It is poignant. Or, rather, sad to see America goes feverishly preoccupied with a trial. It is sad because it will most probably subside in a week or less, and Trayvon Martin will be transformed to a mere story that is evoked sporadically just like Oscar Grant or Rodney King, for example.
I sincerely hope that this passionate discussion is fruitful. I really hope that this is more than a Facebook rant. If you to see change, people, then create it!
On a somewhat relevant note, it is rather sickening to see how media dictates public opinion, channels your attention, and sort of tells you how to think. Zimmerman was sentenced by people was before the verdict came out by the jury. Why, you might ask? Because of media- just like Casey Anthony’s case. Also, CNN closed its office in Baghdad so it can cover the Zimmerman case. Who cares about what is happening in the world anyways?
Ok, rant is over.
So, I’m genuinely confused about the fuss over Section 4 overruling by the Supreme Court. I’d like to know how would this piece of legislation disproportionately disfranchise some? I’m well aware that there are clear as the sun cases where people are still fighting for their right to vote (which can be addressed on the state level, I suppose); but in the grand scheme of things I feel like we are segregating, tailoring laws to address challenges faced in the last century and abused today by politicians.
The important question, I think, is will the repercussions be as dramatic as those portrayed in the media? While I understand why we may be hesitant and distrustful of talking about race, identity, and privilege, but I think we need to be more comfortable addressing these questions and thinking about them critically.
Regardless, I did my homework about the topic and I concluded the following:
1) The legislation was introduced in 1965 for obvious reasons and was one of great many achievements brought by the civil rights movement;
2) The law – Sec. 4 and 5 specifically – does not reflect contemporary data and trends. Our demographics, etc. have considerably changed;
3) It is imperative that republicans and Tea Party-ers predominately support the legislation (and argue for smaller government intervention), while Democrats are divided between actively opposing it vs. remaining quite;
4) I still do not understand what prompted this law to be re-examined after it was ratified by the House, the Senate, the President, and ultimately the people. Maybe the recent election? Polarization of the political system?
Comments are free! I’m always eager to learn something new.