Jump to content

Rikers and continuing the theme of Black elected officials. 


Recommended Posts

 

The tragedy of Rikers and Black elected officials in NYC is how clearly dysfunctional to the needs of the Black community Black elected officials in NYC are.
And to be blunt, it relates to Kamala Harris who was the Attorney General of California and... 
In this forum, I read so many replies to my post concerning black elected officials in the usa that did one of two things. 
1) Supported the lack of acting to the black communities specific betterment in the usa  by black elected officials in stating a philosophical goal for the usa, that being an aracial human community, that the usa has never been and doesn't seem to be heading to. 
2) Placing upon the Black community in the USA, regardless of other  groups in the USA, the goal of having no illegality or crime from members of the Black community in the USA. 

Why do I say this? not because I have a problem with it. But it explains a huge problem in the Black community in the USA. 

The following is of Eric Adams, the article is from Olayemi Olurin
The ARTICLE
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2091&type=status

 

The issue of Black elected officials needing another quality comes up a trillion times...

The need for an Black party, which again, in USA history never happened. The why I comprehend, but the lack of Black people realizing the problem in it not occuring is what angers me.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/9211-the-black-community-in-the-usa-need-an-alternative-to-black-officials-from-the-party-of-andrew-jackson-or-abraham-lincoln/

 

Black organizations making plans that are disconnected to the Black community in the USA's makeup or internal variances.
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/9769-thoughts-on-national-black-voters-day/

 

right to bear arms, the first in my pulpit series

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/richard-murray-s-pulpit-episode-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most elected officials cater to the special interests that put them in office. That includes the Black politicians too.

 

Before the people cast a vote, most politicians have already been bought through campaign contributions.

 

Mayor Eric Adams is responsible for the administration of a city with a population of almost 9 million people.  That's a huge responsibility.  BTW, only 41% of NYC is people of color.

 

Rikers Island could save $1.8 billion dollars by reducing its prison population to the 3,300 inmates it can reasonably accommodate.  Instead, the detention center could have as many as 10,000 inmates on any given day.  

 

The 1st question is who's benefitting from that $1.8 billion dollars.   I suspect that a whole lot of people are living well on that much money.  Beyond the prison staff collecting their salaries and overtime, there are contractors and other service providers getting paid too.

 

Riker Island is a microcosm of the *businesses* the mayor has to insure remain a well-oiled operation. 

 

Also, Mayor Adams is a retired law enforcement officer...the same folks who send people to Rikers Island.  I could imagine he has some loyalties to the industry that made him.

 

Often times, politics is a dirty business filled with greed and corruption. Black elected officials aren't immune to it. 

 

Besides, the Black community hasn't come up with any special interests and/or an agenda to hold any politicians accountable. 

 

Maybe the Black and Brown folks in NYC could get together as a special interest group and demand that Rikers Island be shut down or reformed. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD

Quote

Most elected officials cater to the special interests that put them in office. That includes the Black politicians too.

 

Before the people cast a vote, most politicians have already been bought through campaign contributions.

 

Most Black people know this already. I think they don't forgive black politicans for it and considering the black advocates in Black history in the usa, that makes sense to me. 

 

Quote

Mayor Eric Adams is responsible for the administration of a city with a population of almost 9 million people.  That's a huge responsibility.  BTW, only 41% of NYC is people of color.

 

Rikers Island could save $1.8 billion dollars by reducing its prison population to the 3,300 inmates it can reasonably accommodate.  Instead, the detention center could have as many as 10,000 inmates on any given day.  

 

The 1st question is who's benefitting from that $1.8 billion dollars.   I suspect that a whole lot of people are living well on that much money.  Beyond the prison staff collecting their salaries and overtime, there are contractors and other service providers getting paid too.

 

Riker Island is a microcosm of the *businesses* the mayor has to insure remain a well-oiled operation. 

 

Also, Mayor Adams is a retired law enforcement officer...the same folks who send people to Rikers Island.  I could imagine he has some loyalties to the industry that made him.

 

Often times, politics is a dirty business filled with greed and corruption. Black elected officials aren't immune to it. 

 

Olayemi said all of this herself, and I seconded her.  But the issue isn't a comprehension of governance, it is a relationship between black elected officials side black people in the usa. And in issues that are primarily about people of color or to be specific black people, ala like Rikers or the incarceration system itself, black elected officials quality to the black community is clearly negative. 

 

Quote

Besides, the Black community hasn't come up with any special interests and/or an agenda to hold any politicians accountable. 

