Council Member Fife, over the weekend, said I use “racist tropes” about her. What exactly does she mean?
Let’s start with the word “racist.” There are many definitions but the one I believe CM Fife refers to is “a systematic dislike of some people based solely on their skin color.” So I have to make it clear, for the umpteenth time, that I don’t judge anyone because of skin color. It’s true that I resent certain behaviors that are antithetical to the social order; and among these behaviors is crime, especially in its predatory forms. I don’t like criminals, and I have very little sympathy for the “root causes” theory which seeks to portray criminals as the misunderstood victims of racism and capitalist inequity. “Root causes” don’t mug and kill; deranged individuals do, and those individuals must be isolated from society, no matter their age or skin color. In addition, I dislike electeds who feel sorrier for criminals than they do for victims. This is why I’m opposed to Pamela Price, who although in office for barely a month is showing that “progressivism” is merely an excuse for going soft on crime and waging a vendetta against cops.
A “trope” is “a metaphorical use of a word or expression”—in other words, a figure of speech--according to the Oxford Dictionary. That is pretty vague. I infer that CM Fife’s use of the word is meant to imply something nefarious. At any rate, it’s clear she objects to some of the things I’ve written about her.
But why? I’ve criticized nothing about CM Fife except in the two areas the Coalition for a Better Oakland, of which I’m President, cares about: encampments and cops. On encampments, she’s been reluctant to clear them, especially in her district. She refuses to enforce the Encampment Management Policy, which she herself voted for! On the other hand, as I’ve written on multiple occasions, I strongly support Fife’s suggestion that the homeless be relocated to the old Oakland Army Base. I’d love to work with her and anybody else in bringing that about. As for cops, I haven’t hidden my views under a bush. I am strongly respectful of the police, not just because I was raised that way, but because Oakland is a dangerous place, and it’s obvious that we need cops to protect us. The anti-police, defunding rhetoric coming from Fife’s camp is, frankly, damaging and shameful.
That is the bone of contention between us. I think she’s wrong, wrong, wrong about cops. She’s not as hateful toward them as, say, her friend Cat Brooks, but pardon me for suspecting that Fife is a smart-enough politician to avoid Brooks’s virulent rhetoric. Yet I think that, deep down inside, Fife agrees with Brooks.
Anyhow, this is a legitimate political issue to debate. Yet Fife seems to think that any legitimate criticism of her is a “racist trope.” No, CM Fife, that’s not true. Once you entered the political arena, you had to expect your opinions to be challenged. And so they have been, and not just by me. Look out across America, and you’ll see great majorities of citizens who are appalled by the “defund the police” and “all cops are bastards” hate talk; those Americans include Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Barack Obama. Are they, too, using “racist tropes”?
So here’s my suggestion, or rather let’s call it a plea: stop portraying all criticism as racism. The color of your skin has nothing to do with this. You could be the whitest person in the world, and if you took the same positions, I’d still be in strong opposition to you. Look: I could interpret your aversion to me—a senior citizen white man—as evidence of ageism, racism and anti-male bias. But I don’t play those kinds of cards. I wish you didn’t either.
You wrote me, “I am still available to speak to you at a mutually convenient time despite your ongoing vitriol toward me.” I’m a retired guy with plenty of time on my hands, so just about any date is convenient. Just tell me when. Tea is on me.
SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT: WOOD STREET NOT GOING AWAY!
Just last week I blogged about how that judge, Orrick, reversed his earlier decision and gave permission to Oakland to finally clear out the last squatters at the Wood Street encampment. I called it “an ongoing situation.” Well, the Kabuki theater continues: On Friday, Orrick reversed himself yet again.
This time, Oakland can’t clear the camp because Orrick found something else to nitpick about. For the foreseeable future, Wood Street will remain illegally occupied.
What the hell is Orrick smoking? This guy changes his mind from week to week, leaving Oakland officials and Caltrans puzzled and frustrated. This is the same guy who’s had his foot on the neck of the Oakland Police Department for years. He’s always looking for some horrible crime committed by OPD. A cop double-parked next to a donut shop? Scandal! Fire the Chief of Police! Extend the NSA for another year! Look, we’ve had enough of this clown. Sheng Thao, do the right thing and tell him we’ll see you in court.
Steve Heimoff