Clinton and Black folk
coqui...@hotmail.com
be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
Kim
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
>First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
>then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
>capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
>Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
>fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
>
<rant>
the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
who doesn't deserve our respect.
1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
2. he gave that "personal responsibility" speech to the naacp, as if
he were a conservative lecturing Black folk.
3. he didn't let lani guiner defend herself. instead, he pulled her
nomination, *LYING* when he said he never read her book or knew her
views.
4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
5. he then followed that up by nominating a Black man for the position
that elder's left, *knowing* that anyone nominated would be given an
anal exam.
6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
7. he signed the bill that made the cocaine vs crack disparity a
permanent law. before, it was only around for a temporary amount of
time.
8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
against.
and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
*LOVE* that man....
Bill Clinton ain't nothin' but a cracka in a suit!
</rant>
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1998 Edwin Brown
Wayne Johnson
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
>First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
>then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
>capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
>Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
>fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
It's really very simple.
He was with us when times were good, too.
Wayne "I guess we're supposed to just stick around when the weather's
nice" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Artclemons
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
Which democratic politician of African heritage is going to lose votes,
being seen as a supporter of the president now? I also note that most
African-Americans know people of questionable moral worth and
character and at the least have learned to pretend to get along with
said people.
That being said, it appears to me that Clinton needs to be seen as
presidential right now. In fact if Clinton had good sense, he would
hold a 4 minute announcement session every day for a month, and
suggest that the republicans increase the minimum wage, pass protection
for privacy with health care organizations, and strongly urge other
democratic party agendas that he's been neglecting. One of the
reasons that Clinton has survived so far is that the other choices appear
worse than Clinton, and Clinton acting presidential is just what the
republicans presently don't want. He can't bring effort to bear on
foreign policy but he sure can get people talking about issues that
republicans haven't dealt with and can't before the November elections.
-art clemons-
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to be around *us* when he
> gets into trouble?
Not always when he gets into trouble, but yes. He likes us.
> First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan, then Jesse Jackson aand now the
> capo de tutti capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy, Black
> love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
Mercy. ;)
> I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole fiasco and he was
> clearly in Clinton's corner. Why does he run to us when he gets in
> trouble, and why do we let him?
Why would he run to us? Do we want him or not? Or maybe some of us do
and some of us don't? I don't see Connerly or Thomas opening their arms
to him, for example.
I guess there is no people more despised, reviled and celebrated and
resourceful in America (with the exception of other colored peoples and
Jews) than black folks. We know how to climb and we know when to get up
and we know when to fight back. Perhaps that is what Clinton is
reaching for when he is among us. Perhaps some black people or even
black males (because there are no black women you mention) feel he is
some kind of kindred person. Jimmy Carter didn't have this kind of
appeal. I don't think he's stealing anything from us because all of
that is INSIDE us. We cannot give it away, but I would believe that our
presence makes other people think twice. Or feel angry because they
have to be at their best or that they can't fake a sense of justice.
> The governor of my state won't be seen with the guy, but he can get a
> photo-op with any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights leader
> anywhere. What's the deal with that?
The gov is a politician that Clinton can't trust.
Some of us don't trust Clinton. Granted. There are times I don't
either. But in a way only Clinton knows, he trusts us and can count on
some of us.
Probably just my misguided two cents, but...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"La pauvete napas ene vis, mes li ene bien gros coulou."
(MAURITIUS Creole)
-"Poverty isn't a screw, but it's a very big nail."-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels+...@ea.oac.uci.edu++gdan...@uci.edu
http://www.geocities.com/merlekinbona or
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7094
=======================================================================
Christopher Morton
>(coqui)Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
Only about 50% of the time.
The other 50% of the time when he gets into trouble, he finds some
Black female to kick in order to prove his "manhood".
Ask Sistah Souljah, Lani Guinier, Joycelynn Elders, and Betty Curry.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
The Devil's Advocate©
><rant>
>the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
>who doesn't deserve our respect.
Your post sounds pretty liberal, for some reason I thought you had
moderate positions.
>
>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
How so?
>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
black. Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
>5. he then followed that up by nominating a Black man for the position
>that elder's left, *knowing* that anyone nominated would be given an
>anal exam.
???
>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
has been harmful.
>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
What was his reason? Because he was black?
>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
I'd have to look into this...
>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
>against.
Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
wrong.
>
>and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
>*LOVE* that man....
>
>
>Bill Clinton ain't nothin' but a cracka in a suit!
Isn't "craka" an epithet?
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: Depends on how it is used.
Ben....@winter.news.erols.com
the black community. And has pushed Black issues more than any other
President in recent History. Support from black political leadersi is
know supprise.
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:40:32 CST, coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
>First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
>then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
>capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
>Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
>fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
>Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
>why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
>seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
>any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
>leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
>
Michael R. Hicks
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 19:40:32 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
> 4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> *about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
Heh. Given all that is going down in Washington with Clinton,
perhaps it should have been *applied.*
[...]
--
Michael R. Hicks - Louisville, KY
a "new jack" scholar...
http://www.louisville.edu/~mrhick01
Great minds talk about ideas,
Average minds talk about events,
Small minds talk about people...
Of which mind are you?
Awake97105
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
Although his track record has not been a perfect one, Clinton's attitude
towards *us*
has been a sustained "long distance run."
Clinton, more than some other presidents, has brought hard questions to the
table regarding the "race question."
This month, his advisors on race concluded their year long study on race
relations.
They said,
``It is, we believe, essential to recall the facts of racial domination. ... We
as a nation need to understand that whites tend to benefit, either unknowingly
or consciously, from this country's history of white privilege,'' the report
said.
Clinton was making ready an address to prepare Americans for the day when no
racial group is a majority of the U.S. population.
Perhaps there were some of us who were attentive to the White House "Town Hall
Meetings" that have been televised on race and minorities on C-SPAN.
A separate report commissioned by the President came from the Council of
Economic Advisers dealt with "social" and "economic" indicators of racial
discriminatory practices.
This report confirmed the perception that "whites and Asians enjoy greater
advantages economically and have better access to health care and education".
Also, that "social and economic progress of blacks slowed between the mid-1970s
and early 1990s, [and] the economic status of Hispanics ... declined in the
past 25 years ... American Indians are the most disadvantaged ethnic group by
far".
Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" policy with respect to affirmative action is
lauded.
Does anyone believe, in our lifetime, that the President of the U.S. will be
one of *us*?
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a
harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do
good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers."
--Gal. 6:9-10 (NIV)
Rich Thompson
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 coqui...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan, then Jesse Jackson aand now the
> > capo de tutti capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy, Black
> > love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
>
> and we know when to fight back. Perhaps that is what Clinton is
> reaching for when he is among us. Perhaps some black people or even
> black males (because there are no black women you mention) feel he is
> some kind of kindred person.
Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
But then, I'm a cynic, I suppose. Wayne has a much more optimistic view of
Clinton vis-a-vis Black people, and he probably is as equally likely to be
right as I am.
I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 398-7425
"If greedy wait, hot turn cold."
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated awake...@aol.com (Awake97105)
wrote:
...
>
>Although his track record has not been a perfect one, Clinton's attitude
>towards *us*
>has been a sustained "long distance run."
The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
permanent. He signed it.
....
>
>This month, his advisors on race concluded their year long study on race
>relations.
Feel good attempt that accomplished nothing.
...
>
>Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" policy with respect to affirmative action is
>lauded.
And he ordered that aa programs be reviewed. Of which, a few were
endend.
PhoenixDC
Art Clemons wrote:
>Which democratic politician of African heritage is going to lose votes,
>being seen as a supporter of the president now? I also note that most
>African-Americans know people of questionable moral worth and
>character and at the least have learned to pretend to get along with
>said people.
>
I live and work in Washington, DC, where the mayor, Marion Barry, was reelected
largely with black support, after being videotaped in a smoking crack in a
hotel room, with a woman obviously not his wife. I moved here in 1994, just
before he was re-elected, and was somewhat mystified at how he got re-elected
after that.
Though he's white (and wasn't caught smoking crack), I see some parallels
between Clinton's case, and Barry's. Besides being caught on tape, Barry's own
womanizing became public knowledge after he was caught on tape. Barry claimed,
much as Clinton is claiming, that he was set up - though it seems obvious that
even if political enemies set up the situations, both Clinton and Barry made
their own choices, with very painful consequences.
I'm still not sure why both men have gotten so much support among blacks, after
scandal has erupted. Any ideas? Is it because blacks are particularly
forgiving? At work, I joked with co-workers that this might be true, because
if we weren't this country would have burned to the ground a long time ago...
*************
Do not say anything harsh; what you have said will be said back to you.
Angry talk is painful; retaliation will get you.
Buddha
Terrance Heath
Phoe...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/PhoenixDC/index.html
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
Anyway, people seem to think so.
>I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
>more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
>kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
I don't think that's it at all. It's just obvious that Black people
don't reject folks for making "social errors" very quickly; we live
with a higher level of stress overall, and know how easy it is to fall
from great heights.
We have never enjoyed any significant level of "social acceptance"
from mainstream America, except in the most patronizing way, so if
some white person winds up ostracized, most Black folks don't share in
the shunning. It's done to us too often.
>But then, I'm a cynic, I suppose. Wayne has a much more optimistic view of
>Clinton vis-a-vis Black people, and he probably is as equally likely to be
>right as I am.
Clinton is known for charging into crowds of people to shake hands,
and so on (to the alarm of his Secret Service people), and he loves
doing this with Black Americans. I honestly think he doesn't give a
damn what color somebody is.
This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
big deal out of it.
>I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
>is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
You damn betcha they are. It is in the vested interests of mainstream
America to keep racial politics on the Republican level; patronizing,
with selective "let's all be treated the same" speeches, masking the
real social and economic divisions that come with racial politics.
I've been amused at the posing of some folks who bemoan Clinton's lack
of sustained support for Lani Guinere, or Jocelyn Elders, as if
political realities were less important than some perceived litmus
test of his views on race. That kind of foolishness is exactly what
the GOP is hoping that Black folks will do; chase around behind racial
politics, instead of getting real political power.
Clinton is slamming hundreds of Black folks into real influential
positions within the Washington power structure, which is among the
most important reasons they want him (and by extension, us) out.
The real hoot is the claim that his criticism of the Sistah Souljah
"death to cops" silliness means that he is against Black folks. The
man who called Clinton to task for criticizing Souljah (what was the
name of that "song" again? Or the name of the album? Was there ever
a second album? Does anyone really give a damn?), namely Jesse
Jackson, is now a close personal friend of Clinton and especially his
daughter Chelsea. The need to cast Clinton as a cracker, or whatever,
is so far from what most Black folks can see for themselves is
ludicrous.
Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> > and we know when to fight back. Perhaps that is what Clinton is
> > reaching for when he is among us. Perhaps some black people or even
> > black males (because there are no black women you mention) feel he is
> > some kind of kindred person.
>
> Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
Well, Betty Currie has been working for him for a number of years; she
*knows* him, and she also knows not to get into *that* kind of business
or cause anything to go wrong that would explode in his face. I doubt
whether it is her trying to mess with Hillary per se; just don't manage
to expose something that just ain any of her business at all.
And I'm not sure many black women would love to be Betty Currie's shoes;
except to say he's a great boss or person to work with and show loyalty.
He didn't have to bring her in from Arkansas or support her when things
went bad in her life or promote her to a very visible office.
> I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
> more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
> kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
I tend to agree. But there are few white politicians coming to black
folks to get some very personal emotional strokes. I don't this is a
case of massa coming over when the bank has foreclosed after Christmas
demanding those 'presents' back to feed his own. Clinton, for being very
disappointing at times, still doesn't forget where he came from.
There's nothing black people can give Clinton except their unconditional
attention. Anything else he would have to generate himself.
His appearing in front of black crowds could be his asking, "Do you
still like me, despite everyone else saying I'm everything but a child
of the Universe?" And they could be saying with the applause, "Yeah,
yeah. You're okay. Better than some. Keep going."
> But then, I'm a cynic, I suppose. Wayne has a much more optimistic
> view of Clinton vis-a-vis Black people, and he probably is as equally
> likely to be right as I am.
Umph.
> I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
> is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
This is unclear. Do you mean that the anti-Clintonites think Wayne is
wrong?
Anyway, I think I get your point.
Course, DarkStar would still insist that Clinton is a "cracka."
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
(The Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:48:13 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>
>
>><rant>
>>the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
>>who doesn't deserve our respect.
>
>Your post sounds pretty liberal,
That's a joke right?
I mean the liberals are defending Clinton, and I'm blasting Clinton --
by telling the truth -- and it sounds, ummm, liberal?
>for some reason I thought you had
>moderate positions.
>
>>
>>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
>
>How so?
*sigh*
When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
>>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
>>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
>
>It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
>black.
No, but Black women sure do get shown the door rather quickly in his
adminstration.
>Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
Why did it become an issue when a Black woman was in the spot, and not
Koop?
....
>
>>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
>
>This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
>the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
>community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
>has been harmful.
See comments by "Black leaders" for details.
>>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
>>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
>
>What was his reason? Because he was black?
Nope. It was because he wanted to show he was tough on crime.
>
>>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
>>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
>>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
>
>I'd have to look into this...
The fact that you don't know about it, is interesting.
>>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
>>against.
>
>Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
>wrong.
But it doesn't make it *RIGHT* either.
>>
>>and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
>>*LOVE* that man....
>>
>>
>>Bill Clinton ain't nothin' but a cracka in a suit!
>
>Isn't "craka" an epithet?
Against Clinton, it sure is. Now, I challenge you to find where I use
that phrase for an entire group of people.
>
>========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
>MOD: Depends on how it is used.
>
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Rose Marie Holt
> Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
> be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
> First Bettie Curry and Vernon Jordan,
> then Jesse Jackson aand now the capo de tutti
> capi of all Black role models, Black legitimacy,
> Black love and respect--Nelson Mandela.
> I've also seen Desmond Tutu comment on the whole
> fiasco and he was clearly in Clinton's corner.
> Why does he run to us when he gets in trouble, and
> why do we let him? The governor of my state won't be
> seen with the guy, but he can get a photo-op with
> any Black politician, spiritual or civil rights
> leader anywhere. What's the deal with that?
>
> Kim
The standing ovation he got at the UN as his grand jury videotape was
airing tells us that it isnt just Black foreign leaders standing up for
Clinton. They dont care about our faux morality and associated angst.
The Congressional Black Caucus is certainly sticking up for Clinton -
which I admire. He shares their political views and they are sticking
with their principles by not running away from him now, when it would be
the easy thing to do.
Jesse Jackson seems to thrive on proximity to power. Vernon Jordan has
been a friend of Clinton's for a long time. He didnt lie to his
inquisitors when the time came about how he did a favor for a friend.
Betty Currie could write the manual on how to be an executive secretary.
You analogy doesnt compare how Black democrats running for election are
treating Clinton, which may be a more accurate analogy with your governor.
mutu...@my-dejanews.com
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 07:52:40 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated awake...@aol.com (Awake97105)
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> >Although his track record has not been a perfect one, Clinton's attitude
> >towards *us*
> >has been a sustained "long distance run."
>
> The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
> the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
> permanent. He signed it.
He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
> ....
>
> >
> >This month, his advisors on race concluded their year long study on race
> >relations.
>
> Feel good attempt that accomplished nothing.
Amen to that. Although it made some white people happy enough to say, "See,
we're trying to change our ways."
> ...
>
> >
> >Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" policy with respect to affirmative action is
> >lauded.
>
> And he ordered that aa programs be reviewed. Of which, a few were
> endend.
Don't beat a dead horse. AA is forever beyond our reach to continue it at its
former levels.
m. o. mutuembe
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
...
>This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
>I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
>- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
>couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
>big deal out of it.
check out the back issue of Emerge where clinton left ron brown
blowing in the wind, according to brown's daughter.
...
>
>I've been amused at the posing of some folks who bemoan Clinton's lack
>of sustained support for Lani Guinere, or Jocelyn Elders, as if
>political realities were less important than some perceived litmus
>test of his views on race. That kind of foolishness is exactly what
>the GOP is hoping that Black folks will do; chase around behind racial
>politics, instead of getting real political power.
funny ain't it?
funny that guiner, a "friend" of clinton for years, gets kicked to the
curb without getting a chance to defend herself, and then he doesn't
even have the decency to give her a call; yet. meanwhile, his
political advisor, is caught spending time with a prostitute, and
talking to the president while in the presence of the prostitute, but
clinton takes the time to call him.
funny ain't it?
and it's funny that the republican base is getting stoked over this
mess, while the democrat base isn't, and there's a real fear that the
republicans will gain more seats in both halves of congress. funny
ain't it that the dnc is worrying about a good ole fashioned ass
kicking that they may be getting.
and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
the democrats...
...
>
>The real hoot is the claim that his criticism of the Sistah Souljah
>"death to cops" silliness means that he is against Black folks. The
>man who called Clinton to task for criticizing Souljah (what was the
>name of that "song" again? Or the name of the album? Was there ever
>a second album? Does anyone really give a damn?), namely Jesse
>Jackson, is now a close personal friend of Clinton and especially his
>daughter Chelsea. The need to cast Clinton as a cracker, or whatever,
>is so far from what most Black folks can see for themselves is
>ludicrous.
jesse jackson stated that clinton has no soul.
jesse jackson has publically stated that if he runs for president, it
will not be as a democrat.
>Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
no, clinton is a cracka in a suit.
jesse jackson is a media chaser and a democrat wh*re.
yeah, i said it...
and he's a punk too!
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1998 Edwin Brown
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: civility please gentlemen.
Rich Thompson
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, Rich Thompson wrote back to my saying:
>
> > I think many of the people clamoring for Clinton's impeachment think Wayne
> > is right, and they're probably looking at the same criteria Wayne is.
>
> This is unclear. Do you mean that the anti-Clintonites think Wayne is
> wrong?
I think that many of the anti-Clintonites think that Wayne is *right*,
namely that Bill Clinton is a friend of Black people, and it's his
perceived friend-of-Black-people-ness that's fuelling the drive to impeach
him, for many people.
I'm still not sure that they or Wayne are right, but I can see why they
think the way they do.
> Course, DarkStar would still insist that Clinton is a "cracka."
And I can certainly understand this point of view also.
morp...@my-dejanews.com
dark...@flash.net wrote:
>
> <rant>
> the Black people who support him, imo, are kissing the ass of a man
> who doesn't deserve our respect.
>
> he were a conservative lecturing Black folk.
Actually, some people think Clinton is more of a conservative than he is a
liberal.
> 3. he didn't let lani guiner defend herself. instead, he pulled her
> nomination, *LYING* when he said he never read her book or knew her
> views.
I agree that he was lying when he said he never read her book. However, I
believe he cut and ran away from Guiner because of political reasons, not
because she was black. Too many people were opposing the nomination.
Politicians make tradeoffs. It is possible Clinton decided to lose a battle
to possibly win the war in the future.
> 4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> *about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
Same as my answer to your #3 question. I believe Clinton's decision was
politically based and not because Elders was black. Unfortunately, the
moralistic religious people are much more vocal and they also vote more often
than the general population. So Clinton may have traded off on some issues
and stood fast for other issues.
> 5. he then followed that up by nominating a Black man for the position
> that elder's left, *knowing* that anyone nominated would be given an
> anal exam.
Yes, the U.S.A. does tend to give blacks more of an anal exam than other
races. My guess is that had Clinton nominated a Latino (who the rest of the
world thinks of as black and the U.S.A. tends to think of as brown) I feel
the Latino would have also received an anal exam. Possibly the same would
have been true for an Asian, or a Native American.