 

Maybe the Black and Brown folks in NYC could get together as a special interest group and demand that Rikers Island be shut down or reformed. 😎

 

Shirley chisholm who left government in my view cause her peers required lobbying or special interest groups to do things said Black people must focus on financing. Lobbying requires money , cause it is paying the government officials to do what you want. I argue, many black people, based on black advocates long gone or white haired or  dead, desire black elected officials to not merely have photos of malcolm or martin near their head in advertisements but act like black advocates, ala Shirley chisholm. 

Are you suggesting black people in the usa need to stop desiring the black elected official of today <eric adams/kamala harris for example > act like the black advocates of yore<fannie lou hamer/malcolm> ? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, richardmurray said:

But the issue isn't a comprehension of governance, it is a relationship between black elected officials side black people in the usa. And in issues that are primarily about people of color or to be specific black people, ala like Rikers or the incarceration system itself, black elected officials quality to the black community is clearly negative. 

 

Are you suggesting black people in the usa need to stop desiring the black elected official of today <eric adams/kamala harris for example > act like the black advocates of yore<fannie lou hamer/malcolm> ? 

Correct.  Black folks should not assume that Black elected officials have our best interests in their hearts or minds. Black skin alone does not equate to loyalty.

 

That's why it's even more important that Black folks properly vet these people before they vote.  Find out who they truly intend to serve once elected. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD  I remember when Obama or Eric Adams was elected, no body black in harlem said in anything was coming our way, not one person. if anything, what black people in harlem nyc said was, they might have heart attacks if anybody does anything for black people 

Maybe where you are black people assume black elected officials will do for black people. but the black community in NYC is well acquainted with impotency from black elected officials, adam clayton powell jr and shirley chisholm and even charles barron are not respected for nothing, they are rare in a city that produces many black elected officials in the past 50 to 60 years.  

Black people in NYC don't assume Black elected officials will have black interest at heart. Black people in NYC assume Black elected officials will do nothing, are not loyal or purposeful to the black community and have already researched all the black elected officials and know none will serve the black community.

The problem is where you are Black people are assuming what you say but I think most Black people reflect the black community in NYC. 

And that is my point, the first time a modern black elected official in the usa does for black people in the usa as a priority , without any financial incentive, like the advocates, that person will be beloved by most black communities, and especially in NYC. 

Black people in NYC want Black elected officials to act like the Black advocates of yore de facto, they don't expect them to  or assume they will but that is what they want. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

And that is my point, the first time a modern black elected official in the usa does for black people in the usa as a priority , without any financial incentive, like the advocates, that person will be beloved by most black communities, and especially in NYC. 

My 1st question is why are Black folks voting for these people who seemingly do nothing for them. 

 

My 2nd question is have Black folks provided the candidate/nominee/elected official with a list of priorities to which they can be held accountable. 

 

Even in the absence of being able to provide a financial incentive, the least Black folks can proactively do is codify their needs/priorities. Make the politicians do their job. 

 

Black folks in America had common problems at one point in time. So, it was easier for a Black politician to recognize and try to tackle them. Times have changed. 

 

Osmosis and assumption don't work.  Very few elected officials and people in general are capable of satisfying needs/priorities that haven't been defined.😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD 

 

Quote

My 1st question is why are Black folks voting for these people who seemingly do nothing for them. 

 

Since most people in the USA feel the government , at all levels is doing nothing, the answer is simple. All the options for candidates are do-nothings. This is why Schrumptf won the POAL  candidacy. It isn't hard to defeat do nothings. But you need someone willing to call them out, which can not be done by soon to be do nothings. I can give an example. Ocasio cortez is a do nothing. No different than nancy pelosi. Yes, different age, language in the home they were raised in. But the same. do nothing. In the USA , new do nothings are placed by those fiscal powers you spoke of to replace the old do nothings. 

 

Quote

My 2nd question is have Black folks provided the candidate/nominee/elected official with a list of priorities to which they can be held accountable. 

Even in the absence of being able to provide a financial incentive, the least Black folks can proactively do is codify their needs/priorities. Make the politicians do their job. 

 

Black folks in America had common problems at one point in time. So, it was easier for a Black politician to recognize and try to tackle them. Times have changed. 

 

Osmosis and assumption don't work.  Very few elected officials and people in general are capable of satisfying needs/priorities that haven't been defined.😎

 

 The problem with accountability in the system in the usa , is it isn't possible until election. And sequentially, if the other candidate is no better than the current then no tool for accountability exist for any voting populace. 

 

You suggest elected officials are incapable of comprehending problems today , as some problems are more difficult, and a community listing the problems can aid in accountability. 

Well, if an elected official campaigned but didn't know the problems then they are charlatans and that goes back to my point about the disconnect between black elected officials and the black community. So, the problem is not allowing charlatans. 

