|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So they voted for a less racist law in order to prevent a more racist law?
IIRC, a couple of years ago, Citizen Quest pointed out John McWhorter's argument that a similar number of members of the CBC voted for the crack/cocaine disparity in sentencing laws, so that couldn't possibly be racist. I asked if segregation was racist even though Booker T. Washington supported it, but I don't recall getting an answer.
If Trump wins, all the movements will regress to "get out the vote for the Democrats."
Unrelated, in a previous post, I mentioned how all the articles I had looked up indicated that Hillary "lobbied liberal lawmakers" to support the Omnibus Crime Bill. I haven't found evidence yet, but I like to imagine that Hillary went knocking on the Vermont Senator's office door to get Bernie to vote for that execrable law.
No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.
But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.
Actually, come to think of it, I blame Bernie for all this shiznit. If he hadn't run and churned up all these social-democratic Democrat voters, I wouldn't have to run around handing out Jill Stein bumper stickers and could just make "Voting is for ninnies! For workers revolution!" posts like I did in 2012.
Huh, I can't remember what city it was in, but I had a great time in a used book store in a North Carolina airport back in the mid-90s. Got a bunch of Gore Vidal novels, as I recall. Was it honor system?
It was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of European reaction, when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of Europe through immigration.
--Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Preface to the Russian Edition of 1882", The Communist Manifesto
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P
What, you want more anti-Clinton links in here? Okay.
Alas, my free articles at The Nation has run out, so I can't read this one quite yet, but, hopefully, once October comes around I'll be able to:
Until then, I'll have to settle for an article in The Guardian by Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America and the more recent Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? which I should check out of the library:
"Today we are told that mass incarceration was an 'unintended consequence' of Clinton’s deeds.
"For that to be true, however, Clinton would have not only had to ignore the Sentencing Commission’s findings but also to ignore the newspaper stories appearing all around him, which can be found easily on the internet to this day. Here’s one that appeared in the Baltimore Sun on 31 October 1995, in which it is noted that:
"'Civil rights organizations had led a telephone campaign to pressure the president to veto the bill. At a rally last week in Chicago, the Rev Jesse L Jackson said that Mr Clinton had the chance, "with one stroke of your veto pen, to correct the most grievous racial injustice built into our legal system."'"
So much for historical revisionism.
Of course, this has been ridiculed by the Murdoch press, as Corbyn wasting time he should be spending on REAL issues, to chase trivialities only of minority interest to beardy-wierdy, loony-left, quiche-eating Trotskyites at their champagne socialist anti-British soirees, where they stamp on the flag and spit at a photo of the Queen (Gawd Bless'Er!).
Man, I wish a had some quiche right now.
It's only one article, Citizen the Mad. Link has title and subtitle. Maybe I should have put in a colon? Sorry for the confusion.
What are my opinions, Comrade Fergie? Hmm. Well, I am going to vote for Zuckerman as I voted for Sandy Pope last time. Interestingly, my local is a Hoffa stronghold, but we I think we turned out 5,000 votes for Pope last election, which is more than she got in a lot of pro-TDU locals. (Nationally, voter turnout is a big problem, which is terrible, because THEY SEND THE BALLOT WITH A STAMPED ENVELOPE TO YOUR HOUSE!)
Zuckerman stepped up at the last minute. It was originally going to be Tim Sylvester, who runs a local in Queens. His local was responsible for the two-hour UPS wildcat two years ago.
Like I said, he was going to run, but recently, a Hoffa-backed astroturf campaign, I guess is what they call it, knocked him out of leadership in his own local, so they switched to Zuckerman.
I don't know much about Zuckerman, to be honest, but I know Louisville was the center of the Vote No movement on the last contract that held up my raises for two years . No, no, I kid, I voted "no", too.
Anyway, even though I walked the '97 picket lines as a young communist militant, I have yet to cross "going on strike" off my bucket list, so I am voting for Zuckerman.
That being said, I doubt he will win. Also, I feel obligated to say that, although I vote for the TDU-sponsored candidates and value their website as a news source, I refuse to join them as they have a terrible habit of running to the federal government to fight Teamster corruption.
Labor must clean its own house!
Comrade Omar, rest in peace, was fond of quoting an op-ed piece about Al Sharpton by Luther Campbell, formerly of 2 Live Crew, but alas, I can't find it, just an excerpt:
Anyway, back to random articles about police brutality:
I like the use of the word "apparent".
I was in and out of the room while the debate was on, but one moment that made me guffaw was Hillary on private prisons.
Which is interesting because it brings up the Pennsylvania Cash for Kids debacle that The White Knife used to post about back in the day.
Which does a pretty good job of explaining my amusement, even if it is on a conservative website.
And, from a few months back:
Meanwhile, un-debate related, but about prisons:
The Marshall Project:
Big, long weekend of communism. Won't bore you with details, but, yesterday, while I was at work, as always seems to be the case, the BLM NH peeps had a speakout about the recent spate of police killings and were visited by a half-dozen fascists.
The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February.
What the f!++ is going on in NH?
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
For those intent on subjecting themselves to Monday's PotUS debate, do you have any recommendations for alcoholic libations? (Sorry DB, no puff-puff/bubble-bubble for me)
I've taken a fondness for Downeast Cider. Don't know if you'll find that in Florida, but the seasonal pumpkin spice is alright--and even got the thumbs up from Comrade Who Was Published In Jacobin and he usually goes on violent anti-pumpkin spice rants this time of year--but I like the Cranberry Blend.
Also, we ended up getting a dozen to The Communist Manifesto lecture, but most of them came because of Facebook and only one because of the $43 worth of leaflets that I made.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hopefully, access to 200 or so people in Boston and a dozen or so in New Hampshire.
I mean, I spent $43 bucks on leaflets for our lecture tomorrow in Lowell and we'll be lucky if we get ten. (Although, tbh, I guess I shouldn't have had them made in color.)
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It is, however, cheaper than leaflets.
Back at Bread and Roses I purchased a little pamphlet from a group called the World Socialist Party. It is a reprint of a 1920s pamphlet by one John Keracher entitled How the Gods Were Made (A Study in Historical Materialism) and it was okay, if pretty simple.
Only glaring mistake that I noticed was that he claimed the ancient Greeks believed they went to Olympus after death, instead of Hades.
Man, all kindsa new faces!
Some more events this week:
and, of course, Saturday's talk on The Communist Manifesto.
Next Thursday's got an interesting one, but it'll be at the same time as the Rock Against Racism show, :( :
And now for something completely different:
250+ posts and mods, looks like I missed a lot.
Apologies to anyone I left hanging, the meeting took longer than expected and, even more so, the consumption of alcoholic goodies afterwards.
Got to go put up more flyers this morning, go to work, and then attend another standout to Vote No On No. 2 this afternoon.
I'll see if you're still here later!
DADT led to a higher rate of gay servicepeople being discharged than previously.
DOMA passed with veto-proof majorities, huh? Oh, well, then I guess, Bill had to sign off it. I mean, he couldn't have vetoed it, and then tried to go for a pocket veto, or just, you know, let it pass over his veto?
Also, I found this tidbit on wikipedia:
"James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger. On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal."
Maybe your circle of friends impacted by the bill was a little narrow?
But, I have to ask, why did you switch over to gay issues? I was talking about the crime and welfare reform bills. Please demonstrate my "historical revisionism" there.
I'll be back in, roughly, ten hours after the Black Lives Matter NH meeting tonight. I also have to go back through the last bunch of pages and see if I missed anything.
Sorry, one more:
I remember selling socialist papers with articles against all that shiznit, so I'm afraid the argument of "historical revisionism" doesn't hold much water with me.
Not my fault the rest of you took two decades to catch up.
...And that's exactly how we got the '94 crime bill, the '96 welfare reform bill and, to jump forward a little in time, the highest number of deportations under any president ever.
Just don't worry!
Welcome, one and all, to the Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread, now, on fire!!!
As regards the other thread, I have no idea who Gandhi would vote for, but I'm certain Robespierre wouldn't vote for Hillary.
Anyway, debate went pretty well. Mr. Comrade killed it and Young Gay Comrade opined that "it was the best meeting he'd ever been to."
Later we collected all the comrades and kids went to Comrade Who Was Published in Jacobin's house and watched The Lion King.
Yeah, I do. That's pretty uncontroversial, Dicey.
"Most shockingly, the total numbers of state and federal inmates grew more rapidly under Bill Clinton than under any other president, including the notorious Republican drug warriors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush."
I don't know.
It depends on whether you can stop taking a question like "I wonder if it makes any difference to black people who live in hellhole cities that the Democrats have controlled for decades* whether Democrats' racism is more subtle than Republicans" and turning it into "Are you saying Stephanie Rawlings-Blake orders police to murder black people?!?"
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Huh. Apparently, The Observer is run by the Donald's son-in-law.
[Goes back to searching the internet]
Anyway, more knife analogies:
"If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress." --Malcolm X
But that was before the Dixiecrat desertion! Before George Wallace apologized for standing in the school house door, before Byrd apologized for being in the Klan! Before Hillary apologized for her role in creating the mass incarceration state!
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?
Since I never claimed that Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) were ordering their police to kill people--in fact, I answered "no" to your previous question--I'm not sure how to respond to your strawman.