Speaker 1: Broadcasting from the Hip Hop Weekly Studios. I'd like to
Speaker 1: welcome you to another episode of Civic Cipher, where our
Speaker 1: mission is to foster allyship empathy and understanding. I'm your host, Ramses.
Speaker 2: Joh he is Rams Joh, I am q Ward and
Speaker 2: you are tombed in the Civic Spher.
Speaker 1: Yes you are, and we've whittled down a show for
Speaker 1: you today.
Speaker 2: We found is an excellent way to put that just
Speaker 2: because as usual, there is so much that we could
Speaker 2: talk about and that we want to talk about.
Speaker 1: And to be fair, you know, we know that Bill
Speaker 1: Maher's tripping to be fair, we know are been tripping. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we know about you know, we've we've covered quite a
Speaker 1: bit of the goings on in Gaza with you know,
Speaker 1: respect to the Israeli protesters naturally, the pro Palestinian protests
Speaker 1: on college campuses around the country. I don't want you
Speaker 1: for a second to think that those things aren't on
Speaker 1: our hearts and things that we want to discuss. It's
Speaker 1: just a matter of time. Today actually was kind of
Speaker 1: a frustrating episode, But where we ended up is we're
Speaker 1: going to be talking about well first and foremost, we're
Speaker 1: gonna we're gonna share a letter from one of our
Speaker 1: listeners because it's important for us to kind of reset
Speaker 1: our who we are in the minds of our listeners,
Speaker 1: and every so often we'll hear from folks that prompts
Speaker 1: us to remind folks of who we are, why we
Speaker 1: do what we do, and what we mean, what our
Speaker 1: intentions are. And then for the second part of the show,
Speaker 1: what we're going to do is discuss police, police violence,
Speaker 1: police misconduct, and indeed a story where sixty six probation
Speaker 1: officers were put on leave in La County so as
Speaker 1: to further explain how with police there are systemic issues,
Speaker 1: not just individual issues. But before we get there, let's
Speaker 1: discuss some Ebony excellence, shall we?
Speaker 2: I think we shall This week's Abney Excellence sponsored by
Speaker 2: Actively Black There is greatness in our DNA. Visit actively
Speaker 2: black dot com. This story from The Guardian. Two college
Speaker 2: freshmen who during their final year of high school found
Speaker 2: a new way to prove Pythagoras's theorem by using trigonometry,
Speaker 2: which mathematicians for generations thought was impossible, have since uncovered
Speaker 2: multiple more such proofs. They revealed in a national interview
Speaker 2: on Sunday. Quote we found five, and then we found
Speaker 2: a general format that could potentially produce at least five
Speaker 2: additional proofs end quote, Kelsea Johnson said on CBS's Sixty Minutes.
Speaker 2: A little more than a year after, she and Nikia
Speaker 2: Jackson collaborated on an accomplishment that earned them international recognition.
Speaker 2: The two thousand year old theorem established that the sum
Speaker 2: of a square sorry some of the squares of a
Speaker 2: right triangle two shorter sides equal to square of the
Speaker 2: hypot news the third longest side opposite the shape's right angle.
Speaker 2: Countless school children taking geometry have memorized the notation, summarizing
Speaker 2: the theorem a square plus b squared equal c squared.
Speaker 1: Boom.
Speaker 2: But the bonus question on a math contest that Johnson
Speaker 2: and Jackson took home to complete during Christmas break of
Speaker 2: their final year at Saint Mary's served as the impetus
Speaker 2: for them to plot out a new way to demonstrate
Speaker 2: that one could indeed use trigonometry to prove Pythagoras's theorem.
Speaker 2: Their work was so compelling that the pair went to
Speaker 2: a regional meeting of the American Mathematical Society in Atlanta
Speaker 2: in March twenty twenty three to outline their findings at
Speaker 2: the organization's recommendation. Jackson and Johnson have submitted their discoveries
Speaker 2: for final peer review and publication, as well as working
Speaker 2: on additional proofs while that process is pending. Boom, I
Speaker 2: want to be like them when I grow up man
Speaker 2: exclamation point.
