Penalty on the Field. Unnecessary Use of the Race Card. Penalty - Setting Us Back 50 Years.

Sorry for the long title but I thought it was a good one!

I have been researching this matter and maybe I am missing something. The Montgomery Public Schools is in the process of selecting a new Superintendent. There were many candidates including the Interim Superintendent, who is a white male.

The board has whittled down the selection to two finalist - two black females. They are Samantha Ingram, superintendent of Fairfield County Schools in South Carolina, and Barbara Thompson, superintendent of New Glarus Public Schools in Wisconsin.

Now, allegedly there have been public comments made that the City Council President Charles Jinright and County Commission Vice Chairman Reed Ingram about the selection process for finding a new Superintendent. I am not sure what they said and personally don't really care. More than likely whatever they said was due to the fact that the person or persons they would have liked to be Superintendent were not selected as a finalist.

Now with all that being said, our "Champion of Injustice", State Representative Alvin Holmes (sarcasm) decides to shoot off at the mouth saying that "officials should stop bringing race into Superintendent search". I do not remember race ever being brought into this matter until he opened his big a$$ mouth. Those of you who follow my blog might remember an earlier entry I made regarding Mr. Holmes, "OMG! Who is Dealing? Here Comes the Race Card." The finalist were narrowed down some time ago. Why rant off about it now? The Montgomery Chamber of Commerce would like to send a representative on the site visits of the two finalists but people are opposing that. Did I miss something or are both finalist black? Where is race involved? Who cares who goes on the site visits, as long as it is not costing me money as a taxpayer? I can be almost certain that the next Superintendent of the Montgomery Public Schools will be a black female. Am I wrong?

School board member Eleanor Dawkins said the site visits have become controversial because the democratic process didn't go the way some members of the community wanted it to go in favor of Clay Slagle, the white interim Superintendent. "Because the vote didn't go the way they wanted it to go they want to go on the site visits to try and find a reason why these candidates are wrong or why the vote was wrong," Dawkins said. Who the hell is "they"? White people? What can the Chamber of Commerce do to stop this process if they send representatives on the site visits? Holmes has chimed in and said that the Montgomery Chamber of Commerce represents "silk stocking, country club millionaires in this town, and does nothing to help west Montgomery." (In case you do not live here, West Montgomery, is the "black side of town".

Holmes also announced that he would bring the Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and other civil rights leaders to protest all over the city if there is a block to appoint either of these finalist.

Again, we (black people) did not ask for a crusader to come to our rescue and cloud up the relative peace with stupid rhetoric and playing the "race card". I am not one to play that card myself but there is a time or a place for everything, and this was not one of those times or not remotely close to the place. I have no preference of who is Superintendent as long as my child can actually learn something to that will provide the launching pad to be anything she wants to be in life.

It Isn't Always About Race with the Police....Get Over It!

For those of you who may read this blog and are not from the Montgomery, Alabama area, there is a "movement" going around the city (especially in the section that has a predominantly black population). The item at hand - Checkpoints by the Montgomery Alabama Police Department. I am sure that alot of people have had a horror story about contact with the police - I have two, one in Dooley County, Georgia and the other in Tijuana, Mexico. Two long stories that I would have to talk about later.


Now a little background of the Montgomery Police Department for those of you who love history. This is the same police department who on May 20, 1961, allowed an angry mob of white people to beat on the Freedom Riders after they arrived from Birmingham (where they were attacked as well); the same police department who arrested Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955 for refusing to obey a city bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger; the same police department that arrested Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on January 26, 1956 for driving 30 MPH in a 25 MPH zone in the city of Montgomery.


But today are better days in Montgomery. The police chief, a friend of mine, is a black man - heck even the fire chief is a black man. There is no more riding in the back of the bus (except now it is cool and by choice). Black owned businesses, black politicians, black people living in amongst other races with no fear of reprisals or threats. But some people just cannot forget the past and see that things are WAY different than before. I am not saying that there may not be pockets of disenfranchisement but not on the level brought about by this latest "movement".

Crime is visible no matter where you are or who you may be. You see it on the news, read it in the paper or online, hear it on the radio, or maybe you might even have been a victim. When the police try to take a legal proactive approach instead of reactive to law enforcement, I am all for it. Speaking from someone who is in the Loss Prevention/Security field and a father who is a police officer, any attempts to legally reduce crime is all right with me.

Now the "movement" is to protest the fact that local law enforcement is focusing these checkpoints on predominately black sections of the city, just to harass low income individuals. Not true, in my opinion. I live on the east side of town which is growing by leaps and bounds with commerce, housing, and schools. It is a "better" side town to me (but that is a matter of perspective). My belief is that the purpose of the checkpoints have been for better visibility of the police; checking driver's licenses, insurance, and registration; seeking out impaired drivers; checking for warrants and wanted persons; and monitoring seat belt usage.

