• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baltimore

No doubt.

Gotta love America, though. A major city still burns while the media argue and seek official clarification on the semantics of one word.

Should he not have been asked about it?

If a white person had set it, he/she would have already been drummed out of polite society.

The City Council President in Baltimore already apologized for using the word. The mayor has been criticized for it.
 
Should he not have been asked about it?

If a white person had set it, he/she would have already been drummed out of polite society.

The City Council President in Baltimore already apologized for using the word. The mayor has been criticized for it.

Sure. Anything to distract from the real issue and troll for "controversy."

Everything devolves into petty political and semantic bickering eventually, but there are some speed records being set lately.
 
Sure. Anything to distract from the real issue and troll for "controversy."

Everything devolves into petty political and semantic bickering eventually, but there are some speed records being set lately.

So, a single question about it, directed to the press secretary, during a press availability, is out of line? That's trolling for controversy? Really?

What would it be called if a white politician had used the word, and was then questioned about it?

And, what is the "real issue" anyway?
 
I missed this until now. I guess the President is the sole African-American leader sticking to his guns over the use of "thugs".

And the Mayor of Baltimore basically admits she's incapable of dealing with a crisis in a level headed manner.



 
Orioles should play their next 2 home series in Afganistan, which is in better shape than both the Silverdome and any CVS and Liquor Store in Baltimore
 
"Over incarceration" may well be a problem, but the cure might be worse than the disease.

What's the proposal here? Don't arrest them? Don't hold them?

Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts.

Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities.

One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.

When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we're talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers.

They're not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound.

Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty.

And it's not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.

And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison.


Read The Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Prison Reform Speech
 

Latest posts

Back
Top