Author: Bill Fletcher,

NNPA — It hit me the other day that there is a new protocol involved in walking down the street. I never really thought about it before, but I suddenly realized that people who text while walking, expect that those of us not texting while walking will simply get out of their way.

Forgive my naiveté, but I grew up with the strong instruction that when you walk, you look where you are going. When you cross the street, you look both ways to ensure that you are not run over. You know, little things like that. However, something has happened and these rules are being thrown up in the air.

There are two related, though different, examples of this new protocol. One involves texting and the other involves, well I am not sure what else to call it but being oblivious. In the case of texting, I have actually tested out my theory. Individuals will be walking towards me texting completely ignoring their surroundings or that they are approaching me. I will then say, fairly loudly, “Watch yourself!” The response that I have received is intriguing. The individual tends to look completely discombobulated and act as if it was somehow inappropriate for me to notify them that they were on a collision course.

This absent-minded, unconsciousness seems to be very widespread. People walking down the street are either talking on their cellphones, texting on their cellphones or listening to music with their ear buds, completely out of touch with their surroundings. Such individuals cross the street in the face of on-coming traffic, apparently making the assumption that the traffic will avoid them. While they may get out of the way of oncoming pedestrian traffic, they also seem to take their time walking, ignoring that there might be a line of people behind them a half block in length.

What are we to make of this? The easy part is that it is a form of self-centeredness. Individuals are acting as if the world exists to serve them and frankly, the hell with the rest of us.

Yet, the deeper problem seems to reflect the way that increasing numbers of us are retreating into various self-generated bubbles. These are the same bubbles that lead us to narrow what we read to only things with which we agree; to believe that our “friends” on Facebook and Twitter are an actual sampling of global opinion; these bubbles lead us to not wanting to be bothered with social interaction with many others, including our ACTUAL friends; and for some, to live in guarded and gated communities cut off from much of the rest of the world.

Yes, texting while walking and thinking that the rest of us will get out of the way is rude; and being oblivious to your surroundings while walking is stupid, but the problem is deeper and seems to reflect the retreat of so many of us from the reality of a thriving global village.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk show host, writer and activist. Follow him on Twitter @BillFletcherJr, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

NNPA — Alright, we are getting close to the finish line: Election Day November 8, 2016.

We have witnessed the first debate, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and while I would argue that Clinton won, Trump made enough arguments to reinforce some level of confidence among his supporters.

After having a comfortable lead over her Republican opponent, current poll numbers suggest that Clinton’s lead has almost vanished in key states; reasons why the race has tightened are still up for debate.

There are four presidential candidates on the ballot: Hillary Clinton (Democrat), Donald Trump (Republican), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party). The reality is that the presidential choice comes down to either Clinton or Trump. Johnson has about an eight percent showing in the polls and Stein about three percent.

What voters have to decide is not only where will they come down, but also the importance of other races that will be decided November 8. Thus, my first plea is that everyone votes. Each vote, as we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, can be potentially critical.

A second issue is that races, in addition to the presidential race, are critical. The United States Senate, as of this moment, is a toss-up between the Republicans and Democrats. We could find ourselves with a small Republican majority, a small Democratic majority, or a literal tie. So, even if you find yourself dissatisfied with the Presidential choices, there are other races that will make a real-world difference.

The third issue, however, is one that hit me, yet again, in watching the debate. Trump and his supporters are dangerous. It is frightening that a presidential candidate can continue to deliver outright lies and has not been run out of town on a rail. But it is actually more than that. Leading the birther movement against Obama, threatening to put Muslims under surveillance, proposing a wall along the border with Mexico and an escalation of deportations, allegedly, as a means of cutting crime, tells us that Trump understands nothing about the experiences of those of us of color. Worse, he is quite prepared, in the face of the history of the United States, to play with matches in a field of unstable dynamite. Trump isn’t stupid; he knows precisely what he is doing and he knows how he is motivating racists and xenophobes to come out of the closet. Yet, he keeps doing it.

So, it really comes down to this: No matter who is elected, people of conscience will need to put and keep pressure on the next administration. At the same time, don’t deceive yourself. Ultra-right-wing forces will play on Trump’s victory in order to push us further over the edge into a racial dystopia.

Black America went through a racial dystopia after the defeat of Reconstruction and found itself in the hell of Jim Crow. Asian America went through the persecution of the Chinese and Japanese, the annexation of Hawaii, and a genocidal war against the Filipinos. Latino America went through the seizure of the northern third of Mexico and the later seizure of Puerto Rico, along with the constant demonization of their people and their heritage. Native Americans have faced constant efforts aimed at the violation of their sovereignty and, indeed, their extermination. We do not need a President who takes us anywhere close to that world again.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk show host, writer and activist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

(NNPA) — I don’t know whether you have been following this, but there is a very disturbing trend that has been underway. Women in cyberspace are under attack. These attacks are very much focused on programmers and video game designers. These attacks are nothing short of vicious.

Yet, the attacks have expanded. Just recently Leslie Jones, a co-star in the reboot of the film “Ghostbusters,” came under such a vicious online assault that she took a breather from Twitter while Twitter management decided to purge some of her worst attackers. What Leslie Jones experienced, i.e., vicious online assaults, is something that an increasing number of women who work in cyberspace and technology careers have been living through for years. Subterranean assaults carried out in the dark of night making life miserable for their targets have become a current feature of our times. This has expanded so much so that it has even become part of popular culture, such as a plotline of one of the “Law & Order” franchises.

What is motivating these attacks? These attacks are acts of misogyny, pure and simple and are being carried out— quite blatantly— by men who believe there are certain fields that should be the exclusive territory of men. As a result, they want to carry out what can only be described as the “gender cleansing” of different fields, with technology being one of them. Yet, as is the case with Leslie Jones, these cyber assaults are not limited to women who work in technology.

In the late 1990s, I noticed something which I coined “The Wizard of Oz Phenomenon.” In essence this took the form of people developing one personality when they were behind a keyboard and another in real life. I encountered people who were rude, arrogant and intolerant over the Internet, yet when you would meet them in person, they would be nothing short of a cuddly teddy bear.

I believe “The Wizard of Oz Phenomenon” has expanded and has become the means by which some very mean-spirited, arrogant men have decided to conduct a war against women. Hiding behind the “curtain” of the Internet, they harass women to the point that some have decided to abandon their field of interest entirely, simply because they have concluded that the harassment is not worth it.

So, here is my proposal. There are some good hackers out there. I think that there is a need to develop a battalion of such hackers who are interested in bringing a halt to this online misogyny. Their assignment, should they choose to accept it, would be to search out, identify and publicize the existence of these harassers and, as they say, return the favor— any volunteers?

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk show host, writer and activist. You can follow him on

Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

(NNPA) — What do you say about someone who apparently sees things that do not exist? I have been asking myself that question while I have watched Donald Trump’s presidential campaign unfold. And, as taunts name-calling, and the lack of substance continue to define the tone of Trump’s campaign, I have wondered whether we need to think about Trump in a different way.

Let’s review three items.

First, Trump has argued for a wall between the United States and Mexico to prevent Mexican migrants, who he contends are the major source of crime in the U.S., from entering this country. Interesting. In reality, the migration flow in recent years has reversed between the U.S. and Mexico, i.e., people are returning to Mexico. Second, if Mexicans are the major source of crime, what does Trump have to say about Russian immigrants and the Russian mafia? What about previous generations of criminal organizations, which have been associated with immigrant communities, such as the Cosa Nostra (Sicilian and Italian), as well as Irish and Jewish mobs? Why not expel all of them? Well, the Donald is silent on this. Beside racist, what does one call such a mischaracterization of reality?

A second example: Trump asserted— and repeated— that on 11 September 2001, masses of Muslims in the United States applauded the terrorist attacks. No evidence— and I repeat NO EVIDENCE— has ever been found to back up his claim. Yet, Trump and many of his supporters continue to argue that they saw it. How is that possible?

The third example, and I simply have to bring this up. Trump seized upon the so-called “birther” allegations against President Obama, suggesting that he is not a true citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, has been ineligible to be President of the U.S. Again, in addition to racism, what do you call someone who, despite all legitimate evidence, continues to assert something which is so obviously false?

This all reminded me of the “Flat Earth Society.” I have no idea whether they still exist but during the 1960s this group, which believed that the earth was flat, sent a congratulatory note to an orbiting U.S. space vehicle saying to them that while the Earth might look round, it was actually an optical illusion. Hmm…

So, the next time that you hear someone say that they support Trump because he calls it as it is, ask them about Mexican immigration to the U.S., Muslims celebrating 9-11, and his false citizenship allegations against President Obama and watch their response. If they tell you that it doesn’t matter, all that I can only suggest one thing…run.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk show host, writer and activist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

Something weird happened on February 13, 2016, at the Republican debate in South Carolina. Donald Trump went after Jeb Bush over the record of his brother, former President George W. Bush.

Trump attacked George W. Bush for the invasion of Iraq and for providing insufficient security for the U.S.A., as represented by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

There are many liberals and progressives who were dumbfounded by his words, apparently never expecting commentary such as that to be mouthed by a Republican candidate for President. Many people at the debate were also surprised, because Trump was booed.

There are a few things to consider about this incident. The first is that, despite all of the evidence to the effect that the administration of George W. Bush lied us into a war with Iraq, there are still people, particularly in the Republican Party, who insist on believing that there was sufficient justification for an invasion that violated international law and precedent. In other words, they will not let the facts get in the way of their opinions. Such delusional thinking is always unsettling.

Second, within the Republican camp, and frequently out of the view of many liberals and progressives, there are those who are what might be described as “neo-isolationists.” These neo-isolationists tend to believe that the USA should wall itself off from the rest of the world, in some cases literally— such as Trump’s call for a wall on the border with Mexico— but in most cases figuratively. This element believes that the USA should not engage the international community, but instead should leave everyone to their own devices.

Right-wing isolationists want “their U.S.A.” to be protected, and one must be clear as to what that means. When one listens to the rhetoric of candidates, such as Trump, “their U.S.A.” is a white, non-immigrant U.S.A., that is, the “white republic” of old. They see this White republic under threat by demographic changes, economic changes, and a changing world. For them, the U.S.A. —defined as a white-dominated U.S.A. —must withdraw from world affairs.

We were hearing elements of this in Trump’s rhetoric at the debate. It can be misleading because it sometimes sounds like what we, progressives, have said. However, the reality is that Trump wants to retreat into a mythical past. He wants the U.S.A. to be able to dominate the world when it sees fit, but to otherwise disengage with the rest of the planet in resolving common, planetary challenges. Yes, he is

correct that the Iraq invasion was based on a lie, and the neo-conservatives in the Republican Party disagree vehemently with him. Yet his vision assumes that the U.S.A. can have its cake and eat it too. That it can obtain resources from the rest

of the world, but act not as a partner but as a periodic bully when it does not get its way.

While we may agree with Trump’s criticism of George W. Bush, none of us should ever assume that he has seen the light.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk-show host, writer and activist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.