Coretta Scott King on Affirmative Action and etc.
Dwayne Conyers
"The prevailing sentiment seems to be that we should let bygones be bygones.
I believe that affirmative action has merit... It's not about guilt or
blame, or shaming the current generation for the sins of the past. It's
about doing something real to help reduce continuing racial discrimination."
She also spoke out in favor of Bill Clinton, urging Congress to drop the
impeachment trials.
- - - - - - - - -
Dwacon
http://members.theglobe.com/dwacon
Ray Wood
>She also spoke out in favor of Bill Clinton, urging Congress to drop the
>impeachment trials.
Isn't it impressive how so many Americans with such diverse
political views can at least that the Impeachment trials should
be dropped.
Ms. King, Pat Robertson, Robert Byrd ...
How much longer will Henry Hyde and his House Managers
be allowed to hold the Senate, the Chief Justice, and the
American people hostage.
Let it go, Henry, let it go.
Ray Wood
Jerome Walker
> In article <788b73$m...@netaxs.com>,
> Dwayne Conyers <dwa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Mrs. King was in New Jersey at Camden County College where she stated:
> >
> >"The prevailing sentiment seems to be that we should let bygones be bygones.
> >I believe that affirmative action has merit... It's not about guilt or
> >blame, or shaming the current generation for the sins of the past. It's
> >about doing something real to help reduce continuing racial discrimination."
How sweet.
Did you know that affirmative action came from the Nixon administration?
Here are some of Nixon's thoughts about blacks:
"With blacks," the president said, "you can usually settle for an
incompetent, because there are just not enough competent ones, and so
you put incompetents in and get along with them, because the SYMBOLISM
is vitally important. You have to show you care."
read: "On Tapes, Nixon Sounds Off on Women, Blacks, Cabinet" The
Washington Post, 12/27/98 P. A03
Now, think about that tied to affirmative action.
--
"Ignorance is the thing that makes most men get into a political party and
shame is what keeps them from getting out of it." - George Savile
Jerome Walker
Artclemons
In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.99012...@panix3.panix.com>, Jerome
Walker <wal...@panix.com> writes:
>
> Now, think about that tied to affirmative action.
>
May I respectfully point out that folks like Dole insisted that affirmative
action
was a much better approach than quotas, or rigorous goals, claiming that
there might not be enough qualified people for any slots opening up for
quotas. It's telling that affirmative action which at its highest pitch never
did more than 2/3 what population figures would have projected is now
derided as reverse discrimination, and it's a solution that whites foisted off
on the community in the name of not having quotas.
Jerome, sadly though, the substitute for affirmative action now, is nothing.
That is no looking at admission figures by race, no concern that executives
are still mostly white males, and above all, no concern that talented folks
will be ignored because of race. It's telling that white males are still the
beneficiaries of affirmative action in college admissions (grades and SAT
score totals tend to be less than white females), in job placement (being tall,
white and male is a decided hiring advantage apparently even assuming
constant gpa and ratings, and so on up the economic ladder. To pretend
that because some fool president made racist remarks is an excuse to turn
your back on the only working thing in town is foolish. What do you suggest
as a substitute before you destroy what's there, and I remind you of what
"urban renewal" did for stable African-American urban communities before
you tell that change is good.
-art clemons-
Alice Holman
Jerome Walker wrote:
> > In article <788b73$m...@netaxs.com>,
> > Dwayne Conyers <dwa...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > >Mrs. King was in New Jersey at Camden County College where she stated:
> > >
> > >"The prevailing sentiment seems to be that we should let bygones be bygones.
> > >I believe that affirmative action has merit... It's not about guilt or
> > >blame, or shaming the current generation for the sins of the past. It's
> > >about doing something real to help reduce continuing racial discrimination."
>
> How sweet.
> Did you know that affirmative action came from the Nixon administration?
> Here are some of Nixon's thoughts about blacks:
snip Nixon nastiness:
I believe he got caught calling us niggers at one point. So he was a racist pig.
Does that negate/stop/overshadow/deny the good that affirmative action has done
just because the phrase was coined during his administration?
I feel the same way about all the whining about Clinton and who he appointed and
who he didn't support. Because he let the ball drop on a couple of his
appointments, does that make ALL his appointments a bad thing? Does he NOT get
credit for appointing more cullud folk than any/all the other presidents? At least
these folks get a chance. Before that..............
Have we in America lost all perspective about EVERYTHING?
I do wonder. We want a perfect world. Or we sue somebody. Everything that happens -
even accidents - are somebodys fault and that somebody and/or their momma has to
pay and pay and pay. Revenge is the byword of the day. Like the three strikes rule
regardless of the crime. Don't we need to pull this thing in a bit?
alice
>
>
Mycroft
Jerome Walker wrote:
> How sweet.
> Did you know that affirmative action came from the Nixon administration?
I do. And I often mention this when people try to call affirmative action
"some horrible liberal idea".
> Here are some of Nixon's thoughts about blacks:
>
> "With blacks," the president said, "you can usually settle for an
> incompetent, because there are just not enough competent ones, and so
> you put incompetents in and get along with them, because the SYMBOLISM
> is vitally important. You have to show you care."
> read: "On Tapes, Nixon Sounds Off on Women, Blacks, Cabinet" The
> Washington Post, 12/27/98 P. A03
>
> Now, think about that tied to affirmative action.
How cute Jerome.
So let's follow the logic here. Richard Nixon started federal affirmative action.
Richard Nixon said things about blacks that were not nice. Therefore affirmative
action must actually be against blacks.
Ok. Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation.
Abraham Lincoln said some things about blacks that were not nice.
Therefore freeing the slaves must have been designed to hurt blacks.
If you say the above logic is ridiculous, I would agree. But there are
neo-confederates
that use such twisted logic to explain there position, the same way you're using
the
Nixon example to explain yours.
Oh, one more thing. Richard Nixon didn't start affirmative action. The apostles
did. Look up the story of how the office of "church deacon" came about and
get back to me.
Jerome Walker
Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
[ edit ]
>
>I believe he got caught calling us niggers at one point. So he was a racist pig.
>Does that negate/stop/overshadow/deny the good that affirmative action has done
> just because the phrase was coined during his administration?
I just gives me a reason to stop and consider if there was something
evil intended with affirmative action.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Alice Holman
<alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
....
>I feel the same way about all the whining about Clinton and who he appointed and
>who he didn't support. Because he let the ball drop on a couple of his
>appointments, does that make ALL his appointments a bad thing? Does he NOT get
>credit for appointing more cullud folk than any/all the other presidents? At least
>these folks get a chance. Before that..............
Conservatives were saying that Reagan had more Blacks in his
administration than any other previous administration. If that was
true, what do numbers mean?
>Have we in America lost all perspective about EVERYTHING?
Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
Black people.
How can Black politicans say he can't be trusted, say he isn't
stepping up to the plate, say he's missing in action, and then turn
around and say he's a friend of Blacks?
How can Black politicans point to the crack/cocaine sentencing
guidelines, say it's use is racist, and then let Clinton slide for
signing the TEMPORARY measure into permanent law?
Or the welfare bill? Come on! Black politicans where all over the
media saying there was racist reasons for the bill -- most likely --
that it was just wrong, and that Blacks were being used as the image
of welfare. Tthen Clinton signs it, with 2 Black women standing behind
him.
If you want to call it whining, fine. I call it _accountability_.
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
If U don't C the good N U, Y should others C the
good N U?
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1999 Edwin Brown
J Lanier
>Jerome Walker wrote:
>> How sweet.
>> Did you know that affirmative action came from the Nixon administration?
>I do. And I often mention this when people try to call affirmative action
>"some horrible liberal idea".
>> Here are some of Nixon's thoughts about blacks:
>>
>> "With blacks," the president said, "you can usually settle for an
>> incompetent, because there are just not enough competent ones, and so
>> you put incompetents in and get along with them, because the SYMBOLISM
>> is vitally important. You have to show you care."
>> read: "On Tapes, Nixon Sounds Off on Women, Blacks, Cabinet" The
>> Washington Post, 12/27/98 P. A03
>>
>> Now, think about that tied to affirmative action.
>How cute Jerome.
>So let's follow the logic here. Richard Nixon started federal affirmative action.
>Richard Nixon said things about blacks that were not nice. Therefore affirmative
>action must actually be against blacks.
[snip re Lincolon]
>Oh, one more thing. Richard Nixon didn't start affirmative action. The apostles
>did. Look up the story of how the office of "church deacon" came about and
>get back to me.
Actually, "affirmative action"-type mandates have antecedents dating as
far back as Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration (Executive Order 9346,
5/27/43) however the term affirmative action itself was actually coined
during John F. Kennedy's administration according to "Taking Affirmative
Action Apart" by Nicholas Lemann:
Birth of a Concept
...The affirmative action trail begins faintly at the time of the
Presidential inauguration of John F. Kennedy. At the Texas State
Society's inaugural ball, Lyndon Johnson, the incoming Vice
President, was pressing flesh in the receiving line. When a young
black lawyer from Detroit named Hobart Taylor Jr.--known to
Johnson because Hobart Taylor Sr., a business man in Houston and
an active Democrat, was a close friend--came through the line,
Johnson pulled him aside and said he needed something. An
executive order banning discriminatory hiring by Federal
contractors was being drafted for President Kennedy's signature;
could Taylor help work on it?
The next day, Taylor holed up in a room at the Willard Hotel with
two future Supreme Court justices, Arthur Goldberg and Abe Fortas,
to prepare a document with the not-very-catchy title of Executive
Order 10925. 'I put the word *affirmative* in there at that time,'
Taylor later told an interviewer for the archives of the Lyndon
Baines Johnson Library. "I was searching for something that would
give a sense of positveness to performance under that executive
order, and I was torn between the words *positive action* and the
words *affirmative action*....And I took *affirmative action*
because it was alliterative."
(quoted excerpt from an article originally appearing in The NYT Magazine
6/11/95, p. 36-43 and reprinted in "Affirmative Action: Social Justice or
Reverse Discrimination?" ed. by Francis J. Beckwith & Todd E Jones, p.
34-55.)
At any rate, whatever Nixon's personal attitudes about blacks, I am told
by an acquaintance, who worked for a number of years in the EEOC Dept. of
a large national corporation that Nixon's administration was one of the
few that aggressively implemented affirmative action legislation.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>[ edit ]
>
>>
>>I believe he got caught calling us niggers at one point. So he was a racist pig.
>>Does that negate/stop/overshadow/deny the good that affirmative action has done
>> just because the phrase was coined during his administration?
>
>I just gives me a reason to stop and consider if there was something
>evil intended with affirmative action.
Have you ever been the beneficiary of Affirmative Action?
Do you know anyone who has?
For either question, did you see some evil result from it?
Wayne "I can answer both questions with "Yes", and I have no examples
of evil results" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Conservatives were saying that Reagan had more Blacks in his
>administration than any other previous administration. If that was
>true, what do numbers mean?
What "conservatives"?
What were they counting, Cabinet members?
What "numbers"?
What part of the administration?
This kind of meaningless blurb is nothing to try and "counter with the
facts"; there are no facts in it.
>Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
>Black people.
Who is looking for friends? There is no reason to try and cast
Clinton as an enemy of Black people, either, which seems to be the
point of quibbling over appointees and so on.0
>How can Black politicans say he can't be trusted, say he isn't
>stepping up to the plate, say he's missing in action, and then turn
>around and say he's a friend of Blacks?
P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. Everyone puts pressure on everyone else, but they
don't call him a racist for not doing what they would do if they were
in the White House.
How can Black conservatives point only to minor issues like rap
singers and failed appointees, and ignore all the good things that
actually HAVE happened in the last six years?
>How can Black politicans point to the crack/cocaine sentencing
>guidelines, say it's use is racist, and then let Clinton slide for
>signing the TEMPORARY measure into permanent law?
How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
this dope?
Why worry about it? If you don't use or sell crack, who gives a damn?
If you do, and keep bringing this poison into the Black community, why
shouldn't you suffer a hell of a penalty?
Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
selling crack.
What is the problem, here?
By the way, which Black politicians on the national scene do you see
as being effective and honest?
>Or the welfare bill? Come on! Black politicans where all over the
>media saying there was racist reasons for the bill -- most likely --
>that it was just wrong, and that Blacks were being used as the image
>of welfare. Tthen Clinton signs it, with 2 Black women standing behind
>him.
The welfare rolls are the lowest they've been in three decades, Ed.
For most of that time, welfare has been painted in blackface, as if
that's all we want; a damned handout.
The Reagan Administration, followed by the Bush Administration,
portrayed "welfare queens" and anyone needing help as being Black,
lazy, and ignorant. I spent twelve years listening to the lies of the
Far Right as they said welfare was a Black "industry", and claiming
that people were on it simply because they were too lazy to work.
The Welfare Reform Act was opposed by everybody, because it lanced so
many political balloons. The GOP didn't want to lose their sacred
cow, the galvanizing power of "welfare hatred" that brought so many
racist voters to the polls; and there was too much real help being
funded in the proposals to be vicious enough for the Far Right to
support. (We didn't get Newt's "put the welfare babies in orphanages"
bullshit).
The "liberals" felt that anything that was designed to reduce welfare
was a stalking horse for the Right. The opposition was largely
reflexive.
But the actual people who benefitted from the new law - including
those women who you insult in your post - understood that they needed
something that would get rid of the idiotic rules that prevented them
from getting assistance off of welfare. Those two women were free of
it, and everyone who has reaped advantage from welfare reform (not
losing benefits if you get a part-time job, getting child care credit,
and so on) know that this has been a good thing, and good for Black
people.
>If you want to call it whining, fine. I call it _accountability_.
Make up your mind.
You either want to see crack sold in our community with impunity, or
you want to see stiff penalties for this damned drug.
You either want to see Black women labeled as "Welfare Queens", or you
want to see them respected for not wanting to be on welfare any
longer.
You either want to respect Black women who go to a bill signing
ceremony, or you don't.
You can call what you do "whining", or "accountability", or whatever
you like. Just try to make some sense, and state clearly what your
point is.
I can't figure out if you're upset with Clinton, "Black politicians"
so far unnamed, Black women who are glad to have a path away from
welfare, or what.
Wayne "If whining can be defined as a general complaint, made without
reason and not expecting satisfiable results, then whining is a good
definition" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:31:01 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
[ edit ]
>>Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
>>Black people.
>
>Who is looking for friends? There is no reason to try and cast
>Clinton as an enemy of Black people, either, which seems to be the
>point of quibbling over appointees and so on.0
Well, if people say he is a friend of black people, and someone points
out that he has followed policies that blacks believe are not in the
best interests of the black community, what is wrong for saying it?
In your wrong-headed, IMO, defense of Bill Clinton, anyone who dares to
point out that Bill Clinton is not as good for the black community as
people believe, they are the anti-Christ.
[ edit ]
>>How can Black politicans point to the crack/cocaine sentencing
>>guidelines, say it's use is racist, and then let Clinton slide for
>>signing the TEMPORARY measure into permanent law?
>
>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>this dope?
Can you name the black conservatives that say what you wrote?
>Why worry about it? If you don't use or sell crack, who gives a damn?
>If you do, and keep bringing this poison into the Black community, why
>shouldn't you suffer a hell of a penalty?
Why don't you ask the CBC? Please start with Maxine Waters.
>Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
>about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
>the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
>selling crack.
>
>What is the problem, here?
Ask the CBC members. Your "outrage" is pointed in the wrong direction.
[ edit ]
>The Welfare Reform Act was opposed by everybody, because it lanced so
>many political balloons. The GOP didn't want to lose their sacred
>cow, the galvanizing power of "welfare hatred" that brought so many
>racist voters to the polls; and there was too much real help being
>funded in the proposals to be vicious enough for the Far Right to
>support. (We didn't get Newt's "put the welfare babies in orphanages"
>bullshit).
If it was opposed by everyone, it would have never made it out of
congress.
[ edit ]
>>If you want to call it whining, fine. I call it _accountability_.
>
>Make up your mind.
>
>You either want to see crack sold in our community with impunity, or
>you want to see stiff penalties for this damned drug.
Where does he say he wants crack sold in the black community? And what about
the CBC members who tried to get Clinton to let the sentencing guidelines
sunset?
[ edit ]
>You either want to respect Black women who go to a bill signing
>ceremony, or you don't.
Where does he disrespect the black women?
>You can call what you do "whining", or "accountability", or whatever
>you like. Just try to make some sense, and state clearly what your
>point is.
I believe he is being very clear. Just because he doesn't kiss Clinton's
ass, he is now seen by you to be an enemy of the black community.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:31:01 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>Conservatives were saying that Reagan had more Blacks in his
>>administration than any other previous administration. If that was
************
>>true, what do numbers mean?
**************************************
>
>What "conservatives"?
Tony Snow, Armstrong Williams, and Jack Kemp.
>What were they counting, Cabinet members?
>What "numbers"?
>What part of the administration?
>This kind of meaningless blurb is nothing to try and "counter with the
>facts"; there are no facts in it.
Okay, so when the Clinton camp says the same thing, do you ask the
same questions? If no, why not?
>>Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
>>Black people.
>
>Who is looking for friends?
I don't care who is looking for friends, but when people like Tavis
Smiley, George Curry, Elenor Norton-Holmes, or Kurt Schmoke say that
Clinton is a friend of the Black community, I have to question it.
>There is no reason to try and cast
>Clinton as an enemy of Black people, either, which seems to be the
>point of quibbling over appointees and so on.0
No, that's not the point. The point is to say that, to Clinton, the
Black community is just another set of people to manipulate.
>>How can Black politicans say he can't be trusted, say he isn't
>>stepping up to the plate, say he's missing in action, and then turn
>>around and say he's a friend of Blacks?
>
>P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. Everyone puts pressure on everyone else, but they
>don't call him a racist for not doing what they would do if they were
>in the White House.
And in P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S, there is honor among thieves. You don't screw
over your friends. The Democratic Party in Florida screwed over Blacks
and paid for their mistake. That type of action should never have had
to occur, but since it did, the Florida Democrats now know not to take
the Black vote for granted.
>How can Black conservatives point only to minor issues like rap
>singers and failed appointees, and ignore all the good things that
>actually HAVE happened in the last six years?
Considering Black liberals are also pointing out rap singers, that's a
non-issue. And I haven't heard Black conservatives pointing out failed
appointees. I've pointed them out, as have others.
>>How can Black politicans point to the crack/cocaine sentencing
>>guidelines, say it's use is racist, and then let Clinton slide for
>>signing the TEMPORARY measure into permanent law?
>
>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>this dope?
Can you say who said it? I haven't even heard Ken Hamblin say it. So
who says it?
....
>Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
>about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
>the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
>selling crack.
>What is the problem, here?
Why don't you ask the Black politicans who lobbied to get Clinton to
let the crack sentencing law expire?
>By the way, which Black politicians on the national scene do you see
>as being effective and honest?
So, you are saying that all Black politicans are liars and are not
effective. But you try to say my stance on Clinton is destructive?
>>Or the welfare bill? Come on! Black politicans where all over the
>>media saying there was racist reasons for the bill -- most likely --
>>that it was just wrong, and that Blacks were being used as the image
>>of welfare. Tthen Clinton signs it, with 2 Black women standing behind
>>him.
>
>The welfare rolls are the lowest they've been in three decades, Ed.
>For most of that time, welfare has been painted in blackface, as if
>that's all we want; a damned handout.
So, Clinton continues the image by having to Black women stand behind
him.
....
>The Welfare Reform Act was opposed by everybody, because it lanced so
>many political balloons. The GOP didn't want to lose their sacred
>cow, the galvanizing power of "welfare hatred" that brought so many
>racist voters to the polls; and there was too much real help being
>funded in the proposals to be vicious enough for the Far Right to
>support. (We didn't get Newt's "put the welfare babies in orphanages"
>bullshit).
Let's see.
The GOP(!) sent the welfare reform bill to Clinton 3 times before he
signed it. And each time, it was the Democrats, for the most part, who
voted against it. The bill that Clinton signed was the same bill as
the first one that Clinton vetoed.
...
>But the actual people who benefitted from the new law - including
>those women who you insult in your post - understood that they needed
>something that would get rid of the idiotic rules that prevented them
>from getting assistance off of welfare.
Where do I insult them? Please show me where I insult them. And also,
how do you know those Black women were on welfare? I never said they
were.
>>If you want to call it whining, fine. I call it _accountability_.
>
>Make up your mind.
>
>You either want to see crack sold in our community with impunity, or
>you want to see stiff penalties for this damned drug.
Where do I say I want crack sold in our community?
All I am demonstrating is that Clinton signed things into law that the
Black politicians in congress were against.
You made wild ass and unverified claims that I was saying things that
were out of the mainstream Black thought. So, are you now saying that
the Black congressmen and congresswomen are not in line with the Black
community?
...
>You either want to respect Black women who go to a bill signing
>ceremony, or you don't.
[ This spot reserved for Wayne to show where I disrespected the Black
women ]
>You can call what you do "whining", or "accountability", or whatever
>you like. Just try to make some sense, and state clearly what your
>point is.
I made my point clearly. You just don't like it because I show flaws
in "The Great" [ Deceiver ] Bill Clinton.
>I can't figure out if you're upset with Clinton, "Black politicians"
>so far unnamed, Black women who are glad to have a path away from
>welfare, or what.
So far unnamed?
>From http://www.cbcfonline.org/people/members.html
The Honorable Sanford D. Bishop
Georgia, 2nd District
The Honorable Carol Moseley Braun
Illinois
The Honorable Corrine Brown
The Honorable Julia Carson
The Honorable William Clay
The Honorable Eva Clayton
The Honorable James Clyburn
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
The Honorable Elijah Cummings
The Honorable Danny Davis
The Honorable Barbara Lee
The Honorable Julian C. Dixon
The Honorable Chaka Fattah
The Honorable Harold Ford, Jr.
The Honorable Donna Christian-Green
The Honorable Alcee Hastings
The Honorable Earl Hilliard
The Honorable Jesse Jackson, Jr.
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee
The Honorable William J. Jefferson
The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson
The Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
The Honorable John Lewis
The Honorable Cynthia McKinney
The Honorable Carrie P. Meek
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks
The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
The Honorable Major Owens
The Honorable Donald M. Payne
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
The Honorable Bobby Rush
The Honorable Robert C. Scott
The Honorable Louis Stokes
The Honorable Bennie Thompson
The Honorable Edolphus Towns
The Honorable Maxine Waters
The Honorable Melvin Watt
The Honorable Albert Wynn
There are the names. Now what are you going to do?
They say they represent the interests of Blacks. Yet, you have spoken
against the things that they stood for. They want the crack sentencing
reduced. They were against the welfare reform bill. But in your mind,
it's me not being clear.
That's ^&%*$%@#
NO CARRIER
Ray Wood
DarkStar wrote in message <36b26ac8...@mail.flash.net>...
>Conservatives were saying that Reagan had more Blacks in his
>administration than any other previous administration. If that was
What did they do, include the janitors, cooks, and
elevator men in the count?
Let us compare our last three Presidents, Clinton, Bush,
and Reagan.
How many of them hired an African-American lady as his
personal secretary? One,Clinton. Did Reagan or Bush
ever appoint an African American advisor at a level as
high as Vernon Jordan? No.
Which President dropped the embargo against the racist
anti-apartheid government of South Africa? Bush. Which
President made a personal visit to Africa? Clinton.
Which President literally got chased out of the inner
city during his election year campaign? Reagan.
Which President used Willie Horton ads to get votes?
Bush.
>Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
>Black people.
He ain't bad ... for a white guy. And, until we get a brother
or sister in the white house (no time soon, believe me),
Clinton is, I think, as good a friend as we can expect.
I know where you are coming from, Ed. You correctly
point out the many times Clinton dropped the ball short
of the goal line for us (I know, bad cliche, what do ya
expect the day after the Super Bowl). But, honestly,
do you think we have had any other President who
was fairer to people of color?
>Or the welfare bill? Come on! Black politicans where all over the
>media saying there was racist reasons for the bill -- most likely --
>that it was just wrong, and that Blacks were being used as the image
>of welfare. Tthen Clinton signs it, with 2 Black women standing behind
>him.
You know, I have heard a lot of people of color
over the years complain about what they referred
to as lazy welfare mothers and deadbeat dads.
The welfare system is broke. Surely, you agree.
That doesn't mean we should throw it out, but then
Clinton didn't throw it out. He moved toward a
firmer insistence that welfare recipients find work.
Which may not be as foreign a idea to people
of color as you think. Consider all the routines
you hear black comics make which poke fun
at people on welfare ... and they get laughs.
Ray Wood
Jeff Carter
Mycroft wrote in message <36B09BF5...@nospam.cis.uab.edu>...
>Oh, one more thing. Richard Nixon didn't start affirmative action. The
apostles
>did. Look up the story of how the office of "church deacon" came about and
>get back to me.
You have peaked my interest can you point me in the right direction to
finding this information?
>
J Lanier
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:31:01 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
[snip]
>How can Black conservatives point only to minor issues like rap
>singers and failed appointees, and ignore all the good things that
>actually HAVE happened in the last six years?
>>How can Black politicans point to the crack/cocaine sentencing
>>guidelines, say it's use is racist, and then let Clinton slide for
>>signing the TEMPORARY measure into permanent law?
>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>this dope?
>Why worry about it? If you don't use or sell crack, who gives a damn?
