Marc Lamont Hill laid it out for us, but we didn’t want it

On November 9^th 2016, just one day following the presidential election of Donald Trump I remember finding one silver lining in what a majority of my friends and family found devasting. Admittedly, I also felt a sense of devastation, along with a rush of anxiety and confusion, however I couldn’t help but to remember something I had heard months prior that gave me hope. Is it possibly that something could reconcile the chaos that was sure to follow? In August 2016 author Marc Lamont Hill appeared on the Breakfast Club radio show to promote his new book Nobody: Casualties of America’s War on the Vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond. It was what Hill said here that sparked my optimism for the Democratic party’s response to their days old defeat.

(In These Times – *Gilbert Carrasquillo/WireImage)*

Hill is currently a Professor at Temple University however, he is also widely known for his TV commentary, political activism and for opening Uncle Bobbies, a complementary book store and coffee shop in his home town Philadelphia. Most recently Hill appeared in headlines for what some interrupted as a controversial statement regarding Israel in a 2018 speech to the United Nations. Despite his speech lasting more than 20 minutes, critics chose to emphasis his closing remarks where he calls for political, grassroot, local and international action that “would give us what justice requires, and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.” For staunch supporters of Israel, “from the river to the sea”, is an antisemitic comment. Many critics however ignored the fact that Hill provides detailed explanation in his speech of human rights abuses committed by the Israeli government on Palestinians, along with the fact that “from the river to the sea” is a phrase used by both supports and detractors of Israel (In later interviews hill emphasizes that his criticism of Israel is directed at the political power of Israel as a state and not at the religious and ethnic communities of Israel’s Jewish people).

Hill’s appearance on the Breakfast Club came just one month after the 2016 Democratic National Convention. This was a historic moment for the Democratic party. By nominating Hillary Clinton they ushered in the first female presidential nominee from either major political party. Clinton was ahead in the polls, leading Trump by a nearly seven points, and major swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were leaning blue; little did we know supporters of xenophobic conmen are hesitant to admit their support of such candidates to inquiring pollsters.

Hill, with the hosts of the Breakfast Club – Charlemagne da God, Angela Yee and DJ Envy, began discussion the recent political conventions and his thoughts on the upcoming election. After several minutes, Hill said, rather bluntly, he wouldn’t vote for Clinton, instead he planned to cast his vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. This came as a surprise to the Breakfast Club hosts who, like most American voters can’t fathom the idea of voting outside of our intimidating two-party system. But for Hill, the Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Both perpetuate a brand of politics whose true loyalty isn’t to its voting constituencies but rather lies with its political donors. Albeit they differ on a number of social issues, they both operate comfortably inside a corporatist, white supremacist and patriarchal system. “I want a radical choice, because we need a radical change in this country” he says. “Instead of saying the system is broken let’s fix it, we should be saying the system is working, let’s break it”.

In order to break the system Hill says, (speaking mostly to Democratic politics) you must get out of the status quo of electing neoliberal candidates who simply grandstand on progressive ideas. A Trump general election victory wasn’t something Hill hoped for however, he envisioned a possible Trump victory as an opportunity to inspire liberal voters to demand a new brand of progressive politics from the Democratic Party. Hillary and Trump didn’t offer a substantial difference for voters to choose from, according to Hill, because they both operated inside the same corporatist political system. “I would rather have Trump be president for four years and build a real left-wing movement that gets us what we deserve as a people, than to let Hillary be president and we stay locked in the same space and we don’t get what we want” he says.

This was the optimism that stymied my despair following the 2016 election. Hill’s assertion that Trump’s presidency had the opportunity to allow Democrats to hold a certain leverage over Democratic party inspired me that a progressive change was possible. I anticipated a popular left-wing movement being spawned as a response to the Democrat’s failures. Hill’s assertion focused mainly on building a movement outside the Democratic party that would mount an offensive and influence the party’s platform from a bull horn instead of a seat at the table. I was slightly more naïve and optimistic that this could be achieved from inside the party.

Sanders had won 22 states (and came within a one or two percentage points of winning half a dozen others) just a few months prior in the Democratic primary election, surely voters and the Democratic party would capture this momentum and energy into harnessing a progressive platform that would bring this new political base into the mainstream. Could a Trump presidency shake the Democratic establishment into reshaping liberal politics? Would voters, old and new, come together to end foreign wars, increase the minimum wage, establish a green new deal and demand Medicare-for-All, thereby building a 21^st century New Deal coalition? Would the Democratic establishment feel that a they must evolve in order to deny Trump a 2^nd term? What we have come to see in recently weeks is that my optimism was just that. It was sense of wishful thinking and hopefulness with no real assurances.

