As the American electorate evolves toward being more than 50 percent nonwhite by the end of this decade, the Republican diversity plan (which suggests we tip Latinos more, claim to have black friends, and talk about how negative it is for the government to be "giving away free stuff") would be funny, if it weren't so tragic for our country.
Building on a seven year communications plan that featured calling the president a Muslim immigrant, we're likely seeing the end of the Republican Party as it disintegrates into factions, and any one of its candidates having no chance of winning a national election.
It has become clear, highlighted by Republican Party voters' favorable reaction to Donald Trump's comment that Mexican immigrants are "rapists," immigration is an anathema to a good percentage of the Republican Party voters. That cuts out many among the rapidly growing portion of our country who are in culturally or ethnically mixed families. It also doesn't bode well for the future, as there have been more nonwhite births than white births in this country for five years. Anti-immigration sentiments crested previously in the mid 1920s, when the KKK had 3 million members and Congress cut off immigration (until 1965).
Trump's comments about women ("Bleeding from her wherever" and "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?") haven't hurt him amongst his women supporters. However, his supporters are less educated, are older and earn less than the average Republican — hardly stirring demographics for the future.
Now that John Boehner has been run out of his post as speaker of the house, it's widely anticipated that his successor will be more divisive and obstructionist than he was.
The rhetoric will likely become more extreme and therefore less likely to carry the national vote. American voters don't like Congress — it currently maintains a 14 percent approval rating (it hasn't been higher than 20 percent since 2011), with a mind boggling 34 percent of people feeling their own representative is corrupt.
It is difficult to imagine another scenario, where a not very likable candidate wallowing in the aftermath of a serious security violation (and subsequent clumsy obfuscation) could be leading the pack of the opposite party. This selection has devolved into trying to decide who we like out of the field (in both parties) that ranges from absolutely abhorrent to mediocre. I'll bet voter turnout is the lowest in history.
It is interesting to me to see how the best corporate leadership has evolved rapidly in the other direction. Sophisticated understanding of diversity issues, forthright/honest commentary, proactive advocacy and pride in servant leadership has generated above average financial results, as documented by the success of the DiversityInc Top 50 expressed as a stock index — it beats the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500. One critical area, attracting and retaining high potential talent, will be a focus of the new Top 50 survey end of our future analysis. Good people attract good people.
I've slowly begun to travel for business again.
I had a stroke in May of last year, which paralyzed my left side. I've regained some ability to use my affected side, and I am able to walk to some degree, but my left arm is barely functional and my left hand is not functional. One-handed living is difficult—if you want an example, drop your pants (go someplace private) and try to pull them up and get them fastened using just one arm and hand.
There are daily humiliations that you get used to, but I want to relate one story about an organization run so poorly for people with disabilities that it boggles my mind.
I tried to take Amtrak from New Jersey to Washington, D.C., today, as I've done hundreds of times in my able-bodied life. It was bitterly cold—which plays games with my weak side—so I got to the train station 20 minutes early and sat in the dreary and cramped waiting room at Metropark Station (it's been dreary and cramped for at least 30 years that I know of).
The employees behind the glass in the ticket booth were talking amongst themselves so loudly that it was distracting out in the waiting area. We heard automated announcements that the train I was taking was delayed; the length of the delay changed several times. But I was ready. When the automated announcement came over the public-address system that the train was arriving, I was out of my seat and on the way to the elevator as quickly as I could go—it was far too cold to wait outside. The yackers in the ticket booth were completely detached from the situation.
The first thing that was wrong was a sign saying the elevator was out of service. The sign was fortunately incorrect, and the elevator worked (there was no way I could go up the stairs with my suitcase). Unfortunately, it was full of people who had come off the train I wanted to board. With a sinking feeling, I went up to the platform to see the train pulling out.
For those of you who don't know, Amtrak requires reserved tickets for its Northeast Corridor trains. I had a reserved ticket in business class—and my profile notes my disability. So they knew that a disabled person had a ticket to board that train at that station. I assume they left quickly to try to make up their 40-minute delay.
When I went back to get a refund for my ticket, I was told there would be a $14 service charge. I explained that the announcement left no time for me to reach the platform, but I received the "I just work here and couldn't care less" shoulder shrug.
Hey, Amtrak, this column is for everyone who was charged $14 for your incompetence—back at you.
This isn't the only problem I've experienced with Amtrak post-stroke.
First class on its premium train, the Acela, actually has reserved handicap seating, but every time I've taken an Acela (with a first-class reservation), there has been an able-bodied person in that seat. I know they're able-bodied, because each time the first-class steward has asked me if I wanted him to make that person move.
Maybe it's just me, but I find having a disability to be ego-damaging enough without having to have a well-meaning person do what should've been done without me having to ask—or without him having to tell somebody who doesn't have the empathy of a house cat to do the right thing. Not to mention that my reservation included my disability status (this train isn't cheap), so why wasn't that seat reserved?
One more problem: Traditionally, first class or business class is at the front of the train. This is fine when you're boarding the train during its route, but when you're boarding from its origination point, this means there's an incredibly long walk down the platform to get to the front end of the train.
At Washington, D.C., I've passed dozens of Amtrak employees lounging on golf cart–type vehicles. They watch me hobble my way down the platform, but are apparently not available to take me or anyone else back and forth.
Again, you have to have a reserved ticket and it's noted on my frequent traveler profile that I have a disability. Thanks a bunch, Amtrak.
By the way, I was going to Washington to join the board of the National Organization on Disability. Ironic, no?
If by any chance this reaches Amtrak CEO Joseph H. Boardman, please don't send an apology—just fix the problem. Ride your own train, pretend you have a disability and do some quality control. Write a check for a nice donation from your personal checking account to NOD as penance, use the NOD Employment Disability Tracker and make an effort to hire some people with disabilities. You're a veteran; find some veterans with disabilities. Create a resource group for people with disabilities and task them with giving you ideas. Be the executive sponsor of that group yourself.
I'm not taking this garbage lying down. I'm going to write a series of these columns in solidarity with the millions of people who don't have an audience.
P.S.: I'm going to fly on United four times in the next month. I'll keep you all posted.
I'm leaving from Newark Liberty International Airport, tied with LaGuardia and JFK as the worst run airports that I've experienced in the entire world—and I've been around the block.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs those airports, should be ashamed of itself. Aside from being astoundingly filthy, Newark is almost bizarrely cruel to passengers, and you can multiply that times 10 for passengers with disabilities.
The only good thing I can say is that there seems to have grown an organic culture of people who provide wheelchair services. You have to go to a specific area on a level that requires you to be dropped off (and there is nowhere else in the airport to request wheelchair services, which means if you drive your own car and park, you're completely out of luck), but once you get there, these (mostly women) take very good care of you. I think they're private contractors, just like the curbside check-in people—because they're so competent and empathetic. One woman said, "I know you had a stroke, because my husband was just like you. Keep going to therapy—you'll get better." It really was enough to bring tears to my eyes.
I don't blame the average worker for the mess that Newark airport is—I blame the supervisors. I'm quite sure nobody supervising at the Port Authority could blow their nose without making a mess of their shirt.
The chairman of the Port Authority should be required to work in Terminal A of that horrendous airport. He should be forced to go through the dysfunctional security at that terminal every day. And he should pretend he has a disability. Try to find an accessible spot in the Terminal C parking deck. There's never one available. There's no reasonably accessible parking at Terminal A or B—none.
In response to a column I wrote, a police officer left a comment that criticized an assumption I made. Here is his comment (edited) and my response. The police officer starts by quoting my assumption, and then critiquing it.
Q. "There is no reliable data for race and gender, but 58 percent of prisoners are Black or Latino. I don't see why 58 percent of the people killed by police wouldn't be."
That's a very dangerous assumption. You are correct that finding reliable statistics regarding police shootings is difficult but by all indications of the CDC data, there have been anywhere from 1.5-3x as many whites killed as blacks over the past 15 years. Compare that with the overwhelmingly high arrest rates of minorities and the probability of being killed during an arrest is still significantly higher if you are white than black.
We are entering a dangerous time where the perception is that every incident involving a white cop and black man HAS to be racial much like any black killing a white cop also has to be motivated by race. How is this supposed to improve police relations with blacks or any citizens for that matter? All the police officers I work with are growing increasingly disgusted by the lack of personal responsibility for those committing crimes. Police brutality is a problem, but so is blatant lack of respect for the law among today's young adults, especially in urban areas.
A. I don't think it's very dangerous at all—in fact, I'd say I'm being generous. The FBI, despite a court order 20 years ago, does not track police shootings. You don't think there's some bias there? The FBI's racial history is not a good one: J. Edgar Hoover, the most famous and longest-tenured FBI director, notoriously went after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in many underhanded, illegal and immoral ways. Even today, if you go to the FBI's website and look at the leadership page, the top 17 people are white—14 white men and three white women. Zero percent Black. Zero in 2015. Zero.
The CDC data have huge holes in them. For one, they only count shootings the police say were justified and they do not include nearly all states. Even so, the data show that there is clear bias against Black people.
See this interview with a USA Today reporter.
The ratio you cite seems to come from Bill O'Reilly. Citing Bill O'Reilly on racial issues is kind of like citing Ruth's Chris on vegetarianism. Here's an article debunking his use of the numbers.
Here's a good article on the subject in The New York Times. The quote below refers to a study of the St. Louis Police Department:
"Their conclusions, presented last November at the American Society of Criminology's annual meeting, were striking. Officers hit their targets in about half of the 230 incidents; in about one-sixth, suspects died. Of the 360 suspects whose race could be identified—some fled before being seen clearly—more than 90 percent were African-American."
I'm not saying, nor does the report say, that the enormous disparity of law enforcement and imprisonment is overtly racist by every participant. I'd assume that most police officers are not racist. They are immersed, however, in a racist system.
