Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The History of NASA the History Channel Leaves Out... (NASA was established on July 29, 1958)

History.com alerted me today (via email: This Day in History...) that NASA was founded on July 29, 1958:
 On this day in 1958, the U.S. Congress passes legislation establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a civilian agency responsible for coordinating America's activities in space. NASA has since sponsored space expeditions, both human and mechanical, that have yielded vital information about the solar system and universe. It has also launched numerous earth-orbiting satellites that have been instrumental in everything from weather forecasting to navigation to global communications.
What History.com doesn't provide is why NASA's unprecedented success between 1958 and 1972 came to a crashing halt. Luckily, 'Whitey on the Moon' by Paul Kersey provides the explanation, but in honor of NASA's establishment on July 29, 1958, why not a refresher course? 
In 1972, Rep. Charles Rangel (yeah, he's still around) charged NASA with bias and demanded a  civil rights probe against all-white astronaut corps

Only four years into NASA's establishment, racial politics were inserted into astronaut selection by an overzealous Kennedy Administration seeking to find a black astronaut avatar to parade around the nation as "the hope for black people everywhere."

Enter Air Force Capt. Edward Dwight. Colin Burgess' Moon Bound: Choosing and Preparing NASA's Lunar Astronauts offers up an incredible frank summation of what was expected out of the pursuit of a black astronaut candidate:  

Even as NASA began the process that would choose the third group of astronauts, political pressure was being exerted at the highest levels for the space agency to select an African-American pilot. For some time, President John F. Kennedy had wanted the minority electorate to regard him as doing something positive on the issue of equality in the military. 
On 24 June 1962 he appointed an advisory committee to study equal opportunity policies in the military, charging its members with ensuring that “any remaining vestiges of discrimination in the armed forces on the basis of race, creed or nation origin” were removed.  
One of the initiatives he pressed for was for a black serviceman to be inducted into the high-profile astronaut corps. At the specific behest of the president, the Department of Defense was contacted to determine whether the Air Force had any suitable candidates, but even though records were thoroughly scoured the response coming back to the White House was apologetic. 
No black Air Force officers had the required amount of flying time or the requisite academic background, let alone meeting other stringent requirements for consideration. President Kennedy did not like being denied his initiative. In response the Air Force was essentially instructed to locate a suitable black candidate and have him enrolled in the next Aerospace Research Pilot School course at Edwards AFB. Once the airman had passed the course, and even without the necessary flight hours, background, experience and academic qualifications, pressure would then be exerted on NASA to include the officer in its next astronaut group. 
Once again the Air Force searched through its records and, to the relief of the researchers, finally came across something that might fit the bill – a hope-filled application from a serving Air Force officer requesting test pilot and astronaut training. The name on the application was 28-year-old Capt. Edward Joseph Dwight, Jr., USAF. (p. 201)

Four years into NASA's existence, the Kennedy Administration was trying to force a black astronaut onto the space administration, a clear example of social engineering for the benefit of electoral success if there ever was one...

Capt. Dwight ended up not being made of the right stuff, as you can learn about here (thanks Chuck Yeager). 

10 years later, an almost completely white NASA came under the scrutiny of professional black agitator Rep. Charles Rangel (D., New York). 

Yes, that Charles Rangel. 

Here's what Jet magazine published on August 10, 1972 regarding a the black congressman's crusade to erase the whiteness at NASA [ Rangel Charges NASA Bias; Wants Civil Rights Probe]:
Rep. Charles Rangel (D., New York) recently called upon the U. S. Civil Rights Commission to conduct an investigation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to discover why the agency has no Black, Spanish or women astronauts.  
In an interview with JET, Rangel said, "I am not concerned with reviewing  the program as it exists today. It is obvious that it is not representative of the people of these United States. I would have NASA review its personnel policy. Something is seriously wrong when not a single member of the 42-man astronaut corps is female, Black or Hispanic. NASA is one of the few federal agencies which manages to get more money from Congress than the Administration often requests." 
During its 14-year history, NASA has had only one Black nominee to be an astronaut. He was Maj. Robert Lawrence, a native of Chicago, Ill. However, his career as an astronaut ended tragically when he was killed making a landing of his F-104 jet.  
John Buggs, newly appointed staff director of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission, said that an investigation of NASA would fall in line with the responsibility of the commission. 
Prior to 1972, NASA had standards. 