(CBS Austin – AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee. Sanders’ momentum entering this year’s presidential primary was stopped in its tracks with unbelievable precision following South Carolina’s primary. Whether the voters would’ve supported Biden without the entire Democratic party field’s endorsements, we will never know. In the proceeding primaries, with Biden’s sudden South Carolina victory and major party support behind him, voters chose the establishment instead of the revolution. In their attempt to remodel the country after a Trump presidency, Democratic voters have made it clear that they are choosing to build with what is familiar and un-disruptive. For these voters the shock of narcissism, hatred, ignorance and sheer ineptitude seen from the Trump administration was the driving force to vote for the return to normalcy. This isn’t the time to bet on a form of progressivism that’s been absent from American politics since the Roosevelt administration. Biden exemplifies a comfortability they concede has been successful at winning past elections

Willie Legette, professor emeritus from South Carolina State University and Lead Organizer for Medicare for All-South Carolina, spoke on the power of this comfortability in a recent interview with Jacobin. Speaking on exit poll questions given to South Carolina Democratic primary voters Professor Legette’s said “Of these three indicators here – healthcare, economic inequality and the voters’ view of the economic system – it would suggest that these voters probably would have voted for, if they followed their preferences and a candidate that is more in line with their preferences, would probably have voted for Sanders.” Professor Legette is referencing exit poll questions that asks voters which issue’s matter most to their vote, and their opinion on the performance of the United States’ economic system. What professor Legette is suggesting is that it might be in these voters’ material interests, and their subconscious preference to support Sanders, but they ultimately went in a different direction.

The exit polls of Democratic primaries following South Carolina suggests similar conclusions. On average, in Michigan, Texas and Illinois, three diverse states vital to any candidate’s nomination, 60% of voters said they support a government run health care plan for all. However, in each of these states Biden received the most support from voters who claimed healthcare was their number one issue when choosing a candidate. This would suggest that voters weren’t following their immediate preference.

Additionally, Biden received a majority of the support from voters who said either race relations or climate change were the issues that matter most to their vote (similar to South Carolina, Biden also received the most support from voters in Illinois who said economic inequality was their main issue). Since Sander’s past record and campaign platform indicates that he supports these issues with much greater fervor, we can suggest voters again weren’t following their natural preference. Exit polls also asks voters if the Democrats should nominate someone who “agrees with you on the issues” or “can beat Trump”. On average 59% of voters thought nominating someone who could defeat Trump was more important than nominating a candidate whom they are in agreement with.

(Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times)

Democratic voters have made themselves clear, so much so that Sanders has conceded his campaign as not to appear in defiance of a Biden victory over Trump. For the time being a return to neoliberal normalcy is all that the Democratic party wishes for. Although it seems there will be no dismantling of our political corporatists system in this presidential contest, Marc Lamont Hill’s desire for a radical shift in American politics hasn’t been completely unsuccessful. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib all joined Congress in 2018 and quickly got to work proposing progressive policies from the Green New Deal to the Homes for All Act. Local cities and states’ have seen a surge in progressive candidacies and victories, many of whom are challenging long time moderate incumbents. Although a combination, this wave of progressive energy seems to stem more from the confidence Sanders’ 2016 election produced than from a disdain for Trump.

Four years is a very short period of time in human existence, not to mention for breaking a well-oiled machine, as is American politics. Although Trump’s first term as presidency may not have produced the revolutionary transformation Hill and I hoped for, the seeds have begun to grow. Every candidate in this year’s presidential primary was forced to address issues of Medicare For-All, eliminating the use of fossil fuels and labor rights. The “system” Hill spoke of breaking is still firmly operating, but as each day passes screws are loosened. A younger generation grows every day, galvanized by a financial crisis, $1.5 trillion of student loan debt, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stagnant wages and catastrophic environmental dangers stands firmly behind the progressive movement. “We can afford to lose an election” says Hill, “but we can’t afford to lose are values”. Unfortunately, a Joe Biden nomination means sacrificing these values once again.

Meet Philly’s most well-known photographer, Harvey Finkle

On December 13^th Movement Alliance Project (MAP), formally known as Media Mobilizing Project, held their annual Community Building Dinner. It offered a time for the city’s activist community to take a break from their various battles with Philadelphia’s establishment and rejoice over the year’s past accomplishments. It was an exciting evening, filled with the likes of community organizers and allied politicians. Young kids ran the halls while adults struck a pose in the photo booth. However, as the room stirred with activity one man beside me sat quietly taking it all in.

His name is Harvey Finkle, the renown photographer covering Philadelphia social movements and issues for the last half century. Finkle’s presence didn’t go unknown, in fact he was quite popular. As we sat and talked guest after guest made sure to venture to our table to greet Finkle; in a manner of paying respect, rather than gesturing a simple hello. Finkle’s work and achievements sprawls five decades and is practically endless. His work illuminates issues left in the dark, while simultaneously telling the historical story of Philadelphia and areas abroad. Recently I sat down with Finkle in his Sansom Street studio in Center City to learn more about his story and to highlight the incredible work he’s produced.

