Who Places A Lower Value On Black Lives?
Would that be a police officer who accidentally shoots and kills a black woman, or that woman herself, a mother of six children by five different drug-dealing fathers, who takes up with yet another drug dealer?
That woman's most recent boyfriend, Anthony Terry, was arrested and pleaded guilty in March to charges of drug trafficking. And yes, before him, all the fathers of her children were drug dealers...and this according to her mother!
Her sister managed to find a bright side in Tarika Wilson's, uh, strong values system. From a Christopher Maag story in The New York Times:
Tarika Wilson had six children, ages 8 to 1. They were fathered by five men, all of whom dealt drugs, said Darla Jennings, Ms. Wilson's mother. But Ms. Wilson never took drugs nor allowed them to be sold from her house, said Tania Wilson, her sister."She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that," said Ms. Wilson's uncle, John Austin.
Maybe if the community disrespected women who live this sort of lifestyle she would've been less likely to get knocked up six times by a bunch of drug dealers, then taken up with yet another.
And while I'm not a fan of our drug laws, and I agree with reason's Radley Balko that these door-break searches too often have tragic consequences, and for those who are not perps...the fact remains that the police generally don't seek to break down the doors of homes of women who've had five boyfriends who are all, say, accountants, architects, or managers at Subway.
Not surprisingly, black leaders are outraged. Also not surprisingly, their outrage is not directed at women in the black community who squeeze out litters of fatherless children, or the men who fuck and run, or fuck, deal drugs, and go directly to jail. From an AP story on MSNBC:
Following the shooting, many residents accused the police department of being hostile and abusive toward minorities. One group led a series of marches through the city to protest what they said was mistreatment by police.The Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the city and demanded that the officer who fired the fatal shots and those who planned the raid be held accountable. Chavalia was the only person charged.
'Low value on black lives'
Local black leaders had criticized the two misdemeanor charges as too lenient."It's another example that there's very low value on black lives in this community," said Jason Upthegrove, president of the Lima National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He said he was sickened but not surprised by the verdict and he hopes it won't reflect poorly on the city.
Arnold Manley, pastor of Pilgrim Rescue Missionary Baptist Church, said he and other black clergy leaders have been trying to work with police and city officials since the shooting, but that he was unsure whether that would continue.
"I'm hurting deeply," he said. "The message I got out of all this is that it's OK for police to go and kill in a drug raid," he said.
Pastor Manley should be "hurting deeply" that there's a need for drug raids in his community, and should maybe start speaking out about that. Again, the police aren't targeting black dentists, black cable TV techs, or black newspaper columnists.
It's awful that this woman was killed, but the fact remains: Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids.
Thanks, lujlp and purplepen!
While I certainly believe people are responsible for their own reckless choices, drug dealers are at the top of the economic heap in many black communities, which makes them more desirable mates than they have any business being. While this woman behaved recklessly, it needs to be underscored that Federal and state governments have jury-rigged the deck so that things like this are bound to happen. If Phillip Morris is legally selling cocaine popsickles, Tarika Wilson is alive--maybe living with an ex-boyfriend who isn't in jail, since there's no illegal economy for him to be arrested for participating in.
Of course, she's probably still a drug user, but that's a different problem.
Steve at August 11, 2008 3:07 AM
Steve - If Phillip Morris is legally selling cocaine popsickles, Tarika Wilson is alive--maybe living with an ex-boyfriend who isn't in jail, since there's no illegal economy for him to be arrested for participating in.
Is your solution to legalize the Drug Trade or am I reading this incorrectly?
Matthew at August 11, 2008 5:10 AM
The Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the city and demanded that the officer who fired the fatal shots and those who planned the raid be held accountable. Chavalia was the only person charged.
I have yet to hear Jesse Jackson say anything about black people accepting personal responsibility for their lives. That bastard keeps on "demanding" that everyone BUT the people who perpetrate these crimes be held accountable. What's wrong with that picture? He is an ignoranus of the highest magnitude.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 5:33 AM
I have yet to hear Jesse Jackson say anything about black people accepting personal responsibility for their lives. That bastard keeps on "demanding" that everyone BUT the people who perpetrate these crimes be held accountable. What's wrong with that picture? He is an ignoranus of the highest magnitude.
The thugs who broke down the doors and shot an innocent woman walked away without being held accountable. They perpetrated a crime against all of us by violating the 4th amendment and committing govt-sponsored murder!
This time I agree with the Rev.
Marty at August 11, 2008 5:42 AM
"It's awful that this woman was killed, but the fact remains: Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids."
Another fact remains: Read a blog by some horse-faced, loud-mouthed racist named "Amy", and feel dumber for doing so.
reality check at August 11, 2008 5:45 AM
Are you fucking derious?
A swat team doesnt go in on a drug raid without weeks of survalence and a warrant
The had a warrant for his arrest and his house. Indisde the found drugs as they expected, a few vicious attack dogs.
The officers shot the dogs downstairs, and the guy upstairs herd shots being fired and saw a person in a darkroom who refused orders to drop to the floor.
How was this woman innocent? She was living with a drug dealer - she knew how her man was making money - she was complicit in every crime he commited plus 6 additional counts of child abuse for every crime he committed.
$5 bucks says she was selling her pussy for drugs
lujlp at August 11, 2008 5:57 AM
Who is the racist?
Amy who asks a question and points out that living in a drug den carries risks?
Or the mysterious poster who thinks that by pointing out the race of the moron who got shot is proof that everyone is out to 'get' minorities
lujlp at August 11, 2008 6:06 AM
Sure, Marty, go ahead and agree with that POS "Reverend", and then when you get mugged by a drug-using creep, black or not, see if he "demands" accountability on your behalf. Heh. It'll never happen.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 6:14 AM
I hope Amy has read Radley Balko's response to this. Wrong door drug raids happen to a LOT more people than just the ones she finds distasteful. I guess they're OK if they don't happen to you, right?
Stay classy, Amy. Ugh.
Fay at August 11, 2008 6:17 AM
I happen to like Amy's face. It might look a little puffy today, as she must have written these posts at 5 in the morning!
Pointing out that certain black communities tend to make different life choices than other communities isn't racism, it's journalism.
Damn journalists!!!!
Hasan at August 11, 2008 6:17 AM
I happen to like Amy's face. It might look a little puffy today, as she must have written these posts at 5 in the morning!
Pointing out that certain black communities tend to make different life choices than other communities isn't racism, it's journalism.
Damn journalists!!!!
PS: Your server is acting up this morning.
Hasan at August 11, 2008 6:17 AM
Hmm, make that at 2 in the morning.
Hasan at August 11, 2008 6:19 AM
lujlp,
Are you serious? How does this assertion comport with the litany of wrong-door and innocent-victim raids in the news these days.
I suggest you check out the archives of Radley Balko's blog ( http://www.theagitator.com/ ) and rethink that little theory of yours. Pay close attention to the 'Police Militarization' and 'Police Professionalism' tags and then try to claim that officers who hit the wrong door have spent weeks surveilling that address.
Thomas Blair at August 11, 2008 6:19 AM
Cry me a river, people. I bet the "reverand" wouldn't have a damn issue in the world if it's been some white skank living with the drug dealer that got shot, instead of a black skank. Wouldn't be racism then, oh no! She wasn't innocent, she was at the very least an accomplice to drug dealing. And actually I am for legalizing drugs. But the fact is they are illegal, and the cops have not only the right but the duty to try and stop dealers. Yes, wrong doors get kicked in. Wrong people get arrested. It happens. But not in this case. Any law abiding citizen knows if a cop tells you to get down, you do! You argue the merits later in court, NOT when someone with a gun is yelling at you. Police put their lives on the line all day every day. They are scared THEY are going to get shot (which happens every day, mostly in black communities, but the Rev has no issue with that either. Apparently not even when the cop is black). So yeah, when someone is in a dark room and not responding to orders and the cop thinks others in the house are shooting at them, chances are that cop is going to shoot.
