Juries' racial makeup an exploitive storyline
A. A Jan. 6 story on Senate Bill 167 cites one of eight divisive concepts schools can't include or promote in class: “an individual, by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
B. A Jan. 7 story on the Ahmaud Arbery trial outcome article stated: "Though prosecutors did not argue that racism motivated the killing, federal authorities have charged them with hate crimes ..."
C. A Nov. 12, 2021, CNN story stated about the jury having only one Black member: "The court ... ruled there were valid reasons, beyond race, for why the (Black potential) jurors were dismissed. 'One of the challenges that I think counsel recognized in this case is the racial overtones in the case. ... This is sort of the continuation of a conversation that I think will continue for a long time, with respect to this case," the judge said."
D. Georgia Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley said during the final phase: "Assuming the worst in others shows the worst in us."
I am reminded of a storyline that always gets my goat. Why does a journalist comment: "... the jury consists of X number of Blacks, Y number of females, Z number of some other ethnicity, religion, national origin or political affiliation..."?
Is this to create emotional interest in the story? Is it intended to infer some bias of those jurists? Should news outlets also not teach the concept by inference, just like schools should not? Why should it matter that those counts exist? It should only count if one knows a pattern of personal behavior of specific jurists.
We should not jump to any bias if we know nothing about that jurist. It might be natural and self-protective, but it is not right. We need to be careful to not let the storyline pull on our prejudice string. If we do, it shows the worst in us.
Quarantine concepts seem foreign to some
With the concern over COVID, you would think more people would show accountability for their health and the health of others. l am not going to lecture on getting the shots; that is truly up to the individual to make that choice. The concern I recognize is the lack of knowledge of what quarantine means.
If you are positive for COVID, that doesn’t give a .ree ticket to get out of work then go anywhere you want. Quarantine means stay home, away from others, within your own residence.
With all the COVID positives in the state, you would think there would be fewer people on the roads, right? They should be at home in quarantine, but this is not the case.
After a recent trip to a phone store, a fellow customer shared with the employees that a customer who had just left had worked with him and is off with COVID. He was sharing that the store should be wiped down. The same COVID customer was seen leaving a nearby Subway shop.
Until we take accountability for our own actions, this surge will not go down. Just because you have slight symptoms doesn’t mean the person you infect won’t die.