>If you do, and keep bringing this poison into the Black community, why
>shouldn't you suffer a hell of a penalty?
Yeah, why not Wayne? But see my comments below.
>Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
>about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
>the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
>selling crack.
>What is the problem, here?
The problem as I see it is that everyone who is engaging in the illicit
activity of selling drugs (in whatever form) are not being arrested or
sentenced at the same rates, and when they are, they claim it's a mistake
and they should not be punished in this manner.
If one group seems to be getting singled out for illegal behavior while
another group does so with relative impugnity (especially relative to
their actual engagement in that behavior) *and* further are also
contributing to some extent to the detriment of the remainder of the
targeted community, then I definitely have a problem with that.
You know, in many cases whites are going to minority neighborhoods to buy
their drugs. But as soon as they start getting punished for it, then
all of a sudden the laws are too harsh.
For example, white teenagers would take mommy & daddy's car over the
George Washington Bridge from NJ suburbs and get their drugs in Washington
Heights on the NY side of the bridge. The drug problem in that part of
Manhattan is particularly bad. NYC started confiscating the cars of people
buying drugs. Uh oh! I don't know how long that lasted or if it is even
still done. It certainly doesn't make the news if it is.
When mandatory sentencing started dragging in those "clean cut" never been
in trouble white teens, that was a mistake too. *They* shouldn't have to
go to jail for an innocent mistake such as selling drugs one time (a theme
that certainly made the talk show rounds)! On a recent program (PBS) about
snitches, one segment recounted the efforts of parents to help their son
reduce his sentence or avoid imprisonment altogether if *they*, not the
son, mind you, who had refused to do so at the time of his arrest, could
assist in the implication of either his son's suppliers or other people
involved in the drug trade in their area. The parents had taken a second
mortgage on their house to raise the money for this "sting" operation.
In the end, for a variety of reasons, the deal with federal authorities
fell through.
Let it be noted that at the time of his initial arrest, his father states
that he received a call from his son who was very upset and said something
to the effect of "You gotta get me out of here. I can't do X years in
jail". I forgot the exact length of the sentence but it was pretty long.
His mother expressed that at firs she couldn't believe it, and then hurt
to discover that her son was involved in this kind of activity, which
apparently stemmed from the fact that his driving privileges were going to
be taken away because he was not keeping up with his car insurance
payments and he figured he could make some quick cash by selling drugs.
Now, mandatory sentencing (poorly conceived legislation or not) is in
place, and people are being punished. Is it right, if society claims to
agree that drugs and their sale are harmful, for people to then complain
that this law should not apply to them? That they are too young to know
better than to sell drugs and therefore should not be punished or punished
so harshly?
It should also be noted that before crack cocaine made it's appearance,
regular cocaine was doing a brisk business in minority communities with
everyone competing to be the person "behind the scales" (See "Cocaine
Kids"). I wonder what sentencing and arrest rates were between whites and
minorites at that time?
[snip re welfare]
>Make up your mind.
>You either want to see crack sold in our community with impunity, or
>you want to see stiff penalties for this damned drug.
See above comments.
[snip]
Rich Thompson
> Let us compare our last three Presidents, Clinton, Bush,
> and Reagan.
Comparison which highlights the comparative benefits of a Clinton
administration deleted.
> He ain't bad ... for a white guy. And, until we get a brother
> or sister in the white house (no time soon, believe me),
> Clinton is, I think, as good a friend as we can expect.
Eee Gads!!!!!!
I have no idea if this statement is true or not, but in any case, it's a
pretty sad one.
I hope to God it isn't true.
I agree that he's better than Bush or Reagan. But saying he's the best you
can hope for in terms of a friend of Black people is, well, just sad. He
*has* dropped the ball several times.
And even if he's better wrt Black issues than any president thus far,
that's nothing to write home about.
If you get 41 on an exam and Ed gets 24, you've definitely scored higher
than Ed. But that doesn't mean you've passed.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 842-1231 x4286
"Rain is no respecter of persons
the snow doesn't give a soft white
damn Whom it touches"
-e.e. cummings
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated "Ray Wood" <ray...@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>DarkStar wrote in message <36b26ac8...@mail.flash.net>...
>>Conservatives were saying that Reagan had more Blacks in his
>>administration than any other previous administration. If that was
>>true, what do numbers mean?
>
>
>What did they do, include the janitors, cooks, and
>elevator men in the count?
I have no idea.
>Let us compare our last three Presidents, Clinton, Bush,
>and Reagan.
>
>How many of them hired an African-American lady as his
>personal secretary? One,Clinton. Did Reagan or Bush
>ever appoint an African American advisor at a level as
>high as Vernon Jordan? No.
True.
>Which President dropped the embargo against the racist
>anti-apartheid government of South Africa? Bush.
Ummmm..... Wasn't this dropped after the change in the government?
>Which
>President made a personal visit to Africa?
And which Black congressmen actually are against the "open trade with
Africa " proposal? One is Jesse Jackson, Jr.
>Which President literally got chased out of the inner
>city during his election year campaign? Reagan.
>
>Which President used Willie Horton ads to get votes?
>Bush.
Check the history on Willie Horton. Gore first used Horton in his
re-election campaign.
>>Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
>>Black people.
>
>
>He ain't bad ... for a white guy. And, until we get a brother
>or sister in the white house (no time soon, believe me),
>Clinton is, I think, as good a friend as we can expect.
I *STRONGLY* disagree. You see, I believe we must expect *MORE* and
must demand *MORE*.
I believe we are settling for scraps.
>I know where you are coming from, Ed. You correctly
>point out the many times Clinton dropped the ball short
>of the goal line for us (I know, bad cliche, what do ya
>expect the day after the Super Bowl). But, honestly,
> do you think we have had any other President who
>was fairer to people of color?
Your comment is valid, and IMO, that speaks poorly of them, *AND*
Clinton as well.
>>Or the welfare bill? Come on! Black politicans where all over the
>>media saying there was racist reasons for the bill -- most likely --
>>that it was just wrong, and that Blacks were being used as the image
>>of welfare. Tthen Clinton signs it, with 2 Black women standing behind
>>him.
>
>You know, I have heard a lot of people of color
>over the years complain about what they referred
>to as lazy welfare mothers and deadbeat dads.
>The welfare system is broke. Surely, you agree.
Oh hell yeah! I even said it! But I aslo commented on the arguments
being raised and how it was put in black-face. And I wasn't alone. To
me, there is no rationale to sign a welfare reform bill with Black
women in the background, if you've been saying that most Blacks
*AREN'T* on welfare.
Wayne Johnson
claim, which is wholly unsupported by the cited web address - the
official website of the Congressional Black Caucus.
The boldness with which it was delivered leaves me agog.
The following excerpt from the post in question leaves me wondering
what exactly is going on.
Please read the following, or if you like, read the original post in
full, and then see my comments below. I recommend that you also hop
to the website listed by Ed Brown, to check the facts and see if you
can make sense of any of this.
Now, I responded to this post, thinking that the poster had actually
gone to the website, and got a list of people who had actually, within
the cited web address, listed and signed onto the positions that are
described in the paragraph above.
Noting that he had included the name of Carol Mosely Braun, I could
see that this list was out of date; but I assumed that he was saying,
quite clearly, that the statements of their positions matched his, and
that all of these people had signed position statements matching his
comments above.
It was assumed that this information could be clearly found at this
website, and that this would be an accurate reflection of the views of
all of the members listed.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The cited website is merely a list of the names and addresses of the
members of the Black Congressional Caucus, nothing more. None of the
issues cited in the body of the post, including any political
positions on the crack sentencing law, or the welfare reform act, are
cited, anywhere related to the CBC's URL. Not one.
There is absolutely no information on the website about these issues
at all, and no specific positions by the Congressmen is listed at all,
in any way.
All position papers were written by people who are not in Congress, on
topics like Affirmative Action, health care, education, business
ownership, and so on.
I repeat: There is nothing there about crack sentencing.
I repeat: There is nothing there about the welfare reform act.
Nothing.
Now, why was this address cited, and this list of illustrious names
posted, if there is nothing there to bolster the position held by the
poster? What is the purpose of misdirection of this type, as if all
of these people agreed exactly with the poster's viewpoint - and that
substantiation of this agreement was there to be found?
Is this supposed to be an accurate reflection of the views of the
Congressional representatives listed? If so, why is there no
information about their views on these issues at this website?
I don't understand why this was done.
There was no need for it.
Wayne "I don't get it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:02:08 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
> Johnson) wrote:
>
> >What were they counting, Cabinet members?
> >What "numbers"?
> >What part of the administration?
> >This kind of meaningless blurb is nothing to try and "counter with the
> >facts"; there are no facts in it.
>
> Okay, so when the Clinton camp says the same thing, do you ask the
> same questions? If no, why not?
Well, to be fair, when you look at the administration, you see a number of
Black faces.
I don't recall seeing that many (actually I don't remember any) in the
Reagan administration. Which part were they in?
> I don't care who is looking for friends, but when people like Tavis
> Smiley, George Curry, Elenor Norton-Holmes, or Kurt Schmoke say that
> Clinton is a friend of the Black community, I have to question it.
I understand that.
But you should acknowledge that Wayne, who is the most vocal Clinton
supporter here, hasn't made that claim.
> Considering Black liberals are also pointing out rap singers, that's a
> non-issue. And I haven't heard Black conservatives pointing out failed
> appointees. I've pointed them out, as have others.
I agree with you that the appointees is not a minor issue...
> >By the way, which Black politicians on the national scene do you see
> >as being effective and honest?
>
> So, you are saying that all Black politicans are liars and are not
> effective. But you try to say my stance on Clinton is destructive?
I don;t think that was the point of his question.
His question was about *your* perceptions.
> So far unnamed?
>
> >From http://www.cbcfonline.org/people/members.html
Maybe this is my problem, but I'm hafving trouble figuring out where these
names come from and how they relate to the issues.
Ray Wood
Mycroft wrote in message <36B09BF5...@nospam.cis.uab.edu>...
>Oh, one more thing. Richard Nixon didn't start affirmative action. The
apostles
>did. Look up the story of how the office of "church deacon" came about and
>get back to me.
Hhm, I never made that connection. I assume you are referring
to the 6th chapter of Acts, wherein a dispute had arisen
amongst the early christians due to the church being more
generous to Grecian widows than Hebrew widows:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/bin/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4895945
Assuming this is the scripture you are referring to,
the bible doesn't say that special provisions were
made just for the Grecian widows. It just says that the
"deacons" were "appointed over the business" of
the church. Furthermore, note that the "deacons"
were from the private sector, not the government.
I can recall my dad also referring to the 3rd chapter
of 1st Timothy as pertaining to the appointment
of "deacons":
http://www.hti.umich.edu/bin/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5247797
So, here the bible gives us the answer to America's
poverty problem. All we have to do is agree on a
panel of God-fearing men, pray over them, then
let the Spirit have its way.
Of course, 1st Timothy tells us that the men have to
husbands of one wife, not given to strong drink, and
not greedy of filthy lucre. Which pretty much eliminates
the possiblity of our panel being composed of members
of the House or the Senate ......
Ray Wood
Ray Wood
Mycroft wrote in message <36B09BF5...@nospam.cis.uab.edu>...
>Oh, one more thing. Richard Nixon didn't start affirmative action. The
apostles
>did. Look up the story of how the office of "church deacon" came about and
>get back to me.
I assume you are referring to the 6th chapter of Acts,
wherein a dispute had arisen
amongst the early christians due to the church being more
generous to Grecian widows than Hebrew widows:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/bin/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4895945
Assuming this is the scripture you are referring to,
the bible doesn't say that special provisions were
made just for the Grecian widows. It just says that the
"deacons" were "appointed over the business" of
the church. Furthermore, note that the "deacons"
were from the private sector, not the government.
I can recall my dad also referring to the 3rd chapter
of 1st Timothy as pertaining to the appointment
of "deacons":
http://www.hti.umich.edu/bin/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5247797
So, here the bible gives us the answer to America's
poverty problem. All we have to do is agree on a
panel of God-fearing men, pray over them, then
let the Spirit have its way.
1st Timothy tells us that the men have to husbands
of one wife, not given to strong drink, not doubletongued,
and not greedy of filthy lucre. Which definitely eliminates
the possiblity of our panel being composed of members
of the House or the Senate ......
Come to think of it, a lot of preachers couldn't meet
such standards.
Ray Wood
Jerome Walker
In article <36b6a1b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The following excerpt from the previous post makes a truly astonishing
>claim, which is wholly unsupported by the cited web address - the
>official website of the Congressional Black Caucus.
>
>The boldness with which it was delivered leaves me agog.
>
>The following excerpt from the post in question leaves me wondering
>what exactly is going on.
That is what I wondered when I read your post.
You asked what politicians. Ed gave a list of members of the CBC.
Did you not know that the CBC campaigned against weflare reform and
the campaign against the crack sentencing guidelines?
My question is, whose motives needs to be questioned?
Wayne Johnson
>In <36b36aab...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:
>>Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
>>about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
>>the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
>>selling crack.
>
>>What is the problem, here?
>
>The problem as I see it is that everyone who is engaging in the illicit
>activity of selling drugs (in whatever form) are not being arrested or
>sentenced at the same rates, and when they are, they claim it's a mistake
>and they should not be punished in this manner.
More rates that don't compare are the rates of gun violence, the rates
of young men dying on the streets, the rates of petty crime, and so
on.
The point is obvious. We are disproportionately victimized by the
dealers of drugs, at every level, from the importer to the street
dealer level. It is always the poor and disenfranchised that get the
biggest hit from crime, and the highest incidence of it. This, I
feel, is why it needs to stop, now.
I'd pull every cop out of the upscale neighborhoods where they stand
around eating doughnuts, and put them where it is our people being
victimized. I care not a whit about "rates of arrest", when it is the
"rate of murder" and the "rate of victimization" that is the reality
for Black people in poorer areas that counts.
>If one group seems to be getting singled out for illegal behavior while
>another group does so with relative impugnity (especially relative to
>their actual engagement in that behavior) *and* further are also
>contributing to some extent to the detriment of the remainder of the
>targeted community, then I definitely have a problem with that.
Before we start reading off statistics, think of what this really
means. We see plenty of people (mostly those immersed in the drug
culture, and who now have to somehow accomodate it) angry about the
IMAGE of us as criminals, based on disproportionate arrest rates.
Attacking crime is only one part of the equation of civil rights, not
a sole criteria; if we had higher employment, better education, and
all the rest, we wouldn't see disproportionate numbers of Black people
imprisoned.
But most of Black America is NOT in jail, or caught up in the criminal
justice system. Those that are need to get the message: this activity
will not be tolerated, because it is death for our people to become
infected with dope and random violence.
If someone outside of our community decides to vampire themselves into
our community, I have a problem with that, too. Those that invite
them in need to be treated like the Quislings they are, and busted all
the way down to the ground. You can't tell me that some clown trying
to exploit us with dope and "easy money" is going to get a welcome
from someone that is trying to do the Black community any good.
>You know, in many cases whites are going to minority neighborhoods to buy
>their drugs. But as soon as they start getting punished for it, then
>all of a sudden the laws are too harsh.
So, who do you see trying to say that because white people are getting
busted under the law, that the law should change?
>For example, white teenagers would take mommy & daddy's car over the
>George Washington Bridge from NJ suburbs and get their drugs in Washington
>Heights on the NY side of the bridge. The drug problem in that part of
>Manhattan is particularly bad. NYC started confiscating the cars of people
>buying drugs. Uh oh! I don't know how long that lasted or if it is even
>still done. It certainly doesn't make the news if it is.
I've seen the biggest instances of the confiscation laws being abused
against wealthy whites, not Black people. In the past, I cited the
case of the Malibu, CA man whose $2 million dollar home was raided, in
the hope of confiscating it because drugs were present. No drugs; and
the man was shot to death, defending his home against strange people
battering down his door at 3 AM.
But the law hasn't changed.
>When mandatory sentencing started dragging in those "clean cut" never been
>in trouble white teens, that was a mistake too. *They* shouldn't have to
>go to jail for an innocent mistake such as selling drugs one time (a theme
>that certainly made the talk show rounds)! On a recent program (PBS) about
>snitches, one segment recounted the efforts of parents to help their son
>reduce his sentence or avoid imprisonment altogether if *they*, not the
>son, mind you, who had refused to do so at the time of his arrest, could
>assist in the implication of either his son's suppliers or other people
>involved in the drug trade in their area.
I saw that one; I also saw the case where a Black kid was railroaded
by a chain of snitches, with him the last one in line with no one to
"give up". He may have even been innocent; I don't know, and couldn't
tell from the episode what the real story was.
But the way to stop all abuses is to stop the acceptance of drugs,
with zero tolerance, period. This is not difficult to obtain, once
Black people accept that the alternative is better; and I say from
personal experience that this is true for the overwhelming majority of
Black folks.
>The parents had taken a second
>mortgage on their house to raise the money for this "sting" operation.
>In the end, for a variety of reasons, the deal with federal authorities
>fell through.
Abuses of the law by overzealous and overimaginative cops is the
result of not having enough officers to fight crime the old fashioned
way; walk the beat, know the people, go after the kingpins.
Whenever we try to do it on the cheap, and make the law too "cute", we
wind up with this kind of lunacy. Crime prevention includes
presenting the certainty of apprehension and punishment, and right now
it's a lottery, with winners and losers damn near at random.
>Let it be noted that at the time of his initial arrest, his father states
>that he received a call from his son who was very upset and said something
>to the effect of "You gotta get me out of here. I can't do X years in
>jail". I forgot the exact length of the sentence but it was pretty long.
>His mother expressed that at firs she couldn't believe it, and then hurt
>to discover that her son was involved in this kind of activity, which
>apparently stemmed from the fact that his driving privileges were going to
>be taken away because he was not keeping up with his car insurance
>payments and he figured he could make some quick cash by selling drugs.
He needed to do the time. Before he made this idiotic decision, he
should have known that he was committing a crime tantamount to murder.
If he was still willing to do the crime, he was willing to do the
time. Too damn bad for him.
>Now, mandatory sentencing (poorly conceived legislation or not) is in
>place, and people are being punished. Is it right, if society claims to
>agree that drugs and their sale are harmful, for people to then complain
>that this law should not apply to them? That they are too young to know
>better than to sell drugs and therefore should not be punished or punished
>so harshly?
Nope. The criminal justice system should be certain that a crime was
committed; after that, let the chips fall. I don't think first time
offenders need to be put away for life, but why make it easy? Someone
out there moving several pounds of dope isn't your casual user; they
shouldn't be treated as casual criminals.
The law applies to everybody. I have no sympathy for people who think
that it doesn't apply to them because "they're not like THOSE people"
and all that crap.
>It should also be noted that before crack cocaine made it's appearance,
>regular cocaine was doing a brisk business in minority communities with
>everyone competing to be the person "behind the scales" (See "Cocaine
>Kids"). I wonder what sentencing and arrest rates were between whites and
>minorites at that time?
Seriously, I don't care; why should I? I don't hear about kids being
killed wholesale in white communities at the same rate as happens in
Black communities, anywhere in the country. Squirt the water where
the fire burns hottest, and it is burning where our kids are trying to
grow up.
Just take a look at BET, and tell me that the drug/gang culture isn't
being glorified and presented as the easy money way to defy the
system. This kind of crap isn't the cause of the problem, even though
it helps perpetuate it; it's a reflection of the new reality, the
result of misapplied defiance of our economic condition.
We're the ones desperate enough to deal dope and kill our own in
greater numbers than elsewhere. It needs to stop. I'm not going to
drive squad cars out of the ghetto to go see if people are getting
gunned down in the same numbers in some peaceful suburban park; what's
the sense in that?
Wayne "I'm less concerned about appearances, and more concerned about
the safety of our kids" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:24:11 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated "Ray Wood" <ray...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>>Which President dropped the embargo against the racist
>>anti-apartheid government of South Africa? Bush.
>
>Ummmm..... Wasn't this dropped after the change in the government?
No, DeKlerc was still in power, and the three-way "peace talks"
between the Boers, the ANC, and the Zulus under Buthelezi were still
going on. The rationale was that economic sanctions were hurting
Blacks more than anyone, but the Boers were still in charge when Bush
went back to "constructive engagement" policies.
>>Which President made a personal visit to Africa?
>
>And which Black congressmen actually are against the "open trade with
>Africa " proposal? One is Jesse Jackson, Jr.
The question was about which President actually treated Africa as if
it was a fine place to visit - for the people, not the animals a la
Teddy Roosevelt.
The significance of Clinton's trip to Africa is far greater than some
trade proposal.
>>Which President literally got chased out of the inner
>>city during his election year campaign? Reagan.
>>
>>Which President used Willie Horton ads to get votes?
>>Bush.
>
>Check the history on Willie Horton. Gore first used Horton in his
>re-election campaign.
What is this, "Be fair to the GOP" or something? The issue of Willie
Horton was raised by the GOP, on a national level, as an axe against
Dukakis, and everyone knows this.
Gore wasn't running for re-election in Maryland. He wasn't a
candidate in 1988. No one was exposed on a national level to Willie
Horton, except as a racist tactic by the GOP.
There is little point in playing GOP spinmeister on this one. History
will show who spent millions nationally slandering the image of Black
people with Horton, and it damn sure wasn't Al Gore.
[rest snipped due to predictability]
Wayne "Al Gore was the real culprit in the Horton ads? That ought to
kill his Presidential bid with Black folks" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>That is what I wondered when I read your post.
>
>You asked what politicians. Ed gave a list of members of the CBC.
Unreal.
>Did you not know that the CBC campaigned against weflare reform and
>the campaign against the crack sentencing guidelines?
Not at the listed URL, Jerome.
The names were listed - including that of Carol Mosely Braun, oddly
enough - but there was no indication on the website on how any of
those named voted on the act, or any public position on the issue of
the welfare reform act, or the crack sentencing law.
There is no documentation whatsoever on those issues, no position
papers, no condemnation of Clinton for his stand on those issues, or
anything that was characterized in the paragraph following the list of
names. Nothing at all.
The website listed was only a list of names of members, and general
position statements. I invite you to go to the website, and find
where any name on that list can be attached to the issue of welfare
reform or crack sentences.
I spent time there, hoping that what I saw done in that post was an
accident. It wasn't. It was a total mischaracterization of a cite
for information.
>My question is, whose motives needs to be questioned?
Go to the website, find where the CBC has any official position on
those issues, and then you tell me.
I'd really like to know what the motivation for that stunt was.
One thing we like to have in here is trust. Though I have had issues
with various posters here in the past, I'd like to be able to trust
the cites of ANY poster, especially when it's someone who has been
here for many years, and has a reputation for accurate cites and
sourcing.
Now, I don't know whether to believe anything I see. I saw a URL
cited, for the most influential group of Black politicians in America
- people who we all respect and hold in high regard.
They were presented as a block; every last one of them in office last
year was listed. After this list was presented, a paragraph stated
that all of these people were on record AT THAT URL as coming down on
these issues.
That was totally inaccurate, and misleading. I see no need for such
actions; I think it demeans the trust in which we hold each other; and
I am seriously disturbed by it.
In the past few days, I've been taken to task for supposedly
mischaracterizing the words or statements of others. Now I see the
statements of the Congressional Black Caucus and their official
website mischaracterized, intentionally, and this is not right.
It's just not right, Jerome.
Find a place on that website where that list of names is attached to
position statements as seen in this paragraph:
>There are the names. Now what are you going to do?
>They say they represent the interests of Blacks. Yet, you have spoken
>against the things that they stood for. They want the crack sentencing
>reduced. They were against the welfare reform bill. But in your mind,
>it's me not being clear.
If honesty and clarity of motivations is truly important to you, go to
the website and find where the list of names is attached to these
positions.
Otherwise, ask your questions about motivations to the person who made
that post.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Ray Wood
DarkStar wrote in message <36b655d2...@mail.flash.net>...
>>Which President dropped the embargo against the racist
>>anti-apartheid government of South Africa? Bush.
>
>Ummmm..... Wasn't this dropped after the change in the government?
DeKlerk was still Da Boss.
>And which Black congressmen actually are against the "open trade with
>Africa " proposal? One is Jesse Jackson, Jr.
He gets a lot of support from unions. Regardless of which position
he took, he would alienate some of his supporters. He went with
Americans, rather than Africans. Now, myself, I think trade
restrictions are rarely a good idea. But, a lot of people (like
the entire country of Japan, for instance) disagree with me.
>Check the history on Willie Horton. Gore first used Horton in his
>re-election campaign.
I don't think Gore will go that route in 2000. I have heard
what you are saying about Gore enough times that I am
inclined to believe it is true. It is strange, however, that I
don't recall seeing the Gore ads. It is also strange that it
is only now that the right got around to mention tha Gore
did it too. Which leads me to suspect that Gore rarely
used the ads. Still, you make a good point.
>>Clinton is, I think, as good a friend as we can expect.
>I *STRONGLY* disagree. You see, I believe we must expect *MORE* and
>must demand *MORE*.
We only disagree on strategy, not desired results.
>>But, honestly,
>> do you think we have had any other President who
>>was fairer to people of color?
>
>Your comment is valid, and IMO, that speaks poorly of them, *AND*
>Clinton as well.
Well, yeah, you are right about that. But, you work with what
is available.
>To
>me, there is no rationale to sign a welfare reform bill with Black
>women in the background, if you've been saying that most Blacks
>*AREN'T* on welfare.
As I said before, Clinton is a white guy. I think it is unrealistic to
think that he will ever develop our level of empathy for issues
affecting the black community. To some extent, this is not
so much white folks' nature as it is human nature. Check out
the topics of the threads in SCAA-M. We talk a lot about
issues which affect us, but you don't hear much about the
acts of inhumanity occurring in Ireland or Kosovo.
Ray Wood
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: Detailed discussions of inhumanity in Ireland and Kosovo would most likely be off-topic.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Who is looking for friends? There is no reason to try and cast
>>Clinton as an enemy of Black people, either, which seems to be the
>>point of quibbling over appointees and so on.0
>
>Well, if people say he is a friend of black people, and someone points
>out that he has followed policies that blacks believe are not in the
>best interests of the black community, what is wrong for saying it?
Nothing, really. I'd prefer to see some substantial and credible
proof of harm, however, because not backing Lani Guinere doesn't seem
to be some big-time hazard to Black people.
I remember the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, so Clinton seems like a polar
opposite to me.
I've also seen where all the doom-saying about the Welfare Reform Act
and other legislation hasn't panned out as some big-time disaster. In
fact, Black folks are better off now than before - the welfare rates
across the board are the lowest they've been since 1969 - and calling
the crack cocaine sentencing law bad for Blacks is the biggest joke
I've heard on this board.
But hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion.
>In your wrong-headed, IMO, defense of Bill Clinton, anyone who dares to
>point out that Bill Clinton is not as good for the black community as
>people believe, they are the anti-Christ.
I haven't seen diddly that says the guy is bad for us, from anybody
posting here. What I have seen is the adulation of people like Dick
Morris, a person who shills for solidly anti-Black interests, declared
as an "on-target" commentator, a fantastic piece of surrealism that
Dali would envy.
Anyway, Clinton has become a symbol, not a person. I don't worry
about his girlfriends, and anybody who does seems to be using the
Anti-Christ similies to try and work up a sweat about the guy.
I couldn't care less.
>>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>>this dope?
>
>Can you name the black conservatives that say what you wrote?
Yes. However, I've promised not to do so, in keeping with the
civility this forum requires; when I bring up names, all kinds of hell
breaks loose.
>>Why worry about it? If you don't use or sell crack, who gives a damn?
>>If you do, and keep bringing this poison into the Black community, why
>>shouldn't you suffer a hell of a penalty?
>
>Why don't you ask the CBC? Please start with Maxine Waters.
The point of posting to a newsgroup is to state one's own opinions.
I'd be glad to debate Maxine on the subject, at length. She's not
here, however.
So I'll ask you, or anyone else who posts in this forum. We can talk
about it all day. Maybe you'd like to address the issue about why I
should be trying to protect some crack dealer trying to sell that shit
to my kids, or kill them claiming to defend his sales territory.
Any comments?
>>Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
>>about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
>>the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
>>selling crack.
>>
>>What is the problem, here?
>
>Ask the CBC members. Your "outrage" is pointed in the wrong direction.
Why ask them, Jerome? There are plenty of Black folks right here. Is
this some kind of veiled criticism of the CBC, who came up with the
tougher sentencing proposition in the first place? I don't know what
you're getting at, unless you simply don't want to weigh in with a
personal opinion about it.
I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, Jerome. Just me.
>>The Welfare Reform Act was opposed by everybody, because it lanced so
>>many political balloons.
>If it was opposed by everyone, it would have never made it out of
>congress.
There is such a thing as compromise, Jerome. It has a long and
storied history in Congress, and is supported by a thing called "line
items", coupled with a thing called "pork barrel politics". This
makes it possible for all kinds of frogs to get swallowed.
>>You either want to see crack sold in our community with impunity, or
>>you want to see stiff penalties for this damned drug.
>
>Where does he say he wants crack sold in the black community?
Why parse it? Either you slam the book down hard on dope dealers, or
you don't. What's the issue, here? Easy on crack dealers, or hard on
crack dealers? Go easy on the dealers, and they keep on walking the
steets dealing and killing other Black people. Are you really telling
me you (or whoever) can't figure this out?
>And what about the CBC members who tried to get Clinton to let the sentencing guidelines
>sunset?
Do you care? I sure as hell don't. As I've said, I'd be willing to
debate/discuss the issue with anyone, from John Conyers on down.
However, I'm just chatting on the newsgroup. Any problem with that?
>>You either want to respect Black women who go to a bill signing
>>ceremony, or you don't.
>
>Where does he disrespect the black women?
Where does he respect them?
>>You can call what you do "whining", or "accountability", or whatever
>>you like. Just try to make some sense, and state clearly what your
>>point is.
>
>I believe he is being very clear. Just because he doesn't kiss Clinton's
>ass, he is now seen by you to be an enemy of the black community.
I'm not interested who kisses any part of Clinton's anatomy, Jerome.
Wayne "That seems to be Dick Morris' job" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
for emphasis in this post; I'm going to tighten it up, for the sake of
coherence.
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:13:09 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:02:08 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:31:01 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>>
>>>Conservatives were saying that Reagan had more Blacks in his
>>>administration than any other previous administration. If that was
>>>true, what do numbers mean?
>>What "conservatives"?
>
>Tony Snow, Armstrong Williams, and Jack Kemp.
Interesting. From that, I suppose they're saying that Black people
were better off under Reagan than, say, with Carter...or Johnson...or
Kennedy.
This isn't something I'd buy without figures, but I still don't see
where Reagan made any key appointments of Black people to positions of
real influence and power; what is the point of this, anyway?
>>What were they counting, Cabinet members?
>>What "numbers"?
>>What part of the administration?
>>This kind of meaningless blurb is nothing to try and "counter with the
>>facts"; there are no facts in it.
>
>Okay, so when the Clinton camp says the same thing, do you ask the
>same questions? If no, why not?
Because he has Black people that I know of, and respect, who are right
in the thick of it, and wouldn't bullshit me. Vernon Jordan, Jesse
Jackson, the late Ron Brown, and the CBC (which, I was reminded,
pressured him to do better early on).
These people just weren't around in the Reagan/Bush years; instead, we
got Armstrong Williams, and Clarence Thomas. You don't see any
difference between Williams/Thomas and Jackson/Brown/Jordan? I do.
If you don't, fine, but why not say so?
>>>Perspective is *WHY* I say Clinton should not be called a friend of
>>>Black people.
>>
>>Who is looking for friends?
>
>I don't care who is looking for friends, but when people like Tavis
>Smiley, George Curry, Elenor Norton-Holmes, or Kurt Schmoke say that
>Clinton is a friend of the Black community, I have to question it.
I don't know if this is a typo or not...do you mean "is a friend" or
"is NOT a friend"?
If Smiley says something, you have to question it? Why? I don't
always agree with him, either, but he's got a pretty good show.
>>There is no reason to try and cast
>>Clinton as an enemy of Black people, either, which seems to be the
>>point of quibbling over appointees and so on.
>
>No, that's not the point. The point is to say that, to Clinton, the
>Black community is just another set of people to manipulate.
Here's where the rubber meets the road. You're saying that there is
no honesty, no decency in the man; that the civil rights issue to him
is merely a way to win votes.
To support this, we hear about Lani Guinere (shot down by the Far
Right GOP), Jocelyn Elders (howled down by the Moral Majority, over a
non-racial topic), welfare reform bill signing, when flanked by two
women who got OFF of welfare (which spit in the eye of "welfare queen"
spouting racists), and so on.
I never saw even symbolic sensitivity from Clinton's predecessors, who
manipulated us to be the punching bags to fire up the Southern
Strategy; remember Reagan, pausing with the pen before signing the
King Holiday Act, snorting that "we'll never know if King was a
Communist, will we?" and so on. I've seen manipulation, and Clinton
just doesn't cut it with the manipulation stuff.
>>P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. Everyone puts pressure on everyone else, but they
>>don't call him a racist for not doing what they would do if they were
>>in the White House.
>
>And in P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S, there is honor among thieves. You don't screw
>over your friends. The Democratic Party in Florida screwed over Blacks
>and paid for their mistake. That type of action should never have had
>to occur, but since it did, the Florida Democrats now know not to take
>the Black vote for granted.
In Texas, either, and check out how the Far Right is portraying George
W. and Jeb Bush. These guys actually went out and sought the Black
vote, which drives a stake through the heart of the Southern Strategy;
and in other states, the GOP lost seats with the traditional Southern
Strategy, and positions are firming up.
The GOP has been taken over; the "Rockefeller Republicans" are
squeezed out, and the right wing drives the bus. It looks like the
Bush Brothers are right in front of the headlights, at this point.
>>How can Black conservatives point only to minor issues like rap
>>singers and failed appointees, and ignore all the good things that
>>actually HAVE happened in the last six years?
>
>Considering Black liberals are also pointing out rap singers, that's a
>non-issue. And I haven't heard Black conservatives pointing out failed
>appointees. I've pointed them out, as have others.
I've heard the conservatives pointing them out, for the same reason
you do; to tear down Clinton, in an attempt to portray him as a
manipulator. Why anyone thinks all politicians don't "work" a
constituency is beyond me; I haven't seen a President yet that didn't
have to do it, to govern a nation of 300+ million people.
You keep pointing to examples to prove that Clinton isn't a Black
"activist", because he won't sit around making a street fight out of
the Guinere appointment - doomed to failure, of course - and in other
ways, make himself a powerless figurehead. It doesn't make any sense,
as the actual battles we need to fight aren't going to be centered
around personalities like that.
The personality issue is what's fueling the current impeachment
circus. I see who benefits when we go that route; and I remember that
the real opponents of Democrats and Clinton were the same crew that
supported every excess of the Right in the Reagan/Bush years.
>>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>>this dope?
>
>Can you say who said it? I haven't even heard Ken Hamblin say it. So
>who says it?
Since the short answer may result in another cascade of obscene
garbage in my email, I'll just take my out-of-context-quote and make
my point clear. Some, who mask Far Right diatribes as Black advocacy,
use the sentencing law as a way to try to drum up anti-Clinton fervor,
portraying him as somehow inimical to Black people - to wit, Black
crack dealers.
>>Defending the right of dope dealers in the Black community seems to be
>>about as anti-Black as you can get. I think anyone who doesn't like
>>the law should get the word out: quit using dope, and damn sure quit
>>selling crack.
>>What is the problem, here?
>
>Why don't you ask the Black politicans who lobbied to get Clinton to
>let the crack sentencing law expire?
As I told Jerome, I'm posting in this newsgroup, not making a speech
on the floor of Congress. I wouldn't mind discussing the issue with
any CBC member willing to post in this newsgroup, and if you know of
any who would, bring 'em in.
I also don't know of any CBC members who think Dick Morris is "on
target", or who think that Clinton is an uneducated racist, and so on.
If this is supposed to be the smoking gun that proves Clinton is
racist an manipulative, I don't see it, and I don't see them urging on
his impeachment because they're upset about it.
>>By the way, which Black politicians on the national scene do you see
>>as being effective and honest?
>
>So, you are saying that all Black politicans are liars and are not
>effective. But you try to say my stance on Clinton is destructive?
No, when I say something, I say it out loud. I was asking you a
direct question. I see most Black folks on the national scene as
effective and honest, including the members of the CBC - even though I
disagree with many individual statements and stances of theirs.
I don't think they're liars. I was asking you a direct question, and
you can either answer it or avoid it: which Black politicians on the
national scene do you see as being effective and honest?
>>The welfare rolls are the lowest they've been in three decades, Ed.
>>For most of that time, welfare has been painted in blackface, as if
>>that's all we want; a damned handout.
>
>So, Clinton continues the image by having to Black women stand behind
>him.
He continues the image by having Black women WHO GOT OFF WELFARE
behind him? Are you serious?
>>The Welfare Reform Act was opposed by everybody, because it lanced so
>>many political balloons. The GOP didn't want to lose their sacred
>>cow, the galvanizing power of "welfare hatred" that brought so many
>>racist voters to the polls; and there was too much real help being
>>funded in the proposals to be vicious enough for the Far Right to
>>support. (We didn't get Newt's "put the welfare babies in orphanages"
>>bullshit).
>
>Let's see.
>
>The GOP(!) sent the welfare reform bill to Clinton 3 times before he
>signed it. And each time, it was the Democrats, for the most part, who
>voted against it. The bill that Clinton signed was the same bill as
>the first one that Clinton vetoed.
Nope, inaccurate. There were several changes to it, including the
provisions about AFDC cutoffs, child care supplements continuing after
the first year of work, the issue of spouses living together having
aid cut off to both spouses, and several other provisions that were
changed.
The success of the bill, and the issues surrounding it, have been
covered at length recently on NPR. The original bill was not "the
same bill", and anyone really familiar with it knows better.
>>But the actual people who benefitted from the new law - including
>>those women who you insult in your post - understood that they needed
>>something that would get rid of the idiotic rules that prevented them
>>from getting assistance off of welfare.
>
>Where do I insult them? Please show me where I insult them. And also,
>how do you know those Black women were on welfare? I never said they
>were.
When you act as if they were merely props put there to insult Black
people, you insult them, Ed. These are thinking, successful Black
women, not props to support the manipulation of a "cracka in a suit",
and I don't think they should be portrayed as ammunition in a racist
manipulative attack on our people.
I was the one who said that they were NO LONGER on welfare. Not you.
You never mentioned it, never brought it up, and perhaps thought this
fact was of no importance. In any case, I did, which is why I'm
saying that their presence there was an effective slap in the face to
people who continually cast Black women on welfare as some kind of
societal parasites - or tools for uneducated racists to exploit.
>>You either want to see crack sold in our community with impunity, or
>>you want to see stiff penalties for this damned drug.
>
>Where do I say I want crack sold in our community?
You obviously didn't read my statement. You either want to see it
sold in our community, because you want light sentencing for it, or
you want to see it stopped, which can be done if the law is vigorously
enforced.
Read into it any meaning you like; I'm speaking clearly.
>All I am demonstrating is that Clinton signed things into law that the
>Black politicians in congress were against.
So, Clinton isn't a racist for signing this law?
>You made wild ass and unverified claims that I was saying things that
>were out of the mainstream Black thought. So, are you now saying that
>the Black congressmen and congresswomen are not in line with the Black
>community?
Since they were the ones who clamored for the law in the first place,
I don't see what the problem is. Anyway, you're miscasting the
argument; they were saying that all other cocaine sentencing laws
should be the same, and that crack shouldn't be singled out. Why you
don't bring this up, I don't know.
>>You either want to respect Black women who go to a bill signing
>>ceremony, or you don't.
>[ This spot reserved for Wayne to show where I disrespected the Black
>women ]
This gimmick is getting tired. I answered that question above, and
you don't need to worry about personal attacks, Ed.
>>You can call what you do "whining", or "accountability", or whatever
>>you like. Just try to make some sense, and state clearly what your
>>point is.
>
>I made my point clearly. You just don't like it because I show flaws
>in "The Great" [ Deceiver ] Bill Clinton.
Personality issues ignored.
>>I can't figure out if you're upset with Clinton, "Black politicians"
>>so far unnamed, Black women who are glad to have a path away from
>>welfare, or what.
>
>So far unnamed?
[roll call snipped]
>There are the names. Now what are you going to do?
What were they signing, Ed?
>They say they represent the interests of Blacks. Yet, you have spoken
>against the things that they stood for. They want the crack sentencing
>reduced. They were against the welfare reform bill. But in your mind,
>it's me not being clear.
When is this dated? What is their current view of the results of the
Welfare Reform Act, when the welfare rolls are at the lowest level in
three decades?
What is their current view of the lowest crime rate in three decades?
Was this the result of position statements made in 1996, or 1998?
Why are you casting old news as new ammunition, Ed? Do you always do
this?
>That's ^&%*$%@#
>NO CARRIER
I know.
Wayne "The medium is the message" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, DarkStar wrote:
...
...
>I don't recall seeing that many (actually I don't remember any) in the
>Reagan administration. Which part were they in?
Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, and Armstrong Williams are 3 that I
know.
>> I don't care who is looking for friends, but when people like Tavis
>> Smiley, George Curry, Elenor Norton-Holmes, or Kurt Schmoke say that
>> Clinton is a friend of the Black community, I have to question it.
>
>I understand that.
>But you should acknowledge that Wayne, who is the most vocal Clinton
>supporter here, hasn't made that claim.
Really? If that's not the case, why make claims that I'm attempting to
hoodwink Blacks by saying Clinton is a cracka?
...
>> >By the way, which Black politicians on the national scene do you see
>> >as being effective and honest?
>>
>> So, you are saying that all Black politicans are liars and are not
>> effective. But you try to say my stance on Clinton is destructive?
>
> I don;t think that was the point of his question.
You mean only Wayne gets to reply in the manner I did?
>> So far unnamed?
>>
>> >From http://www.cbcfonline.org/people/members.html
>
>Maybe this is my problem, but I'm hafving trouble figuring out where these
>names come from and how they relate to the issues.
Let's see.
1. I stated that many Blacks and Black politicans were against welfare
reform and the crack sentencing guidelines.
2. Wayne posts that my statements are false and implies that I'm
anti-Black.
3. Wayne asks about the politicians.
4. It's widely known the Congressional Black Caucus, the CBC, spoke
out against Clinton on welfare reform and are trying to change the
crack sentencing laws.
5. In response to Wayne's question, I post the list of CBC members.
Now, if you're not clear, see #4.
And that has nothing to do with the issues?
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 23:41:38 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>wrote:
>
>>That is what I wondered when I read your post.
>>
>>You asked what politicians. Ed gave a list of members of the CBC.
>
>Unreal.
>
>>Did you not know that the CBC campaigned against weflare reform and
>>the campaign against the crack sentencing guidelines?
>
>Not at the listed URL, Jerome.
You mentioned names and he gave them.
You didn't ask for citations.
But I will ask you for citations. Please stay tuned.
DarkStar
>
>DarkStar wrote in message <36b655d2...@mail.flash.net>...
>>>Which President dropped the embargo against the racist
>>>anti-apartheid government of South Africa? Bush.
>>
>>Ummmm..... Wasn't this dropped after the change in the government?
>
>
>DeKlerk was still Da Boss.
Hmmm.... Okay.
>>And which Black congressmen actually are against the "open trade with
>>Africa " proposal? One is Jesse Jackson, Jr.
>
>
>He gets a lot of support from unions. Regardless of which position
>he took, he would alienate some of his supporters. He went with
>Americans, rather than Africans. Now, myself, I think trade
>restrictions are rarely a good idea. But, a lot of people (like
>the entire country of Japan, for instance) disagree with me.
>
>>Check the history on Willie Horton. Gore first used Horton in his
>>re-election campaign.
>
>
>I don't think Gore will go that route in 2000. I have heard
>what you are saying about Gore enough times that I am
>inclined to believe it is true. It is strange, however, that I
>don't recall seeing the Gore ads. It is also strange that it
>is only now that the right got around to mention tha Gore
>did it too. Which leads me to suspect that Gore rarely
>used the ads. Still, you make a good point.
I had started hearing it soon after Bush pulled the ads.
>>>Clinton is, I think, as good a friend as we can expect.
>
>>I *STRONGLY* disagree. You see, I believe we must expect *MORE* and
>>must demand *MORE*.
>
>We only disagree on strategy, not desired results.
Okay.
>>>But, honestly,
>>> do you think we have had any other President who
>>>was fairer to people of color?
>>
>>Your comment is valid, and IMO, that speaks poorly of them, *AND*
>>Clinton as well.
>
>Well, yeah, you are right about that. But, you work with what
>is available.
If Black politicians stood up and said this, I would have no beef. But
they don't, or at least I haven't heard them say this, so I do have
beef.
>>To
>>me, there is no rationale to sign a welfare reform bill with Black
>>women in the background, if you've been saying that most Blacks
>>*AREN'T* on welfare.
>
>
>As I said before, Clinton is a white guy. I think it is unrealistic to
>think that he will ever develop our level of empathy for issues
>affecting the black community.
IMO, he knew and didn't give a damn. His polling data showed that he
needed to sign the thing. After all, he vetoed previous versions and
his call for "Ending welfare as we know it" was likely to bite him
like George Bush's "Read my lips."
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
...
...
>I can't figure out if you're upset with Clinton, "Black politicians"
>so far unnamed,
Well, I named them.
Now you claim I'm being dishonest for giving the names?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, DarkStar wrote:
...
...
>I don't recall seeing that many (actually I don't remember any) in the
>Reagan administration. Which part were they in?
Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, and Armstrong Williams are 3 that I
know.
>> I don't care who is looking for friends, but when people like Tavis
>> Smiley, George Curry, Elenor Norton-Holmes, or Kurt Schmoke say that
>> Clinton is a friend of the Black community, I have to question it.
>
>I understand that.
>But you should acknowledge that Wayne, who is the most vocal Clinton
>supporter here, hasn't made that claim.
Really? If that's not the case, why make claims that I'm attempting to
hoodwink Blacks by saying Clinton is a cracka?
...
>> >By the way, which Black politicians on the national scene do you see
>> >as being effective and honest?
>>
>> So, you are saying that all Black politicans are liars and are not
>> effective. But you try to say my stance on Clinton is destructive?
>
> I don;t think that was the point of his question.
You mean only Wayne gets to reply in the manner I did?
>> So far unnamed?
>>
>> >From http://www.cbcfonline.org/people/members.html
>
>Maybe this is my problem, but I'm hafving trouble figuring out where these
>names come from and how they relate to the issues.
Let's see.
1. I stated that many Blacks and Black politicans were against welfare
reform and the crack sentencing guidelines.
2. Wayne posts that my statements are false and implies that I'm
anti-Black.
3. Wayne asks about the politicians.
4. It's widely known the Congressional Black Caucus, the CBC, spoke
out against Clinton on welfare reform and are trying to change the
crack sentencing laws.
5. In response to Wayne's question, I post the list of CBC members.
Now, if you're not clear, see #4.
And that has nothing to do with the issues?
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Rich Thompson
disagreement...
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:10:39 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
> wrote:
> >Well, if people say he is a friend of black people, and someone points
> >out that he has followed policies that blacks believe are not in the
> >best interests of the black community, what is wrong for saying it?
>
> Nothing, really. I'd prefer to see some substantial and credible
> proof of harm, however, because not backing Lani Guinere doesn't seem
> to be some big-time hazard to Black people.
No doubt, but having Vernon Jordan as a friend doesn't seem like a
big-time accomplishment wrt Black people. One of the ways that people are
often evaluated is their treatment of individual Black people, and people
who are happy with Clinton's record point to the individual Black people
he's appointed, is cose to, what-have-you. But one can point to individual
Black people who haven't gotten a fair shake from him, too, if nothing
else it cancels a bit out.
> I remember the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, so Clinton seems like a polar
> opposite to me.
Well, you and I agree that he's an improvement over R/B. But I reserve the
right to point out his faults. And pointing out his faults doesn't make
one a right-wing wank, or dreaming of a return to the Bush years, or
whatever..
> fact, Black folks are better off now than before - the welfare rates
> across the board are the lowest they've been since 1969 - and calling
> the crack cocaine sentencing law bad for Blacks is the biggest joke
> I've heard on this board.
It's unfair.
Why do White criminals who do essentially the same thing, and who often
equally prey on the community get off with lighter punishments? And note
that I'm not arguing for better treatment of Black criminals, but for
equal punishment for equal crimes. That would be a basic issue, I think.
> >In your wrong-headed, IMO, defense of Bill Clinton, anyone who dares to
> >point out that Bill Clinton is not as good for the black community as
> >people believe, they are the anti-Christ.
>
> I haven't seen diddly that says the guy is bad for us, from anybody
> posting here.
I don't know about "bad for us", but I agree with Jerome that he's not as
good as some (possibly including you) might think.
This previous statement by Wayne:
> >>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
> >>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
> >>this dope?
> >
> >Can you name the black conservatives that say what you wrote?
>
> Yes. However, I've promised not to do so, in keeping with the
> civility this forum requires; when I bring up names, all kinds of hell
> breaks loose.
I assume that in this instance, you're claiming that Ed or Jerome have
made this claim. Pointing out the unfairness of the sentencing is hardly
the same thing as what you're claiming above. As much as things have
degenerated on both sides, this kind of hyperboly- this claiming of
positions that no one holds, rather than attaching these positions to
people, is the bigger problem.
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I think this exchange illustrates some of the major points of
>disagreement...
Then this post is probably a good place to get some clarification.
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> Nothing, really. I'd prefer to see some substantial and credible
>> proof of harm, however, because not backing Lani Guinere doesn't seem
>> to be some big-time hazard to Black people.
>
>No doubt, but having Vernon Jordan as a friend doesn't seem like a
>big-time accomplishment wrt Black people. One of the ways that people are
>often evaluated is their treatment of individual Black people, and people
>who are happy with Clinton's record point to the individual Black people
>he's appointed, is cose to, what-have-you. But one can point to individual
>Black people who haven't gotten a fair shake from him, too, if nothing
>else it cancels a bit out.
I can't see how this works at all. We're talking about people, not a
"right on" scoreboard. Saying that Clinton should have made a
stand-up fight out of the Guinere nomination (which was obviously
doomed to failure, as her odder notions couldn't even pick up moderate
support) is not looking at any political realities; it's a litmus
test.
