There seems to be a change in people’s attitudes toward the great racial divide. Mississippi has voted to remove the Confederate symbol from its state flag. The NFL has decided that taking a knee to express one’s support for Black Lives Matter is now OK (although they still have yet to mention Colin Kaepernick) and there is no room for any form of racism in the league (except of course when it comes to cheering on the Redskins). Even Aunt Jemima is getting a make-over (whatever that means).

Yes, it appears people are finally finding the moral courage to stand up, taking action and saying change is needed, but what is really behind the states, sports leagues and companies change of heart. Could there be another motive behind this new way of thinking.

It was back in 1955 (when America was great) that the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a civil rights campaign took place. African Americans refused to ride city buses in Montgomery, Alabama, to protest segregated seating which took place.

A group of black women working for civil rights, began circulating flyers calling for a boycott of the bus system the day Rosa Parks, who refused to give up a seat for a white bus rider, would be tried in municipal court.

At the time, African Americans represented nearly 75% of Montgomery’s bus ridership. At the beginning, the city resisted complying with the protester’s demands. To ensure the boycott could be sustained, black leaders organized carpools and the city’s African American taxi drivers charged only 10 cents—the same price as bus fare—for African American riders.

Many black residents chose simply to walk to work or other destinations. Black leaders organized regular mass meetings to keep African American residents mobilized around the boycott.

The boycott proved extremely effective with enough riders lost to the city transit system to cause serious economic distress. Many other factors also played a role in lifting segregated seating regulations. Legal skirmishes were fought with the case making its way to the United States Supreme Court who ruled segregation on public buses and transportation was against the law.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was not the only act of “civil disobedience.” The A.F.L. All-Star game was moved from New Orleans to Houston in 1965 after black players were left stranded at the airport for hours when they arrived in town. Once in the city African American players were refused cab service and in some cases those who were given rides were dropped off miles from their destinations. Other players were refused admittance to nightspots and restaurants, with many subjected to verbal abuse and a hostile atmosphere on Bourbon Street in the French Quarter.

New Orleans had been pitching an attempt to attract a professional football franchise whether in the A.F.L. or the N.F.L. for years. It took an additional two years after fumbling the A.F.L. All-Star Game for the city to bring enough change for them to get a NFL franchise.

Economic boycotts are nothing new. Countries have applied those tactics for years against each other with various degrees of success. America was founded, in part, by boycotting British goods under the umbrella of “No taxation without representation”.

So it’s no surprise companies, sports leagues and states are now embracing equal rights and Black Lives Matter. They can sense a movement and with that comes economic opportunity or ruin. When it comes to enacting change, the all-mighty dollar can be more of a powerful weapon than simply wanting to do the right thing.

It’s been a while since I posted here, but there is a lot going on in the world today. Between the COVID-19 pandemic, racial unrest and police tactics, the calendar feels like it should be 1967, not 2020.

It would be hard to know what to make of current events under normal circumstances, but these are not normal times. Take for example the executive order signed by Texas Governor Greg that closed all nonessential businesses including barber shops and hair salons.

The order was pretty clear there would be consequences for those not complying with the order…

WHEREAS, under Section 418. 173, failure to comply with any executive order issued during the COVID-19 disaster is an offense punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000, confinement in jail for a term not to exceed 180 days, or both fine and confinement.

A Dallas hair salon owner who had enough decided to take the law into her own hands and defied state and local orders for nonessential businesses to remain closed when she reopened Salon À La Mode. She tore up a cease-and-desist letter sent to her by local officials and was placed in jail (per Section 418.173).

The governor’s reaction? He tiptoed backward and eliminated confinement as a punishment for violating the executive orders and doing so handed the owner a get out of jail free card.

“Throwing Texans in jail who have had their businesses shut down through no fault of their own is nonsensical,” the governor said in a statement, “and I will not allow it to happen.”

Get that? She violated his executive order and he ended up saying that that his order was nonsensical (make sense?). Senator Ted Cruz was one of the first persons to visit the establish after it reopened (legally this time) and be coiffured and celebrate the violation of the executive order. One wonders if Cruz would have been that brave had the owner (who was white) been black or Latino.

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, who apparently was in such a desperate need of a trim said that he and other grandparents would be willing to risk their health and even lives in order for the United States to “get back to work” amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Yes, these are strange times. I am glad I don’t have to make the decisions our leaders are faced with, but in today’s hyperbole world of political gesturing, it would be nice for people to try to use a little common sense, but sadly that commodity is much like the toilet paper was at the start of all this.

Stop and Frisk has been in the news lately.

A stop-and-frisk refers to a brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that before stopping the suspect, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect.

The obvious question is what is a reasonable suspicion. Former New York City Mayor, presidential candidate and billionaire Michael Bloomberg has come under fire lately due to the New York City Police Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at times searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and other contraband.

Bloomberg has since denounced the practice, but questions remain as to his motivation other than now he is running for president.

While reading up on this story, it made me wonder about the Show Me Your Papers Bill, formally known as Texas Senate Bill 4 which mandates local jails comply with voluntary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests. The bill which was signed into law in 2017 also allows citizens to initiate investigations of alleged sanctuary cities and counties merely because the locality “endorses” a policy of non-cooperation with ICE.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled most of the law, except for a portion punishing officials who “endorse” sanctuary city policies, could go into effect while the case was pending in March 2018.

The lines can get blurred very quickly with both, stop and frisk, and show my your papers. The presumption of innocence comes into play when law enforcement does not need to obtain a warrant to search someone who is “suspected” of committing a crime.

I know that probable cause also comes into play (which is also protected by the Fourth Amendment), but again, while one person might feel there reasonable suspicion, another would disagree.

Many would argue that race is a major factor in both these situations and who is to say they are wrong. Much of the stop and frisk activity took place in poor neighborhoods mostly populated by minorities. My guess is the folks living on Park Avenue were not worried about being stopped.

While the immigration debate continues, an interesting study was conducted Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. It found only 1 in 3 Americans would pass the citizenship test which is administered to people interested in becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.

National polling found only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of the government (down from 38 percent in 2011). If you think that’s bad, 33 percent of Americans surveyed were unable to name even one branch of government.

Another poll performed by Lincoln Park Strategies found…

• Seventy-two percent of respondents either incorrectly identified or were unsure of which states were part of the 13 original states
• Only 24 percent could correctly identify one thing Benjamin Franklin was famous for, with 37 percent believing he invented the light bulb
• Only 24 percent knew the correct answer as to why the colonists fought the British
• Twelve percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War; 6 percent thought he was a Vietnam War general

Not surprisingly, the poll found significant gaps depending on age. Those 65 years and older scored the best, with 74 percent answering at least six in 10 questions correctly. For those under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed with the exam, with 81 percent scoring a 59 percent or lower.

Curious on how you would do? You can see the 100 possible questions with the answers by visiting USCIS.gov. The test is given orally with USCIS Officers asking the applicant 10 of the 100 civics questions listed. You’ll need to get six out of ten to pass.

Good luck!

“Marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas”

So reads the letter, signed by Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, and Attorney General Ken Paxton. It may not be decriminalized, but it sure has taken an interesting turn with the passage of House Bill 1325 this past session.

The so-called “Hemp Bill” took the drug off the list of controlled substances in Texas, as long as products such as CBD oil contain no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive ingredient that gives users their buzz.

So what’s the problem? It seems measuring the difference between legal (0.3 percent) and illegal (0.4 percent) requires very special equipment which is not readily available and expensive. Some estimates projected the equipment and training for 25 new employees to be around $5.5 million annually. Since no funding was provided, many district attorneys are delaying, or even dropping low-level marijuana cases.

The letter signed by Abbott, Patrick, Bonnen and Paxton went to say…

“Since H.B. 1325 did not repeal the marijuana laws of Texas, as Judicial Branch Members, you should continue to enforce those laws by ‘faithfully executing the duties of the office of the [District or County Attorney], of the State of Texas, and … to the best of [your] ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.”

The problem is lawmakers were told before they voted that H.B. 1325 was going to make prosecuting marijuana a lot tougher. The Texas Department of Public Safety testified to state budget officials the bill would need to be funded to work.  Democratic state Rep. Tracy King’s office was told that, without funds for new lab testing, the legislation would “essentially legalize marijuana.”

It’s all part of the “un-funded mandate” game. Austin makes the rules, then wants to local jurisdictions to figure out how to pay for it. Texas lawmakers take great pride passing tax cuts, implementing new laws, then screaming foul when local authorities try to figure out how to make it work, or worse don’t try at all.

With lawmakers approving a $250.7 billion two-year budget, could someone in Austin have listened a little more carefully to the people testifying and come up with $5 million?

Here is a question for you; what do  President Trump and actor Jussie Smollett have in common? The word “Exonerate”.

Merriam-Webster defines it is as…

1. to relieve of a responsibility, obligation or hardship
2. to clear from accusation or blame

When the long awaited Mueller report came out (we’re still waiting to see exactly what it said), U.S. Attorney William Barr, in letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote…

The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The president immediately took to Twitter saying…

It is not surprising the president would interpret the memo to his advantage, while others have looked at this saying there was not enough evidence to prosecute collusion, which people much smarter than me say that charge is very difficult to prove in court.

Now let’s head from Washington D.C. to Chicago where Empire actor Jussie Smollett claimed to have been attacked by two people in what was thought to be a hate crime.

When Chicago police investigated the attack, they determined he orchestrated the alleged hate crime in January on himself because he was unhappy with his salary on the show “Empire.” Smollett was arrested and charged with felony disorderly  conduct, but the story does end there.

A representative for Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose office was prosecuting Smollett, said,

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”

This of course led to the actor saying (through his attorneys)…

“Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgement.”

After the evitable fire storm hit the internet, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Mages (the lead prosecutor) told CNN affiliate WLS that dropping the charges did not mean the actor was exonerated. When asked whether he considered Smollett to be innocent, the prosecutor said “No.”

So where does that leave us? I would suggest on the road to nowhere.**

**a plan, project, development, or course of action that appears to have or offer no meaningful, desirable or useful conclusion.