Clinton and Black folk
coqui...@hotmail.com
be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
Kim
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
>First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
>then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
>capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
>Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
>fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
>
<rant>
the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
who doesn't deserve our respect.
1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
2. he gave that "personal responsibility" speech to the naacp, as if
he were a conservative lecturing Black folk.
3. he didn't let lani guiner defend herself. instead, he pulled her
nomination, *LYING* when he said he never read her book or knew her
views.
4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
5. he then followed that up by nominating a Black man for the position
that elder's left, *knowing* that anyone nominated would be given an
anal exam.
6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
7. he signed the bill that made the cocaine vs crack disparity a
permanent law. before, it was only around for a temporary amount of
time.
8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
against.
and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
*LOVE* that man....
Bill Clinton ain't nothin' but a cracka in a suit!
</rant>
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1998 Edwin Brown
Wayne Johnson
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
>First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
>then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
>capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
>Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
>fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
It's really very simple.
He was with us when times were good, too.
Wayne "I guess we're supposed to just stick around when the weather's
nice" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Artclemons
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
Which democratic politician of African heritage is going to lose votes,
being seen as a supporter of the president now? I also note that most
African-Americans know people of questionable moral worth and
character and at the least have learned to pretend to get along with
said people.
That being said, it appears to me that Clinton needs to be seen as
presidential right now. In fact if Clinton had good sense, he would
hold a 4 minute announcement session every day for a month, and
suggest that the republicans increase the minimum wage, pass protection
for privacy with health care organizations, and strongly urge other
democratic party agendas that he's been neglecting. One of the
reasons that Clinton has survived so far is that the other choices appear
worse than Clinton, and Clinton acting presidential is just what the
republicans presently don't want. He can't bring effort to bear on
foreign policy but he sure can get people talking about issues that
republicans haven't dealt with and can't before the November elections.
-art clemons-
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to be around *us* when he
> gets into trouble?
Not always when he gets into trouble, but yes. He likes us.
> First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan, then Jesse Jackson aand now the
> capo de tutti capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy, Black
> love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
Mercy. ;)
> I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole fiasco and he was
> clearly in Clinton's corner. Why does he run to us when he gets in
> trouble, and why do we let him?
Why would he run to us? Do we want him or not? Or maybe some of us do
and some of us don't? I don't see Connerly or Thomas opening their arms
to him, for example.
I guess there is no people more despised, reviled and celebrated and
resourceful in America (with the exception of other colored peoples and
Jews) than black folks. We know how to climb and we know when to get up
and we know when to fight back. Perhaps that is what Clinton is
reaching for when he is among us. Perhaps some black people or even
black males (because there are no black women you mention) feel he is
some kind of kindred person. Jimmy Carter didn't have this kind of
appeal. I don't think he's stealing anything from us because all of
that is INSIDE us. We cannot give it away, but I would believe that our
presence makes other people think twice. Or feel angry because they
have to be at their best or that they can't fake a sense of justice.
> The governor of my state won't be seen with the guy, but he can get a
> photo-op with any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights leader
> anywhere. What's the deal with that?
The gov is a politician that Clinton can't trust.
Some of us don't trust Clinton. Granted. There are times I don't
either. But in a way only Clinton knows, he trusts us and can count on
some of us.
Probably just my misguided two cents, but...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"La pauvete napas ene vis, mes li ene bien gros coulou."
(MAURITIUS Creole)
-"Poverty isn't a screw, but it's a very big nail."-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels+...@ea.oac.uci.edu++gdan...@uci.edu
http://www.geocities.com/merlekinbona or
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7094
=======================================================================
Christopher Morton
>(coqui)Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
Only about 50% of the time.
The other 50% of the time when he gets into trouble, he finds some
Black female to kick in order to prove his "manhood".
Ask Sistah Souljah, Lani Guinier, Joycelynn Elders, and Betty Curry.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
The Devil's Advocate©
><rant>
>the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
>who doesn't deserve our respect.
Your post sounds pretty liberal, for some reason I thought you had
moderate positions.
>
>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
How so?
>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
black. Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
>5. he then followed that up by nominating a Black man for the position
>that elder's left, *knowing* that anyone nominated would be given an
>anal exam.
???
>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
has been harmful.
>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
What was his reason? Because he was black?
>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
I'd have to look into this...
>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
>against.
Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
wrong.
>
>and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
>*LOVE* that man....
>
>
>Bill Clinton ain't nothin' but a cracka in a suit!
Isn't "craka" an epithet?
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: Depends on how it is used.
Ben....@winter.news.erols.com
the black community. And has pushed Black issues more than any other
President in recent History. Support from black political leadersi is
know supprise.
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:40:32 CST, coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
>First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
>then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
>capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
>Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
>fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
>
Michael R. Hicks
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:40:32 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
> 4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> *about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
Heh. Given all that is going down in Washington with Clinton,
perhaps it should have been *applied.*
[...]
--
Michael R. Hicks - Louisville, KY
a "new jack" scholar...
http://www.louisville.edu/~mrhick01
Great minds talk about ideas,
Average minds talk about events,
Small minds talk about people...
Of which mind are you?
Awake97105
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
Although his track record has not been a perfect one, Clinton's attitude
towards *us*
has been a sustained "long distance run."
Clinton, more than some other presidents, has brought hard questions to the
table regarding the "race question."
This month, his advisors on race concluded their year long study on race
relations.
They said,
``It is, we believe, essential to recall the facts of racial domination. ... We
as a nation need to understand that whites tend to benefit, either unknowingly
or consciously, from this country's history of white privilege,'' the report
said.
Clinton was making ready an address to prepare Americans for the day when no
racial group is a majority of the U.S. population.
Perhaps there were some of us who were attentive to the White House "Town Hall
Meetings" that have been televised on race and minorities on C-SPAN.
A separate report commissioned by the President came from the Council of
Economic Advisers dealt with "social" and "economic" indicators of racial
discriminatory practices.
This report confirmed the perception that "whites and Asians enjoy greater
advantages economically and have better access to health care and education".
Also, that "social and economic progress of blacks slowed between the mid-1970s
and early 1990s, [and] the economic status of Hispanics ... declined in the
past 25 years ... American Indians are the most disadvantaged ethnic group by
far".
Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" policy with respect to affirmative action is
lauded.
Does anyone believe, in our lifetime, that the President of the U.S. will be
one of *us*?
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a
harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do
good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers."
