My church, Jeff St Baptist, has just begun a year in which we shall consider our "signals of oddity," those signs, practices and behaviors that we have as a church that set us apart (to be a "peculiar people" as the Bible has it).
We had a kickoff for this process - and a Goodbye For Now send off for Pastor Cindy, who has left for Sabbatical - this last Sunday. To begin the year, we looked back and remembered stories of our oddity from our history and shared them with one another.
A grand, rollicking, beautiful, powerful time was had by all and I've posted many of those stories in videos at the Jeff St blog, if you're interested.
=======
Speaking of Oddities, the NAACP has received some heat from some of our friends on the Right this week for having the audacity to challenge the Tea Party to stand against the racist elements that fringe their movement. They quite specifically did not call the Tea Party racist, rather, they challenged them to repudiate racism along with them by taking this "radical" pledge...
* I believe all Americans have equal rights and equal value.
* I cherish the diverse cultures, beliefs, and values of America.
* I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
* I repudiate all acts of racism and hate, both in words and action.
* I have faith in the promise of America – a promise built on mutual respect, common civility, and hope for a better tomorrow.
* I commit to building that better America by participating actively and peacefully in the democratic process.
We are one people. We are one nation.
Amen!
Is that so hard to agree with?
50 comments:
Seeing as how the Tea Party has more diversity than the NAACP, I don't think they should have to defend themselves from baseless attacks.
1. It is an observable fact that there is a racist element to at least the fringes of the Tea Party.
2. The NAACP has not attacked the TP, they have asked them to join them in working against it. It was a hand reaching out to stand together in opposition to racism.
3. The TP slapped that hand, doing more to enforce that racism is not merely limited to the fringes of the TP.
Again, I'd politely ask you to confine comments to reality-based ideas.
So, what part of the pledge are you objecting to, Edwin? Are you opposed to all Americans having equal rights? Do you NOT cherish the diversity of cultures, beliefs and cultures in our society?
Which of these do you object to, Edwin? OR, can you join with the NAACP in standing in support of diversity and in opposition to racism?
The NAACP also endorsed the recreational use of weed.
BTW, did the NAACP repudiate the New Black Panthers for actions that at a minimum give the appearance of voter intimidation?
Six Fox News shows have discussed the phony New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments since Megyn Kelly's June 30 interview hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams. In all, these Fox shows have devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.
What scandal? I can find mention of it at a bunch of conservative blog type places and this above from MediaMatters.org, but not much in the way of actual news.
I find this on FoxNews itself...
Malik Zulu Shabazz distanced himself from the actions of Minister King Samir Shabazz, seen in an amateur video from November 2008 brandished a billy club at a Philadelphia polling station, an incident that led to charges of coercion, threats and intimidation. The Black Panther chairman told Fox News' Megyn Kelly that the actions caught on video "were outside of organizational policy."
"We still do not condone the carrying of nightsticks at polling places and we have been consistent on that since Day One," he said. "Any individual member that violates organizational policy cannot be attributed to the organization..."
So, it appears that some individual (one fella, really?) acting outside of the NBP group's authority misbehaved. The NBP has condemned this fella's behavior.
I suspect that if this were a repeated pattern with the NBP - as it is with the TP - that the comparison would be apt. It does not appear to be a repeated pattern but a one time thing, from what I see.
A non-issue.
Craig, don't you think it would behoove the TP to strongly distance itself from the racist actions of its fringe members? To condemn such behavior clearly and strongly?
Craig said...
The NAACP also endorsed the recreational use of weed.
Craig, I have usually respected you a bit more than some of your comrades, and thus I expect you not to make silly and slanderous comments as some of them do.
The NAACP has NOT endorsed the recreational use of marijuana anywhere that I can see. INSTEAD...
Saying that prohibition takes a heavy toll on minorities, leaders of the NAACP's California chapter announced Monday that they are backing passage of a marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot.
The war on drugs is a failure and disproportionately targets young men and women of color, particularly African-American males, said Alice Huffman, president of the NAACP's state conference.