It based pilot selection (outside of the Kennedy Administration forcing Capt. Dwight on NASA for his advantageous blackness) on merit. 

After 1972, those standards - once general operating procedure - were replaced with a mandate from the U. S. Civil Rights Commission to... scrub away the vestiges of whiteness and replace it with minorities. 

You can only have one mandate: prior to 1972, NASA's mandate was space exploration; post-1972, NASA's mandate was pleasing the U. S. Civil Rights Commission.

Joseph Shafritz and Jay Atkinson's 1985 book The Real Stuff: A History of NASA's Astronaut Recruitment Program fills us in one what happened next once NASA mandate for the exploration was grounded in favor of minority uplifting:
"We are working on plans to get members of minority groups into space. The Space Shuttle, which is the keystone to all our future space programs, will be an important factor in accomplishing this goal," NASA Administrator James Fletcher told an audience of 200 during a luncheon address on March 2, 1972, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Conference at Kennedy Space Center.  
Fletcher turned to the television and news reporters, emphasizing, "These are only plans. We don't know they'll work out," adding that he would personally aid in "attempting to cut out the red tape and removing the stumbling blocks to real progress in EEO." 
Sending black and women into space had become one of the major issues of the space program.  
During a personal interview Ruth Bates Harris, Director of NASA Equal Employment Opportunity [1972], said, "We [NASA] were concerned that we had no minority or women astronauts and that was something that came up constantly in my discussions with managers, including the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator."  
NASA was vitally in a goldfish bowl. The emphasis on equal opportunity had increased significantly after passage of the 1972 amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act subjected the federal government to equal opportunity legislation.  
On July 19, 1972, in a memorandum to Todd Groo, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Harris state:   
You perhaps will recall our earlier conversation in which I strongly underscored the urgency of moving ahead in this regard as (1) a way to improve our image and hence win some support from minorities and (2) a way to improve our EEO in a very vital area. I have taken this same concern to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator as well. It is important that we take steps now to implement Dr. Fletcher's publicized remarks at NASA's EEO conference that "we are working on plans to get minority groups into space."  
It would not be considered preferential treatment nor reverse discrimination for NASA to integrate its Astronaut Corps. In fact to the contrary, it is discriminatory to allow our Corps to remain as pasteurized and insulated from the real world. Not only do we contribute to their mis-education by allowing a segregated group to exist, but also we acquiesce to a false sense of security and superiority... Equally as poignant is the fact that in spite of many space missions, minorities and women have gone through almost a half generation without being able to identify a single space hero in NASA. This looms as extremely significant when one realizes how our history books already have distorted versions about the contribution (or lack of them) by person from minority groups. A similar situation exists for women and other traditionally excluded group. (p. 134-135)
Considering minorities have made virtually no positive contributions to America (sports, music, and entertainment don't count), it's puzzling to try and ascertain what Ruth Bates Harris was talking about back in 1972.

In closing, it's important to note the response Charles Rangel's charge of bias at NASA received.  The Real Stuff: A History of NASA's Astronaut Recruitment Program tells us: 
As a result, Jeffry M. Miller, Director, Office of Federal Civil Rights Evaluation, told NASA in a letter written August 12, 1972: 
The Commission recently received a letter from Congressman Rangel which asserted that all of the astronauts in NASA's space program are white males. In view of the important part that this programs plays in our lives and the great psychological impact that media coverage of our manned space efforts has on millions of people around the world, this figure if true is most distressing. (p. 136)
America, in 2014, no longer has a manned space program.

We no longer have the ability to send men of any color into space, unless they hitch a ride with the Russians.

