What Washington, D.C. regards as a traffic crisis—Halle Berry and Alicia Keys, safely delivered to their red carpet adoration
A resident of the Greater Washington, D.C. area, today I detect no outraged commentary in the local news media about the bizarre behavior of the D.C. government revealed here, on the DC website…
Scheduled Street Closures for the 2013 BET Honors
“The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has provided the information about a scheduled street closures for the 2013 BET Honors event scheduled for Saturday, January 12, 2013. The event will be held at the Warner Theatre.
“The following streets will be closed from 12:01 am on Thursday, January 10 to 2 am on Sunday January 13:
•East and West curb lanes of 12th Street, NW between E Street and F Street, NW
•North curb lane of E Street, NW between 12th and 13th Street, NW
•East curb lane of 13th Street, NW between E Street and F Street, NW
“The following streets will be closed starting at 12:01 am on January 12, until 2 am on Sunday, January 13: E Street, NW between 12th and 13th Streets, NW
“Motorists traveling in the area of this event may experience delays and should consider alternative routes if possible. The Metropolitan Police Department and the District Department of Transportation would like to remind motorists to pay full attention whenever operating any motor vehicle and to be mindful of pedestrian traffic that may be associated with special events. These street closings are subject to change without notice based upon unanticipated events and prevailing conditions.”
Hey, thanks for the heads —wait, WHAT?
Why is the D.C. government inconveniencing a single resident or visitor to accommodate a lavish PR event by a for-profit entertainment corporation, albeit a local one? Why is the D.C. government spending taxpayer money to assist a special interest company that is perfectly capable of taking care of itself? How can Black Entertainment Television’s essentially racist awards ceremony—to win, you have to be black, you see—openly pull strings to get special support and treatment and not even raise eyebrows among the supposed ethics watchdogs here? And how could any event short of the upcoming inauguration justify such extensive street closings and traffic re-routing for four days? The Warner theater is a theater, not the Roman Colosseum .
Yesterday morning, after having to deal with detours and alternate routes to make it to my monthly ethics presentation for newly minted lawyers at the massive Ronald Reagan building, I asked a D.C. Bar official what was behind the expensive, extensive disruption.
“Oh,” she said. “A lot of celebrities and big shots will be arriving for rehearsals and things in limousines and stretch limousines, and D.C. wants to make it easy for them to get around.”
Well that’s all right, then!
One has to look no farther than this incompetent display of special treatment, wasted resources and warped priorities to understand why America has such a crippling celebrity culture, and how the public is slowly numbed into accepting that there are the beautiful and rich people who matter, and then there are the rest of us.
Ethics Alarms 
You have many strong points of which I agree here, but I am curious why you included this: “How can Black Education Television’s essentially racist awards ceremony—to win, you have to be black, you see—openly pull strings to get special support and treatment.” There are many celebrations of other ethnic groups that are just that – a celebration of ethnic groups, and they are not necessarily racist for doing so. I do not believe your piece here needed this inclusion to be compelling or true.
Celebrations are one thing, awards based on achievements is another. I would find a “White Culture Award” offensive, so would Halle Berry, and so would BET. If it’s illegal and offensive in this country to discriminate purely on the basis of race, than it’s offensive no matter where it comes from. The Academy Awards doesn’t divide up categories by race. The NFL doesn’t pick the best black running back. Either we believe that race shouldn’t change how we measure and recognize achievement, or we don’t. BET wants it both ways; so does the DC government and culture, in which there are debates about whether the city should ever have a white mayor.
The BET Awards are anachronistic, and rank hypocrisy, and nobody, especially me, should hesitate to point that out.
By the way — It’s Black Entertainment Television, not Black Education Television.
Oops. Thanks…fixed it.
The decidedly very white and Canadian Robin Thicke has been nominated and won several BET awards. As Finnegan noted, many other ethnicities hold awards and celebrations. Why can’t African-Americans?
They can, and there’s nothing I can do about it. It’s still an irresolvable double standard. Obviously.
If other groups have the same kinds of celebrations and awards, where is the double standard? Even Greek-Americans have the Gabby Awards.
I covered that. (By the way, Greek-Americans, as a community, are notoriously bigoted against non-Greeks, and especially against blacks. I grew up with them.)
