Last week Michael Phelps taught me about championship perseverance, Rudy Giuliani schooled me down on never letting terrorists win, Colin Powell explained how American might can defeat all, and Steve Forbes showed me that despite what all the losers say, “there is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of our economy.”
Billed as the “Super Bowl of Success,” the day-long seminar held at the HP Pavilion in San Jose was named simply “Get Motivated,” and drew more than 10,000 people. Sitting in the penthouse suite my friends and I snuck into, I couldn’t help but feel that in spite of the pyrotechnics, the famous people, and the massive energy, which (I assume) can only be matched by a mega-church revival, this was a funeral for an old American way of thinking. It was a celebration of the rock-solid institutions of an American identity that once was—unbridled capitalism, Jesus, and winning—in the face of a new, changing, and confusing America. Phelps, Giuliani, Powell, Forbes and the rest of us came together for once last hoorah.
As America finds itself defined in era of re-invention—an Obama-led, green-obsessed, multi-cultural version of our former selves—we seldom ask what then becomes of the country we are departing from to embark in this new direction. The one that reveres its corporate lions and is proud of its super-powerness. It is a tough country to let go of.
That this old America would be so embraced in the heart of Silicon Valley, the espoused gateway to the future, is a telling indicator of how unsure these turbulent times have made us all. More than 10,000 people paid money, some over $200 each, to hear something, anything, that sounded like security, like the America that was clear, predictable, and had a simple logic in which the strong win, the weak loose, whether that be in geo-politics, an Olympic event, or on the company ladder.
This is not to confuse “Old America” necessarily with aged and white and “New America” with the rest of us. When we walked in, I thought it would mainly be people like the character Michael from the TV show “The Office”—white guys with titles trying to figure out how to edge out the competition. That was not the case.
At the beginning of the day, when the host invited us to say “good morning” to the people sitting next to us, to get to know “the movers and shakers of San Jose,” I introduced myself to the young man sitting next to me. “Hi I’m Raj,” I said. He replied: “Hi, I’m Raj too!”
My namesake was a 19-year-old Punjabi immigrant who works at a hotel full-time and goes to school at night. I asked him what got him to drive to San Jose from his home 45 minutes away at 7am on his day off, and he said, on cue, “To get motivated.” He had been on a sort of motivational circuit, having attended events like these whenever he could, and was still pumped from a recent Donald Trump talk.
Raj, being brown and young, was not out of place at the event; looking around I could see that most of the attendees were of color, a representative reflection of our minority-majority city. Immigrants, even as young as Raj, came to this country when it was Old America, and may have come to this arena looking for remnants of the nation they were promised.
And for sure, if only for one day at least, Raj, and the Michaels, and the recent San Jose State-graduate taking notes like the lecture was going to be on his final exam, got all the guts and glory we could handle. It was very Rocky IV, and had everything accept for Apollo Creed.
We heard Steve Forbes tell the story of how Wal-Mart and McDonald’s came to world domination and how we could too; we heard Giuliani explain how he drew on a football coach’s training to handle 9/11; and Colin Powell’s recollection of staring down Gorbachev. All while dancing to James Brown’s “I feel Good” in between speeches, and the intermittent request to accept Jesus. (Those that did received a free informational CD.)
It was Powell who was the most surprising, and the one who walked the balance of the two Americas the best, almost like a guide. He was charismatic and self-deprecating, cracking jokes about how he used to have a private 757 jet, and now gets felt up by security guards at the airport. He told a story of how, despite being the architect of the security apparatus that protects America, he worries of the “cost of that security.” He told us that all the talent from the far regions of the world that once would come to America now can find futures in their own homeland, that the presumption that all prosperity flows through the USA is no longer. We need to be able to able to draw in these minds and talents to be part of this fast-changing world, he told us. He felt at home in Silicon Valley, since he is now on the board of Google, and quipped that he, too, is “2.0.”
But the motivating speeches were more than just tributes to America’s principles; some of the messages pierced right through to peoples personal lives, and were as relevant as ever.
One of the only silent moments of the entire day was when Michael Phelps was asked what makes a great champion. He said, “Great athletes are the ones to continue on even when uncomfortable and injured.” Although no one in the audience could relate to reaching Olympic heights, this economy has made us all uncomfortable, and has injured most of us. It was a bit of Old America ethic that might we might cling to, as we navigate through the new one.
I have a question… who EXACTLY is Raj? I mean how did this guy get this gig? Who’s palm got greased.. he pops up here, and in the Merc, and a ton of other places, but his opinions are widely held as unpopular. So where did he get the “juice” from? Must be c lose friend of Cindy Chavez… hmmm
Raj was :“Sitting in the penthouse suite my friends and I snuck into,”
How utterly appropriate.
Raj is quickly becoming my only reason for visiting this site.
What an interesting take on the motivational get-down that happened last week. I had heard about it from different people in different areas in the Bay, and am wondering
even for the need and draw of such an event. It is timely, to say the least, that people need to find the sources of motivation at these hard times, and I can imagine that being among 10,000 people seeking the same thing gives assurance that we’re all not alone, and that at the end of the day, we’re all searching deep within to get us through whatever we need to get through.
On another note, Raj has independent thought and all you haters try to fit him in a box with liberal San Jose because you refuse to step out of boxes that keep your own thinking in compartments and therefore understandable. Are you surprised that a person of color like Raj can actually write and think and push a conversation beyond the usual liberal, conservative spectrum of things? Note: not everyone buys into political lines. If Raj did, he would’ve written an anti-Colin or anti-Rudy article—but he didn’t. He is a breath of fresh air to the hot air of “political” conversation. Please….check your own biases at the door.