She was scum who's life was a waste. The only real problem with her death is the 6 kids who will be on welfare their whole life. Or, more likely, delaing drugs like their daddies till they get shot or go to jail, where they will live off our hard-earned money the rest of their far-too-comfy lives.
Racism will go away when black people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions and making better life choices. (that was a generalization there. Lots of black people do. But most do not.)
momof3 at August 11, 2008 6:32 AM
Unfortunately, due to the economic opportunities created by the drug war, drug dealers may very well have been the most economically successful people in Tara's neighborhood.
When you grow up in a world like that -- where breaking the law creates more opportunity than keeping it -- it's gotta really screw up your perspective. To her, it may have been that she was hanging out with the men who had the guts to take the risks necessary to make a good living.
By messing with the laws of supply and demand, the drug war creates economic opportunity for those willing to take risks. Normally, our society celebrates risk-takers -- just look at how we treat our soldiers, our sports stars, action-movie-heros, and other "winners."
It's a deadly combination -- idolize and risk-takers, and then create job opportunities for them. We are raising the next generation of drug dealers right now -- all that's left is to create job openings for them by jailing the current crop of dealers.
Phil at August 11, 2008 6:34 AM
momof3, racism will go away when people like you do. You people are a real trip. Its nice Amy puts up a blog for her intellectually challenged fans. And hey... if you like her face, please put it in a paper bag and take it home.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 6:38 AM
Interesting that a few new commenters have popped up this morning!
If a white woman had six children by five different drug dealers, and in a period of eight years, do you think I'd be applauding her?
It's awful that this woman was killed. But, what is "racist" about saying that there's a problem in the black community? Is there no problem in the black community? Is it groovy and healthy and fine and good for her children, the way this woman lived?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 6:39 AM
Here I am on personal responsibility regarding another victim -- me:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/08/random-acts-of-1.html
I am, once again, no fan of our drug laws, and for drug legalization. Do you then think we'd have perps competing with, say, Rite Aid? People aren't selling Band-Aids on the street corner in the ghetto because they're readily available at drugstores.
I also agree with Radley Balko about these raids. Do you new commenters not read?
I am not, however, for single motherhood, no matter what your race. Nor am I for mothers who have six children, in eight years, by five different drug-dealing fathers. Where is the racism in this?
And where is the racism in stating the obvious, "Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids"?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 6:46 AM
One of the first rules of gun safety is you do not fire unless you are sure of your target (can identify it) and you know where your rounds will go and what they will hit if you miss. This dumbass cop totally ignored this most basic rule. For that he should have been fired. For the death of an innocent, his own life should have been forfeit.
Chris Mallory at August 11, 2008 7:03 AM
"momof3, racism will go away when people like you do. You people are a real trip. Its nice Amy puts up a blog for her intellectually challenged fans. And hey... if you like her face, please put it in a paper bag and take it home."
Realitycheck, if you had any-ANY-valid arguments to make, we might listen. But all you do is name-call, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on here. She brought that on herself, as did the drug-dealer she lived with. Far, far too many black people make precisely these sorts of stupid decisions, and then whine about racism holding them back. What would an end to racism be, do you think? If we just stopped attempting to hold your fellow black people accountable for their law-breaking? If we applauded them for doing it, like most of the black community does? Please, do tell!
momof3 at August 11, 2008 7:04 AM
Who's sending all you new commenters over here?
I'll say it again: I'm not arguing for the death of mothers holding babies. I'm with Radley Balko on these raids.
Chris, are you really arguing that police officers should be put to death if they shoot somebody by accident?
And again, don't you think you put your life and your children's lives in danger by taking up with a series of drug dealers? Come on, be honest.
I have to say, if I took up with one drug dealer, let alone six, and had six children with five different drug dealers, my parents and sisters would be in court every day of the week seeking to have the children removed from me...not nonchalantly mentioning it.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 7:11 AM
There are a few facts that both Amy and several of the posters here either left out or are unaware of. I am aware of them because this happened near me and I've been following the case since the beginning. I don't know if the electronic version will have the articles, but the print version of the Lima News (www.limaohio.com) mentioned all of them in different articles.
First, the police had conducted at least SEVEN controlled buys from Mr. Terry. They could have grabbed him during any one of them. The fact that they didn't, that they would rather send in the tac-ninja team, really says a lot.
Second, for some reason Chavalia was the ONLY cop in the home that had his weapon, an M4 (just like what out soldiers and Marines carry...a machinegun if you go by the .gov definition) on BURST instead of SEMI. So when he pulled the trigger, the rifle fired 3 rounds.
Third, Tarika was kneeling when she was shot. Kneeling. One of the foernsic experts, called by the prosecution IIRC, said she was most likely complying with Chavalia's order to get down.
Fourth, the story keeps changing. She was in a dark room. She was in the hallway, which was dark. She popped in and out of a doorway. She kept squatting down and rising up.
Fifth, Chavalia said he heard firing and thought he was being shot at. The officer behind him testified that HE knew the shots were coming from an entirely different part of the house (downstairs and on a different side from Chavalia). Chavalia has 30+ years on the PD, I don't know how many on the tac-ninja team. The other officer, the one directly behind him who correctly identified the source of the gunfire, has TWO YEARS on Lima PD.
Yes, shacking up with a drug dealer was a bad move on Tarika's part. And yes, she probably WAS scum. Six kids, all by different fathers, and she was something like 28 years old, as well as a police record of her own....not exactly a competitor for the Mother of the Year prize.
But here's the thing: when you give police, hell ANY of .gov's tentacles, a pass when they do things like this to 'undesirables', that sets a precedent. And before too long, they're doing it to you, too.
Check out this link to see what I mean: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
SWAT teams should ONLY be used for what they were originally created for: hostage situations and barricaded suspects. That's it. Far too many innocent people have died at the hands of teams of tac-ninjas. In most cases involving drugs, just like this one, the cops have already made numerous controlled buys from the subject, who is going to go down for a long while provided the prosecutor does his job. There is no reason to put anyone at risk with these type of raids.
David at August 11, 2008 7:13 AM
Exactly, momof3.
And it's when they start arguing that you're ugly that you know that they know you're actually right.
P.S. Here's where I blogged about Radley Balko's work previously.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/07/18/three_stoplight.html
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 7:13 AM
momof3, racism will go away when people like you do. You people are a real trip. Its nice Amy puts up a blog for her intellectually challenged fans. And hey... if you like her face, please put it in a paper bag and take it home.
"realitycheck", you're living in a fantasy world. Racism will go away when people of EVERY color start acknowledging and taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. YOU are the real trip here - you've got no friggin' idea about the real world yet you hide behind the moniker "realitycheck". Maybe it's time for one of your own.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 7:13 AM
Amy - I'll agree that it isn't necessarily a race issue for you, though it clearly is for some of your commenters.
The real issue that I have with the post is the inference I draw that somehow this woman deserved death or brought it on herself. This raid should never have happened this way in any community. Officers should know who resides in a home that is going to be violently raided - though they never do. Officers shouldn't shoot dogs just because they can, and they should know going into it whether dogs will be present. Officers shouldn't strafe (firing blindly for cover - a military tactic) as is alleged to have happened in this instance. Really, their raids create confusion and fear, by design, and they expect people thrust unwittingly into these situations to react perfectly. All the while, police who are trained for these raids expect to be excused for mistakes made when they clearly screw up. In my opinion these officers should be charged with negligent homicide, and their superiors and the judges who signed the warrant should be held accountable.
Ultimately, if you are going to decry women who have multiple children outside of marriage, you might want to find a different example if you don't want people to believe that you thought your subject deserved to die.
Finally, I could go on and on about the injustice and frequency of these raids, but I think the link to the Agitator's site has that covered. Regardless of how poorly the victim in this case conducted her life, these officers should be held accountable - as should the whole system that creates these raids and justifies them in the name of keeping society safe from itself.
Kid Handsome at August 11, 2008 7:18 AM
I squealed like the proverbial stuck pig when 92-year-old Kathryn Johnson was killed in a no-knock raid.