--Gal. 6:9-10 (NIV)
Rich Thompson
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan, then Jesse Jackson aand now the
> > capo de tutti capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy, Black
> > love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>
> and we know when to fight back. Perhaps that is what Clinton is
> reaching for when he is among us. Perhaps some black people or even
> black males (because there are no black women you mention) feel he is
> some kind of kindred person.
Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
But then, I'm a cynic, I suppose. Wayne has a much more optimistic view of
Clinton vis-a-vis Black people, and he probably is as equally likely to be
right as I am.
I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 398-7425
"If greedy wait, hot turn cold."
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated awake...@aol.com (Awake97105)
wrote:
...
>
>Although his track record has not been a perfect one, Clinton's attitude
>towards *us*
>has been a sustained "long distance run."
The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
permanent. He signed it.
....
>
>This month, his advisors on race concluded their year long study on race
>relations.
Feel good attempt that accomplished nothing.
...
>
>Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" policy with respect to affirmative action is
>lauded.
And he ordered that aa programs be reviewed. Of which, a few were
endend.
PhoenixDC
Art Clemons wrote:
>Which democratic politician of African heritage is going to lose votes,
>being seen as a supporter of the president now? I also note that most
>African-Americans know people of questionable moral worth and
>character and at the least have learned to pretend to get along with
>said people.
>
I live and work in Washington, DC, where the mayor, Marion Barry, was reelected
largely with black support, after being videotaped in a smoking crack in a
hotel room, with a woman obviously not his wife. I moved here in 1994, just
before he was re-elected, and was somewhat mystified at how he got re-elected
after that.
Though he's white (and wasn't caught smoking crack), I see some parallels
between Clinton's case, and Barry's. Besides being caught on tape, Barry's own
womanizing became public knowledge after he was caught on tape. Barry claimed,
much as Clinton is claiming, that he was set up - though it seems obvious that
even if political enemies set up the situations, both Clinton and Barry made
their own choices, with very painful consequences.
I'm still not sure why both men have gotten so much support among blacks, after
scandal has erupted. Any ideas? Is it because blacks are particularly
forgiving? At work, I joked with co-workers that this might be true, because
if we weren't this country would have burned to the ground a long time ago...
*************
Do not say anything harsh; what you have said will be said back to you.
Angry talk is painful; retaliation will get you.
Buddha
Terrance Heath
Phoe...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/PhoenixDC/index.html
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
Anyway, people seem to think so.
>I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
>more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
>kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
I don't think that's it at all. It's just obvious that Black people
don't reject folks for making "social errors" very quickly; we live
with a higher level of stress overall, and know how easy it is to fall
from great heights.
We have never enjoyed any significant level of "social acceptance"
from mainstream America, except in the most patronizing way, so if
some white person winds up ostracized, most Black folks don't share in
the shunning. It's done to us too often.
>But then, I'm a cynic, I suppose. Wayne has a much more optimistic view of
>Clinton vis-a-vis Black people, and he probably is as equally likely to be
>right as I am.
Clinton is known for charging into crowds of people to shake hands,
and so on (to the alarm of his Secret Service people), and he loves
doing this with Black Americans. I honestly think he doesn't give a
damn what color somebody is.
This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
big deal out of it.
>I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
>is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
You damn betcha they are. It is in the vested interests of mainstream
America to keep racial politics on the Republican level; patronizing,
with selective "let's all be treated the same" speeches, masking the
real social and economic divisions that come with racial politics.
I've been amused at the posing of some folks who bemoan Clinton's lack
of sustained support for Lani Guinere, or Jocelyn Elders, as if
political realities were less important than some perceived litmus
test of his views on race. That kind of foolishness is exactly what
the GOP is hoping that Black folks will do; chase around behind racial
politics, instead of getting real political power.
Clinton is slamming hundreds of Black folks into real influential
positions within the Washington power structure, which is among the
most important reasons they want him (and by extension, us) out.
The real hoot is the claim that his criticism of the Sistah Souljah
"death to cops" silliness means that he is against Black folks. The
man who called Clinton to task for criticizing Souljah (what was the
name of that "song" again? Or the name of the album? Was there ever
a second album? Does anyone really give a damn?), namely Jesse
Jackson, is now a close personal friend of Clinton and especially his
daughter Chelsea. The need to cast Clinton as a cracker, or whatever,
is so far from what most Black folks can see for themselves is
ludicrous.
Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> > and we know when to fight back. Perhaps that is what Clinton is
> > reaching for when he is among us. Perhaps some black people or even
> > black males (because there are no black women you mention) feel he is
> > some kind of kindred person.
>
> Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
Well, Betty Currie has been working for him for a number of years; she
*knows* him, and she also knows not to get into *that* kind of business
or cause anything to go wrong that would explode in his face. I doubt
whether it is her trying to mess with Hillary per se; just don't manage
to expose something that just ain any of her business at all.
And I'm not sure many black women would love to be Betty Currie's shoes;
except to say he's a great boss or person to work with and show loyalty.
He didn't have to bring her in from Arkansas or support her when things
went bad in her life or promote her to a very visible office.
> I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
> more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
> kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
I tend to agree. But there are few white politicians coming to black
folks to get some very personal emotional strokes. I don't this is a
case of massa coming over when the bank has foreclosed after Christmas
demanding those 'presents' back to feed his own. Clinton, for being very
disappointing at times, still doesn't forget where he came from.
There's nothing black people can give Clinton except their unconditional
attention. Anything else he would have to generate himself.
His appearing in front of black crowds could be his asking, "Do you
still like me, despite everyone else saying I'm everything but a child
of the Universe?" And they could be saying with the applause, "Yeah,
yeah. You're okay. Better than some. Keep going."
> But then, I'm a cynic, I suppose. Wayne has a much more optimistic
> view of Clinton vis-a-vis Black people, and he probably is as equally
> likely to be right as I am.
Umph.
> I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
> is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
This is unclear. Do you mean that the anti-Clintonites think Wayne is
wrong?
Anyway, I think I get your point.
Course, DarkStar would still insist that Clinton is a "cracka."
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
(The Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:48:13 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>
>
>><rant>
>>the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
>>who doesn't deserve our respect.
>
>Your post sounds pretty liberal,
That's a joke right?
I mean the liberals are defending Clinton, and I'm blasting Clinton --
by telling the truth -- and it sounds, ummm, liberal?
>for some reason I thought you had
>moderate positions.
>
>>
>>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
>
>How so?
*sigh*
When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
>>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
>>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
>
>It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
>black.
No, but Black women sure do get shown the door rather quickly in his
adminstration.
>Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
Why did it become an issue when a Black woman was in the spot, and not
Koop?
....
