Coretta Scott King on Affirmative Action and etc.

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Dwayne Conyers

unread,
Jan 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/21/99
to
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."

She also spoke out in favor of Bill Clinton, urging Congress to drop the
impeachment trials.

- - - - - - - - -
Dwacon
http://members.theglobe.com/dwacon

Ray Wood

unread,
Jan 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/25/99
to
Dwayne Conyers wrote in message <788b73$m...@netaxs.com>...

>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

unread,
Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99
to


> 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

unread,
Jan 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/26/99
to

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

unread,
Jan 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/27/99
to

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

unread,
Jan 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/28/99
to

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

unread,
Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99
to
In article <36ADEB57...@cudenver.edu>,
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

unread,
Jan 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/29/99
to
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:13:59 CST, in
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

unread,
Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99
to

>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

unread,
Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99
to
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:10:22 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
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

unread,
Jan 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/31/99
to
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"?

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

unread,
Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99
to
In article <36b36aab...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,

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

unread,
Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99
to
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.

>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

unread,
Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99
to

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?

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

unread,
Feb 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/1/99
to

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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to

>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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Ray Wood wrote:

> 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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:24:11 CST, in
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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, DarkStar wrote:

> 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.

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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to

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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to

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

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to
[ posted and emailed ]

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

unread,
Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99
to
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:23:10 CST, jla...@panix.com (J Lanier) wrote:

>>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

unread,
Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99
to
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:03:14 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:

>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

unread,
Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99
to

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

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:10:39 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
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

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
There is some extremely convoluted quoting, complete with underlining
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

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:16:49 CST, in
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

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
In article <36b7d1b6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
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

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:34:22 CST, in

soc.culture.african.american.moderated "Ray Wood" <ray...@msn.com>
wrote:

>


>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

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
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.
Now you claim I'm being dishonest for giving the names?

DarkStar

unread,
Feb 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/4/99
to
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:16:49 CST, in
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

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
I think this exchange illustrates some of the major points of
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

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:10:42 CST, Rich Thompson
<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