And I agree with you on what should be police procedures above vis a vis taking precautions.
But, it's very interesting to me when people call me racist when I say there's a problem in the black community, starting with the lack of stigma for women who behave as this one did.
Daddies -- the kind who stick around and go to a job every day -- are essential to raising healthy kids. And the fact remains, while there are innocent people who are victims of these no-knock raids, and Radley Balko covers the subject well, if your boyfriend is a criminal, whether he's a mafia don or a drug dealer, you endanger your children by being with him.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 7:26 AM
I suspect that these kinds of raids (Waco, Cory Maye, last week's Mayor) are conducted more for the adrenalin rush of a few over-aggressive cops than any legitimate law-enforcement reason.
The Maye and Mayor cases are absolute proof that the cops don't due a lick of research before they rush in guns blazing.
Waco is a perfect example of this same case here, but against white people. Wanted one man, had plenty of times to take him down without drama and without weapons. Instead, went in guns blazing, and wound up with 80 people torched. Where was Reverend Jackson?
Tarika Wilson was living on borrowed time. Either a cop or some rival gangster was going to shoot her eventually. She willingly chose to put herself and her offspring in the line of fire by her choice of mates.
If you think that it is racist to observe that, I would suggest to you that the racist you seek is in the mirror, not your computer screen.
brian at August 11, 2008 7:31 AM
Amy,
I'm glad you appreciate my work.
But when you compare a black woman to an animal "squeezing out litters," you open yourself up to charges of racism. I'm sure you're aware that there's a long history in this country of denigrating blacks as sub-human and animalistic. To conjure that image in the course of berating black civil rights leaders is rather conspicuous.
There are plenty of less offensive, non racially-charged ways you could have made the same point. You can't blame people for questioning why you chose to make it the way you did.
Radley Balko at August 11, 2008 8:19 AM
"And it's when they start arguing that you're ugly that you know that they know you're actually right."
Or it means that you may actually be friggin ugly, in a molly ringwald/sarah jessica parker crossbreed sorta way. You aren't right about anything regarding this issue. Your posters seem to be about equally clueless. You see, you say you oppose the drug war and then go on to say "they get what they deserve". What im hearing is "yes segregation was wrong but blacks who went into those establishments marked whites only got what they deserved because it was a law". You really are a misguided human being, Amy. Please don't breed.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 8:26 AM
I don't see it as "racially charged" to say a woman who has six children in eight years is squeezing out a litter of children. She is. White or black. And I'd say that about a white woman in a hot second. And probably have on this site.
Actually, what I see as racist is pussyfooting around when criticizing a person if they're black -- for the same thing you'd criticize a white woman for. I don't pussyfoot around that way. In fact, I find that racist.
And I do really appreciate the work you do.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:28 AM
Here, I say it about Catholics:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/10/gwan_have_lots.html
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:30 AM
Here, I use the term in reference to rich white people in New York City:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/11/16/rich_litter.html
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:32 AM
What im hearing is "yes segregation was wrong but blacks who went into those establishments marked whites only got what they deserved because it was a law"
Excuse me? You see this where?
What have you done to help the black community, asshole?
I talk once a month at an inner city school to demystify "making it." I tell girls that getting pregnant early, and before marriage, will likely leave them poor and mired in poverty for the rest of their lives.
As a teenager, as the "social action" chairperson of my youth group, I spearheaded a program to help the Falashas, the black Jews of Ethiopia. Jews before me fought and died for civil rights for blacks.
You have yet to bring up a single substantive point about what, exactly, is wrong with what I wrote.
Also, it's interesting that you don't post under your own name. I stand behind what I write, and if I'm going to call you ugly, I'll do it here under my own full name with my picture under it. Coward.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:37 AM
"Here, I say it about Catholics"
"Here, I use the term in reference to rich white people in New York City"
Now I see. You are just a snooty lil thing who thinks shes better than absolutely everyone else? Gotcha. Real clear now.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 8:40 AM
Amy -
Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You get tired and dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
brian at August 11, 2008 8:41 AM
"Excuse me? You see this where?"
In your statements, dear.
"What have you done to help the black community, asshole?"
Well lets see...I deal with people like you, thats what. I also fight to end the drug war and not blame the victims of it. Try it some time.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 8:43 AM
Heh heh...Cathy Seipp said something similar, although I think she used the words "tiny little nitwits" to describe the likes of "reality check."
She also said something like, "When people criticize me for making value judgements, I say, 'I have values, therefore I make judgements.'"
What Cathy said.
Excuse me, but is there something wrong with saying children should have daddies, and be raised in intact families? I say it all the time. To white people usually -- especially to single white women who think it's okay to have a child alone because the old bio clock is set to explode, and they waaaannnt a baby.
Not good enough. When it comes to the rights of children, and parents' obligation to them, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:46 AM
"Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You get tired and dirty, and the pig enjoys it."
I'm guessing she likes it dirty, but probably has a ton of rechargable batteries, size A.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 8:46 AM
Oh, come on Amy!! You know you don't think it's awful this woman was killed! The only thing that would have made your day better is if she had been knocked up at the time and the rest of the kids caught in the cross-fire! I've long believed that if an elementary school burned to the ground with no survivors, you'd view it as a good reason to break out the good booze and celebrate. Especially if it was a local school. Then there'd be fewer whiny screaming snot-nosed brats to pollute your little world. "It's awful that this woman was killed." What a laugh.
just a girl at August 11, 2008 8:50 AM
"What have you done to help the black community, asshole?" Well lets see...I deal with people like you, thats what.
Will you be helping me find speakers to talk at the high school then?
And don't you think it would be a help to the black community to say one shouldn't have children with drug dealers, and multiple drug dealers at that, and raise them as a single mother?
Or would saying that in some way be "racist"?
Please post a link to your picture so we can have a "who's hotter" competition, you and I.
As for fighting to end the drug war, search "drug" on my site. I'm for legalization and for the end of the drug war. In fact, I even mentioned that in passing in this blog item.
Were you not able to read that, perhaps because the moment you see the word "black" you go right to "racist"?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:50 AM
[i]"It's another example that there's very low value on black lives in this community," said Jason Upthegrove, president of the Lima National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.[/i]
The ones placing a low value on the lives in the community are the ones selling illegal drugs, doing drive-by shootings in the neighborhood, demeaning women by turning them into "hos" (in rap songs and in reality), and having kids with no thought to their safety and well-being ... as well as the ones enabling all of them.
Conan the Grammarian at August 11, 2008 8:51 AM
You know you don't think it's awful this woman was killed!
You have a window into my brain?
The truth is, I think it's awful that ANYONE is killed, even the most reprehensible criminals. I am against the death penalty, even for child-molesting rapist murderers. So, suffice it to say, I think it's awful that this woman is killed, and especially tragic for all those children she had. If they were the children of accountants, they'd likely be farmed out to their daddies now. Instead, if the mother and sister can't or won't take them, where will they go? To a warm, cuddly life of foster care?
Not stigmatizing women who have multiple children out of wedlock or out of a stable relationship, and with men who are drug dealers, is a huge problem, and a terrible thing.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 8:56 AM
"Will you be helping me find speakers to talk at the high school then?"
You really aren't someone i would invest significant time in.
"And don't you think it would be a help to the black community to say one shouldn't have children with drug dealers, and multiple drug dealers at that, and raise them as a single mother?"
I think it would help the black community or any community to end the drug war. There are plenty of good single parents so you wont see me taking issue with single parents.
"Or would saying that in some way be "racist"?"
Yes, you are a racist. Its your preconceptions regarding black people that make you racist.
"Please post a link to your picture so we can have a "who's hotter" competition, you and I."
Honey, you couldnt handle it.
"As for fighting to end the drug war, search "drug" on my site. I'm for legalization and for the end of the drug war. In fact, I even mentioned that in passing in this blog item."
Yes you did mention on your blog, just before the "got what she deserved" implication.
"Were you not able to read that, perhaps because the moment you see the word "black" you go right to "racist"?"
You bet i was able to read it. Every word. I understand fully what i read. My observations still stand.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 8:57 AM
You are just a snooty lil thing who thinks shes better than absolutely everyone else?
... and you only think yourself better than anyone who disagrees with you?
You need to accept that there will be differences of opinion. This blog has plenty of argument, and sometime people are even persuaded of a new point of view. But you have to argue your case, not just call people names or insult their personal appearance - unless, of course, it is relevant.
As a new poster, we'd love to hear from you. Just make your assertions, and back them up, and we'll have a ball. Otherwise, you may as well shut up.
Norman at August 11, 2008 9:02 AM
There is nothing we can do about bad personal choices. There is lots we can (and should) do about the totalitarian War on (Some) Drugs and sloppy police work. This post seems to suggest that the bigger problem here are the poor personal decisions this woman made and not the War on Drugs, which is the thing that actually killed her.
LJM at August 11, 2008 9:02 AM
I love that you write straight-forwardly about race issues (like today's Who Places A Lower Value On Black Lives?).
There definitely seems to be a divide between white and black and some African Americans don't even value themselves.
I live near section 8 housing and often take a public path that starts near my house, goes through a park, through the housing complex, and to the library. I often see kids playing outside. On one occasion, a group of young African American boys (ages 8 to 13 or 14? I can't judge kids' ages) started yelling at me "Hey white lady!" etc. A young one said "What are you doing walking through our place? Don't you know this is "Da Hood" and you can be shot?!"
Now, the kid was 8 or 9 and clearly posturing for his friends. I didn't feel in any danger, nor did I reply in any way. But I haven't walked that path since, even though I had walked it dozens of times before, never giving it a thought, never feeling uncomfortable. Until now.
I understand guns are pervasive, but it is NOT the hood. It is an overall affluent University town. What if a white child in Beverly Hills had yelled at a black woman saying "Hey what are you doing in our neighborhood? You can get shot walking through here?" Everyone would be up in arms.
It's sad to me that kids that young already view themselves as outsiders, unequal, etc. But at the same time, I feel my attitude change. I never felt a division based on race or guilty for being white and "privileged," and now I do. I worry that I'm becoming racist because I no longer feel comfortable walking through there, even if I understand the kid's motivation and I *KNOW* every one is an individual and that the behavior is not likely to be repeated.
Monica at August 11, 2008 9:02 AM
"and you only think yourself better than anyone who disagrees with you?"
It isnt about disagreeing with me. Its about her level of douchebaggery.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:08 AM
"There is nothing we can do about bad personal choices. There is lots we can (and should) do about the totalitarian War on (Some) Drugs and sloppy police work. This post seems to suggest that the bigger problem here are the poor personal decisions this woman made and not the War on Drugs, which is the thing that actually killed her."
Very well said.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:09 AM
"As a new poster, we'd love to hear from you. Just make your assertions, and back them up, and we'll have a ball. Otherwise, you may as well shut up."
No thanks, Norman. I don't take to kindly to people telling me what to do. So please take your own advice.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:12 AM
The fact that we have laws which prohibit adults from putting the substances they choose in their own bodies is something I take enormous issue with.
How many Asians do you see having multiple babies out of wedlock and whose culture -- and even whose families -- let them take up with multiple criminals without stigma?
There is a problem in the black community, and it is lack of criticism or stigma for this behavior.
The fact that this woman was killed due to drug policies that I find reprehensible is another issue, and one I've discussed critically over and over and over again on this site.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 9:15 AM
Amy,
A lady friend of ours is writing a paper for her college class, discussing the effects of meth in a community.
Would you consider writing me to discuss perhaps offering her some guidance and assistance with her paper?
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at August 11, 2008 9:17 AM
I can't wait for Amy's September column:
"Prostitutes Should Be Shot and Killed for what They do, but Prostitution Should Be Legal"
Don't disappoint me, Amy.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:17 AM
Gunner, please e-mail me.
"reality check," you debate as if you don't have a leg to stand on.
See above. I don't think anyone has a right to kill anyone, not even the most reprehensible criminals (I am against the death penalty).
Your main problem seems to be either that you realize you don't have an argument or you haven't trained your brain to make rational arguments. Instead, you lash out in the most childish ways, and have yet to post a single substantive criticism about this post.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 9:21 AM
Realitycheck, Will you PLEASE for the love of god SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
You are only trying to draw attention to yourself and not speak about the issue at hand. A woman was killed in a raid on her home. Did she deserve to die, ABSOLUTLY NOT! Did she put herself in a bad situation, ABSOLUTLY YES! Did she endanger her children by being with this man, again ABSOLUTLY YES!
Were the police correct in there handling of the situation, ABSOLUTLY NO! Should charges be brought against the officer for the shooting, ABSOLUTLY YES!
Are there racists out there, yes!! Is Amy one of them, ABSOLUTLY NOT!!
Do us all a favor and just crawl back under the porch and go back to sleep.
Matthew at August 11, 2008 9:22 AM
"The fact that we have laws which prohibit adults from putting the substances they choose in their own bodies is something I take enormous issue with."
So then why do you take issue with single parents when the other parent is probably in prison due to an unjust law?
"How many Asians do you see having multiple babies out of wedlock and whose culture -- and even whose families -- let them take up with multiple criminals without stigma?"
One child policy in China. In other Aisan nations, there are many babies born out of wedlock. "Out of wedlock" and "single parent" are also two different things.
"There is a problem in the black community, and it is lack of criticism or stigma for this behavior."
Yes there is a problem in the black community. There are too many unjust laws targeting them. Causes too many side effects.
"The fact that this woman was killed due to drug policies that I find reprehensible is another issue, and one I've discussed critically over and over and over again on this site."
And i'm sure you will continue to discuss it, by blaming the victims of it and judging only their behavior.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:22 AM
No, it is NOT very well said, it is fundamentally stupid.
This insane belief that if the "war on drugs" were simply ended that the violence would stop is unfathomable.
It shows a clear lack of thinking on the part of both the race pimps and the hardcore libertarians.
If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, the violence would not stop. You cannot legitimize a product whose sole purpose is to render the user non-functional. Those people will still resort to crime to get the money needed for their next "fix".
The so-called "drug war" is not some racist escapade meant to cull the blacks from civilization. Nor is it some control scheme designed to keep our minds in a box. It is an ill-conceived solution to a significant problem: "How do we prevent people from becoming burdens on society as a result of their own stupidity?"
Your problem, realitycheck, is that you are, in fact, completely divorced from reality. You have apparently decided that anything bad that happens to a black person is a result of pernicious racist forces beyond their control.
The uncomfortable fact here is that this woman's preference for alpha males led her to make six children, all of whom are now effectively orphans - as one would assume that the fathers are likely dead or in prison as a result of their chosen profession.
You can continue to believe that any criticism of thug life is racist, but at least in this specific instance you will be wrong.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:22 AM
"And where is the racism in stating the obvious, "Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids"?"
------
It may not be racist, but you are putting blame on the victim. But for the officer shooting blindly through the wall, she would not have been shot. Your argument is more akin to:
"When you wear short skirts without panties, sooner or later you're going to get raped."
EdinTally at August 11, 2008 9:24 AM
"Realitycheck, Will you PLEASE for the love of god SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
I certainly will, when Amy gets a clue. You simply dont like my opinion and as i would expect with Amys regular posters, you want to shut up opinions you dont like. No one censors speech they agree with. Do they? Maybe you would like to personally try to shut me up?
"You are only trying to draw attention to yourself and not speak about the issue at hand."
How could i be doing that? I'm not even using my real name. No, im drawing attention to Amys level of stupid. BTW, capitalizing words like you do just make you look like an attention whore.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:27 AM
Because sometimes the victim deserves the blame.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:27 AM
And before realitycheck can try to misunderstand that last bit, I'll state it in the simplest language I can:
When something bad happens to a person, they don't deserve to have had that bad thing happen to them.