They have called for the decriminalization of marijuana, AS has any legitimate libertarian and at least some conservatives and liberals. I strongly support the decriminalization of marijuana usage.
I'm a tea totaller and don't imbibe in anything stronger than Dr Pepper. In fact, I am pretty strong against drug use and think it a stupid, stupid thing for someone to do.
But this "war on drugs" is a perfect example of MASSIVE gov't intrusion and wasteful regulation that is costing our country billions of dollars and probably millions of lives. This "war on drugs" has had an especially vile, harmful impact upon the black community and needs to come to an end.
God bless the NAACP for standing against that gov't intrusion into private lives.
Which is not the same as saying they "endorsed the recreational use of weed."
I'd hope you'd apologize to the NAACP for that twisting of facts, brother.
When did you stop beating your wife, Dan?
Dan wrote:
1. It is an observable fact that there is a racist element to at least the fringes of the Tea Party.
If this was true, it would not be necessary to have a "Crash the Tea Party" movement, or to fabricate evidence of racism.
2. The NAACP has not attacked the TP, they have asked them to join them in working against it. It was a hand reaching out to stand together in opposition to racism.
According to an official statement by the President and CEO of the NAACP, it is a formal accusation of racism by that organization.
3. The TP slapped that hand, doing more to enforce that racism is not merely limited to the fringes of the TP.
Falsely accusing someone of racism, as the NAACP has, is a morally despicable act. The NAACP, to say the least, deserved the rebuke.
(In other news, the NAACP falsified the historical record and praised an actual former senior leader of the Ku Klux Klan.)
Mark Steyn put it best when he said:
For a long time, tea partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say “I’m becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending,” that’s old Jim Crow code for “Let’s get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson.”
This is about economic, financial, and regulatory policy.
For a long time, it was possible to cry "racism!" and make people jump. But after a continuous stream of phony allegations, that instrument of manipulation is breaking down.
People aren't jumping anymore.
I hope my tone isn't too harsh, especially to my good blogging pal, Dan.
It's just that this issue really agitates me.
Oh, and let's not forget -- this is the same NAACP that recently accused Hallmark of racism for publishing a card that used the astronomical term "black hole".
Dan,
First, I'm not sure you are aware of what has been described as a slam dunk case against the NBP's for voter intimidation. If this has been refuted, I have yet to see it. If it has and I missed it I apologize for being behind.
As to the weed comment, the head of the CA NAACP said in an interview that I actually listened to with my own ears that their action was an endorsement of legalizing weed for recreational purposes. She further said this was a civil rights issue. So until you point me to a source where she recants, sorry, I'll go with what I heard from the horses mouth.
BTW, I would be fine with legalization of various drugs IF none of the costs associated with drug use were passed beyond those who indulge. For example legalize weed tax it at whatever level (200-300% for all I care) will pay for detox, other medical issues, liability insurance to cover others harmed by users,welfare costs, etc. Then those who choose to indulge can do so without while limiting the harm they cause to the rest of society. But to call it a civil rights issue what crap. Hell Snoop Dogg has made a career or promoting weed, I don't see the NAACP jumping on him for encouraging it's use.
"This "war on drugs" has had an especially vile, harmful impact upon the black community and needs to come to an end."
Your point apparently being that the USE or Glorification of USE of drugs has NOT had a "vile, harmful impact on the black community". Just the folks that enforce the current laws.
Or to put it another way, the problem is not the poor innocent generations of black youths who have chosen to ingest drugs, father children out of wedlock, and engage is other sorts of behavior that is inimical to a healthy black family and community. It's the evil racist white folks who had the temerity to make drugs illegal, and the white patriarchal society that is based on intact families raising children supported by a wage earning father/parents.
Since many of the folks in "leadership" positions within the TP and supporters of the broader goals of the TP have stood against racism, I'm not sure what else you would suggest be done. Should someone who shows up at an event with a "inappropriate" sign be forced to leave, be beaten up if they refuse, be heckled.
What have those on your side done to stop signs like these?
http://www.rightklik.net/2010/04/left-wing-filth-and-hatred.html
Or signs like these?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
It seems we have two options here.
We can prevent those with whom we disagree from exercising their first amendment right of free speech (no matter how disagreeable it is, remember the NAZI's in Skokie).
Or we can allow those fringe elements on both sides to exercise their right of free speech and allow them to further marginalize themselves.
Or there is a third way (dems love this, when they can apply it to others). We can use the fringe sign wavers to tar an entire group and thereby marginalize the entire rest of their message without having to debate the merits of said message.
When you said "right wing activist J Christian Adams" I'm sure you actually meant former DOJ civil rights division attorney and whistle blower, J Christian Adams.
John,
Bring it.
Hilarious that the defense of the teabaggers is basically, "Well, we're not as racist as the NAACP."
Not *as* racist? Wow, what an accomplishment. Bravo.
And if the NAACP charges of racism -- which as Dan has pointed out, has been clearly documented -- were really so loony, would people really be spending so much time criticizing the NAACP for wholly unrelated things like the "recreational use of weed" as yet another weapon of mass distraction? I doubt it.
Honestly, I"m a little surprised at all the kerfuffle over the NAACP calling the teabaggers racist. Isn't that sort of like calling the ocean wet?
"Or there is a third way (dems love this, when they can apply it to others). We can use the fringe sign wavers to tar an entire group and thereby marginalize the entire rest of their message without having to debate the merits of said message. "
Anything the left does, the right does too, Craig. In fact, your pointing this out is pretty hilarious. You're tarring an entire group (dems) to thereby marginalize the entire rest of their message.
Nicely done irony grand slam there. LOL I do wonder how people write such tripe while thinking no one is going to notice their hypocrisy. Or are you simply so steeped in it that even you don't recognize it? Lame.
Sorry, my computer won't sign me in to blogger.
Craig
Atually I'm not tarring anyone, I am simply pointing out the dems (in this case Dan and now Alan) are using a few folks who may or may not be "officially" "conneted" to the tea parties to determine tha all of the participants of said tea parties are in fact raist. This is quite obviously demonstrably false. If an accusation of this sort was directed at Dan he would pronounce it slander. So, to clarify, I have not tarred anyone, I have not suggested that this behavior doesn't ocur elsewhere, just that Dan and Alan have prounound an entire group of people as racist (obvioulsy with no way to prove their contention) and in doing so have made it possible to ignore what the tea partiers are actually protesting.
It is certainly safe to say that at this point a case could be made that the NAAP is, if not actually rascist, an orginization with distinct rascist tendencies, and/or a rascist presence.
BTW, not sure I ever suggested that the rascism of the NAACP or the NBP's justifies or excuses any rascists who have latched themselves on to the tea parties. I'm simply pointing out the clear double standard being demonstrated.
Teabagger, takes one to know one? ;)
Nice try, but "ust that Dan and Alan have prounound an entire group of people as racist "
No, I haven't.
Here's what the NAACP did: "Today, NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches."
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/
And I agree that the racist teabaggers should be repudiated by their own movement. And now, it seems at least one of them has.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/07/18/1268743/letter-to-lincoln-is-tea-party.html
I realize nuance isn't a real talent for some folks, but neither what I've written here, nor the NAACP's statement are really even all that complicated. Might I suggest a remedial reading course? You're either unclear or unaware of the NAACP's statement, and you attributed something to me I didn't say. 0 for 2.
Care to take another swing?
"Since many of the folks in "leadership" positions within the TP and supporters of the broader goals of the TP have stood against racism, I'm not sure what else you would suggest be done. Should someone who shows up at an event with a "inappropriate" sign be forced to leave, be beaten up if they refuse, be heckled."
Had you read my 2:37 PM comment you would have noted the quoted section above. So it would appear that I was ahead of you in noting the "leadership" of the tea party movement has spoken against those who have introduced racism into some of the tea parties.
However when one makes the statement, "Honestly, I"m a little surprised at all the kerfuffle over the NAACP calling the teabaggers racist. Isn't that sort of like calling the ocean wet?". Which carries the obvious implication that the entire tea party movement is by definition racist. This is exactly what I am talking about.
To be fair this quote was later modified to state, "And I agree that the racist teabaggers should be repudiated by their own movement.". Given the fact that the desired outcome is already happening, one must question what the whole fuss is about.
Appearantly the nuance thing is a problem, because had you read the following; "We can prevent those with whom we disagree from exercising their first amendment right of free speech (no matter how disagreeable it is, remember the NAZI's in Skokie).
Or we can allow those fringe elements on both sides to exercise their right of free speech and allow them to further marginalize themselves." you might have picked up on the subtle implications therein. Since that seems to be a problem I will try to express my point simply (hopefully you won't miss it this time). Extremists exist on BOTH sides. They hae the right to protest with whatevr they like on their signs. They can either be forcibly silenced, or allowed to parade their idiocy for all to see. No one on the right thinks that the folks shown in the above links represents the mainstream of liberal politics, in the same way no rational person can conclude that the presence of a small percentage of loons at the tea parties represent the entire tea party movement of conservatives in general. So, I guess the fair thing to do is to expect those on the right to treat "their" loons the same way the left treats "their" loons.
Not sure what's going on but blogger still won't let me sign in.
"one must question what the whole fuss is about. "
Which I already stated in my first comment. Re-read it. You missed it.
"Extremists exist on BOTH sides. "
But apparently only "dems" do this:
"Or there is a third way (dems love this, when they can apply it to others). We can use the fringe sign wavers to tar an entire group.... "
Yeah. Right. Pot/kettle.
I've been busy. Y'all be kind to each other, y'hear?
John, Alan's right, they did not call the whole TP racist, they invited the TP to reject that element that the TP attracts that IS racist.
Do you think that if a Bush protester showed up to a Peace Rally back in the day and that person had a sign that was racist towards Arabs or Black folk or others, that that sign would have stayed? No, I can tell you, it would not have.
Rallies are generally organized by some entity. They may be open to others to join, but they are organized by some group or groups. It is the group's responsibility to make sure people behave and invite those who misbehave to leave.
The best rallies/meetings are, I think, quite organized. The Direct Action group that our church is part of would never even come close to allowing such behavior and signs to be part of a demonstration/meeting. Even the less organized peace rallies I've attended have been organized enough to have trained peacekeepers manning the crowd and inappropriate signs removed.
There's nothing un-American about asking a person holding a racist sign to leave a rally.
This is what the NAACP had invited the TP to join them in standing for and that is where the TP went wrong, in taking that as an attack rather than a chance to take a stand for good.
What could the TP possibly have to lose by saying, "Yes, we WON'T allow racist signs to be part of our demonstrations"?
Alan, the TP can't possibly be all racist, and I doubt seriously that it's even a majority racist. But it is troubling that they would allow those signs and such moral escapism makes you wonder.
Craig said...
As to the weed comment, the head of the CA NAACP said in an interview that I actually listened to with my own ears that their action was an endorsement of legalizing weed for recreational purposes.
As I have already said, they have come out for the decriminalization of marijuana. That is NOT the same as "endors[ing] the recreational use of weed."
Right?
Making something LEGAL and ENDORSING that behavior are two separate things, right? I support free speech, but I do NOT endorse racist rants. I just don't want to criminalize it.
Again, I expect better from you, Craig. Come now, stick to actual positions rather than making up false ones.
Dan,
When the head of the CA NAACP uses the term recreational use of marijuana, I'll take her at her word. Please don't try to tell me she didn't say what I heard her say.
Dan,
There is much here you've left untouched.
Since I actually made all of those points in the post you didn't re read, I'm not sure why I should repeat my original comments.
Sorry,
The continued use of the term tea bagger as some sort of pejorative is a great example of the type of tactic that I am pointing out. I realize that this kind of double entendre sometimes passes for wit, but I'm not sure it is a particularly helpful term in this context.
Craig...
When the head of the CA NAACP uses the term recreational use of marijuana, I'll take her at her word. Please don't try to tell me she didn't say what I heard her say.
Okay, I guess I'll have to consign you to the pile of "conservatives" who just don't understand basic English word usage. I hope you'll realize the huge difference between "the legalization of" and "the endorsement of."
As Mark Twain said, "The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."
Yes, the NAACP in CA and most all Libertarians and many conservatives and liberals support the LEGALIZATION of marijuana.
No, this does NOT mean they endorse the recreational use of it.
The first is a rational statement, the other just silly and ridiculous.
Cry me a river.
Or, better, show me where you've said the same thing to your amerikkkan decent cronies about their use of terms like libtard, homo, idiot, etc.
Until then, you can take your phony indignation and hypocrisy and stuff it.
(BTW, a quick google search would show you that it's their term for themselves. You should educate yourself.)
Anyone who can't understand the chasm of difference between the two really ought not worry about others who mock with a goofy epithet like "teabaggers."
One is a childish mocking.
The other is slander.
Dan,
Once again, when the head of the CA NAACP says that this resolutin is in support of recreational use of weed I'll take her at her word. Now, she might have misrepresented the actual resolution or used some sort of figure of speech, but she said what she said. Again the term endorsement was hers, not mine. Maybe you should pay closer attention. to the comments here. It would save some misunderstanding.
I get it now, when one teabagger uses the term teabagger as a blanket description of an entire group of people it's really a compliment. I get it now.
I have neither the time nor energy to jump through any of these rdidculous rhetorical hoops. Dan, should be able to vouch for the fact that I have called others on similar tyoes of comments that I felt were out of line.
In much the same way that those on the fringes who I mentioned earlier marginalize themselves by their use of racsist or other offensive signage, the use of the double entendre tea bagger speaks volumes about the user. The only person I am responsible for is myself. If I have used words that offended in these sorts of exchanges I have apologized. I have asked others in various forums to limit others. Some have, some haven't. As Dan and ER can also verify I am more likely to have such conversatins via e mail rather than in public for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is exactly this, any time someone brings up something like this the immiedaite response is some form of "you hypocrit, why don'y you...". So I rarely do. In this case I think Dan is right, use of the term teabagger do describe someone who does not engage in that particular activity would be somewhere between misrepresentation and slander. I had asked Dan (respectfully and politely via e mail) to refrain from using that term and I believe that he fas for the most part. I appreciate his respect in this matter.
So, Dan, if you would like to discuss something beyond whether or not the CA NAACP leader said what I clearly hear her say. But if this is going to degenerate to simply misrepeating what I have said I'll bow out now.
So your response is, "No, I've never chastised my cronies for their use of words like libtard, idiot, or homo, but I'm going to continue to get my panties in a wad about your use of the word teabagger, because it gives me something to ramble on about."
Gotcha. I shall give your opinion all the consideration it deserves, hypocrite.
Saying that prohibition takes a heavy toll on minorities, leaders of the NAACP's California chapter announced Monday that they are backing passage of a marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot.
THAT is the wording I am speaking of. They back the LEGALIZATION of marijuana use. I don't see the first word there talking about an ENDORSEMENT of marijuana usage. I'd suggest you,
1. provide the quote from the NAACP where they ENDORSE marijuana usage or
2. Apologize for misrepresenting their position.
Failing that, I will have to suppose that you, unfortunately, like others, have a difficulty with the English language.
I've nothing more to say about that, short of that support or apology from you on this point.
I will say, though, that we agree, where you say...
I would be fine with legalization of various drugs IF none of the costs associated with drug use were passed beyond those who indulge. For example legalize weed, tax it at whatever level (200-300% for all I care) will pay for detox...
I'm fine with that.
Craig: "use of the term teabagger do describe someone who does not engage in that particular activity would be somewhere between misrepresentation and slander."
vs.
Craig: "we all know it's easier to dismiss others views by labeling them "opinion" or "whimsy" or "slander" rather than interact with said views and demonstrate where they fall apart."
FAIL. ROFL. What. A. Hypocrite.
Again the term endorsement was hers, not mine. Maybe you should pay closer attention. to the comments here.
Well, just to clarify, what YOU said you heard (with no source, but that's fine):
the head of the CA NAACP said in an interview that I actually listened to with my own ears that their action was an endorsement of legalizing weed for recreational purposes.
WHAT is the endorsement for?
Legalization of weed, according to your own words you heard with your own ears. Was it an endorsement of recreational usage?
NOT ACCORDING TO YOUR WORDS and not according to the NAACP. They endorse the legalization of marijuana, this is not the same as endorsing the recreational usage of it, they just wish to decriminalize the "crime" because it has so devastated the black and poor community.
Dan,
I'm not sure why you are unable to differentiate between what the head of the CA NAACP said in an interview (which is the basis for my comment), and the wording of the resolution. Since I've not misrepresented to content of the resolution and have quite clearly distinguished between the interview quote and the resolution.
If your contentention is that I am unable to clearly hear and repeat English, your are welcome to your opinion. However, your opinion in this case is based on some whimsical notion that you are better able to determine what I heard than I. IF your contention is that I might have gotten it wrong, You may be correct, as I have not been able to find the interview online, I'll just have to live with that possibility.
Beyond that I'm not sure I see the point in continuing over a fairly trivial point.
I do have to admit that I am fascinated how using quoting Dan makes me a hypocrite. (Although it's an easy tatic, just label slap a label of someone). Dan has frequently used such terms as I quoted (you might have missed the little marks around the words that indicate the fact that I was using someone elses words), in order to trivialize the positions of others, or to seemingly avoid the topic being discussed. (Clarification, this is the impression that I get from Dan's comments. I do not intend to actually represent that I know what he is thinking or understand his thought process. I may be mistaken in my assesment of Dan's intent, but stand by my impression.)
So when I use the word slander in this circumstance (in fact it was Dan who introduced the term slander into this thread) it is intended as a tweak to Dan who is (IMO) too quick to accuse others of slander. It's pretty much all in good fun, at least until it has to be explained as if to a child.
So, like Dan, I'm done with this.
"in order to trivialize the positions of others, or to seemingly avoid the topic being discussed. "
Like you. Hypocrite.
"I do have to admit that I am fascinated how using quoting Dan makes me a hypocrite."
I'd explain it, but my computer doesn't write in crayon.
Dan,
I'd be interested in some clarification of the following comment.
"... they just wish to decriminalize the "crime" because it has so devastated the black and poor community."
First, are you suggesting that the fact that drug use is a "crime" is what has devastated the black community?
Second, I hope that you are not suggesting that the criminalization of drugs is the only reason the black community is devastated?
Third, are you suggesting that the use of drugs, if legal, would not have devastated the black community?
Fourth, are you suggesting that the criminalization of drugs is somehow a capricous act without basis in sound public policy?
Fifth, are you suggesting that the use of drugs was criminalized soley or primarily in order to damage the black community?
Sixth, are you suggesting that the black community would be less devastated if only drugs were legalized?
Sixth, are you suggesting that there are uses for drugs beyond medical and recreational?
It seems as if you are advocating for the legalization of drugs for any purpose other than medicak then you are at a minimum tacitly endorsing recreational use.
Thanks for answering. This actually could be an interesting conversation. I'm not sure how far I'll be able to go since I'm on short final to vacation and time for this will be harder to come by.
BTW, my answer on my responses to others is quite clearly articulated in an earlier comment. But the use of epithets such as Amerikkkan Descent crowd and teabagger, seems to quite clearly make my original point. It's much more fun to cleverly disparage those who disagree. We all do it. It's also fun to point out inconsistancy. I've had enough fun for now.
Dan,
I look forward to hearing your amplification.
As hard as it is, I said I'm done with the shots back and forth, and I mean it.
" But the use of epithets such as Amerikkkan Descent crowd and teabagger, seems to quite clearly make my original point."
And your hypocritical refusal to call out your cronies makes mine. Check. Mate. Thanks for playing.
