Several decades ago, an act of "Palming" a basketball (also called Double-dribbling or Carrying) was considered an illegal activity in the game. Nowadays, there is wide-spread palming, but it is not called an offense as often as it used to be. Whereas a player was expected to bounce the ball, the advent of Black ball players who had difficulty in simply bouncing the ball (and used a rolling motion from bottom to top), gave rise to the occasion that many White players began using this ball handling technique as well, since it was easier to do and officials often made allowances for the then perceived "deficiency" or "crudeness" of Black ball players who had learned to play the game without the advantage of correct ball handling instruction as was practiced by White ball players. Indeed, even in street games, palming the ball is considered rude or an indication of a person's inability to play the game the "right" way. In other words, if a person wants to carry a ball they should go play football and stop trying to pretend to be a basketball player.
And yes, while the foregoing representation is somewhat fanciful and rather subjective... it is in part an actual observation derived from personal experiences and the conversations of armchair sports fans whose lives span 3/4ths of a century or more. Nonetheless, it permits the advantage of enabling distinctions to be made by using prejudice as an analytical tool... a sort of variable crescent wrench, so long as the tool and its usage are freely documented before any reflexed objections might be made. An infinitesimal calculus is not being attempted. Needless to say, different players have different ball handling techniques. Some like to grasp or hold onto the ball longer than others do... both in terms of possession and dribbling. The term "hogging" the ball takes on a new dimension when we include the topic of palming. However, let it be noted in another way: The present recital isn't meant as a disparagement, but as a commentary derived from having played basketball several decades ago when black ball players were few and far between when neighborhood basketball games arose. Palming the ball became such a frequent occurrence as more and more Blacks entered into the game, that allowances were made... sometimes. Watch any modern game and you may notice how often palming occurs.
In decades past, a recurrence of palming began to take place so much so that the rules (of observation) were eventually altered to accommodate this activity. In other words, in order to permit Black players to participate with respect to their abilities and given inclinations, the rules of the game had to be changed in terms of interpretation on the part of referees, who are nonetheless free to call the offense anytime they want. And even though when many older citizens view a game of basketball and are readily able to recognize the frequency in which palming now occurs amongst all players, younger generations having been brought up with the perspective where "palming" is not even recognized, have no idea how the game had to be adapted. And those readers seeking to argue about the ball handling technique(s) of Black players... would quickly see the situation if the rules of basketball were reverted to disallowing every single act of "Palming the Ball" from occurring. However, in today's setting of the game, because both Black and White players palm-the-ball with overlapping frequency, it would be more difficult to access the differences in ball handling techniques, in such a circumstance, between Blacks and Whites. It's not that both Black and White players can not be taught how not to palm-the-ball, it's just that there might be more resistance to change on the part of some Black players... or any player whose habits are deeply ingrained.
But distinctions can only be merited if the interpretation and definition of how, when, where and why are clearly noted and not subjected to alteration by arbitrary fluctuations of judgment. Likewise if we begin with one intent and then amalgamate additional interests as pertaining to the same article of initial interest. For example, if a farmer says you can pick "a" (one) basket of fruit, this is not subject to being altered to mean that each member of one's family and extended family and their friends are thus also enabled to have "a" (one) basket as well, though they think they should be enabled to or this would then be suggestive of the farmer exhibiting stinginess or prejudice. Whereas in the first instance the farmer may consider the giving of one basket as charity or an insignificant loss to a crop that yields a small quantity of wastage; multiple baskets would thus cut into the farmer's livelihood and ability to sustain their farm and orchard. In this situation, like that of basketball player's whose ball handling techniques are due to a practiced habit, the farmer's perspective of self-preservation would be just as resistive to change.