>
>>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
>
>This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
>the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
>community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
>has been harmful.
See comments by "Black leaders" for details.
>>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
>>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
>
>What was his reason? Because he was black?
Nope. It was because he wanted to show he was tough on crime.
>
>>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
>>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
>>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
>
>I'd have to look into this...
The fact that you don't know about it, is interesting.
>>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
>>against.
>
>Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
>wrong.
But it doesn't make it *RIGHT* either.
>>
>>and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
>>*LOVE* that man....
>>
>>
>>Bill Clinton ain't nothin' but a cracka in a suit!
>
>Isn't "craka" an epithet?
Against Clinton, it sure is. Now, I challenge you to find where I use
that phrase for an entire group of people.
>
>========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
>MOD: Depends on how it is used.
>
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Rose Marie Holt
> Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
> be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
> First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
> then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
> capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
> Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
> I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
> fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
> Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
> why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
> seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
> any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
> leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
>
> Kim
The standing ovation he got at the UN as his grand jury videotape was
airing tells us that it isnt just Black foreign leaders standing up for
Clinton. They dont care about our faux morality and associated angst.
The Congressional Black Caucus is certainly sticking up for Clinton -
which I admire. He shares their political views and they are sticking
with their principles by not running away from him now, when it would be
the easy thing to do.
Jesse Jackson seems to thrive on proximity to power. Vernon Jordan has
been a friend of Clinton's for a long time. He didnt lie to his
inquisitors when the time came about how he did a favor for a friend.
Betty Currie could write the manual on how to be an executive secretary.
You analogy doesnt compare how Black democrats running for election are
treating Clinton, which may be a more accurate analogy with your governor.
mutu...@my-dejanews.com
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:52:40 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated awake...@aol.com (Awake97105)
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> >Although his track record has not been a perfect one, Clinton's attitude
> >towards *us*
> >has been a sustained "long distance run."
>
> The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
> the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
> permanent. He signed it.
He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
> ....
>
> >
> >This month, his advisors on race concluded their year long study on race
> >relations.
>
> Feel good attempt that accomplished nothing.
Amen to that. Although it made some white people happy enough to say, "See,
we're trying to change our ways."
> ...
>
> >
> >Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" policy with respect to affirmative action is
> >lauded.
>
> And he ordered that aa programs be reviewed. Of which, a few were
> endend.
Don't beat a dead horse. AA is forever beyond our reach to continue it at its
former levels.
m. o. mutuembe
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
...
>This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
>I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
>- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
>couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
>big deal out of it.
check out the back issue of Emerge where clinton left ron brown
blowing in the wind, according to brown's daughter.
...
>
>I've been amused at the posing of some folks who bemoan Clinton's lack
>of sustained support for Lani Guinere, or Jocelyn Elders, as if
>political realities were less important than some perceived litmus
>test of his views on race. That kind of foolishness is exactly what
>the GOP is hoping that Black folks will do; chase around behind racial
>politics, instead of getting real political power.
funny ain't it?
funny that guiner, a "friend" of clinton for years, gets kicked to the
curb without getting a chance to defend herself, and then he doesn't
even have the decency to give her a call; yet. meanwhile, his
political advisor, is caught spending time with a prostitute, and
talking to the president while in the presence of the prostitute, but
clinton takes the time to call him.
funny ain't it?
and it's funny that the republican base is getting stoked over this
mess, while the democrat base isn't, and there's a real fear that the
republicans will gain more seats in both halves of congress. funny
ain't it that the dnc is worrying about a good ole fashioned ass
kicking that they may be getting.
and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
the democrats...
...
>
>The real hoot is the claim that his criticism of the Sistah Souljah
>"death to cops" silliness means that he is against Black folks. The
>man who called Clinton to task for criticizing Souljah (what was the
>name of that "song" again? Or the name of the album? Was there ever
>a second album? Does anyone really give a damn?), namely Jesse
>Jackson, is now a close personal friend of Clinton and especially his
>daughter Chelsea. The need to cast Clinton as a cracker, or whatever,
>is so far from what most Black folks can see for themselves is
>ludicrous.
jesse jackson stated that clinton has no soul.
jesse jackson has publically stated that if he runs for president, it
will not be as a democrat.
>Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
no, clinton is a cracka in a suit.
jesse jackson is a media chaser and a democrat wh*re.
yeah, i said it...
and he's a punk too!
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1998 Edwin Brown
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: civility please gentlemen.
Rich Thompson
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Rich Thompson wrote back to my saying:
>
> > I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
> > is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
>
> This is unclear. Do you mean that the anti-Clintonites think Wayne is
> wrong?
I think that many of the anti-Clintonites think that Wayne is *right*,
namely that Bill Clinton is a friend of Black people, and it's his
perceived friend-of-Black-people-ness that's fuelling the drive to impeach
him, for many people.
I'm still not sure that they or Wayne are right, but I can see why they
think the way they do.
> Course, DarkStar would still insist that Clinton is a "cracka."
And I can certainly understand this point of view also.
morp...@my-dejanews.com
dark...@flash.net wrote:
>
> <rant>
> the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
> who doesn't deserve our respect.
>
> he were a conservative lecturing Black folk.
Actually, some people think Clinton is more of a conservative than he is a
liberal.
> 3. he didn't let lani guiner defend herself. instead, he pulled her
> nomination, *LYING* when he said he never read her book or knew her
> views.
I agree that he was lying when he said he never read her book. However, I
believe he cut and ran away from Guiner because of political reasons, not
because she was black. Too many people were opposing the nomination.
Politicians make tradeoffs. It is possible Clinton decided to lose a battle
to possibly win the war in the future.
> 4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> *about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
Same as my answer to your #3 question. I believe Clinton's decision was
politically based and not because Elders was black. Unfortunately, the
moralistic religious people are much more vocal and they also vote more often
than the general population. So Clinton may have traded off on some issues
and stood fast for other issues.
> 5. he then followed that up by nominating a Black man for the position
> that elder's left, *knowing* that anyone nominated would be given an
> anal exam.
Yes, the U.S.A. does tend to give blacks more of an anal exam than other
races. My guess is that had Clinton nominated a Latino (who the rest of the
world thinks of as black and the U.S.A. tends to think of as brown) I feel
the Latino would have also received an anal exam. Possibly the same would
have been true for an Asian, or a Native American.
> 6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
I had a political science teacher in college who viewed the welfare system
existing at that time as a way to keep blacks content and not strive for
upliftment. It is possible that Clinton signed the welfare reform into law as
a first step to further everyone eventually.
It is not just blacks who are on welfare. With any change, it is not always
fully known what detrimental effects will come about. The welfare reform is
not a final thing. I'm sure the future will see adjustments to or a complete
overhaul of the welfare reform. The chances of the adjustments happening
would be individuals advocating for change and not giving up and accepting
what politicians hand down from on high.
> 7. he signed the bill that made the cocaine vs crack disparity a
> permanent law. before, it was only around for a temporary amount of
> time.
Possibly Clinton traded off on the signing of this bill. Politicians make all
kinds of deals behind closed doors. It is possible that Clinton traded his
signature on this bill in exchange for something else. The public is party
only to the final done deal. The public has no inkling as to the full
picture.
> 8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
> see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
I'm not aware of this case so I can't really be for or against what he did. I
have no idea what this black man was accused of nor do I know if he was
guilty or took the blame for something someone else did. However, I believe
Clinton would have stopped if there was irrefutable evidence that a white
person had done some horrendous deed and was about to be executed.
> 9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
> people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
> warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
I don't agree with Clinton doing this at all. However, being an individual,
no other individual will completely mirror all of my views. As I see it, this
policy takes away the freedom of citizens based on perceived views of which
said perceived views quite often are 100% wrong.
> 10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
> against.
>
Your statement "Many black leaders" does this mean a majority of black
leaders ? Just because so called black leaders were against this bill, does
not mean the majority of blacks were against this bill. I'm not familiar with
the nature of the bill so I can't say whether I agree with the black leaders
or diagree with them.
> and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
> *LOVE* that man....
>
Love is an arbitray word. I'm guessing the black population are ok with
Clinton since the alternates thus far are far worse. Give me a Clinton over a
Newt any day.
Everything Clinton does is not ok with the black population. Had Starr come
out with evidence other then that shown in the porno report, I'm sure the
black population would be united in calling for his impeachment.
-morpheme-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated mutu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <360e69ed...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
...
>>
>> The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
>> the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
>> permanent. He signed it.
>
>He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
>is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
>distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
>spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
I have no problems with it, but the CBC sure does.
And they do speak for all Black people in the U.S., right?
Artclemons
In article <6umvmo$5ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
>is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
>distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
>spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
Signing this bill along with a lot of other behavior is why I refer to Clinton
as
a Nixon republican disguised as a touchie feelie caring democrat. There is
NO legislation that Clinton has pushed, which has benefitted the African
heritage community in his now almost six years in office, the benefit to
having Clinton in office has rather been that some things that would have
been harmful to the community have not been passed, and abject opponents
of things that benefit the community have not been nominated for high office.
The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I suspect
I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any other two
posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has been a disaster
for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective take home profits
in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled prisons, while the
amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped if it has at all.
Despite
an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad example
of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug crimes
is up drastically. Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
the number of people going to prison is rising? Heroin usage is rising.
How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
users are white if the system is fair. Everywhere that measurement of the
number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
criminal system, two-thirds white. You should also realize that changing
powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of time.
Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
-art clemons-
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
Okay, M.O. and DarkStar. Answer these questions for me.
1. Has Clinton done anything right for black folks?
2. Is he better or worse than any other American president around black
folks' issues?
3. Which of these guys is worse?
a. Gingrich--a cracka in a suit
b. Clinton--a cracka in a suit
c. Duke (as in David)--a cracka in a suit
d. They're ALL BAD.
e. a. and b.
f. b. and c.
g. a. and c.
4. Which of these guys are politicians?
a. The McLaughlin Group
b. The House of Representatives
c. Bill Maher
d. Helen Chenoweth
e. Barbra Streisand
f. All of them.
g. None of them.
mutu...@my-dejanews.com
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:04:24 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
> (The Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:48:13 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
> >>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
> >
> >How so?
>
> *sigh*
> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
BS. He blasted Sista Souljah using a quote out of context. He did so to
embarass Jesse and to show other crackas that he was standing up to Blacks.
Jesse allowed himself to be punked. Sista Souljah came back as hard as she
could against Clinton.
m. o. mutuembe
Roger Brown
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
Maybe not all black folk.
It turns out that most of Ken Starr's grand jury members were older
African-American women, according to the Post, that took a very
motherly attitude towards young wayward Monica.
So, black folk can also be a source of Clinton's troubles ...
- Roger
Artclemons
In article <6uoih7$3ae$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, bro...@erols.com (Roger
Brown) writes:
Damnation, don't people understand that the grand jury in this case was used
to only be able to force witnesses to appear and testify, rather than finding
information suitable for an indictment. While the grand jury could have
questioned witnesses on its own, it did not do so, and in fact most grand
juries aren't made aware of that privilege. Grand juries can also issue
reports,
and I suspect that a grand jury report would have differed from a Ken Starr
report. Once when grand juries were actually used to decide who would
be indicted rather than becoming an information collection device and
excuse for indicting you might have had a point, but almost any prosecutor
can get a grand jury to indict anyone even Jesus Christ for sedition and
treason against the Roman empire.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
<gdan...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>Okay, M.O. and DarkStar. Answer these questions for me.
>
>1. Has Clinton done anything right for black folks?
Some people say that Reagan was responsible for the growth in the
economy, which helped Black people. Would you accept the statement
that Reagan is the friend of Black people?
>2. Is he better or worse than any other American president around black
> folks' issues?
That's not the point I've been making. Clinton is not as friendly as
people say he is.
>3. Which of these guys is worse?
>
>a. Gingrich--a cracka in a suit
Didn't Gingrich help get the MLK Jr. holiday? Isn't Gingrich a friend
of J.C. Watts?
Well, he's a friend of Black people, ain't he?
mutu...@my-dejanews.com
It isn't a matter of whether or not Clinton has done anything for us. Or
whether he is better than President Whoever. Or even if he and others are
politicians.
He has f*d up several times when it comes to Black folk. He has prostituted
our so-called leaders (albeit with their willful partication in most cases).
It is now that he needs us most that he is using every opportunity to appear
with us.
Engaging in a senseless debate about whether one wife beater is better than
another because he only slaps when husband a punches...well, you get the
picture, I hope.
Now are we right? Or are we totally wrong?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated mutu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <360e6899...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:04:24 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
>> (The Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:48:13 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>
>> >>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
I wrote he suckered jackson and souljah.
right?
>> >How so?
>>
>> *sigh*
>> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
>> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
>> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
>
>BS. He blasted Sista Souljah using a quote out of context.
In or out of context doesn't matter. What matters is the point made by
Clinton for coming out against her. That is what I was writing about.