You can’t argue that King was right that men’s character and accomplishments should not be measured by the color of their skin, and simultaneously give awards of merit in which skin color is a qualification. Sorry. Can’t be done. I know much of the black community thinks that when African Americans openly discriminate in favor of blacks over whites i’ts not discrimination, but if whites favor whites over blacks, it’s racism. And there will never be genuine racial accord until that double standard is rejected and condemned in the black community.
Rats…I just realized that I left you out of the list of EA regulars! A mistake.
Ehh, when black people have the same access to the same kind, quality, and quantity of moie roles that white people have, then we can talk about dismantling the double standard. But why not give out awards for people whoo done significant things important to your culture, especially when there is very little chance that they would be recognized or celebrated by mainstream culture? Out of the ten or so black actresses who were nominated for a leading lady Oscar, only one has ever won, and for a role that many black people found demeaning. Perhaps one day we won’t need separate awards, but I would argue we are nowhere near that time period yet.
Right–it’s a double standard, and double standards are unethical. What do you mean, “little chance”? By whose assessment? There is a black President, last I looked. Hollywood rolls over backwards to honor minority performers any time it can. Richard Burton was nominated over and over again for an Oscar, and never won. Sydney Poitier did. Denzel did. Was the Academy biased against Englishmen?
What a pathetic rationalization. This particular double standard, African-American reluctance to abandon its own racism, is why an ESPN commentator didn’t realize he was out of line saying that RG III wasn’t really “a brother” because he was going to marry a white girl. It’s un-American, it is hypocritical, and it needs to stop.
How many British men have won an Oscar for leading actor? A lot. (almost 20). How many white men in general have won an Oscar in that category? Save for two, all of them. The British have their own awards show (the BAFTAs) by the way, so I don’t think of that as a particularly good example. Why should they have their own awards show? Why isn’t the Oscars good enough for them? 🙂 Why do we need BBC America when we have four perfectly good American networks that should satisfy everyone’s taste?
Why not have awards and celebrations that are geared to your own culture? Especially when the “mainstream” has decided to mostly ignore contributions from that culture? I don’t see what is so wrong about highlighting the works in your own particular community, whether it be African-American, Italian-American, Natie-American, or whatever. We can hardly expect the mainstream to take in interest in everything all at once (or at all in many cases), so why shouldn’t a particular community do it, rather than relying on outsiders to take up their causes and interests?
This is all diversion and static, deery. The issue is color blindness. The idea is thatmaking an official statement that X is superior to Y because of race or color is offensive not only to core American values, but core American values that African-Americans fought for.
America has one culture, and it’s a culture of equality and exclusion, not divisiveness, bias, color-consciousness and exclusion. The white race is not permitted to exclude other races from its cultural rewards and honors, nor should any other race be. What does race have to do with acting? Writing? Singing? Sports? Nothing. Best singer, not “Best white/black/short singer.” This double standard goes down along with affirmative action, quotas, and forced diversity. If we have an all-female, all-black, all-white, all-Jewish, all-gay Supreme Court, all that should matter is whether they’re legal and analysis skills are the best available.
America has one culture, and it’s a culture of equality and exclusion, not divisiveness, bias, color-consciousness and exclusion.
Hardly. That may be an something that America might strive to be someday, but that is hardly the America we have had for the first 200 something years or so, nor the America we have now. America was based on inequalit and exclusion, especially in the realm of race, something which continues even today.
But think about it this way. You run a little neighborhood bowling team with other neighborhoods in your small area of the city. You apply to be part of the All-City League, who reject you, not because you aren’t good enough, but because you are from the poor area of the city that they don’t like. This exclusion continues for decades. In the meantime, you form your own leagues and have a good time playing with others from your area. Finally, begrudgingly, the All-City League agrees to let you a few of your best team members play, while still continuing to exclude the bulk of the rest of the teams in your area from playing.
However, the All-City League wonders why so many people from your area might still enjoy participating in their own little league. They wonder why since a small handful of your league is now able to play All-City, why your league doesn’t immediately disband. But why should you be required to disband? Because a small few have been grudgingly allowed into the inner sanctum, does everyone have to automatically prefer All-City now? After all this time many people like their league, have fun playing with people from their own neighborhood, and have suspicions about All-City’s motivations.
But as noted, the BET Awards has honored white people before with awards, and will probably do so in the future. Probably about the same proportion at any rate as the Oscars have awarded black actors. So what’s the problem?
Do you feel that there should be separate awards for actors and actresses? Why or why not?
