The Privileged MInd

If you want to understand (as much as possible) how the white privileged mind works take a look at the SAE and Senate letter to Iran incidents. In the case of SAE, members and supporters have defaulted to "lets blame the black guy" mode. The black guys(s) in this case are rappers. Rappers and rap music, not racism and hatred, are to blame for the racist tirade on the bus and their "house mother's" racist party rant. Don't believe me? Click here 

In the case of the Senate, they're playing the same game, but the black guy isn't a rapper, he's  the President. The 47 traitors and their supporters are actually blamingPresident Obama for the letter they wrote and the protocol they broke. 

None of them are taking responsibility for their own actions. None of them have expressed any real remorse. The SAE members are certainly sorry  they got caught but remorseful people don't look for scapegoats or make excuses. The 47 Senators not only aren't sorry, they're doubling down on their treasonous position and are blaming the President for their actions.

Interestingly enough, this is the same privileged mind that demands that black people take personal responsibility for their actions. The same mind that blamed Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, John Crawford, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice et al for their own deaths by insisting that if they had just obeyed the law (what they really mean is if they'd stayed in their place), they'd still be alive. But in the white privileged way of thinking, taking personal responsibility is really only the responsibility of non white people. White people get to place blame everywhere from rap music to the Oval Office.

If the stakes weren't so high I'd laugh at the hypocrisy. But there's nothing funny about frat boys invoking the lynching tree while shouting nigger at the top of their lungs. There's nothing funny about members of Congress undermining the office of the Commander-in-Chief and then blaming him for their treasonous dysfunction. And unfortunately, these two incidents aren't even the most extreme instances of racism we've seen over the past week. There's a little DOJ report that makes SAE and the Senate look mild by comparison. 

Except that at one point in time the folks running Ferguson were probably "innocent", youthfully exuberant frat boys too. Because after all, Ferguson-like racism takes a while to marinate. You don't get Fergusoned over night. But eventually, white racist frat boys grow up and become white racist judges, police offers, town managers, city councilmen, and senators. And nobody holds them accountable because nobody really believes it’s their fault.  Especially when there’s a black guy (or girl) they can blame. 

Revisionist History

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3347632578277836563#editor/target=post;postID=42636803635150696

I ran across the article above on Facebook and had a severe case of de ja vu.

Every now and then when I feel adventurous, I watch a few minutes of Fox News (I can't stomach much more than a few minutes at a time) and I hear some version of this revisionist history repeated as though it's the Fox News talking head mantra. The argument goes something like this: "We're the party of Lincoln. We helped free you people. Why are you blindly supporting the party who opposed your emancipation?"

These sentiments are always directed at African American Democratic voters. The modern Republican mind cannot fathom the overwhelming support that Democrats receive from the African American community. After all, why would we vote for a party that opposed our emancipation? Why vote for a party that stood in the way of comprehensive Civil Rights reform?

While those are good questions, they miss the mark because they presuppose that both parties are the same now as they were then. The fact of the matter is that during the Civil Right's Movement (and even prior to that with Truman's efforts to desegregate the military in the late 40's) both parties underwent a bit of a makeover. The Democratic Party under the leadership of President Kennedy and culminating with President Johnson, began pushing for legal measures to address issues of racial inequality. In 1964 President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law and a year later the Voting Rights Act. Upon signing the CRA, Johnson declared: "We've lost the South for a generation." He was right, except that's it's been two generations and counting.

The push for equal rights caused an exodus of Southern Dixie-crats to the Republican Party which meant that those who were vehemently opposed to racial equality were no longer residing in the Democratic Party. They found a new home and relocated to fairer GOP lands, set up camp, and never left.

Now by no means am I suggesting that all Republicans are racist. However, the problem the party has now is the same problem it had during the Civil Rights Movement. They have allowed radical groups of ideologues to hijack the party. During the 60's it was the converted Dixiecrats. In the 2000's it was the TEA party. Moderate Republicans do not reflect the radical views of the TEA Party now, nor did they reflect the views of the racist party hoppers of the 60's but in both instances, the more moderate among them have been unable to control the messaging or the policies of the more radical factions.  And as a result, the party of Lincoln bears absolutely no resemblance to today's brand of Republican politics, nor does the modern incarnation of the Democratic Party resemble its anti-abolition, anti-equality forbears.