At 85 years old Finkle doesn’t seem to miss a beat. Without hesitation he recalls decades old moments he experienced while shooting demonstrations or protests. A native of Philadelphia, Finkle has lived almost his entire life in the city of brotherly love. He grew up in Oxford Circle and attended Central High School. “I didn’t like school that much” said Finkle “It was too containing”. School came second to Finkle during his early years. He described his love for jazz music and how him and his friends in the early 50’s would often attend jazz clubs. One in particular he mentioned was the Blue Note, a club that was located on 15^th and Ridge in Fairmount. “We were 15 or 16, but it didn’t matter. You’d give the bouncer a buck and you were good to go in” he said. “I loved it; I could sit there for hours”. Years later, Finkle found that his interest in jazz translated into his photography. “Street photography is like jazz; you have to improvise”. Most of Finkle’s work is dependent on capturing a moment in real time. Just as jazz musicians adjust to the atmosphere of their audience, Finkle must instinctively adjust to the situation of his subjects.

*Urban Nomads: A Poor People’s Movement*

What struck me most about Finkle is that he didn’t grow up with an interest in photography, let alone art in particular. In fact, photojournalism is his second career. After serving two years in the army, Harvey graduated from Temple University and began a career in social work. He began his career as a case worker for the city’s welfare department and later transition to work around incidents of reported child abuse. Similarly to his love for jazz, Finkle found that his time as a social worker assisted him in his career as a photojournalist. “This was good training for me to be a photographer” he said, “Because you’re in a home where people don’t want you there” He continued his career in social work by helping to establish services for Pennsylvania’s elderly community, and went on to earn his masters in Social Work from the University of Pennsylvania, where he also later worked to establish a curriculum around matters of aging and the elderly.

Finkle’s interest in photography wasn’t sparked until 1961 when he visited an exhibit by Harry Callahan at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. He was inspired by Callahan and learned from his work, along with the works of W. Gene Smith, Andre Kerterz and Josef Koudelka. Following in their footsteps Finkle shoots predominantly in black and white film. However, it wouldn’t be until 1967 that he picked up a camera. This was around the time his children were born, and like any new parent, Finkle bought his first camera to ensure that no moment of his new family would be forgotten. Quickly, Finkle took a greater interest to photography and began snapping photos as a hobby. “I would walk the streets and just shoot what caught my eye” he said.

Finkle far left – Philadelphia Public School Notebook

Year by year his interest grew, and by 1972 he had fully fallen in love with photography. His family photoshoots and street walking had transitioned into a full-time job as a freelance photographer and photojournalist. His career is too extensive to cover every moment, but he walked me through stories and moments that were influential to his work. His career covers a full spectrum of work. It includes long tenures with social movement organizations or outlets like the Philadelphia Public School Notebook, Juntos, Disabled in Action, Project Home and the New Sanctuary Movement, just to name a few. When these organizations held a protest or demonstration Finkle was their man there to captured it all. What was astonishing to me is Finkle’s generosity. When shooting for these organizations and those like it, he predominately shot free of charge. What’s most important for Finkle are the issues these people are fighting for.

Philadelphia Mosaic: New Immigrants in America

When not shooting for allied organizations Finkle seeks stories that he believes are important and deserves to be told. His projects mainly focus on people and circumstances that normally go unnoticed by mainstream media sources. Issues of poverty, labor rights and immigration. He has created numerous exhibits that have been shared across the United States and displayed to international audiences. Partnering with the Honickman Foundation and the Philadelphia Free Library Finkle created the Philadelphia Mosaic exhibit. With this project he followed ten immigrant families through Philadelphia to capture what routine life is like for them in a new land. As he followed these families from their children’s classrooms, to their dinner tables and to their areas of worship he’s able to show the nuances of life these families share not only with one another, but with the surrounding Philadelphia community.

Finkle is able to find the reality of the subjects he’s shooting. For instance, the reality of poverty facing too many of our fellow citizens. Partnering with the William Penn foundation and the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, Finkle created Urban Nomads: A Poor People’s Movement – a project offering insight into the lives of Philadelphians living in extreme poverty and homelessness. His photographs tell the hidden narrative. When touring with this exhibit in Brazil Finkle recounted the astonishment on people’s faces. “They couldn’t believe that this sort of poverty existed in the United States” he said.

Finkle’s work also focuses on the history of Philadelphia. One of his most well-known projects is Still Home: The Jews of South Philadelphia. South Philadelphia was known for its many immigrant communities who settled there in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. What once was a sprawling community of over 200,000 Jewish people, had dwindled significantly by the turn on the millennium. With this project he captured the spirit of an aging but vibrant community and its contribution to the history of South Philadelphia.

Finkle’s collection of work is a time machine of the social, political and activist history of Philadelphia. For me, Finkle is not only a Photographer but is a historian. As we talked, he described moments in Philadelphia’s history that has shaped the wrought city into its existence today. One moment in particular was the 1967 Philadelphia School Board hearing, in which 3,000 mostly black students march upon the Board of Education building to demand curriculum and school policy changes. These brave students were met by riot officers wielding night sticks and police dogs, sent by orders of then police commissioner Frank Rizzo.