I think different awards for actors and actresses can be justified, because most roles are gender specific, and apples to apples comparisons are easier. I also allows more awards. But women often insist on being called “actors” now; only one award would be logical, if not commercial.
Your argument is essentially that the best way to end a cultural trend is to engage in it. That “Tit for Tat,” and an ethical fallacy. The best approach is to take the exemplary path, not the retrograde one.
One thing pricked at me here – “Hardly. That may be an something that America might strive to be someday, but that is hardly the America we have had for the first 200 something years or so, nor the America we have now.”
But if we genuinely are striving to be there someday, don’t we need to find the behaviors – all of them – that stand between us and that goal, and eliminate them? If an organization wishes to recognize only members of a certain race, and there’s no place for behavior like that in America of tomorrow, then we’ll never get to the America of tomorrow until they cease their behavior. “Be the change you want to see in the world” and all that.
Sad to say, there are many members of racial organizations who seem to have less of an attitude of ‘we want to eliminate racism and ethnicism’ and far more of an attitude of ‘things won’t be even until we get to be just as powerful and racist and exclusive as you were.’ And it’s remarkably hard to point out such hypocracy in today’s evironment – but hypocracy it is.
Aaron,
But if we genuinely are striving to be there someday, don’t we need to find the behaviors – all of them – that stand between us and that goal, and eliminate them? If an organization wishes to recognize only members of a certain race, and there’s no place for behavior like that in America of tomorrow, then we’ll never get to the America of tomorrow until they cease their behavior. “Be the change you want to see in the world” and all that.
“I know blacks are discriminated against, but we don’t want them to be discriminated against, so instead of trying to correct for current discrimination, we should allow them to be discriminated against. It’s only fair.” That’s what your logic amounts too.
While you have a point about hypocrisy, your above point is just horrible.
Jack,
Look at Aaron’s logic. It applies to all behaviors that would be a negative in our perfect future, no matter what benefits they have now.
Is that what you think Aaron is saying? I think he’s saying that to engage in the very conduct you constantly inveigh against perpetuates the conduct as a cultural phenomenon, and ultimately undermines the goal. How do you get your translation out of those words?
I think the prior discourse can all be summarized by “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
And I think your comment can be summarized as “I don’t understand minutiae, here’s a bumper sticker slogan.”
No, my summary is valid. The flaws of your argument having been exposed above are glaring. Even a simple statement of “two wrongs don’t make a right” is as painful as the lights being flipped on to a cockroach.
Nobody pointed out any flaws in my argument above. Jack had a different interpretation of Aaron than mine, and he asked me to support my interpretation, which I did below. As of the writing of your previous post, the post I’m replying to, and this post itself, nobody else has responded.
In other words, you’re flat out wrong.
The pain from your statement was in how stupid it was. Like when the NRA suggests that we need to put guns in schools (and gun opponents suggest we need to ban guns) just because someone shot up a school.
Just?? I’d submit there’s a huge difference in weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens protecting our children against monsters who are armed with anything. If you’re against the 2nd Amendment, why not just come out and say so?
Just??
Yes, “just” is the appropriate term there. It denotes that the following phrase is the only reason in my proffered silly argument.
I’d submit there’s a huge difference in weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens protecting our children against monsters who are armed with anything.
You failed to list a second term for your difference. Your statement reads as “there’s a huge difference between X” instead of “there’s a huge difference between X and Y”. I’d also note that your “law abiding citizens” comment is a false assumption.
If you’re against the 2nd Amendment, why not just come out and say so?
How in the world did you get that out of my statement? I equally made fun of both the stupid kneejerk forced arming and the stupid kneejerk disarming.
TGT: You’re “just” resorting to extraneous blather again. And “law abiding citizens” are a false assumption? Try to offer something substantial, for once.
Another attempt to pivot off a word used in a post. That’s followed by your being incredulous that I challenged a silly statement (not everyone armed will necessarily be a law abiding citizen), and a case of projection.
You have this talent for painting others with your massively self-evident flaws, Tiggy. Talk about projection! And then you attempt (again) to put words in my mouth from another idiotic post of yours on another thread. Obviously, you were pretty embarrassed by the response. And well you should have been. Sometimes, though, your little word games- meaningless as they are in substances- offer a little fun. But they quickly get tedious as you desperately pursue the last word. Your only real advantage is that most of the posters, like myself, don’t have the whole day to spend on these pointless tailchasings that seem to be your only fulfilment in life.
And more general attacks in lieu of responding.