> 6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
I had a political science teacher in college who viewed the welfare system
existing at that time as a way to keep blacks content and not strive for
upliftment. It is possible that Clinton signed the welfare reform into law as
a first step to further everyone eventually.
It is not just blacks who are on welfare. With any change, it is not always
fully known what detrimental effects will come about. The welfare reform is
not a final thing. I'm sure the future will see adjustments to or a complete
overhaul of the welfare reform. The chances of the adjustments happening
would be individuals advocating for change and not giving up and accepting
what politicians hand down from on high.
> 7. he signed the bill that made the cocaine vs crack disparity a
> permanent law. before, it was only around for a temporary amount of
> time.
Possibly Clinton traded off on the signing of this bill. Politicians make all
kinds of deals behind closed doors. It is possible that Clinton traded his
signature on this bill in exchange for something else. The public is party
only to the final done deal. The public has no inkling as to the full
picture.
> 8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
> see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
I'm not aware of this case so I can't really be for or against what he did. I
have no idea what this black man was accused of nor do I know if he was
guilty or took the blame for something someone else did. However, I believe
Clinton would have stopped if there was irrefutable evidence that a white
person had done some horrendous deed and was about to be executed.
> 9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
> people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
> warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
I don't agree with Clinton doing this at all. However, being an individual,
no other individual will completely mirror all of my views. As I see it, this
policy takes away the freedom of citizens based on perceived views of which
said perceived views quite often are 100% wrong.
> 10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
> against.
>
Your statement "Many black leaders" does this mean a majority of black
leaders ? Just because so called black leaders were against this bill, does
not mean the majority of blacks were against this bill. I'm not familiar with
the nature of the bill so I can't say whether I agree with the black leaders
or diagree with them.
> and the Black politicos and it appears the Black population, just
> *LOVE* that man....
>
Love is an arbitray word. I'm guessing the black population are ok with
Clinton since the alternates thus far are far worse. Give me a Clinton over a
Newt any day.
Everything Clinton does is not ok with the black population. Had Starr come
out with evidence other then that shown in the porno report, I'm sure the
black population would be united in calling for his impeachment.
-morpheme-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated mutu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <360e69ed...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
...
>>
>> The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
>> the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
>> permanent. He signed it.
>
>He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
>is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
>distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
>spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
I have no problems with it, but the CBC sure does.
And they do speak for all Black people in the U.S., right?
Artclemons
In article <6umvmo$5ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
>is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
>distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
>spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
Signing this bill along with a lot of other behavior is why I refer to Clinton
as
a Nixon republican disguised as a touchie feelie caring democrat. There is
NO legislation that Clinton has pushed, which has benefitted the African
heritage community in his now almost six years in office, the benefit to
having Clinton in office has rather been that some things that would have
been harmful to the community have not been passed, and abject opponents
of things that benefit the community have not been nominated for high office.
The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I suspect
I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any other two
posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has been a disaster
for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective take home profits
in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled prisons, while the
amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped if it has at all.
Despite
an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad example
of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug crimes
is up drastically. Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
the number of people going to prison is rising? Heroin usage is rising.
How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
users are white if the system is fair. Everywhere that measurement of the
number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
criminal system, two-thirds white. You should also realize that changing
powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of time.
Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
-art clemons-
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
Okay, M.O. and DarkStar. Answer these questions for me.
1. Has Clinton done anything right for black folks?
2. Is he better or worse than any other American president around black
folks' issues?
3. Which of these guys is worse?
a. Gingrich--a cracka in a suit
b. Clinton--a cracka in a suit
c. Duke (as in David)--a cracka in a suit
d. They're ALL BAD.
e. a. and b.
f. b. and c.
g. a. and c.
4. Which of these guys are politicians?
a. The McLaughlin Group
b. The House of Representatives
c. Bill Maher
d. Helen Chenoweth
e. Barbra Streisand
f. All of them.
g. None of them.
mutu...@my-dejanews.com
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:04:24 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
> (The Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:48:13 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
> >>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
> >
> >How so?
>
> *sigh*
> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
BS. He blasted Sista Souljah using a quote out of context. He did so to
embarass Jesse and to show other crackas that he was standing up to Blacks.
Jesse allowed himself to be punked. Sista Souljah came back as hard as she
could against Clinton.
m. o. mutuembe
Roger Brown
>Have you also noticed that Clinton loves to
>be around *us* when he gets into trouble?
Maybe not all black folk.
It turns out that most of Ken Starr's grand jury members were older
African-American women, according to the Post, that took a very
motherly attitude towards young wayward Monica.
So, black folk can also be a source of Clinton's troubles ...
- Roger
Artclemons
In article <6uoih7$3ae$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, bro...@erols.com (Roger
Brown) writes:
Damnation, don't people understand that the grand jury in this case was used
to only be able to force witnesses to appear and testify, rather than finding
information suitable for an indictment. While the grand jury could have
questioned witnesses on its own, it did not do so, and in fact most grand
juries aren't made aware of that privilege. Grand juries can also issue
reports,
and I suspect that a grand jury report would have differed from a Ken Starr
report. Once when grand juries were actually used to decide who would
be indicted rather than becoming an information collection device and
excuse for indicting you might have had a point, but almost any prosecutor
can get a grand jury to indict anyone even Jesus Christ for sedition and
treason against the Roman empire.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
<gdan...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>Okay, M.O. and DarkStar. Answer these questions for me.
>
>1. Has Clinton done anything right for black folks?
Some people say that Reagan was responsible for the growth in the
economy, which helped Black people. Would you accept the statement
that Reagan is the friend of Black people?
>2. Is he better or worse than any other American president around black
> folks' issues?
That's not the point I've been making. Clinton is not as friendly as
people say he is.
>3. Which of these guys is worse?
>
>a. Gingrich--a cracka in a suit
Didn't Gingrich help get the MLK Jr. holiday? Isn't Gingrich a friend
of J.C. Watts?
Well, he's a friend of Black people, ain't he?
mutu...@my-dejanews.com
It isn't a matter of whether or not Clinton has done anything for us. Or
whether he is better than President Whoever. Or even if he and others are
politicians.
He has f*d up several times when it comes to Black folk. He has prostituted
our so-called leaders (albeit with their willful partication in most cases).
It is now that he needs us most that he is using every opportunity to appear
with us.
Engaging in a senseless debate about whether one wife beater is better than
another because he only slaps when husband a punches...well, you get the
picture, I hope.
Now are we right? Or are we totally wrong?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated mutu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <360e6899...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:04:24 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
>> (The Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:48:13 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>
>> >>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
I wrote he suckered jackson and souljah.
right?
>> >How so?
>>
>> *sigh*
>> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
>> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
>> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
>
>BS. He blasted Sista Souljah using a quote out of context.
In or out of context doesn't matter. What matters is the point made by
Clinton for coming out against her. That is what I was writing about.
>He did so to
>embarass Jesse and to show other crackas that he was standing up to Blacks.
Okay. I agree with that line.
>Jesse allowed himself to be punked.
And I agree with this one.
Mycroft
> Though he's white (and wasn't caught smoking crack), I see some parallels
> between Clinton's case, and Barry's. Besides being caught on tape, Barry's own
> womanizing became public knowledge after he was caught on tape. Barry claimed,
> much as Clinton is claiming, that he was set up - though it seems obvious that
> even if political enemies set up the situations, both Clinton and Barry made
> their own choices, with very painful consequences.
You're right on 2 counts.
1) They both made stupid choices with painful consequences
2) They both claim to have been set up.
But there's a third count you have left out.
3) They both actually WERE set up.
Did you see the WHOLE tape of Barry smoking crack? Prior to smoking he told
the woman at least twice "No, I don't want to do that". But she kept insisting
and he gave in. That's called entrapment, and that's why he case was thrown
out of court. Had he asked the woman for the crack, instead of being pressured
into it, he would have been convicted and as a convicted fellon he wouldn't have
been able to be mayor. Yes what he did was wrong and inexcusable and had I
lived in D.C. I would have voted for Sharon Pratt Kelly. But I was also angry
at the obvious breech of fairness in the "sting operation".
On to Clinton. In the less publicized part of the Lewinsky testimony, Monica
said that Linda Tripp had been egging her to have an affair with the president
with statements like "you're the kind of woman the president would like" and
"wouldn't that be a neat thing to tell your grandkids". She kept this up until
Monica blurted out "we've already HAD an affair". Then the pressure switched
to ways of entangling the president. According to Monica it was Tripp that
encouraged her to seek out Vernon Jordan and Tripp who told her to "save the
dress in a plastic bag" when she was thinking about getting it clean.
Now it could be that Monica is lying about all this. The story certainly
makes her look stupid and gullible. If, as she originally pretended, she
was really trying to "protect" the president then why would she not clean
the dress even on the advice of a "friend"? But if Monica IS lying then
that makes the setup even more sinister. By her own testimony Monica
sought the president out for sex, not the other way around. With each
encounter she encouraged him to go further, though he kept saying "I
don't trust you enough yet." Sure giving into sexual temptation is a sign
of weakness, but it's a far cry from the "woman hunter" that the president
is being portrayed as.
> I'm still not sure why both men have gotten so much support among blacks, after
> scandal has erupted. Any ideas? Is it because blacks are particularly
> forgiving? At work, I joked with co-workers that this might be true, because
> if we weren't this country would have burned to the ground a long time ago...
People keep trying to make a big deal about "black support" for president
Clinton. But the last poll I heard had him receiving 60 to 75% of the entire
COUNTRY's support in the matter of to impeach or not to impeach. Now tell
me something. What is the current U.S. black population? 10%? 15%? 20%?
Even if 100% of blacks supported president Clinton, that wouldn't be enough
to raise total U.S. support that high. Clinton is obviously getting a lot
of support from whites, latinos, and other groups. And why? My guess is that
despite recent worries about the world economy, most people feel that the U.S.
economy is doing pretty good and impeaching the president could jepordize that.
We can argue ALL DAY about wether or not Clinton has helped the economy
(though I have to laugh at those that blamed Carter for recession, praised
Regan for recovery, but now say "Everybody knows the presidency has NOTHING
to do with the economy).
They also feel uncomfortable about impeaching someone on what really boils
down to sex. Oh sure, he lied and probably lied under oath. Had he gotten
caught lying about having someone's hotel room or office broken into, or
ordering a political assasination or even lying about his taxes the majority
of the American people would probably say yes to impeachment. But he lied
about something that wasn't criminal in a case with dubious merit. Though
that may or may not fight the "legal" definition of "high crimes and
misdomeanors" most Americans, rightly or wrongly, seem to feel that it
doesn't fit the "spirit" of that definition. The republicans sense that
mood and that's why they are trying to prolong the investigation and open
it up to include areas of Mr. Starr's investigation that he hasn't even
turned over to them yet, but that seem more substantial. Thing such as
Whitewater. Oh yeah, wasn't that what this was supposed to be about in
the first place? It's funny that beforehand Clinton and his supporters
were trying to delay the investigation and the republicans were trying to
speed it up. Now Newt is the one saying "wait, we shouldn't rush to
judgement on this thing" and the Clinton supporters are trying to speed
things up.
Mycroft
> The real hoot is the claim that his criticism of the Sistah Souljah
> "death to cops" silliness means that he is against Black folks. The
> man who called Clinton to task for criticizing Souljah (what was the
> name of that "song" again? Or the name of the album? Was there ever
> a second album? Does anyone really give a damn?), namely Jesse
> Jackson, is now a close personal friend of Clinton and especially his
> daughter Chelsea. The need to cast Clinton as a cracker, or whatever,
> is so far from what most Black folks can see for themselves is
> ludicrous.
Actually Sistah Souljah made the comment in a news interview, not a
song, and it wasn't about "killing cops". In response to the riots
after the cops who beat Rodney King were aquitted was basically
"Well perhaps they (the rioters) have gotten tired of black-on-black
killings and decided to kill some white people for a change."
She explains her feelings behind this and other statements in her
book "No Dis-respect". Jesse's criticism of Clinton after this
was quite understandable because Clinton made the statement at a
speech at a "Rainbow Coalition" meeting where he and Sista Souljah
were both platform guests. Yet and still Jesse's critism was rather
muted. It was more along the lines of "well if he really felt this
way, why didn't he say something to me privately BEFORE coming to the
meeting?" Anyway, I don't think much of it and Jesse probably doesn't
either. I'm sure a lot of black people also disagree with a lot that
Sista Souljah has said, but Clinton has had the unfortunate position
of having to PROVE he's in the center time and again. George Bush
didn't need to prove that and hence he was able to host "Easy-E" at
the Whitehouse.
Mycroft
> >>1. he suckered jesse jackson with sista souljah.
> >
> >How so?
>
> *sigh*
> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
1) Do YOU believe that Sista Souljah was preaching hate?
2) If you believe she was than how would that be different than
if say Bush had gone somewhere to speak where David Duke was
also on the platform and then using the opportunity to blast
Duke? Oh let me answer my own question, Clinton didn't have
to go and he could have stated Sista Souljah's presense as
a reason for not going? Would YOU have looked at it any
differently? I recall President Bush resigning from the NRA
after their president make crass remarks about federal law
enforcement. It is possible for someone to have a disagreement
with a long time supporter. (Though I guess Bush's reaction
was more credible since he was already out of office.)
3) If you don't believe that Sista Souljah was preaching hate but
was merely "mis-understood" is it possible that Clinton may have
merely "mis-understood" her?
> >>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> >>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
> >
> >It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
> >black.
>
> No, but Black women sure do get shown the door rather quickly in his
> adminstration.
Oh really? Let's see, Jocelyn Elders (whom many conservative BLACK AND
WHITE blasted for being allowed to stay in office so long) and Lanie
Guanier (again blasted by BLACK AND WHITE conservative) never got in the
door. And though Elders got cut on the masturbation statement,
conservatives
BLACK AND WHITE were calling for her resignation even before the seemingly
"pro-drug" statement. Yes, I know that she didn't advocate legalizing
drugs but only studying the effect which is a VERY reasonable thing to
do. But I heard more than one BLACK person claim that Elders was trying
to "put crack cocaine in your local grocery store".
Uh, where are the rest of all of the black women being shown the
door? What about the white men and women who've been let go? I recall
Zoe Baird and some other white lady got cut before he settled on Janet
Reno. And there have been various men black and white who've either
failed their nominations or got cut. Mike Esby, black male. The guy
that told the campain secrets to the hooker, white male. Perhaps you've
seen some statistical analysis done on the number of blacks to be let
go from the Clinton cabinent vs the number of whites and that's cross-
referenced by the number of blacks nominated by Clinton as compared to
his predecessors. I certainly haven't.
> >Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
>
> Why did it become an issue when a Black woman was in the spot, and not
> Koop?
For the record I totally agree that republican moves to get rid of
the suregeon general position were racist, partisan and crass. They're
just made that "Koop" wasn't as conservative as they hoped he be.
When "Koop" came out with a report on abortion that basically dismissed
claims of a "strong negative emotional effect on the woman" conservatives
far and wide called for his hide. In fact that has been strongly cited
as a major reason why he didn't stay on when Bush won.
> >
> >>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
> >
> >This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
> >the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
> >community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
> >has been harmful.
>
> See comments by "Black leaders" for details.
So where are YOU on the issue of welfare reform? Did you think it should
or shouldn't have happened? Oh I'm sure you can say "well it should have
been done differently", but most people say that about almost ANY reform
effort. Do you think that if Bush or Dole had been president and the
congress had still been republican that the reform bill would have been
MORE rather than LESS in favor of blacks? What specifically do you think
a George Bush or a Bob Dole would have pushed for? What would YOU have
pushed for? I'll go on the record for something that I'm pushing for.
There is an amendment (proposed by a Democrat I believe) that seeks to
give welfare recipients greater "work waiver" time when they are in school.
The current waiver time is not even quite long enough to earn an associates
degree. The best they can hope for is a certificate which will only take
them so far. Many democrats in congress as well as many social work
experts believe that getting the time to receive and actual degree is
essential to pulling oneself up from poverty. Some hardline republicans
have argued that "getting the work experience" is more important and
they'll
"work their way up", but without any type of degree how far can they go?
So do you support this? If so please call your congressman. (This senate,
which has less of a republican controll, has already passed this measure).
> >>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
> >>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
> >
> >What was his reason? Because he was black?
>
> Nope. It was because he wanted to show he was tough on crime.
So he actually flew to Arkansas and witnessed the execution? Any
refernces?
What were his comments at the execution?
I agree with you (if that's what you are saying) that it's a shame that
liberals have let conservatives frame the "crime issue". The death penalty
does nothing measurable to deter crime, yet it is pushed heavily over ideas
such as aggressive probation, treatment and therapy for certain types of
offenders (including drug and sex offenders) and community based
alternatives
to prison that have been PROVEN to reduce recitavism (repeating a crime)
and
are far CHEAPER than the alternative of building more prisons. Besides,
even
those who argue for building more prisons don't want these new prisons in
THEIR neighborhoods. Still alternatives to the normal "prison/death
penalty"
alternatives don't pass the "anti-liberal" litmus test that the media has
been duped into applying to every politician. About the only anti-crime
idea that works for which you can get bi-partisan support is hiring more
cops. Clinton did do that. Crime is down. (though I will admit that
there
are more factors involved in this than just the hiring of more cops)
Perhaps
with the next president we'll get someone who can look at the larger scope
including faster processing of cases (more lawyers and judges) and
intervention
and treatment to prevent recivitism. But I didn't hear George Bush, Dan
Quayle,
Bob Dole, Jack Kemp or Newt Gingrinch promising ANY of that.
> >>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
> >>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
> >>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
> >
> >I'd have to look into this...
>
> The fact that you don't know about it, is interesting.
The fact that you haven't posted the reference/context to this is also
interesting. Are you referring to the order to put tenants out of
public housing based on ANY member of the household posessing drugs?
As I recall that going on when Jack Kemp was HUD secretary. I remember
a news clip of him talking to one tenant resident who was protesting
against this practice and he was asking her to "join my team."
> >>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
> >>against.
> >
> >Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
> >wrong.
>
> But it doesn't make it *RIGHT* either.
Considering the range of leaders who happen to be black from Jesse
Jackson to Louis Farakhan to Joseph Lowery to Colin Powell to
Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, the "Black Avenger" and J.C. Watts
it is HIGHLY unlikely that you'll find a bill that ALL of them would
support. In a bill as large and complex as the crime bill it is
doubtfull that you'll find ANY one who supported it in it's entirety.
As I recall there were conservatives who called it too "liberal"
because it considered some alternative "community friendly" ways
for fighting crime and there were liberals who called it too
"conservative". Part of the problem with trying to be a centrist
politician is that you'll never please everyone, and you'll probably
end up ticking both sides off to some degree. So what SPECIFICALLY
did you dislike about the crime bill? By the same token, was there
anything in there that you LIKED? If legislation is only passed
when ALL members of EVERY constituent group are COMPLETELY satisfied,
nothing will ever get done.
Mycroft
> In article <6umvmo$5ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
> >is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
> >distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
> >spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
>
> Signing this bill along with a lot of other behavior is why I refer to Clinton
> as
> a Nixon republican disguised as a touchie feelie caring democrat. There is
> NO legislation that Clinton has pushed, which has benefitted the African
> heritage community in his now almost six years in office, the benefit to
> having Clinton in office has rather been that some things that would have
> been harmful to the community have not been passed, and abject opponents
> of things that benefit the community have not been nominated for high office.
The parallels between Nixon and Clinton are uncanny (irregards to the impeachment
proceedings). Nixon's support for affirmative action was uncharecteristic of
conservatism. Clinton's support for NAFTA was uncharecteristic of liberalism.
