Chris Rock: "How not to get your ass kicked by the police!"

I have been advised never to offer advice about racial matters.

I don't have standing.

Regular readers of this blog know I am a moderately prosperous White male, born into the heart of the Boomer generation. I grew up in a stable, middle class nuclear family with great parents. I am healthy. I am the luckiest, most privileged person in America--if only I had been taller and better looking. 

I make observations and give political advice to Democrats because I am one and feel entitled. I want Democrats to be better at politics and message. I give advice to Republicans, which they ignore, to their peril. They don't think I am one of them.

I am warned not to give advice to Black people, women, gays, Hispanics, young people, poor people, or anyone not like myself. People on the left tell me I cannot possibly understand them. There is no safe harbor of words or tone that won't come across as condescending. Or lecturing. Or "mansplaining." Or something-phobic. The messenger shapes the message. I get that. Marco Rubio can say things about the Cuban immigrant experience that Joe Biden cannot, even if it were the same words. Whatever Pete Buttigieg says is understood as coming from an intellectual elite. If Buttigieg began dropping the "g" in a word like "going" and tried to sound down-home casual, it would look as phony as John Kerry going duck hunting in camouflage.

Comedian Chris Rock can give advice to Black men. He made a funny video on how to handle police encounters: "How not to get your ass kicked by the police." He advises:  

Don't break the law. What laws? Car-jacking, armed robbery, arson, armed robbery, selling drugs, buying drugs, stabbing, shooting. Don't jump over subway turnstiles, either.

Don't run from the police. "Rodney wouldn't have gotten his ass kicked if he had just followed this simple tip. When you see flashing lights in your rear view mirror, stop immediately. Everyone knows that if the police have to run to get you, they're bringing an ass-whipping with them."

Turn off loud music in your car. It annoys people.

Be polite, when talking to the police.

Stay in your car with your hands on the wheel.

Don't give rides to friends who carry drugs, firearms, or have arrest warrants.

Don't let that friend be angry and obnoxious. 

If you have to give a ride to a friend, make it a White friend. "A White friend can be the difference between a ticket and a bullet."

If your woman is mad at you, leave her at home. "A mad woman will say anything" to get you in trouble.

Rock doesn't deny or defend prejudiced policing and the potential for rough police treatment. He assumes it. In that sense the video is still current, even in this post-George-Floyd era.

But the video is dated in that Chris Rock is not making this about Black grievance against prejudiced and maybe-brutal policing. Chris Rock says something I am not entitled to say. He says Blacks have agency. They have the ability to obey laws. It is just common sense, he says. They also can shape events in an encounter with the police. They have the power to be law-abiding, polite, cooperative citizens. It is the smart way to handle the situation. He summarizes: "If you follow these simple pointers, you probably won't get your ass kicked."

But don't all citizens, Black, White, Hispanic, have Constitutional rights, including the right to be obnoxious and provocative? Yes. But it is foolish and dangerous. 

The video is funny. Note that it contains profane language. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]

Notice to commenters

 Sorry, but the troll is back.

I will once again moderate comments.

It is as big a nuisance to delete the candidate’s comments when they appear as it is to moderate comments and delete them beforehand.  My liability is lower this way. When unmoderated, I was in constant danger that he would use this blog to post obscene or defamatory words about the Medford School Board, local journalists, local officials, or to fellow commenters. When unmoderated he could post “confessions” falsely signed by other people. I can stop those before they are seen.

Easy Sunday: Whitewashing American history

Florida W.O.K.E. Law:

 Schools must avoid curriculum that makes people "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish" because of past actions done by people of his or her race."

Studies Weekly publishes short articles on topics in social studies for young students. It is revising its material to meet the requirements of Florida law.

Current material:  Addresses Rosa Parks' race and why she was required to give up her seat.

Initial proposal for approved text: Leaves out her race and why a White person had a right to her seat, i.e. the segregation laws in effect. Leaves out that she was arrested.

Updated text to be certain to meet Florida law: Leaves out any mention of race, or the law in effect, or why she was told to move, or what happened to her.

I consider the W.O.K.E. Act oddly self-defeating in its effect. If a goal of teaching American history to children is to create patriotic pride in a country making progress toward "liberty and justice for all," then it makes sense to show the problems of the past, not to hide them.

[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]

A brand expert looks at Fox.

"Fox Opinion chose to reflect Trump, the person."

Brand expert Tony Farrell says this was a mistake. He says Trump-the-person is a fad. 

A stronger Fox brand is to be the "anti-woke warrior voice for the overlooked American,” without Trump.