That’s what you always say when you’ve been cornered!
Again, a general accusation. There’s not even an attempt to tie any of these accusations to anything I’ve actually said.
Isolating blacks from mainstream culture = wrong.
Blacks reacting by self-isolating from mainstream culture and assuming an air of isolating others as a reaction = wrong
2 wrongs don’t make a right.
All true. Kudos!
Now, what does that have to do with Aaron’s comment? His comment was clear in saying that if something won’t be good in our desired future, then it is wrong for us to let it occur now. Your statement is a completely different tack than what Aaron’s was.
Say, my dream America has all regular citizens as law-abiders who respect everyone’s rights. Once we get there, the police will not be needed. They’d just be a dangerous force likely to trample our rights. Right now, they’re still a dangerous force that tramples our rights, but they are also a necessity.
As for your statement on its own, its silly. Sometimes bad acts are good when they come in response to other bad acts. Locking people up is wrong. Locking people up in response to them committing crimes is right. Forcing a company to honor mistaken prices is generally wrong. Forcing Safeway to do so (up to a $5 difference) is right, as Safeway has shown a pattern of overcharging, and that they didn’t care to fix it. Shunning your sister is wrong. Shunning your sister after she unapologetically lies about your is right.
Completely applicable to his comment. Only an illiterate cannot see that.
Your analogies fail miserably.
Locking people up in response to them committing a crime is an act of a constituted authority in response to the crime. Allowing widespread racism from one group, simply because their ancestors experienced widespread racism, and perhaps a few of their contemporaries have experienced isolated racism is not an authoritative response to a crime. And any authoritative response to the crimes perpetuated towards a group in the past, to benefit or punish a group in the presence smacks of collectivism and further injustice and not individual treatment under the law. Thus wrong.
Shunning your sister after she unapologetically lies about you actually is wrong if there are no intermediate steps in between, to give her opportunity to amend herself and her behavior. The use of that as an analogy, while ignoring the intermediate steps, is just a big tit-for-tat rationalization. Additionally, this fails the test because you are still comparing individual action to individual wrongs to group actions for supposed group wrongs. We don’t live in a collectivist society, we treat people as individuals.
Forcing Safeway to sell at its advertised price because it has been falsely advertising? Ok, that doesn’t parallel either, let alone the question of whether or not the government is even taking a just measures to correct Safeway (an entirely separate discussion).
Are you being intentionally daft.
First, you still haven’t explained how your comment applies.
Second, you repeatedly misrepresent situations in your response to my analogies. Honoring Blacks is not racism. You create a strawman to attack here. That’s followed by a comment that lies about the current state of affairs, and then goes off into a random tangent. Further on you plead for context in one of my examples, after you intentionally stripped the context out of the original issue. For the Safeway example, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
My examples were in direct response to your silly “[two] wrongs don’t make a right” summation. Yes, it’s a commonly used maxim, but it doesn’t always apply. I pointed out three cases where it doesn’t apply: two where the government acts in response and one where an individual acts in response. The key is that the response is not just a stand alone wrong; it’s an attempt to correct a wrong where the good outweighs the bad IN CONTEXT.
As I just noted, Aaron didn’t complain that this is wrong despite prior wrongness. He took the tack that it would be wrong in the future, so it is wrong now. Your comment continues to be an inappropriate characterization of the previous comments. There’s no way for you to save yourself here.
Nice, open your response with a loaded question. If I were acting daft (which I’m not), it would have to intentional, it would not come as naturally to me as it seems to come to you.
Aaron has asserted a desireable goal, a vision for an America that is truly just in its treatment of all. He has stated the Objective. He has then asserted a current condition, which is implied to be short of the goal of justice for all. This is the Situation. When the Current Situation does not match the Objective, we take corrective action to nudge ourselves closer to the Objective.
He has described that if a corrective action taken would not match justice as envisioned in the Objective, then it IS NOT right now.
He has then asserted that exclusionary Black awards programs (seen as a corrective action by a particular subset of our larger culture) is at odds with the envisioned Objective. We will call this ‘corrective action’: “Wrong #2”
The context of the entire conversation before hand clearly indicates that, what we will call “Wrong #1” is the larger culture having been exclusive towards the subset of African Americans.
Two Wrongs don’t make a Right.
You may retract your ‘minutiae’ comment now, you may not. I doubt you will, but you ought to.