This powerful but unfortunate demonstration was significant for Finkle. Concerned citizens disgraced by the treatment of African American students in the classroom and the city’s violent response to their peaceful protest spawned the People for Human Rights movement in Philadelphia. From this movement, Finkle cofounded The People’s Fund, – a nonprofit organization whose mission is to raise money for grassroots organizations working for “racial equity and economic opportunity for all” – which today is known as Bread and Roses Community Fund.

His experiences in progressive movements offers a distinctive perspective on Philadelphia. I was intrigued in hearing his thoughts on the current state of the city. “Philly is a tale of two cities” he said. Everything has changed culturally for Philadelphia according to Finkle. The city is much more vibrant and active in many areas, but for many less fortunate people nothing has changed. “It hasn’t changed for those who are poor.”

Currently Finkle is working on archiving his work. A task that isn’t easy for someone with five decades worth of material. Once complete, people will be able to absorb work that offers a realism into the social struggle for equality, along with the hidden history of Philadelphia. I asked Finkle to offer a word of advice for aspiring photographers. With little hesitation he said, “Do it. Take out your camera and click it”. He urged photographers to pave their own path. “Find what’s important to you and tell that truth through your photographs.”

Inaugural Removal

In the beautifully renovated Met theater, a crowd of family, friends, campaign workers and an assortment of Philadelphia political leaders watched eagerly Monday morning as a cohort of city officials took their oath of office. The inauguration was heterogenous to say the least. The ceremony included the swearing in of City Commissioners, a new Sheriff, Register of Wills and Municipal and Court of Common Pleas judges. Albeit unfair, the attention of the audience was monopolized by the inauguration of City Council members and incumbent Mayor Jim Kenney.

City Council was welcoming (some more than others) four new faces, all of whom are younger and pledge to bring a wave of progressive policies; whether they deliver on these promises we must wait and see. Once sworn in and their family members brushed off stage, the newly inaugurated Council proceeded to formally appoint a Council President. With no public debate or deliberation, council members appointed Councilman Darrell Clarke to a continuous term as Council President. Additionally, despite Mayor Kenney’s unsurprising campaign victory, audience members were eager to hear what he has in store for his final term.

Mayor Kenney spoke on achievements of his administration’s first term and illustrated a five-point plan for what he hopes to address going forward. He touted the development of his city-wide pre-k program and gaining local control of the Philadelphia School District. Although he failed to elaborate on the details, he spoke about meeting “ambitious climate goals” and pledged to work with the state legislature to increase school funding.

However, while he addressed many other important topics, Mayor Kenney failed to address the forced removal taking place throughout the city. While the Philadelphia Boys Choir sang The Star-Spangled Banner and clergy leaders addressed the audience with prayers and readings, Mayor Kenney’s Department of Parks and Recreation was forcibly removing homeless citizens from multiple encampments along or near the Vine Street Expressway. The encampments were located on what is considered park land. According to reporting by the Inquirer three sites were targeted, leading to approximately 30 people displaced, despite some legal discrepancies on if the city can legally remove people from public park land.

Residents of the camps were given prior notice about the displacement, but some choose to stay, and on Monday morning they watched as employees from the Department of Parks and Recreation, armed with trash trucks, trampled through what little dignity they still preserved. In Mayor Kenney’s defense, beds were made available for every resident being displaced in one of the city’s homeless shelters and some residents took the opportunity to move inside.

Jessica Griffin/Staff Photographer Philadelphia *Inquirer*

Homelessness is one of the most vital issues facing any community. Despite Philadelphia’s massive poverty rate – the highest in the nation out of the ten largest cities – it has a comparable low unsheltered homeless population. As of 2018 approximately 1,000 residents were living on the street. This is due to Philadelphia’s committed outreach efforts spurred by Project HOME, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing full circle homeless services. The city is also partnered with 25 shelter programs, all of which operate 24 hours a day. Comparably, homeless shelters in most other large cities only provide services from sundown to sunrise, making it much more difficult to transition people out of homelessness permanently.

It is unclear whether Mayor Kenney gave a direct order for this mass removal, however the Department of Parks and Recreation is a city agency under the Mayor’s office directive. Presumably, something of this magnitude, with multiple department coordination, must be subject to Mayor Kenney’s approval. I do it thinks vital that our city works together to ensure our homeless citizens have a safe place to live, especially during the winter. Yet, this does not seem like the reason for this displacement. I would ask Mayor Kenney if the goal of the displacement was to ensure the residents of these encampments were moved indoors, why send a team of Parks and Recreation employees with shovels and trash trucks? Rather, wouldn’t it be more productive to assist these residents with social workers from the Office of Homeless Services? In at least one of the camps, half of the residents had vacated because of the city’s posted notices of the eviction. Were efforts made prior to Monday’s removal of finding safe shelter for these people, or was the goal simply to have them move to a less frequented section of the city?