Americans who monitor Fox to understand its influence on GOP voters and officeholders are seeing an organization in quiet crisis. Fox's problem isn't the revelations that Fox voices lied to their viewers. Fox viewers don't hear a word of that. The crisis is that they are attempting, as Abraham Lincoln put it, to change horses in the middle of a stream. They are switching from Trump to Trumpism-without-Trump. Yet Trump himself isn't going away. Indeed he is a very visible candidate for president, saying things Fox viewers like. No one does Trumpism quite like Trump, and viewers still like to see the man himself.

Tony Farrell is a college classmate. He had a long career as a brand strategist at The Gap, Sharper Image, and The Nature Company. He handled the marketing for Trump Steaks. He finished his career in the toughest of big leagues in marketing, the direct-to-consumer space, i.e. infomercials. 

Tony Farrell with Robbie the Robot at The Sharper Image

Farrell's comment below distinguishes "Fox News" from "Fox Opinion." My own observation is that, especially now with the departure of Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith, the two voices of Fox have merged. It is all opinion consistent with the central Fox narrative. The news hosts can no more offend their audience than can the opinion hosts. So they don't. If the news on January 6 or the Dominion lawsuit or anything else contradicts the Fox narrative, the news people simply don't cover it. They just double up with another story about Hunter Biden.

Guest Post by Tony Farrell

Commenting on Dominion’s lawsuit that exposed private communication among Fox hosts and executives, Peter wrote (on March 8) that Fox’s apparently hypocritical behavior (broadcasting false claims of a stolen election despite their personal disbelief) was “cynical, immoral, dishonest but good business” as Fox strived to protect its brand as a “cheerleader” for Trump. 

Peter asked me to think about aspects of this.

Let’s start with a basic question: What is a brand? Its many definitions can be long, multifaceted and confusing if not impractical. I’ve found the most useful definition to be the simplest: A brand is a promise. 

A promise that depends on trust and, ultimately, the consistent truth of the promise made.

One example: Apple promises elegant design in service of ease-of-use. For many, this was embodied in the person of Steve Jobs; he was the brand. But Apple products continue to deliver what Jobs imagined and created. Ultimately, a strong brand must stand on its own legs, and not that of a single person.

Another: Disney promises superior storytelling and family-friendly entertainment. For many, this was embodied in the person of Walt Disney (as the company lost its way after Walt’s passing, that seemed to be the case). But ultimately Disney rebounded to deliver on its brand’s promise. Disney’s brand remains strong without Disney himself.

I mention those two specific examples because both individuals and companies can have brands; no one disputes Donald Trump is a brand—let’s say he promises to be the “anti-woke warrior voice for overlooked Americans.” 

But Trump, the person and the brand, is not the Republican Party. One result, now, is a GOP with no brand; no promise; no consistent truth. And Fox failed to create a brand apart from Trump, the person.

(For this, I separate Fox News from Fox Opinion. If this is a story of hypocrisy, Fox News is practically innocent; the firing of Fox News truth-tellers—such as its election forecaster—validates that.) 

The exposed hypocrisy hits only the Fox Opinion hosts, but I do not think it’s the hypocrisy that hurts them. (Many brands, such as JFK’s, can pretty much survive private revelations.) And as Peter highlighted, the Fox audience will be largely misinformed and uninformed about the Dominion exposures. The serious sin against “brand” for Fox Opinion was their loyal devotion to Trump as a person—comparable to the loyalty demonstrated at his rallies—in a way that was unprincipled and short-sighted. (Only on the rarest occasions was Trump ever criticized by any Fox Opinion host.) 

It was this loyalty that forced Fox Opinion to follow Trump down the stolen-election rabbit hole. So, I would not call their loyalty to Trump “cynical, immoral, dishonest” (or even hypocritical) because Fox Opinion was always nothing but a mirror of Trump’s followers; a cult of personality. 

The fact that Fox garners more viewers than all its competitors combined also argues for thinking this strategy was good business in the short term. Trump was a singular phenomenon—akin to a runaway bestseller for a publisher; a mega-hit movie for a Hollywood studio; a Razor Scooter fad (which I enjoyed when at The Sharper Image). Phenomena like these have nothing to do with “brand.” But for Fox Opinion for the last five years, Trump (the person) was the pseudo-brand they adopted. Otherwise, Fox did not have a brand.

From a marketing point of view (and I do regard Fox as an entertainment enterprise when discussing its business), one of the sagest marketers I respect advised marketers to “not attempt to change minds, convert the ignorant, resistant, disagreeing people; that’s a fool’s mission.” Instead, “say things to people that reinforce and validate what they already believe.” Another marketing guru, Al Ries, wrote “Changing minds in our over-communicated society is an extremely difficult task. It is much easier to work with what’s already there.” Fox Opinion, realizing how their audience grew along with Trump, decided simply to ride that wave and not spend any effort to change any minds, no matter what. Trump’s the brand; let’s go with it.

Fox Opinion chose to reflect Trump, the person, back to his huge audience of followers; all those anti-woke disaffected ones; all those aggrieved and overlooked Americans. In this sense, Fox Opinion was not a brand apart from Trump, the person. And when Trump veered into crazy fantasy (as Fox hosts saw his stolen election claims), they were correct to say they had to follow him, or else pay a huge penalty in share and profits and (let’s say it) their own employment!

Fox News and Fox Opinion must find a way to establish their own brand, and it won’t be far from where they imagined they were, in mirroring Trump and his cult followers. Fox can adopt the role of “anti-woke warrior voice for the overlooked American” without Trump. As Trump fades and others assume his role in the political sphere, Fox can be there. 

There’s plenty to hate about wokeness; huge audience there! Fox just needs to establish a brand that is independent of any personality. That all said, it is very unlikely they will ever return to the glory days of Trump. Enjoy the fads when they happen! But you can’t just create them.

[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]

Report from Florida

Two liberal Democrats from Massachusetts moved to Florida

They have their eye on Ron DeSantis. 

Two people about my age moved from a Boston suburb to Palm Beach County, Florida, the home county of Mar-a-Lago. They like the weather, but they still aren't adjusting to the politics. America isn't rid of Trump, they tell me, because DeSantis is the new Trump. Today's Guest Post is doing what Trump is doing, slamming DeSantis.

This report from Florida is a respite from what readers usually find here. I strive to be non-partisan and journalistic. I condemn Trump-style authoritarianism and flagrant rule-breaking, of course, but I spend at least equal energy warning Democrats about losing touch with middle America, especially people in rural areas. (That is why a dangerous Trump has done as well as he has.) In this Guest Post the husband lets loose with full-on contempt for DeSantis and the people who support him. He likens DeSantis to a python, and he warns that the python is headed north.

Once again, I depict the couple with silhouettes. The husband tells me they want to stay under the radar of neighbors, internet sleuths, and whatever Deep State spyware Trump's FBI managed to install. He admits to being a college classmate. 

Guest Post: Commentary from Florida

Ron DeSantis, the second coming of Donald Trump, is on the loose and coming to a state near you soon. He is a man driven by vaulting ambition and the kind of unbound over-reaching ego that knows no humility. DeSantis wants to make over wherever you live into his vision for all of America - the dreamland that is Florida. 

Ask yourself if that’s truly something you want – a state that’s marching steadily backward toward the 1950s. It is a place and era where, to paraphrase Garrison Keillor’s description of Lake Wobegon, “All the people are white, all the men are in charge, all the women are subservient and dutiful, and all the children are taking up space in school while their education is being whitewashed."  Sadly, Florida is lurching into deeper Red, where the repugnant reprehensible repulsive irresponsible reptilian morally-arrested Republican party is taking over. They are much like the plague of Burmese pythons that has invaded the state and is progressing northward. Pray that both forms of reptile get stopped at the Georgia and Alabama borders.

So here’s a commentary on Governor Ron in the form of lyrics to a song meant to be sung to the melody of the song that inspired it, “Here’s To The State of Mississippi.” It was written and performed by the brilliant but sadly deceased 60’s political protest singer Phil Ochs. I thank him for the inspiration and the one semi-plagiarized line plus the chorus.

Phil Ochs

If you want to get the melody in your head for the lyrics that follow, or just hear Ochs’s blistering takedown of Mississippi politics and mores in the mid-1960s, here’s a link: https://youtu.be/K7fgB0m_y2I   

Here’s To The State of Ron DeSantis”

 

Here’s to the state of Ron DeSantis.

If you’re a Black American your history’s a joke.

His biases he tries to hide beneath his governor’s cloak.

His hatred is transparent in the racist words he spoke. 

Watch out if he gets close to you you’ll want to gag and choke.

 

(CHORUS) So here’s to the land you’d tear out the heart of

Ron DeSantis find yourself another country to be part of.  

  

And here’s to the self-image of Ron DeSantis.

Envisioning himself to be the savior of mankind

So self-absorbed and egomaniacally inclined.

A god-like figure sent to earth advertisements opine

More Trumpian than Trump himself to those who are not blind.

CHORUS

 

And here’s to the government of Ron DeSantis.

The legislature cowers when the big man is in town

They quickly pass initiatives that sanity’d shoot down.

He’d outlaw woke and wokeness as an adjective or noun

His speeches as the governor are the ravings of a clown.

CHORUS

 

And here’s to the humanity of Ron DeSantis.

He’d exile the transgendered to the shores of Molokai 

And really wouldn’t care much if they live or if they die. 

The idea that they’re normal’s just another foolish lie

No point to argue this with such a phobic-riddled guy. 

CHORUS

 

And here's to the schools of Ron DeSantis.
The history they’re teaching has a hundred thousand gaps
Curricula straitjacketed, the textbooks under wraps.

The kids cannot think critically, they might as well take naps
And soon the only thing they’ll use are Ronny-approved apps

CHORUS

 

And here’s to your health with Rhonda Santis.

Vaccines? Absurd! It’s all a hoax! So what if people die?

The very thought of public health is just a vicious lie.

Your uterus is not your own (Thank God that I’m a guy!)

You’ll have that kid, by God! (Whose god?) Don’t deign to question why.

CHORUS

 

So here’s to the fraud that’s Ron DuhSantis.

His first amendment rights are fine but don’t critique our Ron

His defamation legislation’s not an idle con.

Your right to say what’s on your mind will find itself withdrawn

If you take on the governor, your rights will soon be gone.

CHORUS

 

[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

The liberal case for a big new jail

We need jails. Some people are dangerous.

Jails aren't cruel and unjust. Overcrowded, undersized jails are cruel and unjust.

A national news story is the fate of the people locked up in D.C. jail because of their roles in the January 6 attack at the Capitol. They claim the place is a hell hole. They complain it is overcrowded, noisy, and dangerous. In fact, those inmates have it relatively good. They were moved from the D.C. Central Detention Facility (CDF) to the lower-security Central Treatment Facility (CTF) across the street. But I do not doubt that their situation is still miserable. That is the nature of jails in America.

Jackson County jail. Nice from the outside.

Jackson County, Oregon has its own overcrowded, miserable jail. It needs to be replaced. This jail replaces another, smaller and much worse jail that served the county 45 years ago. The then-current jail was so overcrowded and inhumane that its condition was indefensible. The county signed a consent degree to stop adding new inmates. The county commissioners back in 1978 appointed a citizen's committee to advise them on the size and design of a new jail, the current one. I was 28 years old, a local boy returned from the east coast, an aide to a Democratic congressman. Perhaps the commissioners thought someone like me would be a liberal voice on the committee that included several cops, or at least give "liberal credibility" to the advice the committee offered if we had a consensus.

The committee listened to jail architects on where best to place guard stations so there would be sight lines in multiple directions, thus reducing staff requirements. We looked at issues like natural light, prisoner safety, prisoner hygiene, visitation spaces. The committee had consensus that we wanted a humane jail, not a hell hole. Our intentions were practical, too. A good jail is easier to manage and staff, the inmates are less troublesome, and legal liabilities to the county are smaller. Many people in jail are not convicted of anything and are presumed innocent. Yet they are incarcerated because they are not suitable for bail release. They require confinement, not torture. The committee considered the right size. We shocked the commissioners by advising a much larger jail than the presumed range Jackson County needed. I was part of that consensus. The county scaled it back. The county built what it had money for, not what it needed.

In 2020, Jackson County voters resoundingly defeated a proposal for a new jail. It was controversial for its proposed size. Anti-tax people voted, as always, against anything that involves taxes. But people in liberal circles also opposed it. A presumption circulated that police, prosecutors, and judges would fill a jail with some mix of jaywalkers, underage teens caught with marijuana, alcoholics, homeless people illegally sleeping under bridges, and people who were mentally ill. The idea was that American society was so eager to criminalize discrepancies to public order that we needed a big jail to sweep society's issues under the rug and out of sight. I heard it repeatedly: We need addiction recovery programs, we need affordable housing, we need mental health workers, not jails.

But we need jails, too. Sometimes my liberal friends have difficulty acknowledging that some people are dangerous. It offends their--and my--presumption that people are inherently good, or at least reformable. It offends their--and my--presumption that broader social forces of poverty, discrimination, bad parenting or schooling, childhood abuse, or something else, was to blame for their anti-social behavior. Therefore, a "punishment" mode like jail is a form of blaming the victim, and morally wrong.

Insofar as criminals are really victims-in-disguise, it just affirms my point that jails must be large enough to be humane. Inadequate jail space guarantees overcrowding and misery. Liberal resistance to jails is not humane. Its result is cruel. There is a sad reality that some people are dangerous. They need confinement where they cannot hurt others. Maybe at some later point in their lives they will be well-behaved and good neighbors, but for right now, they need to be off the streets. 