These same success hucksters come to San Jose every few years, drawing crowds in good economies and bad. Drawing any conclusions about old or new America based on this event is a bit of a stretch.
Besides, is Michael Phelps at age 23 really part of “Old America” in Raj’s mind? I suppose if you define “Old America” as “…unbridled capitalism, Jesus, and winning…” then Mr. Phelphs with 14 gold medals has no place in Raj’s “New America.”
Fernando (#4) opines:
“On another note, Raj has independent thought and all you haters try to fit him in a box with liberal San Jose because you refuse to step out of boxes that keep your own thinking in compartments and therefore understandable.”
What kind of cognitive process is it that allows someone to put one group of people in a box (haters) in order to condemn them for their use of boxes? I was momentarily stumped, until I read on:
“Are you surprised that a person of color like Raj can actually write and think and push a conversation beyond the usual liberal, conservative spectrum of things?”
Now I understand. Fernando is a color-is-everything kind of thinker, one who evaluates Raj and those who oppose him based not on the content of their message, but on what he perceives as the color of their skin. Fernando is unconcerned that few of us really know anything about Raj’s racial background, but that doesn’t stop him from assuming that our criticisms of his posts are race-based. He is also apparently unmoved by the fact that our president, who took the majority of this community’s votes, is a person of color, how else to explain his suspicion that what is really behind our disagreements with Raj is our unwillingness to accept that a person of color can “write and think” and elevate the discourse beyond the “usual liberal, conservative spectrum of things.”
Best put that tired argument to rest.
I have seen little evidence that Raj has surprised anyone here, outside of perhaps the surprise of some over his obsession with police power. As for his pushing a conversation here, the truth is that he specializes in just the opposite. Raj has repeated posted things that are factually inaccurate, blatantly twisted, or unsupported by the evidence provided, yet he has shown no inclination to admit his errors, defend his perceptions, or provide the evidence to support his often incendiary allegations.
In short, Raj communicates like a graffiti vandal, thus making it easy to understand his popularity with lowbrows, the immature, and those suffering from an ethnicity based psychosis.
I find it disgraceful that Raj, who sees himself as a community activist, basically lying about our police departments for his own personal gain, does not mention any sorrow at the loss of 4 of Oakland Police Department’s finest at the hand of a monster.
Raj’s reaction to this event is indicative of a widespread and breathtaking ignorance and disrespect for the people, beliefs and principles that made this country great.
A spoiled and greedy people, inspired by an empty suit reading from a teleprompter, are only too eager to throw away “tired old ideas” like personal responsibility and individual liberty.
The salient feature of Orwell’s “1984” is on ominous display as the majority of the population wilfully and dutifully limits their own freedom and that of their fellow citizens in the name of the “greater good”.
More BS from Raj in his one-way conversation here at SJI…
#6,
Don’t make graffiti vandals look bad.
Fernando,
You seem to have convinced yourself that we “white people” on SJI are racist, and are judging Raj and his posts based solely on his race. The only thing people have said on here is that Raj is anti-Police, that he does not communicate ALL the facts when he is recounting things in his articles, and that he has rarely ever engaged in debate over his posts. ALL three claims are true. Care to debate that topic? Then you’re on because THAT is what is at issue here, not his RACE.
What saddens me most about you Fernando is that you are so blinded by your own racism that you can’t get it through your head that we are each unique, talented human beings, with much to offer, regardless of our color, culture, religion, or sexual preference. You must be very young, had some very bad experience with a white person, be very inexperienced in the world, or you have grown up in a home with parents who haven’t taught you how to view the world through anything but black and white glasses. Regardless of the reason for your hatred of whites, you are really only hurting yourself by behaving like this.
Speak your peace, walk your truth, but don’t play the race card Fernando, it’s an old tired card game no one wants to play.
Fernando #4—I have no knowledge of, or interest in, Raj’s skin color. It’s the obsessiveness and at the same time weakness of his ideas that is troublesome.
For weeks we have been railed by Raj with his hatred of cops. In this most recent post, he takes his pot shots at white people; not at ideas, but at white people.
So, Fernando, it’s OK to take pot shots at white people just for being white; but if you criticize people of color, you’re a racist?
Were you one of the guys that snuck in the luxury box with Raj?
#6 finfan wrote:
“…yet he has shown no inclination to admit his errors, defend his perceptions, or provide the evidence to support his often incendiary allegations”
This seems to be the case with all the Metro writers. They are just as aloof as the reporters at the Mercury News, unwilling to engage in any discussion with readers. SJI started off well but now feels just like every other decrepit newspaper’s web site. Too bad Tom McEnery had to sell out to such a haughty group.
#13 SteveO: I think you nailed it.
One reason I spend less time here lately is because other than PLO none of the SJI writers seem interested in dialogue with readers.
I don’t know if the new SJI team sees itself as above the fray, or maybe they just like to light the fuse and run like hell, but at times (and this is one of them) their silence tends to diminish their credibility, IMHO.
For a local blog whose stated mission is to: “encourage political debate, discussion and change in our city” it seems reasonable that the authors of articles hang around for the discussion with us civilians.
In SJI’s heyday we had Tom, Jack and Single Gal frequently jumping into “comments” with an additional thought, defending a position, or taking a few jabs back at critics. For me, and I suspect for others, that lively give-and-take was part of the reason I liked this site. Unlike other media, it allowed that level of personal interactivity.
These days, SJI is just another bookmark in my blog folder, and no longer the first one I look at. Too bad.
Racism doesn’t have to be spelled out for it to exist. That’s the magic of it—it’s between the lines.
Finfan, Kathleen, and the Pack—You guys all seem to presume to know my background and different than all of you and thus reach those same conclusions as Raj. It’s so interesting to me that if someone other than yourselves took a step back and looked at all the comments you make, you yourselves don’t question your own similar comments. What do you guys call yourselves together?
Oh yes, i forgot. You’re NOT together. You are the individualists who think independently and say everyone else who doesn’t think like you must be anti-cop, anti-government, anti-institution. Those of “US” who are anti-cop, etc… must have had some kind of “bad experience” that gives us a bone to pick. Have you wondered then why you must have “good experiences” with the cops or whatever institution?
Oh wait, let me save you the trouble of answering because I know what you’re going to say. YOU FOLLOW THE LAW. You all are law-abiding citizens of this country. You make complete stops at all stop signs!!
Well, you know what, so did Oscar Grant and look what happened to him. Killed for “resisting arrest”. Numbers and statistics don’t faze you—even when the Mercury News put out the numbers, which the police themselves colllect, on drunk-in-public arrests disproportionately weighing heavily on Latinos and people of color. It’s all THOSE people’s faults.
Yeah, keep riding on your carousels with your horsies that go up and down, round and round your realities. Enjoy the music.
#15- Fernando,
You presume a lot, with little to back it up. You are also very hypocritical when it comes to the way you behave. Rather than lecturing the rest of us on who and what you think we are, why not share your viewpoints on the topics? I’m open to looking at things from another’s perspective, if that person presents their views in a respectful way.
Oh my gosh, sounds like someone needs a nappy.
Kathleen
And you call what you said about what you presumed about my background “Respectful” when I said nothing about you and your background?
Yah, who’s the hypocrite now?
Fernando you really had me going there for awhile with all that bizarre “magic of racism” bullshit. Then it hit me. April Fool!
Good one Fernando. TooShay!
Fernando- Your statement of racism being “between the lines” is a very important point.
There are people who discard all possible variables and look only for race as an explanation for differences. It doesn’t matter what it is, mortgage applications, standardized test results, even drunk in public arrests in downtown San Jose.
It’s not their fault. Generations of people have been taught since the day they were born about racism. From their kindergarten teachers to their college professors, evenings on the local news, Friday night at the movies and Sunday morning reading the Merc. They’re taught about racism and they look for it everywhere.
The problem is that they’re not taught what it looks like, how to face it or overcome it. They’re only taught that it’s there. They’re taught one thing, victimhood. They are a victim of history, of a government, of a school system, of corporate greed, of a police force. It’s everywhere; you just have to look…“between the lines.”
I don’t doubt there may be discrimination in various places, it may or may not exist. However, I do know that in this day and age, the effects of any single discriminatory instance pales in comparison to the lesson of victimhood that has been pounded into a generation.
That single lesson has ruined millions of lives, and people like Raj who look only at race for an explanation of differences are ruining a life every time someone buys into their ideas.
Victimhood is the cause of many bad things in our community, and it is the reason for the current review of SJPD’s arrest records. Raj and people like him who continue to make race an issue, have an incessant urge to claim “victim” status. After all, it’s been glorified for years, it’s profitable and it’s all they’ve ever been taught.
Joe,
Your comment was very insightful. I may disagree with you on the level of racism’s existence and prevalence, but I agree that embracing victimhood is a paralyzing condition, whether along lines of race or other lenses. To look for what causes a condition is not enough. The piece I wrote was not about race, but was about the observations I took from that experience at the pavilion—that people (of all races) are looking for a certainty we are not sure exists anymore. We are living in interesting times.
And Im not sure who asked, but I do send my prayers to the families who lost loved ones, whether they be police or civilian, black or white. Thanks -raj
“Reality”—Are you saying that police officers’ deaths are at a higher standard than the people they themselves killed—Oscar Grant, Rudy Cardenas, Steve Salinas, Amadou Diallo?
And yeah, your boss the Police Chief said get back to work.
We had a big dog in the neighborhood that used to chase it’s tail. He’d make a hell of a ruckus barking and growling as he spun round and round.
I never could figure out why he did that, until reading this thread.
Hell, he just liked to chase his tail and it was someting he was good at.
Day in day out chasing one’s tail is what it’s all about. ENJOY!
Fido
Ya Raj, send your prayers as you continue to smear them in your columns. You cannot even fake sympathy for these officers!
“but I do send my prayers to the families who lost loved ones, whether they be police or civilian, black or white.” PATHETIC. They were police officers. Did you see the news?! It was the dominant story since March 21st. Like I commented earlier, your silence about this monumental Bay Area tragedy speaks volumes about who you are and your mission here. If this had been four black, latino, or asian males (to name a few) you would have been posting daily endless diatribes demanding protests at OPD. Did we see you in the pro Lovelle Mixon marches? I really wonder Raj…
#21: Raj – Welcome to the “Comments” section!
You may, at times, want to wear an asbestos suit here, but your participation in the follow-up discussion is welcome by this reader.
Hopefully some of your SJI colleagues will follow your lead.
#24 Carl:
In the case of Mixon, actually YES I AM. Apparently you’ve never heard of “Special Circumstances” re a capitol crime. Not in the case of Grant. Grant was obviously the victim of a negligent homicide and should not in any way be mentioned in the same sentence as Mixon. Sorry to see you are implying that they are on equal footing. I am not familiar with the others.
And ya, thanks for the compliment. BTW, your probation officer needs you to report. Your urine test is dirty,…no surprise
#18-Fernando,
We can agree to disagree. You want an argument I do not. I’m moving on.