First, are you suggesting that the fact that drug use is a "crime" is what has devastated the black community?
Yes. Black men are way over-represented in prison and that's largely due to the criminalization of drugs.
I'm not saying it's the ONLY problem, and to be sure, drug use (especially the "harder" drugs) causes their own problems, but the criminalization of marijuana has been devastating to the black community, to poorer communities.
Second, I hope that you are not suggesting that the criminalization of drugs is the only reason the black community is devastated?
No.
Third, are you suggesting that the use of drugs, if legal, would not have devastated the black community?
Marijuana, at least, doesn't cause so many problems in its users. It's rather like cigarettes and beer, both of which cause and contribute to problems, but the problems the contribute to do not compare to the wholesale imprisonment and entanglement in the criminal system that their prohibition would/have caused...
Fourth, are you suggesting that the criminalization of drugs is somehow a capricous act without basis in sound public policy?
No. I am among those who at one point would have supported not only the prohibition of all such drugs, but also cigarettes and alcohol. My desire in thinking this at the time was not unlike I would guess most folks - we recognize the problems of drug use and think rather simplistically, well, let's just ban it!
The problem is that the ban is worse than the usage.
I think studies would/have confirmed this.
Question: Do you think the problems of prohibition of alcohol outweighed the benefits?
Fifth, are you suggesting that the use of drugs was criminalized soley or primarily in order to damage the black community?
No, although I'm cynical enough to believe that there are many GOP-types who'd be loathe to decriminalize marijuana, as the imprisonment of so many Dem-voting poor folk would be counter-productive to winning elections.
Sixth, are you suggesting that the black community would be less devastated if only drugs were legalized?
Yes, problems would be alleviated. The problems associated with drug usage (especially marijuana) would probably not change much, since folk are already imbibing. I'm not sure that decriminalizing marijuana would lead to a huge influx of users.
Sixth, are you suggesting that there are uses for drugs beyond medical and recreational?
No. ?
It seems as if you are advocating for the legalization of drugs for any purpose other than medical then you are at a minimum tacitly endorsing recreational use.
I would disagree. As I have said, clearly in MY case - a staunch drug opponent - I am CLEARLY not endorsing drug usage by wanting to see it decriminalized. I, in no way shape or form am endorsing drug usage. If I thought prohibition would work efficiently, I'd support it, as I have in the past.
But prohibition over substances like tobacco, marijuana and alcohol have proven themselves to be unmitigated failures. It does not stop the usage and it causes huge and expensive damage to society.
Are you unfamiliar with studies/reports on this topic? I could dig some up if you'd like.
Dan,
I am not sure that I would disargee that the prohibition of alchol was a good thing.
I do see a couple of differences though. Alchol had been legal
prior to prohibition, and therefore had a signifigant constituancy/infrastructure that was predicated on the vast number of people being able to use alchol responsibly. By banning alchol it was an overreaction and punished those who had not been irresponsible in their use.
Recreational drugs have (for all intents and purposes) never been legal in the same maner as alchol. Therefore it seems a bit apples and oranges to make a direct comparison.
While you could make arguements about whether weed is more or less intrinsically harmful than alchol, and whether it should be legal or not. The fact remains that it is currently not legal and that anyone who imbibes knows before they light up that they risk punishment. That is where I would differ in placing the responsibility. If someone does something they know is illegal, the problem is not the law itself but the violation of the law.
I would agree that there is a place for CD, but this isn't a CD issue. It's a bunch of folks who are knowingly breaking the law then trying to blame someone else when they get caught.
Battery is going out, that's it for now.
Craig...
Alchol had been legal
prior to prohibition, and therefore had a signifigant constituancy/infrastructure that was predicated on the vast number of people being able to use alchol responsibly.
While I'm no expert on "drug history," I don't believe this is factually correct. A quick googling shows that marijuana was criminalized for the first time sometime last century. Before that, marijuana was not a criminal crop and its use (medicinal, recreational or otherwise) was not criminal.