Speaker 1: They day up there with patagorasts. So that's next level
Speaker 1: black women, okay, Q Yes, Ramses, you are a well decorated,
Speaker 1: award winning, nationally syndicated.
Speaker 2: When starts talking like that.
Speaker 1: Well stop me when I'm lying. You sit at the
Speaker 1: helm of a couple of shows. Uh and uh this
Speaker 1: is one of them. And this is not your first rodeo.
Speaker 1: You've been on the radio for years now, and it
Speaker 1: is possible for you to say things in a very
Speaker 1: short amount of time that lack complete context. And sometimes
Speaker 1: you need to take a moment and explain what you mean,
Speaker 1: because without indeed all of the context necessary for everyone
Speaker 1: to understand the entirety of what you mean, people can
Speaker 1: leave the conversation confused, when indeed they actually came to
Speaker 1: learn from you. So I want to be fair. I
Speaker 1: want to set this up the right way.
Speaker 2: Please.
Speaker 1: Obviously I know how this works because I work in
Speaker 1: broadcasting too, and I also do a lot of our
Speaker 1: social media stuff, and you know, it's a lot to
Speaker 1: pack into a thirty second little break or an hour
Speaker 1: long show. As we find out frequently, all of the nuanced,
Speaker 1: all of the context, everything that's necessary in order to
Speaker 1: stick the landing, to fully make a point that is impenetrable.
Speaker 1: That is that it's not susceptible to criticisms that are
Speaker 1: more basic, right. High level criticism. Sure, when the point
Speaker 1: is well made. High level criticisms, we invite them. But
Speaker 1: low level criticisms are tough because it's simply a matter
Speaker 1: of I didn't have enough time to explain that I
Speaker 1: hit the major talking points, but of course there's context
Speaker 1: that's missing from me. The reason why I'm talking in
Speaker 1: a roundabout way and talking about this in such a
Speaker 1: cryptic fashion is because we received a letter recently and
Speaker 1: was addressed to Cue. The letter that we received is
Speaker 1: from a longtime listener, and I like to think of
Speaker 1: him as a friend of the show. We've only ever
Speaker 1: used his first name, Philip, but Philip is in our estimation,
Speaker 1: a conservative leaning listener. He listens to both of the
Speaker 1: shows that we do. One on the Black Information Network
Speaker 1: and this show you're listening to right now, Civic Cipher,
Speaker 1: which funnily enough is also on the Black Information Network.
Speaker 1: And Philip has again kept us on our toes. Know,
Speaker 1: we're not sure that he views the world. We might
Speaker 1: be subscribing to two different realities, but we're grateful for
Speaker 1: his input, his contribution, and we need criticisms because we
Speaker 1: want to be the best journalists we can. We want
Speaker 1: to be as responsible with this. We have microphones and
Speaker 1: audiences that are listening to us, and so we want
Speaker 1: to be very responsible with this. But what I've done
Speaker 1: is painted a picture that has a lot of different
Speaker 1: elements converging at that microphone. And so what I'll do
Speaker 1: is I'll share another letter, the latest letter from our
Speaker 1: friend Philip, and we're going to have a brief discussion
Speaker 1: on context and fill in some gaps, fill in some blanks,
Speaker 1: and give you an idea of who we are. And
Speaker 1: today we're going to focus more on c So I'll
Speaker 1: finish setting the stage. This letter says thank you for
Speaker 1: allowing me to use this email as I don't use
Speaker 1: social media much. We know that about Philip for a
Speaker 1: long time. Oh he always emails us all right. He says,
Speaker 1: congratulations on your continued station growth with Civic Cipher, and
Speaker 1: then he talks about the Black Information Network May sixth,
Speaker 1: so not too long ago, and he says something that
Speaker 1: stood out to me and I forwarded over to Q.
Speaker 1: He says, Q sounded just like President Trump. Okay, you
Speaker 1: didn't see him.
Speaker 2: He was drinking It just almost caused the spits tit take. Yeah,
Speaker 2: he was drinking water.
