Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter

Editor's Note: I'm back from vacation, and I have a renewed focus. This blog started out as a way to analyze not just the news that was being published, but how it was being reported. I'm going to try to steer away from more partisan issues in the future, or at least try to be more news-focused here in the main story part.

A lot happened while Alyson and I were in Chicago last week. The biggest events have become hashtags: Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Dallas Police. What do you say about this? I won't get into the nitty gritty of each incident or get into who's wrong and who's most wrong. Each is a tragedy. Each deserves reflection. But today, let's look at Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter was born from frustration in the disparity between the white and black experience with law enforcement. They call for reforms for justice and fairness, so that a person of color is treated the same way by the police that a white person would be. Note that the implicit understanding there is that police and law enforcement is necessary, but BLM wants it to be fair for all. I'm simplifying this a lot, but when you look at their policy goals, that's what they seek.

All Lives Matter and calls for "unity" are really just a way of saying "be quiet, people of color." Saying that the BLM folks should meet halfway and we should all have unity doesn't solve their problem — it pretends it doesn't exist. And there is a problem. There are two black senators in the U.S., and one of them, GOP Sen. Tim Scott, said he's been pulled over seven times in the last year, and denied entry to the Senate. He gave a beautiful speech on the Senate floor about how "the scales of justice are slanted." He ended by asking people to "recognize that just because you do not feel the pain, the anguish of another, does not mean it does not exist."

When people cry out about Blue Lives Matter, it bothers me because that is a false equivalent. 1) Police choose to be in the law enforcement profession. People of color cannot choose to have a different skin. 2) The shooter in Dallas was killed by police using a robot with a bomb attached to it. As far as I know, the officers in the Castile/Sterling cases are not under arrest. 3) Why do we have to compare who matters most? No one said Blue Lives Matter or All Lives Matter until Black Lives Matter, which means those first two are trying to say "this is more imporant than that". 4) When the attacks in Dallas happened, there was a disparity in reaction compared to Philando Castile/Alton Sterling. BLM came out immediately and condemned the attack as unjustified and reiterated their position that they do not condone violence and condemn those who wish to commit violent acts. We don't hear that sort of immediate universal condemnation when people of color are shot by law enforcement. Instead, I see a lot of grasping for excuses from the public — "Oh, he should have been more respectful," "Oh, he shouldn't have been committing a crime," etc. When law enforcement officers are shot, it's often a universal reaction — this is terrible. When people of color are shot, we look for excuses.

This is not to denigrate police or how hard their job is. They willingly signed up for a job in which every decision is difficult, every day could be your last and in which there's very rarely a lot of "happy encounters." I have many friends who are police and their work is insanely difficult. I would never argue otherwise and have always treated them with the utmost respect. But it's possible to both regard law enforcement to the highest degree while also wishing to hold them to higher standards, to paraphrase an old Jon Stewart line.

Now, I want to make one last point about this issue: I recognize that I'm conflating an official statement by Black Lives Matter after Dallas with the worst reactions by people on social media. Blue Lives Matter is not an organization, just a hashtag. And there are terrible reactions by BLM-associated people after Dallas, too. The long and short of it is an incredible quote by George W. Bush in Dallas: "Too often we judge other groups by their worst example, while judging ourselves by our best intentions." Perfect. Let us all be light in our judgment of others while holding ourselves to greater standards.

Don't Trust the Polls

With that said, I want to speak quickly about poll data this month: DON'T TRUST IT. The first week has been disrupted with the Clinton e-mail non-indictment, the series of shootings and a holiday. Now we're getting into the GOP convention/Trump's VP pick (expect a bump for him in polling then) followed by the Democratic convention/Clinton's VP pick (expect a bump for her in polling after that). We likely won't know the true state of the race until mid-August.

And that's good. We can get up in arms about this poll (Quinnipiac! ACK!) or that poll (Monmouth shows it's going South!) or weird polls. Taking a broad view, like Real Clear Politics or FiveThirtyEight, tends to even out the noise. Here's the latest: Clinton was leading about 5-7 points nationally, and after the last week is down to about 3-4 points. Check back again in mid-August.

RBG's Comments

This week in "Overblown News Theater," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a series of comments about Donald Trump. She called him a faker and wondered what his rise meant about the future of our country. Of course, judges are supposed to be objective, so there were calls for her to resign/apologize. Trump said that "her mind was shot," which seems to me to be more of an insult than what she said. Calling someone senile is a more serious insult than a faker.

She's apologized, of course, but won't resign. And for good reason. When Scalia or Thomas or Alito appeared at GOP fundraisers over the last few decades, no one blinked an eyelash. We, the public, want to believe that our judges are objective, even though we know they are people too. She was wrong to bring partisanship into a place that tries to stay above the fray, but the reaction from some camps was over-the-top.

Fox News Partisanship

If you for some reason need proof that Fox News is partisan, take a look at the way they write headlines. The headline today about Ginsburg's apology on FoxNews.com states that she "admits her comments about Trump 'ill-advised' but stops short of issuing an apology". Yet the video attached is titled "Ginsburg apologizes for comments." You can't have it both ways, Fox News.

As further proof, look at what is featured on their opinion page: All anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. An objective news organization would at least try to be equal parts. Looking further at the "featured contributors" on the Opinion page, there are eight. Four are white men — two served in Bush-era administrations (Karl Rove and Richard Grenell), one wrote about how Christians are under attack, and the final is noted Fox personality Andrew Napolitano. Three of the eight "featured contributors" are white women — two served in the Bush administration (Dana Perino and K.T. McFarland) and the final works for a conservative think tank. Only one in eight — Juan Williams, the poor soul — is a minority with a Democratic viewpoint. The sole minority member is also the sole non-conservative.

Summary Judgments

Alyson brought up an issue that I hadn't considered in the Dallas Police shooting: Using a robot to deliver a bomb that killed the shooter is a potential "slippery slope." If authorities can use unmanned vehicles (robots now, drones in the future?) to kill American citizens on American soil, what does that mean for the future?  •  •  •  I continue to love what Jeffrey Toobin writes about the Clinton email scandal for the New Yorker. He puts it into a context that is missing from many stories while not absolving Clinton either. I've consistently found Toobin to be a fair, strong journalist. If I were still a journalist, Toobin is who I'd want to be like.  •  •  •  I don't understand why TV networks hire former campaign managers to be paid talking heads. What are we going to learn from Trump's former campaign manager (CNN) or Bush's former campaign manager (Fox)?  •  •  •  I think it's a little telling when one looks at the expected speakers at the respective national party conventions. The GOP convention will include almost none of the major names, very few "rising stars," and a lot of Trump family members and sports figures. The Democratic convention will have almost their entire squad on stage. Meaning? Democrats are united, the GOP is embarrassed of their pick.  •  •  •  I expect Trump to pick Ind. Gov. Mike Pence as his VP pick. Of the people left who want it, he's the least problematic/most boring pick compared to Gingrich or Christie. And as I said last time, boring is good. The timing of the announcement is right, too: Pence has to decide by noon Friday if he files for re-election or runs for VP. Indiana law says he can't do both. Trump's VP announcement is at 11 a.m. Interesting timing.  •  •  •  I'm amazed at how big the kids are getting. We'll probably start potty training Evie and moving her into a toddler bed next month. Roland's a little behind, but that's to be expected. He's also a lot steadier on his feet lately, running much better.  •  •  •  I've typed this whole thing without the use of my backspace key. It's surprising how important that is.