However, if the thing happened because they put themselves in a situation where they should have expected bad things to happen, they at least deserve the blame for exposing themselves to the risk.
b at August 11, 2008 9:30 AM
disappointed, amy. i agree with you on 95% of the things you write, but this is not one of them.
j.d. at August 11, 2008 9:30 AM
"This insane belief that if the "war on drugs" were simply ended that the violence would stop is unfathomable."
"It shows a clear lack of thinking on the part of both the race pimps and the hardcore libertarians."
Really? Yeah cause with alcohol prohibition, we're still killing each other over turf wars. When youre going to make stupid claims, brian, make sure there isnt something we can readily compare it too that proves you are wrong.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:31 AM
And before realitycheck can try to misunderstand that last bit, I'll state it in the simplest language I can:
When something bad happens to a person, they don't deserve to have had that bad thing happen to them.
However, if the thing happened because they put themselves in a situation where they should have expected bad things to happen, they at least deserve the blame for exposing themselves to the risk.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:32 AM
Brian - Believe it or not but I agree with you on this one. The Drug war is a bad solution to a very bad problem. Just like you said legalizing drugs would just cause the problem to go into overdrive.
I personally think that drug use has to be made "unfun". The users are the first problem that has to be dealt with. We need better education programs and Detox clinics to help people. When the users are not using anymore then the Dealers cant deal. And just as info, I don't think that sending a user to jail is the answer.
If you treat a person like a criminal, then that person tends to act like a criminal.
Matthew at August 11, 2008 9:32 AM
One child policy in China. In other Aisan nations, there are many babies born out of wedlock.
We're talking about America here and culture within communities in America. Asians seem to have strong family values, and kids who do criminal things or take up with criminals are met with shame from their families. This is not an unimportant element.
And Edin, I don't think this woman deserved to die, but I think the nonthink, perpetuated by feminists, that divorces one's actions from what happens to a person endangers women and others.
The fact is, as a female friend who's a sergeant of detectives in the LAPD noted to me last week, women are physically weaker, in general, than men, and should be careful about where they go. Should you be able to walk through dark alleys in the inner city and not be raped? Absolutely. Are you an absolute moron if you do? Absolutely.
Here's me blaming the victim who happens to be me -- which is my way of avoiding victimization in the future:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/08/random-acts-of-1.html
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 9:33 AM
"Because sometimes the victim deserves the blame."
Posted by: brian at August 11, 2008 9:27 AM
And that says all i really need to know about the likes of Brian.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:35 AM
Sure, realitycheck, the mean-ass drunkards who get so wasted they don't know what they're doing when they beat up on their wives and kids aren't violent at all, are they? Oh but, wait, it's not their fault, they were drunk at the time! And the other drunkards who get wasted and then get behind the wheel of their cars and cause horrific accidents aren't a threat to society at large, either. M'kay.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 9:36 AM
"unbeknownst to me, by some creep who ran up behind me and helped himself to a big grope."
Have a mask made of your face and wear it on the back of your head. Its a sure fire way to make sure no man would ever want to do that again.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:37 AM
Conan, Monica, I agree with you. Some black people don't value black people, themselves or anyone else. And before anyone starts typing to call me a racist, I'm also black.
This whole situation puts a spotlight on something I have never been able to understand. Some black people can never admit (to themselves or others, especially not white people) that something another black person has done is wrong. There always seems to be an excuse or justification for what was done.
This was part of a joke on Chappelle's Show but it seems to fit here. In the sketch about being questioned for jury duty and the prosecutor asks Dave if he thinks that "it's most likely that O.J. killed his wife," David's answer is that "My blackness won't permit me to say that."
Amanda at August 11, 2008 9:37 AM
Wow Amy, isn't there a way to prohibit idiots from posting on here?
I mean someone who is so stupid to not realize that just because you don't agree with something (Drug War) doesn't change the fact that it is a reality (and that if you shack up with a Drug Dealer you or your kiddies may very well get shot) should be blocked. Especially someone that can't decipher that you don't condone the "war on drugs" or a woman who puts her children at risk, whether they are white, black or the cute little asian down the street.
Typically, illusions of granduer accompanied by aggitation and paranoid ideas is a result of amphetamines or certain hallucinagenics. Maybe it was realitychecks dealer that went down?
dena at August 11, 2008 9:39 AM
"Sure, realitycheck, the mean-ass drunkards who get so wasted they don't know what they're doing when they beat up on their wives and kids aren't violent at all, are they? Oh but, wait, it's not their fault, they were drunk at the time! And the other drunkards who get wasted and then get behind the wheel of their cars and cause horrific accidents aren't a threat to society at large, either. M'kay."
And yet another one who cant grasp the concept of prohibition. If you have a high school diploma, get an attorney and sue that district. They clearly failed you.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:40 AM
Except that it proves no such thing.
The libertarian argument is that if all drugs were legal there would be no need for the street dealers because the drugs could be simply purchased at any establishment that chose to sell them.
This argument falls apart on so many fundamental levels, and is not comparable to alcohol in any reasonable way.
First and foremost, is the assumption that the street dealers (with no marketable skills, no education, and no prospects in mainstream society) are going to willingly watch their 'business' pulled out from under them.
Second, there is the fact that the majority of the drugs at issue are prone to abuse in a way that alcohol is not. The vast majority of alcohol consumers do not drink themselves into a non-functional stupor every time they touch the bottle. This is not true for drugs such as cocaine, heroin, crack, meth.
So, at the very best, what the libertarian "legalize everything" plan does is move the criminal acts from the ghettoes and street-corners into the drug stores.
Because someone who is rendered nonproductive on account of meth abuse isn't really going to be earning the kind of money it takes to buy the drugs legitimately.
One of your problems is you think you're smarter than we are. Your first problem is that you think you think. Your failure to look deeper than a zeroth level analysis of the impact of your belief system tells me you don't spend much time thinking at all.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:40 AM
"You are only trying to draw attention to yourself and not speak about the issue at hand." How could i be doing that? I'm not even using my real name. No, im drawing attention to Amys level of stupid. BTW, capitalizing words like you do just make you look like an attention whore.
No, you are drawing attention to yourself by using typical internet-troll attacks. All of which use either name-calling or logical fallacies. Not using your real name makes it clear that you are too cowardly to stand by your words. Enjoying the attention and trying to get a rise out of people without any risk to yourself.
I had thought others here would eventually stop feeding the troll so you'd get bored and go away. Apparently not happening. So I might as well toss you another scrap to chew on.
I've spent a lot of time mentoring young kids in inner city schools and volunteering in the local food bank and other places in my community. It's a pretty good experience, you should try it sometime. Your only claim to "helping the community" is being a troll on other people's blogs. Wow, what a sacrifice. Maybe you should do something that takes you out of your parents basement and helps people rather than just bitching about imagined slights - which does nothing but feed your ego? Oh, wait, that'd involve risk and actual effort. Never mind.
Jamie (SMS) at August 11, 2008 9:40 AM
Realitycheck - The only opinion that you are spouting about the entire time is how you think Amy looks like a "horse-faced, loud-mouthed racist". If you have an honest opinion then tell us what it is, that is why we are all here. To speak our minds on the subject, not to slander someone just because you are having a bad hair day.
If you read my post, I said that it is a tragedy that the women was killed. I also beleive that the officer who shot her should be brought up on charges.
I take great offence to someone who does not have the courage to use their real name and then to use the worst kind of slander against someone. Show some backbone and use your real name and then lets debate the problem at hand.
Matthew at August 11, 2008 9:41 AM
Have a mask made of your face and wear it on the back of your head. Its a sure fire way to make sure no man would ever want to do that again.
Since, "reality check," all you can talk about is how ugly I am, let me ask you directly: Do you think it's a positive thing for a woman to have six children in eight years with five different drug dealing men? Do you think that this is really healthy and good?
Do you think if maybe, such behavior was met with shame, it might be less likely to occur?
We're not talking black or white here. We're talking "a woman."
Is this healthy behavior? Good for children?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 9:42 AM
This post seems to suggest that the bigger problem here are the poor personal decisions this woman made and not the War on Drugs, which is the thing that actually killed her."