And, I was not raised in Newark or New orleans and while I don't know all the problems of the black community in either city , I know enough of them to not need a list to know what to do if mayor, and no, I do not want to be mayor of newark or new orleans or new york city. 

I will assume every single black person in the USA living in some city has seen or experienced or witnessed at least one problem, and so if elected they have at least one agenda without a note from anyone, and if they have a black advocacy spirit, they will simply make the solution policy regardless of any financial activities. 

But for those black people who say they don't see any problems , I say the feces of the male taurus. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The problem with accountability in the system in the usa , is it isn't possible until election. And sequentially, if the other candidate is no better than the current then no tool for accountability exist for any voting populace. 

 

You suggest elected officials are incapable of comprehending problems today , as some problems are more difficult, and a community listing the problems can aid in accountability. 

 

Well, if an elected official campaigned but didn't know the problems then they are charlatans and that goes back to my point about the disconnect between black elected officials and the black community. So, the problem is not allowing charlatans. 

 

I will assume every single black person in the USA living in some city has seen or experienced or witnessed at least one problem, and so if elected they have at least one agenda without a note from anyone, and if they have a black advocacy spirit, they will simply make the solution policy regardless of any financial activities. 

Well, it cannot go both ways. 

 

There has to be accountability across the board from the voters to the politicians they elect.

 

Voters need to know for whom they're voting and what that person plans to do in solving problems they have identified.

 

I'm not suggesting elected officials are incapable of comprehending problems.  They should not have to guess  the priority in which to tackle them.😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD

 

Quote

Well, it cannot go both ways. 

what can't go both ways exactly? 

 

Quote

There has to be accountability across the board from the voters to the politicians they elect.

You restated this but my point was the accountability you desire in the current governmental environment will require structural changes to parties of governance or the government itself.  The current mold deletes the potential of accountability. The proof is the current body of elected officials in the usa, to be blunt. All the elected officials know the fiscal poor voting populace has no way to make them accountable. 

 

Quote

 

Voters need to know for whom they're voting and what that person plans to do in solving problems they have identified.

yeah, but what happens when the voters know all the candidates have no plans to solve anything?  which is the common case in the usa today? 

 

Quote

 

I'm not suggesting elected officials are incapable of comprehending problems.  They should not have to guess  the priority in which to tackle them.😎

Well, you believe populaces in the USA can be more influential than they are to the process of electing officials. I oppose that view but I comprehend your position. IDeally, the usa system works as you suggest. Populaces in districts can gather and make, as you say,  a list of priorities. The current elected official can, or can not,  try to show the populace they are trying to achieve the list. If said officials doesn't try or fails to convince on attempt, said populace can vote out and , your key tactic, candidates will eventually learn to heed the populaces list. But two flaws in this strategy exist. 1) The assumption that any populace can stay engaged or collected through constantly kick ing out officials who fail the list. Eventually any populace will lose interest and people will lose total interest in voting. 2)The assumption that a candidate will eventually arrive as an independent or as a member of a party of governance who will want and work for said populaces list. 

 

And the proof is the current body of elected officials in the usa. The parties of governance in the usa clearly are aligned in maintaining a quality of elected official that doesn't give a voter a viable option. And, the effectiveness of an independent candidate is low on arrival and thus hard to be able to prove to a voting populace they can satisfy that list.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, richardmurray said:

what can't go both ways exactly? 

We cannot claim the political system is broken structurally and therefore the electorate cannot hold politicians accountable.

 

The system works the way it was designed. Folks  who meet a criteria can run for office. Eligible citizens have a right to vote.

 

The bottom line is that people have to stay engaged politically well beyond casting their vote. Sit in on town hall meetings. Write letters and/or call their elected officials to find out how what they're doing to solve problems.

 

Today's politicians are allowed to do nothing because too many people lose interest shortly after casting their vote.

 

The bigger problem is that Americans are divided on every issue. There appears to be no consensus among us on anything. 😎

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD well, every government in human history has dysfunction while also is a system that can operate effectively.   

 

The bottom line is the history of the USA provides all the proof to the inevitable flaws in the USA system or the populace in the usa or the fiscal capitalistic tools in the usa  that can not be undone from within it. 

 

The multivision, not just division, it is more than two camps in every issue, isn't a problem in my view. It was inevitable.  But one consensus does exist in the USA in a large way, and has been in existence even greater since the 1960s. And most people in the USA, I bet over 80% will confirm it on any question. You try asking the folks where you live Professor...  The consensus in the USA is ... the populace in the USA can't reach consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...