Revolutionary War Hero Isn't Welcome in Washington, DC

Francis Marion and the famous "sweet potato incident"

One of the members of the Columbia Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution has been working for years to get a monument of Francis Marion placed in our nation's capital. After going through a long process which included getting the SC Congressional delegation (all of them) to support a law that would authorize the National Parks System to plan for the statue, the President signed the law in 2008 to go forward with the project.

Fittingly enough, there's a small park in DC that is already named "Marion Park" in honor of the man. It also happens to be located along South Carolina Avenue.  Sounds great, right? Accordingly, the NPS thought that putting the monument there would be logical. What could go wrong?

Well, some people don't like the idea of putting a monument of Francis Marion up in Marion Park.

Because of racism, obviously.

A South Carolina plantation owner and slaveholder, Marion fought against the Cherokee Indians during the French and Indian War. In the Revolutionary War, he used the guerrilla warfare tactics he learned from the Cherokee against the British, earning him the nickname “Swamp Fox.”

“They say Francis Marion is a hero, but who is he a hero to?” says Lawrence Smith, 70, who lives about a block from the park. “The first Americans, who he helped wipe out? I bet they don’t feel that he’s a hero. The African-Americans who were kidnapped and brought here in bondage, do they see him as a hero?”

The proposed placement of the Marion memorial is particularly insensitive, says Capitol Hill resident Peter Glick, 53, since the statue would sit in the shadow of the Progress For Christ Baptist Church, which was built by freed African slaves right after the Civil War.

“The people who lived in this area and who went to this church no doubt escaped from people like Francis Marion,” Glick says.

Hey, here's a fun little game. Let's see what happens if we replace Marion (the evil slaveholder) with someone else.

"A South Carolina Virginia plantation owner and slaveholder, Marion Washington fought against the Indians during the French and Indian war."

Yes, this George Washington fellow fought in the Revolutionary War, but he was a plantation owner and slaveholder. Wait, I've just been informed that Thomas Jefferson, the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence, was also a plantation owner and slaveholder as well. Gee, I guess it's a good thing that neither of those two jokers have any monuments in the vicinity.

The sad thing is that Francis Marion fought side-by-side with blacks, whites, friendly Indians, free and slave. It was probably the first integrated fighting force in North America. That's a historical fact. Oh, you didn't know that? Here, let me Google that for you.

But I guess some people like Peter Glick and Lawrence Smith would rather just wallow in their own shallow understanding of history.

South Carolina Charges White Police Officer With Murder for Shooting Unarmed Black Man

Bernard Bailey

Richard Combs

With the grand jury not indicting the officer in Ferguson, and now the grand jury not indicting the police officer in New York City, I thought this story was kind of...topical.

If you hadn't heard, here's the basic fact pattern:

Bernard Bailey had come to the town hall complain about his daughter receiving a ticket for a broken tail-light. At some point, Combs (the police chief) attempts to arrest Bailey for obstruction of justice. As Bailey leaves the town hall, Combs follows him and a struggle ensued near or in Bailey's vehicle. Combs then shot Bailey twice in the chest.

Combs was charged with murder yesterday. Obviously, this is a different fact pattern from what happened in Ferguson, and what happened in New York. However, you have the similarity of a white law enforcement officer's actions resulting in the death of an unarmed black man.

And only South Carolina is going forward with a case.

Just food for thought. 

Some Initial Thoughts on the SC Highway Patrolman Shooting in Columbia, SC

If you hadn't already seen this, on September 4, a South Carolina Highway Patrol officer shot a motorist during a traffic stop. They just released the dashboard cam video yesterday. Here's the video.

I've watched the video a few times, and it's clear that this was not a good traffic stop. Also, I'm going to say this up front: This shooting should not have happened. Nothing I am about to say should be construed to justify this shooting. OK? So save all the hate mail.

My initial impression is that things start to go a little sideways when the driver gets out of the car. Normally, you stay in your car at a traffic stop. Pretty much everyone knows that. I think law enforcement officers kind of get their "antenna up" when a driver immediately gets out of the car at a traffic stop.

Having said that, this officer certainly did not handle the situation appropriately. He did not control the environment well, and he did not interact with the driver appropriately. So, even though the driver did not do a good thing by getting out of the car, it's the officer's job to handle that situation.

It appears to me that the officer assumed that the driver was reaching into his car for a weapon. This was a bad assumption. Police officers should not shoot people based on assumptions.

Here are the factors that jump out at me that make this incident really bad;

Obviously, it's a white officer shooting a black driver. So of course, there's the element of race. Would this officer have reacted the same way if the driver had been an elderly white woman? I don't know. But this is the first factor that everyone sees. And it's important to recognize this factor.

The traffic stop seems to have occurred during the day. To me, this factor cuts against the officer. We're not talking about a 2:00AM traffic stop, here. For all the officer knows, this guy is on his way to work or something. The scene is well-lit, and there aren't any obstructions.

According to the WIS piece I linked above, the traffic stop was for a seat-belt violation. Now, it's fair game to stop someone for not wearing a seat-belt, but we're not talking about a felony here. Common sense tells you that stopping someone for a seat-belt violation is different than stopping someone for a serious charge. Again, this factor cuts against the officer. Not wearing your seat belt is a relatively minor violation.

Also, when did the officer draw his weapon? It's not clear from the video, but the first time you see the officer come into view, he already has his weapon drawn, extended, and pointed at the driver. To me, this indicates he already had it drawn. Again, that doesn't seem right.

Those are all bad things. Now for a couple of positives:

The driver is alive. That's the best news. No one is dead. Thank goodness.

Unlike Ferguson, there is a dashboard camera video, so we can all see what happened. We're not relying on eyewitness accounts from people inside the gas station. Remember how all the eyewitness accounts in Ferguson were dramatically different? At least with a video, there is a record of what happened.

The police officer was fired, and charged with a crime. This is probably the most important thing, so I probably should have mentioned it earlier. Law enforcement has to operate under the same laws as you and I do. Therefore, if you or I had shot this man in this situation, it's clear that we would have been arrested. Accordingly, I applaud the authorities for not trying to put the officer on "administrative leave" or some nonsense. You apply the same process to police officers as you do to citizens. This officer is now facing up to 20 years in prison for this incident. That's not inconsequential.

The video was released. This point dovetails into the lat one, but it's commendable that the video was released so we could all see for ourselves what actually occurred. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to sweep this under the rug. And that's very good.

Hopefully, the authorities will continue act in a responsible manner and other law enforcement officers will take this as a moment to really think about how they conduct traffic stops. They have a tough job, but they also have the responsibility to do it correctly. In this incident, the job was not handled correctly.

Anyone else have any other thoughts? There's lots to unpack here.

Jesse Jackson's Group Is Going to Sue Greenville, SC

Apparently, having local city-wide, non-partisan elections is racist, or something.

Aren't Columbia's city elections non-partisan? Are we gonna get sued?

"America's Foremost Public Intellectual": You Can't Talk About Slavery and Ignore the NBA

"You can’t really talk about (slavery) reparations and ignore the modern day wealthy Americans who own teams made up predominantly of black men and profit from their bodies and labor."

That's a quote from "America's foremost public intellectual". Apparently, she has a show on MSNBC. Seriously.

Just so I'm clear, being in the NBA is still voluntary right? People aren't being forced to play basketball against their will, are they? And the players are still being paid, right? Last time I checked NBA players were being paid several million dollars a year, on average.

So how is that like slavery? I mean, this Harris-Perry lady is "America's foremost public intellectual", so I must be missing something, right?

I'm always happy to have an intelligent conversation about race relations, slavery's repercussions through history, and the case for reparations. But this kind of stupidity just makes everyone dumber for having listened to it.

Washington Redskins Team Owner Announces New Foundation

The Perpetual Outrage Industry has been wailing about the name of a football team for a long time. I haven't been following this fake outrage, mainly because I don't follow fake stories and I don't really care about the NFL.

However, it appears that team owner Dan Snyder has basically told everyone to go pound sand, and predictably, he's been vilified. But recently, he's made a move that might make it harder to cast him as a villain.

He's announced the foundation of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation.

"I believe the Washington Redskins community should commit to making a real, lasting, positive impact on Native American quality of life — one tribe and one person at a time," Snyder wrote. "I know we won't be able to fix every problem. But we need to make an impact. And so I will take action."

This is actually a pretty clever move.

The criticism (as far as I can tell) is that the team name is a bad symbol, it hurts people's feelings, and that the name is racist. Even assuming for the sake of argument that people are getting their feelings hurt, the damage is...let's call it indefinite.

However, it appears this new foundation will be doing actual, concrete work to make people's lives better. Will this stop the Perpetual Outrage Industry? No. They won't be happy until they've stamped the name out of existence, and my guess is that they'll get their way eventually. My guess is that the NFL will likely allow Snyder to keep the name as long as he owns the team, but the NFL will condition the sale or transfer of the team on the name changing.

This will keep Snyder from passing the problem to someone else, but  might also have the effect of depressing the value of the team by a few hundred million.

It's Because I'm Black, Isn't It?

I came across this the other day in my internet meanderings, and I thought it was pretty funny:

Try not to judge a rifle by it's color.

In related news, the CWP modification law has been on the books for a little while. Has there been any "wild west" shootouts around South Carolina at bars or restaurants? Maybe I've missed the news about that.

I seem to remember all of those folks saying that it would be "open season" for shooting people, and that there would be shootouts in pizza parlors.

I guess not so much, huh?

I'm prepared to accept your apologies now.

 

Peter O'Toole Dead at 81 - Lessons from Lawrence of Arabia

Peter O'Toole, best known for his role as T.E. Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia, passed away on Sunday after a long illness.

If you haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia, it's a great movie, dealing with certain issues that are  timeless, and other political issues that are still relevant today.

Omar Sharif and Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia

One theme through the movie is the West's relationship with the Middle-East. In the movie, the relationship is against the larger backdrop of WWII, but the relationship is still fractious and unstable today. The British have the Arabs as a small appendage to their army, but it's not until T.E. Lawrence figures out how to properly use the skills and resources of the Arabs, do they become a serious fighting force.

The movie deals with racial issues, in how the British view the Arabs. In one scene, after walking through the desert, Lawrence and a young Arab boy is picked up and brought into the British Headquarters. Lawrence pushes forward with the young boy and goes into the officer's club demanding a glass of lemonade for each of them, much to the consternation of the British officers there.

The movie also explore how the Arabs themselves struggle to find their place in the world. In the setting of the movie, the Arabs are dealing with the same issues they confront today, perfectly summed up by Lawrence in this line:

Sherif Ali! So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people. Greedy, barbarous and cruel, as you are.

Sound familiar? In 2013, the Middle-East is still dealing with the problem of sectarian, tribe on tribe violence. We know about Shiites fighting the Sunnis, as was made clear in the Iraq War. Much of that issue still plagues the Middle-East today.

Finally, the most over-arching theme is the idea of a man's fate, and how a man can make his own fate through his free will and actions. The idea that nothing is written deals with what is preordained by God, and how man can shape his own destiny.

In one instance, Lawrence sets out against all extreme odds to avert an event (someone's death) that a Muslim companion (Omar Sharif) declares "is written," and has accepted. Lawrence resuces the man and then caps off his act by emphatically declaring, "Nothing is written."

Later, Lawrence even goes so far as to proclaim of his own bold plans, "That is written — in here" (tapping his head). Eventually Sharif is forced to admit, "Truly, for some men, nothing is written, unless they write it."

If you've never seen Lawrence of Arabia, now might would be an appropriate time to do so.

Is a South Carolina Sheriff Defying President Obama?

The Pickens County Sheriff has decided his police department won't be lowering their flag to half-staff in honor of Nelson Mandela. 

I'm kind of surprised that this story made CNN, but it did. It's seems like a nothing of a story, really. Some guy isn't going to lower his flag for Nelson Mandela. Ok. So what?

And this angle of this county sheriff "defying President Obama's order" is ridiculous. The President can order the military to lower their flags. The President can order the FBI lower their flags. He can even order US embassies and the Agriculture Department to lower their flags.

But Pickens County? They don't take orders from the President of the United States. The President can't order the Pickens County Sheriff to do squat. Seriously. Where does a journalist get off saying crap like this?

You can debate whether or not it's proper to lower the flag for Mandela, but ultimately it's a judgment call, and it doesn't really mean anything. It's a symbolic thing. But I'm sure that this won't stop everyone from saying the guy's a racist or something.

SCOTUS Strikes Down Portion of the VRA

SCOTUS has just declared part of the VRA unconstitutional. Full text of the opinion is here (PDF). Here's the meat of the decision (in my humble opinion):

The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 512 (2000) (“Consistent with the design of the Constitution, the [Fifteenth] Amendment is cast in fundamental terms, terms transcending the particular controversy which was the immediate impetus for its enactment.”). To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past. We made that clear in Northwest Austin, and we make it clear again today.

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Just counting noses, Chief Justice Roberts, wrote this opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy. Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent, which was joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. So Kennedy is the swing vote yet again. History doesn't always repeat itself, but I'm told that it rhymes.

I think this means that until Congress updates the coverage formula, the preclearance requirement is void. Accordingly, if Congress wants to have a functioning VRA, they're going to have to update their numbers. Don't hold your breath for that to happen.

On a practical level, if you are a state that would be subject to the preclearance requirement of the VRA (like South Carolina) now would be the time to pass laws about voting - you don't have to ask permission from the Federal government. For instance, SC could have waited a little bit on the Voter ID law, and we wouldn't have had to deal with the feds poking their nose into it.

BREAKING: 74% of Americans are Racist

According to a poll conducted yesterday by the Washington Post, 74% of Americans favor a requirement to have voters show an official, government-issued photo ID (like a driver's license) when they cast ballots on Election Day.

Only one explanation for this: 74% of Americans are racist.

The Current State of Racial Politics in the USA

I voted for him because he was white. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,” he recently told us. “That’s American politics, pure and simple. his message didn’t mean [bleep] to me."

My thoughts and explanation below the fold.

Madison, WI Bar Owners Told to Stop Checking Everyone's ID

If you keep checking everyone's ID, we're going to pull your liquor license. Maybe I'm the crazy one here, but it's it pretty much....a legal requirement.....that you check people's IDs when they enter a bar?

Note to self: Cancel plans to open a bar in Madison, WI.

[H/T Althouse]