But, remember, the "most distressing" (words of the Director, Office of Federal Civil Rights Evaluation in 1972) news of an all-white male astronaut program was greeted with the full force of the Federal Government; NASA's mission for the stars ended, with the advancement of colored people via the white man's technology the new priority. 

So we no longer have a manned space program, but at least we have a multicolored mixture of humans pretending to be astronauts!

So, there's your history of NASA the History Channel (History.com) won't share with you. 

From 1958 to 1972, NASA embarked a mission to explore the heavens; post-1972 NASA was nothing more than the United States Postal Service, dedicated to the same goals as the NAACP -- the advancement of colored people at the expense of white people. 

Monday, July 28, 2014

An Open Letter to Indianapolis Recorder's Amos (the white police force is an "occupying army") Brown: Do you Expect a Majority Non-White Indianapolis Fate to be any different than Detroit's?

“Indianapolis is being hit with a dry hurricane of violence... We need a disaster response.”

So published the Indianapolis Star. 

Without telling us 'who' is behind the "hurricane of violence," the article lets slip the culprit. [Indy needs disaster response to ‘hurricane of violence', Indy Star, 7-18-14]:
[Reverend Charles Harrison of the Ten Point Coalition] offered three other potential solutions: increased mandatory sentences for gun crimes; more community policing; and increased efforts among black leaders to build stronger ties between the community and police. That last step is an attempt to establish some level of respect for law enforcement. 
“This generation of young people does not have any respect for authority in general, and are much more willing to be confrontational with the police,” Harrison said.
"Increased efforts among black leaders to build stronger ties between the community and police."

Hmm... black leaders in Indianapolis like the vile Amos Brown, longtime agitator for black pride/power who called the Indianapolis Police an "occupying army"? [Indianapolis violence deja vu, Indianapolis Recorder, 4-17-14]
Amos Brown, who has described the white police force in Indianapolis as an "occupying army." He's celebrated Indianapolis going from nearly 80 percent white in 1990 to the threshold of being a racial plurality by 2020

Remember, Indianapolis was nearly 80 percent white in 1990; today, Amos Brown brags about how whites are soon to be a plurality in the city, where a coalition of blacks and browns will rule the city. [Census to Indy's leaders: minorities; not whites, power city's growth, Indianapolis Recorder, 7-3-14]:
The Census says that as of mid-2013, 42.6 percent of Indianapolis’ population is minority; a percentage that’ll continue to increase. 
If the Chamber of Commerce and the Ballard administration were serious about improving the tax base, they’d develop meaningful strategies to improve employment opportunities and living wages for Indianapolis’ Black and brown communities – the population with the lowest median household incomes and highest rates of child poverty. 
The business community, mayor’s minions and educational reformers always rail about African-American school dropouts; especially in IPS. But they ignore Indy’s white dropout crisis. Another reality that’s holding Indy back economically.
Remember,  Indianapolis was nearly 80 percent white in 1990; crime and homicide in the city has always been powered by its black population. As the city becomes less white, crime will increase as the cries of Indianapolis Police become less an "occupying army" (trying to protect what's left of the white tax-base) and more a public relations organization trying to make the black population feel better about its superfluous nature.

Back in 2010, a career black criminal - 15-year-old Brandon Johnson - alleged police abuse when he was arrested (the city was forced to pay $150,000 to Johnson in 2013 over the "abuse").

It's important to remember that individual acts of black crime collectively represent a sustained war on the civilization whites created in Indianapolis: eventually, the crimes become so great it's vital white families move (white flight) to protect their families; businesses follow suit as the purchasing power of blacks is no where near that of the whites who have fled; the tax-base erodes to a point where basic city services are no longer a need, but increasing a luxury item the remaining black population can't afford.

