Some things never change. We're a self defeating bunch of nitwits

[JDPriestly]

94. I asked the question because I can see how a president can, through his appointments,

address income inequality.

Racism has been a reality in our country for centuries. A president can ask for changes to laws, and I can see how a president might reduce the militarism of police forces and investigate civil rights violations and bring criminal and civil charges against police officers at the federal level, but beyond that, a president doesn't have much control at this time over what goes on in local police departments. There is some federal funding, but not much. The brutality goes on even after the federal government tries to clean up the police forces and the prisons as it has in Los Angeles. Obama's work in this are has obviously been unsuccessful. Certainly as a Black president, he would be likely to emphasize racial justice in every way he could. He has two children who will eventually suffer from it one way or the other.

The president can do a lot more to set the stage for income redistribution. Obama could have done far more. He appoints the head of the Federal Reserve. He can push for the passage of bills of various kinds that encourage the economy. Obama has tried to some extent. Certainly his ACA, Obamacare has had some effect. When he first came to office he intentionally spent money to create a more vibrant economy (with the allocations of money from Congress).

But to actually deal with the racism that is in people's hearts and minds and that is causing the police violence is very difficult for a president no matter his or her race or opinions about race.

The arguments are not about racial issues. They are about what happened at Netroots Nation. No one here argues with the Black Lives Matter issue. It's just how and when they presented their issue. I'm a Bernie fan, but I did not get to hear much from O'Malley because he was not given a fair amount of time to speak.

I think, however, that the BLM demonstration and the reading of the names was very important. Fortunately, there is a video on DU in which the BLM case was presented far more effectively than it was by BLM itself.

Here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017280207

That was great. The problem with the demonstration was that angrily and aggressively pretty much grabbed the stage rather than allow the scheduled speakers to talk. The Netroots Nation could have organized the event so that there was a real discussion and not the appearance of conflict.

It is appropriate to demonstrate against people who are against you. But demonstrating against your friends is foolish. If you think your friends are not doing enough, you confront them about it but in a civil, rational manner.

I liked the fact that the BLM read the names, but because of the confusion, I could not hear the names.

In other words, it isn't really an argument about racism or the importance of fighting racism at every level possible. It is an argument about tactics and about being united and showing the world we are united.

As for the issue of racism v. economics. Both are important. The issue of police violence is urgent. It needs action immediately. It is too late to wait until the 2016 elections to do something about it. It's Obama who needs to pay more attention to that issue and right now. I think he is starting. Visiting a prison was a way to send a message.

On a personal note, I haven't seen you around for a while. It's great to see you again. Maybe I just missed you. I've been preoccupied with grandchildren and other projects so I might have missed you.