Hasta La Gadget!

I am The Man.

I do not mean that in the “I’m the best, I’m the coolest” sense of the phrase.

I am The Man.

I mean that in the sense of the implication it has taken these last few decades.

I am The Man. I am The System. I am The Dominant Paradigm.

I did not build the system, did not create the dominant paradigm, but to try to claim that I am not of it — that I do not benefit from it — is to shut my eyes to self-evident truth. None of us became who we are on our own. We, all of us — are who we are specifically because of the words and deeds of everyone who came before us. Not just our families, but strangers too. Not just the heroes, but the villains too.

The world I inhabit was already deep in the throes of often-violent self-examination when I was born into white middle-class suburbia five decades ago. It had been 100 years since the end of the Civil War, but that war had never really ended, it simply moved behind a curtain. Our innate human suspicion of the “different” had controlled all civilization up to that point, and there was no reason to think that a few hundred thousand more dead people would change that. And it didn’t.

If you were to ask me if I am a racist I would say, “of course not,” and look at you with self-righteous indignation that you would even suggest such a thing. This is because, like most people in my particular demographic, when I think of a racist I think of a southerner in a sheet, not a CEO in a suit. I am a modestly successful businessman, and while I was born to a somewhat affluent family — it all depends on who we are compared to — I still worked my way up in my industry from dishwasher to restaurateur over the course of these last 35 years. I worked alongside people of all races and ethnicities and I learned from them all. I endeavored to treat everyone with the respect I expected for myself, admittedly with varying degrees of success.

From my current vantage point though, if I’m honest, I can look back at the various obstacles and turning points in my life and I can see people who were smarter than I was, more talented than I was, harder-working than I was, who were passed over for advancement, or had additional obstacles thrown in their paths. I had access to schooling other people could not access. I was never regarded with suspicion when I walked into a bank and asked for a loan. My neighbors wave as I drive up the street. The police do not tail me when I drive home.

They have pulled me over from time to time though, usually because I tend to drive just a little too fast, and when they do I do not get scared. I speak to the officer politely and with respect. Sometimes I get a ticket, and every once in a while they let me off. This feels normal to me, so normal in fact that I find it hard to imagine such a situation developing differently for another person. That’s because all my experiences with people in authority have been relatively fair. I did not grow up with family stories of persecution. I did not experience, save for a few bullies in Junior High, any form of judgment for anything accept the content of my character or the quality of my job performance.

There is no “stop and frisk” policy in the small, Midwestern college town where I live. If a cop approached me on the street, my reaction would be “good morning, officer, ” not “oh shit.” Nevertheless, I live in a state with the worst ratio of African-American incarceration relative to population. When I look further afield, and I see the plain numbers in America’s penal system, the privatization of prisons for profit, the ways the mandatory sentencing laws are plainly written to target “minorities,” whether that is an intended consequence or not is immaterial. It remains a fact. To claim that I am not immune to that particular form of prejudice – in its strictest sense, “to pre-judge” – is to be intellectually dishonest or blindly stupid, or both.

This awareness on my part may still be somewhat rare but it is hardly revelatory. Though they may not talk about it, there are many middle-aged, middle-class white men who are as blithely aware of these ideas as I am. We go on about our lives and rarely think about such things because in the backs of our minds we assume there is nothing we can do about it. We treat it like our own deaths – if it’s inevitable, best not to think about it too much.

What we fail to realize though is that it is not inevitable. Just because we do not know the answer does not mean that there is no answer, nor that we shouldn’t bother to look for one. I do not know the solution to the inherent inequalities in our system. I do not understand how it is that I never expect my son to be shot in the street or strangled by an officer of the law. I can’t comprehend why telling cops, or anyone in a position of power, to treat everyone fairly and equally does not simply work in each and every situation. I do not know what I, as one man, can possibly do about it. And that frustrates me, so I stop thinking about it.

I’ve lived most of my 50 years coping with my “white guilt” by invoking a line form an old favorite song:

“I was just a child then, now I’m only a man.”

It’s helpful, consoling really, because it lets me shed any sense of responsibility. I needn’t take the blame for the sins of the fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers who came before me. Hey, I wasn’t there, right? It’s not my fault.

