In the video below, Megyn Kelly of reputable Fox News dissects the "good little socialists" hullaballoo in Seattle.
But before the analysis of Kelly's reporting, a short history outlining the situation follows. First, on the bedrock of U.S. data, the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) was implemented in Seattle in 2005 to, among other goals, "eliminate race-based disparities in our communities."
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn stated recently on his Website the all-too-true American dictum that "race is still a leading indicator of our health, income, education, and every other indicator of success." "If we want to end racial inequities, then we need to be specific about the problem so we can develop meaningful strategies for change."
Next, Seattle Police Officer Steve Pomper wrote an editorial in the police guild's December 2010 issue of the Guardian newsletter. In it, he laments the socialization of America via the introduction of the RSJI being integrated into all county government departments, including the vaunted Seattle Police Department.
Then, the Stranger, a progressive weekly in Seattle, broke the story, because Pomper's article was just another in a litany of articles: "However, editorials relating to police conduct often contain incendiary themes: disdain for civilian oversight, the idea that city hall is too liberal for its own good, and an insistence that city-sponsored programs pushing for racial and social justice must be stopped."
Finally, Megyn Kelly thinks this is a great weapon to use against all enemies, imagined or resuscitated from the dead, and begins to report an inordinate number of things falsely.
First, she states that Pomper wrote "that his department stopped enforcing laws that impact minorities more than the average Joe." What Pomper actually wrote was that "employing the RSJI, the City of Seattle is actually deciding on which people do or do not 'merit punishment' for a crime, based upon their race, ethnic heritage, and/or socio-economic status."
Because Kelly invokes the Constitution (and so does Pomper), then one must realize, as do these two, that the judicial branch metes out "punishment", not the police force!Â Thus, the police will continue to "enforce" laws, but in terms of what individual police officers do, this is precisely what eventually creates a "spirit of laws," as opposed to the "letter of the law." Many people have been stopped for moving violations such as speeding and instead of being cited were just warned. Is not this also an interpretation by the individual police officer?
Second, Megyn Kelly states that "the city's Web site in Seattle claims that jobs that require college degrees are racist." Again, what the RSJI states is:
"Institutional racism is when organizational programs or policies work to the benefit of white people and to the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently.Â For example, job requirements that put undue emphasis on college degrees over work experience may eliminate qualified candidates of color, who face institutional barriers to higher education."
The RSJI was introduced for the primary purpose of eradicating the fact of institutionalized racism; hence, the operative phrase is "undue emphasis", not simply whether a job requires a degree.
This makes sense, too. As a guideline for public employmentÂ—not privateÂ—in which all qualified members of a community can seek employment and not be disbarred from gainful employment or promotions because of what is quite often the moot and unnecessary hoop of a degree requirement, is appealing--both because of one's feeling of fairness and access to equal opportunity and also because oftentimes the person, whose experience has more than excellently fulfilled the actual job requirements as opposed to the hoop requirements, will not be denied a position, based on failure to jump through a hoop.
Moreover, as data show, it is quite evident how requiring aÂ college degree is a form--unintentional, inadvertent, or not--of institutionalized racism. But Megyn Kelly articulates with panache her rebuttal to this example: "Well, i-i-it also may just institute candidates who are white who just couldn't go to college." (Whatever that means)
Third, she says City Prosecutors have "stopped enforcing traffic and drug laws."Â As Pomper himself notes,Â "so far this only applies to DWLS3." In a sleight of hand, Kelly has managed to turn the same issue into two separate issues. Of course, that is to be understood when her first attack of it was false. This issue for Kelly, alas, is a little more complex.
A DWLS3 (or driving with a license suspended)Â "is considered the least serious [of DWLS] and generally occurs when your license was suspended because of unpaid tickets. A conviction for a DWLS 3 will often result in a simple fine."
According to City Attorney Pete Holmes, though,Â "the disproportionate number of blacks being charged is a direct result of economic inequalities," and furthermore "it's a waste of city resources to prosecute those cases."
Fourth, Kelly then states her most outrageous falsehood yet: "they're also, openly admitting to, requesting less jail time for illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes because they want to prevent the feds from deporting them."Â In bold is the bold-faced lie Kelly spouts.Â In fact, Holmes is "considering a one-day reduction in the minimum sentence for misdemeanor crimes so as to not trigger the deportation of legal immigrants convicted of crimes in the city."
Although Fox News may want to make this a political issue, there are always competing motives and repercussions for an action. Reducing the misdemeanor minimum sentence from 365 days to 364 is still a long time for the person convicted; also, it lessens the burden on Immigration to deport people who aren't a safety or health threat to the community.
Yet, this isn't good enough for those people who rely on a book of laws to tell them what to do. They are not of the type to think that existing rules or laws might be draconian, irrelevant, or disproportional.
Why is it that Megyn Kelly said "illegal" instead of the truth? Perhaps she doesn't have an agenda; perhaps it is just as she said, "I confess I don't know a lot about the initiative."
But then again, maybe it is that she does have an agenda: "To now say that an employer who wants college educated people is a racist is going raise a lot of eyebrows from folks."
Of course, raising eyebrows, attracting consumers, selling your showÂ… that's what it's all about.<noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com</noscript>