Exonerate

Here is a question for you; what do  President Trump and actor Jussie Smollett have in common? The word “Exonerate”.

Merriam-Webster defines it is as…

  1. to relieve of a responsibility, obligation or hardship
  2. to clear from accusation or blame

When the long awaited Mueller report came out (we’re still waiting to see exactly what it said), U.S. Attorney William Barr, in letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote…

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The president immediately took to Twitter saying…

It is not surprising the president would interpret the memo to his advantage, while others have looked at this saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute collusion, which people much smarter than me say that charge is very difficult to prove in court.

Now let’s head from Washington D.C. to Chicago where Empire actor Jussie Smollett claimed to have been attacked by two people in what was thought to be a hate crime.

When Chicago police investigated the attack, they determined he orchestrated the alleged hate crime in January on himself because he was unhappy with his salary on the show “Empire.” Smollett was arrested and charged with felony disorderly  conduct, but the story does end there.

A representative for Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose office was prosecuting Smollett, said,

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

This of course led to the actor saying (through his attorneys)…

“Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement.”

After the evitable fire storm hit the internet, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Mages (the lead prosecutor) told CNN affiliate WLS that dropping the charges did not mean the actor was exonerated. When asked whether he considered Smollett to be innocent, the prosecutor said “No.”

So where does that leave us? I would suggest on the road to nowhere.**

**a plan, project, development, or course of action that appears to have or offer no meaningful, desirable or useful conclusion.

 

News that is not fit to print?

The Houston Chronicle printed an interesting story on Why the media stayed quiet as Houston integrated it’s counters. The article talked about how Houston media basically buried any negative integration stories in an attempt not to inflame protests and riots.

The author (Mike Snyder) wrote “today, ignoring or playing down a major news story like the integration of lunch counters would be unthinkable”. In a more recent example, Snyder pointed out that The New York Times delayed publication of an explosive story about warrantless wiretapping for a year in response to concerns about national security expressed by President George W. Bush’s administration.

What I think the author missed was that the major media outlets at the time were owned by either the Jones or Hobby family who were very much part of the community. I don’t think you would see this happen in today’s world of consolidation and big corporate media.

That being said, it’s still worth reading about how the times continue to change.

Fear and loathing on the border

We have crisis on the border.

That is the message the White House is delivering in an attempt to win the perception game on the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

President Trump recently visited the border joined by fellow republicans including Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The rhetoric of really bad people including terrorists and/or members of vicious gangs coming across smuggling drugs and making our country less safe continues to ratchet up.

While I do agree the border and immigration are issues that have to be addressed, I am struck by the tone of trying to convince America that we need a wall. It sounds as if Texas, and especially the border, is a really dangerous place right now that no one should want to be a part of.

It seems to me that if a business was looking to relocate, the last place they would want to move to is somewhere that is so dangerous, the U.S. is willing to implement a partial shutdown of the government. And what about the tourism industry. What family would want to visit towns like El Paso, McAllen or Brownsville?

It has been pointed out by opponents of Trump’s proposal, that the facts are simply not there to support his claim, but I think in the case (as is too often the case), the facts really don’t matter. It’s about tone, innuendo and scaring people into believing something is real (anybody remember Joe McCarthy and the fear of “Reds Under The Bed”?).

I do sympathize with people who have lost loved ones by people who are here illegally, but not anymore than those who lost a loved one in mass shooting. Both are wrong and both issues need to be fixed.

The Republican Party has always flown the “We Support Business” banner, but in this case, they may be more Chicken Little running around yelling the sky is falling and we all know how that turned out.

We The People (except you)

How far has American come in terms of tolerance? Consider this, a group of Tarrant County Republicans will vote this week on whether or not to remove Tarrant County Republican Vice-Chair Shahid Shafi. His crime? Being Muslim.

Shafi, a trauma surgeon and Southlake City Council member, is having his position challenged because he doesn’t represent all Tarrant County Republicans. They point out that Islamic ideologies do not align with the U.S. Constitution even though Amendment I says…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

According to the Texas Tribune, Dorrie O’Brien, one of the precinct chairs, said she wants to boot Shafi out, not because he is Muslim, but because she questions whether he supports Islam or is connected “to Islamic terror groups”. I guess she is also unaware of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ which basically ensures a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ironically, the argument O’Brien is making is the same the KKK made against Catholics. The Klan pointed out that since Catholics had to put the pope first, they could not put the country’s interests ahead of the pope who would be the de facto leader (the same argument was made when JFK ran for president).

The good news in all of this is several high ranking Texas Republicans are standing with Shafi including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former House Speaker Joe Straus.

It looks like there is common ground to be found in politics. Unfortunately, it takes something this extreme for it to happen.

A river runs through it

There is an interesting development (literally) brewing in Kingwood. Romerica Investments, LLC has applied for a permit to develop wetlands, flood plain, and floodway in the area around Barrington and River Grove Park in Kingwood into a resort area.

We are just 18 months from Hurricane Harvey with the area still recovering in certain areas. There is really no need to rehash the amount of damage, but deciding to move forward with this project has to make you scratch your head.

The promotional video shows tranquil waters lapping along the banks aided by an uplifting and dramatic music bed that has the feel of total luxury. The plan is to develop a mixed use featuring a commercial and residential district along with a marina.

I guess they are hoping people won’t remember what the San Jacinto Bridge at Highway 59 looked like after some of the water receded.

Concrete barriers that were moved by Hurricane Harvey flood waters.There are also plans to expand Woodland Hills Drive to accommodate the additional traffic, but as anyone who drives in Kingwood will tell you, traffic can already be brutal and adding thousands of more people will just make it worse.

I  don’t know what the chances of this project even getting off the ground are (the Sierra Club requested a public hearing with all surrounding businesses, residential areas and other entities that may be affected by the proposal, up or downstream), but given the recent history, I would be surprised if anybody would think this is a good investment for either the community or the investors.

What is the justice in this?

 

A really bad story is coming out of Waco.

A plea deal was offered to Jacob Anderson, a former Baylor University fraternity president who was accused of rape. The deal, which was offered by prosecutors, allowed Anderson to plead no contest to a lesser charge, thus avoiding any jail time (he does have to pay a $400 fine).

I was not there to be a witness to this alleged event and understand there was some conflicting evidence and statements made making the district attorney’s office offer the deal. What caught my eye was reading that Hillary LaBorde, who was assigned to prosecute the case, emailed the victim saying…

she didn’t think they would win the case if it went to trial, explaining that Anderson was an “innocent-looking young defendant” and a first-time rapist. “Our jurors aren’t ready to blame rapists and not victims.”

Two things here, why would you even say something like that to a victim of sexual assault (Anderson pleaded no contest to third-degree felony charge of unlawful restraint and receive deferred probation).

Second, have we made so little progress in our society that jurors are not ready to blame rapists, especially innocent-looking young defendants? I guess the #MeToo movement still has a way to go in Waco.

“I’ve been at this a long time and I’ve never seen anything like this,” the victim’s attorney, Vic Feazell, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “It stinks to high hell.”

As a final slap in the face, neither LaBorde nor McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna attended Monday’s hearing, according to the Texas Tribune.

It seems prosecutors care more about their record and don’t want to take on case that will make them look bad if they lose, but sadly in this case, they still look bad.

The tangled web of American history

Today is National Repeal Day.

On January 16th, 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, outlawing alcohol and the following year, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote.

In a strange way, these two events were connected to each other. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union had been promoting prohibition for many years, believing alcohol was the cause of many social ills facing our nation. In those days, a man controlled the household money and could drink away the family’s life savings with the wife having little recourse to stop him.

Another factor that played a large role in all of this was World War I. Many women became involved in the war efforts, working in factories, running the house with husbands at war, allowing them to earn their own money and even great freedom.

All of this led America into the Roaring Twenties where consumerism took off. Advances in printing found magazines entering more and more homes, offering a plethora of manufactured goods just waiting to be gobbled up. Sensing a growing market, many companies began to market directly at women, thus giving them an even greater voice to advance their status.

