1230 the Buzz The Week in Review
The hypocrisy was rampant on today’s show.
Jay will challenge a white man called "Lumpy" and his generalizations about blacks, but he will not challenge the black racists who every day on the Buzz call in and make far more objectionable and invalid generalizations than "Lumpy" was making.
John seems to think that looking at a group of black men while sitting a light justifies a group of drug dealers from trying to intimidate him.
Excuses for youths rioting seems to be something Jay and Emmanuel like to perpetuate.
John can generalize about whites, and that is ok?
Double standard again, Rafael can't read between the lines, but Emmanuel can "translate" for the boycotters who call into the program.
"one of them did, now they all must think that way"
Friday, August 23, 2002
City, activists to discuss curfew complaints
This is a capitulation. There was no selective enforcement of the curfew. There was practical enforcement of the curfew. In the non-riot areas in April 2001, 99%+ of the residents adhered to the curfew. There was instead a selective disregard for the curfew in the riot areas. This issue stems from the ignorance of the extreme boycotters. They seem to be ignoring the exceptions for being out after the curfew. One was an emergency, and the other was work. They moan and cry about bars in Mt. Adams being open. They were allowed to be open. The city did not close down business; they just forced people off the streets. This will go nowhere.
This is a capitulation. There was no selective enforcement of the curfew. There was practical enforcement of the curfew. In the non-riot areas in April 2001, 99%+ of the residents adhered to the curfew. There was instead a selective disregard for the curfew in the riot areas. This issue stems from the ignorance of the extreme boycotters. They seem to be ignoring the exceptions for being out after the curfew. One was an emergency, and the other was work. They moan and cry about bars in Mt. Adams being open. They were allowed to be open. The city did not close down business; they just forced people off the streets. This will go nowhere.
Thursday, August 22, 2002
NAACP changes plans for dinner
First the gutless Urban League, now a gutless NAACP. The picture of William Kirkland, a boycott support and bigot, that accompanies this story illustrates two realities of this situation. One is that these protesters are literally now the "Clown Posse", as Peter Bronson called them. Two is the continued double standard in the media regarding black racism and bigoted acts. Wearing "black face" by a white person who is protesting would be considered a racist act. William Kirkland wears "white face" and gets his picture in the paper with no indication that what he did can be considered a racist act. I don't know which reality is more poignant, but both points are clearer than settled Cincinnati tap water.
First the gutless Urban League, now a gutless NAACP. The picture of William Kirkland, a boycott support and bigot, that accompanies this story illustrates two realities of this situation. One is that these protesters are literally now the "Clown Posse", as Peter Bronson called them. Two is the continued double standard in the media regarding black racism and bigoted acts. Wearing "black face" by a white person who is protesting would be considered a racist act. William Kirkland wears "white face" and gets his picture in the paper with no indication that what he did can be considered a racist act. I don't know which reality is more poignant, but both points are clearer than settled Cincinnati tap water.
CityBeat: Your Negro Tour Guide The Care and Feeding of Black Teen-agers, Version 2.0
This is a really good column. Kathy can surprise the City with her opinions. She states the obvious and holds the blame were the blame should lie. I wonder how much flack she gets for this column. I also wonder how she will take the complements from those who don't support the boycott.
This is a really good column. Kathy can surprise the City with her opinions. She states the obvious and holds the blame were the blame should lie. I wonder how much flack she gets for this column. I also wonder how she will take the complements from those who don't support the boycott.
Reply from John Eckberg
First my Mia Culpa: I addressed John as Jack. I saw his email address and saw Jack when it was Jeckberg. I am sorry about that John, if you are reading. This will also explain why I was addressed as such in the email.
Subj: RE: 08/22/2002 Article: City melees got national air play
Date: 08/22/2002 8:33:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: jeckberg@ENQUIRER.COM
To: CincyBlog@aol.com
hello jack
i meant civil disobendience in the sense of violent civil disobedience as opposed to nonviolent civil disobedience. if i had to do it over again, which i don't, i'd probably use the term civil distress or civil discord or civil anythingbutdisobedience. i'm not convinced, however, that civil disobedience can only be used to describe nonviolent acts.
clearly the story laid out the violence as i was the first and probably only reporter in the whole town to actually find and interview a 15 year old. you should have read beyond the first sentence.
thanks for your comments and time.
john eckberg
Ok, first the definition of civil disobedience from dictionary.com: "Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means." The events this weekend were in no way civil disobedience. John reply is way off there. He is right that the word could be used to describe violent activities, but the word in usage is rarely used with violence. In this case why it was really wrong were the kids' motivate for breaking the laws, which was not to induce a changed in governmental policy or legislation. They were out to act tough, flex their teenage muscles, and attract attention, some of the lowest emotions humans are prone to express. Note: I did not mistype the letter above. It is as it came to me.
First my Mia Culpa: I addressed John as Jack. I saw his email address and saw Jack when it was Jeckberg. I am sorry about that John, if you are reading. This will also explain why I was addressed as such in the email.
Subj: RE: 08/22/2002 Article: City melees got national air play
Date: 08/22/2002 8:33:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: jeckberg@ENQUIRER.COM
To: CincyBlog@aol.com
hello jack
i meant civil disobendience in the sense of violent civil disobedience as opposed to nonviolent civil disobedience. if i had to do it over again, which i don't, i'd probably use the term civil distress or civil discord or civil anythingbutdisobedience. i'm not convinced, however, that civil disobedience can only be used to describe nonviolent acts.
clearly the story laid out the violence as i was the first and probably only reporter in the whole town to actually find and interview a 15 year old. you should have read beyond the first sentence.
thanks for your comments and time.
john eckberg
Ok, first the definition of civil disobedience from dictionary.com: "Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means." The events this weekend were in no way civil disobedience. John reply is way off there. He is right that the word could be used to describe violent activities, but the word in usage is rarely used with violence. In this case why it was really wrong were the kids' motivate for breaking the laws, which was not to induce a changed in governmental policy or legislation. They were out to act tough, flex their teenage muscles, and attract attention, some of the lowest emotions humans are prone to express. Note: I did not mistype the letter above. It is as it came to me.
SMITH AMOS: Black Family Reunion
This column was not bad, but one issue stuck in my craw.
"Next year, they should add more police on horses, patrolling the streets in cars with lights going, and stationed at the transportation hubs and gathering places."
In less than 2 weeks about 500,000 thousand people will be on the riverfront. I have been there myself, including last year. After the event, on the Cincinnati side, there has to be at least 100,000 if not 200,000 thousand people who walk up Broadway or other streets into the business district. There are not cops lining the way up there. There are not many cops at transportation hubs. Why is that a crowd, half of which are under 21, can walk in huge groups and not run rampant and start attacking bus drivers? I just don't get why 100,000 people can go without rioting, but a few hundred kids can't walk a mile without breaking a few windows. Is it just me?
This column was not bad, but one issue stuck in my craw.
"Next year, they should add more police on horses, patrolling the streets in cars with lights going, and stationed at the transportation hubs and gathering places."
In less than 2 weeks about 500,000 thousand people will be on the riverfront. I have been there myself, including last year. After the event, on the Cincinnati side, there has to be at least 100,000 if not 200,000 thousand people who walk up Broadway or other streets into the business district. There are not cops lining the way up there. There are not many cops at transportation hubs. Why is that a crowd, half of which are under 21, can walk in huge groups and not run rampant and start attacking bus drivers? I just don't get why 100,000 people can go without rioting, but a few hundred kids can't walk a mile without breaking a few windows. Is it just me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)