Stuff like that "sneaks by" the people who would have fought the hardest against
particular bills if they had come from the "other side of the aisle".
And you are 100% correct. Supporting Clinton is more a case of "well he's
not openly fighting against us like so-and-so" rather than "he's really going
to be a big help with XYZ."
> The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I suspect
> I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any other two
> posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has been a disaster
> for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective take home profits
> in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled prisons, while the
> amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped if it has at all.
I suppose the argument here could be "you've go to start somewhere". I hear
the "lets go after the big guys" argument all the time, but it truly sickens
me to be able to see dealers selling IN PLAIN SIGHT and know that the police
often drive by and do nothing. I recall once that I participated in an
anti-drug parade one particular neighborhood. After the parade, the police
officer who was guiding the parade told me, "well we've taken you all past
every crack house I know of in this neighborhood." Ok, maybe I'm a bit slow
here, but if the cops KNOW where all of the crack houses are, why can't they
just bust them all?
> Despite
> an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad example
> of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug crimes
> is up drastically.
The drop in crime is for real. Just look at the local papers on the number
of murders from one year to the next. I know here in Birmingham the murder
rate has dropped. And yes, there are more crimes that go on other than
murder, but murder is the crime that is most likely to be reported and that
causes the most fear amoung the public.
> Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
> between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
> the number of people going to prison is rising?
Good question. Is it possible that criminals are more likely to
get CAUGHT,arrested and prosecuted? I saw a special on 60 minutes on the man who
consulted for the NYPD and later for the New Orleans PD. (By the way, that
report was really said. They had a tape in there where one corrupt cop
had paid for a murder and was in communication with the hit man while he
was carrying out the hit. I know those doing the investigation were trying
not to blow their cover, but they IMHO really could have stopped the hit
and nailed the guy for attempted murder rather than murder). Anyway one thing
that he pointed out was that many cases were being simply closed rather than
solved. One simple reform was to have a cop assigned to follow every case
to completion. This had the net effect of generating more arrests for the
same number of crimes.
> Heroin usage is rising.
> How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
> African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
> users are white if the system is fair.
No the system isn't fair. In fact it really sucks. Unfortunately
anti-crimeideas such as intervention, treatment and agressive probation which
might
actually WORK get branded as being too "liberal" and die before their time.
Still it's also not fair that these same African-Americans, Mexicans and
Puerto Rican's target their poison at their own communities rather than going
for the broader market.
> Everywhere that measurement of the
> number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
> criminal system, two-thirds white.
Interesting. They should have the book thrown at them too. But here'sa
question, are white's more likely to get treatment? Or are they just
being allowed to languish? If they are getting more treatment is that
strictly a matter of economics? Are poor whites more likely to get into
treatment programs than poor blacks? I don't know, just asking.
> You should also realize that changing
> powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
> and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
> chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
> only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
> of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of time.
> Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
> crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
> that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
> because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
The same drugs in different forms can have different effects. When chewed as
a leaf the plant that cocaine comes from is actually useful in helping
people deal with high altitudes. (That's what the Indians in the Andes
used and still use it for.)
Wayne Johnson
>On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:48:09 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
>>I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
>>- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
>>couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
>>big deal out of it.
>
>check out the back issue of Emerge where clinton left ron brown
>blowing in the wind, according to brown's daughter.
Check out any number of conservative rags that claim he had Brown
murdered. I get tired of spinmeister BS.
>>I've been amused at the posing of some folks who bemoan Clinton's lack
>>of sustained support for Lani Guinere, or Jocelyn Elders, as if
>>political realities were less important than some perceived litmus
>>test of his views on race. That kind of foolishness is exactly what
>>the GOP is hoping that Black folks will do; chase around behind racial
>>politics, instead of getting real political power.
>
>funny ain't it?
>funny that guiner, a "friend" of clinton for years, gets kicked to the
>curb without getting a chance to defend herself, and then he doesn't
>even have the decency to give her a call; yet. meanwhile, his
>political advisor, is caught spending time with a prostitute, and
>talking to the president while in the presence of the prostitute, but
>clinton takes the time to call him.
>funny ain't it?
Ed, why are you comparing a woman that he knew vaguely, and the guy he
credits with handling every detail of a very successful political
career? Guinere made her own bed, and expecting a President to lie in
it is a joke.
I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
>and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
>the democrats...
So do you want us sending money to Jesse Helms via Rush Limbaugh, or
not?
>jesse jackson stated that clinton has no soul.
That is a statement without content, and a sound bite. What's the
point?
>jesse jackson has publically stated that if he runs for president, it
>will not be as a democrat.
I will publicly state that Jesse Jackson stands a snowball's chance in
hell of being President.
>>Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
>
>no, clinton is a cracka in a suit.
I don't know what you're trying to say.
>jesse jackson is a media chaser and a democrat wh*re.
>yeah, i said it...
>and he's a punk too!
Oh well.
Wayne "I don't understand why you're so upset, then" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Ramsey
Wayne Johnson wrote...
>I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
>complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
>There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
>group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
>President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
>was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
The voting scheme is 'proportional representation' which is neither
goofy, or her idea. In fact, the scheme has been in use for years
by a number of municipalities. It is simply a mechanism for electing
an at-large legislative body, whereby each voter receives a fixed
number of votes, which they may choose to give to one candidate,
or parcel out among several. The reasoning is that supporters of
a minority (not necessarily racial) political viewpoint can concentrate
their votes on one candidate, thus assuring representation which
would not otherwise occur in an at-large system. Guinere wrote
a number of papers advocating this system as a way of increasing
black political power without resorting to the form of race-based
electoral districts that have been struck down by court decisions.
BTW, South Africa uses this scheme, as a means of giving white
voters a voice in the government.
__________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
morp...@my-dejanews.com
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
>
> In article <6umvmo$5ff$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
> >is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
> >distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
> >spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
>
> Signing this bill along with a lot of other behavior is why I refer to Clinton
> as a Nixon republican disguised as a touchie feelie caring democrat. There is
> NO legislation that Clinton has pushed, which has benefitted the African
> heritage community in his now almost six years in office, the benefit to
> having Clinton in office has rather been that some things that would have
> been harmful to the community have not been passed, and abject opponents
> of things that benefit the community have not been nominated for high office.
>
I agree that Clinton is basically a republican disguised as a democrat. I
also agree that signing this bill did not help the black community. I did not
vote him into office. I don't tend to vote straight democrat.
I currently support Clinton because I don't think the current installment of
the Starr porno report is enough to impeach him. I would think the same thing
even if he was a registered republican instead of a democrat in republicans
clothing. He is a lame duck president anyway. Even if he had never been
investigated, he would have reduced powers. I would have preferred the Starr
report dealing with Filegate, Travelgate, White Water & the issue of the
presidents campaign funded by foreign Chinese money which possibly would be
treasonand definitely an impeachable offense..
> The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I >suspect I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any other >two posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has been a >disaster for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective take home >profits in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled prisons, while >the amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped if it has at all.
> Despite an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad >example of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug >crimes is up drastically. Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
> between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
> the number of people going to prison is rising? Heroin usage is rising.
> How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
> African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
> users are white if the system is fair. Everywhere that measurement of the
> number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
> criminal system, two-thirds white. You should also realize that changing
> powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
> and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
> chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
> only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
> of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of time.
> Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
> crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
> that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
> because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
>
> -art clemons-
>
>
I live in a depressed area. I am very familiar with drug dealers and their
customers. I see them as you say in "plain sight" at all hours of the day.
Yes some cops do sometimes just pass them by. I think some cops would
sometimes pass them by even if every one of them had bright orange jackets
with neon letters stating "GET YOUR DRUGS HERE"
I also see the white customers seeking out the dealers. Of course, the white
customers never get arrested. They simply buy and flee to their all white
neighborhoods. These particular individuals only like to get close to blacks
when it results in taking them on their daily high.
Possibly some cops look the other way because some cops like some individuals
have poor home training. I am not going to go so far as to say it is all cops
since some cops are great. It is possible that the cops who look the other
way are selling out on particular communities to line their pockets
lucratically with money from the local dealers.
I'm not sure what the answer is. It does not seem that the source of the drug
problem will be solved anytime soon. The programs as you mentioned that may
help, will most likely always have funding problems. Such programs are
ususally tied to the political weather and currently the climate in the
Senate and the House of Representative is a majority of conservatives.
Conservatives don't tend to be for funding social programs.
I wonder if there is a way to weed out democrats masquerading as republicans?
Clinton apparently knows every trick in the book. Even though I support him
not getting impeached, my guess is he will eventually have to face up to the
things he has done. Currently he may be undergoing harassment, or he may not
be. For all anyone knows, there are hidden things with both Clinton, dome of
the republicans as well as some of the democrats that if known, would get
them all either in jail or looking for another job.
-morpheme-
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rich Thompson
> Good question. Is it possible that criminals are more likely to
> get CAUGHT,arrested and prosecuted?
Possible, but not as a reason for more and more people going to prison.
The reason for that is that people are much more likely to be sentenced to
prison for *completely* non-violent/non-property crimes (drug possession,
prostitution, pornography) than they were before. And also the sentences
for such things are much longer than they used to be. THAT is the real
reason.
For instance, in 1985, 54.5 % of the people in state and federal prisons
were there for violent crimes. In 1995, 13.1 % were. In 85, 8.6% of the
people in prison were there for drug possession or trafficing, in 95,
59.9%. This is a huge shift, by any standards.
While imprisonment proportions for white men in 1985 were 528/100,000 and
for Black men were 3544/100,000, in 1995, the proportions were 919/100,000
for white men and 6926/100,000 for Black men.
While both groups have about doubled their rate of incarceration during
this time, in absolute terms, this has had a more profound impact on Black
men.
And all these increases are due to increases in imprisonments for drugs
charges, not increases in violent or property crime.
And before someone says, well, most drug users are criminal in other ways,
well, fine, but if someone was convicted of both a drug and a violent
crime, they are classified as violent crime, *not drug crime.
So more than half of the people in prison are *only* there for drug
possession or trafficing.
Check out "The past and future of US prison policy: twenty-five years
after the Stanford prison experiment", by Haney and Zimbardo, in American
Psychologist, July 1998, vol53, n7, pp709-727.
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> Sorry Gabrielle, I ain't got the energy to answer your questions.
Okay.
But what I was attempting to ask from both of you is, has he done
anything good for black folks?
Even if it was one or two good, positive things that impacted on the
black community. And please, I don't mean the
Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time stuff.
And I don't mean the window-dressing on the race committee. Everyone
figured that was a sop.
> Now are we right? Or are we totally wrong?
Both.
DarkStar
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:01:45 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 1998 21:48:09 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>This is one hell of a difference between him and every other President
>>>I can think of, period. He really doesn't care. If he likes somebody
>>>- Ron Brown, Vernon Jordan - that's his pal, and that's it. He really
>>>couldn't give a hoot, as far as I can tell, because he never makes any
>>>big deal out of it.
>>
>>check out the back issue of Emerge where clinton left ron brown
>>blowing in the wind, according to brown's daughter.
>
>Check out any number of conservative rags that claim he had Brown
>murdered. I get tired of spinmeister BS.
Just conservative rags?
Really?
I seem to get a sense everyone from all over the spectrum said the
situation needed more investigation, especially the *FACT* that the
autopsy pictures were missing.
>From Allan Keyes to CBC members.
...
>>funny ain't it?
>>funny that guiner, a "friend" of clinton for years, gets kicked to the
>>curb without getting a chance to defend herself, and then he doesn't
>>even have the decency to give her a call; yet. meanwhile, his
>>political advisor, is caught spending time with a prostitute, and
>>talking to the president while in the presence of the prostitute, but
>>clinton takes the time to call him.
>>funny ain't it?
>
>Ed, why are you comparing a woman that he knew vaguely, and the guy he
>credits with handling every detail of a very successful political
>career? Guinere made her own bed, and expecting a President to lie in
>it is a joke.
"He knew vaguely"?
The man new Guiner for over 10 years. He and she, said they were close
friends. She said he and her families got together on a regular basis.
>I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
>complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
>There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
>group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
>President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
>was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
People in this group bent over backwards to explain it. I even pointed
out that a Federal judge in Maryland, a judge appointed by Reagan or Bush,
put her idea in action to settle a voting discrimination case.
For some reason, you have a bug in your BVDs about her.
>>and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
>>the democrats...
>
>So do you want us sending money to Jesse Helms via Rush Limbaugh, or
>not?
No, but it would be nice to hold Democrats accountable for a change. That's
what they are doing in Florida.
>>jesse jackson stated that clinton has no soul.
>
>That is a statement without content, and a sound bite. What's the
>point?
He knows he can't be trusted.
...
>>>Wayne "I guess any friend of Jesse's is a cracka" Johnson
>>
>>no, clinton is a cracka in a suit.
>
>I don't know what you're trying to say.
Clinton will sell out Black people the moment it fits his needs. Clinton
isn't a friend of Black people. He's a friend of himself and himself only.
He doesn't even give a damn about his daughter.
--
Welcome to my virtual reality!
dark...@charm.net Edwin Brown
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
Artclemons
In article <36137ce7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) writes:
>I can't figure out why you try to attack this "liberal" President, by
>complaining about how radical liberals like Guinere got handled.
>There was no way that her goofy voting schemes (which nobody in this
>group can even explain) were going to be supported by an incumbent
>President. It was a mistake to even nominate her, and claiming she
>was supposed to get a stirring defense is a joke.
>
Guinere is not a radical liberal. Falling for that particular statement is
nonsense. Guinere suggests a variety of proportional representation, rather
than the present winner take all system in the United States to correct
for poor representation of various groups. Please note that numerous
conceded to be democratic countries have some form of what she suggests.
Corporations often set up their corporate boards that way, some cities
have such a system to avoid things. The most famous presently is
Cambridge, MA but there are others spread throughout New England and
in other parts of the country. What proportional representation would do
though is prevent let's at large voting allowing let's say a 40% population
to in effect control the other 60% or a 51% white vote electing all white
at large city council members, and giving that city council no incentive
to pay attention to the needs of some neighborhoods. Whether you agree
with the concept or not, it is not radical nor liberal.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <36128432...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu> writes:
AC:
>> The subject of drugs has been debated in this newsgroup previously. I
>>suspect I know more cops, and more drug users and dealers than any
>>other two posters to this newsgroup. Enhanced sentencing for drugs has
>>been a disaster for the community. Low level drug dealers with effective
>> take home profits in the range of $300 per week, and drug users have filled
>>prisons, while the amount of crime attributable to crack has barely dropped
if
>> it has at all.
>I suppose the argument here could be "you've go to start somewhere". I hear
>the "lets go after the big guys" argument all the time, but it truly sickens
>me to be able to see dealers selling IN PLAIN SIGHT and know that the police
>often drive by and do nothing. I recall once that I participated in an
>anti-drug parade one particular neighborhood. After the parade, the police
>officer who was guiding the parade told me, "well we've taken you all past
>every crack house I know of in this neighborhood." Ok, maybe I'm a bit slow
>here, but if the cops KNOW where all of the crack houses are, why can't they
>just bust them all?
What you miss is that busting low level drug dealers still leaves a pool of
people to replace them, and a market for their services. The very fact that
drug dealers have to advertise is what makes conducting the business in
plain sight so obvious. The present drug laws are also corrupting of police.
Police often wait weeks, months or even years to develop a case. Some
dealers are informers, as are many prostitutes/drug users, and sadly because
so much money is involved, it's corrupting of the police because it's illegal,
and one cop can make money just by letting someone go, or turning a
blind eye. Sergeants don't want beat cops making arrests in front of drug
houses, after all it requires backup because the people might be armed.
Also, many dealers despite how obviously they deliver drugs only deliver
and carry enough to fall below the limits set for a presumption of intent to
deliver a controlled substance. The level is lower with crack, but the long
term dealers often only have a rock or two when delivering to a car or
individual, and have been known to look all around before delivering to someone
new. Arrests won't cure the problem, making it difficult to deliver might,
but once again, nobody wants to spend the money, or move police from
relatively low crime areas to high crime areas just to prevent crime in the
community. Finally, police are selective in whom they arrest. I've seen
lots of surveillance tapes where whites will drive up, buy crack or something
from someone apparently involved in the drug trade, yet the police will pick
out an African-American purchaser later to stop the car, and use the
surveillance tape to justify stopping. The system is rigged in more ways
than one.
>> Despite
>> an alleged nationwide reduction in crime (NYC is a particularly bad example
>> of this), the number of young men and women going to prison for drug crimes
>> is up drastically.
>
>The drop in crime is for real. Just look at the local papers on the number
>of murders from one year to the next. I know here in Birmingham the murder
>rate has dropped. And yes, there are more crimes that go on other than
>murder, but murder is the crime that is most likely to be reported and that
>causes the most fear amoung the public.
Judging by the number of murders is a poor choice. That rises and falls based
on a number of factors. Drug dealers now have turfs that are established
with what once would have been the equivalent of oh let's say a pushcart
vendor's association. A lot of the reasons for shooting and defending one's
self
against other potential vendors have disappeared. The rules are mostly
apparent to the cops and drug dealers, so a lot of murders no longer happen.
It's also true that posessors of guns are getting used to having them, and
aren't quite as likely to use them as before. Finally, if you check the stats
the real drop in homicides is usually for stranger to stranger shootings, the
related, and close friend rate hasn't dropped all that much. My point was
that somehow the number of people arrested for drug posession, sales,
burglary and the like has remained the same. Unless you're claiming that
the police are somehow more efficient, the number of crimes necessary to
support a drug habit haven't dropped, so where are these drug users getting
the money to buy drugs? I also note that NYC by moving beggars,
squeegee folk and the like to poorer neighborhoods inherently reduced the
number of crimes reported. Someone who once would have reported a man
demanding money for wiping a windshield with newspaper suddenly isn't
exposed to that anymore, even though the squeegee man may still be doing
the same act on a large number of drivers in Brooklyn or Queens, or the
Bronx because the police don't bother to enforce the law as readily, and
those who suffer the indignity are less likely to regard what happened as a
crime. The setup for reporting crimes in poor neighborhoods also is awful.
You can take a number and wait for hours to get a form to report a crime.
If you don't know who did the act to you, or don't have insurance, why waste
your time? Gee, now look at the crime rate fall. The other thing is that
crime rates always fall when the number of males in the ages of 16-44
drops as has recently happened and/or when the number of low paying
or entry level jobs rises. It happens every time and the crime rates rise
as unemployment rises too.
>> Ask almost any criminologist if there is a relationship
>> between drug use and crime, and then ask how crime rates can drop if
>> the number of people going to prison is rising?
>
>Good question. Is it possible that criminals are more likely to
>get CAUGHT,arrested and prosecuted? I saw a special on 60 minutes on the man
>who
>consulted for the NYPD and later for the New Orleans PD. (By the way, that
>report was really said. They had a tape in there where one corrupt cop
>had paid for a murder and was in communication with the hit man while he
>was carrying out the hit. I know those doing the investigation were trying
>not to blow their cover, but they IMHO really could have stopped the hit
>and nailed the guy for attempted murder rather than murder). Anyway one
>thing
>that he pointed out was that many cases were being simply closed rather than
>solved. One simple reform was to have a cop assigned to follow every case
>to completion. This had the net effect of generating more arrests for the
>same number of crimes.
Actually that practice also encourages a police officer to find one suspect,
arrest the suspect and then write off a lot of the similar crimes to that one
suspect arrested for one crime. Lots of cases solved, no actual proof
that the suspect was guilty of the others. Most burglars for example
commit lots of burglaries before being caught, but not every similar
burglarly in a neighborhood should be assigned to one individual if that
individual is caught.