Speaker 1: But yeah, he says, Q sounded just like President Trump. Uh.
Speaker 1: He says, you know, into the show, Q said regarding
Speaker 1: you know, the ceasefire. I guess this show we were
Speaker 1: talking about the proposed the ceasefires for the ceasefire and Gaza.
Speaker 1: He says. In the show, Q said, there are good
Speaker 1: people on both sides, the same wording that President Trump
Speaker 1: used regarding Charlotte. And you're going to have to paint
Speaker 1: that picture of Charlottesville for our listeners. Que, I'll finish
Speaker 1: reading the letter. He says, President Trump got ridiculed to
Speaker 1: the hilt, So now will Q publicly acknowledge that President
Speaker 1: Trump's point was fine? And the same as cues that
Speaker 1: goes on to say, the quote, which was from President Trump,
Speaker 1: you had some very bad people in that group, but
Speaker 1: you also had people that were very fine people on
Speaker 1: both sides. Okay, that's Trump's quote. Q's quote is I
Speaker 1: hate the way this sounds. There are good people on
Speaker 1: both sides. And then he finishes his email by saying,
Speaker 1: my main point for bringing this up is that like
Speaker 1: it or not, or like him or not? Back then
Speaker 1: those words were taken out of context. What other words
Speaker 1: of Trump's were and continue to be taken out of context.
Speaker 1: So again, this is an individual that you know is
Speaker 1: a let's call him a defender of President Trump, right
Speaker 1: wing ideology, conservative beliefs, anything like this right, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't make these people necessarily wrong. It's just a different
Speaker 1: We're going to start at the conversation at just a
Speaker 1: different way of viewing our shared reality. Okay, now, qute,
Speaker 1: how did that hit you? Initially?
Speaker 2: Many of you that are listening to the show may
Speaker 2: not realize that I do not subscribe to our show's
Speaker 2: social media because of the alternate reality that some of
Speaker 2: our listeners have the benefit of living in, and people
Speaker 2: don't simply disagree with us. People get pretty aggressive and
Speaker 2: vehemently angry and nasty toward us. Philip has not ever
Speaker 2: been that way. But a lot of people that disagree
Speaker 2: with our position, our thoughts, or our opinions, they aim
Speaker 2: as low as possible, and I'm guessing to get the
Speaker 2: type of reaction that they get from me when I
Speaker 2: see it. Part of what Philip said, however, in this
Speaker 2: email made my stomach hurt. And I'm not being hyperbolic,
Speaker 2: I'm not exaggerating. I was driving my car. I had
Speaker 2: to pull over at a gas station and stop driving
Speaker 2: because it made me physically sick. Those words that made
Speaker 2: me feel that way, where Q sounded just like President Trump,
Speaker 2: and part of me knew something like that could or
Speaker 2: would happen when I said the words, which is why
Speaker 2: I said, I hate the way this sounds. Because I
Speaker 2: saw our clock and I knew that there was not
Speaker 2: enough time for me to further give contact, to further elaborate,
Speaker 2: to further explain my position on that, and someone who
Speaker 2: would use a lack of context and semantics to try
Speaker 2: to draw a conclusion that I'd ever shared a similar
Speaker 2: thought to President Trump on anything, would have an opportunity
Speaker 2: to do so. So that was my initial feeling when
Speaker 2: you forwarded that message to me.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how about this. Now, if we have a
Speaker 1: moment where we can provide some context, what was it
Speaker 1: about President Trump's saying there were good people on both
Speaker 1: sides that felt problematic?
Speaker 2: My first issue, I think was similar to everyone's right.
Speaker 2: This response from President Trump was mostly in the face
Speaker 2: of people trying to get him to denounce or speak
Speaker 2: against white nationalism, white supremacy, and neo Nazism, and President
Speaker 2: Trump very intentionally conflated those who were Confederate proud to
Speaker 2: that discussion to give himself the leniency to say that
Speaker 2: there were decent people on both sides. I could get
Speaker 2: into the definitions of neo Nazism, the Nazi Party under
Speaker 2: then Adolph Hitler. I could get into white supremacy and
Speaker 2: it's very simple and direct definition. I can get into
Speaker 2: the ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the ku
Speaker 2: Klux Klan who were also present in Charlottesville. I could
Speaker 2: get into all the specifics of why those things were problematic.
Speaker 2: But if your way out was some of those people
Speaker 2: were just there to commemorate General Lee, whose statue had
Speaker 2: been removed, I'd like to give you that. Except the
Speaker 2: President very very intentionally conflated those things, because that was
Speaker 2: a totally separate protest. But let's talk about the Confederacy,
Speaker 2: since we want to celebrate American heroes, as you would
Speaker 2: call them. I'd like to believe that the Confederacy lost
Speaker 2: a war where they were the enemy of what is
Speaker 2: now the United.
Speaker 1: States, what was then the United States.
Speaker 2: And the Confederacy formed for the sole reason of maintaining
Speaker 2: slavery of black and African Americans. That's all. So are
Speaker 2: those very fine people who still today want to celebrate
Speaker 2: and commemorate the Confederacy. And in the other case, we'd
Speaker 2: call those that oppose this country treasonous, we'd call them traders.
Speaker 2: But because what is being upheld stands shoulder to shoulder
Speaker 2: with white supremacy, there are those that feel that way
Speaker 2: and want to just call it pride for the history
Speaker 2: of this country. So the problems were very, very easy
Speaker 2: to point out. Is you don't I was going to
Speaker 2: literally read those definitions, but I don't want to insult
Speaker 2: our listeners. I don't want to insult Philip he knows better.
Speaker 2: So to use this as a moment to try to
Speaker 2: say that I sound like President Trump would be you
Speaker 2: intentionally ignoring what I meant when I said so if
Speaker 2: I may. There are people that are victims of this
Speaker 2: conflict that are not directly involved in the conflict. There
Speaker 2: are women and children in Tel Aviv. There are women
Speaker 2: and children in Gaza, Palestine and Israeli who are not
Speaker 2: the pro Israeli government and who are not pro Hamas.
Speaker 2: They just simply want to live and eat, be healthy
Speaker 2: and prosper and want the same for their children, who
Speaker 2: just by nature of proximity of where they live and
Speaker 2: were born, are victims of this conflict. The numbers show
Speaker 2: that the casualties are far greater on the Palestinian side,
Speaker 2: far greater in multiples of thousands. But there are people
Speaker 2: who are victims of this conflict and its violence who
Speaker 2: do not have anything to do with the conflict, and
Speaker 2: who do not stand in support of those who are
Speaker 2: participating in this conflict aggressively. Who I mentioned are good
Speaker 2: people who love and are kind. Oh, this is not
Speaker 2: the time for me to show you how great or
Speaker 2: good of a person I am. I never profess to be.
Speaker 2: I've said on this show and other shows multiple times.
Speaker 2: I am no one's intellectual or moral superior. I have
Speaker 2: broken hearts, I have hurt feelings, I have failed in
Speaker 2: my duties as whatever position that I play in the
Speaker 2: lives of people that care about me many times. So
Speaker 2: this is not a flex of how much better a
Speaker 2: person I am than you, but the idea that my ideas,
Speaker 2: my thoughts could ever be in line with that of
Speaker 2: our former president is a ridiculous thing to say out loud,
Speaker 2: especially if you've ever heard any episode besides the one
Speaker 2: that you picked this quote from. The good people on
Speaker 2: both sides in this case and any other time you
Speaker 2: hear me say it, are the women and children and men,
Speaker 2: because I'm not going to keep acting like men's lives
Speaker 2: don't matter in these conversations, and all men are a
Speaker 2: part of the conflict. They're not. There are fathers, sons,
Speaker 2: uncles and brothers who are just trying to survive and
Speaker 2: protect those that they care about. Because I have seen
Speaker 2: Israeli people protests against this conflict and their current political leadership,
Speaker 2: as you've seen Palestinians, of course, and those who are
Speaker 2: neither Israeli or Planets or Palestinian protesting all over the
Speaker 2: world because this conflict has been for some time now
Speaker 2: out of hand. Too many lives are being treated as
Speaker 2: if they have no Worth Ramses has said on these
Speaker 2: microphones that one child's life was too much. The numbers
Speaker 2: now in the thousands of women and children, and they
Speaker 2: use those numbers intentionally as to say, Hey, these people
Speaker 2: who in some of these cases are completely defenseless, are
Speaker 2: dying because of what? Because you want to get at
Speaker 2: your licked back. At what point are you just cruel?
Speaker 2: At what point are you just a bully? At what
Speaker 2: point are you continuing to show what some of us
Speaker 2: already know, that your capitalist pursuits are more important or
Speaker 2: worth more than the lives of anyone, including American children,
Speaker 2: as to not have a conversation about our gun lobby
Speaker 2: and our gun laws. At what point do we acknowledge
Speaker 2: that our pursuit for power and control is gratuitous, that
Speaker 2: we are gluttons for both, and that we've decided that
Speaker 2: we will sacrifice anything to have as much money, as
Speaker 2: much influenced control and power as we could possibly grasp,
Speaker 2: and even more than we could grasp.
Speaker 1: Why do we know what to do with so Our.
Speaker 2: President's comments were to convince I won't even say convinced,
Speaker 2: he did not want to speak against those who vote
Speaker 2: for him. Flatly, I do not want to call all
Speaker 2: of these people bad. I want to give myself an
Speaker 2: out so that when I go to my rallies, I
Speaker 2: can say, ha ha, No, I didn't say that. I
Speaker 2: didn't say that you were all bad. Some of you
Speaker 2: are fine people. Because those people vote for him. So
Speaker 2: our former president is either a supporter of neo nazi,
Speaker 2: white nationalists, white supremacists, or enjoys that they like him.
Speaker 2: He either subscribes to their ideals or pretends to so
Speaker 2: that he can have their support. I don't know which
Speaker 2: is worst. So to Philip, no, it's not time that
Speaker 2: I come out and admit that he said anything of
Speaker 2: any worth, of any value, or that I share any
Speaker 2: thoughts of his and its entirety. I am objectively opposed
Speaker 2: to everything he's ever said, and I will never pretend
Speaker 2: that anything that he's done politically successful will make him
Speaker 2: the type of person fit to lead our country.
Speaker 1: May I ask, in short, do you feel that? Actually,
Speaker 1: let me start over, how about this? When I think
Speaker 1: President Trump was talking about both sides, there's one thing
Speaker 1: that provides a lot of context. There was a side
Speaker 1: of people that were organized marching to make a statement,
Speaker 1: and they had tiki torches and they were, you know,
Speaker 1: doing the Nazi salutes and so forth, and anybody that
Speaker 1: chooses to stand with them stands on the wrong side.
Speaker 1: If this side that is doing the Nazi salutes, that's
Speaker 1: always the wrong side, right. I think that generally speaking
Speaker 1: around the world, most people would agree with that that
Speaker 1: is the wrong side. So for someone to say there
Speaker 1: are good people on both sides, implying that that side
Speaker 1: has good people in it, that is the former president
Speaker 1: being ambiguous enough again to not offend those folks.
Speaker 2: Who would not alienate his base.
Speaker 1: Right. And when you say that there are good people
Speaker 1: on both sides, or something similar to that, discussing how
Speaker 1: there are Jewish people, Israeli people, pro is written Israeli people,
Speaker 1: I should say, and then the protesters people that are
Speaker 1: in supportive ending the conflict, people in support of the ceasefire,
Speaker 1: and these people could end up on opposite sides of
Speaker 1: the conversation that there are good people, well intentioned, well
Speaker 1: meaning people on both sides of that. My guess is
Speaker 1: that you're thinking that that is a little bit more
Speaker 1: true to what you're trying to say.
Speaker 2: I wish I had more time, well,