Page 4 - Dinuba Sentinel 4-4-19 E-edition

Opinion
A4 | Thursday, April 4,, 2019
In My Opinion
CAorruption of law undermines democracy
lthough it may seem counter have ignored and intuitive, the dedicated skated around service of our police and law the law ever since
Fred Hall - Publisher Rick Curiel - Editor
enforcement officials is all that stands betweenus,chaosandanarchy. Yet,
it seems that politicians continue to pass inane legislation which effectively handcuffslawenforcement. Obviously California would be a primary example of that with Proposition 47 and 57 as well as making this a sanctuary state. Beside weakening or even neutering law enforcement, politicians have appointed political operatives to head up enforcement agencies instead of professionals.
Nothing undermines democracy morequicklyorassuredlythan
the corruption of the laws and the enforcement of those laws which govern man’sinteraction. Sadtosay,weare currentlywitnessinganacceleration
of scofflaws and a double standard of justice at all levels of our society.
I’m not a young man, but my first recollectionoftheperversioninvolves Ted Kennedy who killed Mary Jo Koepechne on a summer night on
18 July 1969 by driving his car off a NewEnglandbridge. Kennedy,who was allegedly drunk at the time left Ms. Koepechne in a submerged car to drown while he returned to his hotel not reporting the event to anyone who might have been able to render aid. Enter Joseph Kennedy Sr.--renowned scotch whisky bootlegger who built a fortune on the illicit trade—who put the powerful political machine to work, makingthewholethinggoaway. We all know that Teddy’s political fortunes weren’t impacted as the people of Massachusetts looked the other way and he was continuously elected until his own death.
A double standard under the
law? Common sense surely offers the definitive answer to anyone open minded enough to examine the awful details.
Interestingly enough the next example of political perversion of the law involves another Kennedy spawn. In 1975 Michael Skakel, nephew of Robert Kennedy, was suspected on
the Pinseeker golf club bludgeoning death of 15-year old Martha Moxley. Political influence on behalf of the Kennedy clan once again prevailed andchargeswereneverfiled. Charges were finally brought in 2002—27 years later—resulting in a 3-week trial in which he was convicted of her murder. The verdict was overturned shortly thereafter. Wasthatadoublestandard of the administration of law based on family clout?
On Good Friday, 29 March 29 1991 William Kennedy Smith was accused of raping a young woman in Florida at the Kennedyfamilycompound. Thejudge would not allow women who claimed to have been previous victims of KennedySmithtotestify. Onceagain, Kennedy political muscle prevailed. On 11 December 1991 a Florida jury, after deliberating only 77 minutes found Kennedy-Smith not guilty.
Not long thereafter, Roy Black, lead Kennedy-Smith’s attorney married one ofthejurors,LisaHaller. Obviouslyno chance of malfeasance being involved inthatdecision. Anothermemberof
a celebrity, political family escapes the reachofjustice. Justmaybe,thatcould there have been a double standard.
There is no attempt here to pick ontheKennedyfamily. Politically powerful and people of celebrity have thumbed their nose at the law for decades. TheClinton(crime)family
Fred Hall
they came on the publicscene. They always seem to
have minions in the pressandontheir staff who work on public opinion while lawyers on their payroll make things
go away that you and I would serve serious jail time for their commission.
O.J. Simpson and his ilk from Hollywood have escaped justice repeatedly simply based on their celebritystatus. Prosecutorswho seem more interested in fame and fortune than in getting a conviction areoftenpartofthisuglyprocesswith famousmusiciansandactors. Media and a selection of jurors from the Facebook generation are eager and willing accomplices to this travesty of amiscarriageofjustice. Ifweweren’t constitutionally guaranteed a trial
by a jury of our peers, perhaps we might take a look at feeding all the informationintoacomputerandlet it weigh all the evidence without any emotional attachment.
Most recent occurrence would be the Jussie Smollett mess in Chicago.
Smollett was indicted on 12 felonies by a grand jury after examining
the evidence presented by an exhaustive Chicago Police Department investigation. After all those hours of humanendeavor,theentirethingwas made to go away after a simple phone call from Michelle Obama’s former head of staff to Kim Fox, Chicago’s State’s Attorney. Not only was everything expunged but records were sealed as well. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anything like it.
Charges in the above cited were serious enough in the nature of accusations by Smollett that this could have resulted in civil disorder or even race riots.
In case you might have forgotten, Jussie claimed he was attacked by two white men wearing Make America GreatAgaincaps. Smollettisagay, blackman. Turnsouttheperpswere two black men whom Smollett had hired for the job as a publicity stunt to elevate his profile and salary.
Although the examples are far
from being a complete catalogue of
the miscarriage of justice through the years due to celebrity status or political power, they do lay the predicate for most of what we see happening all aroundustoday. Entirecitiesand states escape Federal judiciary scrutiny over many of their inane declaration of sanctuary provisions for illegal aliens intheirboundaries. Thisexampleisso brainless that the state actually shows a preference for the illegal over the legal. The actual safety of American citizens is jeopardized.
Only the American people hold the power to stop this perversion of justice! We can no longer accept a dual system of law enforcement where the rich and powerful receive preferential treatment, norwhereselectgroupsaredeclaredoff limits to members of law enforcement. Acountrywithdualstandardsand preferential treatment is hell-bent on becomingathirdworldcountryandit won’t take long!
But, as always, that’s only one man’s opinion.
Fred Hall is publisher of the Dinuba Sentinel.
Guest Column
AWe all practice 'Identity Politics'
s the 2020 campaign lurches to a start, get ready appeal to white voters there: “What to hear a lot about “identity politics.” do you have to lose?” Obviously those If a candidate mentions or draws attention voters would feel they deserve a more
to her race, gender, or sexuality, some people say, she’s making our country “more divided.” We need to stop engaging in identity politics and start appealing to the “average” American, they say.
Which raises the question: Just who is “average”?
To be blunt, I’m convinced the charge of “identity politics” is mostly cynical. It’s a rhetorical whip used
to guilt women, queer folk, and minorities into not advocating for their specific political needs. It’s as divisive as the division it claims to combat.
I was born in raised in Chicago — a microcosm of our country’s immense diversity as well as its segregation. Being a black man from the south side of Chicago, I have experiences that are different from someone who lives in a majority-white town in southern Illinois.
Why is mentioning this difference divisive? How does remaining silent about the specific issues that affect me help?
Politicians can’t talk to “average” voters. They have to persuade real people — voters with different backgrounds, who share most of the same concerns, but sometimes different ones. People accused of practicing “identity politics” are often just people fighting for the particular issues that affect them.
People who are critical of this are often blind to the ways that ordinary politics center their own (real or imagined) identity. Politicians direct “identity politics” to them all the time — they just can’t see it.
For example, when white people in Appalachia demand jobs, better health care, and a public health response
to drug addiction, politicians in both parties scramble
to promise all of those things and more. When black Chicagoans ask for the same resources, the response is often: “No, what you need is more police.”
It would be hard to imagine Donald Trump going to a small town in Ohio and making only one comprehensive
Joshua Adams
detailed pitch than a dice roll. So
why did we find it acceptable when he offered exactly that — political crumbs — to African-American voters in 2016?
When Republicans come to African -American communities and historically black colleges, often the very first thing they do is “remind”
the audience that the GOP is “the party of Lincoln.” These same conservatives often blast identity politics as a distraction from policy issues, yet bring up oversimplified history that has no relevance to the present black experience instead of policy.
Pundits on Fox News often suggest that residents of the “heartland” are “more” American than those who live in major cities or on the coasts. What is that other than identity politics, appealing to people’s sense of “we deserve more” and “they deserve less”?
When people blame “illegal immigrants” for “taking their jobs” but never critique the businesses and corporations that exploit workers of all races, that’s identity politics, too.
All communities have the right to accurately, clearly, and genuinely state what they want — not to be told what they need. When we accept underlying ideas about who “deserves” help and who doesn’t, that’s based on two identities: who we think “we” are and who we think “they” are.
That’s called “identity politics.” The trick is that we don’t see it as “politics” when it appeals to our own identities.
Joshua Adams is a writer, journalist and assistant professor at Salem State University. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
Food for Thought
IWhat a di erence a word makes
was reminded last week of liberation and how the smallest word can independence, sometimes make the biggest however, the
difference. Likewise, the omission of a word can also fill the biggest void.
While writing a short informational story of an exchange student at Dinuba High School last week, I came upon an unexpected challenge. The student is from a country I have heard referred to in two ways. It has been referred to as ‘the Ukraine’ and (as I learned just recently) simply ‘Ukraine’.
So which is it?
Wanting to be sure, I did what any modern man would do – I Googled it.
In doing so I came across a New York Times article that called former President Barrack Obama on the proper way of addressing the country. As it turns out, the Harvard grad got it wrong. He used the term ‘the Ukraine’ rather than ‘Ukraine’.
Now, one might think, surely the word ‘the’ couldn’t make that much of a difference. Could it?
Well, the term ‘the Ukraine’ was used when the country belonged to the former Soviet Union. Since its
Rick Curiel
country is now simply known as ‘Ukraine’. Adding the word ‘the’ would be like saying ‘The British United States of America’.
Amazing what one small word can do.
I’m glad I researched it and got it write... (just kidding)... right.
Saying that, and knowing that I haven’t always gotten it right, please accept my apology for any time I’ve been less than perfect. Journalists all seek to get it right. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be journalists. Journalists are here to give an account of, and for, history. And history has shown that the smallest word can sometimes make the biggest difference.
Rick Curiel is editor of the Dinuba Sentinel.
Join the discussion
The Dinuba Sentinel welcomes submissions of letters to the editor on topics of local relevance. Word limit is 350. Letters are considered once per month for each submitter.
Letters must include the author’s name, phone number and address for verification. Mail to 145 South L Street, Dinuba, CA, 93618, or e-mail to editor@thedinubasentinel.
com.
Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.
Libelous letters will not be printed. Guest columns will be considered for publication - E-mail editor@ thedinubasentinel.com. Word limit is 650.