To clarify, I do appreciate the city’s efforts in partnering with community organizations to serve Philadelphia’s homeless population. Nevertheless, it does rub me the wrong way that while Mayor Kenney was being sworn into office, his administration was forcibly removing homeless people from multiple camps throughout the city. Mayor Kenney spoke on his agenda for homeless people one time in his inaugural address. He said “We’ll continue our historic investments in housing affordability, homeless services, and homeownership. This will help stabilize Philadelphians struggling amid poverty and grow our middle class.” Better than Council President Clarke’s complete lack of acknowledgement in his inauguration day address. Poverty has been and still is a major issue facing Philadelphia. Both Councilman Clarke and Mayor Kenney pledged to lift 100,000 people out of poverty by the end of their terms, a bold goal that would reduce the poverty rate by 25%. I hope they will both collaborate in their upcoming terms on ways to ensure our homeless population isn’t forgotten in this ambitious fight, so that when the next mayor is taking their oath of office, he or she won’t also be evicting some of our most vulnerable citizens.

A scandalous 2019 for The Philadelphia Police Department

If you mention the Philadelphia Police Department the first thing that may come to mind is the mid-August police stand-off in the Nicetown-Tioga neighborhood of North Philadelphia. A stand-off that resulted in six officers wounded and chaos at the doorsteps of worried neighborhood bystanders. While this was an unfortunate situation for both the officers involved and the residents of Nicetown-Tioga, it has seemed in some way to overshadowed the many worrisome stories involving the Department and its officers. Since June 2019, as if on cue, a new scandal involving Philadelphia police officers has surfaced almost monthly. Some involving Department practices, others involving varying inappropriate behavior by officers.

The recent string of scandals began in early June with the publication of the Plain View Project, a report that collected the Facebook accounts of approximately 3,500 active and retired officers, spanning eight police jurisdictions, who had authored offensive and disturbing messages. There are roughly 6,500 officers on the police force in Philadelphia, making it the fourth largest police department in the country. The Plain View Project was able to identify 1,073 Facebook accounts for Philadelphia police officers, of which 327 made “troubling posts or comments”. If you believe these numbers are an accurate sample size for the entire department, it shows that one in three officers walking the streets, patrolling neighborhoods and writing police reports has bigoted, offensive or disturbing feelings towards a large portion of Philadelphians. An investigation by the Philadelphia Police Department has led to the firing of 15 officers and a 30-day suspension for 7 more.

On August 20^th, then Police Commissioner Richard Ross, resigned after female officers Audra McCowan and Jennifer Allen filed a federal lawsuit against Commissioner Ross and many of other high-ranking officials in the Department (including interim police commissioner Christine M. Coulter). This lawsuit had two major consequences. It detailed an alleged (which I believe) abundant culture of sexual and racial harassment in the Department. Additionally, McCowan – who has since resigned from the police force due to increased harassment from her fellow officers – claims Commissioner Ross “Ignored” her accusation of another officer that was sexual harassing her, because Ross was “seeking retribution” against her for ending an affair the two had between 2009 -2011. Ross resigned shortly after the lawsuit was filed. The tabloid drama of an affair doesn’t bother me, but an alleged culture of sexual and racial harassment by police officers is very troublesome, along with a commissioner’s alleged reluctance to mitigate that culture.

Ross was replaced by Deputy Commissioner Christine M. Coulter, who currently serves as interim Commissioner until Mayor Jim Kenney is scheduled to appoint a formal Commissioner by the end of 2019. The city had just appointed its first female Police Commissioner following the development of a sexual harassment scandal within its department. This should have been a joyous occasion. Unfortunately, the honeymoon was cut short. Ten days after Coulter was promoted an article was released that shows a 1990’s picture of Coulter sporting a t-shirt that reads “L.A.P.D. We Treat You Like a King”. Set aside the fact that the shirt is blatantly offensive and disrespectful to any Black person, or someone who believes in justice, Coulter responded by not apologizing for ten days.

Council Woman Cindy Bass called for her resignation, which I agree with. I’m not saying Coulter is racist, I don’t know the woman, I didn’t know of her role in the police department until her promotion. But I do know that a Police Commissioner who presides over a city that is 44% Black should have never in her past reckoned that it was ok to wear such a shirt, nor should it have taken her more than fifteen minutes to apologize for her behavior.

Fast forward a couple weeks, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article detailing the arbitration process for dismissed or punished officers. The arbitration process is a product of the contract reached between the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5, the officer’s local police union, and the Police Department itself. Any officer fired or disciplined by the Department, through an investigation by its internal affairs division or Department officials, is given the blessing of a final review by a third-party mediator.

I’m all in favor of strong unions that can provide helpful protections for its workers, however this arbitration has the effect of possibly over protecting, and in many cases putting bad cops back on the street at the expense of the public’s trust, or even safety. In many cases cops who have committed domestic violence, sexual assault or various other crimes have been reinstated or had their punishment reduced thanks to the arbitration system. The arbitration process requires testimony from victims or witnesses of the behavior in question by the officers. Often, these officers are successful in their grievance because witnesses are unable to appear, either because the hearing is months or years after the event took place, they fear retribution from the officer or the simple can’t be reached.