To be fair however, there are issues of race within both parties and the racist legacy of the Democratic Party is real. But an attempt to lay all the baggage of America's racist history at the feet of the Democratic Party while ignoring the glaring racism of the GOP; particularly in the Post Civil Rights Era, is disingenuous, manipulative and revisionist. It's not Democrats who launched the birther movement. It's not Democrats who are uncharacteristically opposing and obstructing the only Black President in our nation's history. It's not Democrats who are openly hoping that the President, and by default, the country will fail. The credit for these lovely sentiments belongs solely to the GOP. Funny, but I just don't see Lincoln endorsing any of this type of nonsense.

Two Deaths. Three Tragedies

On July 13 2013 two tragedies occurred almost simultaneously. The verdict in the George Zimmerman trial was announced and the death of Cory Monteith was reported. Regardless of what a jury of 6 white women decided and whether you believe Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd Degree murder or not, his acquittal was a tragedy and a miscarriage of justice. I believed that to be the case when the verdict was announced, I still believe it now with every fiber of my being and that belief has only been solidified as juror after juror has since admitted that George Zimmerman "went too far" in his conduct on the fateful night of February 26, 2012. Anybody with half a brain should be asking themselves how it's possible to come to the conclusion and then admit that an accused person "went too far" on one hand, but not be guilty on the other.

Most of the people I know didn't need confirmation from a juror to determine that Zimmerman went too far. We knew it as soon as the few initial details of the incident were revealed last year. We knew it because, like Trayvon Martin that night, many of us have been profiled, targeted, viewed as suspicious and subsequently confronted; by police, department/convenience store employees, white women in elevators or the average citizen on the street who clutches their purses a little more tightly, makes sure to lock their doors suddenly, or tries to shrink and disappear into the corner of the elevator as they pray to God to just "get them out of this situation (and by situation I mean merely being in the presence of a big, scary, suspicious black man) safely."

When the verdict was announced I was with my wife and two of our young people who were preparing to minister the next morning in church. We were on our way to have dinner at our hotel and saw the breaking news coverage on a television in the hotel lobby. As disappointing and heartbreaking as it was to see and hear, none of us was surprised. In fact we had anticipated Zimmerman's acquittal. But hearing my young people, who are 18 and 17 express their sadness and fear was gut wrenching. They asked questions like "why aren't our lives as valuable as other people's lives seem to be?" and they made statements like "that could easily have been me." And they were correct. It could have been them because like Trayvon Martin my young people wear hoodies. Like Trayvon Martin my young people often walk down the street either talking on a cell phone or with ear buds attached to an MP3 player. Like Trayvon Martin my young people are black and have been on the receiving end of racial profiling.

And on a fundamental level, for people of color, black men in particular, that's all this case really boils down to. At the end of the day, had a white male been walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood, had it been Cory Monteith, or someone who looked like him, Zimmerman would not have been compelled to call the police. Zimmerman wouldn't have been compelled to get out of his car and give chase. He wouldn't have been inclined to engage in any contact at all and there wouldn't have been any confrontation, much less a violent confrontation that ended in a young boy's death.

And speaking of Cory Monteith, I can't help but notice the public sympathy his death is receiving. "Gone too soon." "The tragic loss of the boy next door." These and similar expressions have dominated the headlines of almost every magazine and news paper in the last week. And his death, as any young man's death would be, is indeed tragic. But I also can't help but notice the striking differences in the perception and treatment of Cory and Trayvon. Trayvon has never been described as the "boy next door." In fact, just the opposite is true. Trayvon, who had traces of marijuana in his system has been criminalized, caricatured and demonized as everything from a smoked out thug to a ghetto hoodlum. His character has been assassinated not only in the courtroom but in the court of public opinion.

Cory on the other hand, who died from a lethal combination of alcohol and heroin, has not been caricatured. Cory has not been demonized. He has not been stereotyped. Cory's death has been lamented. Cory's life was cut down way too young at 31. But the tragic end of Trayvon's life at 17 was essentially justified by the acquittal of his killer on the same night that Cory's death snuffed out a "shining star".

The reality is that both young men's lives came to a needless end. Both deaths are tragic. But an even greater tragedy is that while the nation weeps and mourns for one of them and in fact has elevated him to almost martyr status, the other young man who died 17 months ago is still, even in his death, being portrayed as less than human, a problem that needed to be dealt with. And he was dealt with. Violently. And conclusively. And his killer is free. A grown man followed, confronted, and killed a BOY and got away with it. And that tragic reality should strike fear in the hearts of every parent, every aunt, uncle or surrogate who has a male, teenaged loved one; especially if that young male is black.

George Zimmerman's acquittal declared open season on young black males and sent a message that it's perfectly justifiable and excusable to kill a black boy as long as the perpetrator says it was done in self defense. If you think that's hyperbole or histrionics, look at the headlines of incidents that have happened since Trayvon was killed.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/54339/black-17-and-shot-dead-in-florida-why-isn-t-jordan-davis-getting-the-attention-travyon-martin-is

http://newsone.com/2028377/walter-henry-butler-port-st-joe-florida/

There have been no verdicts rendered in these two cases but regardless of what the juries declare, there is no denying that race, like it did in the Zimmerman/Martin case, played a role in these confrontations. And until we are ready to confront this reality instead of talking around it or attempting to sweep it under the rug, rumors of a post-racial America will continue to be greatly exaggerated.

Race & Racism: The Inconvenient Truth of the George Zimmerman Trial.

The George Zimmerman trial, as predicted, has brought to the surface a lot of racial tension. People on both sides of the spectrum have over reacted and have made some pretty stupid remarks. On one hand, people who think Zimmerman is guilty are threatening to riot or worse, kill him if he doesn't get the justice they think he deserves. Regardless of how you feel about the case and the motives behind Zimmerman's actions, threats of that nature are despicable. But the rhetoric on the other side is just as ridiculous.

I've heard pro Zimmerman pundits proudly and stupidly declare that Zimmerman is a hero and they're going to go out and celebrate over a round of beers when he's acquitted." I don't care whether you think he's guilty or innocent, celebrating when a 17 year old is dead and his family is forced to accept the reality of life without their son is beyond despicable and speaks more of the character of the person/people who made/share the sentiment than it does about Zimmerman, Martin, or this trial.

What I have not heard however, is a plausible explanation for why this conflict ever occurred in the first place. The trial has done nothing to clarify that and to a large degree, the prosecution is to blame for that. Regardless of the verdict, Zimmerman appears to be nothing more than a wanna be cop who trailed a black kid he deemed to be suspicious, who happened to be minding his own business, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Against the advice of an emergency dispatcher an armed Zimmerman stalked an unarmed minor looking for a confrontation, found exactly what he was looking for, wound up on the losing end of the confrontation he went looking for, (did I mention he went looking for a confrontation?), pulled out his gun and killed him.

A lot of people are saying that race had nothing to do with it. To prove their point, they have conveniently labeled Zimmerman as a "Hispanic." Which is to say that there's no possible way a non-white man, which Zimmerman clearly is, could have been racially motivated in his actions. But if that's true, then can somebody, anybody, please explain to me what it was that made Trayvon Martin a suspect in his own neighborhood? Why did Zimmerman see Trayvon and immediately think "suspicious"? Was it the skittles? The iced tea? When did candy or a canned beverage equate to suspicious behavior? Oh wait, I know, it was the hoodie right? Yup, I'm sure that's it. In fact as I type this, I realize that's exactly what it was because everybody knows that anyone wearing a hoodie is a suspect and up to no good right?  In fact, the next time I see Bill Belichick I'm going to run after him despite being told not to do so, and demand to know what he's doing in my neighborhood because clearly, dressed like that he's got no business on my block!



Sarcasm aside, we all know why Trayvon was suspicious in Zimmerman's mind. It wasn't what he was doing because despite the defense's attempts to paint Trayvon as a smoked out thug, he was not engaged in any thug like or suspicious behavior on February 26, 2012. It wasn't his height, or his weight or anything other than the color of his skin. Zimmerman saw a black male whom he hadn't seen before and immediately assumed that he didn't belong and that his mere presence was suspicious.

And that's the crux of the issue. In a nation that prides itself on the racial progress it's made, a young black male is still viewed by many as suspicious and out of place and there doesn't have to be any basis for the assumption. A young black man is dead and despite that reality, nobody has held Zimmerman's feet to the fire and demanded an explanation on that point. The trial has focused on the confrontation and its aftermath but without a racially motivated "suspicion" there wouldn't have been a confrontation in the first place. Zimmerman went after Trayvon Martin because he was black. He initiated a confrontation and then claimed self defense when he had to resort to using a gun while he was getting his behind kicked. Trayvon Martin didn't follow George Zimmerman, he did't provoke him, in fact, had Zimmerman followed orders and stayed in his car, Trayvon Martin may never have even noticed, let alone paid any attention to George Zimmerman.

The truth of the matter is that we live in a nation where a black man's identity automatically makes him  a suspect, particularly when he finds himself in places he's "got no business" being in. Up until the 70's or 80's being in the wrong place at the wrong time meant you'd pay with your life if you were caught by the wrong people. Actually, in 2012 it cost Trayvon his life as well which means that the nation hasn't come nearly as far as it thinks it has as it relates to issues of race and racism.

The only difference between 2013 and 1953 is that at least Zimmerman was arrested and put on trial. 60 years ago the victim's family wouldn't even have that to hang their hat on. Whether Zimmerman's convicted or acquitted is up to the jury. I hope people don't riot. I also hope there are no celebrations of any kind because regardless of the verdict, a young man is dead. A family is torn apart and the wounds of America's racist past have been reopened and no matter what happens there are no winners in this case. We all have lost something simply by being exposed to the ugliness this case has produced.

Is "I'm Sorry" Good Enough?

Watching Paula Dean's interview this morning and hearing all the chatter on social media from all the varying perspectives has made me aware again of how quickly we can lose focus of that which is critical to any discussion and so easily be distracted by the non essentials; the white noise so to speak. (no pun intended :-))

Whether or not you believe her claim that she has only used the word nigger once in her life, the fact is that it doesn't really matter how many times she's used it. Every person I know has said some things in private, when the cameras aren't rolling, that they would not want aired in public. Jokes, crude comments, racially charged language, sexist commentary, homophobic slurs, insults directed at the handicapped; everybody in the world has said something that would offend a huge portion of the population at some point or another. Should we all be fired? Should social media outrage campaigns be launched against us? Maybe. But they won't be unless we're foolish enough to say in public what we too easily allow ourselves to say in private. Which brings me to my first observation about this whole Paula Dean situation. Unlike Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek and a laundry list of other fools, Paula Dean did not say nigger on the air. She did truthfully admit to saying it 30 years ago at gun point. And maybe she's said it countless times prior and since but if that's grounds for being terminated from a job then God help us all if, like Dean, we have the integrity to admit the offensive stuff we've said if we're ever questioned about it. I'm reminded here of the profound wisdom and liberating redemption of Jesus' response to a blood thirsty, hypocritical group of men who wanted Him to affirm their blood lust but instead said: "let he is without sin cast the first stone."

Something else that strikes me is all of the outrage regarding Dean's use of the word nigger. I find it interesting that people are so easily outraged by words of racism but can't seem to muster any anger or even frustration with actions and policies that perpetuate racism. Here's an inconvenient truth. Paula Dean calling someone a nigger 30 years ago in no way, shape or form, has anything to do with racial inequality in 2013. She could have greeted every black person she met from then to now by saying "good morning nigger!" and it would not have contributed one iota to the very real, tangible problems of race we are experiencing in America right now.

Dean's, or anybody else's use of the word nigger has nothing to do with attempts to disenfranchise African American and Latino voters of the Supreme Court's failure to curb those efforts. It has nothing to do with educational disparities. Calling someone a nigger has no impact on the fact that the prison industrial complex has been built largely on the backs of Black and Brown young men. If we're going to have a real conversation about race in America, these are the issues that are central to that discussion. I don't care how many times Dean has used the word niggr. I care about African American children having access to quality healthcare and education. I care about the genocide that's occurring in inner cities like Chicago and Philadelphia and Detroit where violent, gun related deaths seem to disproportionately claim Black and Brown lives and I care about what people are doing about it.

As an African American male I've always appreciated the frankness of overt racial bias. It's not cool, but at least I know where I stand. And as jacked up as this whole situation is, at least Paula Dean was honest. She said it. She went there and then  had the guts and integrity to own it when questioned. What her business partners do with that information is on them but I'd much rather see them cut ties with people and/or organizations that actually perpetuate racism. I won't hold my breath on that though.

Let The Debate Continue

In the days and weeks to come much will be said about last night's debate. Winners and losers will be proclaimed; sound bites dissected and analyzed to death. Facial expressions and body language will be hashed and rehashed. And in the interest of keeping pundits and talking heads employed, I'm okay with all of it. But to anyone actually paying attention last night, some very interesting and perhaps disturbing things were said by Gov. Romney.

First, despite his stylistic performance (which by most accounts caused him to "win" the debate) there was very little in the way of substance. However, that which was substantive about his arguments is cause for great concern if not all out panic. Despite what some would call a lackluster performance, President Obama was able to pin Gov. Romney down on two very critical issues: Medicare and Social Security.

As it relates to Medicare, Gov Romney was forced to concede that his plan would turn it into a voucher system which will inevitably leave many seniors facing increased costs in order to keep the same level of coverage. The idea of introducing competition into the Medicare discussion sounds intriguing until you realize that any private company's bottom line is increased profits. Some argue that competition brings prices down while simultaneously raising the quality of services and products offered. In a perfect world, that may be true but ours is not a perfect world. The world we live in is imperfect and filled with competition that neither lowers costs nor raises quality. If the merits of the competition argument are true, then how do you account for runaway gas prices? There's plenty of competition in the petroleum market, yet prices have skyrocketed in recent years. Food and utility costs are out of control as well yet there is plenty of competition in both agriculture and utility markets. 

The bottom line, is that there are explanations to those questions/realities and depending on your political/philosophical leanings, your explanation may be different than mine. That's not important. What is important is that regardless of how you account for it, there are forces continuously exerting  pressure on "free" markets that drive costs, quality and availability. The cyclical nature of "free" markets means that peaks and valleys are inevitable and that as surely as there will be times of prosperity there will also be times of difficulty. So the question you need to ask yourself is this: "If my healthcare coverage (and social security if Romney has his way) is subject to the ebbs and flows of the market, will I be able to survive the inevitable downturn when it comes?"  

It's been four years since the housing bubble burst. Many homeowners have still not recovered their lost equity. And those are the fortunate homeowners because many lost their homes altogether. Now some will suggest that the bursting bubble is the market's way of self-correcting. Perhaps. But if we subject healthcare and social security to the same free market system and free market forces that drove many to lose their homes and put many more upside down in their mortgages, what's going to happen to the level and quality of people's lives medically under the same market conditions and forces? Can anyone afford to be "upside down" in healthcare or social security?  Can we survive a "necessary" market correction when it's our healthcare or life savings that are on the line? Do we want to use our health and life savings as a social experiment? Maybe Romney & Ryan are right, but what if they're not? What if our healthcare and social security suffer the same fate as our houses and our 401 k's have suffered and in fact are still suffering? It's a pretty risky gamble just to prove a political point. 

Another critical point revealed last night is something Gov. Romney went out of his way to emphasize. In response to a question about the difference between the healthcare plan he instituted in Massachusetts as Governor and the President's Affordable Care Act, he could not deny that his state plan served as the blueprint for the national plan. What he did say however, was that he intended it to be a blueprint, not for the federal government, but for individual states. So, in other words, he wants states to have the ability and freedom to choose their own path. Last night, Mitt Romney reintroduced the state's rights argument into the national discussion. 

Personally, I get nervous whenever I hear anyone advocating for state's rights because the state's rights argument was used when southern states wanted to keep the federal government out of their decision about whether to abolish slavery. That decision, they argued, should have been left in the hands of the governors and state legislatures and the federal government should have kept their noses out of the state's business. 

The same argument was used during the Civil Right's Movement when critical decisions were being made about desegregation and voting rights and the good news is that in each of those cases the federal government did not concede the point and history has proven those to be very good decisions that went against individual state's wishes/rights.

History gives me enough reason to be concerned about granting states the right to choose their own path regarding healthcare. But practicality gives me pause as well. Let's assume for a moment that Gov. Romney gets his wish. States would then be able to determine the type of plan they institute, or even if they're going to offer a plan at all. So what happens to you if you live in a state where the governor and state legislators decide not to put any plan in place and leave you on your own to find coverage? 49 Governors, like Mitt Romney, could decide to put some type of plan in place but you could wind up in the 1 state out of 50 where there is no coverage or plan. What happens to you then? Do you pack up and move to one of the other 49 states? Do you simply live without coverage? Or do you pay three or four times as much as those who live in neighboring states for the same coverage because you've been forced to acquire it on your own? 

Just because one state offers coverage doesn't mean the other states will follow suit. If that were necessarily true we wouldn't have even had a discussion about the Affordable Care Act because the other 49 states would have followed the shining example of Gov. Romney and the state of Massachusetts in adopting their own statewide healthcare plans. 

Since that's not what happened however, I'm forced to wonder what magical event will transpire that will cause each individual governor and each individual state legislature to suddenly come up with a reasonable plan. It hasn't happened yet, despite Massachusetts paving the way so what's going to cause it to happen now? And more importantly, what safeguards are going to be put in place to make sure that everyone has access and who's going to enforce those safeguards? These and other detailed specifics are what people have been asking Gov. Romney to provide for months now, and despite his strong stylistic performance last night, are still noticeably absent from his campaign. 

On a related side note, much has been made by the Right during this campaign about the size and role of government. According to them government is out of control, overreaching and too intrusive. But the reality is that if the Right gets it's way, if some authority is stripped from the federal government and given to the states, it won't do anything to control either the size or reach of government. All it will do is shift the "fat" from the federal to state level. So instead of "bloated" federal government we'll have "bloated" state government. Instead of increased federal taxes we'll have increased state taxes but the net effect will be the same. So the argument here really isn't about the size or reach of government, it's about which form of government has the locus of power. 

The Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Social Security. These programs, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, provide a guarantee that people who worked their entire lives and paid into the system will be able to collect on their investment when the time comes. It's a federal guarantee and as such, is granted to everyone. They are not entitlements. They are not handouts. They are earned benefits that cannot be stripped away at the whim of a governor or state legislature. And for that I am thankful. 

Taking care of an elderly parent has reinforced my personal resolve to make sure those benefits are protected and I have no interest in letting the governor of my state decide the fate of my mother's health. Nor am I interested in rolling the dice with my mother's health care or social security in a market that has undergone 6-7 downturns of varying degrees in my lifetime. I personally, cannot afford a Mitt Romney Presidency and am very concerned about the possibility of our nation being run like a corporation by a man who sees things through the prism of profits and "acceptable" losses; who is perfectly comfortable with writing off the companies he helped close during his time at Bain Captial, as necessary market adjustments; expendable cogs in the capitalist wheel. 

We got a glimpse last night at what he believes to be expendable elements of our national fabric; from Medicare to Sesame Street and I think Big Bird, Bert & Ernie, Mr. Snuffleupagus,  and the Cookie Monster would agree with me that a Mitt Romney Presidency would come at too great a risk and too high a cost. 

More reflections from Penn State

The more this story develops the more I'm appalled. In a CNN article chronicling the recent campus events the writer says "in some ways the campus is divided. Some still mourn the loss of the almost godlike coach they have grown to love. Others are struggling with the heinous allegations." That one line sums up what's wrong with this situation. I understand loyalty and love and supoort. Those qualities and characteristics are admirable. But what the legions of fans fail to understand is that this is so much bigger than a career, a program or a legacy. Children were abused on your campus people! They were abused by a man who for decades was entrusred to shape and mold the lives of young men. As soon as it came to light, everyone who knew about it should have risked everything to stop it and prevent it from happening again. Those children needed an advocate, they needed protection and they got neither.

Conversation has now shifted to the game this weekend and where Penn State goes from here. Players have said they're going to play for Coach Paterno on Saturday.Students act like they don't know what to do. Here's an idea. You want to know where to go from here? Go to class. Get the education you went to Penn State to receive and pray for the victims of the abuse and their families. I understand the players playing for their ousted coach. It's understandable given the relationship they have with him but who's playing for the victims? Who are their advocates in this? All I've heard today is talk of what's best for Penn State and it's representatives. What about what's best for the victims? Who's looking out for them and busting their humps to make sure their best interests are served? On Saturday afternoon there will probably be a football game in College Station and some people will see that game as some sort of rallying, unifying event for the Penn State University and community. I don't really care if they play the game or not but I hope that at some point in the very near future, somebody will ask the victims what they want; that somebody will even ask the question of what's best for them.