>He did so to
>embarass Jesse and to show other crackas that he was standing up to Blacks.
Okay. I agree with that line.
>Jesse allowed himself to be punked.
And I agree with this one.
Mycroft
> Though he's white (and wasn't caught smoking crack), I see some parallels
> between Clinton's case, and Barry's. Besides being caught on tape, Barry's own
> womanizing became public knowledge after he was caught on tape. Barry claimed,
> much as Clinton is claiming, that he was set up - though it seems obvious that
> even if political enemies set up the situations, both Clinton and Barry made
> their own choices, with very painful consequences.
You're right on 2 counts.
1) They both made stupid choices with painful consequences
2) They both claim to have been set up.
But there's a third count you have left out.
3) They both actually WERE set up.
Did you see the WHOLE tape of Barry smoking crack? Prior to smoking he told
the woman at least twice "No, I don't want to do that". But she kept insisting
and he gave in. That's called entrapment, and that's why he case was thrown
out of court. Had he asked the woman for the crack, instead of being pressured
into it, he would have been convicted and as a convicted fellon he wouldn't have
been able to be mayor. Yes what he did was wrong and inexcusable and had I
lived in D.C. I would have voted for Sharon Pratt Kelly. But I was also angry
at the obvious breech of fairness in the "sting operation".
On to Clinton. In the less publicized part of the Lewinsky testimony, Monica
said that Linda Tripp had been egging her to have an affair with the president
with statements like "you're the kind of woman the president would like" and
"wouldn't that be a neat thing to tell your grandkids". She kept this up until
Monica blurted out "we've already HAD an affair". Then the pressure switched
to ways of entangling the president. According to Monica it was Tripp that
encouraged her to seek out Vernon Jordan and Tripp who told her to "save the
dress in a plastic bag" when she was thinking about getting it clean.
Now it could be that Monica is lying about all this. The story certainly
makes her look stupid and gullible. If, as she originally pretended, she
was really trying to "protect" the president then why would she not clean
the dress even on the advice of a "friend"? But if Monica IS lying then
that makes the setup even more sinister. By her own testimony Monica
sought the president out for sex, not the other way around. With each
encounter she encouraged him to go further, though he kept saying "I
don't trust you enough yet." Sure giving into sexual temptation is a sign
of weakness, but it's a far cry from the "woman hunter" that the president
is being portrayed as.
> I'm still not sure why both men have gotten so much support among blacks, after
> scandal has erupted. Any ideas? Is it because blacks are particularly
> forgiving? At work, I joked with co-workers that this might be true, because
> if we weren't this country would have burned to the ground a long time ago...
People keep trying to make a big deal about "black support" for president
Clinton. But the last poll I heard had him receiving 60 to 75% of the entire
COUNTRY's support in the matter of to impeach or not to impeach. Now tell
me something. What is the current U.S. black population? 10%? 15%? 20%?
Even if 100% of blacks supported president Clinton, that wouldn't be enough
to raise total U.S. support that high. Clinton is obviously getting a lot
of support from whites, latinos, and other groups. And why? My guess is that
despite recent worries about the world economy, most people feel that the U.S.
economy is doing pretty good and impeaching the president could jepordize that.
We can argue ALL DAY about wether or not Clinton has helped the economy
(though I have to laugh at those that blamed Carter for recession, praised
Regan for recovery, but now say "Everybody knows the presidency has NOTHING
to do with the economy).
They also feel uncomfortable about impeaching someone on what really boils
down to sex. Oh sure, he lied and probably lied under oath. Had he gotten
caught lying about having someone's hotel room or office broken into, or
ordering a political assasination or even lying about his taxes the majority
of the American people would probably say yes to impeachment. But he lied
about something that wasn't criminal in a case with dubious merit. Though
that may or may not fight the "legal" definition of "high crimes and
misdomeanors" most Americans, rightly or wrongly, seem to feel that it
doesn't fit the "spirit" of that definition. The republicans sense that
mood and that's why they are trying to prolong the investigation and open
it up to include areas of Mr. Starr's investigation that he hasn't even
turned over to them yet, but that seem more substantial. Thing such as
Whitewater. Oh yeah, wasn't that what this was supposed to be about in
the first place? It's funny that beforehand Clinton and his supporters
were trying to delay the investigation and the republicans were trying to
speed it up. Now Newt is the one saying "wait, we shouldn't rush to
judgement on this thing" and the Clinton supporters are trying to speed
things up.
Mycroft
> The real hoot is the claim that his criticism of the Sistah Souljah
> "death to cops" silliness means that he is against Black folks. The
> man who called Clinton to task for criticizing Souljah (what was the
> name of that "song" again? Or the name of the album? Was there ever
> a second album? Does anyone really give a damn?), namely Jesse
> Jackson, is now a close personal friend of Clinton and especially his
> daughter Chelsea. The need to cast Clinton as a cracker, or whatever,
> is so far from what most Black folks can see for themselves is
> ludicrous.
Actually Sistah Souljah made the comment in a news interview, not a
song, and it wasn't about "killing cops". In response to the riots
after the cops who beat Rodney King were aquitted was basically
"Well perhaps they (the rioters) have gotten tired of black-on-black
killings and decided to kill some white people for a change."
She explains her feelings behind this and other statements in her
book "No Dis-respect". Jesse's criticism of Clinton after this
was quite understandable because Clinton made the statement at a
speech at a "Rainbow Coalition" meeting where he and Sista Souljah
were both platform guests. Yet and still Jesse's critism was rather
muted. It was more along the lines of "well if he really felt this
way, why didn't he say something to me privately BEFORE coming to the
meeting?" Anyway, I don't think much of it and Jesse probably doesn't
either. I'm sure a lot of black people also disagree with a lot that
Sista Souljah has said, but Clinton has had the unfortunate position
of having to PROVE he's in the center time and again. George Bush
didn't need to prove that and hence he was able to host "Easy-E" at
the Whitehouse.
Mycroft
> >>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
> >
> >How so?
>
> *sigh*
> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
1) Do YOU believe that Sista Souljah was preaching hate?
2) If you believe she was than how would that be different than
if say Bush had gone somewhere to speak where David Duke was
also on the platform and then using the opportunity to blast
Duke? Oh let me answer my own question, Clinton didn't have
to go and he could have stated Sista Souljah's presense as
a reason for not going? Would YOU have looked at it any
differently? I recall President Bush resigning from the NRA
after their president make crass remarks about federal law
enforcement. It is possible for someone to have a disagreement
with a long time supporter. (Though I guess Bush's reaction
was more credible since he was already out of office.)
