I seem to have annoyed you--and I'm not sure how.
1) Yes, of course, I agree that sons without Dads is a problem. Doesn't make any difference what race. Of course, lots of single parent kids have prevailed, for whatever reason. Do I remember correctly that your upbringing was not exactly Leave it to Beaver?
2) If you want to choose one person (Barkley) as the authority on what black people are like or how they think, then I choose Trump to prove what white people are like. This probably sounds harsh--but I really am missing the point here. Would you not agree that any single opinion that proposes to capture how any entire group of people (race, nation, gender, sexual orientation--take your pick) acts and thinks is probably lacking fundamentally? I know you do...so again, I'm not sure what you mean.
3) "...changing the message on the TV screen." Totally lost. I can't see what you're referring to on the screen. Maybe I'm tuned to the wrong channel? :)
4) On the larger preceding issue of cops and training (not saying that what exists in many inner city neighborhoods is not an issue...and MUCH more severe than anything in Washington state.) My wife is the expert on this, so I'll have to report on her behalf. But there is something called the Criminial Justice Training Institute in our state that trains everyone except the state patrol. A year of so ago they brought in a woman to lead it who is trying to change the mindset from "you're the authority" to "you're the guardians of democracy." Think about that for a minute. Everyone is entitled to the rights the constituion gives us. Until the point you forfeit those rights by doing harm to others (breaking the law). But punishment is not the job of the cops--it belongs to the courts. So the cops' job is to protect everyone to the best of their abilities in every situation--the good guys, the bad guys, the innocent bystanders.
Not many people would disagree with this in principle--no one wants the power of the military or the police to be absolute. History teaches. So the distinction is between a mindset that is on one hand militaristic in nature (the background for many cops), and on the other hand looking at it as working from a foundation of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.' I am not a fan of BLM but I will say that a cop should have the training to believe his default position is that anyone who he confronts has that right to life...until the moment when he believes his own life, or those of others, are in danger. The fact of the matter is that there are now way too many documented incidents of this not being the case...of citizens dying by the actions of police that are simply not defensible--even though they virtually never pay a price.
Will this training make a difference? At the start, there was very heavy resistance. it's waning now...but way to soon to tell. If it does, it will spread to other areas. (Although in the case of the south and west sides of Chicago, it won't make any difference. No one has come up with a good solution there. Those are war zones. But not because no one is trying.)
5) Conforming/not conforming to the ideal. I apparenlty see this very differently than you...but maybe because we've got different 'ideals' in mind?
I hope this comes across as respectful...that's how it's intended.