toldailytopic: Has Obama eased or exacerbated racial tension in this country?

[eameece]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 12th, 2012 08:53 AM

toldailytopic: Has Obama eased or exacerbated racial tension in this country?

ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: We are not post-racial. We're not even close. Because race still controls everything in America. That when you think about part of what's causing so many people to be left behind, and in trouble, it's because they live in communities that don't support them. And those communities don't support them because of race.

We have black people, and Latino people living in inner-city, abandoned communities, because people moved away. So you have places like Detroit, were almost abandoned in terms of the people who were moving, and fleeing away from Detroit.

So race completely controls our settlement patterns, as a nation. Education. It used to be that education was the pride of the United States. And it was certainly the pride of many states, like California. I was recently talking to someone who was a leader of a state. And we were talking about poverty. And as he listed the safety net programs, for the poor, he mentioned public schools. It really caught me. I said, "Public schools, that's become a safety net program?" I thought public schools were for everybody. But as they have become associated with people who were poor, and of color. We are abandoning the public school education. That is about race.

And we have taken men, who are important for community, and we've created basically a legacy of absence in communities, by pulling the men out, and putting them in prison, in numbers that are unprecedented. Our incarceration rate in this country is the largest in the entire world. And the disproportionate incarceration of black men, in particular, but a growing number of Latino men, absolutely makes the point that race is a driver, there.

Race has become so embedded, and baked in, that people can walk around feeling that they're not carrying racism in their heart. But so long as they're okay with disproportionate incarceration, communities being left behind, children given no chance, this continues to be a society that is plagued by the legacy of the continuing impact of racism, right into today.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/angela-glover-blackwell-on-the-american-dream/

 

[eameece]

A shill for the democratic party, who encourages people to vote for third party candidates?

On the other hand, you encourage people to vote for pro-abortion candidates, only because they are republicans.

So it appears that in spite of your claims to be pro-life, that takes a back seat to shilling for the republicans in your value system.

and that makes you a baby killer

That people here call you, a moderate, a "shrill for the liberal Democrats," says more about people here than it says about you.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: We are not post-racial. We're not even close. Because race still controls everything in America. That when you think about part of what's causing so many people to be left behind, and in trouble, it's because they live in communities that don't support them. And those communities don't support them because of race.

We have black people, and Latino people living in inner-city, abandoned communities, because people moved away. So you have places like Detroit, were almost abandoned in terms of the people who were moving, and fleeing away from Detroit.

So race completely controls our settlement patterns, as a nation. Education. It used to be that education was the pride of the United States. And it was certainly the pride of many states, like California. I was recently talking to someone who was a leader of a state. And we were talking about poverty. And as he listed the safety net programs, for the poor, he mentioned public schools. It really caught me. I said, "Public schools, that's become a safety net program?" I thought public schools were for everybody. But as they have become associated with people who were poor, and of color. We are abandoning the public school education. That is about race.

And we have taken men, who are important for community, and we've created basically a legacy of absence in communities, by pulling the men out, and putting them in prison, in numbers that are unprecedented. Our incarceration rate in this country is the largest in the entire world. And the disproportionate incarceration of black men, in particular, but a growing number of Latino men, absolutely makes the point that race is a driver, there.

Race has become so embedded, and baked in, that people can walk around feeling that they're not carrying racism in their heart. But so long as they're okay with disproportionate incarceration, communities being left behind, children given no chance, this continues to be a society that is plagued by the legacy of the continuing impact of racism, right into today.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/angela-glover-blackwell-on-the-american-dream/

So what's your suggestion -- turn a blind eye towards crimes committed by certain people?

 

[bybee]

ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: We are not post-racial. We're not even close. Because race still controls everything in America. That when you think about part of what's causing so many people to be left behind, and in trouble, it's because they live in communities that don't support them. And those communities don't support them because of race.

We have black people, and Latino people living in inner-city, abandoned communities, because people moved away. So you have places like Detroit, were almost abandoned in terms of the people who were moving, and fleeing away from Detroit.

So race completely controls our settlement patterns, as a nation. Education. It used to be that education was the pride of the United States. And it was certainly the pride of many states, like California. I was recently talking to someone who was a leader of a state. And we were talking about poverty. And as he listed the safety net programs, for the poor, he mentioned public schools. It really caught me. I said, "Public schools, that's become a safety net program?" I thought public schools were for everybody. But as they have become associated with people who were poor, and of color. We are abandoning the public school education. That is about race.

And we have taken men, who are important for community, and we've created basically a legacy of absence in communities, by pulling the men out, and putting them in prison, in numbers that are unprecedented. Our incarceration rate in this country is the largest in the entire world. And the disproportionate incarceration of black men, in particular, but a growing number of Latino men, absolutely makes the point that race is a driver, there.