With respect to resistance, comments about statistics apparently give evidence that Blacks are more resistant to being arrested by police officers. At this point, such a comment is mere hearsay since no readily available documentation can be provided. Others claim that Blacks tend to be more assertive as indicated by a disproportionate amount of arrests compared to other races, unless the reader is preferentially disposed to use the words "aggressive" or "violent" due to whatever predisposition they may hold. Granted that no one in their right mind likes the idea of being detained, much less arrested by a Police officer, particularly one of a different race or even gender; the idea about following the directions of someone placed into a position of authority is a traditional orientation many have complied with.
However, with the growing acknowledgment that many different types of authority can not be trusted, there is a growing inclination for more of the public to be resistive... particularly when it is noted that when someone gets caught up in the present legal system, there is a heightened chance their lives will be unnecessarily burdened socially and economically. There is a growing view that authority can not be trusted because there exist personalized motives which can come into play with respect to any and all which come to be involved in a case... since their roles use the opportunity to forge out some respective career motivation. In other words, a person "caught up in the justice system" is used to further the career goals of those they have to interact with, and thus are little more than a tool... a game piece, to be moved about and victimized... because they can be sacrificed like a rook, if those playing the game deem such a move necessary to accomplish some other objective. Far too many people are subjected to one deprivation over another due to deceit carried out by those they have to interact with in the justice system... and there is no one seeking to overall the system... simply because everyone in the system is engaging in the act of palming-the-ball and take it for granted as if it is normal and natural... instead of an accommodation.
The current "Black Lives Matter" movement... with its previous legitimacy now in jeopardy because it has begun to be adopted by militant Blacks seeking to establish their version of equality through the transformation of society with an accommodation to a Black Perspective. Even obama, who should necessarily enforce the opinion that the movement take on the banner that "All Lives Matter", is exhibiting a personal inclination towards Black Militancy as a means of bringing about corrective change from the perspective of Blacks... many of whom feel or think the deficiencies or unaccomplishments in their lives is due to being victimized by the rules of White Society. Here's a selection of an article about comments from Obama after two separate instances involving Black males... one of whom was killed by a White police officer in the line of duty, and the other who deliberately set out to kill White Police Officers:
...The president also addressed the those who criticize the Black Lives Matter movement, saying, "When people say black lives matter, that doesn't mean blue lives don't matter — it just means all lives matter. But right now the big concern is the fact that data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. This isn't a matter of comparing the value of lives; this is recognizing that there is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens and we should care about that — we can't dismiss it. We can't dismiss it..."
Obama should thus put his money where his mouth is and persuade the Black Lives Matter activists to hoist "All Lives Matter" banners instead of raised fists while shouting "Black power". Yet, you don't see him trying to encourage the adoption of such a universal and altruistic perspective since he, like so many Blacks, want to racially personalize a situation in order to achieve some desired Me-Black relevance through over-compensation. Defining relevance in some ordinary everyday terms is not enough. Far too many activists from all races seek some measure of personal or collective relevance that in their perspective, is to be equated with an historical movement... That to be achieved is secondary to a person's participation in a perceived struggle. They want social notability because it is part of the community's cultural makeup to be noticed... and thus interpret this as having value and worth... like a peacock boastfully displaying its tail feathers... even if it means getting arrested in order to show other Blacks they inculcated a martyr syndrome. All Obama has done is encouraged more and more protests to occur. He is deliberately dividing the Nation so as to create conditions where the Black perspective becomes a dominant one in multiple social situations... because by enabling one instance, he enables the position of others to follow. Non-blacks are waiting to see what authority will do, since social authority has no idea how to effectively correct the problematic situation involving the entire system of governance... and must therefore either let Blacks define the laws, or instruct police to continue in its normal obstinance of defending current laws... whereby protestors will ultimately have to force change or force compliance to be administered.
In the following video, Trevor Noah is overlooking his own misperceptions about the Black Lives Matter orientation. One's opinion should not be so easily swayed by information conveyed with the intent to entertain in order to increase one's audience:
One of these misperceptions was mentioned previously with regards to the Black Lives Matter perspective, in that it is being presented by some as an altruistic endeavour on behalf of everyone in society. If this were so, the banners being used would be labeled "All Lives Matter"... since, as is being cited as a means to persuade viewers of a claimed value system, that the problems being encountered by police is a National problem... though it appears to be disproportionately affecting Blacks... particularly Black males... and even though it was a Black female who initiated the Black Lives Matter idea.
Another misinterpretation is that the problems occurring with police is that the same situation is pervasive in the entire justice system, which gets its cues from a dysfunctional governing system with a ludicrous electoral practice.
Thirdly, no functional alternatives are being offered. While many people are clamoring for change to address the problem with respect to policing our streets, far too few are taking several steps back to notice the policing problem is a symptom of a much larger problem involving overall governance. A behavior can not be simply stopped in midstream if it is the result of a conveyor process. The role of police offices is down stream from a much larger and dirtier body of water in overall government. Police offices do not write the rules of the game. They are merely referees. Whereas individual police officer attitudes can be altered by observed policy, this does not address the issue of a disproportionate amount of Blacks resisting arrest or engaging in criminal behavior. This will require not only a change in attitude amongst Blacks, but also the availability of resources... though employment opportunity, so that Blacks will not have to engage in criminal acts to acquire wealth, position and accompanying values of self-esteem bolstering.
What are we to do when a populace is confronted with a governing structure that has grown untrustworthy? When those at the upper rungs of society are supposed to be our role models and yet they engage in various nefarious activities, how else are we to react? When the current perception amongst many is that Obama and the Black Lives Matter activists are practicing an underlying Black Nationalism that they don't themselves recognize, and yet expect no opposition because from their ego-centric perspective because their interests are felt to be of some universal appeal and application across all races; is the rest of the nation simply to step aside and have their lives run by laws which amount to another "palming-the-ball" accommodation? While those involved in the Black Lives Matter orientation are claiming some Universal application to their race-centered specificity in order to disarm opposition that are claiming that the orientation is a farce:
Washington (CNN)Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the Black Lives Matter movement is a "farce" and said Americans who hyphenate their racial backgrounds -- such as African-Americans and Asian-Americans -- "further divide our nation."
"#?BlackLivesMatter? is a farce and hyphenating America destroys us," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee wrote on her Facebook page. "Shame on our culture's influencers who would stir contention and division that could lead to evil such as that in Dallas."
"Shame on politicians and pundits giving credence to thugs rioting against police officers and the rule of law in the name of "'peaceful protests.' It is a farce. #BlackLivesMatter is a farce."
The former vice presidential candidate said black lives matter more than activists "can grasp."
"Black Lives Matter? Yes - more than BLM "protestors" can grasp, as evidenced by their self-destructive provocateurism," she wrote. "Doesn't it go without saying that Native lives matter, too? And Asian; and Eskimo; and Hispanic; and Indian... and every other race comprised of people who see clearly the agenda at play to weaken America through disunity."
She continued, "Self-descriptions that put any race in front of being an American are now used to further divide our nation. It's time to acknowledge you're either an American under our system of equality, law and order - and traditional patriotic spirit - or you're not. Knock off the hyphenation of who we are. And knock off the shoulder chip if you've let 'leaders' burden you with it through their example that sadly capitalizes on division for untoward purposes. That chip is crushing the people's hope..."
Yet again, here is another politician relying on a perceived functionality of a dysfunctional system in which to outline a view of right and wrong she feels is of paramount importance... to maintain a status quo involving some idea and ideal labeled "unity" embellished with a notion called "patriotism". Metaphorically speaking, the present system not only has a rule against "palming-the-ball", but the overall game is still being played on dirt courts with fruit baskets. The present practice of democracy is a sham... and is creating conditions which make racial conflicts due to disproportion all that more pronounced. When we have a society whose culture advocates the collection of taxes to support social needs... thus denoting the practice of Socialism and Communism, and yet defines such activities as a democracy that is anything but... there exists an over-riding hypocrisy that can not but breed consternation and disenchantment, because the populace are being forced to live a lie... endure a delusion, when they prefer to seek truth.
When we have a justice system that is being defined a truth but is a perceived practice of law based on various arbitrary standards, this not only sets the stage for conflict, but begs for people to fight against the prevailing situation of multiple standards of interpretation, determination and reward as well as punishment. Because the system is obviously rigged against the people by those who wish to practice a system of personal entitlements that amounts to not having to play the social game fairly, it is no wonder the people are asking for concessions in how they should play the game as well. If those in authority are going to cheat, then the rest of us want to be able to cheat as well. For example, the recent conclusion of the FBI regarding the usage of a private email server by Hillary Clinton, as well as the meeting between the Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton and the behavior of Obama saying he will campaign with Hillary before any verdict had even been rendered; all suggests that the interpretation of the case was fixed against the rule-of-law ordinary people have to follow... and as a means of snubbing the Republican Party who wanted Hillary to be charged with a crime in order to make her ineligible to run against their Presidential candidate. Party politics over-rode any concern for truth or justice to be rendered... thus revealing that there are at the very least, three standards of law: One for the poor, one for the rich, and one for the politically connected.
The system is rigged against the people when it is realized that they system they are forced to abide with and by, is not that which certain others have to. It is a type of correction-of-standardization used when protest efforts are rendered to effect changes. Changes very often are not made by those whose positions enable them to make changes, unless they are then given a higher standard of entitlement... a loop hole or get out of jail for free card so to speak; or else are able to effect some destruction on one or more others if nothing else of personal satisfaction can be gained. And yet, alongside all the protestation are those who are vying for some personal economic or social advantage. Opportunists are everywhere... ready to adapt themselves to whatever conditions present themselves... and are quite adept at acting any necessary part to make their role appear believable.
As so often is the case, one can get involved with an idea that becomes justified by a value system involving the amount of time, energy and even money (or other resources) that are invested. However, such criteria can develop into a delusion that may or may not be shared by others who may use the value of some idealized majoritarianism to define right... or even wrong. Though an entire Nation may share a given perspective, this does not necessarily mean they are right or just. While the Black Lives Matter orientation has kept the observation of (mostly) Black men in situations with Police officers as a disproportion to other races, this does not mean every single idea being professed by Blacks is to be merited with the same value. This is the same pork barrel nonsense legislators get involved in... where various ideas are funded in order to appease the vested interests of different members. Those being attracted to the Black Lives Matter orientation are disposed to gaining additional rewards for their personal interests that have nothing whatsoever to do with the overall well-being of the Black Community. In fact, though they may be Black, they don't give a damn about other Blacks except to exploit them. The color of their skin is being used to camouflage a selfishness that is not readily seen by the naivete' of those whose sincerity strives for a true color blindness.
The Black Lives Matter orientation just like the LGBTQ group of colonies, are each trying to get the rules of the game changed in order to be able to practice their own type of "palming-the-ball" activity. Whereas they don't want to change the game to the extent where their interests are viewed as an irrelevance, they simply want to be accommodated within a system where they have learned a means where they might achieve some relevance. Changing the overall structure of the game might well make their self-perception a negligible circumstance unworthy of any extended consideration because there would be more important issues to address in a society governed by a different game plan. From such a realization we indeed need a New Government— a Cenocracy.
Such a Cenocracy may well be a "Eleutherocracy" (liberated Democracy). For example, if we come to acknowledge that the current practices of our so-called democracy actually exemplify practices of Socialism and Communism, we would be liberated from the lie, from the illusion, from the delusion that the present Democracy is a sham... a pretend democracy. Such a perspective would entail an overall change in the social game plan because it would involve a new form of electoral system, government structure, as well as an economic perspective which addresses the issues being argued in the I.O.U.S.A. documentary that is in need of a review at this site, and will be forthcoming.