I'm going to agree with Brian on this one. You're assigning all the blame to society and not parceling out any for her poor personal choices when her personal choice to live with a dealer in illegal narcotics is primarily what put her in danger and got her killed. If she had been killed by a rival gang, would we be having this conversation. Yet the danger to her and her children from rival gangs was far greater than the danger from a trigger-happy SWAT team.
I've known a few "poor" people in life (of many races). And, for the most part, their choices are what got them into poverty and/or kept them there.
Yes there is a problem in the black community. There are too many unjust laws targeting them. Causes too many side effects.
So, if an African American person speeds down the freeway and is stopped, is the 55 mph speed law an unjust law targeting the African-American community? Or did that African-American simply decide to take the risk and break the law?
You can't call a law racist just because African-American violators are put in jail. More than a few white people go to jail for violating the drug laws. Ever hear of meth? Yet I don't hear anyone claiming meth is a CIA plot to rid world of white rednecks.
Yeah cause with alcohol prohibition, we're still killing each other over turf wars.
realitycheck, the gangs that distributed the illegal alcohol moved onto fighting over other matters (including illegal drugs) - just like brian said the drug gangs would. Or weren't you aware of Lucky Luciano, the Genovese family, and the post-Prohibition mob-fueled expansion of the heroin trade? How about Sam Giancana, John Gotti, and a host of other post-Prohibition violent gangsters?
Conan the Grammarian at August 11, 2008 9:42 AM
"Wow Amy, isn't there a way to prohibit idiots from posting on here?"
Yes Amy isnt there a way to limit free speech or at least speech that dena doesnt like? Even though dena makes rather rude comments to people who have never spoken to her. Can we please only allow people who post in lockstep with dena? Pleeeeeeeeeease? Thats what America is about, so please?
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:42 AM
And yet another one who cant grasp the concept of prohibition. If you have a high school diploma, get an attorney and sue that district. They clearly failed you.
Fuck off, asshole.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 9:43 AM
This insane belief that if the "war on drugs" were simply ended that the violence would stop is unfathomable.
Good thing I never suggested such a thing.
If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, the violence would not stop. You cannot legitimize a product whose sole purpose is to render the user non-functional. Those people will still resort to crime to get the money needed for their next "fix".
Interesting theory, but ending prohibition in 1933 certainly did end the gang violence. And ending prohibition would make drugs as affordable as booze, lessening the crime associated with addicts looking for money.
It is an ill-conceived solution to a significant problem: "How do we prevent people from becoming burdens on society as a result of their own stupidity?"
Besides the fact that the origins of marijuana prohibition were, in fact, racist attacks on latinos, we spend more money on the WOD than we ever could on treatment and our government frequently uses the war as an excuse to victimize harmless and often innocent citizens. And the fact that black people are arrested and convicted for drug crimes at much higher rates than whites, while not using or selling more drugs than whites, makes it easy to understand why many suspect it is a racist war.
The bottom line is, who owns your body? The government? Or do you own your body? Are you pro-choice? I am, for the same reason I'm anti-prohibition.
Because sometimes the victim deserves the blame.
But, I hope we can agree, not all of it. And not the kind that we, as a society, have any control over. Living with drug dealers didn't kill her. The government killed her.
LJM at August 11, 2008 9:44 AM
I don't limit free speech here -- quite the contrary, since I let you post repeatedly about what an ugly hag I am -- but feel free to accuse me of it anyway, "reality check."
And a question: If your beliefs are so good and right, why not have the courage to post them in your own name? Why the need to hide?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 9:46 AM
"realitycheck, the gangs that distributed the illegal alcohol moved onto fighting over other matters (including illegal drugs) - just like brian said the drug gangs would. Or weren't you aware of Lucky Luciano, the Genovese family, and the post-Prohibition mob-fueled expansion of the heroin trade? How about Sam Giancana, John Gotti, and a host of other post-Prohibition violent gangsters?"
Did the violence associated with prohibition go somewhere else when prohibition was ended? Yes or no. Anything they got into after that was funded from the original profits from prohibition. Shame America never learns this lesson.
None of this is important right now. Whats important right now is that someone posted a comment that dena doesnt like and we cant have that. If we allow that, next thing you know someone else is going to post a comment that dena doesnt like. We just cant have that. What do you think this is, a free country? Next thing you know people will be expressing themselves freely and making their own personal decisions in life all over the place. Thats too creepy.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:47 AM
"It isnt about disagreeing with me. Its about her level of douchebaggery."
Oh, good. An intellectual has joined our discussion group.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 11, 2008 9:50 AM
"Fuck off, asshole."
Posted by: Flynne at August 11, 2008 9:43 AM
Wow what an inspiring post. I can tell there was a lot of deep inner thought involved with that one.
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:50 AM
Brian,
Don't take this as an attack. It's very difficult to read "tone" through the written word, but:
You really have no idea what you are talking about in relation to drugs and the "Drug War". You clearly have not looked at the facts. Rather, it seems you have based your entire attitude on conjecture and emotion. While passion is an invaluable fuel for action, it makes for poor arguments.
Good luck
Edintally at August 11, 2008 9:51 AM
"I don't limit free speech here -- quite the contrary, since I let you post repeatedly about what an ugly hag I am -- but feel free to accuse me of it anyway, "reality check."
You should probably direct that post to dena and your other regular posters who seem to want to deny people the right to speak when that speak doesnt agree with theirs. You attract some real classy posters.
"And a question: If your beliefs are so good and right, why not have the courage to post them in your own name? Why the need to hide?"
Its all the same to me, dear. Frankly, i dont much care whether someone uses their name or not. I would argue that you probably require that of your regular posters as well. Or do we only gripe about that when its an opinion you dont like?
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:53 AM
Wow what an inspiring post. I can tell there was a lot of deep inner thought involved with that one.
Nope, none at all. You get what you give.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 9:53 AM
LJM:
Are you "realitycheck" posting as a sockpuppet, or are you jumping into the conversation as though you'd been here all along?
Actually, it didn't. It only ended the violence associated with alcohol. The protection rackets, the extortion, the infiltration of the labor movement, etc.
Sure, it is possible to argue that absent prohibition that the criminal underworld would never have gotten as strong as it did, but that's kinda pointless since prohibition was virtually inevitable.
And again, alcohol is not the same kind of drug as meth or crack.
I am against abortion because the rights of the yet to be born are not considered valid in the abortion paradigm, which I think is an inconsistent position. I am against the death penalty for a similar reason - the government did not give the life, and therefore has no legitimate claim to take it. I will, however, cop to hypocrisy on that one because I do believe that the victim (or the families thereof) should have a legitimate claim to the life of a killer should they so desire retribution.
And your argument about who owns your body is inherently inconsistent anyhow. We already have plenty of laws that tell you what you can, cannot, and must do with your body. Unless you wanna see all of those go away too, your argument is inconsistent.
The premise behind drug prohibition is also not the same as the one behind alcohol prohibition. Leaving weed aside, most drug prohibition is about not allowing someone to willingly make themselves a burden on society.
And there is no job that any meth-head is going to be able to hold down that will allow them to buy meth. Which is why they turn to crime to fuel their habit. They cannot function within the bounds of mainstream society.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:55 AM
"Nope, none at all. You get what you give."
Is that how you ended up the jizz mopper at the local porn store?
realitycheck at August 11, 2008 9:57 AM
edintally
Don't take this as an attack. It's very difficult to read "tone" through the written word, but:
You really have no idea what you are talking about in relation to drugs and the "Drug War". You clearly have not looked at the facts. Rather, it seems you have based your entire attitude on conjecture and emotion. While passion is an invaluable fuel for action, it makes for poor arguments.
Good luck
If you have nothing of substance to offer me as evidence of my wayward beliefs, I'll assume you have nothing and politely invite you to put up or shut up.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:58 AM
Is that how you ended up the jizz mopper at the local porn store?
in your dreams, baby, in your dreams. Gads, I just loves me an intellecshul! Give us some more of that witty, intellectual banter, "realitycheck"! Oh my gawds I'm quakin' in my boots. What a pinhead.