3) If you don't believe that Sista Souljah was preaching hate but
was merely "mis-understood" is it possible that Clinton may have
merely "mis-understood" her?
> >>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> >>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
> >
> >It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
> >black.
>
> No, but Black women sure do get shown the door rather quickly in his
> adminstration.
Oh really? Let's see, Jocelyn Elders (whom many conservative BLACK AND
WHITE blasted for being allowed to stay in office so long) and Lanie
Guanier (again blasted by BLACK AND WHITE conservative) never got in the
door. And though Elders got cut on the masturbation statement,
conservatives
BLACK AND WHITE were calling for her resignation even before the seemingly
"pro-drug" statement. Yes, I know that she didn't advocate legalizing
drugs but only studying the effect which is a VERY reasonable thing to
do. But I heard more than one BLACK person claim that Elders was trying
to "put crack cocaine in your local grocery store".
Uh, where are the rest of all of the black women being shown the
door? What about the white men and women who've been let go? I recall
Zoe Baird and some other white lady got cut before he settled on Janet
Reno. And there have been various men black and white who've either
failed their nominations or got cut. Mike Esby, black male. The guy
that told the campain secrets to the hooker, white male. Perhaps you've
seen some statistical analysis done on the number of blacks to be let
go from the Clinton cabinent vs the number of whites and that's cross-
referenced by the number of blacks nominated by Clinton as compared to
his predecessors. I certainly haven't.
> >Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
>
> Why did it become an issue when a Black woman was in the spot, and not
> Koop?
For the record I totally agree that republican moves to get rid of
the suregeon general position were racist, partisan and crass. They're
just made that "Koop" wasn't as conservative as they hoped he be.
When "Koop" came out with a report on abortion that basically dismissed
claims of a "strong negative emotional effect on the woman" conservatives
far and wide called for his hide. In fact that has been strongly cited
as a major reason why he didn't stay on when Bush won.
> >
> >>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
> >
> >This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
> >the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
> >community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
> >has been harmful.
>
> See comments by "Black leaders" for details.
So where are YOU on the issue of welfare reform? Did you think it should
or shouldn't have happened? Oh I'm sure you can say "well it should have
been done differently", but most people say that about almost ANY reform
effort. Do you think that if Bush or Dole had been president and the
congress had still been republican that the reform bill would have been
MORE rather than LESS in favor of blacks? What specifically do you think
a George Bush or a Bob Dole would have pushed for? What would YOU have
pushed for? I'll go on the record for something that I'm pushing for.
There is an amendment (proposed by a Democrat I believe) that seeks to
give welfare recipients greater "work waiver" time when they are in school.
The current waiver time is not even quite long enough to earn an associates
degree. The best they can hope for is a certificate which will only take
them so far. Many democrats in congress as well as many social work
experts believe that getting the time to receive and actual degree is
essential to pulling oneself up from poverty. Some hardline republicans
have argued that "getting the work experience" is more important and
they'll
"work their way up", but without any type of degree how far can they go?
So do you support this? If so please call your congressman. (This senate,
which has less of a republican controll, has already passed this measure).
> >>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
> >>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
> >
> >What was his reason? Because he was black?
>
> Nope. It was because he wanted to show he was tough on crime.
So he actually flew to Arkansas and witnessed the execution? Any
refernces?
What were his comments at the execution?
I agree with you (if that's what you are saying) that it's a shame that
liberals have let conservatives frame the "crime issue". The death penalty
does nothing measurable to deter crime, yet it is pushed heavily over ideas
such as aggressive probation, treatment and therapy for certain types of
offenders (including drug and sex offenders) and community based
alternatives
to prison that have been PROVEN to reduce recitavism (repeating a crime)
and
are far CHEAPER than the alternative of building more prisons. Besides,
even
those who argue for building more prisons don't want these new prisons in
THEIR neighborhoods. Still alternatives to the normal "prison/death
penalty"
alternatives don't pass the "anti-liberal" litmus test that the media has
been duped into applying to every politician. About the only anti-crime
idea that works for which you can get bi-partisan support is hiring more
cops. Clinton did do that. Crime is down. (though I will admit that
there
are more factors involved in this than just the hiring of more cops)
Perhaps
with the next president we'll get someone who can look at the larger scope
including faster processing of cases (more lawyers and judges) and
intervention
and treatment to prevent recivitism. But I didn't hear George Bush, Dan
Quayle,
Bob Dole, Jack Kemp or Newt Gingrinch promising ANY of that.
> >>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
> >>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
> >>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
> >
> >I'd have to look into this...
>
> The fact that you don't know about it, is interesting.
The fact that you haven't posted the reference/context to this is also
interesting. Are you referring to the order to put tenants out of
public housing based on ANY member of the household posessing drugs?
As I recall that going on when Jack Kemp was HUD secretary. I remember
a news clip of him talking to one tenant resident who was protesting
against this practice and he was asking her to "join my team."
> >>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
> >>against.
> >
> >Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
> >wrong.
>
> But it doesn't make it *RIGHT* either.
Considering the range of leaders who happen to be black from Jesse
Jackson to Louis Farakhan to Joseph Lowery to Colin Powell to
Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, the "Black Avenger" and J.C. Watts
it is HIGHLY unlikely that you'll find a bill that ALL of them would
support. In a bill as large and complex as the crime bill it is
doubtfull that you'll find ANY one who supported it in it's entirety.
As I recall there were conservatives who called it too "liberal"
because it considered some alternative "community friendly" ways
for fighting crime and there were liberals who called it too
"conservative". Part of the problem with trying to be a centrist
politician is that you'll never please everyone, and you'll probably
end up ticking both sides off to some degree. So what SPECIFICALLY
did you dislike about the crime bill? By the same token, was there
anything in there that you LIKED? If legislation is only passed
when ALL members of EVERY constituent group are COMPLETELY satisfied,
nothing will ever get done.
Mycroft
> In article <6umvmo$5ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
> >is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
> >distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
> >spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
>
> Signing this bill along with a lot of other behavior is why I refer to Clinton
> as
> a Nixon republican disguised as a touchie feelie caring democrat. There is
> NO legislation that Clinton has pushed, which has benefitted the African
> heritage community in his now almost six years in office, the benefit to
> having Clinton in office has rather been that some things that would have
> been harmful to the community have not been passed, and abject opponents
> of things that benefit the community have not been nominated for high office.
The parallels between Nixon and Clinton are uncanny (irregards to the impeachment
proceedings). Nixon's support for affirmative action was uncharecteristic of
conservatism. Clinton's support for NAFTA was uncharecteristic of liberalism.