Race has become so embedded, and baked in, that people can walk around feeling that they're not carrying racism in their heart. But so long as they're okay with disproportionate incarceration, communities being left behind, children given no chance, this continues to be a society that is plagued by the legacy of the continuing impact of racism, right into today.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/angela-glover-blackwell-on-the-american-dream/

Are you saying that people are not responsible for their own words and deeds? Are you saying that it is okay to blame others for your drug use? your crimes against society? Your lack of interest in going to school? Your destruction of other peoples property? Is it okay for private citizens to place a bounty "Wanted dead or alive" on another citizens head? Is it okay to riot and use intimidation to achieve your personal ends?
Are you saying that playing the perpetual victim card is a means to problem resolution?

 

[The Barbarian]

So what's your suggestion -- turn a blind eye towards crimes committed by certain people?

A big start would be to make sentencing the same for the same crimes. For a variety of reasons, not all of them racial, whites tend to get lighter sentences for the same crimes under the same circumstances, than blacks or Hispanics.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/disparity.pdf

This is a politically difficult decision, because private prisons have become a growth industry, and the lobbyists for private prisons are understandably inclined to push for tougher sentences.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/157536-private-prisons-a-reliable-american-growth-industry

 

[aCultureWarrior]

A big start would be to make sentencing the same for the same crimes. For a variety of reasons, not all of them racial, whites tend to get lighter sentences for the same crimes under the same circumstances, than blacks or Hispanics.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/disparity.pdf

This is a politically difficult decision, because private prisons have become a growth industry, and the lobbyists for private prisons are understandably inclined to push for tougher sentences.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/157536-private-prisons-a-reliable-american-growth-industry

Do you think that the fact that Blacks use more crack cocaine than other groups (a drug that makes it's user prone to acts of violence) might have something to do with the "It's not fair!" system of sentencing?

 

[Cracked]

Why is his Black half more important than his White half?

You'd have to ask a racist that question.

Some (much more than people will admit I am certain) hate him because of his black characteristics and ties with a culture some see as divergent from Protestant-white-America. Yet, others love him for the same reasons.

The former are evil and stupid, and the latter are just stupid--though admittedly I have more sympathy for them. People naturally identify with those who they share things in common with. Thus, their support, which is perhaps based on a very weak and shallow foundation when considering the office of President, is more excusable than the blatant hatred of the undercover bigots.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you think that the fact that Blacks use more crack cocaine than other groups (a drug that makes it's user prone to acts of violence) might have something to do with the "It's not fair!" system of sentencing?

Great example of what I'm talking about. It turns out, there's no evidence that crack is more dangerous or makes people more prone to violence than other forms of cocaine which are used more often by whites.

That disparity is starting to change, as people realize there's no rational reason distinguish between the two.

April 13, 2012 (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
Missouri State House Approves Change in Crack Cocaine Sentences

The Missouri State House passed a bill this week that changes the disparity between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences.

Under the current law, a person who sells 425 grams of powder cocaine would face the same charge and sentencing as someone who sells 2.5 grams of crack cocaine. Both crimes have mandatory minimum sentences of 10 years.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/CRACKREFORM/

The decision by the six-member US Sentencing Commission ends a long fight by advocacy groups and inmates' family members to dial back sentencing rules for crack-cocaine offenders. One relative called the news "miraculous." Congress last August voted to narrow a huge discrepancy in sentences meted out to people convicted of crack-related crimes and people convicted of powder-cocaine-related crimes, in recognition that the harsher punishments for the former smacked of racial discrimination. Thursday's ruling made the new sentencing law retroactive, applying to people convicted of such crimes before last summer.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ed-under-strict-crack-cocaine-laws-get-relief

I think you could make a decent argument that it would be better to raise the penalties for the sort of cocaine use done mostly by whites, instead of lowering the penalties for the sort used mostly by blacks. But it's a good thing that the system is becoming more equitable.

That particular disparity is starting to go away.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why is his Black half more important than his White half?
You'd have to ask a racist that question.

I don't see any evidence at all that the Cowboy is a racist. It's a fair question to ask. Other than the birthers and whatever black racists are out there, it doesn't really matter to anyone.

 

[Cracked]

I don't see any evidence at all that the Cowboy is a racist. It's a fair question to ask. Other than the birthers and whatever black racists are out there, it doesn't really matter to anyone.

The point is that it is the racist that believes Obama's black heritage is somehow "more important." As you say, "other than [those people]... it doesn't really matter to anyone."

Now, there is a difference between racism and sort of support born out of perceived commonalities. Sometimes people try to call that racism, but it certainly stretches the common definition.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Great example of what I'm talking about. It turns out, there's no evidence that crack is more dangerous or makes people more prone to violence than other forms of cocaine which are used more often by whites.

http://www.acde.org/common/Cocaine.htm

Given the fact that Black males are more prone to violence due to cultural conditions and ideology, when you add a quick/cheap high such as crack cocaine, you're only going to increase violent behavior.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Other than the birthers and whatever black racists are out there, it doesn't really matter to anyone.

A lot of birthers don't care about the color of Obama's skin, only whether he qualifies to be President according to the strict requirements laid out in our Constitution.

Of course, that is to be expected from people that believe in the Constitution, as opposed to a "constitutional law" major that doesn't seem to even know what the Constitution says.

Hmmm...could it really be Obama's distain for the Constitution that has birthers opposed to his Presidency? (No, the racist bigots supporting Obama don't want the Constitution looked at, which is why they are so quick to play the race card to block that outcome.)

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Great example of what I'm talking about. It turns out, there's no evidence that crack is more dangerous or makes people more prone to violence than other forms of cocaine which are used more often by whites.
http://www.acde.org/common/Cocaine.htm

Given the fact that Black males are more prone to violence due to cultural conditions and ideology

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence that they are, for the same socio-economic status as other races to which they would be compared. Poor, uneducated whites are also more prone to violence. But that should have nothing to do with penalty for drug use.

when you add a quick/cheap high such as crack cocaine, you're only going to increase violent behavior.

That's the point. It turns out that powder cocaine is no less likely to produce violence. It makes about as much sense as having a higher penalty for getting drunk on 40s.

Shouldn't matter.

 

[The Barbarian]

A lot of birthers don't care about the color of Obama's skin

You surely understand that when some birthers send emails explaining the supposed lack of a birth certificate as the result of the president's parents being apes, people will draw conclusions.

only whether he qualifies to be President according to the strict requirements laid out in our Constitution.

Since the US code shows that Obama would be a citizen from birth, regardless of where he was born, that's rather unlikely.

Hmmm...could it really be Obama's distain for the Constitution that has birthers opposed to his Presidency?

We can test that. See how many were complaining, when his white predecessor was doing the same things, (and sometimes much worse)

There's lots of things to dislike Obama about. The color of his skin is not one of those. And unfortunately, that seems to be motivating a lot of the birthers.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since the US code shows that Obama would be a citizen from birth, regardless of where he was born, that's rather unlikely.

There appears to be a distinction between being a citizen and being a "natural born" citizen.

2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.​

3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.​

5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.​

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference and want to shut down any attempt to find out what the difference in wording means or why it was included.

 

[eameece]

Are you saying that people are not responsible for their own words and deeds? Are you saying that it is okay to blame others for your drug use? your crimes against society? Your lack of interest in going to school? Your destruction of other peoples property? Is it okay for private citizens to place a bounty "Wanted dead or alive" on another citizens head? Is it okay to riot and use intimidation to achieve your personal ends?
Are you saying that playing the perpetual victim card is a means to problem resolution?

Those things are not Okay, but it's also not OK to have racial profiling, or communities where people can see no way to get ahead except drug dealing, or lack of support and participation in public schools.

 

[eameece]

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference and want to shut down any attempt to find out what the difference in wording means or why it was included.

It makes no difference whether he does or not, since Obama is a natural born citizen.

 

[The Barbarian]

There appears to be a distinction between being a citizen and being a "natural born" citizen.

Indeed. A citizen may be a former citizen of another nation who has been naturalized as an American. A "natural born" citizen is one who is a citizen at birth.

The Constitution does not make that clear, but the courts have so ruled. Feel free to show us otherwise.

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference

I just explained the difference to you. McCain, for example, was a natural born citizen, even though he was born outside the United States. Anyone with a parent who is a citizen, barring certain conditions, is a citizen at birth.

That case didn't bother you, for reasons we all understand.

and want to shut down any attempt to find out what the difference in wording means or why it was included.

My discussion of the issue, and reference to the facts, in no way prevents you from making your argument. It might damage your argument, but you aren't entitled to demand agreement from other people.

Learn to live with it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

McCain, for example, was a natural born citizen, even though he was born outside the United States. Anyone with a parent who is a citizen, barring certain conditions, is a citizen at birth.

That case didn't bother you, for reasons we all understand.

Yep, for two reasons.

1. He wasn't elected President.
2. BOTH his parents were citizens.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
McCain, for example, was a natural born citizen, even though he was born outside the United States. Anyone with a parent who is a citizen, barring certain conditions, is a citizen at birth.

That case didn't bother you, for reasons we all understand.

Yep, for two reasons.

He wasn't elected President.

When he was running it didn't bother you at all that he might be president. Again for reasons we can all understand.

BOTH his parents were citizens.

Neither the Constitution nor any other law of the United States requires that both parents be citizens for a person to be a natural born citizen. You know this. Do you think the rest of us don't know it? That's not what's motivating you, is it?