When will whites stop assuming responsibility for law and order in those same communities and hand it over to blacks?

I'm for

BLACK POWER

NOW

When will African-Americans assume responsibility for law and order in their own communities (black-majority, that is)?   When will whites stop assuming responsibility for law and order in those same communities and hand it over to blacks?

The local community--in this case, majority African-American, elects a council and mayor, who then appoint a police chief and department who do the hiring.   The latter should be hiring black officers to create a majority black police force.  In this case, there could no longer be charges of racism in the case of fatal killings by cops.How many killings of African-Americans by (white) police have occurred, on the average, in each of the past 20 years as compared to the killings of African-Americans by other African-Americans?

How rational is the fear  and what is the likelihood of African-Americans being assaulted, or even shot at, by white policemen if they are not involved in violent altercations or arousing undue suspicions?

What is the likelihood that an African-American (population: 40 million) will be stopped and harassed on the street by a policeman for no reason whatsoever?  Why do the police stop young black men more often than they do middle-aged black women, older black men, or young white men?   Does it have anything to do with the fact that in their experience an overwhelmingly disproportionate of the violent crime they witness is committed by young black men?


* * * * *

These are questions you will never see in print in The Stranger or The Seattle Times, which simply repeat the same old cliches (poverty, police brutality/accountability, racism) and provide the same tried-and-true (and failed) answers.  The man who assaulted with a megaphone former Mayor Paul Schell:   Well, that was an abnormality, not a reflection at all of a sub-culture that might have serious issues of its own (as in macho behaviors and more than zero tolerance for violence).

What exactly is "progressive" about positions that, in the case of The Stranger, have not budged one inch from the inception of that newspaper?    To me, "progressive" would imply some kind of progression, change, modification, or growth in one's understanding and views on a certain subject, not intellectual or moral rigor mortis.

The views of the Democratic Party on race have not changed within over half a century.

Violent urban crime by African-Americans, in comparison with every other demographic group except possibly Hispanics, continues unabated and rampant.

Blacks and liberals continue to decry police killings as being racist.

Confronted with new facts (the murder of the four Lakewood cops by a black man, etc.) or angles of seeing things, The Stranger's modus operandi is to stick to views, not to principles--principles being what stand in the way of their views.   So censor the news (don't mention the race of the aggressor/murderer when s/he is black, only when s/he is white) when it does not conform to its views on race.

Does anyone recall the Duke Lacrosse rape charges?

The Stranger has several strong topical stands or views (pro-gay, pro-marijuana, pro-African-American, anti-rich) but very few principles.

This could apply as well to The New York Times, The Atlantic, or The New Yorker, I realize, but I would think that there would be more freedom to deviate from the chairman of the board in the case of a local rag that ostensibly espouses the grassroots.

For over half a century, whenever there has been a race riot that has made headlines, The New York Times has in the days following done an a lengthy bar-and-graph analysis of racial inequality.  This time as well it pulled out all the stops:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/upshot/americas-racial-divide-charted.html?smid=fb-share&abt=0002&abg=0

But nowhere does it indicate that 97% of the homicides of African-Americans are committed by other African-Americans.  And it assumes that there is a proven cause-and-effect relationship between a certain level of inequality and urban violence.  The newspaper might as well be crusading against capitalism, which judging from the advertisements, it cannot and will not do.

To my knowledge, The New York Times also has never published a study of racial inequality within the world of professional sports.  Or in the entertainment world (popular music, Hollywood movie industry).



If the media in this country cannot provide a balanced, fair coverage of news, how can the people of this country be expected to have a more informed understanding of what is taking place?

An example of a principled view would be that one is against racism because it is unjust (regardless of "who is doing it," and not "The black race is never wrong (or racist).  I am rooting for them, my allegiance is forever with them (because of what happened to them or because I admire/like 'them' and 'really dig their culture')."

Some people confuse principle with view.    A view (or an opinion) is not a principle.  Views can be inconsistent or even hypocritical or unprincipled.  

Solidarity with (moral) principle:  not with a particular view, individual, organization, religion, or race.