According to the article, the last four Philadelphia Police Commissioners are critical of the arbitration system. They believe, as do I, that this system is detrimental to securing trust between the Department and the people it’s sworn to protect. If an officer is suspended/fired for falsifying a testimony, making an illegal arrest or being a danger to the community while off duty, but is sent back on street with a gun and a badge and the authority to beat, detain and even kill other people, all while receiving back pay, you’re damn right a community and its people would be cynical with the system its entrusting with its safety.

Jump ahead a month to October 14^th, and Philadelphians are looking over their shoulders seeing if it’s safe to take a big deep sigh of relief from the constant embarrassment of its Police Department. Collectively, the city opens the Philadelphia Inquirer, and to their woe must hold that sigh of relief for a brighter day. This time, it appears that Philadelphia police were drastically increasing the number of traffic stops they were conducting, an overwhelming majority of which were falling on Black and Latino drivers. Attorney Michael Mellon of the Defenders Association of Philadelphia discovered that as of the first half of 2019 police were making on average 10,000 more stops a month compared to years prior. While only combining for approximately 57% of Philadelphia’s population, Blacks and Latino’s composed 74% of all vehicle stops and 80% of all vehicle searches during this time.

A 2011 lawsuit over the racial disparities in stop and frisk violations in Philadelphia included, but did not focus on, vehicle stops. This lawsuit resulted in a consent decree between the city and local civil rights attorneys, giving the attorneys inspector privileges of future pedestrian and vehicle stops. These attorneys have previously prioritized pedestrian stops, but have signaled that they will be adjusting their focus to vehicle stops and searches. What’s most alarming about these findings is that although Black and Latino drivers have their vehicles searched four times more often than white drivers, white drivers are found with contraband at a higher rate.

What does this mean for Philadelphia, a city who isn’t foreign to conflicts between its citizens and its police department? These recent incidents are not the first examples of indecent behavior by Philadelphia cops. Other examples include the 2011 lawsuit against the city for its harassing use of stop and frisk, a list uncovered by the District Attorney’s office detailing names of officers too tainted and untrustworthy to put on the stand in court proceedings and the infamous 1985 MOVE bombing that left 11 people dead and an entire city block of homes burned to the ground. The recent string of events simply adds to the long history of an unsettling relationship between the police and the people it’s sworn to protect. Unfortunately, the last many months has only made it more difficult to rebuild this relationship.

However, there are opportunities Philadelphia can employ to work towards gaining its citizens trust back. Mayor Jim Kenney has announced that he hopes to have a choice for a new police commissioner by the end of 2019. Eagles safety Malcom Jenkins, who since 2017 has been very vocal around criminal justice reform and police brutality, has put Mayor Kenney on the hot seat by publicly stressing the need for Kenney to nominate a commissioner who is dedicated to reforms within the department. Jenkins also demanded that the public have an input on the search for a new commissioner and that the process be transparent. In a recent op-ed in the Inquirer, Jenkins said “If the commissioner avoids us when just a candidate, how will that person respond when he or she’s already in office and things get hard”. Jenkins also advocated for a commissioner who has the courage to stand up to the police union, a remark that issued an unsurprising rebuttal by union president John McNesby.

I’m very much in support of citizens becoming active in holding elected official responsible, however, it’s unfortunate that these demands haven’t come from our City Council representatives directly, the people we empower to make these decisions for us. Hopefully, with the election of four freshman City Council members, who ran on agendas that included progressive (some more than others) criminal justice reform, we will see a change in this regard.

The whiteness of Hollywood’s ‘best’ movies

Recently I came across an article that immediately caught my attention. “The 100 best TV shows of the 21^st century”. Being an avid procrastinator, I fill much of my time by binging TV shows thanks to our many readily available streaming services. You name it, I’ve seen it – The Office, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Game of Thrones and of course, the one that changed television in all the best ways, The Sopranos (Which I’m happy to see The Guardian hit the nail on the head by awarding Tony and his crew the number one spot).

This list left me curious on another method I indulge in frequently to procrastinate, movies. What are the top 100 movies of all time (as if a list of that sort is even achievable)? After a swift Google search I found lists by The Hollywood Reporter, IMDb, The American Film Institute (AFI) and Empire. I’ll save you the time if your curiosity is killing you. The Godfather received the crown from three out of four lists. The AFI was more partial to Orson Welles’ 1941 film Citizen Kane.

There is no accurate way to produce a list of such a subjective topic. While AFI proclaimed Citizen Kane the best movie of all time, Empire believed it deserved a more mediocre placement at number 46. Quinten Tarantino’s first film Reservoir Dogs made the cut for two lists but was booted from the other two. It’s an impossible task to bundle down 100 years of cinematic brilliance into a what feels like a surprisingly short list. However, while I jumped from one list to the next, I did develop one similar complaint. Not one movie on any of these lists starred a Black person as the sole lead role.