Yet if I am willing to accept my inheritance of all the good they did, all the success they had, then I need to recognize the flip-side of that coin. No one succeeds on his own. No one gains privilege without it costing someone else.

In the end though, I do not know how to shed my privilege. I do not know how to return it to the sender. So I go about my business, I try to be kind, to make things grow, and make my tiny corner of the world a little bit better than how I found it. I shake my head when I see others who don’t do that, who let their fears guide their decisions — even though I know I’m guilty of that too. So I throw my hands up, because if I think about it too much, it suffocates me, and I can’t breathe.

This essay originally appeared on the author’s blog.

Watch my “Off the Record” comment from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington from last night’s ON THE RECORD and tell us what you think.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Get ready for serenity now! For a show that was supposedly about nothing, “Seinfeld” really made an impact. Without a doubt, though, the show’s amazing quotes were the best part. Earlier this year, HuffPost Entertainment gave our picks for the greatest quotes from “Seinfeld,” but now it’s WatchMojo’s turn, and yada, yada, yada … just check it out.

WASHINGTON — The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department this week convinced the local prosecutor’s office to charge a prominent young Ferguson protester with misdemeanor assault because he allegedly made fleeting physical contact with a law enforcement official blocking access to St. Louis City Hall during a demonstration last month.

Rasheen Aldridge, a 20-year-old community activist, has been protesting in and around the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on a regular basis ever since then-police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown on Aug. 9. Last month, Gov. Jay Nixon (D) named him to the Ferguson Commission, a task force intended to address problems in the St. Louis region that were highlighted in the wake of Brown’s death. On Dec. 1, Aldridge was at the White House to meet with President Barack Obama to discuss the relationship between law enforcement and local communities. (He later said he left the meeting “disappointed” with Obama, whom he used to consider his “idol.”)

It’s no surprise, then, that the misdemeanor assault charge brought by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce against Aldridge grabbed local and even international headlines and gained traction in conservative circles. After all, a story about a prominent Ferguson protester being charged with assault fits in perfectly with the broad generalizations that many have made about those demonstrators: namely, that they’re violent “thugs” with no respect for the law.

“From street mob activist to White House guest,” conservative blogger Jim Hoft wrote on his website, Gateway Pundit, about the charge against Aldridge. “Torch a town — Get invited to White House!” he added. But Hoft offered absolutely no proof that Aldridge had participated in any capacity in the looting, vandalism and arson that hit parts of Ferguson after a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson in Brown’s death last month.

One video of the alleged misdemeanor assault appears to show Aldridge, in a gray cap, attempting to gain access to St. Louis City Hall along with a number of other demonstrators on Nov. 26, less than 48 hours after the grand jury decision was announced. At the time, the public building was on lockdown because authorities thought someone in the crowd may have had spray paint.

Rasheen Aldridge (center in the gray cap) shortly before he came into brief contact with a city marshal (left) as protesters tried to enter St. Louis City Hall on Nov. 26, 2014. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Aldridge — who is just 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs 110 pounds, according to court documents — seems to be trying to open a City Hall door as a much larger city marshal stands guard. The marshal then appears to shove Aldridge, and the protester’s hand touches and perhaps pushes the official.

Soon after the incident, police in riot gear wielding pepper spray would break up the demonstration around City Hall, claiming that the entire daytime assembly was unlawful because a few demonstrators “made contact” with law enforcement.

Susan Ryan, a spokeswoman for the Office of the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, emphasized that the third-degree assault charge against Aldridge is the “lowest-level misdemeanor available under the law.” Aldridge has not been arrested, according to Ryan. Instead, she said, “He’ll get a note in the mail, just like a parking ticket.”

Ryan said that the prosecutor’s office had a duty to evaluate the case after it was referred to the office by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.

“When we’ve got evidence that somebody has violated the law, then we review that evidence, and if we believe we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, we will charge somebody,” Ryan said. “All over the county, protesters are being arrested for violating the law, and it’s unfortunate. But there are peaceful ways to protest without shoving city marshals or without hurting police officers.”

Joyce, the circuit attorney, made a similar point in an interview with a local Fox station.