>
>> Heroin usage is rising.
>> How can most of the people arrested for posession of crack cocaine be
>> African-American, Mexican and Puerto Rican if at least two-thirds of the
>> users are white if the system is fair.
>
>No the system isn't fair. In fact it really sucks. Unfortunately
>anti-crimeideas such as intervention, treatment and agressive probation which
>might
>actually WORK get branded as being too "liberal" and die before their time.
>Still it's also not fair that these same African-Americans, Mexicans and
>Puerto Rican's target their poison at their own communities rather than going
>for the broader market.
>
>
>> Everywhere that measurement of the
>> number of heavy duty crack addicts occurs except in the judicial and
>> criminal system, two-thirds white.
>
>Interesting. They should have the book thrown at them too. But here'sa
>question, are white's more likely to get treatment? Or are they just
>being allowed to languish? If they are getting more treatment is that
>strictly a matter of economics? Are poor whites more likely to get into
>treatment programs than poor blacks? I don't know, just asking.
No, the whites going to prison for drug usage are poor whites, however a
poor white is still less likely to be arrested and charged with a felony.
>> You should also realize that changing
>> powder cocaine to crack cocaine uses ingredients found in most homes,
>> and definitely in most stores, and someone who flunked high school
>> chemistry or never took it, can still make crack cocaine out of coke. The
>> only difference between crack cocaine and cocaine is that smaller amounts
>> of crack will give a high which lasts for a relatively short period of
>time.
>> Raising the penalty won't solve the racial disparity problem, because white
>> crack users already don't go to prison, and nobody yet has demonstrated
>> that a heavy crack user is more dangerous than a heavy cocaine user,
>> because, big hint, they're still the same drug.
>
>The same drugs in different forms can have different effects. When chewed as
>a leaf the plant that cocaine comes from is actually useful in helping
>people deal with high altitudes. (That's what the Indians in the Andes
>used and still use it for.)
Coca leafs, and tea brewed from coca tea don't usually produce a high. They're
a lot less concentrated. The common household ingredient plus cocaine
powder and minor chemistry techniques produces a substance that is
smokable, which is why crack cocaine is cheaper. The amount of crack
necessary to produce a high is less but the high lasts longer. Please
understand, I'm not going to describe how to make crack even if it is
common knowledge, but the cocaine isn't changed when it's put into rock
form, it's just that inhaling the vapors of the burning cocaine affects the
relevant parts of the body quicker at the cost of a less long lasting high.
A crack addict given cocaine to shoot can get just as high, and if someone
were to figure out another relatively easy way to convert cocaine into
something besides a rock form which would burn easily and produce
vapors, it would just be cocaine posession again. Comparing coca tea
or coca leaf chewing is like comparing being hit with a nerf baseball bat
to being hit with a wooden Louisville slugger. Coca leaf chewers don't
get high unless they spend hours masticating the leaves continuously,
and 2 or more gallons of coca tea would probably be necessary before
one got high, assuming of course one didn't excrete most of the necessary
substance as a response to drinking so much liquid.
-art clemons-
Mycroft
> Damnation, don't people understand that the grand jury in this case was used
> to only be able to force witnesses to appear and testify, rather than finding
> information suitable for an indictment. While the grand jury could have
> questioned witnesses on its own, it did not do so, and in fact most grand
> juries aren't made aware of that privilege. Grand juries can also issue
> reports,
> and I suspect that a grand jury report would have differed from a Ken Starr
> report. Once when grand juries were actually used to decide who would
> be indicted rather than becoming an information collection device and
> excuse for indicting you might have had a point, but almost any prosecutor
> can get a grand jury to indict anyone even Jesus Christ for sedition and
> treason against the Roman empire.
> -art clemons-
You're right about that. Quite a few have critisized Starr for releasing
his own report rather than having the grand jury return a finding. That
raises the question, "so what was the whole point of having a grand jury"?
The Devil's Advocate©
>BS. He blasted Sista Souljah using a quote out of context. He did so to
>embarass Jesse and to show other crackas that he was standing up to Blacks.
>
>Jesse allowed himself to be punked. Sista Souljah came back as hard as she
>could against Clinton.
I wish somebody had a transcript of the exact quote that was "taken
out of context." I only barely rememeber the exact words she used
since it was quite some time ago and I was younger. Given what I know
of Souljah, her music, attitude and message, It probably wasn't taken
too far out of context if it was. She was the one saying that in 1995
whites were going to round up blacks and enslave them. She had a video
entitled "slaveries back in effect" and discussed in a talk show and
said that the video is a portrayal of what she thinks will happen in
95. So when Clinton claims that she made a comment about having a week
of killing whites or whatever, I can easily see how such a hysterical
and inflammatory woman could say such a thing. Of course whenever
someone says something inflammatory, they claim to be taken out of
context. Even Khalid Muhammad thinks he's taken out of context.
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
Francis Jaffier
> I also note that most
> African-Americans know people of questionable moral worth and
> character and at the least have learned to pretend to get along with
> said people.
It's quite a different story when that someone is supposed to
be your leader. I don't know about you but someone who aspire
to be my leader must have much integrity and character.
The image of Clinton standing in the oval office, with his pants
down, getting a blow job from an intern.......well, let's just
say that any respect that i may have had for him was completely
*blown* away.
Chairman Francis *He looked so comfortable lying about it too.*
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
...
>for poor representation of various groups. Please note that numerous
>conceded to be democratic countries have some form of what she suggests.
>Corporations often set up their corporate boards that way, some cities
>have such a system to avoid things. The most famous presently is
>Cambridge, MA but there are others spread throughout New England and
>in other parts of the country.
When the dust started to settle, it was reported that what Lani wrote
about, was currently used in some areas. I didn't know the areas, and
the newspaper articles never said what areas. Thanks for providing
that information.
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Guinere suggests a variety of proportional representation, rather
>than the present winner take all system in the United States to correct
>for poor representation of various groups.
This is the intention of the Senate, House, and various local
legislative bodies. It also requires the codification of what
qualifies as a "group", a notion that appears to be rapidly dying on
the vine.
We have "homeless" groups, and "single mother" groups (not to be
confused with single parents), the "aged" group, the "disabled" group
(some temporary, some permanent; some mental, some physical) and so on
and so on.
To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
reasons, and never will be.
>Please note that numerous
>conceded to be democratic countries have some form of what she suggests.
Please note that this is not a parliamentary democracy.
>Corporations often set up their corporate boards that way, some cities
>have such a system to avoid things.
I don't know of any such cities, and using corporate systems as a
paradigm of free elective politics seems to be a hopelessly inept
parallel.
>The most famous presently is
>Cambridge, MA but there are others spread throughout New England and
>in other parts of the country.
Cambridge is a college town of miniscule size, and hugely affluent
population. You expect an entire STATE - such as say, New York - to
be subjected to such a stilted and cumbersome system? Even a large
city is incapable of handling such crazy elective politics, and the
end doesn't justify the means.
>What proportional representation would do
>though is prevent let's at large voting allowing let's say a 40% population
>to in effect control the other 60% or a 51% white vote electing all white
>at large city council members, and giving that city council no incentive
>to pay attention to the needs of some neighborhoods. Whether you agree
>with the concept or not, it is not radical nor liberal.
I don't care how you label it, Art. It's cumbersome, ineffective, and
absurd. If we want to see coalition politics in action, we need to
build some coalitions based on something other than skin color.
Wayne "A minority is just that - quit trying to dress up a pig and
calling it a solution" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Artclemons
In article <3617B4...@worldnet.att.net>, Francis Jaffier
<The-Ch...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Artclemons wrote:
>> I also note that most
>> African-Americans know people of questionable moral worth and
>> character and at the least have learned to pretend to get along with
>> said people.
>
> It's quite a different story when that someone is supposed to
> be your leader. I don't know about you but someone who aspire
> to be my leader must have much integrity and character.
> The image of Clinton standing in the oval office, with his pants
> down, getting a blow job from an intern.......well, let's just
> say that any respect that i may have had for him was completely
> *blown* away.
Considering that former presidents have been accused of raping slaves, and
fathering children (Lincoln for example, although he's not the only one),
accused of lying about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, allowing officials
of his administration to tell an outright lie about the purpose of a spy plane
(Gary Powers during Eisenhower) and a whole lot more misdeeds, somehow
I don't quite find what he did as despicable as you seem to. I don't think it
was a wise choice on Clinton's part to have associated with Lewinsky, but
he's not the first president to stray while president, and stray while in the
white house either.
My real problem also is that I also know how folks now conceded to be
founding fathers dealt with a man who seduced another man's wife then
paid blackmail to the cuckolded husband, they concluded that his actions
of lying under oath, his extra-marital sex, and his paying blackmail didn't
disqualify him for high office and was not a high crime or misdemeanor.
Listening to Hyde, who used to love to discuss the concept of Founder's
Intent, now ignore that and claim that this is the worst thing since
Hitler or could be is not exactly calming to my stomach. OK, Clinton
is too focused on sex for his own good, but that doesn't imply or mean
that he committed a high crime and/or misdemeanor under the
Constitution. Sorry, but it just doesn't cut it.
> Chairman Francis *He looked so comfortable lying about it too.*
I've known lots of smooth liars in my time. Most people with lots of practice
which implies most politicians are good liars, or good at dealing with all of
the compromises to their integrity that being a high level politician implies.
You don't get to be governor of a state, a US Senator, or even rise to a
leadership position in the House without the ability to lie well.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
In article <6usaei$5oa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
mutu...@my-dejanews.com writes:
....
> [Clinton] has f*d up several times when it comes to Black folk. He has
> prostituted
> our so-called leaders (albeit with their willful partication in most cases).
> It is now that he needs us most that he is using every opportunity to appear
> with us.
>
> Engaging in a senseless debate about whether one wife beater is better than
> another because he only slaps when husband a punches...well, you get the
> picture, I hope.
>
> Now are we right? Or are we totally wrong?
Hell!!!!
You know I believe I'm right!
Clinton ain't as friendly as people think!
I keep asking, and no one answers: Why did he wait until the weekend before
the election to even *MENTION* Prop209?
--
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.com
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
Welcome To My Virtual Reality!!!!
js...@cornell.edu
Rich Thompson <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> Ummmmm... Pretty sure Betty Curry is a Black woman.
>
> I'm not sure why this is, but I find that a lot of White people are much
> more socially attracted to Black people when they're in trouble of some
> kind, or have limited resources, or need something.
I think I can understand why, at least in some cases. Black people,
especially in the past, as victims of legally sanctioned discrimination, were
outcasts from "mainstream" society . So whites who felt that they were
rejected from "so called mainstream" society may have felt the need to find
other kindred spirits"blacks". And whites aren't the only group to this.
Many Asians and other immigrants who have thought of blacks has being lazy
welfare bums, instantly see kout blacks and become much more sympathetic to
blacks the minute they run into racism or trouble within the mainstream
society. it's acting out of self interest, but it's also the need to be
around people who accept you, since humans are all social creatures.
js...@cornell.edu
dark...@charm.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
> >>and since it seems as though the political power of Blacks is tied to
> >>the democrats...
> >
> >So do you want us sending money to Jesse Helms via Rush Limbaugh, or
> >not?
>
> No, but it would be nice to hold Democrats accountable for a change. That's
> what they are doing in Florida.
I agree. And also, should Clinton and the Democrats go down, should blacks go
down with them? We should be pushing more for our own adgendas, instead of
appearing to be loyal to Clinton and the Democrats. In politics and business,
the person whom you climb in bed with today maybe the person you stab in the
back at night.
Artclemons
>You're right about that. Quite a few have critisized Starr for releasing
>his own report rather than having the grand jury return a finding. That
>raises the question, "so what was the whole point of having a grand jury"?
Starr can't subpoena on his own. That privilege is reserved for grand juries
or trial in the federal system. The problem is that grand juries have become
rubber stamps for prosecutors all too often instead of fact finding bodies
able to compel attendance and testimony. I also note that anyone with
good sense appearing before a grand jury and represented by an atty
should decline to testify just so truthful testimony or even testimony given
to the best of your knowledge is not later used to prosecute you. I note
that Starr was alleged at one time to want to indict Vernon Jordan, and that
Betty C. is apparently now the target of an investigation. Forcing him to
grant hopefully use immunity makes fishing expeditions like this grand jury
was irrelevant and impossible and forces Starr to limit the scope of
questioning. I know one thing, if I'm ever called before a grand jury and
compelled to testify, I'm going to mention every incident of spitting in the
street and up that I've ever done too. Good ole Ollie North makes it apparent
that such a strategy does work.
-art clemons-
J Lanier
>Sorry Gabrielle, I ain't got the energy to answer your questions.
>It isn't a matter of whether or not Clinton has done anything for us. Or
>whether he is better than President Whoever. Or even if he and others are
>politicians.
Well, yes it is to some extent. The question that noone has managed to
answer for me yet is why such an outcry has arisen over Clinton's actions
despite the fact that other people have acted as bad or worse without a
similar outcry or affront.
Now maybe there *is* a valid reason why this is the case, but I haven't
heard it yet.
>He has f*d up several times when it comes to Black folk. He has prostituted
>our so-called leaders (albeit with their willful partication in most cases).
>It is now that he needs us most that he is using every opportunity to appear
>with us.
And no other policitician has done this? What is it about *Clinton's*
doing this that get's people's goat? Is it the element of betrayal?
That he seems to present himself one way, and then stabs allies in the
back? That he's acted treacherously and is now getting his just deserts?
>Engaging in a senseless debate about whether one wife beater is better than
>another because he only slaps when husband a punches...well, you get the
>picture, I hope.
It's not really a senseless debate. Why aren't all wife beaters (or
people committing a particular crime) being similarly punished?
In Clinton's case, intellectually people seem to be justifying their sense
of outrage by saying that pejury, regardless of what was lied about is
wrong, period! However on a practical level perjury is a highly tolerated
"crime", and IMO undermines the basis for the animosity against Clinton.
Francis Jaffier
> BS. He blasted Sista Souljah using a quote out of context. He did so to
> embarass Jesse and to show other crackas that he was standing up to Blacks.
>
> Jesse allowed himself to be punked. Sista Souljah came back as hard as she
> could against Clinton.
In any kind of debate, sister souljar will eat Clinton alive.
I really admire her. Conversely, given clinton's reckless
behavior, my respect for him has really diminished.
Chairman Francis
*ALIVE, til i die*
js...@cornell.edu
soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK wrote:
>
> I wish somebody had a transcript of the exact quote that was "taken
> out of context." I only barely rememeber the exact words she used
> since it was quite some time ago and I was younger. Given what I know
> of Souljah, her music, attitude and message, It probably wasn't taken
> too far out of context if it was. She was the one saying that in 1995
> whites were going to round up blacks and enslave them. She had a video
> entitled "slaveries back in effect" and discussed in a talk show and
> said that the video is a portrayal of what she thinks will happen in
> 95. So when Clinton claims that she made a comment about having a week
> of killing whites or whatever, I can easily see how such a hysterical
> and inflammatory woman could say such a thing. Of course whenever
> someone says something inflammatory, they claim to be taken out of
> context. Even Khalid Muhammad thinks he's taken out of context.
Her statement may have been racists, but I still think his whole squabble with
her was to distant himself from Jesse jackson ,and show how he coulb be a
moderate. So yes, he was doing something that he knew would gain him points
with white voters. I had never even heard of Sister Soulijah until this whole
situation with Clinton occured.
Politicans, both white and black, play the race card when it suits them.
>
> --
>
> regards,
> The Devil's Advocate
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> http://surf.to/advocate
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> remove "nojunk" to email
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
DarkStar
> > References: <6ub8g8$pb1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3614e5b2...@news.earthlink.net> <360e6899...@mail.flash.net> <36127AF6...@cis.uab.edu>
> >
> > In article <36127AF6...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
> > >DarkStar wrote:
> >
> > ...
Me:
> > >> When he blasted Sista Souljah for preaching hate, and blasted people
> > >> for inviting her to speak. Of course, the video of Jesse Jackson
> > >> sitting in his chair, slumped down, and *stewing*, is priceless.
Mycroft:
> > >1) Do YOU believe that Sista Souljah was preaching hate?
Maybe I should have put "preaching hate" in quotes. Those were Clinton's
words.
I don't follow her, never read her books, never brought her cds, nor
attended anything where she was a speaker.
Mycroft:
> > >2) If you believe she was than how would that be different than
> > > if say Bush had gone somewhere to speak where David Duke was
> > > also on the platform and then using the opportunity to blast
> > > Duke? Oh let me answer my own question, Clinton didn't have
> > > to go and he could have stated Sista Souljah's presense as
> > > a reason for not going?
True.
Mycroft:
> > > Would YOU have looked at it any
> > > differently?
Sure. Why? It was obvious that he was attempting to show that he is not
beholden to Jesse Jackson. If you remember, that was an issue with Clinton
at the time.
...
Mycroft:
> > >3) If you don't believe that Sista Souljah was preaching hate but
> > > was merely "mis-understood" is it possible that Clinton may have
> > > merely "mis-understood" her?
It's possible. But then, why do it *then*?
Me:
> > >> >>4. he fired elders when all she said was that the idea of teaching
> > >> >>*about* masturbation in school *should be ____discussed____*.
Mycroft:
> > >> >It did seem rather strange, but I don't he fired her because she's
> > >> >black.
Me:
> > >> No, but Black women sure do get shown the door rather quickly in his
> > >> adminstration.
Mycroft:
> > >Oh really? Let's see, Jocelyn Elders (whom many conservative BLACK AND
> > >WHITE blasted for being allowed to stay in office so long)
Why should he give a rat's ass about what conservatives say? That is, if
he's a liberal.
Mycroft:
> > >and Lanie
> > >Guanier (again blasted by BLACK AND WHITE conservative) never got in the
> > >door.
He should have had the *DECENCY* to let her defend herself.
Mycroft:
> > > And though Elders got cut on the masturbation statement,
> > >conservatives
> > >BLACK AND WHITE were calling for her resignation even before the seemingly
> > >"pro-drug" statement. Yes, I know that she didn't advocate legalizing
> > >drugs but only studying the effect which is a VERY reasonable thing to
> > >do. But I heard more than one BLACK person claim that Elders was trying
> > >to "put crack cocaine in your local grocery store".
Okay. But I've heard more than one *BLACK* person defend her.
Mycroft:
> > >Uh, where are the rest of all of the black women being shown the
> > >door? What about the white men and women who've been let go? I recall
> > >Zoe Baird and some other white lady got cut before he settled on Janet
> > >Reno.
Zoe got cut. The other lady didn't get a chance.
Mycroft:
> > > And there have been various men black and white who've either
> > >failed their nominations or got cut. Mike Esby, black male. The guy
> > >that told the campain secrets to the hooker, white male. Perhaps you've
> > >seen some statistical analysis done on the number of blacks to be let
> > >go from the Clinton cabinent vs the number of whites and that's cross-
> > >referenced by the number of blacks nominated by Clinton as compared to
> > >his predecessors. I certainly haven't.
No I haven't. But if he's a friend of Blacks, why not let Lani defend
herself?
Mycroft:
> > >> >Btw, why do we need a surgeon general in the first place?
Me:
> > >> Why did it become an issue when a Black woman was in the spot, and not
> > >> Koop?
Mycroft:
> > >For the record I totally agree that republican moves to get rid of
> > >the suregeon general position were racist, partisan and crass. They're
> > >just made that "Koop" wasn't as conservative as they hoped he be.
> > >When "Koop" came out with a report on abortion that basically dismissed
> > >claims of a "strong negative emotional effect on the woman" conservatives
> > >far and wide called for his hide. In fact that has been strongly cited
> > >as a major reason why he didn't stay on when Bush won.