Flynne at August 11, 2008 10:00 AM
Did the violence associated with prohibition go somewhere else when prohibition was ended?
It stuck around. The drive-by machine gunnings ended because the public had gotten over its fascination with "legitimate businessmen" like Al Capone, Frank Nitti, et al. The gangster was no longer a media darling.
Public outrate over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre gave the police enough public support to step up efforts to stop the violence. The federal government got involved. The FBI cracked down on gangsters.
The gangs dropped the level of violence, not due to the ending of Prohibition, but due to the federal government stepping up law enforcement efforts and costing the gangs money.
Conan the Grammarian at August 11, 2008 10:00 AM
"And i'm sure you will continue to discuss it, by blaming the victims of it and judging only their behavior."
On what else can we judge individuals except their behavior? Surely you're not suggesting we make a judgement on an individual based on some categorization...like the color of their skin, their religion, the clothes they wear or something similar?
moreta at August 11, 2008 10:01 AM
As for how to judge individuals, I favor the Martin Luther King approach, by "the content of their character."
Who here thinks this woman's life choices reflect good character?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 10:05 AM
So realitycheck is a black single mother who doest like anyone pointing out how poor personal choices affect ones life what a shocker she has a personal stake.
Was one of your childrens fathers a drug dealer as well?
Quite frankly the problem with upper level dealers isnt that they deal drug, its that they maintain control with the occasional bullet.
And no matter anyones postion on drugs if you are so deluded as to think laws againt violence are targeted against black people you really have a twisted mind.
And quite frankly RC you blew in here handing out insults, making outrageous claims, and craping out half baked arguments, and why
All beacuse you are pissed that one white woman doesnt feel that badly for someone who willingly and knowingly put herself and her childern in danger?
Something tells me that if Amy commented the same way about a white drug whore you wouldnt care.
Am I wrong?
lujlp at August 11, 2008 10:06 AM
Is that how you ended up the jizz mopper at the local porn store?
There are debates I don't have the chops to be in; usually ones involving physics. I tend to stay on the sidelines and just listen rather than shouting out to those involved that they're cum-mopping losers. If you don't have the chops to debate on the points, it might serve you to follow my lead.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 10:08 AM
Personally I always say never listen to anyone who makes easily verifiable calimas and the refuses to do so.
I find it odd that she is so willing to sling insults and claim shes attractive yet refuses to prove it
lujlp at August 11, 2008 10:14 AM
Well said Matthew and brian. Exactly.
realitycheck what you need is a reality check indeed. I loved your answer to Amy's asking if you'd help her with the inner city kids. You said you wouldn't do anything for her. Umm, moron, it wouldn't be for her, it'd be for the kids. I'm willing to bet that your actual problem signing up for that kind of program would be that you might actually have to deal with the occassional white child.
Either that or the schools reject you because of your hostile attitude and teaching kids to make excuses for themselves rather than making responsible decisions about their own life. For instance, one responsible decision by a young woman would be not to have children until she's on her feet and can afford them and then not to make them with known criminals.
I find it most disturbing that some of you actually argued that the dealers are the ones that have money in the ghetto. Maybe so but that in no way makes them desirable. It's hardly a life of luxury having to worry about their enemies both in and out of law enforcement. It's not like you can breathe easy and live without fear. Get real is all I can say to that.
Frankly, women need to stop looking at men as big fat wallets anyway. Maybe if women stopped looking at men to take care of them, they'd learn to take care of themself. (And, no, I'm not taking on the stay at home mom issue again; as some of you pointed out, there are stay at home moms that are ready to pick up a livlihood any time the need should arise.) I am saying that they need to be prepared to take care of themself: financially, emotionally and physically -- themself and any children they have.
Otherwise, you wind up pathetic enough to find a drug dealer desirable despite the bullets generally aimed in his general direction (and that means you and your kids if you're living/hanging out with him) or the risks of jail and all that implies.
T's Grammy at August 11, 2008 10:14 AM
one white woman doesnt feel that badly for someone who willingly and knowingly put herself and her childern in danger?
Actually, I think it's terrible that she died, and especially terrible for her children, who surely will be farmed out to a bunch of different foster care homes if Wilson's relatives cannot take them in.
But, again, if you cross the street without looking, no you shouldn't be hit by a car, but if you are, it's not inexplicable. The same logic follows here. Going into a home with a woman and six children on a no-knock raid is a recipe for something terrible to happen, and yes, again, I think it's terrible she died. But, again, if you have children, do you have any right put them in jeopardy by being associated with people who are likely to draw police or other criminals with guns into their lives? Not in my book. And that's not a black or white thing, and anybody who makes it one is using this as for their own opportunistic reasons.
Anybody who denies there are problems in the black community related to the lack of stigma for women who associate with criminals and have multiple children without daddy could probably be considered racist -- the kind of racist who denies there's a problem simply by virtue of a person's color.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 10:14 AM
That should be claims
lujlp at August 11, 2008 10:15 AM
Brian,
Interesting that I did my best not to come off as abusive or threatening and you decide not to return the favor.
While I would normally enjoy the back and forth of such a conversation; first, this site is painfully slow. Second it isn't my responsibility to do your homework for you. Last, you and apparently this site as a whole are a bit too combative for a free exchange of ideas. Such is the power of anonymity.
Edintally at August 11, 2008 10:16 AM
realitycheck - Yes there is a problem in the black community. There are too many unjust laws targeting them.
Name one.
P.S. - I like how you break out your rights of free speech and expect them to apply when you want to name call and not make a legit point but you don't expect the law to be enforced when a person is selling drugs. Like I said .... you're a real smart one!
dena at August 11, 2008 10:17 AM
Frankly, women need to stop looking at men as big fat wallets anyway. Maybe if women stopped looking at men to take care of them, they'd learn to take care of themself.
This is one of the messages I put out to the girls in the inner-city school. If you can always rely on yourself for income and for having a sense of pride in who you are and what you do, you can be with a man for the right reasons, and you then have a luxury of choosing from the best possible men, not latching onto any man who will pay for you...or staying with an abuser because you need his paycheck.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 10:17 AM
So Amy, are you going to actually answer Radley's response to your column, or are you going to continue to obfuscate and use the "I'm not a racist!!!" response?
Andrew at August 11, 2008 10:19 AM
Good PR move Edintally. You've got 24 guests at "your" site...only to find out its a site belonging to a privately held company in LA devoted to rating cops. I think that URL is supposed to be a link to your "personal" site so people can get a better understanding of the position you are debating from. I could be wrong, but it didn't really help me understand your positions...except maybe you've got a hate-on for cops?
moreta at August 11, 2008 10:22 AM
Andrew, I responded to Radley immediately, just above, when he commented here. I'll paste my comment in below:
What I find creepy is the assumption that I am racist because I see a problem in a community, which happens to be the black community, and I openly say so. I likewise criticize many problems in many communities. Just scroll down. It's called having values and judgement. A lack of values and a lack of judgement is what leads women -- and again, women of any race -- to have multiple children with multiple drug dealers.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 10:28 AM
First, I'm not anonymous assnozzle.
Second, whenever someone starts a paragraph with "Don't take this as an attack", it's an attack.
Third, the site you link is a clear indicator that you have a bias in the matter.
The site is not painfully slow, so the problem is clearly on your end.
Your implication that I need to do "homework" is insulting.
brian at August 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Ooo it's fun in here today! Just what I needed for a little Monday pick-me-up!
I think there's a point needing mentioning: there is a difference b/w booze and, say, crack.
Some substances affect your body more than others. After a bout of incredibly bad muscle cramps I was given a perkoset. I took half. I was asleep less than 25 minutes later and stayed there for 3 hours. Now, I can easily handle a bottle of wine over the course or a few hours and feel "fine." Tipsy, sure. I wouldn't drive or anything but I'm not off the wall.
I have read about hard drugs - the reactions people have to them and the affects they have on human bodies. They are more severe than booze. And more likely to addict the user.