The Senate is allowed to "advise and consent" on all Cabinet
appointments. The fact that her nomination was so eagerly torpedoed
is not a criticism of Clinton; it's a sign of what the Right will do
to embarrass the man. Claiming that unless a vigorous defense of a
flawed candidate is mounted is a "check in the negative column" is
simply a new means of mounting an attack on the only non-Far Right
controlled arm of the present government of the United States.
Note why I say this, Rich. At this point, the Supreme Court is
controlled by the Far Right; the so called "swing votes" routinely
lean to the Far Right, and the Chief is a staunch Far Right
segregationist of old.
The Senate and House are both firmly in the grip of the Far Right.
But the White House is obviously not. Still, I don't hear the volume
of criticism, or the level of invective, leveled toward even the most
obvious example of Far Right lunacy on the Supreme Court - namely,
Clarence Thomas - on this newsgroup; I see it leveled at the moderate
White House.
I don't see it leveled at other members of the Court, or the Senate,
or the House. Repeatedly, it's the White House that is checked off on
some scoreboard, as being the home of racists and people inimical to
Black interests.
The point is, are we to say that every Black person in this
Administration is some kind of sellout, who is intelligent enough to
know that they are supporting a "cracka in a suit" and just don't
care? Or are they too unintelligent to figure it out on their own?
I don't see where anything is "canceled out".
>> I remember the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, so Clinton seems like a polar
>> opposite to me.
>
>Well, you and I agree that he's an improvement over R/B. But I reserve the
>right to point out his faults. And pointing out his faults doesn't make
>one a right-wing wank, or dreaming of a return to the Bush years, or
>whatever..
When criticism of the current Administration includes using the
darlings of the Far Right - including calling Dick Morris an "on
target" editorial writer, saying that criticism of Scott Ritter's call
for immediate attacks on Iraq (on his own say-so) in October is
"attacking his character", repeating unsubstantiated Far Right
accusations that revelations about Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston came
from some White House machinations, and so on, I don't think anyone is
unclear on the source of the accusations or the point being made.
When some of the worst invective that passes the moderators is used
against Jesse Jackson, but Clarence Thomas is supposed to be immune
from such name-calling, I don't think there is much question as to
where tender sympathies reside, in a political sense.
Whether or not anyone longs for the Far Right days of yore is a
subject for the Psychic Hotline, not me. It doesn't take a telepath
to read and understand the posts in this group; and I've pointed out
that some of the views in here sound exactly like excerpts from the
John Birch Society's official magazine, which I printed in whole, so
what's the problem with my correlations?
>> fact, Black folks are better off now than before - the welfare rates
>> across the board are the lowest they've been since 1969 - and calling
>> the crack cocaine sentencing law bad for Blacks is the biggest joke
>> I've heard on this board.
>
>It's unfair.
It's commentary, Rich, not indictment.
>Why do White criminals who do essentially the same thing, and who often
>equally prey on the community get off with lighter punishments?
You mean, they sell crack and don't get the same sentences? Well,
that's what I'm talking about; crack is not a Black drug. It's a
deadly drug. Everyone should get busted straight down to the big
house.
What I hear is that the law is unfair, and this doesn't compute. If
the sentencing is unfair, then the law is not the problem.
> And note
>that I'm not arguing for better treatment of Black criminals, but for
>equal punishment for equal crimes. That would be a basic issue, I think.
Fine. What's the problem with the law? It sounds like your problem
is with the execution of the law, not the law itself, and I agree that
it should be enforced across the board.
What's the issue, here?
I'm hoping that you're not saying that powder should have the same
penalties as crack, and until it does, we should lower the crack
penalties. If you really think this is so, I suggest that critics of
the crack law start a campaign to get Black people to use the powder
variety for a lesser sentence.
That way, dope dealers and users will get the same "fair shake" as the
supposedly non-Black users of powder, right? So let's get on the
bandwagon and make sure that some crack dealer doesn't do five years;
he can do six months. Isn't that better?
The whole concept that this is a real issue is absurd. We need to
stop dope, period. It's killing people, and the Black community is
being routinely exploited with this crap. If powder is the way to go,
then tell the dealers that, and quit using it as an excuse to
criticize the Administration.
After all, it's just an excuse.
>> I haven't seen diddly that says the guy is bad for us, from anybody
>> posting here.
>
>I don't know about "bad for us", but I agree with Jerome that he's not as
>good as some (possibly including you) might think.
How?
All I hear is that he's not good for dope dealers (the crack law);
he's not good for welfare recipients (even though the rolls are down
to the lowest level in thirty years); that he's not good for Lani
Guinere or Jocelyn Elders (neither of whom is currently unemployed);
and so on.
I still don't see where the man is inimical to Black people, or Black
interests, in anything I've heard so far. Hell, he NOMINATED Guinere;
he didn't shoot down the nomination! It was Elders who wasn't suited
to the political equations in Washington; she was hounded by the Far
Right (notably, Senator Bob Bennett of Utah who was ready to make
another Moral Majority attack on this), not by Clinton.
What is going on, here? Are we supposed to - as a group - succumb to
the notion that we have NO political clout in Washington, based on
this kind of nonsense?
>This previous statement by Wayne:
>>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>>this dope?
[someone else asked]
>Can you name the black conservatives that say what you wrote?
>> Yes. However, I've promised not to do so, in keeping with the
>> civility this forum requires; when I bring up names, all kinds of hell
>> breaks loose.
>
>I assume that in this instance, you're claiming that Ed or Jerome have
>made this claim. Pointing out the unfairness of the sentencing is hardly
>the same thing as what you're claiming above. As much as things have
>degenerated on both sides, this kind of hyperboly- this claiming of
>positions that no one holds, rather than attaching these positions to
>people, is the bigger problem.
Tell all of us how to solve it.
I'm tired of the stunt of, "Fill this space where I said" and all of
this silliness. It is a demand to make the commentary personal, when
the point I'm making is light years away from that.
You've made this request multiple times. The moderators have asked
that the more vituperative comments be confined to email. The email
that I have received from some correspondents has been routinely
obscene, and some has included overt physical threats; this is not why
I subscribe to a moderated group. I was never subjected to that, even
by the hardcore racists in the UNmoderated group.
We are not talking about disputes over the points of an argument.
We're talking about obsession, and I'm not really interested in going
there. I feel that every post in this moderated forum is safe to
respond to; and frankly, I've been as much a target over the years as
anyone else, and have never felt the need to resort to the kind of
things I've seen occur here (and in my email) in the last few weeks.
I'm also not really interested in the attempt to actually harass or
intimidate me (or anyone else) by bypassing the moderation of SCAAM to
squelch discussion. We can keep the commentary within the group,
within the guidelines, and make the actual points of discussion the
reason for disagreement, and not personalities.
>From your excerpt above, it's clear that I've decided to leave names
out of it, and keep on with the ideas that have been presented. It's
interesting that you bring up the names of two other posters on this
group, when I obviously refuse to do so, for obvious reasons. By
doing so, you run the risk of dragging all this back into the personal
insult arena; why bother with it?
Why bring up names, when the inevitable result is more hassling over
"Fill in this space" nonsense, Rich?
Wayne "It's a discussion group, not a Grand Jury" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jerome Walker
> In article <36b64f82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:10:39 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Who is looking for friends? There is no reason to try and cast
> >>>Clinton as an enemy of Black people, either, which seems to be the
> >>
> >>Well, if people say he is a friend of black people, and someone points
> >>out that he has followed policies that blacks believe are not in the
> >>best interests of the black community, what is wrong for saying it?
> >
> >proof of harm, however, because not backing Lani Guinere doesn't seem
> >to be some big-time hazard to Black people.
Enough is enough.
You like Jesse Jackson, and you have no problem speaking for most blacks.
You like Clinton, and you have no problem speaking for most blacks.
Jesse Jackson said Clinton lack morals.
What do you have to say about Jesse's comments about Clinton?
After Martin Luther King, Jr. was assinated, Jesse Jackson appeared on
television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
When Emerge did a dual profile on Jesse Jackson and Lewis Farrakhan,
Emerge mentioned Jesse Jackson's love for getting media attention.
So what do we have?
Jesse slamming Clinton.
Other black leaders/figures slamming Jesse.
So, are you going to defame the black leaders to defend Jesse? And if
so, what about Jesse's words about Clinton? And if you don't support
Jesse, what is all of the fuss about when Jesse gets called a punk?
And while we are at it, you wrote that either a person is against
drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
about the CBC?
Address those issues.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
> > Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >Nothing, really. I'd prefer to see some substantial and credible
> > >proof of harm, however, because not backing Lani Guinere doesn't seem
> > >to be some big-time hazard to Black people.
>
> Of course, anything to defend Clinton.
Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing an attack that had some substance,
instead of the "right on" button pushing I've seen on the Guinere
issue.
> Enough is enough.
Enough of what?
> You like Jesse Jackson, and you have no problem speaking for most blacks.
> You like Clinton, and you have no problem speaking for most blacks.
You know, Jerome, something you will never see in any of my posts is
this phrase: "Black Leaders".
Another phrase you will never see me use: "Black Spokesman".
My name is Wayne Johnson. I speak for myself, and only myself. I
don't speak for you, Jesse Jackson, or Bill Clinton.
I am not a Black Leader, or Black Spokesman, or the Voice of SCAAM, or
anything like that. Keep that in mind, as you post your comments,
because I claim no exalted status.
> Jesse Jackson said Clinton lack morals.
Before or after he prayed with Chelsea, Hillary, and Bill last
January? Do you have a time frame for this Morals Report from Jesse?
> What do you have to say about Jesse's comments about Clinton?
Well, first I'd have to know if he was considered to be a "punk" (was
that the term?) at the time. It seems that at one point, he was quite
the great man; but at some point or other, he became a "punk" or
something like that.
If he was a spineless homosexual (which is the meaning of the term
"punk" in that context) at the time he questioned Clinton's morals, I
don't think it carries much weight, don't you think?
Actually, how do you see Jesse? Do you respect his opinion on
anything other than Clinton's morals, or lack thereof?
> After Martin Luther King, Jr. was assinated, Jesse Jackson appeared on
> television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
> however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
> went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
Now, this is really interesting. I never heard this. I remember
seeing the photo of Jesse on the balcony, pointing at the motel; he
was standing directly over the crumpled body of Martin Luther King.
The way I heard it, he was among the first to get to King. You've
heard different things; where did you hear this, or read this? It
would seem that you're saying that Jesse Jackson, at the instant King
died, made a play for dramatic publicity, showing that he is a
spineless showman who didn't care enough about Martin Luther King to
go to his side when he was shot.
Where did you get this terrible indictment of Jesse? Why is it
relevant to anything except a campaign to smear his reputation?
> When Emerge did a dual profile on Jesse Jackson and Lewis Farrakhan,
> Emerge mentioned Jesse Jackson's love for getting media attention.
Name a politician who is shy of the media spotlight.
> So what do we have?
So far, a fairly clumsy attempt to smear a popular politician, who
doesn't seem to do anything to hurt Black people. What has he done to
harm us, Jerome?
> Jesse slamming Clinton.
> Other black leaders/figures slamming Jesse.
Significance, please?
> So, are you going to defame the black leaders to defend Jesse?
I'm curious about where you got this dramatic information. Abernathy,
who went totally goofy in 1980 (being the only "Black Leader" -
albeit, without any followers) to endorse the Reagan-Bush ticket, is
an odd duck anyhow, but I have no desire to defame the guy.
Anyway, where did you hear all this breathless scandal about the
bloody shirt, Jerome?
>And if so, what about Jesse's words about Clinton?
Uttered when? Does he still feel that way, or not?
>And if you don't support
>Jesse, what is all of the fuss about when Jesse gets called a punk?
I'm not even going to bother with this one, because it doesn't make
sense.
> And while we are at it, you wrote that either a person is against
> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
> about the CBC?
Where does the CBC say this, Jerome? I checked the website, remember?
Such inflated claims aren't there.
You're saying that the CBC wants to reduce penalties for crack? Who
said this?
Further, is any of this connected with criticism of Bill Clinton, in
any way? Congress passes the law, and I note that at last check, it
was firmly in the hands of the GOP - who controls all "sunset laws".
Anyhow, when did the CBC, as a group, make these comments about crack
sentencing?
> Address those issues.
As soon as you back them up with more than simple declarations.
Wayne "This should be both interesting and enlightening" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
J Lanier
>I think this exchange illustrates some of the major points of
>disagreement...
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>> I remember the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, so Clinton seems like a polar
>> opposite to me.
>Well, you and I agree that he's an improvement over R/B. But I reserve the
>right to point out his faults. And pointing out his faults doesn't make
>one a right-wing wank, or dreaming of a return to the Bush years, or
>whatever..
>
>> fact, Black folks are better off now than before - the welfare rates
>> across the board are the lowest they've been since 1969 - and calling
>> the crack cocaine sentencing law bad for Blacks is the biggest joke
>> I've heard on this board.
>It's unfair.
>Why do White criminals who do essentially the same thing, and who often
>equally prey on the community get off with lighter punishments? And note
>that I'm not arguing for better treatment of Black criminals, but for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>equal punishment for equal crimes. That would be a basic issue, I think.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with what Rich has said here, especially the part I've underlined.
Either *everyone* goes to the cell block party or *nobody* goes.
>> >In your wrong-headed, IMO, defense of Bill Clinton, anyone who dares to
>> >point out that Bill Clinton is not as good for the black community as
>> >people believe, they are the anti-Christ.
>>
>> I haven't seen diddly that says the guy is bad for us, from anybody
>> posting here.
>I don't know about "bad for us", but I agree with Jerome that he's not as
>good as some (possibly including you) might think.
I think that Clinton or any politician has to be considered in terms of
relative good or bad and IMO, relatively speaking he's been less bad than
a lot of folk. Does that mean he's perfect and that blacks should embrace
him wholeheartedly? No. Does that mean in the course of things he will
have likely done things that are imimical to the interests of blacks?
Sure.
My problem with Ed and Jerome's delight in making statements like "he's
not as good as some might think" is, that it seems to imply that people
who support him are naive and don't realize they are being hoodwinked.
Maybe some are, but I would also guess that some have come to grips with
Clinton's foibles and hope to get what they can out of the deal.
[snip]
>> Yes. However, I've promised not to do so, in keeping with the
>> civility this forum requires; when I bring up names, all kinds of hell
>> breaks loose.
>I assume that in this instance, you're claiming that Ed or Jerome have
>made this claim. Pointing out the unfairness of the sentencing is hardly
>the same thing as what you're claiming above. As much as things have
>degenerated on both sides, this kind of hyperboly- this claiming of
>positions that no one holds, rather than attaching these positions to
>people, is the bigger problem.
Yes.
DarkStar
>I think this exchange illustrates some of the major points of
>disagreement...
No, the post you quote does not do that at all.
The major point of disagreement is the fact that a Black person is
being critical of Clinton and his treatment of Black people. That is
all of what this is about.
On this newsgroup, there were plenty of people who voiced displeasure
over welfare reform. After Clinton signed it, he said if politicians
had issues with what he signed, and he agreed with some of the
concerns, then they should craft bills to amend the changes Clinton
made.
But since the complaining was coming from Black politicians, and since
the Republicans control both halves of Congress, what chance does the
amendments have? Very little to none unless Republicans also agree.
Question: Why did Clinton sign it?
Answer: It was to his political advantage to sign it.
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:10:39 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>> wrote:
...
>One of the ways that people are
>often evaluated is their treatment of individual Black people, and people
>who are happy with Clinton's record point to the individual Black people
>he's appointed, is cose to, what-have-you. But one can point to individual
>Black people who haven't gotten a fair shake from him, too, if nothing
>else it cancels a bit out.
>
>
>> I remember the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, so Clinton seems like a polar
>> opposite to me.
>
>Well, you and I agree that he's an improvement over R/B. But I reserve the
>right to point out his faults. And pointing out his faults doesn't make
>one a right-wing wank, or dreaming of a return to the Bush years, or
>whatever..
Freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. What a concept.
>> fact, Black folks are better off now than before - the welfare rates
>> across the board are the lowest they've been since 1969 - and calling
>> the crack cocaine sentencing law bad for Blacks is the biggest joke
>> I've heard on this board.
>
>It's unfair.
>Why do White criminals who do essentially the same thing, and who often
>equally prey on the community get off with lighter punishments? And note
>that I'm not arguing for better treatment of Black criminals, but for
>equal punishment for equal crimes. That would be a basic issue, I think.
He claims it's the biggest joke, but no one denies that the CBC is
trying to get the sentencing laws changed. No one else can deny that
many Black people, including many on this newsgroup, find the
sentencing laws unfair. To state that people who are against the
sentencing laws are for drug dealers is the same foolishness.
...
>> >In your wrong-headed, IMO, defense of Bill Clinton, anyone who dares to
>> >point out that Bill Clinton is not as good for the black community as
>> >people believe, they are the anti-Christ.
>>
>> I haven't seen diddly that says the guy is bad for us, from anybody
>> posting here.
>
>I don't know about "bad for us", but I agree with Jerome that he's not as
>good as some (possibly including you) might think.
>
>This previous statement by Wayne:
>
>> >>How can Black conservatives keep saying with a straight face that
>> >>Black people need to use crack cocaine instead of some other form of
>> >>this dope?
>> >
>> >Can you name the black conservatives that say what you wrote?
>>
>> Yes. However, I've promised not to do so, in keeping with the
>> civility this forum requires; when I bring up names, all kinds of hell
>> breaks loose.
>
>I assume that in this instance, you're claiming that Ed or Jerome have
>made this claim. Pointing out the unfairness of the sentencing is hardly
>the same thing as what you're claiming above. As much as things have
>degenerated on both sides, this kind of hyperboly- this claiming of
>positions that no one holds, rather than attaching these positions to
>people, is the bigger problem.
Don't blame me. I'm not the one "dissembling" to protect my views.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
> And while we are at it, you wrote that either a person is against
> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
> about the CBC?
The CBC is not on record anywhere that I can find, that says they want
to reduce the penalties for crack to the level of powder. This is a
wholly unsubstantiated claim.
I actually went to the websites, and searched the Congressional
record, to see if any of the CBC members had sponsored bills on this
effort; none show up on a search. It seems that the claims you and
others have made on behalf of the CBC are made up of whole cloth.
However, it does seem that the penalties for powder cocaine are being
stiffened; this is exactly opposite of what you claim is happening.
By the way, I found this by going to Maxine Water's website - if you
recall, she's the one who is most upset about the CIA's involvement
with the cocaine trade - and there is nothing there about her desire
to change crack sentencing laws. Nothing at all.
There is a search engine built into her website in the area where all
bills she sponsored or co-sponsored is located. Go there, and you can
find this information for yourself. Just click "search", and type in
the word, "cocaine".
Here is the proposed statute:
******************************************
Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999 (Introduced in the Senate)
S 146 IS
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 146
To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to penalties for
crimes involving cocaine , and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 19, 1999
Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. ALLARD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr.
THURMOND, Mr. HELMS, Mr. KYL, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. ENZI, Mr.
COVERDELL, and Mr. HAGEL) introduced the following bill; which was
read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to penalties for
crimes involving cocaine , and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999'.
SEC. 2. SENTENCING FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING COCAINE POWDER.
(a) AMENDMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT-
(1) LARGE QUANTITIES- Section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking `5
kilograms' and inserting `500 grams'.
(2) SMALL QUANTITIES- Section 401(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking
`500 grams' and inserting `50 grams'.
(b) AMENDMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT-
(1) LARGE QUANTITIES- Section 1010(b)(1)(B) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(B)) is amended
by striking `5 kilograms' and inserting `500 grams'.
(2) SMALL QUANTITIES- Section 1010(b)(2)(B) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(2)(B)) is amended
by striking `500 grams' and inserting `50 grams'.
(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES- Pursuant to section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the
amendments made by this section.
*****************************************
This shows that the Senate - not the House, where all of the CBC
members reside - is moving to stiffen the sentences for powder to
match those for the crack variety of cocaine.
This should remove the "sentence gap" that seems to irk the folks who
see crack as the "Black drug", and howl about disparate sentencing.
Now, do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Now, my turn for a couple of questions.
Who are these CBC members who don't like the crack law, and where can
I find their statements or bills that seek to change it by lowering
the penalties for crack?
Next, where can I find any commentary by any of them, saying that
President Clinton is to blame for the law in it's current form, and
that they are upset with him about it?
Wayne "Isn't it nice to have relevant and concrete cites to back up a
statement? It gets rid of all the innuendo, slander, and other trash"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
Let me point out something else.
When Clinton had his first inargual parade, he went through parts of
D.C. At one point, he got out of the car and walked down the street,
shaking people's hands. [ I believe it was Georgia Ave., but I may be
wrong ]
People were impressed because no president had ever done that or
anything close to it in the streets of D.C., particularly one of the
Black areas of D.C. Clinton said he would been seen in D.C., and he
would do his best to help D.C. And the result? Nothing. He did
nothing.
D.C. politicians have complained that although about 85% of the
funding for D.C. is generated by D.C. citizens and businesses, the
city has no way of knowing what it's annual budget will be because
it's at the whim of congress. Clinton stated he would come up with
proposals to change that, and he never did.
When D.C. got into real fiscal trouble, it wasn't Clinton who came up
with the Control Board idea, it was the Republican congress. And that
was developed more to make Barry leave than it was to get D.C. in
fiscal shape.
[ Here is an interesting article that touches on that a bit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/06/095l-020699-idx.html
]
When Clinton first got into office, he decided not to send his
daughter to D.C. schools because they were academically suspect. Yet,
he never proposed additional educational money for D.C. And this is
before the Republican control of congress.
It's claimed that I look down on Blacks? I would never go to the NAACP
convention, and then give a speech on personal responsiblity. Now, we
all know that the cry of "Blacks lack personal responsibility" is the
cry of conservatives, correct? And yet Clinton says the same thing at
a NAACP convention? [ I was reminded of that one in a discussion on
Clinton on the AFROAM-L listserv group ]
DarkStar
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>
...
>My name is Wayne Johnson. I speak for myself, and only myself. I
>don't speak for you, Jesse Jackson, or Bill Clinton.
****** Start quote *******
Re: David 'KKK' Duke returns!!!!
Author: Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1999/01/18
Forum: soc.culture.african.american.moderated
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:23:00 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
wrote:
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
>>We don't like crackas, so you use the term to describe Clinton. This
>>is manipulation. You're busted.
>
>Who is "we" Wayne?
Why, just us Black folks, Jerome. Perhaps you've met some, in the
past, who know what a cracka is. Why do you ask, pray tell?
****** End Quote *****
>I am not a Black Leader, or Black Spokesman, or the Voice of SCAAM, or
>anything like that. Keep that in mind, as you post your comments,
>because I claim no exalted status.
Hmmm.....
....
>So far, a fairly clumsy attempt to smear a popular politician, who
>doesn't seem to do anything to hurt Black people. What has he done to
>harm us, Jerome?
Ask Lewis Farrakhan. On his last appearence on "Meet The Press," Lewis
Farrakhan called Jesse Jackson a pimp. It was in response to being
asked if he thought that Jesse should run for president. Farrakhan
replied no. He said that Jesse has no chance of winning, so the only
reason would be to gather votes and hand those votes over to the
eventual Democrat nominee, like a pimp.
...
>> And while we are at it, you wrote that either a person is against
>> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
>> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
>> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
>> about the CBC?
>
>Where does the CBC say this, Jerome? I checked the website, remember?
>Such inflated claims aren't there.
>
>You're saying that the CBC wants to reduce penalties for crack? Who
>said this?
Now, it seems like everyone one else, including a white Canadian,
knows the CBC is against the current crack sentencing laws. It would
seem like a politically aware Black person would know this. But, for
the benefit of those who don't know:
>From an ACLU newswire report, dated 7/24/97:
July 24, 1997: Black Lawmakers Criticize Clinton Cocaine Sentencing
WASHINGTON -- Sharply rebuking the White House, the Congressional
BlackCaucus has said that President Clinton had not gone far enough in
recommending to Congress that the Federal sentencing disparity between
crack and powder cocaine could be only reduced rather than eliminated,
The New York Times reports.
At a Capitol Hill news conference, members of the caucus said the
harsher treatment of defendants convicted of possessing small amounts
of crack had resulted in long prison sentences for disproportionate
numbers of blacks.
"Any sentencing scheme that treats crack use and trafficking more
harshly than powder use and trafficking is not addressing reality,"
said. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Congressional
Black Caucus. "If we eliminate the sentencing disparities, we
eliminate the reality of selective prosecution and racial injustice."
==== End quote ====
I found it doing a search using Northern Light at
http://www.nlsearch.com, using the advanced search tag, using
"congressional black caucus" and "crack"
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
wrote:
>In <Pine.SUN.3.95.990205...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> Rich Thompson <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> writes:
>
>>I think this exchange illustrates some of the major points of
>>disagreement...
...
>>I don't know about "bad for us", but I agree with Jerome that he's not as
>>good as some (possibly including you) might think.
I want to leave the above quote, because when I first started coming
down on Clinton, that is exactly what I was saying. And when I
continue to come down on Clinton, I say the same thing in different
ways. So, for _ANYONE_ to then say...
...
>My problem with Ed and Jerome's delight in making statements like "he's
>not as good as some might think" is, that it seems to imply that people
>who support him are naive and don't realize they are being hoodwinked.
... this is *WAY* off base.
The problem, *AGAIN* in not what I am saying or implying, but what is
being *INFERRED* and that is *NOT* my problem. It's not my problem
becuse...
>Maybe some are, but I would also guess that some have come to grips with
>Clinton's foibles and hope to get what they can out of the deal.
... I've also been consistant is saying that if it's a matter of just
supporting the "best we have" or the "best we can get right now" then
just say it.
Oh no, uh uh... I'm not accepting the "implication of what I'm
writing" argument.
Nope, no way....
Before the elections when people were saying the Republicans are going
to pay, I was questioning the strong support for Clinton and what, if
any, long term political harm it may cause the Black community. I
wrote that I understand the support, but I questioned if it was
politically damaging.
Before that, when the welfare reform debate came up, I mentioned
welfare reform, Clinton's signing it, and the continued support he
receives from Black politicians. I said the same thing. Don't say he's
a friend of the Black community, blast him for his policies that they
view as anti-Black, and then call him a friend again. Just *PUBLICALLY
ADMIT* that he's the best choice at the moment.
When Jesse decided not to run against Clinton in '96, I called Jesse a
punk. But I also acknowledged the politics behind it. But I also said
that if Jesse believed that the Democrats are taking Blacks for
granted and that they should stop it, he should run make a point.
A few days ago, in an exchange with Ray Wood, again I acknowledge why
the support exists, but that I believe we must demand better.
No, nope, nada, no way. I'm not accepting it.
Just a few days ago after Art claimed something that I had denied a
few times before, I posted the latest denial after a comment you made.
No, nope, nada, no way. I'm not accepting it.
It's not the implication of what I'm writing, because I'm writing what
I mean and nothing else. It's the inference, and that's not my fault.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
> So what do we have?
>
> Jesse slamming Clinton.
> Other black leaders/figures slamming Jesse.
>
> So, are you going to defame the black leaders to defend Jesse?
What people are "slamming" Jesse, Jerome?
It wasn't Andy Young, who I quoted to answer your "question" about the
origin of the bloodstains on Jesse's shirt.
It doesn't require defamation of anyone to refute your innuendo.
Since I answered your questions, could you answer mine, and tell me
who exactly is "slamming" Jackson?
Wayne "And, of course, where you heard it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>
>Let me point out something else.
>
>When Clinton had his first inargual parade, he went through parts of
>D.C. At one point, he got out of the car and walked down the street,
>shaking people's hands. [ I believe it was Georgia Ave., but I may be
>wrong ]
How did you feel about this?
>People were impressed because no president had ever done that or
>anything close to it in the streets of D.C., particularly one of the
>Black areas of D.C. Clinton said he would been seen in D.C., and he
>would do his best to help D.C. And the result? Nothing. He did
>nothing.
Hmm...
He did nothing.
The Congress is in control of D.C. Has been since the founding of
D.C. 210 years ago.
It is not a fiefdom of the Executive Branch, by Federal Law two
centuries old.
>D.C. politicians have complained that although about 85% of the
>funding for D.C. is generated by D.C. citizens and businesses, the
>city has no way of knowing what it's annual budget will be because
>it's at the whim of congress. Clinton stated he would come up with
>proposals to change that, and he never did.
When did he state this, who to, and who followed up on him?
Wasn't there a tremendous amount of noise made about this when the
Barry re-election occurred? The city was having it's money mismanaged
so bad by Barry and crew that all local control was taken away; I
remember that cops were paying for brake jobs on their own patrol
cars, and what not, due to woeful mismanagement by that crackhead
mayor the citizens chose to re-elect.
So, what was Clinton supposed to do - come up with new ways for Barry
to screw up umpty-scump million dollars with his nepotism and other
idiotic practices? Talk about political suicide....
"Let's see how we can help Marion Barry, the crackhead, get a handle
on the budget, so we'll know WAY ahead of time how much money he can
f*ck up", sounds like one hell of a great Saturday afternoon radio
speech.
You gotta be kidding.
>When D.C. got into real fiscal trouble, it wasn't Clinton who came up
>with the Control Board idea, it was the Republican congress. And that
>was developed more to make Barry leave than it was to get D.C. in
>fiscal shape.
Of COURSE Clinton didn't come up with the Control Board idea.
Congress is by statute in control of D.C., and you know this as well
as anyone.
Let's flush this red herring once and for all: D.C. is a Congressional
responsibility, just as are all territories of the United States -
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, you name it. The President doesn't
say what happens; Congress says what happens.
And it was done because Barry had the city so fouled up it took
drastic measures to put it back together again.
>[ Here is an interesting article that touches on that a bit.
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/06/095l-020699-idx.html
The article has almost nothing to do with this issue, and certainly
has nothing to do with the President having any say in city politics
or city funding.
Clinton's name, or the office of the Presidency, doesn't even show up
in this article, even in a tangent mention. It's just an editorial
diatribe about how Barry was so lousy he fouled up possible home rule
for Washington, and it's contrasted with the irony of crooked Salt
Lake City officials bribing Olympics fat cats.
The whole commentary sounded silly as hell. A few bribes got Salt
Lake City megabucks, and I don't think their police cars were sliding
through stop signs without brakes. What was the point of using this
cite?
>When Clinton first got into office, he decided not to send his
>daughter to D.C. schools because they were academically suspect. Yet,
>he never proposed additional educational money for D.C. And this is
>before the Republican control of congress.
He NEVER had control of the D.C. purse strings. No Chief Exective
ever has. "Before Republican control of Congress" was when Barry was
still freely smoking crack and having a good old time as Mayor, and
Clinton didn't run the show then, either; that was George Mitchell and
Tip O'niell's job, back then.
Why keep tossing in red herrings? Do you know how D.C. is funded and
controlled, or not?
>It's claimed that I look down on Blacks?
How do you describe Jesse Jackson, again? I forgot.
>I would never go to the NAACP
>convention, and then give a speech on personal responsiblity.
Neither would Jesse.
>Now, we
>all know that the cry of "Blacks lack personal responsibility" is the
>cry of conservatives, correct?
Which ones?
>And yet Clinton says the same thing at
>a NAACP convention? [ I was reminded of that one in a discussion on
>Clinton on the AFROAM-L listserv group ]
So, how many people on there think he ought to be removed from office?
Wayne "All of them? Some? Just curious" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Alice Holman
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
>
> It's unfair.
> Why do White criminals who do essentially the same thing, and who often
> equally prey on the community get off with lighter punishments? And note
> that I'm not arguing for better treatment of Black criminals, but for
> equal punishment for equal crimes. That would be a basic issue, I think.
I agree whole heartedly with you assessment of this situation. Well said!
alice
>
>
DarkStar
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:42:09 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
...
>>People were impressed because no president had ever done that or
>>anything close to it in the streets of D.C., particularly one of the
>>Black areas of D.C. Clinton said he would been seen in D.C., and he
>>would do his best to help D.C. And the result? Nothing. He did
>>nothing.
>
>Hmm...
>He did nothing.
Nothing.
>The Congress is in control of D.C. Has been since the founding of
>D.C. 210 years ago.
And congress is in control of all of the federal budget. Technically,
the President doesn't have to have any input into the federal budget.
Congress gives him the input as a measure of courtesy.
The same holds true when dealing with the District. In particular,
Clinton had to sign the bill authorizing the Control Board for the
District.
>>D.C. politicians have complained that although about 85% of the
>>funding for D.C. is generated by D.C. citizens and businesses, the
>>city has no way of knowing what it's annual budget will be because
>>it's at the whim of congress. Clinton stated he would come up with
>>proposals to change that, and he never did.
>
>When did he state this, who to, and who followed up on him?
When he first got into office, and after the gov't shutdown. Who
followed up on him? The mayor and Del. Holmes-Norton followed up on
it. She does so every year, to be exact.
...
>>When D.C. got into real fiscal trouble, it wasn't Clinton who came up
>>with the Control Board idea, it was the Republican congress. And that
>>was developed more to make Barry leave than it was to get D.C. in
>>fiscal shape.
>
>Of COURSE Clinton didn't come up with the Control Board idea.
>Congress is by statute in control of D.C., and you know this as well
>as anyone.
Sure I know it. I also know that Del. Holmes-Norton had input into the
creation of the board and when some things happened she didn't like,
she appealed to the President to get items changed. She pushed Clinton
to get a change in the bill so that members of the Control Board were
all District residents.
...
>>When Clinton first got into office, he decided not to send his
>>daughter to D.C. schools because they were academically suspect. Yet,
>>he never proposed additional educational money for D.C. And this is
>>before the Republican control of congress.
>
>He NEVER had control of the D.C. purse strings. No Chief Exective
>ever has.
Then how is it that he gets to veto the D.C. budget?
If you believe I'm lying, it would be very easy to disprove what I
wrote.
I challenge you to do it.
I *DARE* you to do it.
...
>
>>It's claimed that I look down on Blacks?
>
>How do you describe Jesse Jackson, again? I forgot.
I called Jesse a punk.
Farrakhan called Jesse a pimp.
>>I would never go to the NAACP
>>convention, and then give a speech on personal responsiblity.
>
>Neither would Jesse.
Clinton did though.
Wayne Johnson
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
wrote:
> After Martin Luther King, Jr. was assinated, Jesse Jackson appeared on
> television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
> however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
> went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
It took me about five minutes to find Andrew Young's account of what
happened. Here is the pertinent excerpt, in Andy's own words. You
can find the entire account at:
http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/jesse/interviews/young.html
*********************************************
"Then I ran up the steps and saw that he was laying in a pool of
blood. And it was obvious that he was gone. And the bullet entered
the tip of his chin and tore half of his neck off. And it was almost
like, you know, he was entitled to his rest and reward. And the
picture was after the shot rang out, all of the police were running
away from where the shot came from to us and we were trying to point
to say the shot came from over there -- go see who's over there.
"But, people reacted emotionally and that was, you know, that was it.
The ambulance wasn't long getting there. But, I mean it was clear
that he was dead. There was still a slight pulse but I doubt that he
ever heard the shot. I mean, it hit his spinal cord. And then we
began to wonder what we were going to do without Martin. And people
did strange things.
"After they removed his body, Ralph Abernathy got a jar and started
scraping up the blood and said, and crying it was Martin's precious
blood. This blood was shed for us. It was weird. But people freaked
out and did strange things. Jesse put his hands in the blood and
wiped it on the front of his shirt. I mean what do you do in a moment
like that. And people did things that were thoughtless. They did
things that reflected their own insecurities. But, everybody seemed
to blame everybody else. But that's what happens in a crisis when
your leader's gone. And it took us a while to pull back together."
********************************************
That's how the blood got on Jesse Jackson's shirt, according to Andrew
Young.
Do you question what Andrew Young has to say about it?
The interview with Young is quite revealing, and covers a lot of
ground. It's clear that Jackson was always the ambitious young
concensus builder; he was the one who brought a huge contingent of
Catholics from Chicago down to the Civil Rights marches, including
nuns in habits, which stymied the police who loved just beating down
Black folks - and had no idea how to do this to white nuns.
Jesse also got the Daley machine to sponsor fund-raisers; Daley
sponsored one with Mahalia Jackson in Chicago, which raised a huge
amount of cash when the SCLC needed it most, at a time when the
liberal establishment was opposed to Daley - even though he delivered
Chicago to Kennedy.
There has always been resentment of Jackson's smoothness and ability
to handle the media and groups with different agendas. But who says
that the guy lied and grandstanded on the day Martin was murdered?
Young saw an incredibly distraught Abernathy attempt to scrape up the
blood of a hero; Jackson wiped some blood on his shirt; these men,
caught up in one of the worst times in their lives - the murder of a
man some saw as a saint - did odd things.
In any case, whatever your source was for this "Jackson went nowhere
near the body" didn't get his information from Andrew Young OR Ralph
Abernathy. So what gives, Jerome? Where did you get this slanderous
nugget of non-information?
Anyway, that seems to answer your question.
Wayne "By the way, Andrew Young has tremendous respect for Jesse"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>The major point of disagreement is the fact that a Black person is
>being critical of Clinton and his treatment of Black people. That is
>all of what this is about.
The major point of disagreement is what bias is apparent when people
like Dick Morris, Scott Ritter, and other apologists of the Far Right
are used as the methods of criticism of the current Administration.
The major point of disagreement is the notion that Black people like
Jesse Jackson be described as spineless homosexuals, while people like
Clarence Thomas are announced to be off limits to any type of
meaningless name-calling.
That is what all of this is about. Not Clinton.
>On this newsgroup, there were plenty of people who voiced displeasure
>over welfare reform. After Clinton signed it, he said if politicians
>had issues with what he signed, and he agreed with some of the
>concerns, then they should craft bills to amend the changes Clinton
>made.
The major point of disagreement is that the Congressional Black Caucus
is opposing this law, as a unit, and is joining in criticizing the
current Administration for the passage of the bill - now over two
years old. There is no mention of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 in
the Congressional Black Caucus' positions listed in their website,
which has been used as a cite to back up this claim.
There are currently no posts on this newsgroup about the Welfare
Reform Act, except from the current poster and one other person. I
see no "group concensus" to point to in trying to get a Sense Of The
People, or to come up with the notion that most Black people see the
current Administration as one dominated by duplicitous racists.
>Freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. What a concept.
So are responsibility, courtesy, and good manners, both in public and
in electronic mail.
>He claims it's the biggest joke, but no one denies that the CBC is
>trying to get the sentencing laws changed.
I will again cite the only bill in Congress that is currently on the
legislative agenda, either in the Senate OR the House; and there is
not a single member of the CBC on this list of names.
********************************************************
S 146 IS
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
*****************************************
You will please note that not only is this bill not being sponsored by
any member of the CBC; it is not even being done in the House of
Representatives.
There is no other legislation pending on the topic of changing the
penalties for cocaine possession in the Congress of the United States.
There is also no discussion of this kind of legislation being promoted
anywhere I can find at this time, by any member of the CBC, nor is it
on their main agenda as promoted by their websites, or the websites of
the individual CBC members I checked.
So I am denying that the CBC is trying to change anything. I've done
my homework; you do yours.
>No one else can deny that
>many Black people, including many on this newsgroup, find the
>sentencing laws unfair. To state that people who are against the
>sentencing laws are for drug dealers is the same foolishness.
Keep on with this line. It is more ironic each time you type it, that
some of the most conservative AND liberal Senators on the Hill all
agree that cocaine sentencing needs to be leveled.
When Orrin Hatch and Diane Feinstein can sign on to the same bill,
there is something going on that you might wish to explain to the
group, instead of posting inaccurate and misleading cites on the CBC's
position on the issue.
Facts make more sense.
>Don't blame me. I'm not the one "dissembling" to protect my views.
Well, explain how "the CBC is trying to get the sentencing laws
changed" and there is nothing on the legislative agenda, except from
Orrin Hatch and Diane Feinstein.
Wayne "Some explanation is required" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
[Who Shot John about "Black Spokesman" snipped]
I speak for all Black people when I say, We Know A Cracker When We See
One.
And 90% of us, according to polls, don't think Clinton is an
uneducated racist, out to get us.
That is what a cracker is, Ed.
>>So far, a fairly clumsy attempt to smear a popular politician, who
>>doesn't seem to do anything to hurt Black people. What has he done to
>>harm us, Jerome?
>
>Ask Lewis Farrakhan.
Why?
>On his last appearence on "Meet The Press," Lewis
>Farrakhan called Jesse Jackson a pimp.
Why should I care? Farrakhan is not a Black Leader. He is a Muslim
Leader. I am not a Muslim. I did not go on the Million Man March. I
don't think a man who rambles on about the significance of the number
9 to three quarters of a million Black men who flew across the country
is a man whose opinion I should be listening to with a great deal of
attention.
>It was in response to being
>asked if he thought that Jesse should run for president. Farrakhan
>replied no.
Farrakhan does not believe in the American political system, Ed.
>He said that Jesse has no chance of winning, so the only
>reason would be to gather votes and hand those votes over to the
>eventual Democrat nominee, like a pimp.
Gee whiz. Is good old Louis out there trying to rock the vote? How
does he feel about Lani Guinere?
Since when am I supposed to be impressed with the political acumen of
someone who says I shouldn't be participating in the American
electoral system, anyway?
>>Where does the CBC say this, Jerome? I checked the website, remember?
>>Such inflated claims aren't there.
>>
>>You're saying that the CBC wants to reduce penalties for crack? Who
>>said this?
>
>Now, it seems like everyone one else, including a white Canadian,
>knows the CBC is against the current crack sentencing laws.
It seems the CBC itself isn't aware of this, because no members
discuss it, and the CBC itself doesn't announce it as part of their
policy.
>It would seem like a politically aware Black person would know this.
That's why I checked with Maxine Waters, Ed. She's politically aware,
wouldn't you say? Guess what? Nothing happening.
Isn't that interesting?
>But, for the benefit of those who don't know:
>
>>From an ACLU newswire report, dated 7/24/97:
Hell, this is damn near TWO YEARS OLD!!!!
>July 24, 1997: Black Lawmakers Criticize Clinton Cocaine Sentencing
>
> WASHINGTON -- Sharply rebuking the White House, the Congressional
>BlackCaucus has said that President Clinton had not gone far enough in
>recommending to Congress that the Federal sentencing disparity between
>crack and powder cocaine could be only reduced rather than eliminated,
>The New York Times reports.
[rest of ancient history snipped]
>==== End quote ====
>
>I found it doing a search using Northern Light at
>http://www.nlsearch.com, using the advanced search tag, using
>"congressional black caucus" and "crack"
Well, I found this, dated in 1999 - not 1997 - and this is what is
actually happening, not some idle position statement:
S 146 IS
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
*****************************************
This is what is actually happening, right now, with real legislative
action - not newpaper quotes.
Wayne "Check out the date - two weeks ago - not two years ago" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>
>> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
>> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
>> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
>> about the CBC?
>
>wholly unsubstantiated claim.
Wayne, may I ask why you wrote this?
Obviously, everyone else but you knows that the claim is substantiated.
Emerge, May 1996
"The Sentencing Game"
Page 53
Rep.charles Rangel, teh once powerful New York Democrat who chaired
a special House Select Committee on Narcotics during the 1980s and
voted for both mandatory minimum laws, sponsored legilsation to erase the
in equity in sentencing, the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1995.
But the Republican-controlled Congress and teh Democratic president,
both seeking to bolster their tough-on-crime images, would have no part
of his proposal.
Emerge, April 1997
"Rejuventating the Caucus"
page 24
"The caucus is pursuing a heavy agenda in the 105th Congress. High on its
priority list is the drug issue. ... the will continue to shine a light on
alleged CIA involvement int the crack cocaine trade and on disparities
between the prison sentences for crack violations and those for powder
cocaine abuse".
For another point of reference, look up HR 2031 in 1998 session of
Congress.
Again, you are wrong.
Wayne Johnson
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:45:27 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>He NEVER had control of the D.C. purse strings. No Chief Exective
>>ever has.
>
>Then how is it that he gets to veto the D.C. budget?
Because it is a separate spending bill every year, and not part of any
other bill.
It is like any other bill, Ed. The President doesn't write bills.
The President doesn't pass bills. The President can only veto bills
that are overblown, or insufficient.
I hope you understand the concept, because I'm alarmed that you have
to ask the question.
>If you believe I'm lying, it would be very easy to disprove what I
>wrote.
Ed, stop looking for insults. You know as wall as anyone that the
President does not write or pass spending bills for Washington, D.C.,
and you're busy trying to use Washington's problems to tar him with.
In doing so you're going off on very strange tangents, as if someone
in Washington (Ms. Holmes-Norton, for one) is busy dogging the
President about the D.C. situation.
The truth is, a Republican Congress, contemptuous of the Black
residents of D.C. and bolstered by the excesses of that klutz Marion
Barry, have made a mockery out of life in that city. If you have it
in for somebody, I'd prefer to hear why the GOP isn't first on the
list of folks who seem to be jamming D.C. all the time.
You ask about veto power. Tell us, did Clinton veto any spending bill
for D.C. because it allocated too much money? Ever?
>I challenge you to do it.
To prove you're lying? Why should I? There are many very intelligent
people in this group who can come to their own conclusions about your
honesty without an ounce of input from me.
>I *DARE* you to do it.
Why are you so desperate for me to prove you're being dishonest? I
thought this was a discussion group.
This sort of nonsense is tiresome. In case you flunked Government 1
in high school, it is Congress who controls the purse strings of the
nation. The President can approve, or disapprove, and his decision
can be overridden by 2/3 of the Congress in a veto override.
He can't have a "line item veto". He can't add money to items he
likes a lot. He can't spend a dime without Congressional approval, or
use any funds not earmarked for things Congress has agreed to.
All he can do is send the bill back to be reworked, and Congress can
ignore his wishes and pass the bill anyway.
Therefore, the President DOES NOT CONTROL FUNDING. Certainly not with
a veto.
Let's leave it up to someone else to accept dares, or call you a liar,
OK? I'll just read you a junior high school government textbook
whenever you forget how this country is designed.
Wayne "I TEACH government classes, Ed; please don't dare me on
something I know this well" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
[Who Shot John about "Black Spokesman" snipped]
I speak for all Black people when I say, We Know A Cracker When We See
One.
And 90% of us, according to polls, don't think Clinton is an
uneducated racist, out to get us.
That is what a cracker is, Ed.
>>So far, a fairly clumsy attempt to smear a popular politician, who
>>doesn't seem to do anything to hurt Black people. What has he done to
>>harm us, Jerome?
>
>Ask Lewis Farrakhan.
Why?
>On his last appearence on "Meet The Press," Lewis
>Farrakhan called Jesse Jackson a pimp.
Why should I care? Farrakhan is not a Black Leader. He is a Muslim
Leader. I am not a Muslim. I did not go on the Million Man March. I
don't think a man who rambles on about the significance of the number
9 to three quarters of a million Black men who flew across the country
is a man whose opinion I should be listening to with a great deal of
attention.
>It was in response to being
>asked if he thought that Jesse should run for president. Farrakhan
>replied no.
Farrakhan does not believe in the American political system, Ed.
>He said that Jesse has no chance of winning, so the only
>reason would be to gather votes and hand those votes over to the
>eventual Democrat nominee, like a pimp.
Gee whiz. Is good old Louis out there trying to rock the vote? How
does he feel about Lani Guinere?
Since when am I supposed to be impressed with the political acumen of
someone who says I shouldn't be participating in the American
electoral system, anyway?
>>Where does the CBC say this, Jerome? I checked the website, remember?
>>Such inflated claims aren't there.
>>
>>You're saying that the CBC wants to reduce penalties for crack? Who
>>said this?
>
Wayne Johnson
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
wrote:
Wayne Johnson
Well, Alice, you should like this a lot.
S 146 IS
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
*************************************
It appears that a number of people agree with us that all cocaine laws
should be strengthened, and legislative action is impending.
How you you like that?
Wayne "Now EVERYBODY gets to go down hard for selling our kids ANY
FORM of that crap" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:51:19 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>[Who Shot John about "Black Spokesman" snipped]
>
>I speak for all Black people when I say, We Know A Cracker When We See
>One.
You claim you aren't a Black spokesman.
>And 90% of us, according to polls, don't think Clinton is an
>uneducated racist, out to get us.
>
>That is what a cracker is, Ed.
I consider a cracker to be a Southern racist. And I consider Clinton
to be just that.
>>>So far, a fairly clumsy attempt to smear a popular politician, who
>>>doesn't seem to do anything to hurt Black people. What has he done to
>>>harm us, Jerome?
>>
>>Ask Lewis Farrakhan.
>
>Why?
>
>>On his last appearence on "Meet The Press," Lewis
>>Farrakhan called Jesse Jackson a pimp.
>
>Why should I care? Farrakhan is not a Black Leader.
Some Black people don't consider Jesse to be a Black leader either.
...
>
>>It was in response to being
>>asked if he thought that Jesse should run for president. Farrakhan
>>replied no.
>
>Farrakhan does not believe in the American political system, Ed.
Well, the NOI is building a political wing. Things change.
>>He said that Jesse has no chance of winning, so the only
>>reason would be to gather votes and hand those votes over to the
>>eventual Democrat nominee, like a pimp.
>
>Gee whiz. Is good old Louis out there trying to rock the vote? How
>does he feel about Lani Guinere?
At the MMM, he sure *DID* try to rock the vote.
...
>
>>It would seem like a politically aware Black person would know this.
>
>That's why I checked with Maxine Waters, Ed. She's politically aware,
>wouldn't you say? Guess what? Nothing happening.
>
>Isn't that interesting?
I don't believe you.
>>But, for the benefit of those who don't know:
>>
>>>From an ACLU newswire report, dated 7/24/97:
>
>Hell, this is damn near TWO YEARS OLD!!!!
Yep.
You wanted proof, there it was.
And since they are still talking about it...
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>In article <36bdbf9d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> And while we are at it, you wrote that either a person is against
>>> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
>>> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
>>> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
>>> about the CBC?
>>
>>The CBC is not on record anywhere that I can find, that says they want
>>to reduce the penalties for crack to the level of powder. This is a
>>wholly unsubstantiated claim.
>
>Wayne, may I ask why you wrote this?
>Obviously, everyone else but you knows that the claim is substantiated.
>
>Emerge, May 1996
>"The Sentencing Game"
>Page 53
>
>Rep.charles Rangel, teh once powerful New York Democrat who chaired
>a special House Select Committee on Narcotics during the 1980s and
>voted for both mandatory minimum laws, sponsored legilsation to erase the
>in equity in sentencing, the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1995.
Jerome...can you read?
I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
inequity in sentencing..."
It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
Are you trying to rewrite the sentence, or refute your own cite, or
what?
>But the Republican-controlled Congress and teh Democratic president,
>both seeking to bolster their tough-on-crime images, would have no part
>of his proposal.
This is not fact, Jerome; it's an editorial.
>Emerge, April 1997
>"Rejuventating the Caucus"
>page 24
>
>"The caucus is pursuing a heavy agenda in the 105th Congress. High on its
>priority list is the drug issue. ... the will continue to shine a light on
>alleged CIA involvement int the crack cocaine trade and on disparities
>between the prison sentences for crack violations and those for powder
>cocaine abuse".
"Disparities" does not compute with, "Lower the sentencing on crack to
the level of powder."
I also note with interest that these articles are two to three years
old. Can you quote something fresher on this issue, as I did with the
current "sentence-leveling" proposal before the Senate?
>For another point of reference, look up HR 2031 in 1998 session of
>Congress.
H.R. 2031 : Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 2031 : Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Fattah,
Mr. Torres, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Kilpatrick.
>Again, you are wrong.
Wayne Johnson
>I challenge you to do it.
>I *DARE* you to do it.
I did it.
Now what?
Wayne "Just curious" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:34:23 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>The major point of disagreement is the fact that a Black person is
>>being critical of Clinton and his treatment of Black people. That is
>>all of what this is about.
>
>The major point of disagreement is what bias is apparent when people
>like Dick Morris, Scott Ritter, and other apologists of the Far Right
>are used as the methods of criticism of the current Administration.
Dick Morris worked for the Far Right at one time.
The *ONLY* two groups criticizing Ritter is the White House and Iraq.
Ritter's integerity was never an issue until he resigned because he
believed his duties were being undercut by the White House. He
resigned on principle. Just like Marian Wright-Eldeman's husband
resigned on principle when Clinton signed the welfare reform bill.
>The major point of disagreement is the notion that Black people like
>Jesse Jackson be described as spineless homosexuals, while people like
>Clarence Thomas are announced to be off limits to any type of
>meaningless name-calling.
I called Jesse Jackson a punk, not a spineless homosexual.
Jackson is no danger to the Black community while Thomas is. No matter
how much you huff and puff and whine, Ray Wood's comments on Thomas'
speech and Thomas said to kids supports what I said.
>That is what all of this is about. Not Clinton.
Bullshit.
Othewise you wouldn't have pulled the "How Black are you" test.
>>On this newsgroup, there were plenty of people who voiced displeasure
>>over welfare reform. After Clinton signed it, he said if politicians
>>had issues with what he signed, and he agreed with some of the
>>concerns, then they should craft bills to amend the changes Clinton
>>made.
>
>The major point of disagreement is that the Congressional Black Caucus
>is opposing this law, as a unit, and is joining in criticizing the
>current Administration for the passage of the bill - now over two
>years old.
Ummm....
Does the sentencing disparity still exist?
Yes.
Do they still talk about changing it?
Yes.
>There is no mention of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 in
>the Congressional Black Caucus' positions listed in their website,
>which has been used as a cite to back up this claim.
Post where I said information concering CBC's positions were there. I
challenge you to do it.
>>Freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. What a concept.
>
>So are responsibility, courtesy, and good manners, both in public and
>in electronic mail.
Then don't "dissemble".
>>He claims it's the biggest joke, but no one denies that the CBC is
>>trying to get the sentencing laws changed.
>
>I will again cite the only bill in Congress that is currently on the
>legislative agenda, either in the Senate OR the House; and there is
>not a single member of the CBC on this list of names.
Twist and turn Wayne.
I've posted my backup.
...
>So I am denying that the CBC is trying to change anything. I've done
>my homework; you do yours.
I did and burned you.
Even a white Canadian knew the info I did.
>>No one else can deny that
>>many Black people, including many on this newsgroup, find the
>>sentencing laws unfair. To state that people who are against the
>>sentencing laws are for drug dealers is the same foolishness.
>
>Keep on with this line. It is more ironic each time you type it, that
>some of the most conservative AND liberal Senators on the Hill all
>agree that cocaine sentencing needs to be leveled.
And up until this point, you screamed it didn't. So, yes let's keep on
this line. And up until this point, you accused anyone wanting to
lower the crack sentencing as being against the Black community. So,
yes, let's keep on this line.
Wayne Johnson
>You claim you aren't a Black spokesman.
I don't think it's worth anyone's time to start wandering down this
road.
>I consider a cracker to be a Southern racist. And I consider Clinton
>to be just that.
Although that "*FOINE*" Cheryl Mills is too dumb to figure it out, eh?
You like her looks, but don't respect her intelligence?
Okay, Ed.
>Some Black people don't consider Jesse to be a Black leader either.
Me included. He holds no elected position, and even if he did, he
would represent only the constituents that elected him.
Therefore, there are no Black "leaders" whose leadership is of all
Black people in America.
However, Jesse does possess great moral authority and depth. This is
why when he shows up - such as at Texaco, or Jasper, TX - people are
glad to see him. It focuses attention on a problem, and Jesse is a
moderating force with political clout and guaranteed media attention.
You seem hell-bent on scotching that by claiming that he is a
spineless homosexual. I don't really care what your reasons are.
They don't match the real world.
>Well, the NOI is building a political wing. Things change.
Are you supporting it?
>At the MMM, he sure *DID* try to rock the vote.
What happened in the real world, Ed?
[on me noticing that Maxine Waters has nothing on her website about
cocaine laws, period]
>I don't believe you.
I don't care.
The information on her website, and every bill that has been presented
before Congress, is easily available to you and everyone else on this
newsgroup.
You don't have to believe anything I say. You can go look it up for
yourself.
Unlike some people in this group, I don't need to make claims that
aren't borne out by things that I cite as authority. Go to Waters'
website and find out how she feels about sentencing.
Then tell me what you believe.
>>Hell, this is damn near TWO YEARS OLD!!!!
>
>Yep.
>You wanted proof, there it was.
That's not proof. That's a news article, which didn't name names
(like the bogus list you posted), didn't describe any bills being
presented to take care of the problem....
...and most important, didn't support your contention that the CBC is
pissed off at Clinton for the state of the crack laws.
There was no proof, and we (and everyone else) knows it.
>And since they are still talking about it...
No, they're not. The Senate is talking about it; the bill has been
reposted by me about four times in this thread alone.
The sentences for powder are going to match those of crack. They are
NOT going to lower crack penalties. Case closed.
Wayne "You have a funny idea of what proof is" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
Jerome...can you read?
You could have printed this yourself, if you knew how to look it up.
************************************
By Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Towns, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Clay, Ms. Carson, Mr. Dixon, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Payne, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Christian-Green, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Cummings):
H.R. 2031 . A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act and the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to eliminate certain
mandatory minimum penalties relating to crack cocaine offenses; to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
H.R. 2031 : Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 2031 : Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Fattah,
Mr. Torres, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Kilpatrick.
*******************************
This is not the text of a law, Jerome; it is something totally
different. It does not seek to "lower the penalties for crack to
those of powder" and says nothing of the kind within the text of the
precis above (which is all that is at the Congressional search
engine); it seeks to eliminate any mandatory sentencing guidelines at
all, and is NOT precise about what those should be.
Most interesting is the fact that it merely refers the bill to two
committees, and is never heard from again.
I'm glad that you asked me to cite this (though why you didn't do it
yourself is a mystery). You act as if these Congressmen (who you
adamantly opposed as a staunch Republican at the time this proposal
was tossed out) were just seething mad at the President about the 1996
crack law.
It doesn't look like the issue had a whole lot of fire behind it, as
nothing ever came of this bill.
Worse, not all of the names attached to this bill were on the
fantastic list of every CBC member posted earlier in this group, as
all being for it. Isn't THAT an interesting fact.
Finally, I never could find a copy of the actual text of the bill. If
you want to prove me wrong, could you please provide us with a copy of
the actual text, and highlight the section where it says that crack
sentencing should be at the level of powder?
I can wait.
>Again, you are wrong.
Prove it with something other than bluster. smoke, and mirrors.
Wayne "Whenever you can" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> I can't see how this works at all. We're talking about people, not a
> "right on" scoreboard. Saying that Clinton should have made a
> stand-up fight out of the Guinere nomination (which was obviously
> doomed to failure, as her odder notions couldn't even pick up moderate
> support) is not looking at any political realities; it's a litmus
> test.
(sigh).
Her notions were odd to you. There's still the fact that they were close
friends for a long time, so it would surprising if he weren't slightly
familiar with her views. So there are two options: (1) you're right, and
she was doomed to failure, which leads one to question why he nominated
her to begin with, and (2) her views weren't that odd, at least to him,
but he didn't have the fortitude to adequately follow up, and instead let
the other side define her views (i.e., the bizarre label of "Quota
Queen"). I'm betting on (2), but I don't see how (1) is any better, or how
there are other options.
> to embarrass the man. Claiming that unless a vigorous defense of a
> flawed candidate is mounted is a "check in the negative column" is
> simply a new means of mounting an attack on the only non-Far Right
> controlled arm of the present government of the United States.
But I'm not mounting an attack on it, I'm criticising it. (In a democracy,
"attack" and "criticise" are very distinct things. And I'm certainly not
criticising it because it's non-Far Right, but because it's not non-Far
Right enough.
I'll also note that we have now reached the point where a brilliant and
innovative African American woman is "flawed" because things didn't go
well. Well, if she was flawed, and a close personal friend of his, why did
he nominate herto begin with? To what end?
> of criticism, or the level of invective, leveled toward even the most
> obvious example of Far Right lunacy on the Supreme Court - namely,
> Clarence Thomas - on this newsgroup; I see it leveled at the moderate
> White House.
But this says nothing about our views comparing the Far Right with
Clinton.
We don't spend a lot of time on the newsgroup decrying child molestors, or
the former Apartheid system in South Africa, or David Duke, or the KKK
Grand Dragon. This isn't because we support any of those things, but
because it's a given that we're going to pretty much be in agreement about
them. It's not common for this newsgroup to spend a lot of time on things
that most of us are in agreement on. This doesn't mean by our silence
about the things we're in agreement on that you can infer we have certain
views about them.
I'll note that the consensus on Thomas, for instance, is so strong that
the only real debate we've had is about the most effective way to
criticise him. I don't see how one can see this discussion as higher
levels of support for Thomas than for Clinton.
> When some of the worst invective that passes the moderators is used
> against Jesse Jackson, but Clarence Thomas is supposed to be immune
> from such name-calling, I don't think there is much question as to
> where tender sympathies reside, in a political sense.
The person who made the invective acknowledged that it was an
imperfection, and pointed that Jackson is much less of a threat to Black
people than is Thomas, so criticisms of him don't have to be as
well-thought-out or cogent. It was in the spirit of using one's best
weapons on the real enemy.
> to read and understand the posts in this group; and I've pointed out
> that some of the views in here sound exactly like excerpts from the
> John Birch Society's official magazine, which I printed in whole, so
> what's the problem with my correlations?
I could find JBS exerpts that sound like your views on drug sentencing or
policing. That proves nothing about your relationship to the Far Right
other than the fact that you agree with them (probably for different
reasons) on a specific issue.
> You mean, they sell crack and don't get the same sentences? Well,
> that's what I'm talking about; crack is not a Black drug. It's a
> deadly drug. Everyone should get busted straight down to the big
> house.
It's not clear that its a more deadly drug than cocaine, merely that for a
variety of reasons more Black people are arrested for it than are White
people proportionally.
The "unfair" comment I made was directed at the law, not your comment,
BTW.
In any case, the fact that someone disagrees with you about this issue,
I hope, doesn't make them an enemy of Black interests. I'll write
generally. Hope that it's clear.
> Tell all of us how to solve it.
Well, you already know you don't like my solution. So we'll just agree to
disagree. But don't you dare insinuate that because we disagree about how
to solve the problem of drugs and overcrowded prisons that my goal is to
have all Black people dying on crack. We agree on the goal. Everyone in
this discussion agrees on the goal. So for you to start insinuating that
those who disagree with you about the methodology or the fairness of the
present system are lobbying to addict more Black people on deadly drugs is
just silly. I understand that it's rhetorical, because I know you don't
really believe anyone here wants this, but it's not rhetoric that works,
or addresses issues.
> I subscribe to a moderated group. I was never subjected to that, even
> by the hardcore racists in the UNmoderated group.
Aside: That's interesting. I was repeatedly subject to threats to kick my
n*****-loving ass, and even got phone calls. (shrug).
For what it's worth I don't condone email harassment, and in case anyone
has the idea that I've been doing this to Wayne, I haven't.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 842-1231 x4286
"Rain is no respecter of persons
the snow doesn't give a soft white
damn Whom it touches"
-e.e. cummings
Rich Thompson
> Jerome...can you read?
>
> I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
> inequity in sentencing..."
>
> It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
The point is that when the crack sentencing laws were introduced, the CBC
was against it.
> This is not fact, Jerome; it's an editorial.
The point remains that neither the GOP congress nor the president got
behind the bill
> I also note with interest that these articles are two to three years
> old. Can you quote something fresher on this issue, as I did with the
> current "sentence-leveling" proposal before the Senate?
why? the claim was about reactions to the bill when it was passed.
Wayne Johnson
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:02:08 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>I can't figure out if you're upset with Clinton, "Black politicians"
>>so far unnamed,
>
>Well, I named them.
You simply posted a list of names.
There was no connection between those names and any information on the
URL you cited.
>Now you claim I'm being dishonest for giving the names?
Why is everything about Ed?
There was no connection, at all. You go out and get a list of names,
and then make a series of unsupported claims about the names, using as
"evidence" the address of the official Congressional Black Caucus
website.
Whether or not you were being dishonest is a judgement every reader
can make for himself. For my part, I learned a lesson; it would be
wise to check any source you provide, to see if the information you
cite is actually there.
Wayne "Ask somebody else these questions, and see what they have to
say about it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Post where I said information concering CBC's positions were there. I
>challenge you to do it.
You asked for it.
******************************************
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:13:09 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>>>From http://www.cbcfonline.org/people/members.html
>>
>>The Honorable Sanford D. Bishop
>> Georgia, 2nd District
>> The Honorable Carol Moseley Braun
>> Illinois
>> The Honorable Corrine Brown
>> The Honorable Julia Carson
>> The Honorable William Clay
>> The Honorable Eva Clayton
>> The Honorable James Clyburn
>> The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
>> The Honorable Elijah Cummings
>> The Honorable Danny Davis
>> The Honorable Barbara Lee
>> The Honorable Julian C. Dixon
>> The Honorable Chaka Fattah
>> The Honorable Harold Ford, Jr.
>> The Honorable Donna Christian-Green
>> The Honorable Alcee Hastings
>> The Honorable Earl Hilliard
>> The Honorable Jesse Jackson, Jr.
>> The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee
>> The Honorable William J. Jefferson
>> The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson
>> The Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
>> The Honorable John Lewis
>> The Honorable Cynthia McKinney
>> The Honorable Carrie P. Meek
>> The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks
>> The Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald
>> The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
>> The Honorable Major Owens
>> The Honorable Donald M. Payne
>> The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
>> The Honorable Bobby Rush
>> The Honorable Robert C. Scott
>> The Honorable Louis Stokes
>> The Honorable Bennie Thompson
>> The Honorable Edolphus Towns
>> The Honorable Maxine Waters
>> The Honorable Melvin Watt
>> The Honorable Albert Wynn
>>
>>
>>There are the names. Now what are you going to do?
>>They say they represent the interests of Blacks. Yet, you have spoken
>>against the things that they stood for. They want the crack sentencing
>>reduced. They were against the welfare reform bill. But in your mind,
>>it's me not being clear.
************************************
Now, let's disassemble this pile of junk.
You said:
>>There are the names. Now what are you going to do?
>>They say they represent the interests of Blacks. Yet, you have spoken
>>against the things that they stood for. They want the crack sentencing
>>reduced.
You claim "They want the crack sentencing reduced." You do NOT say
where this information comes from; but you sure do put this nugget
under the URL, and the list of names, trying to hand off an impression
that this is so, and that your information is legitimate for that
reason.
You don't have the stones to admit this is all your own idea. No one
at the CBC thinks that penalties for crack should be lowered; they
think that penalties for all cocaine variants should be the same,
which is a hell of a lot different.
If this information was not substantiated at the listed URL, and can't
therefore be attached to the list of names you found there, why can't
you be honest enough to admit it?
In fact, why list the URL in the first place? That was blatantly
misleading, and if you try and claim that it wasn't, just wait until I
get hold of THAT "challenge".
Next:
>>They were against the welfare reform bill. But in your mind,
>>it's me not being clear.
Once again, you make this claim beneath the names of all of these
people, but you make no attempt to tell us where you get this
information, or why it should be attached to every name on the list.
However, by listing the URL, and listing the names, you give the
impression that the information is easily available there, and you are
merely repeating information you've found.
There is no information at that site on that issue. None. Further,
you don't bother saying so; you kept quiet about the fact that you
make unsubstantiated claims, Ed.
Ed. Listen up, publicly. I've tried hard to avoid getting too
vicious with this stuff, as this is a moderated group, and everyone
has a right to speak out on issues any way they like.
But this kind of misleading silliness has gone too far. You make
absolutely baseless statements, follow them with a fog of URL's that
don't apply to your statements at all, and then when pressed, come off
with lines like the one which begin this post.
WE ARE NOT DUMB. People in here are just too savvy for this. We can
see it in the media; we can see it in this group, too. You posted the
names of the CBC, made claims about their positions, and cited the
website where you got the names.
Then you want us to think that you weren't making a connection between
all three. I can't believe the contempt in which you hold the people
who actually read your posts.
For God's sake, Ed. You call pointing out this weak stuff a
challenge?
Wayne "No sarcastic comments necessary in this sig" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>> Jerome...can you read?
>>
>> I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
>> inequity in sentencing..."
>>
>> It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
>
>The point is that when the crack sentencing laws were introduced, the CBC
>was against it.
That is not the point at all.
The point was to try to cast the CBC as being, en masse, angry for
some reason at the President for the passage of this bill back in
1996.
The bill was the CREATIION of the CBC. They were NOT against it; they
WROTE the thing, Rich.
>> This is not fact, Jerome; it's an editorial.
>
>The point remains that neither the GOP congress nor the president got
>behind the bill
You first say the CBC didn't like it. Now you say the GOP and the
President didn't like it. It seems like you're trying to inject
yourself into an argument you either know nothing about, or are simply
taking sides in an argument while not armed with any facts.
>> I also note with interest that these articles are two to three years
>> old. Can you quote something fresher on this issue, as I did with the
>> current "sentence-leveling" proposal before the Senate?
>
>why? the claim was about reactions to the bill when it was passed.
No, it was not, and you've conveniently removed any references made by
Jerome as to the actual claims he's made.
Rich, either stick to the issues or avoid them entirely. You aren't
making much sense sitting on the sidelines sniping, because you aren't
discussing any relevant issues, here.
Jerome quoted the following (spelling corrected):
"Rep. Charles Rangel, the once powerful New York Democrat who chaired
a special House Select Committee on Narcotics during the 1980s and
voted for both mandatory minimum laws, sponsored legislation to erase
the inequity in sentencing, the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act
of 1995."
It says, "...to erase the inequity in sentencing..."
In the very same post, Jerome says:
>>"Since the CBC still wants to reduce
>> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
>> about the CBC?
It's in the very same post, Rich. This wasn't a claim about
"reactions to the bill", and I'm not "Misstating" or
"mischaracterizing" anyone's words. In fact, I'm sticking exactly to
what Jerome said, instead of trying to read in favorable and excusing
messages between the lines, like you want me to.
NO ONE WANTED LOWER PENALTIES FOR CRACK.
Period.
Wayne "When Jerome starts writing in Japanese, I'll need an
interpreter" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Michael K. Lerch
In article <36c06ab5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What is actually going on here?
>
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>
>> After Martin Luther King, Jr. was assinated, Jesse Jackson appeared on
>> television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
>> however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
>> went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
>
>It took me about five minutes to find Andrew Young's account of what
>happened. Here is the pertinent excerpt, in Andy's own words.
>
>*********************************************
>"After they removed his body, Ralph Abernathy got a jar and started
>scraping up the blood and said, and crying it was Martin's precious
>blood. This blood was shed for us. It was weird. But people freaked
>out and did strange things. Jesse put his hands in the blood and
>wiped it on the front of his shirt. [...]
>********************************************
>
>That's how the blood got on Jesse Jackson's shirt, according to Andrew
>Young.
Note that according the same account, this occurred "after they removed
his body," so it's possible for Jerome's account to be correct also.
>In any case, whatever your source was for this "Jackson went nowhere
>near the body" didn't get his information from Andrew Young OR Ralph
>Abernathy. So what gives, Jerome? Where did you get this slanderous
>nugget of non-information?
>
>Anyway, that seems to answer your question.
Not necessarily, based only on the Young account.
--
Mike Lerch
Riverside, CA
DarkStar
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:22:35 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:45:27 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>He NEVER had control of the D.C. purse strings. No Chief Exective
>>>ever has.
>>
>>Then how is it that he gets to veto the D.C. budget?
>
>Because it is a separate spending bill every year, and not part of any
>other bill.
Actually, this isn't true. It's only separate when Congress sends it
up as separate.
>It is like any other bill, Ed. The President doesn't write bills.
>The President doesn't pass bills. The President can only veto bills
>that are overblown, or insufficient.
>I hope you understand the concept, because I'm alarmed that you have
>to ask the question.
Whatever.
Reagan said he wanted the end to the gov't body that published a
"state of Black America" report every year. So, he proposed that it be
cut. There was a lot of ruckus over it so he backed down. But, he put
that group into another group whose funding was zeroed out. *Poof* End
of the group.
I already mentioned AmeriCorps.
Now tell us how ideas from the President, found it's way into bills.
And after you do, explain to everyone exactly how the President can't
affect legislation written.
And then explain how the same process, the process that you claim
doesn't exist, works for and against D.C.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:22:35 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:45:27 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>He NEVER had control of the D.C. purse strings. No Chief Exective
>>>ever has.
>>
>>Then how is it that he gets to veto the D.C. budget?
>
>Because it is a separate spending bill every year, and not part of any
>other bill.
>It is like any other bill, Ed. The President doesn't write bills.
>The President doesn't pass bills. The President can only veto bills
>that are overblown, or insufficient.
>I hope you understand the concept, because I'm alarmed that you have
>to ask the question.
Tell me how the President can propose legislation, how the legislation
becomes bills, and how it goes through the process.
Now explain how come the same can't happen with D.C. targeted bills.
....
>You ask about veto power. Tell us, did Clinton veto any spending bill
>for D.C. because it allocated too much money? Ever?
>
>>I challenge you to do it.
>
>To prove you're lying? Why should I? There are many very intelligent
>people in this group who can come to their own conclusions about your
>honesty without an ounce of input from me.
>
>>I *DARE* you to do it.
>
>Why are you so desperate for me to prove you're being dishonest? I
>thought this was a discussion group.
It's time you put up.
...
>
>Therefore, the President DOES NOT CONTROL FUNDING. Certainly not with
>a veto.
Then how did he hold up D.C. funding?
>Let's leave it up to someone else to accept dares, or call you a liar,
>OK? I'll just read you a junior high school government textbook
>whenever you forget how this country is designed.
Then how did he hold up D.C. funding?
He proposed AmeriCore. How did that get signed into bills?
Come on Wayne. You know the process.
You claim you teach government classes? Well tell us how a proposal
for AmeriCore, by the President, became law.
Come on Wayne. Tell us *EXACTLY* how that bill came to be and how it
was signed.
Then tell us how Clinton's use of veto has no effect on proposed
legislation.
DarkStar
>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:12:51 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>You claim you aren't a Black spokesman.
>
>I don't think it's worth anyone's time to start wandering down this
>road.
You made a statement and I provided your post.
No, I guess it's not ....
>>I consider a cracker to be a Southern racist. And I consider Clinton
>>to be just that.
>
>Although that "*FOINE*" Cheryl Mills is too dumb to figure it out, eh?
[ This space reserved for Wayne to show where I question Ms. Mills
intellegence ]
...
>>Some Black people don't consider Jesse to be a Black leader either.
>
>Me included.
....
>However, Jesse does possess great moral authority and depth.
And when he is held to this standard, and fails, and I believe it's
important to point out, I'll do it and you can't stop me from doing
it.
>This is
>why when he shows up - such as at Texaco, or Jasper, TX - people are
>glad to see him. It focuses attention on a problem, and Jesse is a
>moderating force with political clout and guaranteed media attention.
>
>You seem hell-bent on scotching that by claiming that he is a
>spineless homosexual. I don't really care what your reasons are.
>They don't match the real world.
Not "Wayne's World" but they do match the real world. Especially when
Black media, such as BET's "Lead Story" makes similar comments. And
when Jackson has appeared on the show, and he's been the topic of the
show, he has acknowledged the criticism leveled against him by the
panel members.
Jesse was WRONG to back down from his stance against Ebonics.
Jesse was CORRECT to challenge Democrats and their tendency to take
the Black vote for granted. Jesse was CORRECT to say that Blacks
should hold Democrats accountable. Jesse was WRONG to then not
challenge Clinton, on principal! Jesse acted like a PUNK.
>>Well, the NOI is building a political wing. Things change.
>
>Are you supporting it?
>
>>At the MMM, he sure *DID* try to rock the vote.
>
>What happened in the real world, Ed?
The next voting cycle, more Black men voted but no one knows if it was
the cause of the MMM.
>[on me noticing that Maxine Waters has nothing on her website about
>cocaine laws, period]
>
>>I don't believe you.
>
>I don't care.
ACLU NewsWire 7/24/97
=====
July 24, 1997: Black Lawmakers Criticize Clinton Cocaine Sentencing
WASHINGTON -- Sharply rebuking the White House, the Congressional
Black Caucus
has said that President Clinton had not gone far enough in
recommending to
Congress that the Federal sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine
could be only reduced rather than eliminated, The New York Times
reports.
At a Capitol Hill news conference, members of the caucus said the
harsher
treatment of defendants convicted of possessing small amounts of
crack had
resulted in long prison sentences for disproportionate numbers of
blacks.
"Any sentencing scheme that treats crack use and trafficking more
harshly than
powder use and trafficking is not addressing reality," said. Rep.
Maxine
Waters, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
"If we
eliminate the sentencing disparities, we eliminate the reality of
selective
prosecution and racial injustice."
=====
>
>>>Hell, this is damn near TWO YEARS OLD!!!!
>>
>>Yep.
>>You wanted proof, there it was.
>
>That's not proof. That's a news article, which didn't name names
>(like the bogus list you posted), didn't describe any bills being
>presented to take care of the problem....
>
>...and most important, didn't support your contention that the CBC is
>pissed off at Clinton for the state of the crack laws.
>
>There was no proof, and we (and everyone else) knows it.
You may not know it....
>>And since they are still talking about it...
>
>No, they're not. The Senate is talking about it; the bill has been
>reposted by me about four times in this thread alone.
That's not true.
Artclemons
In article <36c12da6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) writes:
>Jerome...can you read?
>
>I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
>inequity in sentencing..."
>
>It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
>
>Are you trying to rewrite the sentence, or refute your own cite, or
>what?
Uh Wayne, Jerome is correct, Rangel has publicly stated that he wants the
penalties for crack posession made equal to those for cocaine posession,
that is what removing the inequity would imply. It should also be noted that
there is absolutely no indication that harsh sentences for drugs reduce
either drug sales or drug usage. Of course, the fact that many of the folks
in prison for long stretches had fewer doses of crack than a dealer who gets
probation for powder cocaine should say that something is definitely wrong.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
>Dick Morris worked for the Far Right at one time.
Dick Morris works for the Far Right as we speak. He's employed by
Rupert Murdoch, and was making lunatic Far Right assertations as
recently as Tuesday evening with new allegations of secret-agent
girlfriend squashing by the White House "secret operatives".
The man is a nut case.
>The *ONLY* two groups criticizing Ritter is the White House and Iraq.
No one else is paying him any attention, now that the bombing campaign
is over, and there is a low-level conflict going on in Iraq. In fact,
Iraq only paid attention to him long enough to cast a shadow over
UNSCOM, with their allegations that he and the rest of the unit were
all espionage agents.
At this point, Ritter has been exposed as a guy who lost his temper
and his patience with Iraq, and didn't have enough sense to shut up
and soldier when he came home. He had an obviously overinflated view
of his position; it wasn't up to him to try and goad the United States
into war.
And when he was called on his claims, the GOP (ever ready to make
fools of themselves) joined in to the shouting match, demanding to
know why we weren't just bombing the tar out of Saddam. Of course,
once we actually did it, the GOP was walking around wondering why we
were bombing all those innocent people.
Nah, no one is paying any attention to Ritter any more. He was a joke
then, is a joke now, and I marvel that anyone thinks that his travails
are any reason to criticize the current Administration.
>Ritter's integerity was never an issue until he resigned because he
>believed his duties were being undercut by the White House. He
>resigned on principle. Just like Marian Wright-Eldeman's husband
>resigned on principle when Clinton signed the welfare reform bill.
Let's stay on Ritter, since you insist, as I hate to go off on
tangents the way you love to do.
Whether or not he "believed his duties were being undercut by the
White House" have nothing to do with whether or not he was right. The
subsequent political pissing match saw Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, and
the rest of the arch-conservative GOP leadership take up Ritter as a
"cause celebre" to use as a political weapon in American politics.
This kind of action I find wholly disgusting. American military power
is such a potent thing, that any excuse not to use it should be used.
We tried mightily not to go to military action against Iraq; and we
had a well-established set of guidelines to use to determine when we
would attack Iraq.
Ritter was frustrated in Iraq, since he had to deal with the mockery
of the process that the Iraqis made out of the inspection program.
Being on the ground over there, he wanted to just walk in and inspect,
and if he was stopped, he wanted an F-18 to blow something up as a
result.
While I understand his attitude, the real world doesn't allow us to
play such games. Ritter was not God. He didn't seem to understand
the fact that all of the Iraqi refusals were going to be recorded, and
ultimately used to attack them - but not on Ritter's timetable of
frustration.
Then, he began mouthing off, criticizing his own government in the
middle of delicate negotiations with our allies over doing exactly
what he wanted. That's the irony of it; the Clinton Administration
was already planning military action, but could not be seen as being
pushed into it by an UNSCOM inspector. This would be dangerous for
the men still on the ground in Iraq, still inspecting, and would drive
away the Middle Eastern allies who were leery of being seen as UNSCOM
inspection supporters.
Of course, none of this matters to the Far Right, who want to make
everything a personality issue. So we keep hearing about The Honor Of
Scott Ritter, as if this guy was denied his chance to have a duel on
Pennsylvania Avenue or something. The man is a loudmouth with bad
judgement, used by the GOP to make political hay at a time when quiet
diplomacy was absolutely necessary, and is just another indicator of
how stupid the Far Right can get.
>I called Jesse Jackson a punk, not a spineless homosexual.
A punk IS a spineless homosexual.
>Jackson is no danger to the Black community while Thomas is.
Is that why you're so respectful of Thomas? No one should call him a
name, because he IS a danger?
And we should call Jackson names, because he ISN"T a danger?
You really don't make a lot of sense with this line of reasoning.
In any case, what's the point of calling either man childish names?
>>That is what all of this is about. Not Clinton.
>
>Bullshit.
>Othewise you wouldn't have pulled the "How Black are you" test.
Ed, can you keep this in the realm of ideas, or is everything going to
be "I DARE you" and "bullshit" and all of this kind of petty stuff?
I never gave you any Blackness test, and have always found such
exercises to be a waste of time. I did note that it seemed strange
that you fell straight into the arms of the Far Right when you used
the following "litmus test" issues:
A. Scott Ritter was dissed by the White House
B. Dick Morris is On Target with his Secret Agent silliness
C. We all need to be nice to Clarence Thomas
D. Henry Hyde must have been outed by the White House
E. Larry Flynt was using FBI files to bust Livingston
F. There were no chemical weapons in Sudan
G. Jesse Jackson is a spineless homosexual
H. No facts are needed to back up allegations; if you need facts,
you're one of the enemy
All of that stuff is straight out of the Far Right playbook, and has
nothing to do with being Black. After all, Ken Hamblin, Alan Keyes,
Armstrong Williams, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, and Larry Elder
are all Black, and they buy into it.
I also note that it was you who brought up the odd statistic that it
was the Reagan Administration that had the highest number of Black
participants to that date; when pressed to mention some names, you
mentioned three of the names mentioned above. All are
arch-conservative Far Right apologists, and only one - Connerly -
seems to eschew his Blackness.
No, I never questioned your Blackness, or the fact that you are
obviously (and always have been) for Black people. I question your
methods, choice of alliances, and gullibility in soaking up nonsense
from people like Dick Morris, Ed.
I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference.
>Ummm....
>Does the sentencing disparity still exist?
>Yes.
Not if you don't do dope. If you don't sell crack, and don't use
crack, there is no sentencing disparity.
Why all of this concern about dope dealers, Ed? Exactly what is the
big deal, here?
Is there some huge constituency - some lobbying group of dope dealers
- that is pressuring the CBC for clemency or something? What is
happening is quite simple.
The original law was a "put out the fire" law. Crack was killing a
lot of people, either directly as consumers, or as a result of the
killing that surrounds drug sales. So they passed this law in a hurry
- about 2 1/2 years ago.
It quickly became obvious that powder laws were inequitable, so
politics said "the white drug needs to be as dangerous as the Black
drug" which rapidly was exposed to be as dumb an idea as anything you
could think of. That's why you couldn't find any position statements
about it after 1997.
Next, the problem was seen as one of pre-determined sentencing, where
the statute specified jail time without judicial discretion. So in
1998, a preliminary proposal (Jerome's H.R. 2031) was floated to see
if just getting rid of the sentencing guidelines was acceptable. It
wasn't; no one like cocaine.
So now, we have a new Senate proposal, which brings powder in line
with crack. How do you like this idea?
>Do they still talk about changing it?
>Yes.
Where, Ed? I've asked you to back this up; if they're still talking
about it, where is this information? The most recent comments you
have come from July of 1997, which is not news.
I posted the bill that was submitted in January, 1999, but no CBC
members have, as of yet, signed on. I also know of no information
from the House on parallel bills. If you do, why not post them?
>Post where I said information concering CBC's positions were there. I
>challenge you to do it.
Let's get something cleared up, here. I don't have the time or
interest to dig around in your old posts, dredging up your comments
and exposing doubletalk. This "I challenge you/I dare you" stuff is
ludicrous, and it's not going to inflate the importance of your
obviously substandard posts and inaccurate and misleading citations.
You listed the entire 1998 membership list of the CBC; in the
following paragraph, you listed all sorts of things this group was
supposed to signing on to. I already posted that information, exposed
the falsehoods inherent in it, and you can respond directly to that
post if you wish. It is still on the board.
If you still need my help, my time is available at very reasonable
rates. Pay me.
[Wayne wrote]
>>I will again cite the only bill in Congress that is currently on the
>>legislative agenda, either in the Senate OR the House; and there is
>>not a single member of the CBC on this list of names.
>
>Twist and turn Wayne.
>I've posted my backup.
No one with a brain is falling for this one, Ed.
There is no twisting and turning in the fact that there is only one
bill before Congress that covers this issue; and there are no CBC
members on it.
There is no twisting and turning on the fact that you came up with a
newspaper article almost two years old, and that's your only "backup".
You have no backup, Ed. The emperor has no clothes.
[Wayne wrote]
>>So I am denying that the CBC is trying to change anything. I've done
>>my homework; you do yours.
>
>I did and burned you.
This is personality conflict gone mad. You aren't using facts, and
your feelings are hurt. It appears you're wasting my time with this.
>Even a white Canadian knew the info I did.
I'll let this person speak for himself.
>And up until this point, you screamed it didn't. So, yes let's keep on
>this line. And up until this point, you accused anyone wanting to
>lower the crack sentencing as being against the Black community. So,
>yes, let's keep on this line.
I haven't seen anything that says that the sentencing should be
lowered.
I've heard all kinds of stuff that says that all cocaine sentencing
should be equitable; and I've posted the contents of a bill making it
so.
But I've heard or read NOTHING that says crack sentencing is too
stiff, or that it should be lowered to the current level of powder.
I'm right here. Show your cards, Ed.
Wayne "Now that we've tossed out the marked deck, this should be
interesting" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
That's for proving me correct.
>Now, let's disassemble this pile of junk.
You mean dissemble.
dis sem ble - 1. To hide or disguise behind a false appearence; 2. To
make a false show of; feign.
>You said:
>
>>>There are the names. Now what are you going to do?
>>>They say they represent the interests of Blacks. Yet, you have spoken
>>>against the things that they stood for. They want the crack sentencing
>>>reduced.
>
>You claim "They want the crack sentencing reduced." You do NOT say
>where this information comes from; but you sure do put this nugget
>under the URL, and the list of names, trying to hand off an impression
>that this is so, and that your information is legitimate for that
>reason.
See above definition of dissemble and then look at what was quoted for
an example.
...
Let's see....
Ohhhhh......
Hmmmm.......
No, "we" are not dumb. I guess that's why Rich is dissecting your
posts, eh?
So, let's see. CBC members state in the media that they want the
sentencing reduced, but you say it's not true. Of course, when I
posted this from the ACLU media report:
====
July 24, 1997: Black Lawmakers Criticize Clinton Cocaine Sentencing
WASHINGTON -- Sharply rebuking the White House, the Congressional
Black Caucus has said that President Clinton had not gone far enough
in recommending to Congress that the Federal sentencing disparity
between crack and powder cocaine could be only reduced rather than
eliminated, The New York Times reports.
At a Capitol Hill news conference, members of the caucus said the
harsher treatment of defendants convicted of possessing small amounts
of crack had resulted in long prison sentences for disproportionate
numbers of blacks.
"Any sentencing scheme that treats crack use and trafficking more
harshly than powder use and trafficking is not addressing reality,"
said. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Congressional
Black Caucus. "If we eliminate the sentencing disparities, we
eliminate the reality of selective prosecution and racial injustice."
=====
You said nothing about the statements made by Maxine Waters, head of
the CBC nor the media report itself.
The misleading silliness is all on you, and I sure am not going to
shut up. Especially when, as I have done, have posted things to back
me up. Of course, you continue to make statements that you know are
false.
If there is contempt, it's all in your posts, and it's not only
towards me, but any reader who takes you seriously.
You make false claims about the CBC's position, not me.
You make false claims about my position.
You make false claims about my reasons for posting.
You tried to tar me with not "thinking Black" because I disagree on
Clinton.
I'm not being silly at all.
Here's something else:
======
Crack cocaine draws longer fed sentences
By Richard Robbins
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
When it comes to crack cocaine and powder cocaine, federal law is
separate but not equal - a fact that angers many who view the
disparity as an example of institutionalized racism.
Defenders of the double standard claim treating crack cocaine more
severely than powder cocaine addresses crack's addictive qualities and
its destructive impact on both communities and individuals. Critics
point to racial implications. Despite the fact that more whites than
blacks have used crack, more than 95 percent of federal crack cases
involve African-Americans or Latinos. The vast majority - 88 percent -
are black males. "Grossly unfair," said Esther Bush, president of the
Pittsburgh office of the National Urban League. She contends there
should no distinction by federal authorities between powder and crack
cocaine.
....
The dispute goes back to 1986, when Congress passed legislation
establishing a 100-to-1 powder-to-crack ratio. That means someone
caught dealing five grams of crack gets the same amount of federal
prison time as someone who deals 500 grams of powder cocaine.
....
The Federal Sentencing Commission has taken note. In May 1995 it held
that there is no chemical difference between the two drugs and
recommended equalization of sentences. This cry was soon taken up by
prominent blacks, including such disparate figures as the Rev. Jesse
Jackson and the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakan. The Congressional
Black Caucus pressured President Bill Clinton to lighten up.
======
DarkStar
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:46:28 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>wrote:
...
>>For another point of reference, look up HR 2031 in 1998 session of
>>Congress.
>
>
>
>H.R. 2031 : Mr. Wynn.
>
>H.R. 2031 : Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Fattah,
>Mr. Torres, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Kilpatrick.
>From Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query. I used HR2031 in the
bill number search. And some of those names look very familiar....
105th Congress, June 24, 1997
Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1997 (Introduced in the
House)
HR 2031 IH
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2031
To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act to eliminate certain mandatory minimum
penalties relating to crack cocaine offenses.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 24, 1997
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. TOWNS, MS.
NORTON, Mr. CLAY, Ms. CARSON, Mr. DIXON,
MRS. CLAYTON, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. CONYERS, Mr.
PAYNE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. JEFFERSON,
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Mr. FORD, and Mr. CUMMINGS) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of
the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act to eliminate certain mandatory minimum
penalties relating to crack cocaine offenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing
Act of 1997'.
SEC. 2. TRAFFICKING AMENDMENTS.
(a) 50 GRAM PENALTY- Section 401(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
clause (iii).
(b) 5 GRAM PENALTY- Section 401(b)(1)(B) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking
clause (iii).
SEC. 3. POSSESSION AMENDMENT.
Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844(a))
is amended by striking the sentence that begins `Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence'.
SEC. 4. IMPORTATION AMENDMENTS.
(a) 50 GRAM PENALTY- Section 1010(b)(1) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)) is amended
by striking out subparagraph (C).
(b) 5 GRAM PENALTY- Section 1010(b)(2) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(2)) is amended
by striking out subparagraph (C).
DarkStar
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:00:35 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:02:08 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>I can't figure out if you're upset with Clinton, "Black politicians"
>>>so far unnamed,
>>
>>Well, I named them.
>
>You simply posted a list of names.
Since that was all you asked for, that's all I provided.
But it's interesting how you now twist and turn given the sources I
gave.
Wayne Johnson
>Note that according the same account, this occurred "after they removed
>his body," so it's possible for Jerome's account to be correct also.
What account? He doesn't cite any source for statements from
Abernathy, Young, or anyone else. I'm sure Jerome wasn't there. So
what account are you talking about?
I said:
>>Anyway, that seems to answer your question.
>
>Not necessarily, based only on the Young account.
You quoted the pertinent passages from my post. Jerome asked where
the blood came from. I quoted Andrew Young's statement where he
explained it.
I'd like to know why you find this unsatisfactory.
Wayne "It can't get much clearer than what Young said, unless you
think he's lying" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> Uh Wayne, Jerome is correct, Rangel has publicly stated that he wants the
> penalties for crack posession made equal to those for cocaine posession,
> that is what removing the inequity would imply. It should also be noted that
> there is absolutely no indication that harsh sentences for drugs reduce
> either drug sales or drug usage. Of course, the fact that many of the folks
> in prison for long stretches had fewer doses of crack than a dealer who gets
> probation for powder cocaine should say that something is definitely wrong.
I'll also point out that the bill introduced by several members of the CBC
(unless the Far Right has by some odd twist of fate expanded in unexpected
ways) in 1997 was not aimed at raising cocaine sentences, but in
eliminating the mandatory minimum sentence for crack, which would, in
effect *reduce* sentences for crack.
While I don't think that this is any evidence one way or the other about
Clinton's feelings about Black people, he and teh CBC have certainly
disagreed on several issues.
I'll also point out that punishments typically should fit crimes, and if
there's a death penalty for jay-walking, people can point out the
unfairness of such a law without being accused of being in favor of
jaywalking, or crime, or what have you.
Jerome Walker
>In article <36bd25be...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > >Nothing, really. I'd prefer to see some substantial and credible
>>> > >proof of harm, however, because not backing Lani Guinere doesn't seem
>>> > >to be some big-time hazard to Black people.
>>>
>>> Of course, anything to defend Clinton.
>>
>>Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing an attack that had some substance,
>>instead of the "right on" button pushing I've seen on the Guinere
>>issue.
So to say that Clinton lied when he said he never read anything that
Guinere published is "soul patroling"? If so, how does that meet your
charges that Ed is paroting the Right Wing?
> >>> Enough is enough.
> >>
> >>Enough of what?
> >>
> >>> You like Jesse Jackson, and you have no problem speaking for most blacks.
> >>> You like Clinton, and you have no problem speaking for most blacks.
> >>
> >>You know, Jerome, something you will never see in any of my posts is
> >>this phrase: "Black Leaders".
> >>
> >>Another phrase you will never see me use: "Black Spokesman".
> >>
> >>My name is Wayne Johnson. I speak for myself, and only myself. I
> >>don't speak for you, Jesse Jackson, or Bill Clinton.
Then why did you claim to speak for all blacks in another post when you
keep saying "we are tired"?
[ edit ]
> >>> Jesse Jackson said Clinton lack morals.
> >>
> >>Before or after he prayed with Chelsea, Hillary, and Bill last
> >>January? Do you have a time frame for this Morals Report from Jesse?
Before the prayer. The time was within the first month of Clinton assuming
office of the President of the United States.
[ edit ]
> >>> After Martin Luther King, Jr. was assinated, Jesse Jackson appeared on
> >>> television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
> >>> however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
> >>> went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
> >>
> >>Now, this is really interesting. I never heard this. I remember
> >>seeing the photo of Jesse on the balcony, pointing at the motel; he
> >>was standing directly over the crumpled body of Martin Luther King.
> >>
> >>The way I heard it, he was among the first to get to King. You've
> >>heard different things; where did you hear this, or read this?
That was *Jessie's* version. I saw it in an interview with Young,
Abernatey, and others. My father and mother have also mentioned this
issue.
[ edit ]
> >>> When Emerge did a dual profile on Jesse Jackson and Lewis Farrakhan,
> >>> Emerge mentioned Jesse Jackson's love for getting media attention.
> >>
> >>Name a politician who is shy of the media spotlight.
Then you have to admit that when people criticize Jesse for media
hogging, it is a legitimate complaint.
[ edit ]
> >>> Jesse slamming Clinton.
> >>> Other black leaders/figures slamming Jesse.
> >>
> >>Significance, please?
You want to claim that anyone attacking Clinton is the enemy, well Jesse
Jackson did it.
> >>> So, are you going to defame the black leaders to defend Jesse?
> >>
> >>I'm curious about where you got this dramatic information. Abernathy,
> >>who went totally goofy in 1980 (being the only "Black Leader" -
> >>albeit, without any followers) to endorse the Reagan-Bush ticket, is
> >>an odd duck anyhow, but I have no desire to defame the guy.
But, you just did, didn't you?
[ edit ]
> >>>And if so, what about Jesse's words about Clinton?
> >>
> >>Uttered when? Does he still feel that way, or not?
Who cares? He said it, didn't he?
[ edit ]
> >>> And while we are at it, you wrote that either a person is against
> >>> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
> >>> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
> >>> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
> >>> about the CBC?
> >>
> >>Where does the CBC say this, Jerome? I checked the website, remember?
> >>Such inflated claims aren't there.
> >>
> >>You're saying that the CBC wants to reduce penalties for crack? Who
> >>said this?
Are you saying the claim is true or false?
--
"Ignorance is the thing that makes most men get into a political party and
shame is what keeps them from getting out of it." - George Savile
Jerome Walker
DarkStar
>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:03:08 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>Dick Morris worked for the Far Right at one time.
>
>Dick Morris works for the Far Right as we speak.
And he worked for Clinton.
So, if he's far right, what about Clinton?
...
>>The *ONLY* two groups criticizing Ritter is the White House and Iraq.
>
>No one else is paying him any attention, now that the bombing campaign
>is over, and there is a low-level conflict going on in Iraq. In fact,
>Iraq only paid attention to him long enough to cast a shadow over
>UNSCOM, with their allegations that he and the rest of the unit were
>all espionage agents.
Of course, the White House first said there was reason to believe he
was spying for Israel. And the F.B.I. was called in to investigate.
....
>>Ritter's integerity was never an issue until he resigned because he
>>believed his duties were being undercut by the White House. He
>>resigned on principle. Just like Marian Wright-Eldeman's husband
>>resigned on principle when Clinton signed the welfare reform bill.
>
>Let's stay on Ritter, since you insist, as I hate to go off on
>tangents the way you love to do.
>
>Whether or not he "believed his duties were being undercut by the
>White House" have nothing to do with whether or not he was right.
Of course, if Democrats thought he was wrong, they would have spoken
out against him, but there seemed to be no denounciations coming from
the Democrats.
...
>>I called Jesse Jackson a punk, not a spineless homosexual.
>
>A punk IS a spineless homosexual.
A punk is a spineless person.
>>Jackson is no danger to the Black community while Thomas is.
>
>Is that why you're so respectful of Thomas? No one should call him a
>name, because he IS a danger?
Yep.
>And we should call Jackson names, because he ISN"T a danger?
Yep.
...
>>Bullshit.
>>Othewise you wouldn't have pulled the "How Black are you" test.
>
>Ed, can you keep this in the realm of ideas, or is everything going to
>be "I DARE you" and "bullshit" and all of this kind of petty stuff?
You wanna throw deliberate misstatements out about what I wrote, so I
ask for proof. You don't give it. That's on you not me.
....
>I never gave you any Blackness test, and have always found such
>exercises to be a waste of time. I did note that it seemed strange
>that you fell straight into the arms of the Far Right when you used
>the following "litmus test" issues:
>
>A. Scott Ritter was dissed by the White House
Fact.
>B. Dick Morris is On Target with his Secret Agent silliness
I said Morris was on target concerning the Clinton smear campaign. I
even mentioned that Stephanopolis was saying the same things that
Morris was writing.
Of course you continue to say things I didn't...
>C. We all need to be nice to Clarence Thomas
[ This space reserved for Wayne to show one post where I write we
should be nice to Thomas ]
>D. Henry Hyde must have been outed by the White House
[ This space reserved for Wayne to show one post where I write Henry
Hyde was outted by the White House ]
>E. Larry Flynt was using FBI files to bust Livingston
[ This space reserved for Wayne to show one post where I write Flynt
*WAS* using the FBI files ]
>F. There were no chemical weapons in Sudan
[ This space reserved for Wayne to show one post where I write that
there are not chemical weapon in Sudan ]
>G. Jesse Jackson is a spineless homosexual
[ This space reserved for Wayne to show where I write Jesse Jackson is
a spineless homosexual ]
....
>I also note that it was you who brought up the odd statistic that it
>was the Reagan Administration that had the highest number of Black
>participants to that date;
To make a point which Ray acknowledged.
...
>No, I never questioned your Blackness, or the fact that you are
>obviously (and always have been) for Black people.
Not true.
> I question your
>methods, choice of alliances, and gullibility in soaking up nonsense
>from people like Dick Morris, Ed.
>
>I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference.
I know the difference between truth and lies. I'm telling the truth.
>>Ummm....
>>Does the sentencing disparity still exist?
>>Yes.
>
>Not if you don't do dope. If you don't sell crack, and don't use
>crack, there is no sentencing disparity.
Start of the dissemblance.
>Why all of this concern about dope dealers, Ed? Exactly what is the
>big deal, here?
Continuation of the dissemblance.
>Is there some huge constituency - some lobbying group of dope dealers
>- that is pressuring the CBC for clemency or something? What is
>happening is quite simple.
Continuation of the dissemblance.
...
>It quickly became obvious that powder laws were inequitable, so
>politics said "the white drug needs to be as dangerous as the Black
>drug" which rapidly was exposed to be as dumb an idea as anything you
>could think of. That's why you couldn't find any position statements
>about it after 1997.
Continuation of the dissemblance.
....
>>Do they still talk about changing it?
>>Yes.
>
>Where, Ed? I've asked you to back this up; if they're still talking
>about it, where is this information? The most recent comments you
>have come from July of 1997, which is not news.
I posted it.
...
>>Post where I said information concering CBC's positions were there. I
>>challenge you to do it.
>
>Let's get something cleared up, here. I don't have the time or
>interest to dig around in your old posts, dredging up your comments
>and exposing doubletalk.
It wouldn't expose any "doubletalk" by me because I'm not the one
doing it.
>This "I challenge you/I dare you" stuff is
>ludicrous, and it's not going to inflate the importance of your
>obviously substandard posts and inaccurate and misleading citations.
The above is dissemblance.
>You listed the entire 1998 membership list of the CBC; in the
>following paragraph, you listed all sorts of things this group was
>supposed to signing on to. I already posted that information, exposed
>the falsehoods inherent in it, and you can respond directly to that
>post if you wish. It is still on the board.
The above is dissemblance.
...
>
>There is no twisting and turning in the fact that there is only one
>bill before Congress that covers this issue; and there are no CBC
>members on it.
I just read a post by Art.
It's interesting.
...
>
>This is personality conflict gone mad.
Thank you for finally admitting what I knew your true intentions were
to be about. And since Rich is also pointing out the obvious flaws in
your posts, who has the conflict with whom?
>You aren't using facts, and
>your feelings are hurt. It appears you're wasting my time with this.
>
>>Even a white Canadian knew the info I did.
>
>I'll let this person speak for himself.
He did.
>>And up until this point, you screamed it didn't. So, yes let's keep on
>>this line. And up until this point, you accused anyone wanting to
>>lower the crack sentencing as being against the Black community. So,
>>yes, let's keep on this line.
>
>I haven't seen anything that says that the sentencing should be
>lowered.
Dissemblance.
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:34:23 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>The major point of disagreement is the fact that a Black person is
>>being critical of Clinton and his treatment of Black people. That is
>>all of what this is about.
>
>The major point of disagreement is what bias is apparent when people
>like Dick Morris, Scott Ritter, and other apologists of the Far Right
>are used as the methods of criticism of the current Administration.
When Jesse Jackson called Clinton immoral, was he an apologist of the
Far Right?
Rich has already focused the light on your canard.
>
>The major point of disagreement is that the Congressional Black Caucus
>is opposing this law, as a unit, and is joining in criticizing the
>current Administration for the passage of the bill - now over two
>years old.
Wayne, post one quote where the CBC or members of the CBC state they
now support the disparity.
Jerome Walker
Artclemons <artcl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <36c12da6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) writes:
>
>>Jerome...can you read?
>>
>>I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
>>inequity in sentencing..."
>>
>>It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
>>
>>Are you trying to rewrite the sentence, or refute your own cite, or
>>what?
>
>penalties for crack posession made equal to those for cocaine posession,
>that is what removing the inequity would imply.
Welcome to the Far Right!
There is no implication involved. Rangel states he wants inequity removed
by making the crack penalty the same as the current cocaine penalty.
Jerome Walker
>> television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
>> however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
>> went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
>
>can find the entire account at:
>
>http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/jesse/interviews/young.html
Thank you, Wayne.
[ edit ]
>"After they removed his body, Ralph Abernathy got a jar and started
***************************
***************************
***************************
***************************
>scraping up the blood and said, and crying it was Martin's precious
>blood. This blood was shed for us. It was weird. But people freaked
>out and did strange things. Jesse put his hands in the blood and
>wiped it on the front of his shirt.
How are you going to spin your way to say this proves my comments to
be wrong?
:)
And since Jesse Jackson said he held Martin's body and that was how the
blood got on his shirt, how does this prove my comment to be wrong?
>********************************************
>
>That's how the blood got on Jesse Jackson's shirt, according to Andrew
>Young.
Yes, it is his account.
>Do you question what Andrew Young has to say about it?
No.
[ edit ]
>There has always been resentment of Jackson's smoothness and ability
>to handle the media and groups with different agendas. But who says
>that the guy lied and grandstanded on the day Martin was murdered?
Correta Scott-King, Young, and Abernathy.
[ edit ]
>Anyway, that seems to answer your question.
But it doesn't prove me wrong.
:)
>Wayne "By the way, Andrew Young has tremendous respect for Jesse"
He also knows Jesse's faults, one of them being media grabbing.
DarkStar
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:22:35 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>I challenge you to do it.
>>I *DARE* you to do it.
>
>I did it.
Not at all Wayne.
What you did do was continue to show your knack for "disemblance."
How did Clinton's proposal for AmeriCorps come to reality?
You remind me of Robert Chapman.
Wayne Johnson
>Tell me how the President can propose legislation, how the legislation
>becomes bills, and how it goes through the process.
I have a better idea.
Tell me how you think Clinton is to blame for the problems of D.C.
I get tired of giving you free classes in Basic Understanding of
American Government.
>Now explain how come the same can't happen with D.C. targeted bills.
Why? Isn't this your pet hate, Ed? Why am I supposed to try and
justify all of your fantasies about how the GOP Far Right isn't to
blame?
By the way, I asked this question, which you dodged with all this
nonsense about "teach me how Congress passes bills":
>>You ask about veto power. Tell us, did Clinton veto any spending bill
>>for D.C. because it allocated too much money? Ever?
So why didn't you answer the question, Ed?
Anyway, I also asked this question:
>>Why are you so desperate for me to prove you're being dishonest? I
>>thought this was a discussion group.
>
>It's time you put up.
So I did. In this thread, I posted an article specifying how you
placed inaccurate and misleading information under the URL of the
Congressional Black Caucus, without letting anyone know why you would
do such a thing. I didn't want to do it, but you asked several times,
even daring me and challenging me to do it.
So I did it. Now what?
I also said:
>>Therefore, the President DOES NOT CONTROL FUNDING. Certainly not with
>>a veto.
>
>Then how did he hold up D.C. funding?
Answer: he didn't. Talk to the appropriate Congressional committee
about this, Ed.
>>Let's leave it up to someone else to accept dares, or call you a liar,
>>OK? I'll just read you a junior high school government textbook
>>whenever you forget how this country is designed.
>
>Then how did he hold up D.C. funding?
Why do you have this habit of asking the same question fifty times, in
fifteen different posts, even when I give you the answer?
In fact, do you understand the concept that the President doesn't have
control of the pursestrings yet? If you don't, I'll give you some
time to go study the Constitution.
>He proposed AmeriCore. How did that get signed into bills?
>Come on Wayne. You know the process.
Damn, Ed. I know the name of the program, too. It's AmeriCorps, not
"Americore".
Do you know anything about it? Doesn't seem like you do, if you don't
even know the real name of the thing.
Of course I know the process. Why are you asking about some other
spending program, now? I thought you were going to talk about D.C. or
something.
>You claim you teach government classes? Well tell us how a proposal
>for AmeriCore, by the President, became law.
Why? We were discussing D.C. I could give you details on Americorps,
or the Peace Corp, or George Bush's failed Midnight Basketball
program. All are proposals that friendly Congresscritters attached as
riders to other spending bills.
What of it? You can come to my next Merit Badge class, which is four
2 hour sessions, complete with homework and a final test.
I must say that my last batch of young Scouts knows a tad more about
how a spending bill becomes law than...well...some people around here.
>Come on Wayne. Tell us *EXACTLY* how that bill came to be and how it
>was signed.
You mean you don't know? Are you really that interested?
Go look it up yourself. I'm not here to have you waste my time on
bogus "assignments" whenever you can think one up.
We weren't discussing Americorps. Why should I run off and get a
complete history of some spending bill whenever you decide you want to
waste my time?
Look, if you really want help on AmeriCorps, go to
http://www.cns.gov/americorps/index.html
and get started on your own time. I really think I need to start
charging you for all this help you seem to need to get a basic grasp
of what is going on in government.
>Then tell us how Clinton's use of veto has no effect on proposed
>legislation.
Let me get this straight. You think Clinton somehow got funding for
AmeriCorps by VETOING the bill that funded it?
Are you serious?
Tell you what: you run along and get informed about who in our
tripartate system of government controls the money, and when you get
done, you let us know how good old Bill is supposed to change all that
so you won't be mad at him any more.
Wayne "Go to the website for Americorps when your homework is done"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
> (a) 50 GRAM PENALTY- Section 401(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled
>Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
> clause (iii).
What is clause (iii)?
> (b) 5 GRAM PENALTY- Section 401(b)(1)(B) of the Controlled
>Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking
> clause (iii).
What is clause (iii)?
>SEC. 3. POSSESSION AMENDMENT.
>
> Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844(a))
>is amended by striking the sentence that begins `Notwithstanding the
> preceding sentence'.
What does this change mean?
>SEC. 4. IMPORTATION AMENDMENTS.
>
> (a) 50 GRAM PENALTY- Section 1010(b)(1) of the Controlled
>Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)) is amended
> by striking out subparagraph (C).
Again, what is the significance of this?
> (b) 5 GRAM PENALTY- Section 1010(b)(2) of the Controlled
>Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(2)) is amended
> by striking out subparagraph (C).
One last time. This amends a previous law. It didn't pass. What is
the significance of this failed bill, and what changes did it actually
seek to make?
When the bill failed, what did the CBC have to say about it? I note
that the list of names you published had a significant number of
missing members on this bill as presented; is there any significance
to this fact, or are you simply going to gloss it over?
Since the President is obviously not a member of the House, why didn't
this pass the House on its own merits?
What is this supposed to be about? It's old news about a failed bill
from a year ago...written and supported by people who were among the
President's most staunch defenders against the GOP.
They, at no point, called him an uneducated racist during this
process.
Wayne "As presented, it means nothing, and I wonder why you went to
all the trouble" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 00:51:19 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>[Who Shot John about "Black Spokesman" snipped]
>
>I speak for all Black people when I say, We Know A Cracker When We See
>One.
You just said you don't speak for all black people.
Make up your mind.
[ edit ]
>>>So far, a fairly clumsy attempt to smear a popular politician, who
>>>doesn't seem to do anything to hurt Black people. What has he done to
>>>harm us, Jerome?
>>
>>Ask Lewis Farrakhan.
>
>Why?
Maybe because Farrakhan has some interesting thoughts on the matter?
>>On his last appearence on "Meet The Press," Lewis
>>Farrakhan called Jesse Jackson a pimp.
>
>Why should I care? Farrakhan is not a Black Leader.
I think I will leave it right here.
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:46:28 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>wrote:
>
>>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:07:27 CST, Jerome Walker <wal...@panix.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> drug dealers by supporting stiff sentencing, or for drug dealers by
>>>> not supporting stiff sentencing. Since the CBC still wants to reduce
>>>> crack sentencing laws to the level of cocaine, what does that say
>>>> about the CBC?
>>>
>>>to reduce the penalties for crack to the level of powder. This is a
>>>wholly unsubstantiated claim.
>>
>>Wayne, may I ask why you wrote this?
>>Obviously, everyone else but you knows that the claim is substantiated.
>>
>>Emerge, May 1996
>>"The Sentencing Game"
>>Page 53
>>
>>Rep.charles Rangel, teh once powerful New York Democrat who chaired
>>a special House Select Committee on Narcotics during the 1980s and
>>in equity in sentencing, the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 1995.
>
>Jerome...can you read?
>
>I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
>inequity in sentencing..."
>
>
>It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
Did you read the text of the bill to see how it erased the inequity?
[ edit ]
>>Emerge, April 1997
>>"Rejuventating the Caucus"
>>page 24
>>
>>"The caucus is pursuing a heavy agenda in the 105th Congress. High on its
>>priority list is the drug issue. ... the will continue to shine a light on
>>alleged CIA involvement int the crack cocaine trade and on disparities
>>between the prison sentences for crack violations and those for powder
>>cocaine abuse".
>
>"Disparities" does not compute with, "Lower the sentencing on crack to
>the level of powder."
Did you read the text of the bill?
Jerome Walker
>
>>On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Jerome...can you read?
>>>
>>> I see right here that is says, "sponsored legilsation to erase the
>>> inequity in sentencing..."
>>>
>>> It does NOT say, "Lower the penalties for crack to those of cocaine".
>>
>>was against it.
>
>That is not the point at all.
>
>The point was to try to cast the CBC as being, en masse, angry for
>some reason at the President for the passage of this bill back in
>1996.
They were mad, as the quote demonstrated.
>The bill was the CREATIION of the CBC. They were NOT against it; they
>WROTE the thing, Rich.
And they are now against it.
[ edit ]
>>why? the claim was about reactions to the bill when it was passed.
>
>No, it was not, and you've conveniently removed any references made by
>Jerome as to the actual claims he's made.
Wow.
>Rich, either stick to the issues or avoid them entirely. You aren't
>making much sense sitting on the sidelines sniping, because you aren't
>discussing any relevant issues, here.
Really?
>Jerome quoted the following (spelling corrected):
>"Rep. Charles Rangel, the once powerful New York Democrat who chaired
>a special House Select Committee on Narcotics during the 1980s and
>voted for both mandatory minimum laws, sponsored legislation to erase
>the inequity in sentencing, the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act
>of 1995."
>
>It says, "...to erase the inequity in sentencing..."
Did you read the text of the bill?
[ edit ]
>NO ONE WANTED LOWER PENALTIES FOR CRACK.
>Period.
I guess you didn't read the text of the bill.
Jerome Walker
>[all but the relavant passages snipped]
>
>>> television wearing a blood stained shirt. He claimed it was King's blood,
>>> however, Abernathy, Andrew Young, and others said Jesse Jackson never
>>> went near the body. So how did he get blood on his shirt?
>>
>>It took me about five minutes to find Andrew Young's account of what
>>happened. Here is the pertinent excerpt, in Andy's own words.
>>
>>"After they removed his body, Ralph Abernathy got a jar and started
>>blood. This blood was shed for us. It was weird. But people freaked
>>out and did strange things. Jesse put his hands in the blood and
>>********************************************
>>
>>That's how the blood got on Jesse Jackson's shirt, according to Andrew
>>Young.
>
>his body," so it's possible for Jerome's account to be correct also.
It is very possible.
In fact, it is Jesse's comments the next day that caused some grumbling.
>>In any case, whatever your source was for this "Jackson went nowhere
>>near the body" didn't get his information from Andrew Young OR Ralph
>>Abernathy. So what gives, Jerome? Where did you get this slanderous
>>nugget of non-information?
>>
>>Anyway, that seems to answer your question.
>
>Not necessarily, based only on the Young account.
>--
>Mike Lerch
>Riverside, CA
>
Wayne Johnson
>Wayne Johnson) wrote:
>>You simply posted a list of names.
>
>Since that was all you asked for, that's all I provided.
You also included a URL, and your own spin on what those names
signified. Do you remember?
>But it's interesting how you now twist and turn given the sources I
>gave.
I'm rolling on the floor laughing, not twisting and turning.
You've switched your Dick Morris Is On Target hat for your Right On,
Brothas and Sistas hat. I notice with interest that Dick Morris is no
longer quoted; now, we get Louis (you call him Lewis) Farrakhan.
You want me to spend an hour or so explaining how Clinton got
"Americore" (really, AmeriCorps) funding, so you can score points on
this D.C. spending bill thing which is your new "right on" (insert
clenched fist here) image builder.
Hey, how does Dick Morris feel about D.C. spending? He's an on-target
guy, isn't he?
What are you worried about?
Why care what people think? Are we in some kind of popularity
contest, or are you speaking from conviction and strength of will? If
you like Dick Morris, and think he's just the most accurate and
on-target guy around, why not stand by your guy, Ed?
Wayne "What does HE think of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ed?"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>You mean dissemble.
>
>dis sem ble - 1. To hide or disguise behind a false appearence; 2. To
>make a false show of; feign.
I just realized how silly this is getting to be.
It started when I noticed the juxtaposition of I Hate Jesse, He's A
Punk/Dick Morris Is My Guy, He's Right On Target. Feelings were
immediately hurt, and I was called a liar for saying anything about
it.
At this point, I'm looking at all kinds of counter-accusations, which
themselves are filled with howlers. For example, there is nowhere in
anything cited, any mention of REDUCING the sentences for crack that
were originally introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus.
There were plenty of calls for making all cocaine sentencing balanced;
but I still haven't seen anything that says that the sentences should
be REDUCED.
But somehow, I'm the liar.
I'm finished wasting my time with this. I've seen the same
accusations, coupled with obscenities and/or threats, actually sent to
my personal mailbox, and I've seen enough to convince me that there is
no point bothering with this mess any further.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
>On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:54:14 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>You mean dissemble.
>>
>>dis sem ble - 1. To hide or disguise behind a false appearence; 2. To
>>make a false show of; feign.
>
>I just realized how silly this is getting to be.
>
>It started when I noticed the juxtaposition of I Hate Jesse,
I never wrote that I hate Jesse.
>He's A
>Punk
That I did say.
>/Dick Morris Is My Guy
I never said Dick Morris is my guy.
>, He's Right On Target.
I did say Morris was on target about Clinton's smear squad, which
George Stephanopolis also said was happening.
...
>At this point, I'm looking at all kinds of counter-accusations, which
>themselves are filled with howlers. For example, there is nowhere in
>anything cited, any mention of REDUCING the sentences for crack that
>were originally introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus.
Not true.
dis sem ble - 1. To hide or disguise behind a false appearence; 2. To
make a false show of; feign.
....
>But somehow, I'm the liar.
Post just one post of mine where I say I hate Jesse Jackson. Just
provide one post.
>I'm finished wasting my time with this.
DarkStar
>On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:26:03 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>Tell me how the President can propose legislation, how the legislation
>>becomes bills, and how it goes through the process.
>
>I have a better idea.
Tell me how the President can propose legislation, how the legislation
becomes bills, and how it goes through the process.
Tell me how all of the things Clinton proposed in his state of the
union speech, stand a chance of even becoming bills.
>Tell me how you think Clinton is to blame for the problems of D.C.
[ This spot reserved for Wayne to provide a post where I state Clinton
is to blame for the problems of D.C. ]
...
>>>You ask about veto power. Tell us, did Clinton veto any spending bill
>>>for D.C. because it allocated too much money? Ever?
>
>So why didn't you answer the question, Ed?
D.C. has never been allocated too much money.
...
>>>Therefore, the President DOES NOT CONTROL FUNDING. Certainly not with
>>>a veto.
>>
>>Then how did he hold up D.C. funding?
>
>Answer: he didn't. Talk to the appropriate Congressional committee
>about this, Ed.
Well Wayne, you are wrong.
He held up funding for D.C. by vetoing the D.C. appropriations bill.
>>>Let's leave it up to someone else to accept dares, or call you a liar,
>>>OK? I'll just read you a junior high school government textbook
>>>whenever you forget how this country is designed.
>>
>>Then how did he hold up D.C. funding?
>
>Why do you have this habit of asking the same question fifty times, in
>fifteen different posts, even when I give you the answer?
Because you didn't answer until now.
>In fact, do you understand the concept that the President doesn't have
>control of the pursestrings yet? If you don't, I'll give you some
>time to go study the Constitution.
Why does the President propose how he believes money should be
allocated, which programs should be cut, and which programs should be
added?
Why does Congress generally take his suggestions seriously enough to
debate what he has proposed?
>>He proposed AmeriCore. How did that get signed into bills?
>>Come on Wayne. You know the process.
>
>Damn, Ed. I know the name of the program, too. It's AmeriCorps, not
>"Americore".
>Do you know anything about it? Doesn't seem like you do, if you don't
>even know the real name of the thing.
I really don't care much about spelling when it's not important.
>Of course I know the process. Why are you asking about some other
>spending program, now? I thought you were going to talk about D.C. or
>something.
Tell me how AmeriCorps came into existance from a proposal from
Clinton.
That's all you have to do.
...
>>Then tell us how Clinton's use of veto has no effect on proposed
>>legislation.
>
>Let me get this straight. You think Clinton somehow got funding for
>AmeriCorps by VETOING the bill that funded it?
The above is yet another demonstration of dissemblance.
DarkStar
>On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:55:33 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
[ Text of bill sponsered by members of the CBC deleted ]
...
>One last time. This amends a previous law. It didn't pass. What is
>the significance of this failed bill, and what changes did it actually
>seek to make?
You keep saying the CBC didn't want to decrease the penalty for crack,
well, there was the bill that wanted to do exactly what I stated.
>When the bill failed, what did the CBC have to say about it? I note
>that the list of names you published had a significant number of
>missing members on this bill as presented; is there any significance
>to this fact, or are you simply going to gloss it over?
How many of the names on that list of CBC members that I reference,
were in the Senate, not the House?
And you already read comments by Maxine Waters.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>How are you going to spin your way to say this proves my comments to
>be wrong?
What are you talking about? You asked where the blood on Jackson's
shirt came from, so I quoted the answer.
I only want to know where you got the information from that Jackson
never went near the body. There is no information about that in the
Young cite, so where did you hear this?
>And since Jesse Jackson said he held Martin's body and that was how the
>blood got on his shirt, how does this prove my comment to be wrong?
I guess I need to ask you fifty times, since you keep on avoiding the
subject. Where does anyone say Jackson said this?
Where did Jackson make such a claim? Where does the Young cite - or
any other - say that Jackson didn't go to King before the body was
removed?
>Correta Scott-King, Young, and Abernathy.
Where?
>But it doesn't prove me wrong.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to find out where
you're getting all this hooraw from. Was Jackson taped on the news
saying this, and the others countered him, or what?
Wayne "Quit dodging, or drop it, I don't care which" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>>It says, "...to erase the inequity in sentencing..."
>
>Did you read the text of the bill?
Which bill?
You didn't post the contents of any bill.
Wayne "I looked" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>You keep saying the CBC didn't want to decrease the penalty for crack,
>well, there was the bill that wanted to do exactly what I stated.
You keep saying this, and I looked at the text of the bill. It says
nothing that supports your claims; I am about finished with this
issue, since you keep ducking the truth.
In post referenced above, you do NOT answer my questions about what
the amendments to specific paragraphs actually mean.
In addition, you do NOT discuss whether or not these amendments
actually reduce sentences, or simply remove the need for determinant
sentencing guidelines, which any lawyer will tell you is an entirely
different matter.
Finally, this bill has not passed, and I see no reason to think that
the people who signed on to it place any blame for it on President
Clinton. You can't find a bit of news on this 1998 bill; neither can
I, and I think you are wasting a lot of time on a very subtle point,
which you've lost.
The CBC wrote the original bill, to put out a fire; the outrageous
exploitation of the Black community by drug dealers. The inequity
with powder was obvious, the solution, also obvious. Make powder just
as bad.
But the political equations in the Congress stated that the GOP could
not allow Democrats - especially Black Democrats - to look good being
tough on crime. So their bills got killed, and Rangel, among others,
got very pissed off.
But do you see any bill saying, in any language, "Lower the penalties
of crack to that of powder"? You don't, and won't, because it doesn't
exist. Further, it would be political suicide for any Black
legislator to advocate publicly the idea of letting crack dealers off
more lightly, and they know it.
I wonder why you keep trying to pass off this canard?
>How many of the names on that list of CBC members that I reference,
>were in the Senate, not the House?
What the hell is this all about? Talk about whirling off on a
tangent....
>And you already read comments by Maxine Waters.
None of which says, "lower the penalties for crack." She clearly
wanted the penalties to be on the same level for all cocaine types;
this obviously does not mean lower the penalties for crack.
Wayne "This is so simple to understand...why keep playing games, Ed?"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Did you read the text of the bill?
You sure do quote a lot of text to add two lines of questions...that
you already asked, in another post with a lot of quoted text.
Wayne "I'll just have to shine on most of your repeats" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Welcome to the Far Right!
Don't call him a Republican, Jerome. That's an insult.
>There is no implication involved. Rangel states he wants inequity removed
>by making the crack penalty the same as the current cocaine penalty.
Not in the post you cited.
Wayne "Go back and read it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com