Fast forward thirteen years and America found itself in the Great Depression. Because of Prohibition, organized crime grew with gangsters taking control of big cities. Both men and women struggled to survive. Many Americans were looking for something to cheer about and their thoughts soon turned to drink.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a repeal during the 1932 presidential campaign. He won the election in a landslide and Prohibition was dead one year later. On December 5th, 1933, Utah (being the final state needed for a three quarters majority) the 21st Amendment was ratified repealing Prohibition.

#RIP 41

Reading lots of great tributes, so thought I would share this story. I was asked to produce a public service announcement that President Bush was to voice. After recording the script, he spent some time talking with me with no one other than an aide around who took photos (please excuse my wardrobe). I was a nobody, but felt so welcomed by this man and was amazed how easy it was to speak with him. I did not always agree with his policies, but the respect and dignity he showed to me that day will be something I’ll never forget. #RIP

Cultural lines being drawn in The Netherlands

zwarte-piet-blackface-painted-white-models-and-the-black-community-afrocosmopolitan.com-africans-netherlandsThere is a clash of cultures taking place in the Netherlands that is dividing many people in a land known for its tolerance.

The controversy involves a character named Zwarte Peit (Black Pete) who is the companion of Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) and part of the annual feast of Saint Nicholas when the saint is welcomed with a parade as he arrives from Madrid. This Dutch Santa Claus leaves well-behaved children presents and punishes those who have been very naughty. The tradition is that Zwarte Piet is black because he is a Moor from Spain and first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman.

So what’s the problem? Many Dutch people (the white ones) put on blackface makeup with curly wigs and light red lipstick to portray Zwarte Peit. Some protesters consider the figure to be an insult to their ancestry while supporters consider the character to be an inseparable part of their cultural heritage.

Many schools and business in Holland are taking notice by changing Zwarte Peit’s clothing and look all together. The U.N. even declared that it was a “vestige of slavery” in 2015 and many cities including Amsterdam and The Hague have reimaged him or done away with him altogether.

Growing up, my parents belonged to a Dutch Club where people who immigrated from Holland came together to meet and socialize. My dad was often chosen to play Sinterklaas and I was given the role of Zwarte Peit with blackface makeup and all to help him hand out presents. I did not think about it at the time, but today can see how it would offend people.

Morales and society change over the years, leaving older generations to lament the good old days and younger ones wondering what were you thinking. I am not smart enough (or Dutch enough) to know what the answer is, other than I hope this can become a teachable moment where people can better understand where we came from and where we can go moving forwards.

Saving face

I'm Back!

I’m Back (maybe)

Megan Kelly is in the news again. This time she stepped in it by saying it wasn’t racist for white people to darken their skin with makeup, as long as they’re portraying an actual person of character during a round-table discussion of Halloween costumes.

It probably took the internet less than a millisecond to explode into outrage. Kelly first apologized in an eternal email to co-workers writing “I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry. The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent; the wounds too deep”. Kelly then also offered an on-air apology.

Now I am not a fan of Kelly and never found her to be that interesting, or that good of an interviewer, but admit to being a little surprised at the reaction of NBC executives. Does anyone remember the forgettable “White Chicks”? Two African American actors (Shawn and Marlon Wayans) go undercover in an abduction case, disguised as the two spoiled white daughters of a tycoon, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson. Other than being awarded a Razzie as the Worst Picture in 2005, White Chicks did not create the outrage Kelly received for simply thinking it was OK for different races to mimic each other.

Is there a double standard? Some will argue its offensive because blacks suffered terrible injustices at the hands of white people and who’s to say that’s not true, or that it’s not fair to feel that way.

Did she say it with hate in her heart, or simply ignorant of the deep hurt that thinking that way can cause someone to be offended. I wonder how many other white Americans understood how African Americans really felt about this. I also wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it someone other than Kelly had said it.

Perhaps in the end this was not about blackface, but more about NBC executives trying to save face and find a way to get out of what appears to be a bad programming decision/contract with a host whose popularity is lukewarm at best.