Public safety should be a Democratic issue. The people most hurt by crime are poor and working people. The big progressive issues that motivate Democratic activists--climate, racial justice, misogyny, access to education and health care--only rise to prominent issues when the first-order issue of personal safety is secure. People who rob and burglarize are dangerous. People who drive 123 miles an hour on public streets will kill innocent people. The jail has a public list of who is incarcerated today and what they are charged with. Take a moment. Browse. Some have been found guilty. Some are awaiting trial. Start with the letter "A": Arson. Rape. Felon in possession of a firearm. First degree sexual abuse. . . . Pick a letter of the alphabet of surnames and scroll. 

It isn't cruel to get dangerous people off the streets. It is cruel to let them be arrested and immediately released because there is no place for them in the jail.

[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]

The boring problem of bank regulation.

The failure of Silicon Valley Bank exposes a problem in the regulation of America's banks.

This isn't just a concern of bankers. Every American counts on a healthy banking system. There are no bystanders. 

The Fed, FDIC, and Treasury made emergency expansion of the $250,000 limit on bank deposit insurance to deal with the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. The $250,000 limit was supposedly a way to distinguish between ordinary citizens and presumably-sophisticated depositors. Mom and Pop citizens are understood to be in no position to get constant updates on the quality of a bank's assets. Average citizens just want a safe place to deposit money. Their deposits are insured by the FDIC. However businesses with a deposit float of more than $250,000 are presumed to be sophisticated. They are presumed to be able to evaluate the quality of their bank's loans and internal controls. They are creditors of the bank.

San Jose Spotlight: Depositors lined up to withdraw money from SVB

The presumption is preposterous. No depositor, small or large, without access to the detailed financial records of a bank can know how sound a bank is. Regulators at the San Francisco Fed, with responsibility to oversee the bank, did not understand SVB's problem. The senior management team at the bank surely understood it was falling into danger, but they did not know how to stop it and they didn't advertise the peril. (The CEO was busy selling personal stock in February, however.) When--too late--the bank began scrambling to get new capital to cover their losses, the bank had passed the tipping point. A tweet warned the public to get out now. Depositors got out.

Suspicious and vigilant depositors are a poor way to enforce prudent discipline on banks. Americans should recognize this and adjust. If depositors find something to worry about, it is too late. If a large depositor reveals its concern, it starts a bank run, even if it is a false alarm. Tweets like WITHDRAW YOUR MONEY NOW!!! will cause a bank run. Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were both unusually vulnerable, but not because their loan portfolios were crazy-risky, although SVB's certainly was. Their vulnerability came because they had a depositor mix that was low on insured Mom-and-Pop depositors and high on businesses customers with large deposits at risk. 

The very largest U.S. banks are under requirements to pass "stress tests." They are JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of NY Mellon, and State Street. Had those stress tests been in place for SVB, it would have failed them. They were not in place because semi-large banks lobbied for lower reserve requirements. A Republican-led effort in 2018 rolled back the Dodd-Frank laws, loosening banking regulations. Some Democrats joined in. It looked like an easy vote. Who cares about bank regulations? Loosening regulations made those banks happy. What could go wrong?

When small banks fail depositors of all sizes are made whole not by the FDIC or by taxpayers, but because a larger and healthier bank is willing and able to sweep in and take over, keeping the valuable branches and customers. That works for small and even medium-size banks. But there is a gap in the bank-failure system. Some banks are too large and complicated to be taken over in a weekend, including those large banks that got their regulations loosened, banks like SVB.

What to do? Americans should not be afraid of forcing bank regulations and reserve requirements back onto banks. The Department of Justice should not hesitate to claw back bonuses paid to executives of failed banks. Prosecute people who withheld information. Wealthy white collar malefactors are not afraid of fines. They don't want to be imprisoned. We should not be hesitant to imprison people who commit white collar crime.

It is the nature of banks to maximize profits as much as they can, given the rules. In that sense they are like NFL players. They would do face-mask tackles, except that they are forbidden and the rules are enforced with big penalties. If face-mask tackles were legal, failure to use them would put the team at a competitive disadvantage. Banks want to be profitable in the same way NFL players want to win. Give them the regulations and they will compete within those regulations, if there are serious consequences against the bad actors. Again, I recommend prison. Bankers will think twice.

Why not just let capitalism work its creative destruction? Why bail out anyone, including the depositors? Why not let the whole mess of people at SVB just drink the SVB poison and learn that the government won't interfere? Isn't that capitalism at work?

It is a bad idea because of collateral damage to the innocent. A bank failure causes ripples of damage to bystanders. And damage to them causes damage to their bystanders. It hurts the wrong people the most.

[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]