“This has nothing to do with the protest or the speech or anything that anybody was saying,” Joyce said. “You can say anything you want, but what you can’t do is physically, you know, touch someone or push them or shove them or spit on them. And so that’s the line, and that line was crossed here.”

Aldridge is a first-time offender, according to Ryan, and it is “highly unlikely” that he will face any jail time if he is found guilty. “He’ll probably get probation, and he’ll probably get a probation that would require some community service, and after a certain amount of time it would be erased from his record,” she said, while adding that it was not her decision to make.

Ryan said that Aldridge’s role on the Ferguson Commission did not play any part in the decision to charge him. She referred questions about the police investigation to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, but a spokeswoman there declined an interview request because the case is now in the hands of the circuit attorney. Ryan said that her office was in a “no win” situation because of Aldridge’s higher profile.

“If the evidence was there, and it was, and if we had decided not to charge him because of his role on the commission, we would have been criticized for having him have special treatment,” Ryan said. “If we charge him based upon the evidence, then we’re criticized for charging someone who is on the commission.”

But the lack of any sort of swift disciplinary action against many police officers who used very aggressive force against peaceful demonstrators in the months after Brown’s death versus the speedy charges against one prominent protester for very minor physical contact with a law enforcement official raises concerns in the community.

“The contrast that we see … between the actions of police that are caught on camera versus the actions of protesters that are caught on camera, how and whether these things are prosecuted — the disparity is remarkable,” Rev. Starsky Wilson, the co-chair of the Ferguson Commission, told The Huffington Post.

“I’ve had a team of my church members who have been involved in actions, including being present for some of those actions downtown last Wednesday, and they were concerned about the level of aggression that they saw from police out on those lines, particularly from City Hall,” Wilson said.

The Don’t Shoot Coalition issued a statement condemning the “retaliatory” action and declaring that it fit into a pattern of “exaggerated charges” being brought against protesters.

“Numerous activists in our movement have been followed, harassed and intimidated by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police and other local police agencies,” Michael T. McPhearson, co-chair of the Don’t Shoot Coalition, said in a statement. “The treatment of Rasheen stands out as politically motivated in response to his leadership on the ground and as a Ferguson Commission member.”

So far, the charge seems unlikely to affect Aldridge’s role on the Ferguson Commission. Wilson said that Aldridge’s perspective is “remarkably valuable for the work that we have to do.” Representatives of Gov. Nixon’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Chris King, managing editor of The St. Louis American, said that he was made aware of one of the videos showing Aldridge’s interaction with the marshal before the charge was brought forward and that he believed the charge was “avoidable.”

“In a way, if you think about it, it makes him even a better commissioner, given the role he was expected to play on the [Ferguson] Commission, which is a kid that’s been there,” King said. “How perfect that he’s appointed as the youth protester commissioner and then gets [charged].”

Aldridge’s lawyer told The St. Louis American that he planned to fight the case. “This is a bogus charge. Looking at the video, you don’t see him intentionally act against that law enforcement officer,” said Jerryl Christmas.

Aldridge did not respond to HuffPost’s interview request, but tweeted on Friday that “Fighting against injustices is in my DNA cant stop me even if they tried.”

As he contemplates some fights to come in his record-setting fourth term as Governor of California, Jerry Brown finally got the final count on his re-election. Late absentees and provisional ballots boosted Brown more than a full point from his standing the morning after, to 60.0 percent. A stunning result, considering that his campaign never produced an ad or press release advocating his re-election.

Brown ran for governor in classic Zen fashion; by simply being governor. Of course, he did appear in some ads for his two big inititiatives — the $7.5 billion water bond and the state budget rainy day fund — which won with more than 67 percent and 69 percent, respectively. But more than 40 percent said in late October polling that they didn’t know Brown was running for re-election.

Governor Jerry Brown’s closing rally in rural Williams, California, on November 1st, the Saturday before the election.

Had he run re-election ads I think he would have gotten into the high 60s, knocking his very vulnerable Republican opponent, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari, down into the low 30s. But his way was definitely cooler, and had the added bonus of leaving Brown with more than $20 million to play with in unspent campaign funds.