This is why you are seeing less and less respect for the law. It's the culmination of this preposterous "War on Drugs," started by President Richard Nixon (a racist) 40 years ago. It has resulted in the destruction of families and of the lives of millions of Black men in particular. Drugs are more plentiful and less expensive than they were 40 years ago, yet the "war" rages on. Nobody fights a war for 40 years unless somebody's winning. People running for-profit prisons, arms manufacturers, even police officers and prison workers are all the winners. It's a multibillion dollar per year win. Everyone else in the country loses, a hundreds of billions of dollars per year loss. Lost productivity, lost GDP, wasted money, wasted time and effort. Destruction of our society.
Combine that with the ubiquitous nature of video that shows the bad apples in action, and I'm afraid police credibility in general is gone forever because there is no national will amongst the police leadership to change direction. You're going down with the ship.
You're not alone. As an entrepreneur, I pay over 50 percent of my income in taxes. "Mittens" Romney pays 17 percent. Apple (which claims it's an Irish company) pays 2 percent. If I tried the same thing, I'd be in prison. The subprime-crisis thieves stole billions of dollars, yet nobody went to prison. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, abetted by Condoleezza Rice, concocted a rationale to invade Iraq and then went on to mismanage it so badly that we lost the war and spawned ISIS—after killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi noncombatants. Nobody went to prison. I served over eight years on active duty and another almost two in the reserves, and I'd do it again tomorrow. But it disturbs me that I feel our government has almost no credibility either.
Q: Two people are uniquely positioned to help the people of Ferguson to quell their anger if (likely?) the police officer is not charged with a crime by a grand jury finding that he acted within the law – deadly force against a citizen who was in process of a felony (grabbing a police officer's gun would be the felony). Pres. Obama's &/or ex-AG Holder's statements of calm should be tied to the announcement of the grand jury's decision with strong statement that the legal system has acted properly and the situation, while a tragedy, was not a wanton execution. Alas, they were both actively engaged in (inflaming?) the situation when the popular visual was the execution of an unarmed, hands-in-the-air, 18-year old. I worry for the safety of the residents in Ferguson, that our two highest profiled African-Americans' silence will be deafening at a time when our citizens need them most. I hope I am wrong!
If the GF decides to move forward with a trial – then I would hope the same action be part of a jury's acquittal, which is a strong likelihood.
A: Given that the prosecutor refused to recuse himself, I don't think a decision by the grand jury not to go to trial will be viewed as being credible by a community that has been the prey of law enforcement and subject to governmental and prosecutorial malfeasance. If you were asking should the President or the attorney general comment (regardless of race), I think the answer would be no. Just because they happen to be Black doesn't change anything in my mind. In fact, because they happen to be Black, and because there was such racial bias in how Blacks were treated in Ferguson before Mike was shot six times, I would think they should be less inclined to make a comment.
In essence, you're asking two Black men to urge calm amongst the mainly Black constituency, after that constituency was subjected to extreme, persistent and racially biased law enforcement. That the flashpoint for all of this cruel injustice was an unarmed teenager being shot six times—and left uncovered in the street for four hours like he was roadkill—exacerbates the point. I don't think it's fair to ask President Obama or Attorney General Holder to cover for all of the nonsense in Missouri. I think it would be far more appropriate for Governor Nixon to offer a deep apology, a plan of action to address systemic injustice, and an announcement of the police chief being fired and the prosecutor being replaced for this case (considering he does not have the confidence of the public in Ferguson)—then asking for another chance and asking for calm. But there's zero chance this will happen. To apply President Lincoln's words to this situation, Governor Nixon appears to me to be "confused and stunned, like a duck hit over the head."
I'm not sure how anyone could say with certainty that the police officer acted within the law. Seems to me that he provoked an incident and the reaction was perhaps more than he anticipated, but then he retaliated by shooting an unarmed teenager six times. Mike had no powder burns on his arm or head wounds. He wasn't wearing a long-sleeved shirt or head covering; there would've been powder burns on his skin if the shooting had been at close range. I don't know how much you've handled handguns, but the muzzle flash from a pistol can extend six inches, more or less depending on the firearm and ammunition. The Ferguson Police Department carries a .40 caliber handgun. I can't imagine they were using low-flash/low-velocity ammunition. If Mike had been shot inside the car, there would have been powder burns. The police officer turned in a blank incident report, he did not present himself for medical examination, there were no body cameras or dashboard cameras installed. This is all suspicious in my mind. I'm not saying the officer is guilty, but there certainly seems enough there for a reasonable person to think there should be a trial.
And you also have the actions of Governor Nixon, who has proven himself to be so inept that if this were a movie, the audience would groan in disbelief.
So it's the President's job to cover for all of this by requesting people to remain calm? You think the local people care all that much what the President thinks, given what's happened? I don't think so.
Now, if the grand jury decides to move to a trial, then an acquittal is on the jury and the prosecutor's office. Even though I thought both people were guilty, at the time I also bet that O.J. would get away with it, and I bet that Zimmerman could get away with it. They shouldn't have, but with O.J. the prosecution blew it and with Zimmerman the law was inadequate to protect citizens from predators. I don't know if Wilson would get away with it, but I don't think you'll see the reaction from a trial that you will if the grand jury refuses to go to trial. Either way, I don't think the President of the United States or the attorney general have the obligation to comment just because they happen to be Black men.
The time to worry about peace and calm in the community was long before Mike was shot.
