http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-becks-sponsors-named-in-donny-deutchs-boycott/
Nestle
Wal-Mart
Kellogg
Kraft Food
Chrysler
General Motors
Pfizer
Procter & Gamble
Campbell
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sAFN3uR-PG-rau-5_KkX5diYNF1F6wsAALR8uHCE4HQoIMG0ARlZ8LYZG3vFpXoz9Yl8qfk7rA9GfFsIFLaM6CFelY4P4Xlr3Gg18PKBGwS7-r8RW68f-YYWhXGAb_hEPcwBCs7xHZWdkU08wLHMeg=s0-d)
Showing posts with label Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations. Show all posts
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Glenn Beck Advertisers
Here are the advertisers on Glenn Beck's television show. Please join me & contact them. Let them know that you will no longer give your hard earned money to them so that they can support someone who practices racial politics for ratings. Freedom of speech is something that Glenn Beck is entitled to. However, we as human beings are also entitled to not give our money to companies that give financial support to such hatred.
http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-becks-sponsors-named-in-donny-deutchs-boycott/
Nestle
Wal-Mart
Kellogg
Kraft Food
Chrysler
General Motors
Pfizer
Procter & Gamble
Campbell
http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-becks-sponsors-named-in-donny-deutchs-boycott/
Nestle
Wal-Mart
Kellogg
Kraft Food
Chrysler
General Motors
Pfizer
Procter & Gamble
Campbell
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Racial Profiling Does Not Exist?
There was a very interesting opinion piece concerning racial profiling in USA Today
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/our-view-on-law-enforcement-eliminating-racial-profiling-remains-a-work-in-progress----though-cambridge-case-is-an-ab.html#more. It’s worth reading the entire opinion but I’ll highlight a couple paragraphs.
In one highly publicized case a decade ago, two New Jersey state troopers wounded three unarmed black men after shooting into their car during a routine traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike. In the ensuing uproar, the state found that when blacks and Hispanics were pulled over on the turnpike, they were three times as likely as whites to be subjected to searches. Reversing years of denial, the state attorney general admitted what minorities had contended for years, that disparate treatment was "real, not imagined."
New Jersey's experience, and federal cases in seven jurisdictions from California to Pennsylvania, should have virtually ended racial profiling. But you can't solve a problem unless you admit it exists, and too many law enforcement officials have been in denial. Study after study has documented the same divisive trends. In Illinois, a report this month found that last year, minorities were more likely to be subjected to certain searches than whites, even though police were more likely to find contraband in the vehicles of white drivers. In New York City, a disproportionate number of minorities stopped by police since 2005 were frisked; the yield of weapons or contraband was minuscule.
Now, despite all of those studies that the opinion piece referenced, despite all of that evidence, there is someone who believes that it’s not true. His name is Chuck Canterbury, who is the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police. In his mind, racial profiling just doesn’t happen. Here’s a paragraph from his opposing opinion piece: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/opposing-view-profiling-does-not-happen----theres-no-evidence-that-racism-is-a-systemic-problem-in-police-forces.html
Racial profiling is not a legitimate law enforcement tool, and there is no evidence that prejudice is a systemic problem in U.S. law enforcement. Racial profiling cannot exist unless police executives allow it — unless a whole department tolerates it — and that just does not happen today. Unfortunately, because of past injustices, minority group members sometimes assume that any routine stop of a minority is racial profiling, an assumption that a white driver in the same circumstances is unlikely to make.
It's strange that he can't see what's directly in front of his face. Racial profiling does still exist. Ask a black male. Ask an Arabic man. The first thing Chuck Canterbury should do is to acknowledge that the problem still exists. Then, the police can really get to the business of changing the system.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tuwH5T75-a1rqZqqZ_77IBePIeDRDCV7bLOh3_WPh8UU5ZNArShZcs1YQ6T2QxUpjZ1t4EaNeR8y02MF03b6kyanqzueYYZnQQlZsx5dxS4p-Hq4x8nt2MnvsH_Sg06_7zmxTtPHyG5WtVi-n3bAFC=s0-d)
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/our-view-on-law-enforcement-eliminating-racial-profiling-remains-a-work-in-progress----though-cambridge-case-is-an-ab.html#more. It’s worth reading the entire opinion but I’ll highlight a couple paragraphs.