Stuff like that "sneaks by" the people who would have fought the hardest against
particular bills if they had come from the "other side of the aisle".
And you are 100% correct. Supporting Clinton is more a case of "well he's
not openly fighting against us like so-and-so" rather than "he's really going
to be a big help with XYZ."
> The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I suspect
> I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any other two
> posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has been a disaster
> for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective take home profits
> in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled prisons, while the
> amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped if it has at all.
I suppose the argument here could be "you've go to start somewhere". I hear
the "lets go after the big guys" argument all the time, but it truly sickens
me to be able to see dealers selling IN PLAIN SIGHT and know that the police
often drive by and do nothing. I recall once that I participated in an
anti-drug parade one particular neighborhood. After the parade, the police
officer who was guiding the parade told me, "well we've taken you all past
every crack house I know of in this neighborhood." Ok, maybe I'm a bit slow
here, but if the cops KNOW where all of the crack houses are, why can't they
just bust them all?
> Despite
> an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad example
> of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug crimes
> is up drastically.
The drop in crime is for real. Just look at the local papers on the number
of murders from one year to the next. I know here in Birmingham the murder
rate has dropped. And yes, there are more crimes that go on other than
murder, but murder is the crime that is most likely to be reported and that
causes the most fear amoung the public.
> Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
> between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
> the number of people going to prison is rising?
Good question. Is it possible that criminals are more likely to
get CAUGHT,arrested and prosecuted? I saw a special on 60 minutes on the man who
consulted for the NYPD and later for the New Orleans PD. (By the way, that
report was really said. They had a tape in there where one corrupt cop
had paid for a murder and was in communication with the hit man while he
was carrying out the hit. I know those doing the investigation were trying
not to blow their cover, but they IMHO really could have stopped the hit
and nailed the guy for attempted murder rather than murder). Anyway one thing
that he pointed out was that many cases were being simply closed rather than
solved. One simple reform was to have a cop assigned to follow every case
to completion. This had the net effect of generating more arrests for the
same number of crimes.
> Heroin usage is rising.
> How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
> African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
> users are white if the system is fair.
No the system isn't fair. In fact it really sucks. Unfortunately
anti-crimeideas such as intervention, treatment and agressive probation which
might
actually WORK get branded as being too "liberal" and die before their time.
Still it's also not fair that these same African-Americans, Mexicans and
Puerto Rican's target their poison at their own communities rather than going
for the broader market.
> Everywhere that measurement of the
> number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
> criminal system, two-thirds white.
Interesting. They should have the book thrown at them too. But here'sa
question, are white's more likely to get treatment? Or are they just
being allowed to languish? If they are getting more treatment is that
strictly a matter of economics? Are poor whites more likely to get into
treatment programs than poor blacks? I don't know, just asking.
> You should also realize that changing
> powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
> and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
> chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
> only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
> of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of time.
> Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
> crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
> that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
> because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
The same drugs in different forms can have different effects. When chewed as
a leaf the plant that cocaine comes from is actually useful in helping
people deal with high altitudes. (That's what the Indians in the Andes
used and still use it for.)
Wayne Johnson
>On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:48:09 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
>>I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
>>- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
>>couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
>>big deal out of it.
>
>check out the back issue of Emerge where clinton left ron brown
>blowing in the wind, according to brown's daughter.
Check out any number of conservative rags that claim he had Brown
murdered. I get tired of spinmeister BS.
>>I've been amused at the posing of some folks who bemoan Clinton's lack
>>of sustained support for Lani Guinere, or Jocelyn Elders, as if
>>political realities were less important than some perceived litmus
>>test of his views on race. That kind of foolishness is exactly what
>>the GOP is hoping that Black folks will do; chase around behind racial
>>politics, instead of getting real political power.
>
>funny ain't it?
>funny that guiner, a "friend" of clinton for years, gets kicked to the
>curb without getting a chance to defend herself, and then he doesn't
>even have the decency to give her a call; yet. meanwhile, his
>political advisor, is caught spending time with a prostitute, and
>talking to the president while in the presence of the prostitute, but
>clinton takes the time to call him.
>funny ain't it?
Ed, why are you comparing a woman that he knew vaguely, and the guy he
credits with handling every detail of a very successful political
career? Guinere made her own bed, and expecting a President to lie in
it is a joke.
I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
>and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
>the democrats...
So do you want us sending money to Jesse Helms via Rush Limbaugh, or
not?
>jesse jackson stated that clinton has no soul.
That is a statement without content, and a sound bite. What's the
point?
>jesse jackson has publically stated that if he runs for president, it
>will not be as a democrat.
I will publicly state that Jesse Jackson stands a snowball's chance in
hell of being President.
>>Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
>
>no, clinton is a cracka in a suit.
I don't know what you're trying to say.
>jesse jackson is a media chaser and a democrat wh*re.
>yeah, i said it...
>and he's a punk too!
Oh well.
Wayne "I don't understand why you're so upset, then" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Ramsey
Wayne Johnson wrote...
>I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
>complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
>There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
>group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
>President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
>was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
The voting scheme is 'proportional representation' which is neither
goofy, or her idea. In fact, the scheme has been in use for years
by a number of municipalities. It is simply a mechanism for electing
an at-large legislative body, whereby each voter receives a fixed
number of votes, which they may choose to give to one candidate,
or parcel out among several. The reasoning is that supporters of
a minority (not necessarily racial) political viewpoint can concentrate
their votes on one candidate, thus assuring representation which
would not otherwise occur in an at-large system. Guinere wrote
a number of papers advocating this system as a way of increasing
black political power without resorting to the form of race-based
electoral districts that have been struck down by court decisions.
BTW, South Africa uses this scheme, as a means of giving white
voters a voice in the government.
__________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
morp...@my-dejanews.com
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
>
> In article <6umvmo$5ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
> >is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
> >distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
> >spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
>
> Signing this bill along with a lot of other behavior is why I refer to Clinton
> as a Nixon republican disguised as a touchie feelie caring democrat. There is
> NO legislation that Clinton has pushed, which has benefitted the African
> heritage community in his now almost six years in office, the benefit to
> having Clinton in office has rather been that some things that would have
> been harmful to the community have not been passed, and abject opponents
> of things that benefit the community have not been nominated for high office.
>
I agree that Clinton is basically a republican disguised as a democrat. I
also agree that signing this bill did not help the black community. I did not
vote him into office. I don't tend to vote straight democrat.