Between 1850 and 1937 marijuana was widely used throughout United States as a medicinal drug and could easily be purchased in pharmacies and general stores. Recreational use was limited in the US until after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, when an influx of Mexican immigrants introduced the habit.
The Volstead Act of 1920, which raised the price of alcohol in the United States, positioned marijuana as an attractive alternative and led to an increase in use of the drug. "Tea pads," where a person could purchase marijuana for 25 cents or less, began appearing in cities across the United States, particularly as part of the black "hepster" jazz culture.
By 1930 it was reported that there were at least 500 of these "tea pads" in New York City alone. During the Great Depression as unemployment increased, resentment and fear of the Mexican immigrants became connected to marijuana use. Numerous research studies linked marijuana use by lower class communities with crime and violence. In 1937, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act which criminalized the drug. From 1951 to 1956 stricter sentencing laws set mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.
source
I remember my Dad telling me that marijuana used to be legal when he was growing up and was smoked widely in the military. He joined the army right out of High School in 1935, for two years, because there were no jobs available at the time.
I don't have a problem with legalizing it.
Dan,
I thought I qualified my comment about weed having been legal, by suggesting that it had not been legal in the same way alcohol has. There certainly hasn't been the infrastructure that alcohol has nor has it been as widely used. I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I'm just not sure that the two are analogous.
I'd like to pursue this, but my pre vacation time keeps getting more limited. I'll post if I can, if not we'll catch it later.
Thanks for the responses, and clarifications.
The NAACP is a front group who's mission is to support the democrat party. Thats why they didn't support Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice or any other black conservative. This group should be dismissed as a partisan attack machine and anyone who believes them should be dismissed as below average intelligence and very easily manipulated
Going all the way back to the second comment where Dan asked me what part of fighting racism I object to my answer is as follows:
I dont object to fighting racism, what I object to is groups using false premise to accuse someone else of something. I object to uneducated people falling for such a simple and immature tactic. I object to political groups like the NAACP trying to convict it's political opponents of "thought crime" .
The NAACP is a front group for the Dems? They aren't interested in fighting racism?
And your evidence? Or does evidence matter to you? Is it sufficient that, IF you think it, it must be?
For most of us, such ramblings are just that unless they're supported with evidence.
Unless you can manage something more than wild accusations, go away.
I leave your post here only as a reminder to how stupid and hateful deliberate ignorance can be.
Children, don't grow up like this. Use your minds, don't get hooked into emotional appeals to blind partisanship. It is an ugly, ugly thing.
read past the first sentence genius.
What? This?
This group should be dismissed as a partisan attack machine and anyone who believes them should be dismissed as below average intelligence and very easily manipulated
Do you not see the irony of attacking a group who has committed years to working on the behalf of our black brothers and sisters based purely on partisanship as being a "partisan attack machine?"
You have been blinded by your hatred for the "left" so much so that you're willing to believe that those po, po black folks would be so much better off if they only listened to a smart white guy like yourself.
Go away, Edwin, you contribute nothing to the conversation and you ignore the glaring holes in your arguments.
Based upon your comments, I guess you don't have ANY problems with what the NAACP has asked people to pledge (don't be racist), but still, despite what they ACTUALLY say, you make up shit to spew out your sick, sick mouth and it just gives you bad breath and I've had enough of you.
If you have something to comment on THE CONTENT of what I have said or what, in this case, the NAACP has ACTUALLY said, comment. But no more false accusations and slander.
Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women opposed the appointment based on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade
Do you suspect the Urban League of being Democrat fronts, too? They opposed Thomas because of his positions as it relates to their constituency, not because they are a Dem front group.
Don't be stupid or make ignorant accusations.
I really didn't and don't miss Edwin when he insists that an organization, nearly 100 years old dedicated to the advancement of Civil Rights before the concept really existed is somehow nothing more than "a front group" for some made-up thing he calls "the democrat party".
Do you need cue cards to help you breath, Edwin, or do you have someone page you every seven seconds?
Surprisingly, or perhaps not so much, my tolerance for stupid has actually shrunk over the past months non-internet hibernation.
Post a Comment