In one highly publicized case a decade ago, two New Jersey state troopers wounded three unarmed black men after shooting into their car during a routine traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike. In the ensuing uproar, the state found that when blacks and Hispanics were pulled over on the turnpike, they were three times as likely as whites to be subjected to searches. Reversing years of denial, the state attorney general admitted what minorities had contended for years, that disparate treatment was "real, not imagined."
New Jersey's experience, and federal cases in seven jurisdictions from California to Pennsylvania, should have virtually ended racial profiling. But you can't solve a problem unless you admit it exists, and too many law enforcement officials have been in denial. Study after study has documented the same divisive trends. In Illinois, a report this month found that last year, minorities were more likely to be subjected to certain searches than whites, even though police were more likely to find contraband in the vehicles of white drivers. In New York City, a disproportionate number of minorities stopped by police since 2005 were frisked; the yield of weapons or contraband was minuscule.
Now, despite all of those studies that the opinion piece referenced, despite all of that evidence, there is someone who believes that it’s not true. His name is Chuck Canterbury, who is the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police. In his mind, racial profiling just doesn’t happen. Here’s a paragraph from his opposing opinion piece: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/opposing-view-profiling-does-not-happen----theres-no-evidence-that-racism-is-a-systemic-problem-in-police-forces.html
Racial profiling is not a legitimate law enforcement tool, and there is no evidence that prejudice is a systemic problem in U.S. law enforcement. Racial profiling cannot exist unless police executives allow it — unless a whole department tolerates it — and that just does not happen today. Unfortunately, because of past injustices, minority group members sometimes assume that any routine stop of a minority is racial profiling, an assumption that a white driver in the same circumstances is unlikely to make.
It's strange that he can't see what's directly in front of his face. Racial profiling does still exist. Ask a black male. Ask an Arabic man. The first thing Chuck Canterbury should do is to acknowledge that the problem still exists. Then, the police can really get to the business of changing the system.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tea Bagging Gone Wrong
I went online & watched a video of a tea bagging rally. I wanted to see for myself what all the fuss was about. What I saw was something very frightening, but not for the reasons that you might think.
The rally started innocently enough. Speaker after speaker went on stage & started talking about high taxes & the need to start trimming them. I’m all for that. I believe the deficit is getting out of control now & we need to start putting restrictions in place in order to bring it down.
Then, the rally started turning scary. The speakers started talking about illegal immigrants & the need to kick them out of the country & close the borders. One speaker even started talking about spics & niggers being the main reason for America’s problem, which received great applause. Well, THAT got my attention. The handheld camera started panning the crowd. All white. Go figure. One woman held up a sign that said “Go to hell Owebama (a cute play on the president’s name) & the camel you rode in on”. Interesting.
What is evident to me is that when the far right stole a page out of the far left’s playbook with these anti-tax rallies, the idea became perverted. What may have started out as a decent idea has now turned into a kinder gentler version of the Ku Klux Klan.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uw9uIY8jsckhTXJ7QlgkUZR4dIH7ts-FlHYTrBxL01Lzon4JyPeVoy-JLKLW_86Nn5BeIk3Eo6VVe-Bodd1hH0sTgKT3aPNtNYCxlY6y-0UJhCAmYIJAV5z3c4d0-Xv0w1JwYsqxiz6szmX72iN84=s0-d)
The rally started innocently enough. Speaker after speaker went on stage & started talking about high taxes & the need to start trimming them. I’m all for that. I believe the deficit is getting out of control now & we need to start putting restrictions in place in order to bring it down.
Then, the rally started turning scary. The speakers started talking about illegal immigrants & the need to kick them out of the country & close the borders. One speaker even started talking about spics & niggers being the main reason for America’s problem, which received great applause. Well, THAT got my attention. The handheld camera started panning the crowd. All white. Go figure. One woman held up a sign that said “Go to hell Owebama (a cute play on the president’s name) & the camel you rode in on”. Interesting.
What is evident to me is that when the far right stole a page out of the far left’s playbook with these anti-tax rallies, the idea became perverted. What may have started out as a decent idea has now turned into a kinder gentler version of the Ku Klux Klan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