In the early stages of the blowup of the black community around the alleged abuse of Brandon Johnson, black leaders in Indianapolis put out this press release making their intentions known of using the incident as a means to "gel" blacks together against their perceived enemy (Amos Brown's "occupying army" of white police) [Black Leaders’ Response To IMPD Beating Investigation, Indianapolis Record, 6-11-10]:
A wide coalition of Indianapolis African-American leaders and institutions has issued a strong response to IMPD’s investigation into the beating of 15-year-old Brandon Johnson. Spearheaded by the Baptist Ministers Alliance, community leaders called for the firing of all officers involved in the beating incident, a civilian oversight of Internal Affairs, Federal Monitoring of the IMPD and that IMPD’s training be “reevaluated, revised and replaced”.  The full text of the response is below. 
Today I’m joined by Pastors, Lawyers, Funeral Directors, Business Owners and other Community Leaders to express our outrage at the determination reached by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) Internal Affairs Unit. 
For the sake of extreme clarity, I want to say that crime in Indianapolis is not a Black issue. It’s an issue in every community. You don’t have a zip code that exempts you from the potentiality of crime. I also want to make clear that my comments today are not directed at all the fine men and women who serve on the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, both black and white. My observations are directed solely at those officers who tarnish the labor of those who place their lives on the line for this community every day. 
Several days ago, the Marion County Prosecutor determined that Brandon Johnson committed no actionable crime. Specifically, the Marion County Prosecutor stated that Brandon’s conduct on May 16, did not meet the burden for criminal charges. 
Indeed, Brandon is not a criminal, Brandon is the victim. 
Regrettably, the Chief of Police reported yesterday that only one officer would be terminated. It is clear to us, based off the narrative shared, that these officers acted as a team and as a result they are all culpable. It is unequivocal that all police officers involved in this case should be terminated immediately and a criminal investigation should be launched immediately into the conduct of these officers. 
Moreover, it is clear that the police department lacks the internal capacity to “police” its own, especially in matters where the general public is involved. The internal affairs process has no credibility in this community. As a result we call for the complete dismantling of the IMPD internal affairs unit and demand that it be replaced with a transparent citizens’ review process to specially address those cases where members of the civilian community are the center of an investigation. 
We will also request that the Federal Government monitor this process. It is clear to most in the African-American community that some officers on IMPD think that it is open season on African-Americans, Latinos and other people of color and the poor in Indianapolis. As leaders in this community, we will not tolerate abusive force by the police upon our children in particular, or anyone for that mater. 
We will not standby and have the youth of our community beaten by drug dealers, gang bangers or the police. It is obvious that the training of IMPD officers is so profoundly inadequate that the entire process needs to be reevaluated, revised and replaced. It’s apparent that some officers lack the judgment to apply the appropriate response in many circumstances. 
The action taken yesterday by the Internal Affairs Unit makes these officers think they can act with impunity. It sends the signal that you can beat a Black, a Latino and anyone of color or a poor citizen nearly beyond recognition and get away with it. 
Well, this community will not stand by and watch while our kids become victimized by the criminal conduct of a few rogue officers. We will bring the bright light of justice to these deeds. We will use our collective resources economically and politically, we will dismantle our historic differences to address this issue. 
In conclusion, we take note of the Mayor’s silence during this ordeal. His silence speaks volumes. History has proven that in times of crises leaders speak out as well as delegate duties. The Mayor’s brief press release yesterday suggests that he may be more interested in capital improvements than he is about public safety. This fact will be as much a part of his political resume as his surprising mayoral victory was in 2007. 
No Justice No Peace!! 
Dr. Stephen J. Clay, President
Crime is pretty much a black issue in Indianapolis (sorry Mr. Brown, "military weapons" aren't the scourge of the hood... it's the black people who call the hood home that represent both the source of the sorrowful conditions in the hood and the true scourge of civilization).

And it's pretty much the issue of the unelected black leadership to continually demand we not acknowledge this fact...

The victim is the civilization whites created in Indianapolis, regressing to the black mean in the increasing absence of whites and growth of the black population.

Indianapolis' black population, with leaders like Amos (the white police force is an "occupying army") Brown, have been chipping away at the civilization whites created in the city, whose standard of living erodes with each white person who flees to the suburbs; yes, some individual black people can assimilate to the civilization whites created, but they cannot sustain the civilization in their absence when the black population has become the majority.

Detroit taught us this.

Gary, Indiana taught us this.

Newark and Camden, New Jersey taught us this.

Memphis taught us this.

Indianapolis is teaching this to us in realtime.

The police must have the monopoly on violence, or else the "state" (in this case, the civilization in Indianapolis the elected officials are purportedly tasked with protecting) will ultimately fail; in Indianapolis, the monopoly on violence is held by the black community, with so-called leaders like Amos Brown using frightening language -- an "occupying army" -- to describe the police actions against "his community."

After all, "his community" is the only one that matters...

It won't be 20 years until Indianapolis is less than 30 percent (perhaps 20 percent) white, with the majority non-white population whining about paying their water bills... just like in less than 8 percent white (and 83 percent black) Detroit today.

Black leaders, be they elected officials, members of the cloth ("reverends"), radio hosts, or community organizers, work overtime to make law enforcement impossible and create a climate where black criminality is protected by the regression of law: meaning, any act of perceived brutality by police against a black individual is an attack on the black community; thus, police are forced into a continuous procession of tolerance, diversity, and sensitivity seminars/classes, and are psychologically castrated by the knowledge one aggressive arrest could result in their suspension, a black riot, or a massive lawsuit.

We call this enabling a climate of freedom from responsibility (what the civil rights movement was all about).

No matter how heinous individual black criminality gets (think home invasions or executions of whites for $5), the black community that harbors such an army against civilization will never allow real reform.

Such reform would translate to allowing the fangs of the state monopoly on violence to be unleashed; when the threat of black protests/riots/lawsuits keeps these fangs at bay, like garlic, a cross, or daylight to a vampire.

So civilization (and law) will recede, assimilate to the type of conditions/climate the black majority is able to maintain.

We call this Detroit.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Available Now! 'Whitey on the Moon' :Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972

If you have a Kindle, head over to Amazon.com and pick up the latest Paul Kersey book, 'Whitey on the Moon': Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972.

It's the definitive book on NASA and how one of the great achievements in America's history was grounded because of the lack of diversity and blacks involved in the Apollo Program. 
Available now for Kindle at Amazon.com!

If interested, the paperback version of the book will be published in mid-August. For a $25 donation (right-side of the scroll down via PayPal), you can secure a signed copy of this one-of-a-kind look at the history of NASA's fall, all because the government of the United States of America deemed it "embarrassingly white."

What's exciting is this means we are close both the sequel to Escape from Detroit and the billboard campaign accompanying it...

We went to the moon.

This is a fact.

Indisputable, except to those conspiracy theorists clinging to their belief some sinister plot was hatched by the US Government to conceal our inability to navigate to earth's natural satellite.

On July 20, 1969, man first stood on the moon; on December 18, 1972, man stood on the moon for the last time. What happened to end the dream of space exploration, left instead to the colorful imagination of Trekkies and science fiction fans believing some diverse band of humans could navigate the heavens in a utopian future?

The US Government neutered NASA by forcing a much different mission upon the space agency: diversity and the promotion of blacks. We went to the moon.

On multiple occasions. When NASA was nearly all-white, with an all-white astronaut team. But in 1972, the Apollo program was grounded, with the Space Shuttle program becoming a glorified experiment in social engineering and special interest group cheerleading. Each successive launch included women, blacks, and other racial minorities, not for the sake of exploration, but for the sake of gender and racial cheerleading.

The glory of NASA and mankind's great moments in space exploration were all milestones performed under the watchful of an almost completely white NASA, devoid of the hindrance of affirmative action programs and the shackles of Equal Employment Opportunity mandates.

The mandate then was to get the moon; the mandate soon after was the promotion of blackness and diversity, at the expense of the initial dream of exploring the stars.

'Whitey on the Moon': Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972 tells the shocking story of NASA's demise from an angle never-before told: the racial angle.

Learn the story of Captain Ed Dwight, the black Air Force pilot the Kennedy Administration tried to force on NASA; learn about how General Curtis LeMay and Lt. Colonel Chuck Yeager demanded accountability and stood against what the latter deemed "reverse racism" in how the Kennedy Administration forced a black astronaut candidate on NASA just for the sake of having a black astronaut candidate.

Learn about the "Poor People's Campaign" (led by Rev. Ralph Abernathy), which protested the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16th, 1969, by showing up with a horse and buggy.

Rev. Abernathy demanded the money going to Apollo and space exploration be redistributed to fight poverty and starvation in America's inner cities...

And his vision won out.

The final chapters of the book deal not with the exploration and colonization of new worlds, but the redistributing of wealth to pay for EBT/SNAP Food Stamps cards and other welfare payouts... a testament to Rev. Abernathy's dream.
We could have been on Mars, but we had to fund Black-Run American instead...

Friday, July 25, 2014

And the people bowed and prayed, To the neon God they made.

There is no educating liberals. 

For the most part, there is no educating conservatives. 

The former will go to their grave cursing their whiteness (blaming it for all the world's ills); the latter will go their grave wishing they could have found a 'Michael Oher' to adopt and rehabilitate (praising their altruism for all the world's hope). 

Reading about Indianapolis and it's horrific decline under almost a century of continuous Republican leadership is enough to forever make the flaccid the hard-on any young white conservative had for Ronald Reagan and the GOP. 

Back in 2010, one of the resident white liberal columnists for the Indianapolis Star, Matthew Tully, expressed frustration with the mass shooting at the Indiana Black Expo (subsequently, each successive Black Expo has required near a martial law atmosphere to keep attendees safe from the privations of blackness). 

More so, he was upset anonymous white people took to the Internet to vent against the near all-black violence in the city of Indianapolis (remember: Mayor Greg Ballard launched an campaign exclusively against black-in-origin violence in the early part of 2014 [Black on black crime on Mayor Ballard’s agenda, WISHTV, 3-8-14]), which he compared to a "KKK" rally.

What's so funny is this: a black person would probably be safer at a Klan rally than in some parts of Indianapolis,where fellow black people would have no problem firing at them (since, black-on-black violence is so frequent in Indianapolis).

Here's what the Captain Tully, the avenger against noticing, wrote [Tully: Time to talk about problems linked to Expo, Indy Star, 7-21-10]:
Let's be honest.
If the shootings that occurred Downtown last weekend had been tied to the Indiana Plumbers Expo, or one of a thousand other conventions, the follow-up discussion wouldn't be so difficult.
We all respect plumbers, of course. But if their annual convention required hundreds of city cops patrolling our compact Downtown on a Saturday evening, and if shootings and fights and other incidents outside the convention had become all too common, we would question whether the plumbers expo was worth the trouble.
But we're talking instead about Indiana Black Expo and its annual Summer Celebration. So any discussion about the monumental problems tied to it gets bogged down in the treacherous issue of race.
It's a hard issue to discuss. I've ticked off an endless stream of readers during five years of writing columns about all sorts of issues, but even I got queasy at the idea of diving into this one.
It doesn't help that moronic and simplistic racists thrive on this kind of thing. They turn anonymous online forums into a 21st century version of KKK meetings and make it even harder to have an adult conversation.
That said, we can't let the delicate nature of this subject, or the words of a few racists, prevent us from finally having an honest, and perhaps painful, discussion about the ongoing problems related to Black Expo. Fear of having a blunt conversation, and fear of being labeled a racist, likely has prevented the city from adequately addressing this ongoing problem before now. And so we are subjected to national headlines about the 10 young people shot in the very Downtown that Indy's leaders so often point to as the thing that makes this city special.
Well, it would be nice to have a blunt, adult conversation about crime in Indianapolis (and, for that matter, all of America), but when race is involved honesty is always the first casualty. 

Better to be on the side of the anointed angels (blacks) than those evil white demons who earn their honorary Klan robes just by mentioning "race" in the same sentence as "crime."

Or, in the case of the Indianapolis Star, something that is covered-up as editorial policy. Only three years earlier, the paper basically bragged about its social justice platform of covering up the injustices against civilization committed by almost exclusively black people. [A caution on suspect descriptions, Indy Star, 3-24-2007]:
Last week we faced one of the more challenging decisions editors ever face, and we didn't handle it well.
It involved the carjacking/robbery/rape of a young woman after she entered her car in a Downtown parking ramp. Police said the assailant was a black male in his late teens, small thin build, approximately 5 foot 8 with medium complexion and short hair. He was wearing a blue polo shirt with thin yellow and white stripes, and blue pants.
We didn't publish that description.
Lacking, to my surprise, a written approach for dealing with such matters we operated under the common newspaper standard to be wary of all such descriptions because they most often are so vague as to be meaningless.
Does it really help to know that an assailant was, say, a 6-foot-2 blond, upper middle-age white male? Not really. Those guys are everywhere. I'm one of them. But at least when somebody of that description is mentioned, every one of the huge selection of men in my universe isn't thought of as a potential criminal.
Now substitute a black male with black hair. All of a sudden all black men of that description are considered suspect.
That's an injustice from my perspective and from the perspective of most other editors. Most Americans, when they think of crime, fall victim to a racial stereotype.
Let's be honest. When black men commit crimes there is an unfair tendency to blame all black men. Not so with whites.
Here's another truth: When The Star doesn't print a description of a black suspect alleged to have been involved in a crime, my phone will ring and my e-mails will pile up with messages that angrily accuse us of bowing to the evil forces of political correctness.
When the authorities seek a white suspect and we don't print the description, I don't hear a peep. That speaks volumes, don't you think?
That doesn't mean we should have a blanket prohibition against using suspect descriptions. After reviewing policies of several newspapers and discussing the matter with colleagues, including our public safety team, we decided on this policy:
"We will publish descriptions of suspects from public officials or eyewitnesses only when the descriptions are distinct enough to differentiate the person from all but a narrow group of people. The description would likely include a combination of physical characteristics and other identifiers such as age, race, height, weight, hair color, haircut, tattoos, scars, clothing, jewelry, glasses, getaway cars, etc. The use of such descriptions is likely to be rare and must be approved by a senior editor."
Every situation is different, which is why the above statement is inadequate without some discussion points, which we are providing in question form:
Is racial identification relevant to the story and if so can we explain why? Remember that ethnicity isn't necessarily an indication of skin color and that race often is not easily definable. There are black Latinos, and white Latinos, for example.
What is the potential of our decision adding to unfair stereotypes?
Most important, is a description of a suspect so sketchy that a suspect could not be identified in a crowd of people, or is it specific enough to be useful? A 5-foot-10 white male wearing glasses and a knit golf shirt doesn't offer much. A 5-foot-10 white male with a blond crew cut, a tattoo on his left arm, a diamond earring in his left ear, and wearing glasses and a green knit golf shirt provides much more to go on.
My gut tells me that we should have provided the police description of the suspect last week. Bystanders who may have seen the suspect and, learning of that description, may have been able to provide helpful information to the police. (And we should have given the story stronger play in the paper.)
We also shouldn't have confused the situation by printing, later in the week, a police sketch of what appeared to be a black suspect, without mentioning in the adjoining story the suspect's race.
Using the guidelines and questions above, we want to have a more thorough discussion of these kinds of things in the future so we don't repeat the inconsistency we showed last week.
Thanks for reading The Star.
So, Mr. Matthew Tully, the policy of the Indianapolis Star (your employer) is to hide from race, just as name-calling is your policy when it comes to "adult" conversations about race.

This entire scheme (Black-Run America) is nothing more than the foundation of religion, from which we are heretics if we dare question the authenticity of the myth.

Better to practice heresy than find common cause with a theology peddled by the likes of Tully, the Indy Star, and those believing every neglected black male is a budding Michael Oher (with only the right, white... prodding and upbringing).

There is no educating liberals. 

For the most part, there is no educating conservatives.

There is only surviving.