My brother and I had a conversation earlier this week on this item. He works with several people who live on the west side of the city that feel they are being targeted by police at these checkpoints. I am not calling people who live on the west side ignorant but the ignorance that is projected by some of the things that were said astounded my brother. But my brother, who I have always felt to be more "militant" to the black cause, was trying to stress the fact that, it doesn't matter where they do the checkpoints, if you stuff is in order, you do not ever have to worry about the police. Now, I have to admit, my brother and I never truly faced any "racism" growing up. We never had to be mindful of our "place in society".

We both live in the same area - about 90 seconds from each other if we were speeding through the neighborhood. We have to take the same route to our homes. We have both encountered these checkpoints and have NEVER had any problems. There is also traffic details on a particular roadway to slow the drivers down that we both travel - I should know, I have gotten two tickets on that road. I am glad that the police are in our area so "the bad people" will not break into my home and take what I have worked hard for or hurt anyone in my household and I am sure that the same goes for my brother.

Just so you know, here are the stats:

126 Checkpoints in the north precinct resulted in 26 felony arrests, 112 misdemeanor arrests, 893 outstanding warrants, 14 drug cases, 1,993 traffic citations and nine seized weapons.

139 Checkpoints in the south precinct (which is where I live) led to seven felony arrests, 55 misdemeanor arrests, 583 outstanding warrants, 2,866 traffic citations and three seized weapons.

99 Checkpoints in the west precinct (which is predominately black) produced 22 felony arrests, 66 misdemeanor arrests, 835 outstanding warrants, five drug cases, 2,105 traffic citations and two seized weapons.

As you can see, the "movement" argument does not "hold water". My area gets more checkpoints than any other area. Of course, I am sure someone will spin that and say the police do that to keep the black people out or due to political pressure to keep this area safe due to commerce. Well I am a black person and I live here, they are not keeping me out.

One of the things that breaks down this "movement" is the lack of preparation prior to trying to prove a point. The information should have been researched prior to making a fuss about the issue. Now what is really sad, is some are still trying to keep it going. Why? There is no issue. The neighborhood with more white people are being "harassed" by the cops. Do you hear them complaining about it?

My only point is that all law abiding people on the west side need to embrace the police presence. I am sure they work just as hard, if not harder, than I do for their possessions. Don't you want to keep "the bad people" out of your neighborhood too? Think about it! And as far as insurance and driver's license - I have a 15 year old on the road now, if you are not supposed to be on the road because you do not have your stuff in order - so be it. I have been hit by a drunk driver, it isn't fun.

How Can They Justify The Hate?

Constantly, I am amazed me how people can have a way of thinking that is a complete opposite of mine. I was watching something on the National Geographic Channel yesterday that inspired me to write this. It is not something I hadn't seen before but yesterday it just made me think a second of what I consider the "stupidity" of people sometimes.

The program was called "Inside: American Nazis". I have seen programs like this before and I am drawn in as a black man who choses to be with white women. Nazi, Skinhead, Aryan Nation, Ku Klux Klan - it is all the same to me whether they think their ideologies are different.

What I can't understand is how someone can come to hate someone they have never met? I know it is not right to hate someone but at least the people that I dislike with a passion are people who I have met before. How can someone generalize one group of people as being evil? I will concede that some of my bruthas may not always be on the up and up but they same can be said about the white race (and for that matter, any other race that is out there). Every race has their own "black sheep". My personal opinion is that it is weak minded indivduals who get sucked into these groups. They want to blame their "problems", lack of initiative or achievement, or just plain laziness on other people who worked for what is theirs.

As I have said before, I grew up with a father in the military and with that I admit that I was sheltered from "hate" like that while living on military bases. When I had to live or go to school off base (especially high school), I was rudely surprised on how the color of my skin seemed to be a small factor in things. I am not one of these sensitively militant bruthas but it was not always subtle. It was very strange to me. It is not as though I didn't know it ever existed because I was a history junkie growing up. I read about it and saw pictures and film of it but to actually experience underlying "racism" was very new to me.

After I graduated from high school and started dating outside of my race again - yes you heard right - i actually noticed the looks when I was with a white female in what I now refer to sometimes as "the real world". The real world being anything outside the confines of a military base. It was almost always older white people who more than likely lived in the time when things were segregated and just couldnt let that sh!t go. There were young people who you could tell did not particularly care for the "swirl". For a time there, I was so cautious of my safety and that of the person I was with that I would carry my weapon with me for fear of a confrontation with an idiot.

Everybody believes in something and has the right to their opinion. Whether I think it is right or wrong, who am I to tell someone how they are supposed to feel. All I can do is present my side of an "argument" (if they are even interested in listening) so they see where I am coming from. But with your belief in something, you shouldn't have to hide yourself to stand up to your beliefs. I am referring to the people that "belong" to these extremeists groups that choose to hide their faces. If it is something that you truly believe in - be all out there and show yourself. This goes from the white sepremacists to the radical Islamic groups that chose to speak their rhetoric and at times create mayhem from cover.

So the question is, how can you justify the hate that you speak and you cannot show the true face behind that that hate? Also if you are one who proudly will be open about your beliefs, why put yourself on the outside of the mainstream and ostracize yourself?