The issues of racial equality in Hollywood are well-documented. It was of course brought to light during the 2015 and 2016 Oscars when not a single person of color was nominated for best/supporting actor/actress award, resulting in many Black members of Hollywood boycotting the event. To be fair, there are a handful of movies on these lists that star a Black person as a second leading role such as Rocky or Star Wars. Others give opportunity for Black actors to share the big screen’s leading role with a white counterpart, such as Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption and Blazing Saddles.

My critique of these lists was sparked by its absence of Do the Right Thing, Spike Lee’s 1989 masterpiece, a movie that was fresh in my mind from watching it a few days prior. How does arguably the best movie, by one of the best film makers of the last 40 years, not make the cut? This then got me thinking, what other movies starring a Black person as the leading role were missing from this list. American Gangster, Training Day, 12 Years a Slave, Moonlight, Boyz N the Hood, all were left off, but each one can muster a strong argument for deserving to be on these lists. As my mind did somersaults trying to find one reason to justify these exemptions, I kept returning to two explanations.

First, Hollywood’s decision makers have a prejudice against trusting black and brown actors to carry a movie as the sole leading man. Why couldn’t Wesley Snipes play John McClain in Die Hard, or Morgan Freedman take on the role of Chief Brody in Jaws (freedman would make a convincing in over his head police chief if you ask me). This absurdity is best exemplified by the backlash Idris Elba received in 2015 for simply having his name mentioned as a possibility to replace Daniel Craig in the 007 franchise.

In addition, Hollywood powers that be have a prejudice against promoting films that narrate the stories of Black and Brown Americans. In other words, stories that don’t fall accustom to the white main stream way of life. Boyz N the Hood is one of the most culturally impactful movies of the last 30 years. It sparked the careers of some amazing actors and actresses not to mention the career of John Singleton, the movie’s creator. In an article written in the New York Times shortly after Singleton’s death, writer Touré makes a compelling point. Boyz N the Hood is no less a realistic coming of age story than Risky Business or The Breakfast Club; The Breakfast Club, which is considered a top 100 movie on one of the lists I must add. It depicts a part of American society that may be absent of many people’s daily consciousness. However, its cultural impact hasn’t gone completely unnoticed. In 2002 the Library of Congress decided it deserved to be preserved in the National Film Registry. What does the Library of Congress know that these Hollywood industry writers and publishers don’t?

If you’re looking for a more recent example I point to Moonlight. Unlike Boyz N the Hood, Moonlight was awarded the academy award for best picture. It’s also a coming of age story, but depicted with a softer tone and more nuance cinematic style. But despite its more art house impression, the authors of the lists still didn’t consider it a top 100 movie.

I feel obligated to mention that the criticism thus far has only revolved around the lack of Black male actors. It’s important also to point out that while many movies I mentioned earlier costar a Black actor, none costar a Black actress aside from Zoe Saldana in Avatar; a movie where she’s digitally animated for half of her screen time. This problem of an over saturation of whiteness in Hollywood extends to exclude not just Black and Brown woman, but Asian, Latinx and all other actors and actresses of color.

It’s important to diversify the stories we as a society consume. The only way to grow is to expand our consciousness, and viewing films that tell stories that don’t cross our paths on a daily basis is a great way to do just that. Movies are also made to spark emotion in a viewer, I would argue that in many ways consuming a story that you may not experience regularly evokes excitement and curiosity that a movie viewer craves. Despite my criticism of Hollywood thus far I’m optimistic about its potential of inclusivity. Unfortunately however, like much of American society, it seems to be happening by kicking doors down instead of them being politely let open. Michael B. Jordan, possibly one of the biggest names in Hollywood right now, founded Outlier Society, a production company dedicated to creating films and other projects with a focus on culturally diverse stories and film staffs. Outlier Society’s first project is set to be released on December 25^th 2019. It tells the true story of Bryan Stevenson (Michael B Jordan), as he establishes the Equal Justice Initiative and works to appeal the murder conviction of Walter McMillian (Jamie Fox) who’s on death row. I’m extremely excited for this film and to see the future works that come from Jordan and the rest of Hollywood’s new talented diverse generation.

Democratic debate number two – what to expect, if anything worth wild at all

The second of twelve DNC scheduled debates is set to convene this week between twenty Democratic presidential hopefuls. The candidates have been divided into two ‘teams’ of ten and will take the stage in Detroit on Tuesday and Wednesday night to eloquently debate the moral and crucial concerns of our time. These dignified US politicians will certainly refrain from speaking out of turn, deliberately ignoring the moderator’s questions and aimlessly attacking one another to score a prime-time CNN soundbite.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what these debates will most likely consist of. Each debate is scheduled for two hours, excluding commercial breaks and moderator questions, that gives each candidate twelve minutes of speaking time. Obviously this isn’t the case, but it points to the ridiculousness of trying to squeeze debates into cable television’s allotted prime time viewership. These types of structured debates don’t offer candidates the opportunity to sufficiently detail their policy platforms. Only two candidates (Harris and Biden) in the June debates surpassed the twelve-minute mark. Their purpose is to introduce the candidates to a wide audience and hopefully reach voters whose daily schedule doesn’t include the latest campaign updates.

Why the DNC doesn’t shrink the size of each cluster of candidates to allow for an actually intelligent debate is unbeknownst to me. Is it because they believe the American audience is too uninterested and lazy to sit down for a couple extra nights? Do the candidates themselves not wish to have to intelligently walk us through their policy decisions? While the debates may not perfectly detail each candidate’s policy platforms, there are some things I expect to see.

The first night of debates consists of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the two far-left leaning progressive candidates. While these two senators share many of the same policy decisions, and have refrained from attacking each other thus far due to their friendship, I doubt we’ll get any steamy rows between the two of them. Instead, I expect Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke to poke jabs at the either Sanders or Warren, whom they both trail in the polls. O’Rourke’s campaign already seems to be slipping away from him and he needs to find a way to bring it back to life. Buttigieg on the other hand, can use this opportunity to convince centrist Democrats that he’s possibly a safer choice than Biden to quell their fears of a Sanders/Warren White House.

The second night has the makings for a much more exciting performance. Senator Kamala Harris has been paired next to former Vice President Joe Biden. It was only a month ago when the two sparred over issues of school busing, and Biden’s blundering past involvement with segregationist senators. In the last week leading up to this debate Senator Harris has released her plans for eliminating student debt, implementing affordable health care and tackling climate change. Look for Biden to certainly mention these policy developments.

What I’m most excited for however is my expectation for Andrew Yang to receive a bump in his speaking time. If the spatial arrangement of candidates tells us anything, it’s that being in the middle matters. Yang, who received the least amount of speaking time in the first round of debates, – partly due to his microphone being deliberately turned off unless specifically called on – has been positioned directly right of center, prime debate real estate one could say. I assume this gestures that the moderators are planning to make Yang a much more integral part of this debate. I’m not watching to learn to each candidate’s ten-point plan on how they’re going to save the United States. I’m watching to simply because it’s entertainment. These debates are sure to offer great political theater and I will have my popcorn ready.

The DNC says no to a climate change debate

On June 26^th and 27^th Miami was home to the first of twelve scheduled Democratic presidential debates between this campaign’s record setting number of Democratic candidates. Twenty presidential hopefuls, ranging from party outsiders like Andrew Yang to former Vice President Joe Biden, took the stage in what was an unprecedented two night event. These candidates did their best to remember the talking points their campaign staffs tirelessly drilled into their minds, and gave a pitch to the American people why they should be this country’s next president.

While moderators Chuck Todd, Lester Holt and Rachel Maddow (and others) offered their best attempts at babysitting the candidates, they failed to address the protest that was simultaneously happening at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters in Washington D.C. For three days, members of the Sunrise Movement – an activist group composed of mostly high school and college students focused on tackling issues related to Climate Change and the environment – protested in front of the DNC headquarters to express their dissatisfaction with the DNC’s refusal to hold a debate on Climate Change.

While more than a hundred activists attended the protest, many took it one step further by throwing down sleeping bags and spending the night on the steps of the DNC. A couple weeks prior to debates DNC Chairman Tom Perez released a statement indicating that the DNC would not adhere to the requests of any interest group organization for specific issue related debates, most notably, climate change.

According to Perez, hosting a debate on climate change would be unfair to other interests groups who have requested debates, as well to the candidates themselves. Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington and candidate for the Democratic nomination, has dedicated his whole campaign (with a few exceptions) to addressing the threat of climate change. The DNC and Perez believe that by agreeing to a debate on climate change they would be tipping the scale in favor of Inslee, something they desperately don’t won’t to be accused of following the 2016 Wikileaks scandal in which they were allegedly caught favoring then candidate Hillary Clinton.

But surely you would think the candidates don’t need the assistance of the DNC to debate issues related to climate change. This would be true, and it’s something the DNC was mindful of. The DNC has issued a warning to all candidates that participation in any unsanctioned DNC debate would result in that candidate’s exclusion from the now eleven future DNC scheduled debates. This type of first-class black mail isn’t new for the DNC. In 2016 they similarly threaten to punish candidates who ventured to unsanctioned DNC debates. Likewise, during the 2016 election the DNC refused to hold a debate on issues related to criminal justice reform and civil rights requested by Black Lives Matter.

Climate change was given less then 20 minutes between the combined debates this past month. Twenty minutes to discuss sea level rises, human displacement, excessive droughts, wild fires and many more vital threats that are accompanied with climate change. It’s safe to say that 20 minutes allotted between 20 candidates is nowhere near enough. Perez is wrong in his understanding of climate change as a singularly issue. The conversation revolved around climate change incorporates important issues of the economy, unemployment, energy use, and national security; it is in many ways the most important issue our next president will have to tackle.

The Sunrise Movement’s efforts to publicly shame the DNC may thankfully be paying off. The DNC reportedly may be willing to vote on resolutions to change its rules to allow for issue specific debates during its meeting held in August. The Sunrise Movement efforts during the June debates brought noise to the doorsteps of the DNC, hopefully they have begun to listen.