Free Premium Softwares | Free Premium Apps

Are you human?

Double click any of the below ads and after that, reload the page and you can submit your gig!

Free Getty Images Downloader Without Watermark

A man places his hand on a cross bearing the names of the victims of a mass shooting in front of Robb Elementary School on May 26, 2022 in Uvalde, Texas. (Photo by Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images)
Editor’s note: The following article is an op-ed, and the views expressed are the author’s own. Read more opinions on theGrio.

Americans are treated like babies by our media. We’re a violent society where our children are shot in schools, our cops murder citizens with impunity and our military drops bombs on foreign countries. Are we OK with all of that? Clearly, we are, but how can we really know if we’re OK with that when we never see the impact of it? We never see the bodies, the blood or the injuries that AR-15s and drone strikes leave.

The story of the Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., mass murders is being told through words and peaceful images of the dead smiling beatifically in photos. I appreciate the imperative to restore the dignity of the dead and to remember them at their best, but in doing that, we are protecting the rest of us from the reality of what happened to them. Those sweet photos of the dead at peace are part of numbing us to sleep, which allows this to keep happening. It shields us from the reality of the violence this country is awash in. Being kept from those images keeps us from the outrage that could force political action.

This week on MSNBC, former Attorney General Eric Holder said that when he visited Sandy Hook after the mass murder there, seeing the bodies hurt him to his soul. “If we could somehow convey the nature of this carnage from these AR-15s, these weapons of war, then we could move this nation,” he said.

If we showed people what bullet-ridden bodies looked like, it would be harder for them to shrug and say, “well, nothing can be done.” It would be so painful that they would be forced to act. We should not be able to hear these stories and turn away. We should not be protected from the pain of seeing limbs separated and faces destroyed if we are making a choice to live with mass murders all the time. If we’re going to be a society where mass murder is part of our world, we should have to see what that really looks like.

Horrific images have changed the world before. In the years before 1955, there were thousands of people who were lynched, but when Mamie Till courageously let a photographer take photos of her son Emmett’s destroyed body, Americans got to see an unfiltered vision of what was happening in this country. The image of Emmett’s disfigured head propelled the civil rights movement to a new level of intensity.

Similarly, the long, graphic closeup of George Floyd being murdered on video was very hard to watch—most of us don’t have the stomach to watch an execution. But millions of people saw that footage, and it inspired a galvanizing national event for the modern Black Lives Matter movement. When we see reality in all of its unvarnished ugliness, we can no longer ignore it. We have to stand up against it.

News media is working from an outdated playbook that says images of death are too much to show people, but what’s truly too much is living with mass murder all the time. If you think it would be too traumatizing, that’s the point—it should be traumatizing. But if your point is, “what about my comfort?” in a world that’s awash with mass murder and a political system that’s doing nothing about it, you may be part of the problem.

Touré hosts the podcast “Touré Show” and the podcast docuseries “Who Was Prince?” He is also the author of seven books.

TheGrio is FREE on your TV via Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Roku, and Android TV. Please download theGrio mobile apps today!

Tagged : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Visit Gig

Related Posts

Free Getty Images Downloader Without Watermark

Getty Images Downloader

Last summer I got a tip I didn’t want to believe: A source familiar with the inner workings of the Nets roster told me James Harden would leave Brooklyn.

Followed by Kyrie Irving, then ultimately Kevin Durant, a purported course of events that would undoubtedly send the Nets back to the bottom of the Eastern Conference standings after just three seasons in the spotlight.

Fast forward one summer and Harden is now an afterthought. And if the Nets aren’t careful, Irving is next.

And we all know where the Nets are after that: The endgame.

If Irving leaves outright as a free agent this summer, disgruntled by the Nets’ hardball stance on his availability, Brooklyn doesn’t have the cap space to replace him with a star, which means Durant, entering Year 16, could be playing with a questionable Ben Simmons (back surgery) and a roster full of role players.

That’s a first-round exit at best — if Durant stays to see it, and according to multiple sources, Durant and the Nets front office have not spoken since they were swept out of the first round.

In layman’s terms, if Irving leaves the Nets, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Durant becomes frustrated with the organization’s ability to put championship pieces around him. They failed to do so at the beginning of last season, with none of their top offseason acquisitions — James Johnson, DeAndre Bembry or Jevon Carter — finishing the year in Brooklyn.

This is why the Nets’ championship hopes hinge on an amicable solution with Irving, whose personal decision not to get vaccinated and unpredictable injury history have left the Nets hesitant, and now, according to a source familiar with the Nets’ thought process, outright unwilling to give him a long-term extension.

Irving played in just 29 games last season, restricted by both New York City’s vaccine mandate and the Nets’ decision not to incorporate him into the rotation for road games until mid-December. The season before, he appeared in only 54 games, missing several stretches for “personal reasons,” and in his first season in Brooklyn, a nagging shoulder injury limited him to only 20 games played.

Yet this is the hand the Nets dealt themselves. They chose to live and die with Irving the second they signed him, Durant and DeAndre Jordan in the summer of 2019. They then surrendered all their cap flexibility in the Harden trade with Houston and still have no flexibility to sign free agents after replacing Harden’s max contract with Simmons’.

That’s the scary reality the Nets face, not four years of Irving’s availability — or lack thereof — but the alternative: coming a half-size smaller shoe away from a trip to the NBA Finals, only to be pegged as an unserious franchise shortly after if both Irving and Durant leave Brooklyn.

For obvious reasons on Irving’s side, a one-year deal is unacceptable. A player widely regarded as one of the most skilled NBA players of all time who has the injury history Irving has would never agree to a one-year deal. If Irving gets hurt on the job, no matter how many consecutive games he played prior to the injury, he would have no long-term security.

This is the part Irving must reconcile with himself. Had he not missed so many games for personal reasons two seasons ago, maybe the Nets would have looked at his decision not to get vaccinated as an outlier, as a mere personal choice amid a global pandemic no one saw coming. But Irving succumbed to his emotions after the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection and missed two weeks’ worth of games. He later missed additional games for reasons he kept private.

Then he refused the COVID-19 vaccine, leaving his teammates hanging, frustrating Harden and forcing his teammates to play above their means. Had he gotten the jab, three alternate realities are on the table: maybe Harden stays, maybe the Nets go further than a first-round sweep, and maybe Brooklyn’s front office views Irving as reliable and gives him the contract extension he desires.

That, however, doesn’t appear to be on the table, at least not at this juncture of an early offseason. Irving has about a month to make a decision whether or not he will opt into the final year of his contract in Brooklyn or test free agency. The teams that can clear enough cap space to sign him to his max of 35% of the salary cap — four years, upwards of $185M — are not in a position to compete for a deep playoff run.

This is where the Nets believe they have leverage, but in reality, Irving would only need to be creative. A team can trade a summertime free agent acquisition no sooner than Dec. 15, which means Irving can agree to a deal with either the Spurs, Pacers, Pistons, Magic or Trail Blazers, then be re-routed elsewhere, with the initial team compensated in draft assets and young players.

If that happens, Irving’s $36.5M salary would come off the Brooklyn books, but the Nets would still have $121M on the payroll with a $122M salary cap.

Or the Nets can bite the bullet and pray that Irving wants to win a championship as badly as he says he does. Even if they sign him to a four- or five-year deal now, they can refuse a no-trade clause and trade him elsewhere if the availability issues persist.

What they can’t do, however, is replace him if he walks as a free agent. If Irving walks as a free agent, he might not be the only one leaving Brooklyn. That reality is far worse than what the Nets could have if they stick to the plan and ride it out with their stars.

Getty Images Downloader

Tagged : , , , , , , , , , , , Visit Gig

Related Posts

Uh oh. Looks like you're using an ad blocker. Please, disable it