On the Use (and frequent misuse) of "Community"

In an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm", Larry David laments that a bald sex offender has moved into the neighborhood, saying it reflects badly on "the bald community". Now this may sound a bit odd, but when you think about it, the word "community" is used in a similar sense all the time these days. Hence we hear about how things affect "the African-American community", as if there is any such thing. In dealing with the Syrian situation, I have heard politicians and commentators refer to "the world community", as if there is any such thing.

And why is this important? It is the premise of this post, and of others like it to come, that the way we use words is important, because the way we use words shapes our ideas, and our ideas shape our public policy.  Consider how the Justice Department in the U.S. has proceeded under the Voting Rights Act. This law was enacted to remedy the problem of suppression of voting by Blacks in the South. In states which met the threshold test of voter suppression, the Justice Dept. has to approve any changes in voting laws.

What the Justice Dept. has done is to look at whether "communities" are represented, which sounds like an admirable goal but is fatally flawed in the execution. Take the Arizona situation in which Arizona sought to add two judges in each of two counties which needed them. The Justice Dept. sought to require the counties to discontinue county-wide voting, and break into judicial districts, so as to facilitate Native-American representation on the bench. Native-Americans opposed this, and there is no evidence there were even any Native-American members of the bar who could qualify to run. Many other problems existed with this hair-brained scheme. There was no indication that individual Native-Americans were being denied any voting rights, but because of a faulty interpretation of what a "community" is, the Justice Dept. decided to take action in a situation requiring none.

Similar Justice Dept. misinterpretations of the law have resulted in racially gerrymandered congressional districts, designed to ensure the election of Blacks, like the one which snaked for 160 miles along Interstate 85 in North Carolina. All such districts rest on the assumption that people of a particular race should think and act alike; i.e., that people of a particular race constitute a "community", regardless of whether any other aspects of community are present.

Alex Wagner vs. Ron Paul

Alex Wagner is the host of the noon show on MSNBC called "NOW". She usually does a great job, interviewing four guests at at time and intelligently and articulately discussing issues of current interest.

A word of background here. When I first got cable TV in the late '90's, it was common for cable news channels to have four guests at a time, two on each side of an issue. The four would all be put up on the screen, one quadrant for each, and inevitably they would all start talking at the same time. This was horrendous, ridiculous TV, and eventually the news channels realized this and started having hosts interview guests one-on-one, with the hosts taking the opposing view from the guest for the sake of balance.

Well, yesterday Alex Wagner tried this with Ron Pual. The problem was, she kept interrupting him and not letting him answer her questions. Now, it is OK for a host to interrupt if the guest is not answering the question. Chris Matthew is especiialy adept at this. But what Alex was doing was interrupting Paul even when he was trying to answer the question. This is rude and inconsiderate; if a public servant is kind enough to come on your show, the least you can do is show a modicum of graciousness and courtesy toward that public servant.

Slamming Paul because he had an upcoming speech before a group which Alex didn't like was especially unbecoming. Should we not talk with those with whom we disagree? Alex, you are better than this!

Chaos vs. Anarchy

The protests in Egypt reached a new level of violence yesterday, as 525 demonstrators were killed by government forces. The usually articulate Joe Scarborough erred this morning by calling the situation "complete anarchy", using "anarchy" when he meant "chaos".

Anarchy is "the absence of government". A state of anarchy can be chaotic as well, but it doesn't have to be. Chaos is defined as "complete disorder and confusion".

The irony of the reporter's misuse of the term is that the demonstrations have been basically peaceful up to now. It is only the *presence* of governmental forces which has led to the current bloodshed. In the absence of government, i.e., in a state of true anarchy, the situation would be much less chaotic.

CBS vs. Time-Warner

CBS is trying to be the big bully on the block by demanding outrageous fees from Time-Warner for the dubious privilege of carrying the lame programming of CBS. CBS broadcasts its signal for free to anyone who can pick up a signal, yet somehow thinks it has the right to blackmail Time-Warner into agreeing to pay huge bucks for the same privilege that costs others nothing.

I watch no CBS shows anyhow, and I would be just as happy if my own Time-Warner company dropped the network from its lineup of stations. Unfortunately, my company, located in Ohio, is not one of those which have dropped CBS for the past few days.

"Big three" network shows are on the decline anyhow, as Netflix is the vehicle of choice for more and more of us to watch the weekly shows. The major netwoks have gone full-force into this reality TV garbage, making them more and more irrelevant. My own shows, watched almost exclusively on Netflix DVD's, include "Curb Your Enthusiasm", "Homeland", "Mad Men", "Criminal Minds", and "Bates Motel". Although "Criminal Minds" was originally a CBS show, I never watched it during its CBS run. I watch reruns on A&E, supplemented by an occasional Netflix disk.

Many years ago CBS News was the preferred network for news, but it jumped the shark long ago when it hired Dan Rather as Cronkite's replacement. Rather was, to me, impossible to watch; watching and listening to him was like fingers on a blackboard to me. He is the perfect example of the Peter Principle, a good reporter promoted to a position for which he was very poorly suited.

CBS is operating with the arrogance we often see when people or institutions get an inflated opinion of themselves. CBS needs a serious reality check.

Thoughts on the Zimmerman Verdict

The national media continues to whine like a stuck pig over the jury's verdict. We hear nonsense like "the jury wasn't given a chance to get to know Trayvon". The reason, of course, is that had the state made Trayvon's character an issue, then the defense would have been entitled to respond with all the evidence of his bad character--his assaults, his school suspensions, his drug use, and on and on.

We hear speculation about possible federal charges, which is completely ludicrous. The federal investigation was to determine whether the Sanford PD was proceeding properly. There would be no basis for any federal charges against Zimmerman, who is not a government employee.

There are many injustices in the Zimmerman case, but they are not the ones the mainstream media will talk about. Here are some: It is an injustice that George Zimmerman was arrested and subjected to the ordeal of a trial, when the evidence of his guilt was absent. It is unjust that a good and honorable man, the Sanford Police Chief, lost his job because he chose to uphold his oath to defend the constitution, which requires probable case for arrests, rather than bow to the pressure of the politicians. It is unjust that George Zimmerman will probably have to live his life in hiding, due to the outcry and resulting hatred fomented by the media. It is unjust that the media keeps harping on the fact that Trayvon Martin had every right to be on the public streets to buy his junk food from the local convenience store, while never once mentioning that George Zimmerman also had that same right.

It is unjust that Jesse Jackson, a man I’ve long admired up until a week ago, made the ludicrous statement that Trayvon Martin will go down in history as a martyr alongside Emmett Till and Medgar Evers. Really?? How dare Jackson tarnish the memory of these great heroes and martyrs of the civil rights movement by putting them in the same breath as this kid who caused his own death by his reckless behavior.

Thank God we live in a country which is set up as a republic, meaning that there is a check on executive power, and not a democracy or a dictatorship, both of which are subject to the ruling government persecuting minorities who happen to disagree with the government. The government here (i.e., the politicians) decided Zimmerman had to be arrested and charged. In many other countries, this would have been the end of the story. Thank God for our system, which protects folks who the government deems undesirable.

The one positive thing I see in the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial is that attention is being drawn to the Florida case of Marissa Alexander, who got 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband. A huge miscarriage of justice. This was a case prosecuted by Angela Corey, the same over-aggressive prosecutor who decided to file the bogus 2nd-degree murder charges against George Zimmerman. A prosecutor is sworn to do justice, not convict at any cost, and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if this disgrace of a prosecutor were to be disbarred for violating her oath.

The George Zimmerman Trial: Defense Scores Big after a Rocky Start

The prosecution got off to a great start with a strong opening statement. The defense then trotted out an old, bald, ugly James Carville lookalike, but without Carville's winning personality.This guy told a horrible knock-knock joke, which fell completely flat, and he compounded his blunder by castigating the jurors for not laughing at it. He then droned on for hours, giving a dry recitation of facts, and failed completely to connect with the jury.

But then the parade of prosecution witnesses started, and the defense has seemed to score big with every one of them. It is hard to understand why the state of Florida even bothered to file such a weak case.

What is fascinating is to go back and compare the actual facts that have come out with how the media portrayed them in the media frenzy that led up to the filing of the criminal murder case. The media made a big deal about race; the facts are that race has nothing to do with this case.

The media also made a big deal about the Florida "stand your ground" law; the facts are that this law has nothing to do with this case, and in fact was not even raised by the defense. The fact is that self-defense is a legitimate defense in every single jurisdiction in the United States, and that is the only reality at issue here. The fact also is that, unlike in Britain, in U.S. jurisdictions generally there is no "duty to retreat". What this leaves us is with the fact that, as far as I can tell, the so-called "stand your ground" law adds nothing of substance to the case; the only difference I can see is the procedural one that a defendant can get a pre-trial hearing on the stand your ground question and avoid a jury trial, if the judge determines that the defense is valid.

The third aspect of the media frenzy is that Zimmerman was portrayed as an adult male, bigger in size than the teenage defendant. The fact, according to one of the prosecution's own witnesses, is that Zimmerman was clinically obese. He was taking martial arts to lose weight, and, according to a statement made in the opening statements, was considered by his instructor to be too "soft" to actually be allowed to engage in any martial arts competition. Trayvon Martin, by contrast, was a high school linebacker, and therefore considerably tougher than the defendant.

The charge of second-degree murder is completely bogus, as any murder charge requires malice, and there is no evidence of malice here. There seems little doubt that a complete acquittal is in store, and the only suspense is how quickly the jury will render this inevitable verdict.

It needs to be noted that the testimony of Trayvon's girlfriend was a complete disaster. She was the worst prosecution witness I have ever seen; she was sullen, insolent, combative, inarticulate, and in all other ways a disaster. How is the jury ever going to dispute the defendant's version of the fight, if this pathetic testimony is all the prosecution has to dispute it?

CNN Blows Its Boston Bombing Coverage

I have always thought that breaking news was best covered by CNN, since it supposedly had the largest group of reporters all around the globe. But that view was radically altered this week by CNN's inept coverage of the Boston marathon bombing.

What happened was that Friday morning I got up and turned on CNN, and watched it for the better part of an hour. CNN showed the grainy pictures of the two bombing suspects, but had little info beyond that, and I finally turned it to MSNBC.

The difference was like night and day! MSNBC had all kinds of info CNN never presented: they said the two were brothers, that they lived in Cambridge, and that they were from Chechnya. They even had the name of the younger brother.

But beyond this difference in basic info, MSNBC provided important context which CNN neglected to share. For example, CNN kept mentioning the town of Watertown, without saying anything more about it. For all the viewer knew, Watertown could have been a town on the other side of the state from Boston.  But MSNBC, by contrast, provided great context, saying that Watertown was a bedroom community of about 32,000, located just west of Boston.

Part of CNN's problem, I think, is its silly insistence on having its anchors standing in a Boston street, instead of in a studio. News networks like to have reporters on the scene, because I guess they suppose it gives an air of immediacy to the reporting. But to have continuous, hour after hour, coverage being anchored by anchors on the scene makes no sense, and MSNBC's coverage was vastly superior as a result. Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist were superb, anchoring non-stop on Friday morning without a hitch. And let's not forget Pete Williams, the NBC reporter whose coverage was so insightful and clear as to outshine the whole CNN network all by himself.

CNN made specific factual errors, the most outrageous being John King's erroneous report that an arrest had been made, but in this post I wanted to highlight the coverage on the particular morning in which CNN's ineptitude was so clearly brought home to me.