I currently support Clinton because I don't think the current installment of
the Starr porno report is enough to impeach him. I would think the same thing
even if he was a registered republican instead of a democrat in republicans
clothing. He is a lame duck president anyway. Even if he had never been
investigated, he would have reduced powers. I would have preferred the Starr
report dealing with Filegate, Travelgate, White Water & the issue of the
presidents campaign funded by foreign Chinese money which possibly would be
treasonand definitely an impeachable offense..
> The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I >suspect I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any other >two posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has been a >disaster for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective take home >profits in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled prisons, while >the amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped if it has at all.
> Despite an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad >example of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug >crimes is up drastically. Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
> between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
> the number of people going to prison is rising? Heroin usage is rising.
> How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
> African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
> users are white if the system is fair. Everywhere that measurement of the
> number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
> criminal system, two-thirds white. You should also realize that changing
> powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
> and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
> chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
> only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
> of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of time.
> Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
> crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
> that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
> because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
>
> -art clemons-
>
>
I live in a depressed area. I am very familiar with drug dealers and their
customers. I see them as you say in "plain sight" at all hours of the day.
Yes some cops do sometimes just pass them by. I think some cops would
sometimes pass them by even if every one of them had bright orange jackets
with neon letters stating "GET YOUR DRUGS HERE"
I also see the white customers seeking out the dealers. Of course, the white
customers never get arrested. They simply buy and flee to their all white
neighborhoods. These particular individuals only like to get close to blacks
when it results in taking them on their daily high.
Possibly some cops look the other way because some cops like some individuals
have poor home training. I am not going to go so far as to say it is all cops
since some cops are great. It is possible that the cops who look the other
way are selling out on particular communities to line their pockets
lucratically with money from the local dealers.
I'm not sure what the answer is. It does not seem that the source of the drug
problem will be solved anytime soon. The programs as you mentioned that may
help, will most likely always have funding problems. Such programs are
ususally tied to the political weather and currently the climate in the
Senate and the House of Representative is a majority of conservatives.
Conservatives don't tend to be for funding social programs.
I wonder if there is a way to weed out democrats masquerading as republicans?
Clinton apparently knows every trick in the book. Even though I support him
not getting impeached, my guess is he will eventually have to face up to the
things he has done. Currently he may be undergoing harassment, or he may not
be. For all anyone knows, there are hidden things with both Clinton, dome of
the republicans as well as some of the democrats that if known, would get
them all either in jail or looking for another job.
-morpheme-
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rich Thompson
> Good question. Is it possible that criminals are more likely to
> get CAUGHT,arrested and prosecuted?
Possible, but not as a reason for more and more people going to prison.
The reason for that is that people are much more likely to be sentenced to
prison for *completely* non-violent/non-property crimes (drug possession,
prostitution, pornography) than they were before. And also the sentences
for such things are much longer than they used to be. THAT is the real
reason.
For instance, in 1985, 54.5 % of the people in state and federal prisons
were there for violent crimes. In 1995, 13.1 % were. In 85, 8.6% of the
people in prison were there for drug possession or trafficing, in 95,
59.9%. This is a huge shift, by any standards.
While imprisonment proportions for white men in 1985 were 528/100,000 and
for Black men were 3544/100,000, in 1995, the proportions were 919/100,000
for white men and 6926/100,000 for Black men.
While both groups have about doubled their rate of incarceration during
this time, in absolute terms, this has had a more profound impact on Black
men.
And all these increases are due to increases in imprisonments for drugs
charges, not increases in violent or property crime.
And before someone says, well, most drug users are criminal in other ways,
well, fine, but if someone was convicted of both a drug and a violent
crime, they are classified as violent crime, *not drug crime.
So more than half of the people in prison are *only* there for drug
possession or trafficing.
Check out "The past and future of US prison policy: twenty-five years
after the Stanford prison experiment", by Haney and Zimbardo, in American
Psychologist, July 1998, vol53, n7, pp709-727.
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> Sorry Gabrielle, I ain't got the energy to answer your questions.
Okay.
But what I was attempting to ask from both of you is, has he done
anything good for black folks?
Even if it was one or two good, positive things that impacted on the
black community. And please, I don't mean the
Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time stuff.
And I don't mean the window-dressing on the race committee. Everyone
figured that was a sop.
> Now are we right? Or are we totally wrong?
Both.
DarkStar
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:01:45 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:48:09 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
>>>I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
>>>- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
>>>couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
>>>big deal out of it.
>>
>>check out the back issue of Emerge where clinton left ron brown
>>blowing in the wind, according to brown's daughter.
>
>Check out any number of conservative rags that claim he had Brown
>murdered. I get tired of spinmeister BS.
Just conservative rags?
Really?
I seem to get a sense everyone from all over the spectrum said the
situation needed more investigation, especially the *FACT* that the
autopsy pictures were missing.
>From Allan Keyes to CBC members.
...
>>funny ain't it?
>>funny that guiner, a "friend" of clinton for years, gets kicked to the
>>curb without getting a chance to defend herself, and then he doesn't
>>even have the decency to give her a call; yet. meanwhile, his
>>political advisor, is caught spending time with a prostitute, and
>>talking to the president while in the presence of the prostitute, but
>>clinton takes the time to call him.
>>funny ain't it?
>
>Ed, why are you comparing a woman that he knew vaguely, and the guy he
>credits with handling every detail of a very successful political
>career? Guinere made her own bed, and expecting a President to lie in
>it is a joke.
"He knew vaguely"?
The man new Guiner for over 10 years. He and she, said they were close
friends. She said he and her families got together on a regular basis.
>I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
>complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
>There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
>group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
>President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
>was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
People in this group bent over backwards to explain it. I even pointed
out that a Federal judge in Maryland, a judge appointed by Reagan or Bush,
put her idea in action to settle a voting discrimination case.
For some reason, you have a bug in your BVDs about her.
>>and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
>>the democrats...
>
>So do you want us sending money to Jesse Helms via Rush Limbaugh, or
>not?
No, but it would be nice to hold Democrats accountable for a change. That's
what they are doing in Florida.
>>jesse jackson stated that clinton has no soul.
>
>That is a statement without content, and a sound bite. What's the
>point?
He knows he can't be trusted.
...
>>>Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
>>
>>no, clinton is a cracka in a suit.
>
>I don't know what you're trying to say.
Clinton will sell out Black people the moment it fits his needs. Clinton
isn't a friend of Black people. He's a friend of himself and himself only.
He doesn't even give a damn about his daughter.
--
Welcome to my virtual reality!
dark...@charm.net Edwin Brown
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar