomes which benefit the person and society as a whole.  More importantly, it is time to take the profit motive from prosecuting criminal behavior that benefits the courts and the prison industrial complex; of which the latter earns billions of dollars annually in operational revenues and serves the financial interests of vendors and suppliers who provides services to them.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 15, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Weeping in Dallas: The Hate that hate produced

The shooting deaths of five Dallas, Texas police officers by Micah Johnson has produced such raw emotions that it is difficult for most Americans to fully process. President Barack Obama is scheduled to address in a town hall meeting moderated by David Muir of ABC News that will be broadcast live as well as simultaneously live-streamed online starting at 5PM PST. The president will answer questions from the audience and once again start a national conversation about race. This time however it will be different because it will come on the wake of five slain police officers and a Black man specifically looking to kill White police officers (or White people in general??). This tragic event happened during a peaceful demonstration by Black Lives Matter participants whom, as some Whites recently, like former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani have labeled as ‘racist.’ The motivation for the ambush of law enforcement officials is in retaliation for the number of Black men killed by White police officers, and the latest victims being   Alton Sterling of Louisiana and Philandro Castile of Minnesota.

No one can specifically answer the question why the Black communities (esp. Black males) are the target of aggressive policing by law enforcement, and disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system as prison inmates, in juvenile detention, or on felony probation in comparison to any other ethnic or racial group. Why is this so; what is White America so afraid of; why are Blacks such a threat to society? There are published studies by some social scientists suggesting that African-Americans have an inherent “pathology” towards violence and anti-social tendencies. This is patently nonsense, insulting, intellectually dishonest, and it condemns a race of people as nothing more than uncivilized, untamed, wild animals, or at the very least, subhuman. I have another opinion that I would like to offer instead. Oprah Winfrey used to talk about the “new normal” in America after 911, and she was right; but in ways that she couldn’t even imagine. One of the things that was warned about in past generations as far as predicting the future was that this country would evolve into a “police state” with almost unchecked power from law enforcement officials. The terrorist attack on America and the Twin Towers in flames along with the loss of over 3,200 American civilians was the breakout moment in this nation’s history. First responders (fire fighters and police) who risked their lives to save people trapped beneath the rubble, twisted girders, broken glass, and toxic dust became heroes; not just nationally but internationally. They were lauded, and rightly so, with honors and praises befitting the heroes of Greek mythology- like Odysseus, Perseus, Hercules, Achilles, Agamemnon, and others. This also meant, however, that they could do no wrong; at least in the eyes of the public (their worshippers).

Now, let’s take a step back and try to look for some perspective. Since 911 there has been a radical change of attitude and tactics in law enforcement when it pertains to crime prevention; which by the way, had been coming for some time but at a more gradual pace. The approach of community policing (‘Protect and Serve”) of the past has been replaced by military tactics in urban warfare against criminals, much like soldiers fighting enemy combatants in the Middle East (Iraq & Afghanistan). In fact, the growing ranks of police are filled by veterans of the War on Terror, who have served several tours of duty or many wannabees who were somehow disqualified for military service- just saying.  A lot of inner city, urban neighborhoods probably looks like they could be in a war-torn, ravaged and blighted, Third World country. Police patrols ant traffic stops seem like checkpoints by Israeli military from the Palestinian side into the territory of state of Israel in eastern Jerusalem. For all intents and purposes African-Americans might as well be Palestinians because for many, they don’t seem to be treated any better. Just as disaffected Palestinians retaliate the best way they can against what they see as injustice from the government policies and aggressive Israeli military in the beloved land of Israel, then sooner or later frustration boils over into violent reprisals from African-Americans who feel such neglect, despair, and hopelessness.

This reaction does not justify what was done in Dallas or what might be done in the future; nor does it answer the problem but it may help explain it a little. Now, having said all of this I want to wrap things up with a look forward and where to go from here. The “eye for an eye” approach is no solution and all it does is continue the non-ending karmic cycle of violence. Personally, it would not come as a surprise to me that a lot of police officers suffer from PTSD, and I wonder if it has ever been suggested or investigated; and if so it must have been swept under the rug because I haven’t heard anything about it. Anyway, I think probably 9.5 out of 10 police officers bravely serve with honor and distinction; irrespective of the race, religion, ethnic identity, and any other differences in the people they come in contact with. Having said this, there are bad cops and they have to be fired just like there are soldiers who are unfit to wear the uniform and faithfully carry out their duties in violation of the military code of conduct (UCMJ). Just as these individuals are dishonorably discharged from military service, police officers who fail to carry out their jobs to safeguard the public trust without prejudice, then these officers are a disgrace and dishonor the badge/shield they wear, the institution, and their fellow officers.

These men and women have sworn a public oath and are bound by law to that commitment and any violation of such is punishable by law. It is also important for those in the Black community to give the police the benefit of the doubt (initially), like innocent until proven guilty; but I don’t like that last part because it implies “guilt”- you just have to wait long enough until it is revealed or becomes self-evident. There can and must be cooperation between these two camps and I think what they have in common is in the area of, pardon the vernacular, “snitch-bitch.” The Black community doesn’t like anyone to inform on the group to outsiders and the police department doesn’t like to single out ‘rogue’ cops but this practice has to stop if we are going to ever make progress in race relations. It is inherent in every group to want to protect its members but sometimes we have to step outside the box and draw up another paradigm-one that will keep us true to our values and yet at the same time purge the harmful and destructive elements from us. This can be done and it will not happen overnight, but this is America and anything that the people of this country really want to do, nothing can stop us from getting it done.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 13, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg takes on Donald Trump

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the feisty octogenarian Supreme Court Justice, in an unprecedented breach of protocol and tradition, made unflattering remarks about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. “The Donald” who has never met a criticism that he didn’t like and take personally, In true form Donald Trump tweeted, "Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!" The thing is, though, Justice Ginsberg has every right as a citizen to say whatever she wants as long as it doesn’t involve any legal situation before the Court that involves Donald Trump. Besides, didn’t the late Justice Scalia make comments about persons or policies he was in disagreement with? Donald Trump is so predictable and behaves like a kid in a kindergarten playground reacting to being picked on or teased by other children than a man who might one day sit in the Oval Office. Elizabeth Warren calls Donald Trump “insecure” and Hillary Clinton echoed the same thing during one of her rallies by saying that Trump doesn’t have the “temperament” to be president. She went on to say that Donald Trump is someone that cannot be entrusted with the nuclear launch codes.

The way Donald Trump behaves it not only seems un-presidential and lacking statesmanship but based on some of his actions or statements,  he shows an ignorance of the Constitution that as president, he is sworn by oath to preserve, protect, and defend. Not only that, but imagine if some world leader were to say something that a president Trump didn’t like, as insults will surely come, will we be entering the “War of Armageddon” at long last? Some leaders in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, think that Donald Trump will bite his tongue and change his tone as the Convention nears but the brouhaha with Justice Ginsberg sees no sign of relent or retreat from the wrath of Donald. I think Justice Ginsberg is right on point and New Zealand might just be far enough away to escape the mushroom cloud of a nuclear holocaust after president Trump pushes that “Red” button.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 13, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com