#21-Raj, and SJI Readers,
Raj, I believe your sincere kind wishes to the family and friends of these slain heroes/Police Officers. I just need to say something here, even though I’m sure I’ll get hell for it. When an offender, like the guy who shot and killed these Officers, has done something so inexcusable, we must, as a civilized society, feel compassion for their family and friends. They too are suffering a loss, and they too have been victimized in a way we don’t truly understand.
Case in point, without going into too much detail, I had a friend whose husband got high and tried to physically harm some Police Officers. She didn’t know he had done it, until after he was arrested. She went through hell because of his actions. Her name appeared in the newspaper, after finding out her apartment was raided by Police, her landlord evicted her, and people treated HER like a criminal, even though she was the most law-abiding citizen I’ve ever met.
She suffered such public scrutiny, harassment, and embarrassment for a crime she had nothing to do with, that she attempted suicide. That of course never made the paper.
The bottom line for me is this; don’t be so quick to judge the family and friends of this murder. They are as heart broken, and as devastated as the family and friends of these Police Officers/heroes are. Let’s be a little less judgmental and a little more compassionate.
#24 Certainly Oscar Grant and Rudy Cardenas (he was the SJ crack dealer shot in the back while fleeing, right?) didn’t deserve to die as they did. Oscar’s killer will face retribution because he killed Oscar for the wrong reason. Oscar was no angel,had a lengthy criminal record, and he gets more praise for his death than he ever did for his worthless, criminal life. If Oscar hadn’t been shot, he may well have shot some innocent person later, so, except as far as his family and the limousine liberals are concerned, the world is better off without Oscar, and Rudy, too.They were both pieces of s*it who should NEVER be mentioned in the same paragraph as the OPD foursome that got shot by that major piece of s*it Mixon. But since Oscar and Rudy were shot for no good reason, suddenly they get canonized by folks like Raj and Carl, and Fernando. I’ll leave it to Jesus to forgive them for their worthless, criminal lives; but I’m not ready to do so.
And it ain’t got nuthin’ to do with their color. They were career friggin’ criminals that the world is better off without. But, since their particular time and method of death were apparently unjustified, folks somehow seem willing to forgive all their lifelong criminal activity. Not me.
So, I’m sure I’ll get all these responses branding me a racist. I am not. My opinion has nothing to do with their race. I just can’t stand criminals, no matter what their color or religion; and I don’t give a criminal a free pass because of his color. And I’m not real high on folks that make excuses for criminals, either.
As to Steve Salinas, Amadou Diallo—never heard of them.
Kathleen, I understand your desire to extend compassion to these families, however, as I am sure you know, many of these families encourage, facilitate, or simply turn a blind eye to the conduct of their criminally inclined. Of course not all, but in the case of Mixon, his sister’s (now in custody) statements about what was “normal” for them were quite revealing. It does no one any good to suppose many of these families do not share in the blame. In thoses cases when the parolee criminal is killed in the commission of a crime the family “suddenly” experiences an epiphony. In cases like those described, I generally just don’t buy it…
Kathleen:
I do understand your perspective based upon a fair amount of exposure to the parent’s families. Many are helpless, even after doing a great job as parents. I think these are the exceptions. It is a shame. Thanks for the feedback.
Carl, fyi a large majority of fair minded, straight thinking people simply support our police. Obviously you are not one. And yes, like more than few others have said, the world is better off without individuals who are selling drugs, raping teens, and carrying a gun. I do not need to walk in the shoes of Mixon, Cardenas, etc to understand them. They made a horrible choice and they are gone. Thank God. Too bad, as in Mixon’s case, he wrecked so much destruction before his ticket was punched. Carrer criminals love the sympathy of people like you. It gives them life, literally. If not for you endless weak sentiments our death row prisoners would not outlive the victim’s families.
No John MIchael O’Connor, you’re not just a racist. You are horrible, presumptuous, and who made you God to judge to say that basically the world is better off without Rudy and Oscar because they were “career friggin criminals”. Sure don’t give a criminal “a free pass”—you’d rather give them death, just “not as they did.” That to me is just evil. That’s why there’s sentencing laws—whatever they did, they did the time for it. None of them were on any warrants and that’s why they were out. You can’t say the world is better off without them because of 1) some kind of “crime” you THINK they’d do, and 2) you don’t even know who they are. You’ve never walked in their shoes.
And yah – Reality. thanks for the dope you sold me that’s made my urine test dirty. Make sure your Chief don’t catch you stealin from the evidence room.
Kathleen—i do not want an argument either. but to quote my 5 year old son, you started it.
HOWEVER, I am very sorry about your friend. My friend’s mother suffered under very similar circumstances because of an incident that involved her son and police. I appreciate you reminding everyone about the sadness that families go through during these times.
#29-Reality,
You have some very valid points I cannot deny that. Many times the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and many times these offenders/criminals do what they know. And like JMO said, I don’t give criminals a free pass either, even if it is a mother killing the person that molested their child, or a man who kills the man who raped their significant other. I may have sympathy for them, but I could not excuse them. A crime is a crime.
I guess I just cannot bring myself to punish family members and their friends for crimes they didn’t commit, nor can I have a harden heart when it comes to their grief. I’ve seen too many parents in my work through Victim/Offender suffer really badly because their kids screwed up and broke the law. I can only come to my opinion on this based on my own life experiences.
In defense of criminals, Carl (#30) asks of JMO’C:
“…who made you God to judge…?”
He then goes on to judge JMO’C, a law-abiding taxpayer, as a “horrible, presumptuous” racist.
From this I must assume that Carl either thinks he’s god, and thus free to judge, or Carl doesn’t think at all.
#31- Fernando,
)
Thank you for your kind words. (Say Hi to your son for me. He sounds like my kind of people!
My sympathies go out to your Mom and her friend. Loving a child, husband, daughter, family member, or friend doesn’t mean in good times only, and love doesn’t always mean you’re blind to their faults either. My nephews and nieces have gotten into their fair share of legal trouble, and if the truth were told, so did I when I was younger. Getting arrested and put on probation at 13 years old really embarrassed and hurt my parents, and the trust they put in me. Trust is something that is pretty hard to regain once it is lost. I guess that is why I went into the legal field; I never want youth to experience a trip to Juvenile Hall, or jail. And if they do, believe me, I work hard to convince them it isn’t a place they want to go back too. (One topic I’d love to see on here is how youth and their families have almost zero rights once they’re in the judicial system, and are sometimes treated pretty badly in Juvenile Court! God, once you’re in that system it is like stepping in quick sand!)
Any way I digress. It is really painful when people you love get in trouble, and when they are killed during the commission of a crime; the pain is just as bad for the offender’s family and friends as it is for the victim’s. Loss doesn’t discriminate loss is loss.
#33-Frustrated FinFan,
I think it is the later, Carl doesn’t think at all.
#31-Fernando,
My apologies its late. In my last post, I meant to extend my sympathies to your friends Mother, not your Mother’s friend.
Amen JMOC!
It’s amazing how no one is willing to call a spade a spade these days.
Do you think those judges would be so compassionate if they had to live in the ghettos made worse by their decisions? I highly doubt it.
Carl: You bet I judge people. Many problems with the society we have today is people are afraid to judge, afraid to condemn socially undesirable people for the worthless, and often evil, people that they are. Sadly, most of our liberal judges are also afraid to judge, despite the fact that judging is what we pay them to do, which is why so many pieces of s*it keep getting more chances to wreak havoc on society.
Mixon got another chance because of your precious sentencing laws and parole regulations, and four cops are dead because of it. Mixon was a worhtless pile of s*it his entire life, but because everyone was afraid to judge him he got out, and continued where he had left off. So what, Carl, we’re supposed to feel sorry for Mixon, we’re not supposed to judge him. Tell me the same thing when one of your family or friends get’s injured or killed by the Oscars, Rudys, and Lovelles of this world.
One of Oscar Grant’s Mom’s first statements to the media was that he was supposedly “starting to turn himself around”. Probably just the eternal hope of a Mom. But what is not spoken in that phrase is that even she knew that he had led a criminal life. Even she recognized her darling baby boy was no angel.
Should Oscar have died at the hands of the BART cop as he did? No, not even I think that. And that officer needs to be punished for that act, whether it was intentional or merely a mistake. Is the vast majority of the world better off without Oscar? You bet!
#21-Raj,
As you may or may not know, I am a mediator/arbitrator. I also work in Social Justice. Having said that, I have been thinking a lot about how and why SJI readers have reacted so strongly to your columns. (Readers both pro and con!) One thing that strikes me is that all through out history, the messenger has been the target of much criticism, and discourse. Hence the old saying, “Don’t shot the messenger!”
I think the messages you bring here through your opinion columns is not only healthy, it makes one think long and hard about where they stand on issues that they normally don’t deal with on a daily basis. It is also an opportunity for you, AND us to look within and grow and change, or simply refuse to acknowledge different ways of viewing things, and it is an opportunity for us to educate one another on these topics.
The only concerning conclusions I’ve come to about this is that these conversations don’t take place enough outside this blog, and if they do, they don’t seem to happen outside the media, where every day members of the public can take part. (Our media is so one-sided most of the time; it doesn’t help properly educate us on both sides in a neutral way so that we can form an informed opinion on things.) And because they don’t, you get some very powerful reactions.
Secondly, many times when these conversations take place in the real world, it tends to be amongst like-minded groups who aren’t being touched by differing opinions. And when it does, it isn’t handled in a respectful way. People start making the conversation personal, rather than a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. That saddens me because like-minded conversations, or personal attacks don’t allow for growth, consensus, or change. (Full disclosure here, I’ve been guilty of this a bit myself! But I’m working to change it and be more open-minded.)
So, Raj, thank you, and keep poking us with the ugly stick, we need it! And thank you also for being strong enough to weather the strong and healthy discourse that takes place on here! Whom ever said, “Youth is wasted on the young,” is very wrong about that!
I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism Kathleen.
To my mind the most telling post of this thread was Fido’s. The rest of us simply played our predictable roles in the zillionth reiteration of this futile dialogue.
One thing I’m pretty sure of though is that every time one of these discussions ends in a draw like this, Fernando’s side wins. The status quo cements it’s position just a little bit more firmly as the boundaries within which the discussion is allowed to occur are drawn in just a little bit closer.
Kathleen: I am afraid you are giving Raj FAR, FAR more credit than he deserves. He is not accountable for his remarks which is, in part, why he rarely responds to legitimate questions re his “articles”. His predictable grenade lobbing at the usual targets demands response. That is why debate follows. Raj is an agitator at best, and that is putting it kindly…
Kathleen #40,
Let’s not forget Raj’s first article about Mr. Joshua Herrera, a decent guy just trying to turn his life around in Raj’s eyes. In that article Raj forgot to tell readers that Mr. Herrera’s accomplice in a shakedown had just killed a 15 year old mistakenly thought to be in a rival gang.
Do you really think Raj is going to “…properly educate us on both sides in a neutral way so that we can form an informed opinion on things.” You need to hold Raj just as accountable as the media you so decry.
Kathleen #45,
I disagree that Raj does not run away. In a recent column Raj used Maria Castillo as a prime example of SJPD abuse and discrimination. Even after searching Google, I have no information as to what happened to Ms. Castillo. Despite a number of requests Raj has not responded to provide readers with the details necessary to understand how he formed his viewpoint. At this time, readers have Raj’s viewpoint but nothing else. With so little information it is impossible for thoughtful readers to be educated in any meaningful way.
#41- John Galt,
You are an excellent logician, and even when I don’t agree with you, I love the way you construct an argument to support your opinion. I feel the same way about Fin Fan and many others of you here on SJI.
Don’t be so pessimistic. When I first came on SJI, I thought you were too conservative. I have learned a lot from you, so truth be told, “An old dog CAN learn new tricks!”
I owe a lot to Fernando. He got me thinking about how I was so busy trying to understand the motivation behind his statements, and change his mind, that I wasn’t respecting his feelings or opinions. It also occurred to me that while Fernando and I may not agree on certain things, we did actually have common ground after all, once we put down our defenses. I thank Fernando for opening himself to me enough to do that, and for giving me an opportunity to, at the very least, consider his thoughts on the topic without having to totally agree with him.
You never know John, perhaps the reason Raj started working with Chief Davis instead of picketing him, or agreed to sit on a task force may in some small way have come from those of us that are caring, or feisty enough to impart our view points on him here on this blog. Raj may be a young activist, but so was I was once. In time, Raj will learn what I did, that being a successful activist like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and others like him, comes with collaboration, education, time, experience, negotiation, proper timing, and compromise, not through being publicly critical, or by being an agitator. As my Mom always said, “You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.”
Raj is a pretty intelligent young man; give him time to learn his lessons. Keep him on his toes, hold him accountable, and be tough on him because activism requires a lot of endurance, compassion, and collaboration with folks who DONOT agree with you, commitment, and strategy. And as you know yourself John, only those things come with age.
#42 Reality, and #43-SteveO,
First see my last post to John Galt.
Gentlemen, let me be clear, I did not say I agree with Raj all the time, nor did I say he should not be held accountable. SteveO, if you go back and read my post I never claimed Raj was accurate in what he says, nor did I say he was neutral or a good educator. What I said was that I am pleased that he is presenting us with a differing viewpoint to discuss, and that I applaud him for carrying a message very few people on SJI want to hear. It is the discussion and exchange of viewpoints that educates us, not the article or column.
Being strongly opinionated men yourselves, I think you can at least give him credit for standing by his beliefs, and not running a way from SJI with his tail between his legs. He takes a lot of heat from us and sticks around I respect that. He has the makings of becoming a good strong leader if he can do what he expects us to do, become educated and compassionate to a view that is different from his own, and go forward willing to work with BOTH sides to get a win/win solution.
As for Fido’s comment, dogs chase their tail because they get bored, and don’t know any better. The only reason the discussion on these topics is always circular is because everyone goes into the discussion close-minded. Dogs aren’t that dumb; they see excitement and a good challenge in everyday ordinary things like tail chasing.
Kathleen & SteveO,
I’m not too worried about whether or not Raj deigns to interact with us commenters. His opinion is of no more and no less importance than yours or mine. The way I see it, Raj and the other writers post articles on SJI and those articles are a great starting point for a community discussion.
MC evidently doesn’t think there’s any value in discussions that don’t involve low-level celebrities. Me, I regard it as a privelege to exchange ideas with “the people”.
#46-SteveO,
If he was running a way, his column wouldn’t be posted here, but I agree, he does not often come back and carry on discussions with us. Neither do the other Metro reporters.
SJI originals like Pete Campbell and Pierluigi do. I guess that is the difference between the old SJI, and the new Metro version of it.
Kathleen,
I would ask that you consider whether it is possible that, due to your unique life experiences and empathetic nature, you might not be as demanding of those who claim to be “fighting for the underdog” as you are of the rest of us, who claim nothing other than to be fully accountable for our words and deeds.
As a voracious consumer of information I keep an eye out for factual, analytical, ideological, and ethical inconsistencies, so that I might better discern the writer’s level of expertise, insight, objectivity, and honesty. I can’t learn from a writer who doesn’t know the subject material, reaches unjustified conclusions, hides his agenda, or disrespects the truth. I can be very tolerant of someone who is incorrect about an isolated fact, provided it is an honest mistake and does no significant damage to the perspective offered or the point being made. But when it become obvious that a writer has no respect for his readers’ desire to learn (or the investment of their time in his work), then that writer becomes, at least to me, an enemy of the truth.
When evaluating what Raj has to say about crime in San Jose the first thing that becomes obvious is that he thinks our police department is deeply flawed, a conclusion that he might have reached based on accurate information, inaccurate information, or due to his adherence to a particular ideology. If it is his intention to become a credible voice in this community it is his responsibility to provide a reasonable level of objective evidence (far less than academic) in support of the position he takes on a particular issue. This he has not done, despite challenges posted by numerous SJI readers. He has failed to supply the evidence to support some of his most damaging allegations; he refuses to objectively put in context the cherry-picked data he touts as incontrovertible proof; he has shown no inclination to either explain his failure to corroborate his charges or issue corrections, yet continues to press on with his campaign, undeterred.
Clearly, Raj practices a brand of discourse that has no commitment to the truth. This is not by accident. This is a strategy, one practiced at the national level by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and at the local level by Rick Callender. It is a strategy that relies on a complicit media, one that asks no hard questions, demands no corroboration, pursues no follow-up. Raj has taken up this strategy because his is a political ideology that cannot stand the light of honest inquiry; it is an ideology-turned-industry that relies on cooperative and naïve journalists, and feeds off of cowed, corrupt politicians; it is an ideology that worked best in the days before blogs, when public discourse was a one-way street, with all traffic directed by unprofessional journalists.
I doubt that a single person who has criticized Raj here wants anything less than the best from our police department. But wanting what is best and being led around by the nose by an ideologue with no credibility are two different things. I don’t think much of Raj’s intellect, but that is not why I object to his posts here. I object to them because they represent the spread of the disease that has brought this country to near ruin, that disease being the gross manipulation of public opinion through slanted journalism and outright lies.
#49-FinFan,
I respect your thoughts on this, and I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. Having said that, truth is really a subjective thing. I must point out that one’s own personal truth is not always ours, nor is it based on facts. Personal truth usually comes from our own personal experiences, our culture, the way we have been raised, whether we had good or bad parents, did we come from a two-parent home, a home with gay parents, what our education level is, our age, and many other factors. To me, I see Raj as writing a column based solely on HIS personal truth, struggles, viewpoints, beliefs, and ideals, NOT the facts. That is why I don’t consider what he says gospel. But what his columns do for me is they make me curious enough to LOOK UP the facts, so that I can educate myself on the issue he is writing about. Bloggers like you, Steve, JMO, John Galt, Reality, etc. also help steer me toward finding those facts.
The bottom line for me is this FinFan; I work with youth offenders, in the judicial system, and in Social Justice. I know a lot of what you are saying is true. I could even add on to the topic of the outrageous hypocrisy, and politics of those claiming to want equal rights for all, and those who claim they are victims of Police brutality because they were shot for doing something unlawful, like raping a child, but the reality is FinFan, even Police Officers I’ve spoken with have told me that some of the polices and training they endure, and receive are not only putting their lives in danger, but that they think politicians play too big a part in making decisions on things they have ZERO knowledge or expertise in. And when you add in all these touchy feely trainings these soft on criminal groups demand be added to these trainings, you have a lot of Officers being so paranoid of screwing up on PC requirements, that many just turn a blind eye on petty crime.
Some Police Officers are also fed up with everyone ignoring the fact that they are dealing with a new kind of violent offender. Criminals are younger, and more violent than in past years. They are more inclined to use dangerous weapons than before, be high on something during the commission of a crime, and that understaffed Police Departments are out numbered by the enormous amounts of criminals on the street today. (Our State is and will be releasing hundreds of criminals into our neighborhoods because courts are demanding they do, due to lack of space to confine them in. Now won’t that be fun for the rest of us!) No one talks about that being a huge contributing factor in why Police Officers have a zero tolerance mentality toward criminals. FinFan, Raj needs to be educated on those facts, and so do his cronies who come on here screaming racism at us. If you and others on SJI would make our conversations toward educating Raj and his friends on the facts instead of going around in circles about what he believes and why, tail chasing would become a more exciting thing, with one of us actually getting the tail caught!
I agree with Raj in one very important area, CHANGE needs to happen! Police Departments, and law enforcement agencies need to be in CHARGE of what changes need to be made. I have a deep abiding respect for our Police Officers, have no doubt about that, but I disagree that Police Officers walk on water all the time. They are human beings first, and Public Servants second. They are facing horrific things on our streets today, so please don’t mistake me for an old softie working in Social Justice who would lay down my life for the rights of a criminal because if you think that, you’d be very wrong about that!
#49-FFF,
Arguing facts with Raj is only one thing we need to do. We need to follow Kathleen’s advice and educate Raj on what the Police face everyday, and why we support some of their unpopular practices. Don’t get caught up in the minutia of his argument. SJI bloggers who don’t agree with Raj should keep their posts on track rather than making it a personal pissing match.
I wanted to see what folks thought about the editorial and two news articles from the Mercury News today which seem to agree very much with what Raj has been saying all along about police needing oversight:
From 4/5/09 Mercury Front Page
—-Policing in San Jose: Strict enforcement of ‘conduct crimes’; are Latinos targeted?
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12073517
then
—-Editorial: Arrest data reveal troubling pattern by San Jose police
http://www.mercurynews.com/editorials/ci_12073571
—-Cops were in error, but San Jose family was cited for resisting arrest
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12057253
If jmo, finfan, sweezy, steve0, john galt, steve, and reality go straight to ad hominem attacks against Sean Webby (investigative journalist and author of the front page article above) then I think Raj and the rest of us can pretty much shrug off the baying of reactionary anti-intellectualism that sometimes keeps me away from this site.
Thoughts?
It’s pretty plain that Raj has an agenda. But he is trying to convince us that his opinion is factual reporting. Because he is trying to convince us of something, to mold opinion, he uses only those facts that reach his pre-set conclusion. That can be OK if one is writing an opinion piece. To disguise it as news reporting is where Raj goes wrong.
And when questioned, he rarely responds. He’s quite convinced that he’s always right.
#52 The difference between SJ & SD is striking, and SJ comes out on the losing end. However, I’ve been in both places, and there is a huge difference in the crowds you see in Gaslamp and the crowds you see in DT SJ. The thug element is much higher here than in San Diego.
The actions of the police in the Barrera incident written about in yesterday’s edition are unjustified; especially the cop who decided he was judge and jury, that Mr. Barrera “deserve[d] to eat dirt”. He needs to realize he arrests, and other parts of the system decide if there is a case, and fix blame. At a minimum, that cop should be suspended without pay and get some training in his job description. He may not be suited for police work. The cop in Texas who held up the NFL player at the hospital resigned. Maybe that cop should do the same.
As for the rest of the dozens of officers who converged on the wrong house, there needs to be confirmation before they bust down the door that they are busting down the correct door. Command and Control failed miserably in the Barrera case. yes, it was a simple human error, but serious results came from it.
Maria Barera opened the door and asked what the police wanted and did they have a warrant—both reasonable questions, both of which should have been answered. Under the circumstances as reported (which may not be the full facts, since Mr. Webby, like Raj, has a clear agenda) no resisting charges should ever have been filed. It’s a means to intimidate the victims into silence.
But the unwritten assumption of Mr. Webby is that the Barrera case is typical. He’d have us believe that all dealings between police and minorities in SJ are the same. That is clearly not the case.
His unstated assumption is that all Hispanic people arrested in SJ are indeed innocent of any crime. He can’t back that up, of course, since it’s not true.
I am not sure I agree with the conclusion of Maria Barrera that if they had been white the result WOULD have been different. This was a domestic violence response. Those are the most dangerous for cops. Indeed a couple of cops died just the other day somewhere in the US responding to a domestice violence call. On the other hand, when a woman with no obvious injuries answers the door, the cop at the door should at least have responded to her questions.
What is far more shocking than the Barrera case, where no permanent harm was done, is the case reported of the guy who spent five years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, was later found FACTUALLY INNOCENT by the Court of Appeala, and the AG is fighting his claim for compensation.
MC, Kathleen, Christian and JMO,
Appreciate the invitation to get in on the comments conversation. Im open to learning from your perspectives and knowledge, just as I am by reading the other SJI posts. I’ve actually learned alot, even from the more accusatory comments, just in the short time Ive been with SJI. – thanks -raj
54: hey, Raj, welcome to Dialogue.
Confessions of an “anti-intellectual”
As one of those charged, by Downtownster, with the crime of anti-intellectualism, I have no choice but to plead guilty. Having been afforded incalculable opportunities to join with Raj Jayadev, Sean Webby, the Mercury News Editorial Board, and others, in the rush to judgment of the police department, I foolishly resisted and instead called for data to be analyzed in context, reasonable proof for unproven charges, and the acknowledgment that inevitable human error is not synonymous with a racist conspiracy.
It was disgraceful on my part to infer that the disproportionate representation of Hispanics in murder, rape, robbery, gang membership, teen pregnancy, and school dropout statistics should go far to explain their overrepresentation in disturbing the peace and resisting arrest data. Similarly, I should have never wondered aloud if the Hispanic arrest rates might have something to do with the disproportionately youthful age of their population—their overrepresentation in the age groups most likely to be arrested. I now realize that I should have taken the intellectual approach and immediately concluded that our police officers are racist.
I hang my head in shame for recommending caution when encountering unsubstantiated stories of abusive officers, for suggesting that an isolated error by one officer should not taint the entire profession, for even considering that the police could ever be fair to people of color.
The only way that I believe it possible to make up for my gross misconduct is to undergo a lobotomy, so that I might learn to think like an intellectual, learn to jump to hysterical conclusions like a liberal, and learn not to judge on the content of one’s character, but on his skin color.
A Raj sighting! Wow,…Kathleen great idea. Yes Raj,….please tell us all WHAT you have learned.
finfan #57,
Might I suggest instead a fifth of Jack Daniels?
I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
59 – Stop stealing my material—or at least get it right. It’s “Id rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.”
#60—
Tom Waits was not the one who originally said that. It was a novelty song back in the 70s. and the quote goes back probably even farther…
-gary
I should have said, if you are going to steal my stolen material…
Sorry Tom. I only said it that way because I haven’t been “pre”approved.
Kathleen and Reality,
for one learned that political discussions like this are even going on between civic and community leaders, community members, and elected officials. I didn’t know about all these blogs, and the debates that go on within them.
Second, I learned that blogging seems to have its own rules of engagement—that presumes that you rep a political “agenda.” I was surprised when there were all the comments about being a communist, etc. I understand the name calling, I guess thats part of the blogging culture, but the left versus right as the only framework people operate in was unexpected for me. Most of the conversations I have offline aren’t that way. And ofcourse, alot of people who have a different perspective on issues like police practice, immigration, etc. on SJI then the ppl Im around. Just a start, but yah, I’ve been learning alot about how ppl talk politix in SJ.
#54-Raj,
Please share with us what you have learned.
#64-Raj,
Thanks for your comments. I was more curious about what you’ve learned from posters if anything, that would alter the way you are viewing the Police and their practices. Are you trying to do more in the way of collaborating with the Police, rather than criticize them? What happened to hiring a new IPA?
Raj, you do realize that criminals out number the Police, and that the State is releasing harden criminals on to our streets due to prison over crowding right? And you do realize that criminals are more likely to be high, armed, and more violent than ever before right? So what do you expect the Police to do when a young man in a group is refusing to move, or follow a Police directive? Should the Police take action to get the problem resolved or evaluate the race of the person before he/she decides it is time to take action? Or do the Police have to start having cameras everywhere they go to protect themselves?
#64 Raj-
Are you this naive or are you playing the victim card? I think it is probably more the latter.
Agenda?! No one here needs to presume if you have an agenda or what that agenda that might be. ALL of your “articles” make that pretty damn clear.
Looks like you have suffered from insulating yourself with far left socialists like yourself and have never had your BS put to the test. Well, welcome to the real world. You’ll have NO FREE SOUP here.