And it does apply. Your analogies are irresponsible over-simplifications. You’ve only made the right behavior appear wrong by stripping the moral component from them. Feeding my child is wrong because it ‘wastes resources’ as long as we strip away the morality of keeping my child fed. Driving my wife to the hospital is wrong because it pollutes, as long as we strip away the morality of saving my wife’s life. Reprehensible to do such to try to save yourself in this argument.
So, no, your silly analogies come in response to my quite non-silly summation.
“Honoring Blacks is not racism”. Yes, it is in the context in which it is done. Having a “Whites awards ceremony” (even if 1 or 2 blacks were awarded) is completely racist. Vice versa. I have created no straw man. You’ve crafted one in your mind and tossed it to my side of the court and screamed “HA, there’s a strawman on your side!!!” Typical TGT methodology, nothing new.
How big is your bailing bucket? Your ship is sinking fast.
As already explained, the logic fails on this: “He has described that if a corrective action taken would not match justice as envisioned in the Objective, then it IS NOT right [to take that action] now.”
This premise is what’s crap, and I’ve already explained why it’s crap. You ignored my explanation.
Again, as already explained, you are the one that stripped context. I simply paralleled your stripped context to point out the silliness of your comment.
It is still true that honoring blacks, as it was discussed, is not racism. The same would go for honoring whites. Saying “these are the best white entertainers” is not racism. Saying “these are the best entertainers”, and only including whites, would be.
You lack the analytic insight to bring things together, you support your assertions with silly and false analogies that border on playground-level idiocy, and you round your argument up playing with words. I’m not continuing on this, to be subjected to more nonsense.
@Tex,
Again, general accusations. No evidence.
Again, ignoring everything presented, pretending like it isn’t there is alot like a 5 year old covering his/her ears and saying “la la la la”
Tex,
You didn’t present anything. You made general accusations.
“You lack the analytic insight to bring things together,” – General attack on my intelligence
“you support your assertions with silly and false analogies that border on playground-level idiocy,” – General accusation. You don’t say what analogies are wrong or why they are wrong.
“and you round your argument up playing with words.” – Here you at least are somewhat specific in where the issue is, but you’re so general in your attack that it has no meaning.
Now, I’ve directly responded to each instead of the one statement that covered all three.
Don’t pretend to be dense, it becomes more real each time. Everything presented above, not just in the closing comment. Your methodology is pathetic.
So, I was right, it was a general attack with no specifics.
So, I was right.
Dense.
You willfully ignore everything and then claim that nothing was said.
You truly are the most bad-faith human being with whom I’ve discussed.
I responded to the specific complaints. When you stopped being specific, I called you on it. If you can’t follow that incredibly simple back and forth, then there’s no hope for you.
If you can’t realize your utter incompetence at connecting concepts OR your intentional mischance in this discussion, there is no hope for you.
I explain something that happen and then come up with a possible conclusion about you based on it.
You just state a conclusion about me without backing it up.
Do you not see the difference here?
It’s “You said apples and oranges are identical. If you don’t see the error there, then there’s no hope for you” followed by “I know you are but what am I?”
Also “your intentional mischance in this discussion” is a really stupid phrase. You think I’m creating bad luck for myself? That’s not even possible.
Don’t ask me why the intended word — “misbehavior” — auto-corrected to “mischance”.
I thought your response was in thread and responded in thread: “Look at Aaron’s logic. It applies to all behaviors that would be a negative in our perfect future, no matter what benefits they have now.”
Personally, my main offense in this comes from the concept of city government virtually sponsoring an event on the backs of the taxpayers. If a private group wants to hold a large event that will affect traffic and commerce, they should be required to provide or pay for the measures necessary to minimize the disruptions. I can understand a city government trying to facilitate such an event to some degree or work with the promoters, but it’s not up to them to BE a virtual promoter. If a city DOES promote a regular yearly event (like the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, for instance) the division of assets and responsibilities needs to be clearly stated from the onset and procede only with community backing and a well rehearsed staging plan. If someone wants to throw an event of any sort that is lawful and that the community approves of- be it racially, religiously or regionally biased- let them. The ethics of it can be debated and, if it is found offensive on that basis, it shouldn’t be expected to return. I can think of any number of events (like the Folsom Street Festival in San Francisco, for example) that are far more offensive than BET at its worst and would be illegal in any sane and decent setting. But I have no great problem with the BET ceremony itself… other than the hypocrisy of some who would condemn others for holding similar events on a similarly restrictive format.