Despite not running a re-election campaign per se, Brown led the statewide Democratic ticket in votes, with Treasurer John Chiang doing second best with 59 percent. The more highly touted Attorney General Kamala Harris and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom both ran over 57 percent, with Harris running a tad better.

In the end, the two Republicans with the best chance of winning statewide — Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin for controller and Pepperdine policy center head Pete Peterson for secretary of state — didn’t come all that close. Each lost by seven to eight points, raising relatively little money and finding no help from independent expenditures.

In fact, it wasn’t much of an election for Republicans, despite the very low turnout. They actually lost a seat in Congress. In the midst of the biggest Republican House showing nationally since before Franklin D. Roosevelt became president!

They did deny Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. But that was expected. And given Democratic tendencies to excess and general screwing up when they’re really large and in charge, I think that’s for the best. Let’s not forget that the Dem supermajority in the state Senate had already gone glimmering with no fewer than three senators bounced for various forms of malfeasance in office, two of them involving very serious political corruption charges.

Nor did Republicans come up with anything like a new message for California. The Kashkari campaign was intellectually empty. Aside from the silly homeless stunt and a couple risible TV ads, there was nothing that didn’t come out of the generic RNC playbook. Kashkari ran as a bog standard corporate conservative, avoiding irritating Latinos, women, and gays. That must have taken five minutes to figure out.

Meanwhile, Brown says he’s not running for president.

It’s too bad. First, because that will mean that his generation will be the first in American history not to produce a President of the United States. Second, because there is a large opening in the politics of 2016 for a candidate who can go left and right at the same time. It’s Brown’s misfortune, in the sense that he is seen as too old and is in the midst of a very expansive agenda in California.

There’s plenty to point to in Brown’s record here for a a Democratic presidential primary electorate. As well as plenty for a general election.

Hillary Clinton? Please. Yawn. She’s been very underwhelming in her latest guise as inevitable president. Much more to say another time about her and the flawed field in both parties which is nonetheless going to struggle to beat her. She remains a formidable figure, more so than anyone else in the field.

Though I don’t expect Brown to mount a presidential campaign, there are some creative ways to inject his “dialogue and dialectic” into what otherwise looks like a rather tedious presidential campaign process.

Fortunately for Brown, this all plays off his expansive programmatic reform agenda in California, which is now in mid-course. Before Brown’s fourth inaugural address in early January, I’ll address elements of that agenda.

In the meantime, his skirmish with the University of California, which wants not just more state money but a tuition hike, continues. The legislature is responding on Brown’s side, with the Assembly speaker introducing legislation which would require zero-based budgeting at UC. That should give some bureaucrats a bit of pause.

University of California President Janet Napolitano — the ex-Arizona governor and US homeland security secretary — wants to raise tuition despite getting more money from Brown’s big Prop 30 victory in 2012. Brown’s against that, but the UC Board of Regents — reliably captured by the bureaucratic status quo as it has been since I first dealt with it decades ago over South Africa divestment — voted 14 to 7 against Brown. Despite Brown spending more time with the board than any other governor.

Some UC folks like to claim that excellence — the university, with Brown and my alma mater Berkeley leading the way, is arguably the world’s leading public university. But excellence does not always equate to spending. And spending often equates to excess. Consider that the growth in spending on UC faculty and regular staff has kept pace with enrollment grown in recent decades, while the growth in spending on “management and senior professionals has skyrocketed.

Brown may have another more recent opponent than a not impressive former Obama cabinet member; the Obama Environmental Protection Agency and White House itself. Which is in the process of going along with oil interests that want a rollback of the renewable fuels standard. There are legitimate concerns about ethanol in the Midwest. But more serious renewable fuels are in the works in California’s bioscience labs.

Brown should prevail with the UC bureaucracy and its captive board. Unless, that is, Democratic legislators go into default mode and figure they can just spend more money in flush times, which these are.

That will be a big part of Brown’s fourth term as governor. Disciplining the Democratic Party and its vast knee-jerk spending interest group apparat to spend smarter and save for the times that are not so good. Its failure to think long term is a big reason why California got into its past chronic budget crisis in the first place.

Facebook comments are closed on this article.

William Bradley Archive