They called for his hide, *NOT* the abolishment of the office.
Me:
> > >> >>6. he signed the welfare reform into law.
Mycroft:
> > >> >This is antiblack? I mean there is good discussion on both sides of
> > >> >the coin as to whether welfare has actually hurt or helped the black
> > >> >community. There are those on the left that even believe that welfare
> > >> >has been harmful.
Me:
> > >> See comments by "Black leaders" for details.
Mycroft:
> > >So where are YOU on the issue of welfare reform? Did you think it should
> > >or shouldn't have happened? Oh I'm sure you can say "well it should have
> > >been done differently", but most people say that about almost ANY reform
> > >effort.
I said then it needed to happen. I didn't like the context of Blacks and
welfare during the process. And given that each state gets to decide how
to do it, I'd have to look at the process done by each state. Mich. did
it in a manner that I found appropriate.
Mycroft
> > >Do you think that if Bush or Dole had been president and the
> > >congress had still been republican that the reform bill would have been
> > >MORE rather than LESS in favor of blacks?
I doubt they would have been so obvious as to put "Blacks can't ..." in
the welfare bill.
Mycroft:
> > > What specifically do you think
> > >a George Bush or a Bob Dole would have pushed for? What would YOU have
> > >pushed for? I'll go on the record for something that I'm pushing for.
> > >There is an amendment (proposed by a Democrat I believe) that seeks to
> > >give welfare recipients greater "work waiver" time when they are in school.
> > >The current waiver time is not even quite long enough to earn an associates
> > >
> > >degree. The best they can hope for is a certificate which will only take
> > >them so far. Many democrats in congress as well as many social work
> > >experts believe that getting the time to receive and actual degree is
> > >essential to pulling oneself up from poverty. Some hardline republicans
> > >have argued that "getting the work experience" is more important and
> > >they'll
> > >"work their way up", but without any type of degree how far can they go?
> > >So do you support this? If so please call your congressman. (This senate,
> > >
> > >which has less of a republican controll, has already passed this measure).
They should stress work training and obtaining a high school degree or GRE.
Sometimes I think welfare while in college is fine, other times I think not.
Me:
> > >> >>8. during his 1st election campaign, he *stopped* campaigning, just to
> > >> >>see a *BLACK MAN* put to death in his state.
Mycroft:
> > >> >What was his reason? Because he was black?
Me:
> > >> Nope. It was because he wanted to show he was tough on crime.
Mycroft:
> > >So he actually flew to Arkansas and witnessed the execution? Any
> > >refernces?
Research papers at the time of his run for office.
BTW, he was also retarded.
> > >What were his comments at the execution?
*shrug*
...
Mycroft:
> > >. About the only anti-crime
> > >idea that works for which you can get bi-partisan support is hiring more
> > >cops. Clinton did do that. Crime is down. (though I will admit that
> > >there
> > >are more factors involved in this than just the hiring of more cops)
Look at the issue of the 100,000 more cops on the street. You will find
out that number was not the actual number of new cops funded by the
program. Not only that, but the funding was only for 3 or 4 years. After
that, it was the responsibility of the locality to fund the policeman
hired. Many localities didn't hire any for that reason.
...
Me:
> > >> >>9. he authorized a policy that allowed police to search the homes of
> > >> >>people living in public housing projects, without the use of search
> > >> >>warrents or without obtaining permission of the tenents.
Mycroft:
> > >> >I'd have to look into this...
Me:
> > >> The fact that you don't know about it, is interesting.
Mycroft:
> > >The fact that you haven't posted the reference/context to this is also
> > >interesting. Are you referring to the order to put tenants out of
> > >public housing based on ANY member of the household posessing drugs?
1. I don't have a reference. Are you going to say it didn't happen?
2. I wasn't referring to drug possession, I was referring to the police
being able to search the homes of people in public housing without a
warrent.
Me:
>
> > >> >>10. signed the omnibus crime bill which many "Black leaders" were
> > >> >>against.
Mycroft:
> > >> >Because black leaders are against something doesn't per se make it
> > >> >wrong.
Me:
> > >> But it doesn't make it *RIGHT* either.
Mycroft:
> > >Considering the range of leaders who happen to be black from Jesse
> > >Jackson to Louis Farakhan to Joseph Lowery to Colin Powell to
> > >Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, the "Black Avenger" and J.C. Watts
> > >it is HIGHLY unlikely that you'll find a bill that ALL of them would
> > >support.
Talk to the CBC. They weren't for the bill. And they represent Black
people, right? At least, they say so.
--
Welcome to my virtual reality!
dark...@charm.net Edwin Brown
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQB1AwUBNhY0nXWMoYEzXj0VAQEGbAL8Ci7pAVfcvVkMiLfIpOw5OmmxdB0ZTx/n
> T3mVzLmWHyRPMQ5PulFMypxaz3qvxh1GpWnQNvPRi0umoYjlk1/7fRUZEIK9ZdID
> Z9LCDihy12RyHaYmngFv0j+RPFRQOhVa
> =qWBJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Rich Thompson
> Guinere is not a radical liberal. Falling for that particular statement is
> nonsense. Guinere suggests a variety of proportional representation, rather
> than the present winner take all system in the United States to correct
> for poor representation of various groups. Please note that numerous
> conceded to be democratic countries have some form of what she suggests.
Thank you.
The term "radical liberal", from what I understand, has only been used to
describe her by fairly right-wing conservatives. And Wayne.
And it still bothers me that Clinton allowed them (the conservatives, not
Wayne) to define the terms and basically did nothing while she was tarred
and feathered. *That* is what bothers me about the whole thing.
> at large city council members, and giving that city council no incentive
> to pay attention to the needs of some neighborhoods. Whether you agree
> with the concept or not, it is not radical nor liberal.
Unless countries like Israel are radical liberal states.
Rich Thompson
> To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
> include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
> what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
> from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
> reasons, and never will be.
Good grief.
That was not what she was trying to do.
It's an enfranchised method for everyone.
> Cambridge is a college town of miniscule size, and hugely affluent
> population. You expect an entire STATE - such as say, New York - to
> be subjected to such a stilted and cumbersome system? Even a large
> city is incapable of handling such crazy elective politics, and the
> end doesn't justify the means.
Israel seems to be doing quite well.
(sigh).
Is there a way for this to be explained so that you will understand it?
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 398-7425
"If greedy wait, hot turn cold."
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: Civility please.
Artclemons
In article <3617f700...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) writes:
>On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 10:31:01 CST, artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>wrote:
>
>>Guinere suggests a variety of proportional representation, rather
>>than the present winner take all system in the United States to correct
>>for poor representation of various groups.
>
>This is the intention of the Senate, House, and various local
>legislative bodies. It also requires the codification of what
>qualifies as a "group", a notion that appears to be rapidly dying on
>the vine.
I'll give you an example of a Lani G. scenario, you decide whether you
truly understand what you she meant when you make the above statement.
If you have a city council with 9 members, and they all run at large, every
voter has 9 volts. Now let's say that African-Americans are 45% of
the city, but have never managed to elect one city council, much less
the approximately 4 members that their numbers would suggest. What
Lani G. would have happen is that a candidate could receive up to 9 volts
from every voter, or the votes could be split among nine different candidates
or in the scenario I suggest 4 candidates. That way no matter how unwilling
white voters were to elect an African heritage candidate, they could not
elect all nine members if 45% of the populace gave all 9 votes to four
candidates. Similarly in a state like NC, instead of having the state
divided into districts so to speak, every candidate for the U.S. House
of Representatives could run at large with a similar voting scheme. Thus
if white candidates continue not to represent the interests of African-
American voters, they face the possibility of not being elected, and
being replaced by candidates more appealing. Please also note that
nothing stops a white candidate from appealing to African heritage voters
or being a better choice, but it's doubtful that conservative white republicans
would have a majority for long in the south under such a scheme either.
>We have "homeless" groups, and "single mother" groups (not to be
>confused with single parents), the "aged" group, the "disabled" group
>(some temporary, some permanent; some mental, some physical) and so on
>and so on.
Yes, and if said groups band together and decide to elect one candidate in a
large field, they may well succeed. Under the 9 member system suggested
above for a city council, nothing stops for example African-Americans agreeing
to cast one vote for a "progressive white candidate" or whites agreeing to
vote for a slate of candidates which include African-Americans and African-
Americans agreeing to do the same. In other words, you end up with fewer
disenfranchised elements in the society, rather than the strict system you
seem to believe is suggested by proportional voting. When I said that
numerous democracies have some version of this, that's precisely what I mean.
If nationwide for example a party gets over a certain threshhold in Germany,
then even if that party doesn't win a single parliamentary district, there will
still be members of parliament from that party. That's how the Green Party
for example got to be powerful enough to be the minority faction in the new
German government that will probably take over soon. There are downsides
to such a system, if groups can't agree, or you have a closely divided vote,
you end up with a system which resembles either Italy or Israel if you have
votes of confidence regularly, however I note that both Israel and Italy have
higher percentages of voters turning out to vote because EVERY VOTE
COUNTS!
>To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
>include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
>what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
>from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
>reasons, and never will be.
I just suggested a method of doing this with the House of Representatives
without really changing the structure of government at all and still having
the same two year terms. I also note that this is the method assigned
to most corporate voting structures too. A strong enough faction backed
by enough stockholders is given a place on the board. Most Americans
already understand the concept if they understand a proxie voting system.
>>Please note that numerous
>>conceded to be democratic countries have some form of what she suggests.
>
>Please note that this is not a parliamentary democracy.
Nope it isn't, but so what, is a parliamentary system less democratic than
the present winner take all system? Besides, one more time, the same
terms of office can exist with at large voting in several states. Please also
note that the Supreme Court probably can't do doodly squat about a state
deciding to allocate its representatives that way either.
>>Corporations often set up their corporate boards that way, some cities
>>have such a system to avoid things.
>
>I don't know of any such cities, and using corporate systems as a
>paradigm of free elective politics seems to be a hopelessly inept
>parallel.
>>The most famous presently is
>>Cambridge, MA but there are others spread throughout New England and
>>in other parts of the country.
>
>Cambridge is a college town of miniscule size, and hugely affluent
>population. You expect an entire STATE - such as say, New York - to
>be subjected to such a stilted and cumbersome system? Even a large
>city is incapable of handling such crazy elective politics, and the
>end doesn't justify the means.
You're wrong too. Cambridge while known for MIT and Harvard is mostly
working class and middle class folk with set of wealthy neighborhoods
thrown in. You definitely don't want to argue demographics for Cambridge
with me. Not only did I grow up in Boston (across the Charles River from
Cambridge), but I have spent enough time there in the past several years
to be relatively sure of how the population breaks down too. I mentioned
Cambridge precisely because it had an African-American mayor, who
put together a coalition of African-Americans and whites to get elected
and the city also doesn't seem to be falling apart now. Any city with
at large seats on its city council already can implement the scheme just
by changing for whom one can vote. I also note that bullet voting can
produce similar results if the city has a population large enough. Bullet
voting btw means that African-Americans only cast their votes for one
or two candidates, and don't vote for others, which if the population is
large enough greatly enhances the probability that one or two candidates
will receive enough votes to be elected. Bullet voting was how African
heritage candidates were elected at large in places like Boston when
whites wouldn't vote for an African heritage candidate in your lifetime.
>>What proportional representation would do
>>though is prevent let's at large voting allowing let's say a 40% population
>>to in effect control the other 60% or a 51% white vote electing all white
>>at large city council members, and giving that city council no incentive
>>to pay attention to the needs of some neighborhoods. Whether you agree
>>with the concept or not, it is not radical nor liberal.
>
>I don't care how you label it, Art. It's cumbersome, ineffective, and
>absurd. If we want to see coalition politics in action, we need to
>build some coalitions based on something other than skin color.
>
>Wayne "A minority is just that - quit trying to dress up a pig and
>calling it a solution" Johnson
Wayne, you seemingly don't want to consider other solutions. The present
system is broken anyway. With corporations in effect subsidizing the
candidacies of many for federal elective office, most voters not bothering to
vote, and minorities in terms of the population determining just who is a
candidate. How many successful pro choice republicans get to run for
Congress for example because of the presence of a relatively small
anti-abortion vote in the primaries?
-art clemons-
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> >1. Has Clinton done anything right for black folks?
>
> Some people say that Reagan was responsible for the growth in the
> economy, which helped Black people.
Yeah, right. A twenty-year long stretch of growth?
And just how many black people have been helped?
This economy is still running on paper and plastic, which bothers me
immensely.
> Would you accept the statement that Reagan is the friend of Black
> people?
No.
Just as Jews wouldn't buy the statement that Germans were victims of
Hitler too when the Reagans put that wreath on those SS graves at
Bitburg.
Nancy Reagan bears a lot of responsibility for turning her husband into
the man who became President. And her father, Loyal Davis, was known to
be racist and right-wing to boot.
I asked:
> >2. Is he better or worse than any other American president around black
> > folks' issues?
DS said:
> That's not the point I've been making. Clinton is not as friendly as
> people say he is.
That is the point. You have this thing about Clinton being a cracka.
Okay. So, is his policies any worse or better for black folks than
other modern presidents (Truman on up), you can name?
It could be that Ronnie Ramjet Raygun and Clinton are running the same
as far as being affable and engaging...
I said:
> >3. Which of these guys is worse?
> >
> >a. Gingrich--a cracka in a suit
He insisted:
> Didn't Gingrich help get the MLK Jr. holiday?
(Sarcasm on...)
He did?
First thing he did good for black folks?
Amazing...! And just what was the second?
(Sarcasm off...)
He said:
> Isn't Gingrich a friend of J.C. Watts?
I responded:
One black friend of Gingrich. And in my estimation, his only ace
boon coon...
He asked:
> Well, he's a friend of Black people, ain't he?
I said:
Grasping at straws, aren't we?
Gingrich is the friend of my enemies, too. Gingrich's friends are some
of the most powerful Christian right-wing, neo-Nazi/KKK Southern crackas
who can't wait until the white South can rise again.
DarkStar, you have to be kidding. The day Gingrich says he is and will
do for black folks is the day he's assassinated by one of those same
cutthroats I just mentioned. I still haven't heard about him doing
right by Washington, D.C. for example, after all the blather about what
he was going to do for the folks there a couple of years back. Somebody
school me about the result of those hearings he did. Anything CHANGE
due to *his* efforts on *our* behalf?
The Devil's Advocate©
<The-Ch...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> In any kind of debate, sister souljar will eat Clinton alive.
I'd say a more entertaining debate would be Sister Souljah vs. Larry
Elder. Both of them diametrically opposed loudmouths.
> I really admire her. Conversely, given clinton's reckless
> behavior, my respect for him has really diminished.
Hah, what guy -would- refuse free oral sex, sheesh...
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Good grief.
>
>That was not what she was trying to do.
>
>It's an enfranchised method for everyone.
Well, so is one vote per person.
Yesterday, Tom Bradley, five times elected Mayor of Los Angeles, was
mourned and honored by this town - a racist place that twice was the
home of the worst riots in any American city, ever.
He was elected without this goofy scheme.
[Comments about Cambridge deleted]
>Israel seems to be doing quite well.
>
>(sigh).
Israel has a parliamentary elective system, unlike this nation. It
also disenfranchises a whole hell of a lot of people who were born
there, is a religious state, and I could go on and on. Why are you
sighing?
>Is there a way for this to be explained so that you will understand it?
Yes.
Wayne "It can't be all that difficult" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>I'll give you an example of a Lani G. scenario, you decide whether you
>truly understand what you she meant when you make the above statement.
>If you have a city council with 9 members, and they all run at large, every
>voter has 9 volts. Now let's say that African-Americans are 45% of
>the city, but have never managed to elect one city council, much less
>the approximately 4 members that their numbers would suggest.
This usually happens with at-large election situations, and I agree a
remedy is necessary, but go on.
>What Lani G. would have happen is that a candidate could receive up to 9 volts
>from every voter, or the votes could be split among nine different candidates
>or in the scenario I suggest 4 candidates. That way no matter how unwilling
>white voters were to elect an African heritage candidate, they could not
>elect all nine members if 45% of the populace gave all 9 votes to four
>candidates.
OK, hold it. What is to stop the racist 55% from voting the same way?
They'd still hold a majority, and the problem wouldn't be getting 4
candidates elected; the problem would be holding a majority of votes
on the council.
The problem of at-large elections has been dealt with by the courts
before, and is far easier to understand and deal with than the
proportional vote system you illustrate here.
>Similarly in a state like NC, instead of having the state
>divided into districts so to speak, every candidate for the U.S. House
>of Representatives could run at large with a similar voting scheme. Thus
>if white candidates continue not to represent the interests of African-
>American voters, they face the possibility of not being elected, and
>being replaced by candidates more appealing. Please also note that
>nothing stops a white candidate from appealing to African heritage voters
>or being a better choice, but it's doubtful that conservative white republicans
>would have a majority for long in the south under such a scheme either.
This is all predicated on the assumption that bloc voting is only
going to be exercised by a racial minority, and not by any other body
politic. I don't see this happening; Jim Crow is not dead, and if any
voting scheme is seen as a threat to the status quo, the scheme will
be co-opted by the right.
Candidates split the electorate all the time. Ross Perot is the
reason Clinton is President today, in what amounts to an at large
election, and the proportional voting scheme sound eerily similar to
the electoral college system, where bloc voting is done by design.
Nobody likes that system, either, but we use it, albeit for different
reasons.
>>We have "homeless" groups, and "single mother" groups (not to be
>>confused with single parents), the "aged" group, the "disabled" group
>>(some temporary, some permanent; some mental, some physical) and so on
>>and so on.
>
>Yes, and if said groups band together and decide to elect one candidate in a
>large field, they may well succeed. Under the 9 member system suggested
>above for a city council, nothing stops for example African-Americans agreeing
>to cast one vote for a "progressive white candidate" or whites agreeing to
>vote for a slate of candidates which include African-Americans and African-
>Americans agreeing to do the same. In other words, you end up with fewer
>disenfranchised elements in the society, rather than the strict system you
>seem to believe is suggested by proportional voting.
Hey, it's really simple. Stand up and run for office. Or back a
person and commit your vote to them. All this screwing around with
"Well, let's give this guy two votes, and him five, and the other guy
the last two" really makes it clear that this would not be a personal
decision; it depends on coalition politics to an incredible degree,
and a predetermined acceptance that everyone would vote a certain way
- not a truly personal one at all. This is not my idea of a
democracy.
>When I said that
>numerous democracies have some version of this, that's precisely what I mean.
>If nationwide for example a party gets over a certain threshhold in Germany,
>then even if that party doesn't win a single parliamentary district, there will
>still be members of parliament from that party. That's how the Green Party
>for example got to be powerful enough to be the minority faction in the new
>German government that will probably take over soon.
This isn't a direct parallel with the Guinere scheme; each person in
Germany still casts a single vote, and is committed to a party
platform.
>There are downsides
>to such a system, if groups can't agree, or you have a closely divided vote,
>you end up with a system which resembles either Italy or Israel if you have
>votes of confidence regularly, however I note that both Israel and Italy have
>higher percentages of voters turning out to vote because EVERY VOTE
>COUNTS!
A State Senate seat in my district was decided by 19 votes, between
two diametrically opposed candidates. Ennui by the voters in an
off-year primary election was the biggest factor in the election, but
boy, did people pitch a bitch about the result.
Every vote ALWAYS counts.
>>To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
>>include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
>>what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
>>from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
>>reasons, and never will be.
>
>I just suggested a method of doing this with the House of Representatives
>without really changing the structure of government at all and still having
>the same two year terms. I also note that this is the method assigned
>to most corporate voting structures too. A strong enough faction backed
>by enough stockholders is given a place on the board. Most Americans
>already understand the concept if they understand a proxie voting system.
They also recognize the type of manipulation of such systems that are
the usual result. I understand your point, but these are terrible
examples of such practices being put in place.
[interesting comments about Cambridge deleted]
>Wayne, you seemingly don't want to consider other solutions. The present
>system is broken anyway. With corporations in effect subsidizing the
>candidacies of many for federal elective office, most voters not bothering to
>vote, and minorities in terms of the population determining just who is a
>candidate. How many successful pro choice republicans get to run for
>Congress for example because of the presence of a relatively small
>anti-abortion vote in the primaries?
Not many, but the primary system isn't what you're talking about
replacing.
Wayne "OK, I understand it, but it still doesn't look any better than
a Rube Goldberg machine" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
<gdan...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, DarkStar wrote back to me regarding my questions:
gdaniels:
>> >2. Is he better or worse than any other American president around black
>> > folks' issues?
>
>DS said:
>
>> That's not the point I've been making. Clinton is not as friendly as
>> people say he is.
>
>That is the point. You have this thing about Clinton being a cracka.
>Okay. So, is his policies any worse or better for black folks than
>other modern presidents (Truman on up), you can name?
No, I said Clinton is a cracka in a suit.
And I've named the policies, at least according to "Black Leaders":
crack sentencing, welfare, and the crime bill.
gdaniels:
>> >3. Which of these guys is worse?
>> >
>> >a. Gingrich--a cracka in a suit
>
>He insisted:
>
>> Didn't Gingrich help get the MLK Jr. holiday?
>(Sarcasm on...)
>He did?
>First thing he did good for black folks?
>Amazing...! And just what was the second?
>(Sarcasm off...)
No, you will not get off that easy.
Clinton can sign a welfare reform bill with 2 Black women smiling in
the background, can make the crack/cocaine sentencing differences
*PERMANENT*, and can enact a crime bill that civil libertarians said
went too far, but shake hands with Blacks, and eat fried chicken, but
Gingrich, a Republican from the South, who was one of the Republicans
to pound on Reagan to make MLK Jr. birthday a national holiday,
doesn't get a pass?
...
>
>Grasping at straws, aren't we?
Hellllllll no!!!!
I refuse to have my intellegence insulted by people saying Clinton is
a friend of Blacks, when he doesn't give a rat's ass about Blacks!
His "story" about being changed for life when he saw the results of a
church burning in Arkansas? It never happened.
...
>DarkStar, you have to be kidding.
The thing about Gingrich is called sarcasm.
The day Gingrich says he is and will
>do for black folks is the day he's assassinated by one of those same
>cutthroats I just mentioned. I still haven't heard about him doing
>right by Washington, D.C. for example, after all the blather about what
>he was going to do for the folks there a couple of years back. Somebody
>school me about the result of those hearings he did. Anything CHANGE
>due to *his* efforts on *our* behalf?
Did anything change due to *CLINTON'S* efforts?
HELL NO!!!
Why?
Because *HE DIDN'T DO A DAMN THING*
Sounds like Gingrich, don't it?
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>The term "radical liberal", from what I understand, has only been used to
>describe her by fairly right-wing conservatives. And Wayne.
I am simply a radical. Don't lump me in with bomb-tossers a la Newt,
please.
Thank you.
>And it still bothers me that Clinton allowed them (the conservatives, not
>Wayne) to define the terms and basically did nothing while she was tarred
>and feathered. *That* is what bothers me about the whole thing.
Why? She wasn't going to be sitting on his lap when the confirmation
hearings took place; and her notions were purely designed to foster
more racial coalition politics, and damned sure lightning rod in a
Republican Senate.
What we need is effective captains of the ship of state, not carved
heads bolted onto the bow for their looks. Guinere wasn't going to
fly. The glee which most folks looked forward to the "confirmation
fight" was based on simply wishing to see the conservatives goad a
liberal; the result was a foregone conclusion, and there is no point
in putting candidate forward to be slapped down like that.
>Unless countries like Israel are radical liberal states.
I dunno; ask the Arabs that can't vote. Anyway, Israel isn't the
United States, and if some Arab decided to institute this scheme to
insure that there would be more Arabs in the Knesset, I'm sure the
Isrealis would describe him as a "DANGEROUS radical liberal".
Wayne "Anyway, you could drop Isreal into almost any state in the U.S.
and not even make a splash, it's so little" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Sheri L. Hill
> I live and work in Washington, DC, where the mayor, Marion Barry, was reelected
> largely with black support, after being videotaped in a smoking crack in a
> hotel room, with a woman obviously not his wife. I moved here in 1994, just
> before he was re-elected, and was somewhat mystified at how he got re-elected
> after that.
My brother-in-law, who passed away about 6 weeks ago, worked as a PR man for
Washington, D.C., and worked with the mayor and city officials. Like you, I was
stunned when Marion Barry was re-elected and my brother-in-law explained to me part
of the reason why he was re-elected. Apparently, Barry was the kind of person who
got to know the "man on the street" and he would hold these "town halls" and listen
to the complaints of his constituents. He then followed up on those complaints.
At these meetings, an elderly AfAm woman would raise her hand, "Yes, Miz EllaMae --
what can I do for you today?" "Hello, Mr. Jackson, did your water problem get
fixed last month?" He knew them by their first name and remembered their problem;
and he would make a promise to look into a complaint and then make sure it would
get taken care of. Sometimes, they would angrily remind him, "You said, Mister
Mayor, you were going to find out why ... and you haven't done that. Now what are
you gonna do about it?" "Yes, Ma'am, I sure did promise you and I will follow up
on that today." And then he would.
This is the major reason my brother-in-law believed Barry was re-elected. He
interacted with the people and responded to their needs. I never realized any of
this. Of course, the media would not be interested in carrying this type of story;
therefore, any positive things the man might have done would have been carried out
in virtual anonymity outside of D.C. -- which is the case anywhere the media are
concerned. Unless it's sensational (sexual content is highly rated), it won't
sell. And without media coverage of the positive side of Marion Barry in his
service to his constituents, white America (and others -- I wondered myself) will
automatically assume "it's a black thing" ("thang" doesn't apply here! <g>).
This is one person's opinion, mind you, but it makes the most sense to me. Way out
here in Tucson, I couldn't understand it. And that's the best (in fact, the only)
explanation I have ever heard.
Now. I have no idea how to fix the problems of the nation. I have some thoughts.
But I do know that human nature dictates that we are naturally drawn to people who
feel like we do and whom we think care about us, our feelings, our needs. When the
Speaker of the House stands up and suggests that every child living in the inner
city should have a laptop computer and everything will be just fine, when those
same children are living in a home with no electricity, I have to wonder how in
touch he and his colleagues are with the day-to-day problems of the American people
other than those American people on whom he places a value and who take priority in
his personal, professional and public life.
That is not to say that Bill Clinton has done any more or any less for the "man on
the street." However, the PERCEPTION that Democrats "care" more about those inner
city children than Republicans do is the major stumbling block for conservatives.
Some Republicans realize that -- hence, the cautious recommendations that they
"soften their tone" after Bush lost his bid for re-election. If that wasn't an
acknowledgment by some GOP leaders of how harshly and hateful the party sounds, I
don't know what was.
Now, we can sit here and argue about liberals/conservatives until the cows come
home, but while just about everyone is disgusted with the President's behavior, his
job approval rating continues to soar. The message is quiet -- but the message is
clear.
That's just my opinion and my .02 cents.
Sheri
Sheri L. Hill
> Does anyone believe, in our lifetime, that the President of the U.S. will be
> one of *us*?
No, because some yay-hoo out there will take him out before the Inauguration. He
would be assassinated as soon as they could get a clear site on him. Thank
goodness, oh thank goodness, Colin Powell realized this. I was terrified he was
actually going to run for office. As was his wife.
Sheri
ksp...@umich.edu
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 10:31:01 CST, artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>wrote:
>
>>Guinere suggests a variety of proportional representation, rather
>>than the present winner take all system in the United States to correct
>>for poor representation of various groups.
>
>This is the intention of the Senate, House, and various local
>legislative bodies. It also requires the codification of what
>qualifies as a "group", a notion that appears to be rapidly dying on
>the vine.
What do you mean by the statement "this is the intention?" Are you saying
that Guinier can't do this, because the legislative bodies you mentioned
are the only ones that CAN? Are you saying that these legislative bodies
WANT to? What?
The STATES decide how their congressmen are elected.
Second point. Guinier's idea does NOT require the codification of what
qualifies as "a group?" Why would it? Each individual still has only one
vote, however she can distribute this vote (say it's worth five points) up
to five different ways. Which CAN lead to coalition politics, but don't
necessarily HAVE to.
>We have "homeless" groups, and "single mother" groups (not to be
>confused with single parents), the "aged" group, the "disabled" group
>(some temporary, some permanent; some mental, some physical) and so on
>and so on.
SO? In different municipalities different coalitions may appear. This is
THE preferred system of every developed democracy damn near, EXCEPT the
U.S.
>To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
>include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
>what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
>from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
>reasons, and never will be.
This is all untrue. It's in place HERE in a few places--in fact was PUT
in place by Reaganites. Furthermore Guinier was trying to expand the
ability of our "democracy" to represent the demands of those who
previously HADN'T been. Whether this means the homeless, or black people,
or gays or even garbage collectors SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER.
>>Please note that numerous
>>conceded to be democratic countries have some form of what she suggests.
>
>Please note that this is not a parliamentary democracy.
Meaning what? The fact that this isn't a parliamentary democracy has a
lot more to do with parties choosing who will and won't run, and also with
the way that the party head/prime minister actually chooses his cabinet,
than with the way votes are tallied.
>>The most famous presently is
>>Cambridge, MA but there are others spread throughout New England and
>>in other parts of the country.
>
>Cambridge is a college town of miniscule size, and hugely affluent
>population. You expect an entire STATE - such as say, New York - to
>be subjected to such a stilted and cumbersome system? Even a large
>city is incapable of handling such crazy elective politics, and the
>end doesn't justify the means.
Given that entire COUNTRIES use this system, I don't know where this is
coming from. Are you saying that a country the size of South Africa would
have FEWER problems than a small state like NY?
>>What proportional representation would do
>>though is prevent let's at large voting allowing let's say a 40% population
>>to in effect control the other 60% or a 51% white vote electing all white
>>at large city council members, and giving that city council no incentive
>>to pay attention to the needs of some neighborhoods. Whether you agree
>>with the concept or not, it is not radical nor liberal.
>
>I don't care how you label it, Art. It's cumbersome, ineffective, and
>absurd. If we want to see coalition politics in action, we need to
>build some coalitions based on something other than skin color.
You still haven't shown how it is ineffective or cumbersome. And given
that our system produces the lowest voter turnout in the industrial world,
I think the "absurd" title is misplaced by you.
Finally coalition politics can be based on any NUMBER of things. Basing
it on skin color should be no different than basing it on how much money
you make, or where you live, or what union you represent. The only reason
to truncate the concept here is ideological.
lks
Rose Marie Holt
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
> -art clemons-
I liked Guinier's scheme - it made eminent sense. So does national health
care and so does a dollar coin. Looks like we are finally getting one of
the three.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
wrote:
...
>Well, yes it is to some extent. The question that noone has managed to
>answer for me yet is why such an outcry has arisen over Clinton's actions
>despite the fact that other people have acted as bad or worse without a
>similar outcry or affront.
As far as Blacks are concerned, I want to know why people think he's
done so much for Blacks.
I keep saying, and no one seems to answer, but *WHY* did he wait until
the weekend before the Nov. election to start speaking out againt
Prop. 209?
Answer: Because he was afraid it would loose him California. Only
after the polling showed he had California locked down, did he come
out.
Question: Is that a friend?
Answer: Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll no!
Artclemons
In article <361aca9b...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>Answer: Because he was afraid it would loose him California. Only
>after the polling showed he had California locked down, did he come
>out.
>
>Question: Is that a friend?
>
>Answer: Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll no!
Ed, the problem is that Clinton is less of an enemy than let's say Gingrich.
While you are correct that Gingrich pressured Raygun into signing the
MLK bill, it should be noted that Clinton at least doesn't seem to go out
of his way to offend African-American voters. I also suggest that nominating
Clarence Thomas to the Court was more of an insult than Clinton acting like
a scared politician.
I also suggest that you check with Mfume, or Bill Gray and ask why the
year the MLK bill was signed, a rather large plant in Newtered's district
got an appropriation with mostly republican votes, but also some
democratic votes, mostly from the Black Caucus. I suggest that Newtered's
good will gesture was more good politics than any concern for the community.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <361ac952...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) writes:
>I dunno; ask the Arabs that can't vote. Anyway, Israel isn't the
>United States, and if some Arab decided to institute this scheme to
>insure that there would be more Arabs in the Knesset, I'm sure the
>Isrealis would describe him as a "DANGEROUS radical liberal".
Wayne Arab citizens of Israel can vote, and that's why there are Arab
members of the Knesset. What Israel has done is limit the ways that
an Arab can become an Israeli citizen. It's telling that there have been
almost no incidents of terrorism caused by Arab citizens of Israel despite
it being know that they often sympathize with non enfranchised Arabs
like those living on the West Bank. I also note that without a proportional
system there would be no Arab members of the Knesset.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <rmholt-0610...@cboi14p91.boi.micron.net>,
rmh...@micron.net (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
>I liked Guinier's scheme - it made eminent sense. So does national health
>care and so does a dollar coin. Looks like we are finally getting one of
>the three.
We already have a legal tender dollar coin, it's the Susan B. Anthony, and
I can get you millions of them if you want from the nearest Fed Reserve
Bank if you've got millions in other legal tender to exchange. Besides
lots of places are setup to accept them in vending machines like many
post offices.
-art clemons-
dr...@cis.uab.edu
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:36:53 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated mutu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <360e69ed...@mail.flash.net>,
> > dark...@flash.net wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The cocaine vs crack sentencing law was only temporary. Clinton had
> >> the chance to have it sunset by not signing legislation that made it
> >> permanent. He signed it.
> >
> >He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
> >is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
> >distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
> >spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
>
> I have no problems with it, but the CBC sure does.
> And they do speak for all Black people in the U.S., right?
You're trying to have your "cake and eat it too", by critisizing Clinton
for doing things that you apparently agree with. Either it was good for
Clinton to sign such a bill or it wasn't. If it was good to sign the bill
than he should have done that regardless of what the CBC said. Blacks
didn't vote for Clinton so that he would follow the CBC in everything.
The CBC is right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Hell for that matter
ALL of us are. If on the other hand it was wrong for him to sign that
bill than he should be critisized based on THAT wrongness, NOT based
on who did/didn't support the bill. There were times when Bush went
against some of his core supporters. Some critisized the ADA as
another terrible "liberal" act. Does that mean that Bush didn't overall
support business? Of course not. Nixon first introduced federal
affirmative action. Though I don't in general look favorably at
Nixon's presidency, do I bash him for "turning against" some of his
core supporters and backing a "liberal" idea? Of course not. So
why bash Clinton for supporting a conservative idea unless you actually
disagree with that particular conservative idea?
Either you hate him for being a liberal or you hate him for being
a conservative, but make up your mind.
Artclemons
In article <361ac40f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) writes:
>OK, hold it. What is to stop the racist 55% from voting the same way?
>They'd still hold a majority, and the problem wouldn't be getting 4
>candidates elected; the problem would be holding a majority of votes
>on the council.
That's the entire point, everyone would have the same 9 votes, the
candidates with the most votes win. If whites choose to vote for
9 separate white votes, and African-Americans choose to expend
only their votes on 4, there is no way that 9 whites can be elected
under the scheme. What the system does is allow groups to
expend their votes as they see fit for the candidates they see as
best for them. If you do the math for let's say a town with 100,000
voters, there are a total of 900,000 votes. Each white candidate
under this scheme would get 55,000 votes. Each African heritage
candidate would get (assuming that each got two votes from each
voter in the community and their are 4 candidates would get at least
90,000 votes giving them an edge. If African-Americans for example
also gave one vote to the most progressive and best oriented to
the community white candidate, they could have an effective working
majority. There is no way under such a scheme for African-Americans
not to be able to elect at least three candidates, and even if whites
choose to only vote for let's say six candidates, their effective control
over the council is lessened. Please also note that most likely voters
will begin voting based not on race, but on closeness to political
beliefs under such a scheme. Thus religious voters might choose
to give all of their votes to one candidate to get a vote on the council,
and thus get representation, so the possibility of factions does exist,
but factions already exist in this society.
>The problem of at-large elections has been dealt with by the courts
>before, and is far easier to understand and deal with than the
>proportional vote system you illustrate here.
Actually, Wayne, there is supposedly nothing inherently discriminatory about
at large councils and the like, or so the latest decision on the issue by the
Supreme Court holds. Incidentally, federal courts can no longer order
district races to address race under that holding, so the most likely other
solution doesn't seem to be practical unless the governmental entity
making up the electoral method chooses to implement such a system.
ac:
>>Similarly in a state like NC, instead of having the state
>>divided into districts so to speak, every candidate for the U.S. House
>>of Representatives could run at large with a similar voting scheme. Thus
>>if white candidates continue not to represent the interests of African-
>>American voters, they face the possibility of not being elected, and
>>being replaced by candidates more appealing. Please also note that
>>nothing stops a white candidate from appealing to African heritage voters
>>or being a better choice, but it's doubtful that conservative white
>republicans
>>would have a majority for long in the south under such a scheme either.
>
>This is all predicated on the assumption that bloc voting is only
>going to be exercised by a racial minority, and not by any other body
>politic. I don't see this happening; Jim Crow is not dead, and if any
>voting scheme is seen as a threat to the status quo, the scheme will
>be co-opted by the right.
How can the right co-opt the system. Yes some rightwing candidates can
be elected, but the influence of the right is limited to less than the present
system under winner take all. The right can only elect approximately as
many candidates as its approximate percentage in the population, right
now the system forces voters to compromise and accept such candidates.
Right now the republican primary setup heavily favors right wing candidates
able to take a certain set of running planks. Lots of economic conservatives
are not likely to accept for example an anti-abortion slate across the
board as voting material. You also neglect that the primary system becomes
weaker as a means of determining who will win under such a scheme,
unless parties become representative of more people or can retain the
voters presently within the party without terrifying the rest.
>Candidates split the electorate all the time. Ross Perot is the
>reason Clinton is President today, in what amounts to an at large
>election, and the proportional voting scheme sound eerily similar to
>the electoral college system, where bloc voting is done by design.
Actually, may I note that Nixon would not have been elected president if either
Geo Wallace or Eugene McCarthy had not run for president and voters had
had to choose between Nixon or Humphrey. In fact, we don't really have
a proportional system in the electoral college, but rather a winner take all,
where with an absolute minority of the popular vote, (I believe last time I
saw a figure about 25-33%) and winning states with lots of electoral votes by
really slim margins in each state a candidate could be elected president of
the United States. The problem is that the populace of the different states
is so diverse that you can't get an effective combination of groups to
implement
such a voting pattern.
>Nobody likes that system, either, but we use it, albeit for different
>reasons.
Actually the system was set up that way so that a President would always
be elected in an election, with the House of Representatives, the supposedly
most representative body getting the decision if no candidate could garner
a majority of the votes of the members of the Electoral College. Some
states have attempted to impose restrictions on how an Elector can vote,
but those restrictions are of dubious Constitutional provenance.
