New Dems Are Old Dixiecrats
I take a slow, enjoyable three day Sanity Break and all of a sudden I'm an Alt Left Fascist, racist Bernie Bro.
Fortunately I read The New Jim Crow over the weekend and here is Michelle Alexander's critique:
THE DRUG WAR IS THE NEW JIM CROW
(p. 3 emphasis in the original text)
That is a key feature of The New Jim Crow. Who's behind the war on drugs in addition to Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Obama chose Joe Biden,
one of the Senate's most strident drug warriors, as his V.P. The man he picked to serve as his Chief of staff in the White House, Rahm Emmanuel, was a major proponent of the expansion of the drug war and the slashing of welfare rolls during President Clinton's administration. And the man he tapped to lead the U.S. Dept. Of Justice-the agency that launched and continues to oversee the federal war on drugs (Eric Holder)-is an African American former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who sought to ratchet up the drug war in Washington DC, and fought the majority black D.C. city council in an effort to impose harsh mandatory minimums for marijuana possession.
(p. 252)
Alexander quotes Gerald Torres and Lani Guinier from The Miner's Canary, explaining how newcomers are coopted by the system:
The reality, however,
is that the existing heirarchy disciplines newcomers, requiring them to exercise power in the same old ways and play by the same old rules in order to survive. The newcomers . . . are easily coopted, as they have much to lose , but little to gain by challenging the rules of the game.
(p. 250)
Money quote:
"The system is not run by a bunch of racists" the apologist would explain, "It's run by people who are trying to fight crime."
(p. 183)
Law and Order? Is that what we saw in Charlottesville? Is Jesse Helms attempt to recriminalize marijuana racist or all about law and order?
The real racist/fascists are the ones calling genuine social justice warriors Alt Left Bernie Bros. Yeah you heard me right Markos! You too Armando! You are both racist, fascist warmongers fighting for corporate "New Dems" who are the Old Dixiecrats in sheep's clothing.
Fuck 'em all!
Comments
Racists and power hungry, greedy pigs
If they don't have book deals, speaking fees, and a mansion in DC waiting for retirement, they did not accomplish what they set out to do - become rich and powerful at any cost to anyone but themselves.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
We are stuck with these twisted Neoliberal Neocons
…at the controls. They are the public face of the Deep State. They have swelled our jails with political prisoners and the mentally ill. They destroyed the economic security of the middle class and made our neighborhoods unaffordable.
What I really cannot abide is their weak-minded followers, who make them possible.
Democracy fueled by capitalism is Hell on earth.
Nailed It!
It's a natural progression from bad to worse. And then even worser:
Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
This is what he thinks of us
If Dr King
were around he'd be driven out of the party and a bunch of 'liberal' sites for pointing out that the wars are a boost to racism and that racism/sexism requires people getting money because that translates to actual power.
The whole left-bashing and the false choice of economics vs full human rights is a smokescreen for keeping the bankers and weapons makers feeding the people running the Dem Party.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Dr. King Was Definitely Alt Left
MLK was condemned not only by Dixiecrats, but mainstream politicians, black newspapers and preachers alike for trying to go too far too fast. MLK criticized Vietnam, corporate power and even the civil Rights leaders for not demanding structural changes as opposed to legal fictions.
MLK was one of us. He would have marched with the Bernie Bros and Alt Left Pinkos at Charlottesville for damned sure.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Shit, MLK was against imperialism, not like Bernie
and most of his supporters.
Bernie Bros Oppose Imperialism Too
Most so called "Bernie Bros" disagreed with Bernie on foreign policy, war and Pentagon spending.
Bernie certainly has his flaws. No argument there.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Ya, disagreed but were OK with it.
Most folks put domestic and local issues first
…and rarely give much of a thought to our international slaughter house. They don't make the connection between fighting over every scrap at home and the draining of the Treasury for the carnage abroad.
No, not okay with it. It felt crappy. However, Sanders seemed
light years better than anyone we'd seen in our lifetimes.
And then.....
Maybe not you Henry, but dammit,
people were praising to high heavens an imperialist running for the democratic party nomination.
So imo, most were definitely OK with it. And I think most are now.
What's that quote about silence?
I praised him, too. That, IMO, is what you do when you want
people to vote for your guy. And I did. I really wanted him to defeat Hillary, though I had my doubts he could. Never lied overtly, just maintained radio silence on the stuff I did not like.
I see.
Only four letters and a space, yet so much judgment.
You are a treasure, Big Al.
I would love to see how King dealt with
that swarmy f*ck Obama.
Smarmy Obama
thanks that one's gonna stick. I don't know if it was a typo or what, but smarmy and unctuous are very descriptive. I hope history remembers him like the piece of human garbage he really is. Flip the bird back, what a dick. Too many dicks.
peace
Doubtful.
Welfare recipient (verified?) to first African American Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review to First African American President. First to pass a health care plan. That will be his legacy. No one will dare bad mouth him. He might even make the 10 best list someday. JMO.
"It's Complicated," no?
The date of the March on Washington was the anniversary of the horrible killing of Emmet Till. The date Obama was nominated at the Democratic National Convention was the same date as those two events.
Same As Bill Cosby
There was no shortage of "respectable black people" who condemned low life blacks for not acting appropriately in MLK's day. MLK called bullshit on black journalists and black preachers and anyone else who whitesplained the causes of racism.
MLK would have scorched Obama, Hillary and Uncle Joe Biden for their crimes against humanity.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
I want to give you a thousand thumbs up
for your righteous calling out of Markos and Armando. Fascist fucks, them and all the corporate CIA shills at that shit hole.
They Are With "Him"
Markos & Armando are with Trump and always have been:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-blames-alt-left-for-violence-at-white-su...
I think that makes them birds of a feather, amirite?
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
love it
Get after them M&M!
DW
In These Times Interview
Excellent local background I have not seen anywhere else. The writer interviewed a member of Charlottesville's BLM chapter:
I believe this response also speaks to why it was morally questionable for the ACLU to defend the freedom of speech for most hated Man in the internet:
. (emphasis added)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/20424/charlottesville
This is the ACLU free speech case:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_598c6696e4b0449ed5084a4b
And a statement from the Oregon ACLU on a previous morally ambiguous case:
https://www.aclu-or.org/en/news/free-speech-climate-hate
I personally disagree with the ACLU defending hate speech by inherently violent groups or people that incites violence. The big question of course is who gets to decide which person or group is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
I'm curious
you disagree with the ACLU defending, as you call it, hate speech, but then acknowledge the very reason why the ACLU does defend such actions- who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not. I'm curious how you reconcile that seeming inconsistency.
It's Not Easy
The University of Florida rejected a request by Richard Spencer to speak at their campus based on public safety. Texas A&M's approach may be preferable:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/16/university-florida-reject...
Even though the First Amendment states the right to free speech shall not be abridged, in practice the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that there are exceptions. Following Charlottesville, allowing violent racists a platform can easily be viewed as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
There has to be a case by case analysis. No general rule will work.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
@Meteor Man Sorry, but you are
Sorry, but you are wrong. First of all, you cannot take the dictum about yelling fire in a corwded theater and then lazily analogize that to any other scenario. I suggest you read the Schenk case. What the court (per Holmes) said was that words that create "a clear and present danger" that will bring about harms that congress has the right to protect are not protected under the first amendment. The Schenk case does not involve yelling fire, but mailing pamphlets to men due for conscription entreating them not to enlist. Congress had passed a law making such acts unlawuful. Shcenk was charged and convicted. The court noted that congress's powers during war make be more extensive and that Schenk's acts posed a clear and present danger that men would heed the pamphlet and not enlist.
One can, indeed, yell fire in a crowded theater. It is only if such act creates a clear and present danger of harm that such an act is not protected by the first amendment. So, your comparison is inapposite. In fact, it is an innacurate statement of the law. I encourage you to reconsider your view. The arguments for protecting odious speech are well-known and compelling.
It was Nixon who started the war on drugs
according to Ray Balko.
He says that Nixon was looking for a platform for his presidential policy and he picked drugs.
Balko's book is The Rise of the Warrior Cop which I highly recommend.
The book covers the reasons for the drug war, the start of SWAT and the start of asset forfeiture.
He covers congress' roles in this and how Biden was instrumental in rolling back our rights.
Most people think that the 3rd amendment is that people don't have to let the military shelter in their homes, but that's not the important part of the amendment when it comes to the war on drugs.
This is also called the Castle doctrine which means that people have a right to defend their homes.
If cops think that people have drugs in their homes, they get a no knock warrant and amSWAT team goes into people's homes usually in the middle of the night.
Most people know that they can use their guns if they are defending their homes. This doesn't matter to the cops on these no knock warrants. They are hyped up and ready to take down anyone in their homes.
This has led to many people dying while defending their homes, including their spouses, children and pets. People have no idea that it's the cops breaking down their doors and they have a legitimate reason for being there. You point a gun at a cop, he's going to shoot you first and ask questions later.
If the cops go to the wrong address and kill people and their pets, nothing will happen to them. "Oops. My bad". Dead dad, dead dogs, dead children. Not much recourse for the homeowners.
There is no reason to get a no knock warrant and barge into homes in the middle of the night.
Cops have been killed by homeowners and if they do have drugs, they are arrested for their drugs and for killing a cop.
This is Biden's legacy along with his bankruptcy bill. Biden isn't a kindly uncle. He was a ruthless congressman. Obama knew very well of Biden's history. I wasn't surprised when he picked for VP.
bing! n/t
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Any President who did not stop the drug war is behind it, no?
I think the Drug War may have been our first fake war.
Good point. And a war that
once again, will never be won and isn't really meant to be won. When our own CIA works with drug smugglers, that ought to tell people just what this war is really about. Criminalize and Incarcerate. For profit.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur