RSS

Category Archives: The Post-Racial Life

Taco Trucks on Every Corner…Registering Voters

One of the reasons I believe the polls showing the Chumph being within a few points of Hillary (or tied) are wrong is the fact they are mostly based on what are called “likely voters”. Just as in 2008 and 2012, those polls massively miss the number of new voters. The likely voters model favors older whites and utterly misses minority voters because their voting record tends to be spotty.

This year, over 4 million Hispanic voters have newly registered. One of the driving reasons behind that is the Chumps racism against Hispanics. So…Most of the polls have a 4 million voter under-count – roughly 90% of which is going to vote for Hillary.

I love what these folks in Texas are doing. Turn Texas BLUE!

A taco truck in Houston, Texas (KBMT/screen grab)

‘Register to vote, get a taco’: Houston taco trucks put voter registration booths ‘on every corner’

Taco trucks of Houston, Texas have joined together to become voter registration booths.

Earlier this month, Latinos for Trump founder Marco Gutierrez warned that there would be “taco trucks on every corner” if Donald Trump lost the 2016 presidential election.

That prompted designer Thomas Hull to team up with Latino activist group Mi Familia Vota to turn the taco trucks of Texas into voter registration booths, according toHouston Public Media.

Hull explained to KBMT that he found Gutierrez’s comments humorous “because here in Houston we do have taco trucks on every corner and love them.”

“Listening to the debate last night, people are starting to clue in to the fact that however you vote, your vote will effect you and your personal life,” Hull added.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Hillary Opens a 10 Gallon Can of Whoop-A on the Chumph

10 Gallon?

Yeah … Apparently she is saving the other 90 for future “debates”.

While she scored big points on his Tax Returns, DOJ Discrimination lawsuits, and bankruptcies…She left out his numerous fraudulent businesses (Trump University, Trump steaks, Trump wine), his comments on “Mexican rapists”, and the black community. Next time.

She pricked his ego time after time, which led to the typical Chumph meltdown.

Then she calmly explained detailed policy proposals including ending mass incarceration, the shutdown of private prisons, fixing the judicial system, and retraining Police.

While self described rich guy Chumph bragged about not paying taxes, went into several rants about how people loved him, and being a “successful” businessman.

MELTDOWN!

Now – none of this is going to change the minds of his base, because his base is motivated by racism. And you can’t reason anyone out of a position which reason didn’t get them into in the first place.

Last Night a poll was released by The Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University which seems to derail a lot of the polling showing the Chumph catching up to Hillary-

  1. In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton is favored by 48 percent of likely voters in Virginia, and Trump is backed by 38 percent.
  2. In the two-way matchup, Clinton leads Trump among women by 28 points, 57 percent to 29 percent. Trump, however, has an advantage among men, 49 percent to 37 percent.
  3. Clinton leads among white, college-educated voters, 45 percent to 40 percent, and Trump has a large advantage among noncollege educated white voters, 64 percent to 24 percent.
  4. According to the poll, 53 percent of Virginia voters think Trump is racist.

Admittedly, there are a lot of uneducated white men out there…But not enough to win an election.

Image result for clinton trump debate

Hillary’s Trump trap: Clinton laid a series of snares, and Donald charged right into them

Hillary Clinton had two tasks for that debate: Looking presidential and making Trump look like a fool. Nailed it

There’s an iconic scene at the end of the dark 1980s comedy classic “Heathers” in which Veronica (Winona Ryder), watches J.D. (Christian Slater), an occasionally charming but mostly terrifying psychopath, blow himself up. J.D., who is forever ranting and raving about how the world doesn’t respect him enough, had intended to destroy their high school with his bomb. Veronica was able, through great effort, to stop him. Victorious, she puts her cigarette in her mouth, waits and watches as J.D.’s own bomb destroys him, while also lighting her cigarette.

That’s how the first general election presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump played out Monday night.

The high school that is our nation isn’t safe yet, but Clinton did exactly what she needed to do during this first debate: She established herself as smart, calm and presidential, and then stood silently by while her opponent blew himself up.

As an experiment, I eschewed reading Twitter or watching post-debate analysis on cable news in order to watch the proceedings in a packed bar in Brooklyn. The crowd wasn’t a cross-section of America, to be sure, but they were exactly the liberal base that Clinton needs to get fired up for November, and from my vantage point, she did exactly that. She staked out openly progressive positions on a variety of issues, ranging from job creation to criminal justice reform (her comments about implicit bias and the evils of stop-and-frisk went over especially well with the New York crowd). She emphasized, with repeated references to her website, that she is the candidate who actually has policy proposals to get things done, instead of vague, hyperbolic promises.

But it was clear that Clinton’s main goal was goading Trump into revealing his true self, and proving conclusively that no amount of training or pleading from aides will turn Trump from the narcissistic hothead that he is into someone that can be trusted with the nuclear codes. The plan worked, and from Clinton’s triumphant and eminently gif-able wiggle in the middle of the debate, it’s clear that she knew it.

Trump began the debate with a subdued tone, eschewing his usual shouting for a half-hearted imitation of what a responsible statesman looks like, and maintained that composure for a whopping 10 minutes, perhaps even 15. Then Clinton rolled out her first piece of bait.

“You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that’s all to his benefit,” she said. “He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be and that everything will work out from there.”

Clinton went on to detail how she would prefer to invest in the middle class, and from then it was on. Trump took the bait, issuing an angry defense of his father giving him money, and with the plug pulled out, the incoherent ranting lunatic that he was barely containing inside came pouring out.

And the angrier Trump got, the more confident Clinton became (as you do when your carefully laid plans blossom into glorious fruition). She was even able to pull off a number of zingers, which are not exactly her strong suit.

Much credit goes to moderator Lester Holt, who largely steered away from “gotcha” questions that so many journalists mistake for hard questions, leaning more towards open-ended, policy-oriented questions. Conservatives will no doubt be furious, since answering such questions requires coherence and an ability to explain the details, two skills Trump hasn’t mastered. But it’s worth remembering this is a presidential race, not a kindergarten class. If Trump can’t handle the basics of being a politician, the voters need to know that.

The most telling section of the debate was the lengthy exchange about race and criminal justice. Clinton emphasized the value of nuanced policy that balances the need for safety with protecting human rights: Training police to address racism, ending the private prison system, enacting gun safety measures to reduce violent crime, getting rid of unjust mandatory minimum sentences and doing more to help people with mental health issues so they don’t end up in ugly encounters with police.

Trump, in contrast, claimed that “African-Americans, Hispanics are living in hell” andcompared living in major American cities to living in a “war-torn country.” He then suggested that black voters are a bunch of dupes who have “been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians.”

At that point it got even worse for Trump, because Holt asked him the question that countless people have been demanding:

Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?

Rather than answer the question, Trump rolled out an incoherent right-wing conspiracy theory accusing the 2008 Clinton campaign of starting the birther movement. (It didn’t, and her campaign was diligent about firing people who spread the rumor).

He then crowed, “She failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn’t fail. I got him to give the birth certificate.”

Clinton knew better than to dispute a conspiracy theory that’s really only known to people who refresh Breitbart all day long.

Instead, she responded by saying, “Well, just listen to what you heard.”

She then reminded the audience both that she was working for Obama when Trump was dogging him about his birth certificate and that Trump has a history of being sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination.

His response? “We settled the suit with zero — with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do.”

And then again, for emphasis: “Because I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt, but that was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms, and it’s just one of those things.”

Perhaps “no admission of guilt” should be the Trump campaign’s new motto. It has a certain ring to it.

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Presidential Class Acts

Lets face it, George W. Bush has been a far better ex-President than President. And if you have a heart that is still beating, it is very hard not to fall under Michelle Obama’s spell.

In any event, the two couples have tried to exemplify what Politics should be in this country.

For Some, Bush-Obama Rapport Recalls a Lost Virtue: Political Civility

Maybe it was the unexpected warmth of the gesture, the sheer enveloping display of affection.

Maybe it was his response, the beatific expression on his face, eyes almost closed, head tilted toward her shoulder.

Maybe it was the moment: tenderness at a time when presidential politics has become a festival of cruelty.

But when Michelle Obama hugged former President George W. Bush on Saturday, at a ceremony to open the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the image quickly took flight online.

However one chose to interpret it — and overinterpretation is a hazard in such exercises — it became an instant metaphor. Some saw the lost virtue of civility in politics; others, the unlikely friendships that blossom at the rarefied heights of public life. To critics on the left, it was a shameful case of political amnesia by the wife of a president who spent years cleaning up the mess left by his predecessor.

Mrs. Obama and Mr. Bush have had a few such memorable moments. In July in Dallas at a memorial service for five police officers killed by an Army veteran, the two held hands while singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” When Mr. Bush began swaying to the music, Mrs. Obama gamely let him swing her arm back and forth. At one point, as the choir sang “glory, glory hallelujah,” he turned to her in a burst of enthusiasm, causing the first lady to crack up, despite the solemnity of the occasion.

In June 2012, when Mr. Bush returned to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait, he aimed a few wisecracks at President Obama. But he saved his best material for Mrs. Obama, reminding her that when British soldiers set fire to the White House in 1814, another first lady, Dolley Madison, rescued the portrait of the first George W. — as in Washington.

“Now, Michelle,” he said, gesturing to his own painting, “if anything happens, there’s your man.”

Some of these encounters are explained by proximity. When the Obamas and the Bushes appear in public together, protocol dictates that Mrs. Obama stand next to Mr. Bush. Some of it is a function of the former president’s playful manner, which by all accounts has become more playful in his retirement.

But some of it also has to do with the relationship between the couples, which current and former officials say has deepened over the past seven and a half years, both because of the shared bond of living in the White House and because of Mr. Bush’s decorum as an ex-president.

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 26, 2016 in The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Chumph’s Assault on the Babies

Lookin’ like Hitler in ’33…

Report: Children of color ‘terrified’ of Trump presidency

Two-thirds of educators teaching grades K-12 reported that school children, mostly of color, are scared and stressed about their future if Donald Trump becomes president, according to a recent Southern Poverty Law Center survey released Wednesday.

A common finding, SPLC reports, is that students of color worry about being deported if Trump wins the election. This anxiety resides particularly with Latino, Muslim and African-American students, even if they are legal U.S. citizens, the report cites. The worries relate to the Republican front-runner’s proposed anti-immigrant policies — such as building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and banning the entrance of all Muslims into the country. Trump has also called Mexicans “rapists” and did not immediately disavow the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and other white supremacists in a February interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“My students are terrified of Donald Trump,” said one teacher from a middle school with a large population of African-American Muslims. “They think that if he’s elected, all black people will get sent back to Africa.”

The survey, the non-profit social justice oriented organization admits, is not a scientific, random sampled poll. The open online survey conducted between March 23 to April 2 was sent to teachers that subscribed to SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance newsletter. SPLC also said the teachers who chose to respond to the survey are likely to be those who are most concerned about the effects of the election in their schools. Two thousand K-12 educators responded, generating more than 5,000 comments. About one-fifth of the comments mentioned Donald Trump, meanwhile less than 200 comments mentioned the names of the other presidential candidates.

According to the survey, teachers said students in second grade through high school have cried in class due to their fears about the election. The anxiety, many teachers said, was also hindering students’ grades and ability to concentrate. One teacher from Washington state said a 10-year-old boy couldn’t sleep at night because he was worried his immigrant parents would be deported.

More than one-third of teachers also said they saw an increase in anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant attitudes and more than half of educators said there was an increase in uncivil political discourse in the classroom since the election season began. This anxiety is then reinforced through an increase in bullying toward marginalized students. Muslim, Sikh and Hindu students faced heightened levels of abuse in the past few months, the survey added. Across the U.S., Muslim and perceived Muslim students were called “ISIS,” “terrorist” or “bomber.”

Hostility toward immigrant children, particularly Mexican students, has increased as well. Some students have threatened immigrant classmates that they will be deported soon, and use slurs against them. The survey also noted that many teachers observed an increase in the use of racial slurs, and some African-American students have said they fear slavery will be reinstated.

“At the all-white school where I teach, ‘dirty Mexican’ has become a common insult,” said a Wisconsin middle school educator. “Before election season it was never heard.”

Some teachers said the growing hostility inspired by the election season is undoing previous efforts to fight bullying in their schools. Meanwhile, other teachers reported that the election has not impacted bullying in their schools, noting that their schools have strong values and commitment to civility. More than 40 percent of teachers in the survey said they are hesitant to teach about the election because the topic elevates students’ stress. Even with the silence by teachers, it was noted that students are still impacted by the election through the media and other students.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 21, 2016 in The Clown Bus, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

With the Rise of Trumpism – Black Women Racially Harassed at American University

This one is a bit odd. American University in Washington, DC is best known as a school for Foreign Affairs, and has had a pretty diverse student body for decades. My father got his Masters here, and that was back in the late 50’s. I have attended seminars there. This probably is a result of the type of racist behavior encouraged by the Chumph, with some of small population of picayune brained white people acting out – sometimes violently.

Image result for American University

Black Students Say They Were Harassed With Bananas At American University

“I wouldn’t let people drive me out, but it’s kind of sad that this kind of thing still happens.”

Students at American University in Washington D.C. have condemned the school over what they said was an inadequate response to racially-charged incidents on campus this month.

In one case, a rotting banana was left at the door of a black student’s dorm room. In addition, someone drew a penis on a whiteboard attached to her door.

“I wouldn’t let people drive me out,” Neah Gray, the freshman who found the banana, told the newspaper. “But it’s kind of sad that this kind of thing still happens.”

In another incident, someone threw a rotten banana at a black student, according to the American University Black Student Alliance. The organization said that the actions were part of a pattern of behavior at the university; last year, racist epithets were written on the dorm doors of black students.

The university described one of the incidents as “not characterized as bias related,” and announced that “conduct charges” were taking place through the “Student Conduct process.” It was not clear which incident the university was referring to.

On Friday, the administration also announced plans for a town hall meeting to be held that very night.

That response didn’t sit well with many students, who said they weren’t given enough notice to attend the meeting.

Black women are under threat on campus ― they are being used as target practice,” Jada Bell, the Black Student Alliance’s outreach coordinator, told BuzzFeed. “We’re literally being attacked and assaulted on campus, and there’s nothing being done about it by the administration.”

As a result, the university’s student senate issued a resolution late Sunday not only condemning the incidents, but also the school’s response.

American University student Ryan Shepard said signs were later posted around campus:

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 19, 2016 in Domestic terrorism, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Black As We Wanna Be

The author makes the argument that to destroy racism, you first need to destroy the concept of race.

mcknight_douglass_otu_img

Frederick Douglass, February 21, 1895. (National Park Service, Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, Washington, DC)

Black as We Wanna Be

Trying to remedy racism on its own intellectual terrain is like trying to extinguish a fire by striking another match. The fiction must be unbelieved, the fire stamped out.

In her 2003 book Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag explored some questions about the ever-evolving technology of photography and what it does to us, particularly when it’s used to capture moments that would normally make us avert our eyes. “Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order,” Sontag wrote, “are those who could do something to alleviate it—say, the surgeons at the military hospital where the photograph was taken—or those who could learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs, whether or not we mean to be.” Sontag spends much of the book discussing war photography; scant pages mention images and cruelties closer to home.

In the modern American context, there remains perhaps no more insidious cruelty than the belief—constantly manipulated and reinforced—that race is a natural and constant thing, something that should have any bearing on how we choose to organize our society and our lives. And though the convergence of racism and the photographic impulse isn’t new, the recent pictures and videos of killings by police officers have given renewed life to the questions that Sontag explored—and those she didn’t. Indeed, these images raise fewer questions about the act of looking at them than about the ways in which we view ourselves.

To modern eyes, the photographic portraits of Frederick Douglass are not so remarkable. Douglass was almost always photographed seated, wearing a dark suit, alternately staring directly into the camera and looking off to one side. As he abided by the portrait conventions of the era, only his skin color would have made these portraits remarkable in Douglass’s own time. The real joy of Picturing Frederick Douglass (2015)—a collection of 60 portraits, taken between 1841 and 1895; his four speeches on his theory of photography; and a critical essay by Henry Louis Gates Jr.—is to study his constancy. The changes in Douglass’s facial expressions across all of the portraits are mostly imperceptible: He looks serious, defiant, and proud.

The final portrait of Douglass was taken on February 21, 1895. He’d died the day before. That image shows him lying on his bed in Washington, DC. It is mostly a spectral gray-white. His hair and beard, his clothes, the bed linens, and the wall in the background all appear to be about the same color. There’s a faint outline of his profile, and with his hands crossed over his abdomen, he looks as dignified as ever.

The photographers can be forgiven for what time has done to their work—milkiness where there might have been clarity, yellows and browns where whites and blacks might have once revealed more. But looking through the portraits, you could well begin to think that Douglass was more an artist than any of the photographers who pointed the camera at him.

His portraits are, in effect, the emblems of his more than 50 years of performance art. Photography was a tool that Douglass used in his abolitionist efforts to counteract images of inferiority and magnify the presence of a dignified, well-dressed, intelligent Negro. In total, the editors of Picturing Frederick Douglass have identified 160 distinct portraits of the former slave, abolitionist, writer, and orator. There are more photographic portraits of Douglass than there are of Abraham Lincoln, George Custer, Red Cloud, or Walt Whitman. Moreover, Douglass was deliberate about disseminating them. He gave them as gifts; he printed them in newspapers, including his own, The North Star; he used them to promote abolitionist and civil-rights organizations.

In 1849, Douglass found an unauthorized engraving of himself that pictured him with a smile. The image angered him. In The North Star, he wrote that it had “a much more kindly and amiable expression than is generally thought to characterize the face of a fugitive slave.” By then, Douglass had not been a fugitive slave for three years, but something in his psyche remained trapped. Paintings and engravings, he continued, were too dependent on the artist’s predilections to figure into Douglass’s mission:

Negroes can never have impartial portraits at the hands of white artists. It seems to us next to impossible for white men to take likenesses of black men, without most grossly exaggerating their distinctive features. And the reason is obvious. Artists, like all other white persons, have adopted a theory respecting the distinctive features of Negro physiognomy.

Thus, Douglass preferred the burgeoning technology of photography—which faithfully rendered the appearance of its subject—and a few trusted engravers. In “Pictures and Progress,” a speech he gave sometime between November 1864 and March 1865, he more fully articulated his theory of photography and its potential to inspire social change. In reference to photographs in general, he said that “by looking upon this picture and upon that [one],” we are able to compare, “to point out the defects of the one and the perfections of the other.” More specifically, he viewed his own pictures as signs of perfection, in contrast to the defects of the more common images of Negroes during his lifetime.

Objectivity is part of what Douglass liked best about photography, and so Douglass, with his exercise in constancy, manipulated what he set in front of the camera. He performed his vision of perfection, which he sought to use as a basis for antislavery and civil-rights advocacy. But as much as Douglass worked for and achieved progress in the abolitionist movement, he knew the limits of human endeavor. “All subjective ideas become more distinct, palpable and strong by the habit of rendering them objective,” he said in an 1862 speech. “By its exercise it is easy to become bigoted and fanatic, or liberal and enlightened.” Photographs merely represented both the technology and the form that, he believed, gave him the best chance at reaching the latter.

Nowadays, it’s become popular, again, to note that white supremacy is a harmful ideology. By insisting on that fact tirelessly, Black Lives Matter has brought about the slogan for a countervailing ideology and become the vessel for activist energy and potential change. That BLM has focused national attention on police injustice is a commendable achievement. However, for all its dynamism and appeals to moral goodness, the movement shares a foundational belief with Douglass: the ideology of race as a natural fact.

Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality, a 2012 book by the scholars (and sisters) Karen and Barbara Fields, should be more widely read than it is—no matter its current reach. In it, the authors achieve an intelligence and agility that is rare in discussions of identity, racism, and inequality. They start by asserting distinctions between two common words. Race is “the conception or the doctrine that nature produced humankind in distinct groups, each defined by inborn traits”; racism is “an action and a rationale for action, or both at once,” which “always takes for granted the objective reality of race.” To describe the “mental terrain” on which race and racism operate, the Fieldses coined the term racecraft, which defines “what goes with what and whom (sumptuary codes), how different people must deal with each other (rituals of deference and dominance), where human kinship begins and ends (blood), and how Americans look at themselves and each other (the gaze).” The term takes its provenance from “witchcraft,” which, the authors argue, is a useful way to understand the fiction’s dominance over our minds.

In “Pictures and Progress,” Douglass spoke pointedly about the limits to his insistence on objectivity. Pictures, he said, “are of the earth and speak to us in a known tongue. They are neither angels nor demons, but in their possibilities both. We see in them not only men and women, but ourselves.” But the fiction of race, the authors of Racecraft remind us, thrives in that uncertain balance between the angelic and the demonic. They take a different stance: “No operation performed on the fiction can ever make headway against the crime” of racism.

The rhetoric and thinking common to Black Lives Matter and its supporters reaffirm that same fiction. To assert and maintain its antagonistic political goals, the organization must accept the “objective” reality of race. Douglass’s pictures make a similar case: Negroes are the same as white folks. The deeper truth, which perhaps is impossible for a photograph to say—or perhaps impossible for our eyes to see—is that there’s no such thing as a Negro and no such thing as a white person.

Our writers and political activists, however, possess tools that are more attuned to nuance. Recently, in The New York Times Magazine, Nikole Hannah-Jones walked through a series of questions that she asked after the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile by police officers on consecutive days in early July. She began:

How do you explain the visceral and personal pain caused by the killing of a black person you did not even know to people who did not grow up with, as their legacy, the hushed stories of black bodies hung from trees by a lynching mob populated with sheriff’s deputies?

Read the Rest Here

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Cosby’s Lawyers Play the Race Card

Admittedly with the number of white boys recently receiving a hand slap or a pat on the back for raping women – there is the opportunity to cloud the issue.

Cosby’s behind belongs in jail.

The fact that some of the courts have turned college campuses in America into “Free Rape Zones”, speaks more to that “white boy privilege” dysfunction in our courts system than our just and deep moral outrage.

Cosby’s case is rare in America, where money buts you out of almost any crime in the pay for play “Justice” system. I mean Roger Ailes cut to the chase and wrote a $20 million check to keep his as out of court, and possibly jail.

Despite the corruption of the system – Race isn’t the sole reason Cosby is being prosecuted, Our righteous indignation should be reserved for those who have corrupted the system of justice on the basis of race…Not just the likely guilty.

Image result for Bill Cosby court

Bill Cosby’s lawyers claim racism for first time

Bill Cosby has long preached the gospel of personal responsibility to fellow blacks, irritating those who fault racism for holding the community back.

But now lawyers for the 79-year-old comedian have suggested for the first time that racial bias is to blame as Cosby faces the prospect of 13 women testifying in court that he drugged and molested them. Twelve of them are white.

Cosby’s legal team raised the issue on the courthouse steps Tuesday after a hearing in his criminal sex assault case in suburban Philadelphia. Whether they intend to bring up race in the courtroom remains to be seen. At a minimum, some legal experts said the defense is trying to influence potential jurors.

“I think that you’ve always got to have in mind who’s your jury pool,” said Los Angeles lawyer Mark Geragos, whose clients have included Michael Jackson. “That’s probably the end game.”

Or the lawyers may have been dutifully carrying out Cosby’s instructions: “It could well be they are expressing the concerns of the client,” said Carl Douglas, who was on O.J. Simpson’s legal Dream Team.

Cosby is set to go on trial next June on charges he drugged and sexually violated Temple University employee Andrea Constand at his home in 2004. He could get 10 years in prison if convicted.

In bringing up race, his legal team took aim at celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents about half the women who have agreed to testify against Cosby.

Allred “calls herself a civil rights attorney, but her campaign against Mr. Cosby builds on racial bias and prejudice that can pollute the court of public opinion,” the lawyers said in a statement.

“Mr. Cosby is no stranger to discrimination and racial hatred. When the media repeats her accusations – with no evidence, no trial and no jury – we are moved backwards as a country and away from the America that our civil rights leaders sacrificed so much to create.”

Allred called the tactic “desperate.”

“It is ironic that a man who has chastised the black poor for making race an excuse would now have to lean upon that as part of his defense strategy,” said Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson, a black scholar and author of the book “Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?”

“If you’re more cynical, you might say, ‘What manipulation of racial rhetoric in defense of the indefensible,’” Dyson said Thursday….Read the rest here

 
3 Comments

Posted by on September 9, 2016 in Domestic terrorism, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: