February 21, 2016

INTERESTING OVERFLOW ARTICLES FROM LAST WEEK


http://www.awardsdaily.com/2016/02/16/berlinale-everyone-owes-meryl-streep-an-apology/

Berlinale: Everyone Owes Meryl Streep an Apology
By Joey Nolfi
Feb 16, 2016


The art of being mindful, careful, and diligent; we must remember these things when writing and reporting, but most of all when we’re consuming.

The mob mentality of the Internet has made such things increasingly difficult, especially at a time when important conversations about issues of racial and gender equality are on the table each and every morning.

In the war against the patriarchal domination of the film industry (let’s not forget that only 7% of the 250 top-grossing films of 2014 were directed by women), we need people willing to speak out against a system that simply doesn’t foster inclusion or channels for diversity to thrive. This does not mean blindly calling the Academy racist; this does not mean slamming every opinion that doesn’t strictly adhere to the narrative created by ill-informed instigators disguised as legitimate social justice warriors. This means instilling the notion that equality is not a tool, but rather an ideal we must believe in, subscribe to, and work for in order to make it a livable reality.

Attention and visibility are key, and sensitivity about the ways minorities are represented and discussed in public forums is ok when we’re trying to shift the conversation in the right direction; it’s important to call people like Julie Delpy or Charlotte Rampling out when they make careless statements about real issues. Still, it’s not our inherent responsibility to demonize irresponsibility, but rather to edify and educate in the hopes that change will sprout from understanding.

Meryl Streep, president of the 2016 Berlinale Jury, is someone who gets it, and the Court of the Internet (otherwise known as Twitter) is somehow unjust, lazy, and totalitarian for having taken the actress to task earlier this week without first doing its homework.

The actress came under fire after her comments–or rather, the headlines reporting her comments–at the festival’s opening press conference rubbed many the wrong way. You can watch the full press conference for yourself right here, but let’s set the stage, shall we?

First, a reporter directed the following question to German actor and fellow jury member Lars Eidinger: “Did you notice that there are no black people on the jury at all? There’s not one black person and no people of color. That has been the case for five years. What’s your opinion on that?” Eidinger sort of brushes the question off, saying that the failure to include people of color in the jury wasn’t a conscious decision. And with that affable sidestep, the moment ends.

Another reporter then asks Streep a question about women’s rights and Berlinale’s history as a progressive, political, socially-conscious festival that represents strong female perspectives both in front of and behind the camera, to which Streep sort of responds with an answer to the previous reporter’s question about diversity: “Well, I’m very committed to equality and inclusion of people of all genders, races, ethnicities, religions; there should be inclusion and this jury is evidence that at least women are included–and in fact dominate–in this jury, and that’s an unusual situation in bodies of people who make decisions, so I think that the Berlinale is ahead of the game.” Perfect answer, right?

Several minutes pass. A writer from Cairo introduces herself to the jury and asks Streep the following: “There is a film that is representing Tunisia and the Arab world and Africa in the main competition. How do you see this part of the world, and is it easy for you to understand that culture, and are you following any Arab movies?”

Streep takes a moment, but responds with earnest appreciation for such a direct question: “Yes, in fact I’ve just seen a film called Theeb, which I loved. I saw Timbuktu recently, but I don’t know very much about the Middle East, and yet I’ve played a lot of different people from a lot of different cultures. The thing that I’ve noticed is that there is a core of humanity that travels right through every culture. And, after all, we’re all from Africa originally; we’re all Berliners, we’re all Africans, really. We have critic on our jury, we have a director on our jury, we have actors, a photographer, cinematographer; people will be looking at different things in these films, but we’re human beings, and film is an emotional experience. We’re going to make these decisions based on what our head wants to say, but we’re first attacked in the heart.”

The Internet did not like that carefully-worded, well-intentioned response one bit, choosing to focus on the broader picture (a jury of white people were asked a few questions about diversity) instead of the true context. One Twitter user even said, and I quote, “It seems like she’s saying ‘oh, well we’re all from Africa, so the lack of diversity on the jury doesn’t matter.’ How condescending.” The fact is that Streep was not asked a question about the lack of diversity on the jury (Eidinger was), despite several irresponsible headlines from reputable sources that made it seem as if her comments about Africa were directly related to her feelings on the jury’s lack of racial inclusion.

Here are just a few examples of the selectively misrepresentative headlines which followed the “incident” (I hesitate to even call it that).

Vox: “We’re all Africans really”: Meryl Streep defends heading up an all-white film festival jury

The Atlantic: Against ‘Humanism’: Meryl Streep explained her all-white film-festival jury by claiming that “we’re all Africans, really.” She’s right, and so wrong.

Variety: Meryl Streep on Diversity at Berlin Film Festival: ‘We’re All Africans’

The Hollywood Reporter: Berlin Jury Chief Meryl Streep Responds to Diversity Concerns: “We Are All Africans Really”

Those are loaded headlines with the intent to stir shit up in the absence of a body squatting over the bowl in the first place. Streep was, by all means, not responding to the question about diversity on the jury; she was responding to a specific question about her connection to films from the (as the reporter put it) “Arab world,” and simply noting that despite not knowing much about that particular part of the world, she is willing and open to exploring other cultures through character, cinema, and compassion because she recognizes that we are all equal, emotional beings with equal origins.

These headlines–like the first reporter’s question to Eidinger–seemingly spring from a place of of-the-moment urgency to discuss relevant social injustice in the film industry and beyond, and they certainly caused an uproar aimed squarely at Streep. Topical trigger finger leads to healthy conversation and visibility in some areas, but merely talking about an issue for the sake of talking about it–not when a real issue is present–is dangerous. It creates a vile, combative atmosphere where the only result is unfair victimization. Yes, Streep is a white person in a position of power, but her comments were not ill-informed, irresponsible, or inappropriate. Celebrating a humanist view as a long-standing champion of equal rights for women (in case you forgot, Streep often puts her money where her mouth is) makes you true to your word, not a flippant racist, as some corners of the internet would have you believe.

I must admit that when I read these headlines, my palm met my forehead faster than it ever has before. Then, I actually read the articles instead of indulging the Internet’s desire to make me act on a feeling versus fact. The Hollywood Reporter‘s story does’t even mention the leading quote until it’s nearly over, instead choosing to report on Streep’s message of female empowerment as she takes on a position leading one of the most prestigious festival juries in the world. The Vox piece completely disregards Streep’s comments in context, instead choosing to connect her comments about Africa to the question about the lack of diversity on the jury’s panel, which is outright deceptive (and misleading) journalism. Is it really worth chasing momentary validation through devious, selective reporting that plays into other people’s legitimate concerns over a real issue?

The scary thing is that now we can see that even the trade publications are purposefully speaking to an increasingly lazy audience that doesn’t want to put in the work. No one wants to feel anything more than what a headline tells them to. People want to feel angry, and they’ll take a headline that panders to their heart whether those few lines of text accurately reflect the subject at hand or otherwise. If a false construct fits the calculated narrative, it’s used as a weapon, and we’re all expected to get out of the way when it comes time to launch the rocket.

Perhaps a white person commenting on a topic of racial exclusion currently exists outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and that’s a shame, because we need more voices like Streep voicing empathy and understanding across lines and divisions. We have to start somewhere, and that means reporting facts as facts and not interchangeable pieces of a puzzle that can be rearranged to create a typhoon in the name of a few clicks. We didn’t fight the battle that mattered this time and for that I must extend an apology to Meryl Streep on behalf of the thousands of condemning voices that won’t do the same.

Joey Nolfi is an awards season, film, and pop culture fanatic currently working as an editorial intern at Entertainment Weekly. His work has appeared in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, AFROPUNK, East End Fashion Magazine, Naima Mora Online and Serving Cinema, an Oscar blog he founded in 2014. He also acts, makes films, and can’t wait for the day his friends have children he can to take to the zoo one time and then spend the rest of his life patting himself on the back for it.



BACKGROUND ON THE DIVERSITY ISSUE


http://www.themarysue.com/tv-and-movie-diveristy/

Hollywood Diversity Report Shows Movies and TV With Diverse Casts Sell Better, Surprising No One -- Except white dudes, probably.
by Dan Van Winkle
Wednesday, February 25th 2015 at 2:06 pm


The second annual Hollywood Diversity Report by UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies revealed what it seems like everyone except studio execs already know: people want diversity in TV and movies.

The report covers the years 2012 and 2013 and shows that films with casts that were 30% diverse—meaning that 30% of the cast was comprised of people of color—performed best in worldwide box office numbers, according to THR. In television, where there are often more choices for content with diverse casts by virtue of more choices in general, the preferred percentage of diversity was predictably higher:

Viewers like diversity, with broadcast scripted shows 41 percent to 50 percent diversely cast scoring the highest ratings in black and white households alike in 2012-13, while on cable, white and Latino viewers preferred casts with 31 percent to 40 percent diversity. Black households preferred cable shows with more than 50 percent diversity, a figure buoyed by BET programs including The Game and Kevin Hart’s Real Husbands of Hollywood.

Basically, if you cast it (diversely), we will watch. *Cough.* Donald Glover for Spider-Man. *Cough.*

Sadly, the hiring decisions in front of the camera as well as behind don’t match up to what audiences are into. People of color comprise around 40% of the total U.S. population, which pretty closely matches the ratio that’s more likely to attract the most viewers (in TV, at least), but is more than a bit off when compared to actual diversity stats in movies—an even stronger sign that audiences want diverse casts, all considered.

In 2013, 56% of film casts had racial diversity of 20% or less. And that was an improvement on 2011’s numbers in last year’s report, which saw about 73% of film casts come in at 20% diversity or under. Only 29.9% of film casts in 2013 were in the 21-50% zone where the audience preference numbers would match up, and a paltry 13.8% of films had casts of more than 51% actors of color. For lead roles, just 16.7% were played by actors of color, and only 25.3% were women of any race.

The numbers on the production end saw directors of color outnumbered 2 to 1 to their white contemporaries, and female directors of any race at 8 to 1 compared to male ones. Writer and TV show creator numbers for both groups were also disproportionately out-of-whack with their share of the general population.

But progress has been made since last year’s report, and “audiences, regardless of their race, are clamoring for more diverse content,” report co-author Ana-Christina Ramon says. The study’s authors think that the problems likely stem from the fact that TV and film executives are overwhelmingly white and male—96% white and 71% male in television/94% white and 100% male in film, or about as white and male as the Oscars—which, intentionally or not, influences the decisions they make.

Darnell Hunt, the lead author of the report, says,

It’s a high-risk industry. People want to surround themselves with collaborators they’re comfortable with, which tends to mean people they’ve networked with—and nine times out of 10, they’ll look similar. It reproduces the same opportunities for the same kind of people: You’re surrounding yourself with a bunch of white men to feel comfortable.

It’s not like there’s this general trend upward, this wave everything is riding. It’s very precarious. It’s getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough. And it’s still a big problem.
That’s what makes diversity initiatives so important. The only way to turn these trends around is to get more diverse people actually making the decisions in the first place, and that doesn’t just happen on its own.

For more, watch Hunt and Ramon discuss the report in their own words:
Video -- (via THR)



There is a problematic tendency right now for some black people, especially the young and angry ones, to fight first on the basis of their own skin color – us versus them -- and ask questions later. Why is this a problem? Because there is a greater need for concordance over discord than there has been in decades, with the truly far right making headway politically at a dangerous pace. People, white and black, who are not racist should certainly be allowed to speak at the table. Meryl Streep is not racist, and her comment clearly referred to the origin of Homo Sapiens in Africa. Sure, there is a need for more progress, but I think that is occurring right now and the situation will continue to improve. Evil has to be rooted out by Good within each human being and that takes time. It’s a gradual process. We’re doing much better in this country than in the 1940s and 50s when I was growing up. I do remember totally separate facilities of all kinds and even news of lynchings in the papers. I’m not satisfied with today’s situation, but I am encouraged and pleased.

Streep’s statement should not offend anyone except the antievolutionist religious right. That out of Africa theory has been widely corroborated by the new scientific tool DNA analysis. I’ve seen enough of the reading material written by scientists about this to know that understanding it is beyond my educational background in the subject unless somebody breaks the language way, way down; but when they do I find it fascinating and very exciting. Ninety percent of the words used in a genetics article are very specific to the specialists in the field, and I can’t go looking each one up on Google to get through an article.

Likewise, I am extremely interested in what I consider to be an obvious link with the apes, and I don’t mind admitting the connection. I certainly don’t think I will go to hell for my beliefs. I therefore take geneticists at their word as being correct for the most part. Besides, it makes so much common sense when dealing with the idea of what kind of creature we came from, when, and where. I love archaeology, anthropology and paleontology, and now genetics has stepped in to present its’ information. It is, to me, an undeniable truth that those old bones from Africa, and the whole wide world in fact – the Homo Sapiens emergence from Africa a little under a million years ago was by no means the first – didn’t attain their high degree of physical similarity to us by accident. It is, again to me, an obvious fact that the laws of nature have always operated in the same way, and that genetics is undoubtedly the root of our physical and mental characteristics today.

As for the uproar among young black people today about Meryl Streep’s simple statement, I feel that it is understandable up to a point, but only so far. Ferguson was a despicable situation in my opinion. I went to the Black Lives Matter website and I recommend it for its’ benign attitude and statements of intention. They’re not radicals, at least not at this point in time. I’m behind them! However, I have personally seen such sullen and unfriendly expressions on some black people’s faces and body language that I understand why some otherwise honest white people won’t talk to them any more than necessary to complete a business transaction. That is not the cause of the whole black/white situation, of course, but it is a real factor. The class struggles that unfortunately are built into human nature is another. Competition, competition, competition! I want to see cooperation instead. We do need desperately to get beyond the impasse or our society may fall apart, and I don’t believe that is an exaggeration.

When I have achieved a talking relationship with black people I have found them to be just like me. People are people. If humans of all colors, genders, religions, sexual preferences, political groups, and whatever other characteristics there are to mention, don’t start accommodating each other at least enough that a well-intended, inoffensive, intelligent and educated woman can speak the simple truth without getting assaulted on the Internet, we are in serious trouble as a nation, and more importantly, as a society. I want us to become much more than a nation of internecine warfare. I have seen so much strife of all kinds during my life that I am truly sick of it. I hope for better to come.



THE SUPERDELEGATE SYSTEM


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/18/467230964/survey-clinton-maintains-massive-superdelegate-lead

Survey: Clinton Maintains Massive Superdelegate Lead
DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Updated February 18, 20163:22 PM ET
Published February 18, 20162:27 PM ET

Photograph -- Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, right, hugs Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland during a campaign rally in Chicago, Illinois. Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images


In the battle for primary votes, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are locked in a tight battle.

But you wouldn't know it to look at the superdelegates. In the unseen battle for these party insiders, Clinton has an overwhelming lead. Of the 712 Democratic superdelegates, 449 (or around 63 percent) currently support Clinton, according to the latest Associated Press survey of superdelegates. Only 19 support Sanders. (AP did not reach 62 superdelegates, and 182 remained uncommitted or undecided.)

Taking superdelegates out, Sanders has a 36 to 32 lead, based on the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. But this superdelegate advantage is not only a huge lead for Clinton but a big gain as well. Since the AP's November survey, her total has jumped 90 delegates. Sanders, meanwhile, has risen 11, from 8 to 19.

Of course, Clinton also had a big superdelegate lead the last time she ran, but went on to lose the nomination. As of January 2008 — shortly into the nominating process but still before Super Tuesday — she likewise maintained a huge lead, of 201 to Barack Obama's 89 and John Edwards' 40, according to the AP.

Then, in February 2008, Obama was starting to quickly pick up superdelegates, while Clinton had started to lose some to his side.

This time around, she is maintaining strong support among the party's "establishment" thus far, despite the fact that the race is tight in some primaries and caucuses.

Superdelegates consist of some well-known names — members of Congress and former presidents (Bill Clinton is one), for example — and many party insiders who most Americans don't know — state party leaders and Democratic National Committee members, for example.

While the non-super delegates are allocated based on how people vote in the various state caucuses and primaries, the superdelegates are "unbound," meaning they can choose who they want. And thus far, they have overwhelmingly chosen Clinton. She has the support of 68 percent of superdelegates right now.

This can make for delegate counts that don't quite seem to make sense considering vote totals. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the primary by a 22-point margin, both he and Clinton have 15 total delegates. While he won 15 of the state's 24 non-super delegates, she has 6 of the 8 superdelegates in her corner.

Some Sanders supporters, upset about this system, have taken to contacting superdelegates, as the AP reports.

And one MoveOn.org petition, declaring that "race for the Democratic Party nomination should be decided by who gets the most votes, and not who has the most support from party insiders," asks superdelegates to "pledge to back the will of the voters." Currently, that petition has more than 161,000 signatures.

The fact that the superdelegate system gives the party outsize influence clearly upsets many Sanders supporters, but giving the party outsize influence is the point of the system.

Superdelegates were created in 1982 to "improve the party's mainstream appeal" by giving party insiders more influence and reduce that of "activists," as Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann and AEI's Norman Ornstein wrote in 2008, when Clinton and Obama were also battling it out for superdelegates.

Ornstein and Mann laid out several arguments for the superdelegate system: it's a sort of "peer review" to choose the most electable candidate, they wrote, and promotes a sense of unity, making "stronger ties between the party and its elected officials."

Of course, in a tight race, that "unity" argument is probably hard to see from a voter's perspective. And that's not lost on superdelegates. One — then-Sen. John Kerry — told the New York Times in 2008 that he feared the repercussions of choosing a nominee that went against the will of the voters.

"My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates — insiders, establishment politicians — to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates," he said.

Indeed, many superdelegates have to be reelected themselves at some point, Ornstein and Mann point out. Going too sharply against voters' wishes isn't going to do them any good in that sense.

But then, superdelegates remain unbound, even if they've chosen a candidate already. Should the race swing heavily in Sanders' favor, some superdelegates who are currently backing Clinton could always switch their support.



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=superdelegates

su·per·del·e·gate
ˈso͞opərˌdeləɡət/
nounUS
plural noun: superdelegates
(in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/opinion/superdelegates-clarify-your-role.html?_r=0

The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL
Superdelegates, Clarify Your Role
By the Editorial Board
February 19, 2016


Even after Bernie Sanders’s overwhelming popular victory in New Hampshire on Feb. 9, some of his supporters began fretting about a new menace to his candidacy: “superdelegates” who — at least in theory — could deliver the nomination to Hillary Clinton in July’s convention.

Superdelegates are party bigwigs — 712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors and the like. They can vote for any candidate at the nominating convention, regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote. These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination, and could thus make all the difference.

The status of Hillary and Bill Clinton as senior figures in the Democratic Party has allowed Mrs. Clinton to secure public endorsements from many more superdelegates than Mr. Sanders. Late last year, The Associated Press surveyed 80 percent of the Democratic superdelegates and found that 359 had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, versus eight for Mr. Sanders. The rest remained uncommitted.

In the New Hampshire primary last week, which Mrs. Clinton lost by 22 percentage points, Mr. Sanders won 15 of the state’s 24 pledged delegates, and Mrs. Clinton won nine. But because she has the support of six of the state’s eight unpledged superdelegates, including Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Gov. Maggie Hassan, she is virtually tied with Mr. Sanders in the New Hampshire delegate count.

Last week, MoveOn.org, a voter action group that has endorsed Mr. Sanders, began a petition drive demanding that superdelegates pledge to back the winner of the national popular vote. About 350,000 people have signed this petition and a related one. Next up are petition drives in each of the 50 states, targeting individual superdelegates.

“The key to winning the presidency in November will be mobilizing tremendous grass-roots enthusiasm, and nothing would take the wind out of people’s sails faster than to have the Democratic nominee chosen by party insiders,” said Ben Wikler, MoveOn’s Washington director. Mr. Wikler says that if Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote, superdelegates who support Mr. Sanders should likewise vote for her.

Some of these worries seem overblown. Superdelegates can switch allegiance at any time, and a big chunk of them already say they’ll remain uncommitted until a clear primary winner emerges. Mr. Sanders said Sunday that if he secures a clear lead in the primaries, he’s confident he’ll win over Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates. And many party leaders will think twice before pressing for the nomination of a candidate voters have rejected. In 2008, Mrs. Clinton held a superdelegate lead, but when she lost the primaries to Barack Obama her superdelegates mounted no insurgency at the convention.

Superdelegates serve multiple functions at the convention, among them maintaining order — for example, by casting their votes to avoid deadlock in a fragmented field. That is why superdelegates shouldn’t have to make ironclad pledges to transfer their fealty to the biggest vote-getter. That could set a precedent Democrats might live to regret.

Still, this issue presents the party with an important opportunity. By better explaining the role of superdelegates, and publicly acknowledging that the 2016 presidential nomination rightly belongs to the majority vote-getter, Democrats could show new, youthful voters that the party wants their energy and their ideas inside the tent. To these idealistic voters, superdelegate influence reeks of smoke-filled rooms and establishment deals, when in fact they were created to end such maneuverings. That wrong perception doesn’t help Mrs. Clinton.

“We just had a rally here in Las Vegas that was at capacity with a lot of young people who feel like they have a shot at making a difference,” said Erin Bilbray, a Sanders superdelegate. She wants to vote for Mr. Sanders at the convention, but regardless, “I will support the Democratic nominee. It’s a fairness issue. We have got to keep these young people engaged, and to do that, you’ve got to make the system fair, and give no one the perception it’s not.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.



“Even after Bernie Sanders’s overwhelming popular victory in New Hampshire on Feb. 9, some of his supporters began fretting about a new menace to his candidacy: “superdelegates” who — at least in theory — could deliver the nomination to Hillary Clinton in July’s convention. Superdelegates are party bigwigs — 712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors and the like. They can vote for any candidate at the nominating convention, regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote. These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination, and could thus make all the difference. …. Late last year, The Associated Press surveyed 80 percent of the Democratic superdelegates and found that 359 had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, versus eight for Mr. Sanders. The rest remained uncommitted. …. Last week, MoveOn.org, a voter action group that has endorsed Mr. Sanders, began a petition drive demanding that superdelegates pledge to back the winner of the national popular vote. About 350,000 people have signed this petition and a related one. Next up are petition drives in each of the 50 states, targeting individual superdelegates. “The key to winning the presidency in November will be mobilizing tremendous grass-roots enthusiasm, and nothing would take the wind out of people’s sails faster than to have the Democratic nominee chosen by party insiders,” said Ben Wikler, MoveOn’s Washington director. Mr. Wikler says that if Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote, superdelegates who support Mr. Sanders should likewise vote for her. …. Mr. Sanders said Sunday that if he secures a clear lead in the primaries, he’s confident he’ll win over Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates. And many party leaders will think twice before pressing for the nomination of a candidate voters have rejected. …. functions at the convention, among them maintaining order — for example, by casting their votes to avoid deadlock in a fragmented field. …. By better explaining the role of superdelegates, and publicly acknowledging that the 2016 presidential nomination rightly belongs to the majority vote-getter, Democrats could show new, youthful voters that the party wants their energy and their ideas inside the tent. To these idealistic voters, superdelegate influence reeks of smoke-filled rooms and establishment deals, when in fact they were created to end such maneuverings. That wrong perception doesn’t help Mrs. Clinton. …. She wants to vote for Mr. Sanders at the convention, but regardless, “I will support the Democratic nominee. It’s a fairness issue. We have got to keep these young people engaged, and to do that, you’ve got to make the system fair, and give no one the perception it’s not.”


For those of you who do not remember some of the events that I do, read the following Wikipedia article on the days of “smoke filled rooms,” and you will see why I don’t want us to go back to the same thing again. This Superdelegate business is very dangerous in my view. I don’t want a separate party of all economic and social liberals, but it may come to that. The problem is that in a national election we need ALL Democrats to vote together to avoid another right winger in office. Unfortunately, Eugene McCarthy’s high rating nationally caused such a split in the Democratic Party that the man considered by myself and many others to be a true villain, Richard Nixon, won the Presidency. That was the beginning of our modern era of far right political leanings in this country, supporting racial strife, antipoverty programs and the continuance of the Vietnam War. As for a brokered convention, it is undemocratic and against my principles. The nomination should always go to the candidate who gets the highest popular vote. The fight for a nation which is peaceful, prosperous and fair to all goes on.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

1968 Democratic National Convention
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1968 Democratic National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, from August 26 to August 29, 1968. As President Lyndon B. Johnson had announced he would not seek re-election, the purpose of the convention was to select a new presidential nominee to run as the Democratic Party's candidate for the office.[1] The keynote speaker was Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).[2]

Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey and Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine were nominated for President and Vice President, respectively.

The convention was held during a year of violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest, particularly riots in more than 100 cities[3] following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4.[4] The convention also followed the assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, on June 5.[5] Both Kennedy and Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota had been running against the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Nomination[edit]

In 1968 the Democratic Party was divided. Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy had entered the campaign in March, challenging Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Johnson, facing dissent within his party, had dropped out of the race on March 31.[6] Vice President Hubert Humphrey then entered into the race, but did not compete in any primaries, compiling his delegates in caucus states that were controlled by party leaders. After Kennedy's assassination on June 5, the Democratic Party's divisions grew.[5] At the moment of Kennedy's death the delegate count stood at Humphrey 561.5, Kennedy 393.5, McCarthy 258.[7] Kennedy's murder left his delegates uncommitted.

When it came to choosing a candidate, on one side stood supporters of Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and who was seen as the peace candidate.[8] On the other side was Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate who represented the Johnson point of view.[9] In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼.[10] The perceived cause of this loss was the result of Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley, and President Johnson pulling strings behind the scenes.[10] Humphrey, even though he had not entered a single primary, had won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.[11]

Richard J. Daley and the Convention[edit]

Chicago's mayor, Richard J. Daley, intended to showcase his and the city's achievements to national Democrats and the news media. Instead, the proceedings became notorious for the large number of demonstrators and the use of force by the Chicago police during what was supposed to be, in the words of the Yippie activist organizers, "A Festival of Life."[4] Rioting took place between demonstrators and the Chicago Police Department, who were assisted by the Illinois National Guard. The disturbances were well publicized by the mass media, with some journalists and reporters being caught up in the violence. Network newsmen Mike Wallace, Dan Rather and Edwin Newman were roughed up by the Chicago police while inside the halls of the Democratic Convention.[13] The Democratic Presidential Nominating Convention had been held in Chicago 12 years earlier.[14] Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley had played an integral role in the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960.[14] In 1968, however, it did not seem that Daley had maintained the clout which would allow him to bring out the voters again to produce a Democratic victory as he had in 1960. On October 7, 1967, at a one thousand dollars a plate fundraiser for President Johnson's reelection campaign, Daley and Johnson had a private meeting. During the meeting, Daley explained to the president that in the 1966 congressional races, there had been a disappointing showing of Democrats, and that if the convention were not held in Illinois, that the president might lose the swing state with its twenty-seven electoral votes.[15] Johnson's pro-war policies had already created a great division within the party, and with the selection of Chicago for the convention, Johnson hoped that there would not be a need for him to confront any more opposition.[16] The Committee head for selecting the location, New Jersey Democrat David Wilentz, gave the official reason for choosing Chicago as, "It is centrally located geographically which will reduce transportation costs and because it has been the site of national conventions for both Parties in the past and is therefore attuned to holding them." The conversation between Johnson and Daley was leaked to the press and published in the Chicago Tribune and several other papers.[16]

Dan Rather incident[edit]

While trying to interview a Georgia delegate being escorted out of the building, CBS News correspondent Dan Rather was grabbed by security guards and was roughed up.[17] While Rather was reporting from the convention floor,[17] CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite turned his attention towards the area where Rather was reporting from. Rather was grabbed by security guards after he walked towards a delegate who was being hauled out, and asked him, "What is your name, sir?" Rather, who was wearing a microphone headset, was then heard on national television repeatedly saying to the guards, "Don't push me" and "Take your hands off me unless you plan to arrest me" to the guards.[17]

After the guards let go of Rather, he then told Cronkite, "Walter... we tried to talk to the man and we got violently pushed out of the way. This is the kind of thing that has been going on outside the hall, this is the first time we've had it happen inside the hall. We... I'm sorry to be out of breath, but somebody belted me in the stomach during that. What happened is a Georgia delegate, at least he had a Georgia delegate sign on, was being hauled out of the hall. We tried to talk to him to see why, who he was, what the situation was, and at that instant the security people, well as you can see, put me on the deck. I didn't do very well."[17] Cronkite then replied by saying, "I think we've got a bunch of thugs here, Dan."

Protests and police response[edit]
The Chicago police riot[edit]

August 28, 1968 came to be known as the day a "police riot" took place. The title of "police riot" came out of the Walker Report, which amassed a great deal of information and eyewitness accounts to determine what happened in Chicago.[20] At approximately 3:30 p.m., a young man lowered the American flag at a legal rally taking place at Grant Park. The demonstration was made up of 10,000 protesters.[10] The police broke through the crowd and began beating the boy, while the crowd pelted the police with food, rocks, and chunks of concrete.[23] Police fought with the protesters and vice versa. The chants of the protesters shifted from "Hell no, we won't go" to "Pigs are whores".[24] Tom Hayden, one of the leaders of Students for a Democratic Society, encouraged protesters to move out of the park to ensure that if they were to be tear gassed, the whole city would be tear gassed, and made sure that if blood were spilled in Chicago it would happen throughout the city.[25] The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protesters was so great that it eventually made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower.[24] The police were taunted by the protesters with chants of "Kill, kill, kill". They sprayed demonstrators and bystanders indiscriminately with mace.[26] The police assault in front of the Hilton Hotel the evening of August 28 became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The entire event took place live under the T.V. lights for seventeen minutes with the crowd shouting, "The whole world is watching".[24]

Meanwhile, in the convention hall, Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff used his nominating speech for George McGovern to tell of the violence going on outside the convention hall, saying that "And, with George McGovern as President of the United States, we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago!"[27] Mayor Daley responded to his remark with something that the television sound was not able to pick up. Whatever Daley said, Ribicoff replied, "How hard it is to accept the truth!" That night, NBC News had been switching back and forth between the demonstrators being beaten by the police to the festivities over Humphrey's victory in the convention hall, making it clear to the nation that the Democratic party was sorely divided.[28]

After the Chicago protests, the demonstrators were confident that the majority of Americans would side with them over what had happened in Chicago, especially because of police behavior. They were shocked to learn that controversy over the war in Vietnam overshadowed their cause.[13] Daley shared he had received 135,000 letters supporting his actions and only 5000 condemning them. Public opinion polls demonstrated that the majority of Americans supported the Mayor's tactics.[29] It was often commented through the popular media that on that evening, America decided to vote for Richard Nixon.[30]

The Chicago Eight[edit]
Main article: Chicago Seven

After Chicago, the Justice Department meted out conspiracy and incitement to riot charges in connection with the violence at Chicago and gave birth to the Chicago Eight, which consisted of Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Jerry Rubin, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale.[31] Demonstrations were held daily during the trial, organized by the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, the Young Lords, and the local Black Panther Party led by Chairman Fred Hampton. In February 1970, five of the remaining seven Chicago Conspiracy defendants (Seale's charges had been separated from the rest) were convicted on the charge of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines, but none were found guilty of conspiracy.

Judge Julius Hoffman sentenced the defendants and their attorneys to unprecedented prison terms ranging from two-and-a-half months to four years for contempt of court. The convictions were eventually reversed on appeal, and the government declined to bring the case to trial again.[31]



“August 28, 1968 came to be known as the day a "police riot" took place. The title of "police riot" came out of the Walker Report, which amassed a great deal of information and eyewitness accounts to determine what happened in Chicago.[20] At approximately 3:30 p.m., a young man lowered the American flag at a legal rally taking place at Grant Park. The demonstration was made up of 10,000 protesters.[10] The police broke through the crowd and began beating the boy, while the crowd pelted the police with food, rocks, and chunks of concrete.[23] Police fought with the protesters and vice versa. The chants of the protesters shifted from ‘Hell no, we won't go’ to ‘Pigs are whores’.”


My memories of the 1960s and 70s remind me of the first lines of Charles Dickens’ A Tale Of Two Cities. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

Since 9/11 and the emergence of the Tea Party, we have entered another of those eras. There is so much patriotism, hope, fear, and intellectual ferment going on that I am worried for the country. I would like to see the progress without the neo-Fascism. I know, I’m not supposed to use words like that, but the resemblance to the rise of Hitler and his cohorts is unavoidable. Some blame the Koch brothers, but I blame the painfully uneducated and unsympathetic right wing branch of our society. I’m in the fight again for essentially the same things. It is exciting and sad. I can’t help continuing to comment on it. Sorry if this bores you.



ABORIGINAL WOMEN IN CANADA


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467055203/canada-to-launch-nationwide-investigation-into-murdered-missing-aboriginal-women

Canada To Launch Nationwide Investigation Into Murdered, Missing Aboriginal Women
MERRIT KENNEDY
Updated February 17, 20162:12 PM ET
Published February 17, 20161:45 PM ET

Photograph -- Lita Blacksmith displays a drawing she made of her 18-year-old daughter Lorna, who was murdered in Winnipeg in 2012. A police study found that 1 in 4 female homicide victims in Canada in 2012 was an aboriginal woman.
Jim Rankin/Toronto Star via Getty Images


Canada's government is preparing to launch a major inquiry on murdered or missing aboriginal women.

A 2014 study by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found that nearly 1,200 aboriginal women were murdered or went missing between 1980 and 2012. But two government ministers involved in planning the investigation say they believe the numbers are actually far higher.

"When you look at the real depth and breadth of this tragedy, it's way bigger than we had thought," Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said at a news conference with Minister for the Status of Women Patty Hajdu this week in Ottawa.

Dan Karpenchuk in Toronto tells our Newscast unit that "the Minister for the Status of Women says a more realistic number would be 4,000 based on a history of police under-reporting or failing to properly investigate cases of missing native women."

Hajdu told the CBC that the estimate of 4,000 is based on research from the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Referring to the 2014 study, Hajdu said the mounted police "were only looking at very specific parameters." She said some of the cases left off are disputed cases or involve cases deemed to be "a suicide or a death due to exposure but in fact there are signs or symptoms that it wasn't."

Bennett said Monday that "we've heard somebody shot in the back of the head called a suicide. I think people do want to know what happened, that all of a sudden there's no investigation because it was designated some natural causes, or overdose, or suicide, or an accident."

She added that the numbers in the study don't include survivors of an attack or women who escaped abduction.

And Former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Chuck Strahl told The Globe and Mail that some cases happen in remote areas, making them less likely to be reported. He added: "Sometimes people don't trust local authorities, whether the police or ... local First Nations authorities."

According to the police study, aboriginal women make up about 4 percent of Canada's female population. But they represent nearly 1 in 4 female homicide victims in Canada, based on 2012 numbers.

Hajdu and Bennett spoke to reporters Monday after completing cross-country consultations with thousands of people to develop the scope of the national inquiry.

Among the issues that they're considering: Who to lead the inquiry, what do to about cold cases, and how to incorporate aboriginal traditions. Also under discussion is how to handle these sensitive issues without further traumatizing surviving family members.

Canada's newly elected prime minister, Justin Trudeau, vowed during his campaign to launch the inquiry immediately "as part of his bid to establish a new 'nation to nation' relationship with indigenous peoples," the CBC reports.

Before Trudeau's electoral victory, his predecessors in "the Conservative government had long dismissed calls for a national inquiry, with prime minister Stephen Harper asserting the deaths and disappearances are not part of a 'sociological phenomenon,' " the Globe and Mail reports.

A recent Toronto Star investigation suggests there is no clear profile for killers of aboriginal women.

"Half of the victims were domestically related to the perpetrator," but "16 per cent of the offenders were acquaintances; 15 per cent were strangers; and 13 per cent serial killers," the newspaper investigation found.

On Valentine's Day, vigils were held across Canada to remember missing or murdered aboriginal women. One of the memorials was in front of Toronto police headquarters, AJ+ reports:

Indigenous women who've gone missing or been murdered are remembered in Valentine's Day vigils across Canada. #MMIWhttps://t.co/rcpxBWL7sO
— AJ+ (@ajplus) February 16, 2016

The demonstrators there highlighted the case of Bella Laboucan-McLean, who fell 31 floors to her death in downtown Toronto in 2013. She was 25.

AJ+ reports: "Her death is still listed as suspicious and unsolved and open to this day," says her sister Melina. "What I really hope that the inquiry ... will look at the colonial and systemic roots — the root issues of the murdered and missing indigenous women issue — but also it will look at how police are complicit in the high rates of unsolved cases across this country."

Concern that police are not adequately investigating these cases is a regular complaint, Bennett said at Monday's news conference. She said that during her cross-country trip, one family told her "that when the loved one was listed as Caucasian, they decided not to correct it in case the search or the investigation wouldn't be as good."



“Canada's government is preparing to launch a major inquiry on murdered or missing aboriginal women. A 2014 study by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found that nearly 1,200 aboriginal women were murdered or went missing between 1980 and 2012. But two government ministers involved in planning the investigation say they believe the numbers are actually far higher. …. Dan Karpenchuk in Toronto tells our Newscast unit that "the Minister for the Status of Women says a more realistic number would be 4,000 based on a history of police under-reporting or failing to properly investigate cases of missing native women." Hajdu told the CBC that the estimate of 4,000 is based on research from the Native Women's Association of Canada. Referring to the 2014 study, Hajdu said the mounted police "were only looking at very specific parameters." She said some of the cases left off are disputed cases or involve cases deemed to be "a suicide or a death due to exposure but in fact there are signs or symptoms that it wasn't." Bennett said Monday that "we've heard somebody shot in the back of the head called a suicide. …. She added that the numbers in the study don't include survivors of an attack or women who escaped abduction. And Former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Chuck Strahl told The Globe and Mail that some cases happen in remote areas, making them less likely to be reported. He added: "Sometimes people don't trust local authorities, whether the police or ... local First Nations authorities." According to the police study, aboriginal women make up about 4 percent of Canada's female population. But they represent nearly 1 in 4 female homicide victims in Canada, based on 2012 numbers. Hajdu and Bennett spoke to reporters Monday after completing cross-country consultations with thousands of people to develop the scope of the national inquiry. Among the issues that they're considering: Who to lead the inquiry, what do to about cold cases, and how to incorporate aboriginal traditions. …. "What I really hope that the inquiry ... will look at the colonial and systemic roots — the root issues of the murdered and missing indigenous women issue — but also it will look at how police are complicit in the high rates of unsolved cases across this country."


I wonder if they have a severe problem with rightwingers who are anti-Native in Canada. They apparently do. The “colonial” issue has been mentioned before. It’s too much like the US and other societies around the world. It’s a matter of failing to give some members of society full human status, much less citizenship. The innate racism in human nature seems to me to be like a rotting vegetable. The evil pervades the edible flesh, causing squishy patches and a bad smell. I was hoping Canada would be different from us, since I’ve thought of going up there to live if things get too bad down here to tolerate, but it might not be any better.

The matter of police departments doing a poor job is also widespread. It’s because they are overly busy, underpaid, discouraged, cynical, inept, lazy or just simply a part of the same evil they are supposed to stop. It’s very, very sad.