further insanity regarding the houston fire dept

in “what the fuck is happening to the houston fire dept”, i criticized bill white’s plan to skip federal involvement and go with a local “independent investigation”.  9 times out of 10, i trust bill white to do what is right for the city; however, i think he’s making a big mistake here…. and i’m not alone.  as it turns out, he had planned to appoint 2 law firms to do the investigation…. (law firms?!)...

from Law firms for HFD probe criticized:

The two law firms selected by Mayor Bill White’s administration to determine whether systemic problems of racism and sexism exist in the Houston Fire Department have drawn criticism for having ties too close to the city and senior city officials.

The choice of Thompson and Horton LLP and Lemond and Lemond LLC for a contract worth up to $190,000— which was made without input from City Council and did not go through a formal proposal process — has raised questions about transparency for a process that was meant to bring about an outside examination of the culture in the fire department.

seriously… law firms?  to investigate “systemic problems of racism and sexism”?

Michel said he intends to monitor the probe closely and that the law firms may not necessarily produce a report from their examination. Senior fire department officials would need to be involved in order for the firms’ work to be a success.

“Ultimately, this is a management tool,” he said. “People come in to assist management to help them operate better and you have to work with management in order for it to be effective. ... They have to assess what’s occurred, and you just can’t do that in a vacuum.”

it appears *to me* that bill white’s administration thinks that the problem is a minor one that can be taken care of with nothing more than a seminar or three on “how to not be a racist, sexist pig”, which while possibly helpful isn’t going to go far enough in dealing with the problem.  PLUS it gives the appearance of a “cover up”.  while i don’t believe that is the *intent*, perception is important.

Joe Ahmad, an attorney representing two female firefighters who found racist and misogynistic graffiti near their quarters at a department fire station this month, an event that prompted the calls for an outside investigation, said that if the two firms were shown to have close ties to the city, that would be “just another disappointing step.”

“When we heard that there was going to be an outside, independent investigation, we were encouraged because we thought that was precisely what was needed,” said Ahman. “I would hope that whoever is ultimately hired are truly independent.”

i completely agree.  there needs to be a *true* independent *investigation* that deals with the issues that people have faced, including but not limited to criminal prosecution.  sweeping it under the rug, or giving the appearance that this is what you’re doing, will only make people think you are covering up the problem and protecting the deranged individuals in the dept.

rick casey hit the nail on the head, once again, why consult attorneys?:

It has been only a month since I had to explain to this city’s politicians that they could not defend unethical behavior by announcing that they had received clearance from an attorney.

Attorneys are trained to determine what is illegal, which covers far less ground than what is wrong.

A restaurateur might as well respond to criticism of her hollandaise sauce by saying, “I had my lawyer taste it and he pronounced it savory.”

Now here comes Mayor Bill White to announce he wants to hire two law firms to examine the “equal employment opportunity and practices” at the Houston Fire Department in the wake of accusations of racist and sexual harassment.

That’s right: not one law firm, but two. For $190,000, the two firms, who are already tinged by controversy, are expected to “review, assess and recommend policies and practices on issues that include diversity, conflict resolution, preventive practices, compliance, communication and management practices.”

Am I missing something here? Are there law school classes on identifying the cultural dynamics of a strongly traditionalist organization and altering those that are, even innocently, corrosive?

Instead let’s hire someone who does have such training, such as a cultural anthropologist. We would get more for less money, and could hire lawyers if legal issues arose.

Laws don’t change cultures, leadership does. But leaders need information, and the crucial information here is cultural, not legal.

as of right now, the plan has been delayed:

City Council this morning delayed consideration of a contentious contract to hire two law firms to examine how the city handles allegations of workplace racism and sexism in the wake of several highly charged incidents in the Houston Fire Department in recent months.

Council members held up the contract for two weeks amid questions about the scope of the $190,000 contract, how law firms Thompson and Horton LLP and Lemond and Lemond LLC were chosen and whether their ties to the city and senior officials were too close.

hopefully, in the interim, someone will realize that a REAL INVESTIGATION needs to be done.

Blogged, Texas, Current Events, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: texas,wtf,racism,news,bigotry,houston July 24, 2009 @ 01:52 pm

it really IS about race…

i seriously do like mayor bill white and it’s things like this, which continue to justify my support for him…

The [Police] union asked White to order Chief Hurtt to drop the 1993 general order prohibiting Houston police from questioning residents about their immigration status, or reporting them to immigration agents.

White countered that Houston police now are inquiring about the immigration status of those arrested and booked into jail, and are seeking fuller access to federal immigration databases.

“I’m frustrated whenever any officer dies, but I would urge people not to judge the many by the actions of the few,” said White, who noted that more crime is committed by citizens than by noncitizens. “And understand our police officers are doing what their job is — arresting people so they can be convicted.”

the purpose of any police force should be to “protect and serve”.  “protecting” a community entails more than just arresting suspected criminals.  it involves keeping your community *at peace*, NOT creating a panic within portions of the community which could lead to desperate acts.  it involves treating your citizens (regardless of their residency status) as equals, NOT fostering a perception of discrimination. 

perhaps it’s just me, but i’m completely lacking the ability to identify on sight whether someone is “legal” or “illegal”.  (honestly, i don’t care either way.  i’m going to treat all people the same.)  however, what these anti-hispanic anti-non-white-european anti-immigrant anti-illegals groups are asking is for police to do just that.  spot people on the street who “look like” they might be “illegal” and then question their residency.  when they can tell me how it is they can do that without targeting people racially, perhaps i’d give them more credence, but they can’t do that.  because it’s really about race.  no matter how they try to justify it.

Blogged, Texas, Current Events, Politics, immigration, Comments (0)
Tagged as: texas,politics,racism,immigration,houston July 07, 2009 @ 10:20 am

dismantling voting rights, one case at a time

in a previous decision this year, the supreme court chose to limit the voting rights act, “ruling that provisions aimed at maintaining black and Hispanic influence at the polling place don’t apply in districts that are less than half minority.”

just a couple of months later, the supreme court could again limit provisions of the act, which was meant to protect the voting rights of minorities and end racial inequality in government representation.

Will the Supreme Court kill the Voting Rights Act?:

The case is Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1 v. Holder—shortened to NAMUDNO—and represents the most serious challenge to the act to date, and has become a lightning rod for debate over the role of race and racism in U.S. politics today.

The case started in 2006, when a largely white and wealthy utility district in Travis County, Texas argued that it should be excepted from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that a handful of states and counties—mostly in the South—must “preclear” any changes to voting procedures with the Department of Justice before they’re implemented.

Section 5 has been battled by conservatives, especially in the South, ever since. The 1966 case South Carolina v. Katzenbach went all the way to the Supreme Court, which affirmed that, while certainly a heavy-handed approach, Congressional action was needed to enforce the Constitution’s 15th Amendment protections against racially-biased voting laws.

The original NAMUDNO complaint made two distinct legal arguments: First, that the Texas district should have the right to “bail out” from the Section 5’s preclearance provision; and second, failing that, the entirety of Section 5 should be struck down as unconstitutional.

It was an odd place for Section 5’s biggest threat to originate. For example, the utility districts’ central claim is that complying with Section 5 is too “burdensome”—even though it has only cost the district about $233 a year. In contrast, last month the attorney generals of six states which face far greater “burdens” in complying with the Act—Arizona, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York and North Carolina—filed an amicus brief arguing that “the burdens imposed by Section 5 on covered jurisdictions are not onerous.”

But whatever its strange origins, NAMUDNO could be fatal to Section 5. The case is structured as an all-or-nothing—as election law guru Richard Hasen points out in Slate:

What’s especially worrying about NAMUDNO is that the case does not provide the court with an easy incremental way out: If a majority of the justices want to side with the challengers to the Voting Rights Act, there’s not much they can do short of holding the act as broadly unconstitutional.

And given the inclinations of the current Supreme Court, a complete take-down of Section 5 is a distinct possibility. As a Reagan lawyer in 1982, now-Chief Justice John Roberts spearheaded an effort to prevent expansion of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court’s Hostility to the Voting Rights Act:

Continue Reading...

Blogged, Current Events, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,racism,conservatives,voting May 14, 2009 @ 11:44 am

distrusting the police…

When white Americans are in trouble, they rarely hesitate to call the police. That’s because most of them trust the police. They rarely realize the significance during encounters with the police of their own protective “white” skin.

Many white folks also have trouble understanding the deep distrust of the police in other racialized communities. That’s because they fail to realize how quick many police officers are to harass non-white people, and how much less they tend to value non-white lives.

White Americans should listen, with sincerity and respect, to the reported experiences of others with the entrenched racist attitudes among the police, and the rampant abuse such attitudes inspire. They should also listen to the corrosive effects on non-white communities of the relative impunity with which police repeatedly harass, and murder, non-white people.

In the following short film, Stacey Muhammad’s “I AM SEAN BELL, black boys speak,” black Americans effectively explain their reasoned fear, distrust, and dismay regarding the police. I think that for starters, this film is perfect discussion material for all American classrooms. And any other gatherings that include white eyes and ears.

I AM SEAN BELL, black boys speak from Stacey Muhammad on Vimeo.

read further: Failing to understand when non-white people distrust the police

seen at sociological images

Blogged, Just for Fun, videos, Politics, Comments (1)
Tagged as: videos,culture,racism,bigotry,society April 17, 2009 @ 10:47 am

the more things change, the more they revert back

this is a few days old, but worth noting.

March 9 (Bloomberg)—The U.S. Supreme Court limited the Voting Rights Act, ruling that provisions aimed at maintaining black and Hispanic influence at the polling place don’t apply in districts that are less than half minority.

The justices, voting 5-4, struck down a North Carolina redistricting plan that sought to preserve minority voting power in a state legislative district that is 39 percent black. The high court said that district wasn’t covered by the “vote dilution” protections in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because minority voters could elect their preferred candidate only with the help of whites.

“Nothing in Section 2 grants special protection to a minority group’s right to form political coalitions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for three justices in the court’s controlling opinion.

The ruling, which will affect the way voting lines are redrawn after the 2010 census, may make it harder for minority candidates to win election in some voting districts.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented. Souter said the ruling will lead to districts that are more racially concentrated.

The decision will have the effect of “contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions in securing their preferred representation,” he said.

Kennedy said that dipping below the 50-percent threshold “would place courts in the untenable position of predicting many political variables and tying them to race-based assumptions.” He said that approach would raise “serious constitutional questions.”

Critics of the ruling questioned that reasoning, saying the upshot will be more racial polarization in voting.

The decision “seems to open the door to still more packing of minority voters into fewer districts so as to minimize the number of political races their votes will impact and thus diluting their political voice,” said J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, which filed a brief backing the North Carolina plan.

Defenders of the ruling disagreed. “The practical effect of this decision is to make it harder for politicians to gerrymander electoral districts by race,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Ralph Kasarda, who filed a brief opposing the plan.

and, of course, that’s exactly what the decision would mean.  section 2 of the voting rights act sought to end vote dilution.  there is absolutely no “equal opportunity to participate in the political process”, if districts are redrawn to make it impossible for a minority to be elected.  after this last election, it should come as no surprise that conservatives have tried to find a way around that.

from an article entitled “Voting Rights in Jeopardy”, which discusses what was then an up and coming revisitation of the voting rights act:

Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, barriers to black registration and voting were massive and crude. The entire white southern way of life was at stake. It was voting rights, more than anything else, that stimulated the 1964 Freedom Summer, voting rights that split the 1964 Democratic National Convention, and voting rights for which young activists gave their lives. In 1964, Mississippi had only about 7 percent of its black voting-age population registered to vote, with a voting-age population that was 36 percent black, Alabama, with a voting-age population that was 26 percent black, registered less than one eligible black voter in four, and Louisiana, with a voting-age population that was 28 percent black, registered less than one in three. In 1964, out of about 29,000 local, state, and national elected officials in the entire ex-Confederacy of 11 states, just 16 such officials were black, 3 of these state legislators and 13 local officials.

The 1965 act focussed entirely on the franchise. The act contained two sets of provisions, permanent sections that prohibited discrimination in voting, and temporary elements for enforcement, subject to renewal. The most important of these temporary features was Section 5 pre-clearance, which empowers the Justice Department to pre-clear any proposed changes in local registration and voting procedures. But there were also other temporary sections that barred specific impediments to voting and that provided for direct federal observation or examination of electoral processes as they occurred. This was the most basic takeover by Washington of local civic functions since Reconstruction; it was richly deserved and roundly resented.

No sooner was the law enacted than several southern state legislatures adopted programs of massive resistance to voting rights, much like the earlier massive resistance to school desegregation. States recast entire systems of representation in order to dilute black influence. They permitted or required county and municipal governments to create at-large voting for public offices, which submerged geographic black voting strength within a larger white majority. They changed balloting systems so that black voters were forced to vote for entire tickets, thus blocking any “single-shot” or “bullet-voting” by blacks for a liberal or minority candidate, which had been permitted previously in some jurisdictions. They pushed local governments to establish absolute majority vote requirements for winners, thus preventing plurality victory by a black candidate over a split field of whites. They converted elective offices to offices appointed by officials likely to have exclusively white support. Finally, states reapportioned legislative and congressional district lines to submerge black voting strength in white majorities.

yet, the supporters of this recent ruling, illogical asshats that they are (woo!  check out my non-ableist language!), would have us believe that would *never* happen.  yeah.  right.  and that civil war?  had *nothing* to do with slavery. 

Blogged, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,racism,conservatives,voting March 23, 2009 @ 03:11 pm