>Hey it's really simple. Stand up and run for office. Or back a
>person and commit your vote to them. All this screwing around with
>"Well, let's give this guy two votes, and him five, and the other guy
>the last two" really makes it clear that this would not be a personal
>decision; it depends on coalition politics to an incredible degree,
>and a predetermined acceptance that everyone would vote a certain way
>- not a truly personal one at all. This is not my idea of a
>democracy.
Wayne this is not a democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic, and I
note that even New England Town meetings are disappearing as methods
of governance because of the inherent problems of trying to run a
democracy. Yes such a system requires a voter to know who is running,
and to split votes, but people can already choose to vote for a republican
governor, and a democratic Secretary of State for example, so the concept
isn't unknown. It's different, but also a democratic scheme subject to
splitting up if for example a group no longer has enough in common to vote
the same way. That's the other good side of the system, it does require
a successful candidate to try to represent those who vote for him rather
than those who can contribute enough money to allow the candidate to
advertise. I also note that the present system often doesn't elect the
best candidate, but the candidate with the best funding. The candidate
with the most money wins an election about 85% of the time in this
country, and unless you happen to believe that wealth gives greater wisdom,
something is wrong.
>>When I said that
>>numerous democracies have some version of this, that's precisely what I
>mean.
>>If nationwide for example a party gets over a certain threshhold in Germany,
>>then even if that party doesn't win a single parliamentary district, there
>will
>>still be members of parliament from that party. That's how the Green Party
>>for example got to be powerful enough to be the minority faction in the new
>>German government that will probably take over soon.
>
>This isn't a direct parallel with the Guinere scheme; each person in
>Germany still casts a single vote, and is committed to a party
>platform.
Yes, but there is no winner take all setup. If Ross Perot had run a slate
of congressional candidates under the German scheme, he would have
had about 20% of the House allocated to him. That is a distinct difference
between the U.S. and German schemes.
..........................................................................
..............
>A State Senate seat in my district was decided by 19 votes, between
>two diametrically opposed candidates. Ennui by the voters in an
>off-year primary election was the biggest factor in the election, but
>boy, did people pitch a bitch about the result.
>
>Every vote ALWAYS counts.
Under the present system voting for a candidate in let's say the United
Progressive Party (doesn't exist as far as I know) is a wasted vote.
Politicians only respond now to things that will elect them, and things
that will raise money for them to campaign with, isn't it time to try
new things besides seeing how many racists can use the term criminal
as a substitute for "African-American" and then proclaim that they don't
believe in race.
..........................................................................
........................
>>I just suggested a method of doing this with the House of Representatives
>>without really changing the structure of government at all and still having
>>the same two year terms. I also note that this is the method assigned
>>to most corporate voting structures too. A strong enough faction backed
>>by enough stockholders is given a place on the board. Most Americans
>>already understand the concept if they understand a proxie voting system.
>
>They also recognize the type of manipulation of such systems that are
>the usual result. I understand your point, but these are terrible
>examples of such practices being put in place.
Most of the manipulation arises because large stockholding groups such
as money market funds get an inordinate number of votes. Please note
that money market funds have little interest in long term survival of the
company, merely that a rate of return exists, and that the shares
can be sold at a profit in the near future. Computerized selling programs
and brokerage setups guarantee that little money will be lost under such
a scheme if the stocks invested in, are followed closely. Yes, a bad
idea can attract a majority of the voters now, consider people voting for
Congress based on the crime rate in the local community, something a
Representative can only affect in the long term if then.
..........................................................................
..........
>>Wayne, you seemingly don't want to consider other solutions. The present
>>system is broken anyway. With corporations in effect subsidizing the
>>candidacies of many for federal elective office, most voters not bothering
>to
>>vote, and minorities in terms of the population determining just who is a
>>candidate. How many successful pro choice republicans get to run for
>>Congress for example because of the presence of a relatively small
>>anti-abortion vote in the primaries?
>
>Not many, but the primary system isn't what you're talking about
>replacing.
The primary system becomes less important under such a scheme. If
parties aren't representative of the people at large or a substantial group,
nothing stops a faction from running as independents or a party created on
the spot to run in the general election, that's the entire reason that the
minority of republicans now controlling the outcome of republican
primaries and some democratic primaries would lose much of their
influence. It's also why positions appealing to voters and a record of
trying to carry out those positions becomes more important than
getting lots of campaign donations, or will until advertisers figure out how
to create large groups of voters centered around one idea, which could
happen of course, but the present system for example frustrates people
who want stronger gun control or at the very least want abortion to continue
even if they don't want an abortion in the family. I suggest it's more
representative than the present corporate funded campaign scheme,
where despite bans on corporate donations to campaigns, PACs set up
to advocate corporate positions have an inordinate influence. Would
corporations for example have the present low tax rates while wage earners
pay most of the taxes under a proportional representation scheme?
>Wayne "OK, I understand it, but it still doesn't look any better than
>a Rube Goldberg machine" Johnson
Lots of things look like a Rube Goldberg machine, and still work. In fact the
original mechanical and electronic computers were Rube Goldberg type
machines. Even proportional representation doesn't solve everything, it
would for example leave the Senate possibly still in the hands of corporate
interests and their finances, and parties would matter in the Senate still, and
might matter in Presidential elections too.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
>In article <3617f700...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>This is the intention of the Senate, House, and various local
>>legislative bodies. It also requires the codification of what
>>qualifies as a "group", a notion that appears to be rapidly dying on
>>the vine.
>
>What do you mean by the statement "this is the intention?" Are you saying
>that Guinier can't do this, because the legislative bodies you mentioned
>are the only ones that CAN? Are you saying that these legislative bodies
>WANT to? What?
You're babbling. I am not writing a thesis here. You take a sentence
out of context, and demand answers to nonexistant stances.
Guinere couldn't defend her ideas in front of the Senate, because it
would be a political disaster. What your other comments about
legislative bodies are, I can't fathom. You're simply not trying to
make sense.
>The STATES decide how their congressmen are elected.
The states don't decide what congressional districts look like; they
don't decide how many representatives they'll send to the Congress;
and they damned sure don't decide to use multiple voting schemes to
hold elections.
>Second point. Guinier's idea does NOT require the codification of what
>qualifies as "a group?" Why would it? Each individual still has only one
>vote, however she can distribute this vote (say it's worth five points) up
>to five different ways. Which CAN lead to coalition politics, but don't
>necessarily HAVE to.
The JUSTIFICATION for instituting such a scheme REQUIRES that a
codified group be shown to be suffering an injustice or inequality for
the damned idea to be put in place! Otherwise, why bother? As far as
the "it CAN lead to coalition" blah blah noise, don't play games. The
intent of the plan is to institute coalitions and factions, as the
proponents of the idea describe in great detail.
>>We have "homeless" groups, and "single mother" groups (not to be
>>confused with single parents), the "aged" group, the "disabled" group
>>(some temporary, some permanent; some mental, some physical) and so on
>>and so on.
>
>SO?
Ask a question, please.
>In different municipalities different coalitions may appear. This is
>THE preferred system of every developed democracy damn near, EXCEPT the
>U.S.
Bullshit.
This country has formed all kinds of coalitions, including the major
political parties, various caucuses of elected officials, and special
interest groups of all kinds. The resultant cacaphony is what you see
inside the Beltway as a result. To claim otherwise is to demonstrate
a stunning lack of knowledge about the American political system.
>>To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
>>include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
>>what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
>>from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
>>reasons, and never will be.
>
>This is all untrue.
You've got to be joking.
>It's in place HERE in a few places--in fact was PUT
>in place by Reaganites.
I note with interest that you cite not a single example.
>Furthermore Guinier was trying to expand the
>ability of our "democracy" to represent the demands of those who
>previously HADN'T been. Whether this means the homeless, or black people,
>or gays or even garbage collectors SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER.
Add Klansmen, fundamentalist lunatics, militiamen, and any other group
of flakes that want to have a disproportionate result from this kind
of hogwash.
>>Please note that this is not a parliamentary democracy.
>
>Meaning what?
I am not going to define a parliamentary system for you.
>The fact that this isn't a parliamentary democracy has a
>lot more to do with parties choosing who will and won't run, and also with
>the way that the party head/prime minister actually chooses his cabinet,
>than with the way votes are tallied.
Cited as examples of this kind of elective process were parliamentary
systems in Israel. I note with interest you clipped the context of
the discussion.
>>Cambridge is a college town of miniscule size, and hugely affluent
>>population. You expect an entire STATE - such as say, New York - to
>>be subjected to such a stilted and cumbersome system? Even a large
>>city is incapable of handling such crazy elective politics, and the
>>end doesn't justify the means.
>
>Given that entire COUNTRIES use this system, I don't know where this is
>coming from. Are you saying that a country the size of South Africa would
>have FEWER problems than a small state like NY?
What, we have tribes like the Zulu in New York? Really? Do tell.
If you are going to try and draw parallels between states, the federal
government, and a nation not even on this continent, you are wasting
my time.
The bizarre systems emplaced to handle the issues of post-colonial
South Africa - put there to defend the white elite who own all of the
goods, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Guinere plan seems to want to
alleviate - is a poor example of the kind of system we should emulate.
Further, the rest of the examples, including the stunning example of
the religious state of Israel, which routinely DISenfranchises a huge
proportion of its population, seem to be perfect arguments that such
schemes are used to bind power to a social elite, not empower the
downtrodden.
>>I don't care how you label it, Art. It's cumbersome, ineffective, and
>>absurd. If we want to see coalition politics in action, we need to
>>build some coalitions based on something other than skin color.
>
>You still haven't shown how it is ineffective or cumbersome. And given
>that our system produces the lowest voter turnout in the industrial world,
>I think the "absurd" title is misplaced by you.
Give it up. Who the hell is going to decide, on their own, how to
split up votes for maximum effect? Are you going to do it by
telepathy, hoping your homeless neighbor two cardboard boxes down the
street is going to vote the same way?
It requires that groups of people agree to manipulate the system, and
if they don't, the whole plan goes to hell in a handbasket. As a
solution, is stinks. It's window dressing, designed to put a spin on
the real root of racist problems in this country, and damned if the
result still won't be that the city council still sports a MINORITY of
officials to try and rectify problems.
When we have economic influence, we will have political influence to
match. This is the historical truth, and all other silly fumbling
around with the voting system won't change that.
>Finally coalition politics can be based on any NUMBER of things. Basing
>it on skin color should be no different than basing it on how much money
>you make, or where you live, or what union you represent. The only reason
>to truncate the concept here is ideological.
Coalition politics works just fine without loony tunes game-playing
like handing ten ballots to a mentally unbalanced homeless person.
And why you think the non-Black population would be forced to vote for
more than a single candidate is a joke as well.
Wayne "The whole concept is absurd" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:54:29 CST, Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >The term "radical liberal", from what I understand, has only been used to
> >describe her by fairly right-wing conservatives. And Wayne.
>
> I am simply a radical. Don't lump me in with bomb-tossers a la Newt,
> please.
>
> Thank you.
Just a small point of order. It is very frequently the case that when
someone says something you disagree with, you dismiss it by saying that
radial conservatives believe it (so it must be wrong).
For instance, if Darkstar says something (about, say, Brown), that some
conservatives agree with, he has to be wrong, because, well, conservatives
say it, and everyone knows how loony they are.
Now, when you (and Clinton) are agreeing with conservatives, suddenly
agreeing with conservatives *isn't* proof that the person's wrong.
What gives?
Why is Clinton the only person who is allowed to agree with conservatives?
> Why? She wasn't going to be sitting on his lap when the confirmation
> hearings took place; and her notions were purely designed to foster
> more racial coalition politics.
This was only the case in the minds of the much-aligned "right-wing nuts".
Again, that you buy their lines so easily in this case is a bit
disturbing.
> fly. The glee which most folks looked forward to the "confirmation
> fight" was based on simply wishing to see the conservatives goad a
> liberal; the result was a foregone conclusion, and there is no point
> in putting candidate forward to be slapped down like that.
Then, why, if Clinton believed at the beginning what he believed at the
end, and knew her position, did he put her up to begin with?
ksp...@umich.edu
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:31:45 CST, ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>
>>In article <3617f700...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>This is the intention of the Senate, House, and various local
>>>legislative bodies. It also requires the codification of what
>>>qualifies as a "group", a notion that appears to be rapidly dying on
>>>the vine.
>>
>>What do you mean by the statement "this is the intention?" Are you saying
>>that Guinier can't do this, because the legislative bodies you mentioned
>>are the only ones that CAN? Are you saying that these legislative bodies
>>WANT to? What?
>
>You're babbling. I am not writing a thesis here. You take a sentence
>out of context, and demand answers to nonexistant stances.
How did i take the sentence out of context? it's all there isn't it? is
there a paragraph that i missed?
>Guinere couldn't defend her ideas in front of the Senate, because it
>would be a political disaster. What your other comments about
>legislative bodies are, I can't fathom. You're simply not trying to
>make sense.
the comments i made are very clear. what is not clear to me is why you
think that guinier's system would make this a parliamentary democracy.
whether or not guinier could defend her ideas in front of the senate has
little to do with whether her ideas could benefit or harm the way our
elections are conducted. many argue that having elections on tuesdays
rather than on saturdays depress the vote severely....i'd be willing to
bet that if someone stepped in front of the senate talking about changing
election days they'd get the same response as guinier did. doesn't mean
that the idea isn't sound.
>>The STATES decide how their congressmen are elected.
>
>The states don't decide what congressional districts look like; they
>don't decide how many representatives they'll send to the Congress;
>and they damned sure don't decide to use multiple voting schemes to
>hold elections.
in order:
1. Correct. So what? what does this have to do with proportional
representation?
2. Correct. And this DOES pose a problem for the idea as far as national
elections go.
3. Correct. So what?
>>Second point. Guinier's idea does NOT require the codification of what
>>qualifies as "a group?" Why would it? Each individual still has only one
>>vote, however she can distribute this vote (say it's worth five points) up
>>to five different ways. Which CAN lead to coalition politics, but don't
>>necessarily HAVE to.
>
>The JUSTIFICATION for instituting such a scheme REQUIRES that a
>codified group be shown to be suffering an injustice or inequality for
>the damned idea to be put in place! Otherwise, why bother? As far as
>the "it CAN lead to coalition" blah blah noise, don't play games. The
>intent of the plan is to institute coalitions and factions, as the
>proponents of the idea describe in great detail.
Let me explain further. As it stands, there are ALREADY coalitions and
factions in place. And they ARE institutionalized. WHO makes
congressional districts? What Guinier's idea would do is: a) destabilize
the current coalitions by FORCING them to engage with other individuals
(be they right wing, left wing, or green) and; b) encourage increased
political participation.
>>>We have "homeless" groups, and "single mother" groups (not to be
>>>confused with single parents), the "aged" group, the "disabled" group
>>>(some temporary, some permanent; some mental, some physical) and so on
>>>and so on.
>>
>>SO?
>
>Ask a question, please.
So WHAT?
>>In different municipalities different coalitions may appear. This is
>>THE preferred system of every developed democracy damn near, EXCEPT the
>>U.S.
>
>Bullshit.
Prove it. How many industrialized democracies are there? How many of
them have winner-take-all elections?
>This country has formed all kinds of coalitions, including the major
>political parties, various caucuses of elected officials, and special
>interest groups of all kinds. The resultant cacaphony is what you see
>inside the Beltway as a result. To claim otherwise is to demonstrate
>a stunning lack of knowledge about the American political system.
How many parties are there? When the authors of THE FEDERALIST talked
about coalitions and factions they were talking about political parties
AND also what they called "the tyranny of the majority." Every coalition
type you spoke of above goes through TWO major coalitions--the democratic
party, and the republican party. The concept of winner-take-all elections
aids this.
You disagree?
Take the Congressional Black Caucus. How many times have
they as a group voted AGAINST the democratic party? Take ANY lobby.
Loggers for instance. How many times have they gone outside of either the
democratic or republican party for pork? The defense industry? The
software industry?
>>>To try and design some enfranchisement method for Black folks, and not
>>>include every other faction and group out there - which, face it, is
>>>what Guinere was trying to do - is impossible, and a fool's errand
>>>from the start. It has not been emplaced anywhere, for obvious
>>>reasons, and never will be.
>>
>>This is all untrue.
>
>You've got to be joking.
Ok. First of all what does "emplaced" mean?
Second, I've already noted that the system of proportional representation
exists in most democracies outside of the U.S. When you say "emplaced
anywhere" (whatever "emplaced" means) are you referring to the U.S.?
>>It's in place HERE in a few places--in fact was PUT
>>in place by Reaganites.
>
>I note with interest that you cite not a single example.
nope. because i don't feel like it. maybe the next post i will. maybe i
won't.
>>Furthermore Guinier was trying to expand the
>>ability of our "democracy" to represent the demands of those who
>>previously HADN'T been. Whether this means the homeless, or black people,
>>or gays or even garbage collectors SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER.
>
>Add Klansmen, fundamentalist lunatics, militiamen, and any other group
>of flakes that want to have a disproportionate result from this kind
>of hogwash.
so what? are you saying that these groups don't have a right to organize
as well? guinier never did argue that she only wanted black people to
benefit from this...and she never argued that she only wanted people who
LIKE black people to benefit from this.
>>The fact that this isn't a parliamentary democracy has a
>>lot more to do with parties choosing who will and won't run, and also with
>>the way that the party head/prime minister actually chooses his cabinet,
>>than with the way votes are tallied.
>
>Cited as examples of this kind of elective process were parliamentary
>systems in Israel. I note with interest you clipped the context of
>the discussion.
You are absolutely right. Because talking about Israel is meaningless.
How about Germany? France? Great Britain? Switzerland? Norway?
Sweden? Spain? Italy? South Africa? Austrailia?
What's so special about Israel that you focus on IT rather than on
other examples?
>>>Cambridge is a college town of miniscule size, and hugely affluent
>>>population. You expect an entire STATE - such as say, New York - to
>>>be subjected to such a stilted and cumbersome system? Even a large
>>>city is incapable of handling such crazy elective politics, and the
>>>end doesn't justify the means.
>>
>>Given that entire COUNTRIES use this system, I don't know where this is
>>coming from. Are you saying that a country the size of South Africa would
>>have FEWER problems than a small state like NY?
>
>What, we have tribes like the Zulu in New York? Really? Do tell.
>
>If you are going to try and draw parallels between states, the federal
>government, and a nation not even on this continent, you are wasting
>my time.
Well, I'm sorry I "emplaced" my post here for you to read. It wasn't my
misintention.
But anyway, you argued above that such a complex mode of elections would
be too difficult for a city to handle. If an entire COUNTRY uses it, a
country much larger than a single city, why CAN'T a city do it? It seems
to me your argument here is based on size, which is why I brought up the
comparison.
>The bizarre systems emplaced to handle the issues of post-colonial
>South Africa - put there to defend the white elite who own all of the
>goods, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Guinere plan seems to want to
>alleviate - is a poor example of the kind of system we should emulate.
Why?
>Further, the rest of the examples, including the stunning example of
>the religious state of Israel, which routinely DISenfranchises a huge
>proportion of its population, seem to be perfect arguments that such
>schemes are used to bind power to a social elite, not empower the
>downtrodden.
Israel's actions against its citizens has more to do with its religious
background than its electoral system. But why are you focusing on Israel?
I don't get it.
Are you saying that Israel is representative? That is, that ALL
proportional systems are more LIKE Israel than not? If so, what variable
are you "embasing" this on?
>>>I don't care how you label it, Art. It's cumbersome, ineffective, and
>>>absurd. If we want to see coalition politics in action, we need to
>>>build some coalitions based on something other than skin color.
>>
>>You still haven't shown how it is ineffective or cumbersome. And given
>>that our system produces the lowest voter turnout in the industrial world,
>>I think the "absurd" title is misplaced by you.
>
>Give it up. Who the hell is going to decide, on their own, how to
>split up votes for maximum effect? Are you going to do it by
>telepathy, hoping your homeless neighbor two cardboard boxes down the
>street is going to vote the same way?
So you are telling me that you, as a potential voter, don't have the
ability to take the following group:
Hitler
David Duke
Mother Teresa
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth
Ronald Reagan
JFK
Hilary Clinton
FDR
and say which one you like the most, and which one you like the LEAST, and
allocate your votes accordingly?
>It requires that groups of people agree to manipulate the system, and
>if they don't, the whole plan goes to hell in a handbasket. As a
>solution, is stinks. It's window dressing, designed to put a spin on
>the real root of racist problems in this country, and damned if the
>result still won't be that the city council still sports a MINORITY of
>officials to try and rectify problems.
How does it require that groups manipulate the system?
>When we have economic influence, we will have political influence to
>match. This is the historical truth, and all other silly fumbling
>around with the voting system won't change that.
If you really believe this, then it shouldn't matter WHAT system that
Guinier wants to implement. In fact, ALL political systems within the
general realm of democracies should be the same to you, if the bottom line
is money. So why are you critiquing this idea so harshly? Is it because
you think it's taking time away from what you think is important?
>>Finally coalition politics can be based on any NUMBER of things. Basing
>>it on skin color should be no different than basing it on how much money
>>you make, or where you live, or what union you represent. The only reason
>>to truncate the concept here is ideological.
>
>Coalition politics works just fine without loony tunes game-playing
>like handing ten ballots to a mentally unbalanced homeless person.
well if they're homeless, they don't have an address. if they don't have
an address, then they can't vote anyway. i don't know why you "emplaced"
this here.....
lks
Michael R. Hicks
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
> In article <361aca9b...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
> writes:
>
>
> >Answer: Because he was afraid it would loose him California. Only
> >after the polling showed he had California locked down, did he come
> >out.
> >
> >Question: Is that a friend?
> >
> >Answer: Heeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllll no!
[...]
> I also suggest that you check with Mfume, or Bill Gray and ask why the
> year the MLK bill was signed, a rather large plant in Newtered's district
> got an appropriation with mostly republican votes, but also some
> democratic votes, mostly from the Black Caucus. I suggest that Newtered's
> good will gesture was more good politics than any concern for the community.
> -art clemons-
Yeah...but Newt's "good politics" secured a $1.6 million grant
for our community center...it may have been a shameless promotional
attempt to soften the Republican image...but I also know that we
had no federal (we had personal and corporate, but not federal)
funding before...
It well may have been a political ploy, but Anne Northrup (rep. in
my neck-o'-the-woods) will be more likely to get my vote than
Gorman (the challenger, the democrat). With Mike Ward (the person
Northrup beat in 1994), all our organizations received were kind
words, with Northrup, we got results.
No permanent friends, no permanent enemies...
--
Michael R. Hicks - Louisville, KY
a "new jack" scholar...
http://www.louisville.edu/~mrhick01
Great minds talk about ideas,
Average minds talk about events,
Small minds talk about people...
Of which mind are you?
Rose Marie Holt
ksp...@umich.edu wrote:
>
> Finally coalition politics can be based on any NUMBER of things.
>
> lks
If I interpret this issue correctly, the idea of helping minority groups
of all kinds from being tyrannized by majority rule is used to good effect
in San Francisco, which divided itself up into neighborhoods (cant recall
the politicla designation) each represented by a commissioner to replace
the at-large system of running the ciyt/county. Isnt this sort of the
same idea? It sure spread the power around and gave nontraditional groups
some real representation and power.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated "Sheri L. Hill"
<bjc...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
...
>My brother-in-law, who passed away about 6 weeks ago, worked as a PR man for
>Washington, D.C., and worked with the mayor and city officials. Like you, I was
>stunned when Marion Barry was re-elected and my brother-in-law explained to me part
>of the reason why he was re-elected. Apparently, Barry was the kind of person who
>got to know the "man on the street" and he would hold these "town halls" and listen
>to the complaints of his constituents. He then followed up on those complaints.
>At these meetings, an elderly AfAm woman would raise her hand, "Yes, Miz EllaMae --
>what can I do for you today?" "Hello, Mr. Jackson, did your water problem get
>fixed last month?" He knew them by their first name and remembered their problem;
>and he would make a promise to look into a complaint and then make sure it would
>get taken care of. Sometimes, they would angrily remind him, "You said, Mister
>Mayor, you were going to find out why ... and you haven't done that. Now what are
>you gonna do about it?" "Yes, Ma'am, I sure did promise you and I will follow up
>on that today." And then he would.
>
>This is the major reason my brother-in-law believed Barry was re-elected. He
>interacted with the people and responded to their needs. I never realized any of
>this. Of course, the media would not be interested in carrying this type of story;
>therefore, any positive things the man might have done would have been carried out
>in virtual anonymity outside of D.C. -- which is the case anywhere the media are
>concerned.
As a matter of fact, the media *DID* report on this aspect of Barry's
support. It was acts like these that Barry's political machine made
sure the media knew about.
After Barry was released, and he started his campaign to get a City
Council seat in Ward 8, this was one of the things The Washington Post
pointed out. And when he started to campaign for mayor, it was pointed
out that this was a strength of his campaign against Sharon
Pratt-Kelly. Especially since Pratt-Kelly was not a people person.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated dr...@cis.uab.edu wrote:
>In article <3610180a...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:36:53 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated mutu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <360e69ed...@mail.flash.net>,
>> > dark...@flash.net wrote:
...
>> >He rightfully signed it. Crack has devastated our community. If you feel it
>> >is an unfair law, push for equalizing the punishment for the sale and
>> >distribution of powdered cocaine. I ain't even worrying about drug dealers
>> >spending time in jails. They asses need to be there.
>>
>> I have no problems with it, but the CBC sure does.
>> And they do speak for all Black people in the U.S., right?
>
>
>You're trying to have your "cake and eat it too", by critisizing Clinton
>for doing things that you apparently agree with. Either it was good for
>Clinton to sign such a bill or it wasn't.
I'm not trying to have my cake and eat it too. I seem to be in the
minority on the crack vs cocaine sentencing issue.
Not only that, but I'm pointing out that the same people who support
him, the same people who say Clinton is a friend of Blacks, those same
people say Clinton hurt Blacks by doing the things that he did. I'm
using their standards. That's why I keep mentioning folks like Jesse
Jackson and the CBC.
Now tell me what's wrong with pointing that out?
Now, why don't you get the recent issue of Emerge. They point out
everything I pointed out, and more.
> If it was good to sign the bill
>than he should have done that regardless of what the CBC said. Blacks
>didn't vote for Clinton so that he would follow the CBC in everything.
>The CBC is right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Hell for that matter
>ALL of us are. If on the other hand it was wrong for him to sign that
>bill than he should be critisized based on THAT wrongness, NOT based
>on who did/didn't support the bill.
He *WAS* criticized by *THAT* wrongness, by the people I pointed out,
and those people said those actions were anti-Black.
....
> So
>why bash Clinton for supporting a conservative idea unless you actually
>disagree with that particular conservative idea?
It's called consistancy. There is no damn consistancy in calling him a
friend of Blacks, when you know damn well that he's screwed Blacks
over a number of times, and will do it again if necessary.
>Either you hate him for being a liberal or you hate him for being
>a conservative, but make up your mind.
The conservative/liberal paradigm is your hang-up. My problem is I
*KNOW* he is no friend of Blacks.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>
>In article <361ac952...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) writes:
>
>>I dunno; ask the Arabs that can't vote. Anyway, Israel isn't the
>>United States, and if some Arab decided to institute this scheme to
>>insure that there would be more Arabs in the Knesset, I'm sure the
>>Isrealis would describe him as a "DANGEROUS radical liberal".
>
>Wayne Arab citizens of Israel can vote, and that's why there are Arab
>members of the Knesset.
Art, describe to us how an Arab can become a citizen of Israel. Both
myself and Yassir Arafat will be taking notes.
Just for kicks, tell us how many of these Arabs dwell in the Knesset
as we speak.
>What Israel has done is limit the ways that
>an Arab can become an Israeli citizen. It's telling that there have been
>almost no incidents of terrorism caused by Arab citizens of Israel despite
>it being know that they often sympathize with non enfranchised Arabs
>like those living on the West Bank. I also note that without a proportional
>system there would be no Arab members of the Knesset.
I also note that no matter WHAT system was in place, there would be no
Arab prime minister of Israel.
Wayne "Even if he wore a yarmulke to mosque" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> I am simply a radical. Don't lump me in with bomb-tossers a la Newt,
>> please.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>Just a small point of order. It is very frequently the case that when
>someone says something you disagree with, you dismiss it by saying that
>radical conservatives believe it (so it must be wrong).
Well, they believe things like the Bell Curve, and The Great
Government Conspiracy Against David Koresh In Waco, and that the
President directed cocaine flights into some brush-choked airstrip in
Arkansas.
I hold such notions in contempt, so you probably have a point.
>For instance, if Darkstar says something (about, say, Brown), that some
>conservatives agree with, he has to be wrong, because, well, conservatives
>say it, and everyone knows how loony they are.
They're the ones claiming that instead of saying, "Hey, Ron, you're
fired", Clinton had to have a whole planeload of folks murdered.
If you confuse such drivel with common sense, I'm surprised. I have
no need to lump one proponent of such claptrap with another; not one
of them have any shred of rational proof that such a "conspiracy"
exists.
>Now, when you (and Clinton) are agreeing with conservatives, suddenly
>agreeing with conservatives *isn't* proof that the person's wrong.
>
>What gives?
I am truly getting tired of lunatic John Birch Society bullshit being
foisted off as worthy of consideration. The truth is, none of it is
based on the least amount of common sense.
At this point, everything is a conspiracy theory. When actual
evidence of conspiracies exist, accompanied by the one element that is
necessary for acceptance of it - MOTIVE - I pay attention.
The kind of idiocy surrounding the death of Ron Brown lacks this,
totally.
>Why is Clinton the only person who is allowed to agree with conservatives?
This is not my assessment, and I don't understand why you ask me this
question.
>> Why? She wasn't going to be sitting on his lap when the confirmation
>> hearings took place; and her notions were purely designed to foster
>> more racial coalition politics.
>
>This was only the case in the minds of the much-aligned "right-wing nuts".
Did you hear this on the radio, or something? There are one hell of a
lot of folks - Black ones - who hold office in this country, and damn
sure didn't want to be saddled with Guinere's ideas of how to form an
electoral base. No one wants to go out and try to earn 6/8 of a vote,
or some such nonsense, and this crosses the entire political spectrum.
Not even Berkeley, or Santa Monica, two outrageously liberal towns on
the West Coast, gave this notion a second look, simply because it was
cumbersome, divisive, and unworkable.
>Again, that you buy their lines so easily in this case is a bit
>disturbing.
Relax. I buy only what has value. Guinere's product doesn't seem to
move on anybody's shelf.
>> fly. The glee which most folks looked forward to the "confirmation
>> fight" was based on simply wishing to see the conservatives goad a
>> liberal; the result was a foregone conclusion, and there is no point
>> in putting candidate forward to be slapped down like that.
>
>Then, why, if Clinton believed at the beginning what he believed at the
>end, and knew her position, did he put her up to begin with?
Ask him.
Wayne "He didn't keep it a secret; she is not totally devoid of good
ideas" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated afr...@iglou.com (Michael R.
Hicks) wrote:
...
>Yeah...but Newt's "good politics" secured a $1.6 million grant
>for our community center...it may have been a shameless promotional
>attempt to soften the Republican image...but I also know that we
>had no federal (we had personal and corporate, but not federal)
>funding before...
And didn't Jim Brown state that when he needed resources for his work
with gangs, it was Republicans who followed up while the Democrats
talked?
...
[ Politically speaking ]
>No permanent friends, no permanent enemies...
... just permanent interests.
Artclemons
In article <361dae10...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) writes:
>Art, describe to us how an Arab can become a citizen of Israel. Both
>myself and Yassir Arafat will be taking notes.
>
>Just for kicks, tell us how many of these Arabs dwell in the Knesset
>as we speak.
>
It's quite simple they or their ancestors dwelled in Palestine in 1948, as
far as I know, Arabs from conqured territories are not given citizenship,
but it should be noted that for example some of the Arabs of Jerusalem
are citizens. As for the number of Arabs in the Knesset, I don't know,
but I'll bet you a 2 liter bottle of Coca Cola, Pepsi, or a Gallon of water
that if you call the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, they can quickly
give you the exact number. I remind you that they were part of the
Labor government's coalition, and that Netanyahu bragged that even if
he had lost the election, he would have won a majority of the Jewish
vote. Israel is a tangled web, and even if Arafat disappeared from the
face of the earth somehow, Israel would still have to deal with its
Arab minority in Israel. If I remember correctly, the Arab Citizens don't
have to serve in the Military, but otherwise supposedly have the same
rights and privileges as Jews. How true that status is, only the Arab
Citizens know, but I suggest it's probably good on paper, but there
are definitely Arab members of the Knesset!
-art clemons-
========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: Please keep this thread relevant to this group.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:36:22 CST, Rich Thompson
><tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
...
>>For instance, if Darkstar says something (about, say, Brown), that some
>>conservatives agree with, he has to be wrong, because, well, conservatives
>>say it, and everyone knows how loony they are.
>
>They're the ones claiming that instead of saying, "Hey, Ron, you're
>fired", Clinton had to have a whole planeload of folks murdered.
>If you confuse such drivel with common sense, I'm surprised. I have
>no need to lump one proponent of such claptrap with another; not one
>of them have any shred of rational proof that such a "conspiracy"
>exists.
actually, the right wing shows i listen to, debunk those people pretty
strongly. but it's amazing that both left and right wing talk shows i
listen to, seemed to agree that the circumstances on the autopsy of
Brown were strange, and given the credentials of those involved, there
should be further investigation.
...
>
>Did you hear this on the radio, or something? There are one hell of a
>lot of folks - Black ones - who hold office in this country, and damn
>sure didn't want to be saddled with Guinere's ideas of how to form an
>electoral base. No one wants to go out and try to earn 6/8 of a vote,
>or some such nonsense, and this crosses the entire political spectrum.
too bad you are ignoring some facts.
Artclemons
In article <361f7d90...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>And didn't Jim Brown state that when he needed resources for his work
>with gangs, it was Republicans who followed up while the Democrats
>talked?
Tell us, just how long the funding lasted, and whether the former running back
for the Cleveland Browns is still thrilled with the republican policy on saving
youth?
-art clemons-
DarkStar
I have no idea. Why don't you try to find out. That is a good question.
But since results are better than just words, so far, Jim Brown holds the
trump card.
--
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.com
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
Welcome To My Virtual Reality!!!!
Wayne Johnson
>And didn't Jim Brown state that when he needed resources for his work
>with gangs, it was Republicans who followed up while the Democrats
>talked?
I thought he was there on behalf of battered women.
Wayne "Well...maybe not" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:07:22 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
> >And didn't Jim Brown state that when he needed resources for his work
> >with gangs, it was Republicans who followed up while the Democrats
> >talked?
>
> I thought he was there on behalf of battered women.
How is that relevant?
*Who* helped with funding for his work with gangs?
Artclemons
In article <1998101401...@darkstar.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net
(DarkStar) writes:
>
>I have no idea. Why don't you try to find out. That is a good question.
>
>But since results are better than just words, so far, Jim Brown holds the
>trump card.
Ed, it's telling that Jim Brown is one of the few people able to get funding
for a program for youth in the community from the republicans. Further,
finding an exception to let's say being ignored isn't all that probative. Why
for example did the Congress run the voucher flagpole up in DC then decide
that the cost would be too high? I'm not in favor of vouchers as you probably
remember, but I also know hypocrisy when I smell and see it.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:07:22 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>>
>> >And didn't Jim Brown state that when he needed resources for his work
>> >with gangs, it was Republicans who followed up while the Democrats
>> >talked?
>>
>> I thought he was there on behalf of battered women.
>
>How is that relevant?
It seems the good Mr. Brown is being touted as an example of someone
with good sense and sound judgement, in going to the GOP Convention to
round up support for his program. I note the irony of this only as a
passing comment, not a vicious indictment.
If you want details, I can provide them.
>*Who* helped with funding for his work with gangs?
How is this relevant?
Wayne "I'm more interested in who was down there in the hood actually
hangin out with the young brothas" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
>In article <1998101401...@darkstar.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net
>(DarkStar) writes:
>
>>
>>I have no idea. Why don't you try to find out. That is a good question.
>>
>>But since results are better than just words, so far, Jim Brown holds the
>>trump card.
>
>Ed, it's telling that Jim Brown is one of the few people able to get funding
>for a program for youth in the community from the republicans.
I didn't say funding, I said resources. That was the word that Jim
Brown used.
>Further,
>finding an exception to let's say being ignored isn't all that probative. Why
>for example did the Congress run the voucher flagpole up in DC then decide
>that the cost would be too high?
Try again.
Clinton vetoed the measure a few times. One of those times, it was
attached to the D.C. appropriations bill.
On Tues., there was an article in The Washington Post that covered an
aliance between a Black Democrat and a Republican to get a social
program bill passed. And, supposedly, there are some new programs, or
funding for programs, targeted towards urban areas that is supported
by Democrats and the president.
Artclemons
In article <36256476...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>Try again.
>Clinton vetoed the measure a few times. One of those times, it was
>attached to the D.C. appropriations bill.
>
Clinton actually hasn't done a lot of vetoing. I think you mean that he
threatened to veto it. If Clinton had vetoed just a voucher bill, the
republicans
would be trumpeting that fact up and down in their campaigns even if
the vouchers were only for DC.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
>On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:23:07 CST, Rich Thompson
><tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
...
>>How is that relevant?
>
>It seems the good Mr. Brown is being touted as an example of someone
>with good sense and sound judgement, in going to the GOP Convention to
>round up support for his program. I note the irony of this only as a
>passing comment, not a vicious indictment.
That's not what I did when I mentioned Jim Brown.
...
>Wayne "I'm more interested in who was down there in the hood actually
>hangin out with the young brothas" Johnson
Again, Jim Brown. The same man who hung with the Republicans. Just
like Easy E.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
Clinton did veto it. It was part of the DC appropriations package. It
wasn't news across the country, but in DC, it was big news because
about 85% of the money "given" to DC by the federal government, comes
from the tax payers of DC.
And, they have made it an issue.
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels
> >Wayne "I'm more interested in who was down there in the hood actually
> >hangin out with the young brothas" Johnson
>
> Again, Jim Brown. The same man who hung with the Republicans.
Ug.
Shows his poor taste, if not his poor judgment.
> Just like Easy E.
Yeah. But isn't he dead?
(...of GOP slowpoking AIDS R & D and neglect no doubt...hell, he was
supposed to be straight, not gay; straights don't get AIDS,
therefore...)
I have no idea who is worse. The Democrats for the inability to fork
over $$$ for a particular black cause, or the GOP for forking over
gladhanding money on one end and withholding money on another end
involving a disease that kills black folks, too.
Sheesh.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"La pauvete napas ene vis, mes li ene bien gros coulou."
(MAURITIUS Creole)
-"Poverty isn't a screw, but it's a very big nail."-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gabrielle Theresa Daniels+...@ea.oac.uci.edu++gdan...@uci.edu
http://www.geocities.com/merlekinbona or
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7094
=======================================================================