BacktoCricaddict

Amidst all the police brutality, rioting news and abolish-police screams that have dominated broadcast and social media, the question of "what now" has not been adequately addressed. Unless, of course, you are a libertarian and like to keep up with obscure bills in congress. Remember, in the end, it is by boring legislation and political will that existing rules change and new rules get made, and real change happens. Protests and rioting are just catalysts that expedite this real change. Libertarians - guys like Ron Paul and Justin Amash - who are ignored by the media because they are not charismatic or powerful - but are more principled than any of the Dem or Rep clown-show con-men, have been pushing for real, reasonable police reform for a long time. Much, much before the rest of the world was witness to police brutality. It is for removal of "qualified immunity." Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that allows public officials to violate your civil rights unless that right has not yet been clearly and explicitly established by case law. As you can imagine, this can and has been widely misused by police officers who have gotten away scot-free for many violations. By ending Qualified Immunity, police will be held accountable and crap like this won't happen: In Howse v. Hodous (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit gave qualified immunity to two officers who allegedly assaulted and arrested a man on bogus charges for the crime of standing outside of his own house. There was also the sheriff's deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a non-threatening dog; the cop in Los Angeles who shot a 15-year-old boy on his way to school because the child's friend had a plastic gun; and two cops in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant. Only public outcry following George Floyd, it finally dawned on Reps and Dems that this legal doctrine is a problem. Finally, there is a tripartisan bill in Congress sponsored by Justin Amash (Libertarian), and a Dem and Rep. https://reason.com/2020/06/11/justin-amash-tom-mcclintock-republican-cosponsor-tripartisan-support-to-end-qualified-immunity/ If only more people would vote Libertarian, and help dismantle the goddamn 2-party system. At the very least, if you are voter, tell your Congress(wo)man to vote for this bill.

Watching Ajay Jadeja's ungainly hoick, I wonder ...

Wish I could say it as well as Sambit Bal does here: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29295844/south-asians-understood-colourism-racism

Nature includes Homo sapiens.

Infections decimate all animals

Soldiers are pawns at the hands of political bigwigs. Salute them, honor them, and never forget that freedom is not free. Their’s not to make reply,Their’s not to reason why,Their’s but to do and die. -Alfred Lord Tennyson, Charge of the Light brigade

Pigs make great bbq.

With a booming movie career, it took a busy Sreesanth 7 months to get to that page in the book.

Can keep trying, though.

I actually agree with this. Ask them what they meant and let them know it is not acceptable to you instead of the whole big mess. But then again, ICF thread nahin banta, yaar.

Why not? It is actually a decent analogy. An American football player explained it recently. If two guys are hurt during the course of play and the physios rush to the guy who is lying paralyzed on the ground rather than the guy who is bleeding in his knee, it doesn't mean that the knee-guy doesn't matter. He matters as much, but right now, he doesn't need much care and the other guy needs much more attention. It is an obvious, self-evident truth that all lives matter. It doesn't bear mentioning. But "all" has excluded Blacks for a long time. Black lives have mattered less in America for centuries. They are making the point, and inserting an obvious "All lives matter" takes away from that message. It is a nuance.

In my experience, yes. Do I have any data? No. But again, is it something to get worked up about? For me, yes. I have seen social discrimination - even with families among siblings - based on skin colour and antiquated notions of skin colour being an indicator of physical well-being. No one is asking for punitive measures - only education the to open people's minds to ideas that dissociate specific skin colours from ability and success, and maybe darker skin will not be construed as less attractive. The Hofstra paper is eye-opening. If attractiveness affects professional success positively, it is obvious that it will affect personal choices unconsciously. We must work to minimize such unconscious biases - social and professional.

M S Dhoni must end *his own* career first. Baaki baad mein dekhenge.

Good post. Glad to know that official positions exist on religious and caste-based harassment for professional settings. Where I agree: Discrimination based on skin colour in official settings (employment, public facilities) in India is not an issue. I don't think it was an issue even when I was growing up. Where I disagree: (1) Skin colour discrimination is definitely a social issue - how else do you explain matrimonials that insist on mentioning skin colour as a criterion? While it is not anyone's business to interfere in someone's private choice, it is definitely a social ill that must be pointed out. (2) In my interactions with Indian friends and relatives, referencing people derisively by their physical appearance is very prevalent. To me, it is unacceptable. If I lost a leg in an accident, it should not be socially acceptable to refer to me as "langda." Maybe it is a Western value, but definitely one we should consider adopting.

Hmmm ... what about Indians who grew up in India, experienced/witnessed identification of people by caste (Bomman, Chootran), language (Gulti, Kongati) or physical features (Dumma, Kunta, Chashmish) etc., never really thought much of it and even participated in it growing up, but have different feelings about it now? Are they invalid feelings? For example, if I moved back to India and someone refers to my children (who are on the shorter side) as KuLLa or KuLLi, they, and by extension I, would be offended, while I might not have been offended back when I was growing up.