A person who must ABUSE substances in order to feel ok and get through life (any substance) is a drain on society. Even if they're holding a job. Even if they're paying taxes. B/c one day it'll catch up and the user will be sick, debilitated, etc. It's a bullet most no one dodges for a lifetime.
Regardless of my "biases" against substance abuse, one thing is always true: there will always be SOMETHING people want to abuse. There will always be people doing things that create negative effects.
If we legalized drugs and let all the dealers out of prison do you think they're going to morph into good fathers? Do you think these people are willing to go earn a good living to make sure their kids have health insurance? Do you think the mother was clueless to the fact these men wouldn't be there to help out with the kids? Do you think the home life of these children is really OKAY? (Note: I didn't say single parents are inept or bad. My parents are getting divorced and my brother, who lives at home still b/c he's 15, will be all the better for it.)
There's something BIGGER than "evil drug laws" here. This woman didn't deserve to die but the entire situation, from all angles, is so tragic and sad and sickening and speaks of many different issues going on. Libertarian drug freedom is the least of the problems here, I think.
Gretchen at August 11, 2008 10:34 AM
That article in the NYT mentioned the marches the community held for several days in protest of the police. Too bad the people in that community didn't feel it was important to protest all of the drug dealers. How many of her neighbors talked to Tarika and let her know what they thought of the dealer she allowed to live in her home?
Amanda at August 11, 2008 10:39 AM
If there are specific laws targeted against Black people (as well as Hispanics and Asians) it's the drug laws, themselves.
The history of the laws make interesting reading, but you have to recall the context in the laws were formulated. A context in which casual expressions of racism were common. And a perception by the dominant (White) portion of society that the minority populations were barely civilized and required constant 'monitoring' (translation, social repression) to maintain societal order. From this attitude did the first national drug laws arise. But only historians would bother to research this; most people are under the mistaken impression we've had a DrugWar in this country since the inception of the Republic.
This tragedy was a product of the DrugWar as much as it was one of the individual's personal circumstances. The two are indivisible. And so long as the DrugWar continues, this will happen again...and again...and again.
nemo at August 11, 2008 10:47 AM
No, you didn't respond to Radley's blog entry, which addresses your "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" foolishness. If you need help, it's here:
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/08/11/um-no/
Andrew at August 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Nemo -
I don't care if you go all the way back to Jim Crow. Attempting to use the argument that the law is inherently racist does nothing to the argument that if Tarika Wilson had not been in that apartment, she would be alive today.
Cocaine used to be a drug of the wealthy and privileged. You'll note that it's also illegal. I'll note that you'll no doubt respond that minimum sentencing laws make crack possession more 'expensive' than cocaine possession, and that this is due solely to the racial orientation of the groups that favor both forms of the drug. However, any statistical analysis of relative harm will come down on the side of crack being more harmful not because of the skin color of its primary users, sellers, or makers - but because of the actual harm to society as a result of the activities surrounding the drug's creation, sale, and consumption.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a law with disproportionate impact isn't racist.
brian at August 11, 2008 10:55 AM
The thing is, before drug prohibition (which came around in the early 1900s) there was very little real problem with drugs. Yes, some people did use them and rack up their lives, but there wasn't any huge epidemic of violence---outside of the sensationalist newspapers, the same ones that loudly assured their readers that drinking one glass of beer would inevitably start you off on the one-way road to alcoholism.
While I am completely against the War on Drugs, and consider it to be un-American (a Commie plot? Could be!) I also do think that this woman's idiotic lifestyle directly contributed to her death. It's not well-known other than to us true-crime buffs, but one of the victims of the infamous St. Valentine's Day Massacre was no more of a gangster than Amy is...he was just a holster-sniffing wannabe who thought hanging with real live gangsters was cool, and ended up shot like a real live gangster. Ooops!
If you hang around with violent criminals, you accept a risk of being shot---by the cops, or by another criminal.
Oh---and while I don't agree with her on some things, I don't think Amy's ugly at all. I find her attractive, and I think we'd get along.
Technomad at August 11, 2008 10:59 AM
Andrew, if you've got something to say, it helps to say it. (Perhaps you equate speaking one's mind with being racist?) Now that you have actually done more than hint, I am aware Radley's posted something about it. And I left a comment there:
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 11:02 AM
"we've had a DrugWar in this country since the inception of the Republic."
No, we're all pretty aware of the fact you could buy heroin through the Sears&Roebuck catalog up through the early 1920s. And you know there used to be cocaine in Coca-Cola, right? This has been discussed on this site before.
I'll agree there are certain character-assumptions people draw about drug users and that users get lumped into a single group.
But it's worth mentioning, again, that there's a huge difference b/w heroin and beer. Also, the main users of the heroin via the Sears catalog were women who were lonely on the homestead while husband was taking a trip to town (a one week affair sometimes). While it most definitely doesn't create a good home life it wouldn't have the same affect as today b/c most women need to work.
And a correction - this War on Drugs isn't a "black problem" it's a socioeconomic problem that affects lower income families. And these lower income groups are disproportionately black.
Why is that?!? Let's change that. Black people deserve the same chance as everyone else to make something of themselves. Let's deal with that and what people in those neighborhoods, lawmakers and tax payers can do to create change.
*Hint*: legalizing drugs and letting the dealers/users out of prison is NOT going to create a cultural shift in low income areas where education and cohesive family structure are suddenly a priority. Another hint: when we talk about "drug dealers" we can also mention people who steal cars, hold up banks, and mug people on the streets as being in the same category. Legalize and govern drugs (and de-sleazify it) and they'll move on to something else. Being legit takes a lot of work. You have to, like, show up to work on time, and, like, pay taxes, which, like, puts a major dent into my usage *coughing up smoke* and recreational activities. (Note to the computer spies at my company: I don't do drugs.)
Gretchen at August 11, 2008 11:04 AM
Amy asked: Do you think it's a positive thing for a woman to have six children in eight years with five different drug dealing men?
Reproductively - and only reproductively - it is a “positive thing” if you want kids, and you’re going to be in your grave at 26.
The woman didn’t have much time to wait around being picky.
Which is only one reason I don’t agree with momof3 who wrote: She was scum who's life was a waste.
Jody Tresidder at August 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Good point, Amanda. Just once I'd like to see that happen. We have it against rapists (even if it is sponsored by NOW, at least we have it). How about we march agianst drug dealers. Sadly, I know if my white ass suggests it, it will be labelled racist.
We have a black woman here, Alice Green, who speaks out very vocally and is kind of a local hero and I admire her very much. One reason: she's often made remarks about blacks (all people actually) taking responsibility for themself and their neighborhoods but she does not coddle to white men in charge to do it. Here's a link:
http://nys.greens.org/alicegreen/
She's very softly outspoken and level-headed. We do have a problem with abandoned housing here and I love her idea for affordable house. It solves both problems and it would give me and my daughter incentive to move in and do the work. While she does mention that racism still exists, she doesn't assume all whites are racist and she doesn't think that makes excuses for irresponsible behavior on the part of blacks.
And she spoke out about the cops killing an innocent bystander in a high speed shootout with a criminal in the busiest part of downtown (I still get chills at the memory, I had just left the intersection and lived around the corner and heard the gunshots) even though the college kid killed was white.
We need more people like her who care about everyone, not just those the same color as they are.
T's Grammy at August 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Brian, if the fruit of a tree is known to be toxic, then it's a safe assumption the tree is, also. From the seeds of the poison fruit of racism the DrugWar was sprouted.
We didn't have drug laws for the first century of the Republic; we only got them after a bunch of racist crackers managed to spook the rest of society into pushing for them. By doing so, it created the niche that was immediately filled by criminals. Criminals who had an even greater incentive to create substances like 'crack' when previously most of the drugs were naturally grown and produced (cannabis, opium, etc.). The laws created the opportunity for criminals to exist. So we have the situation we do today.
As to the harms done by drugs, well, it is drug prohibition that has led to the creation of greater harms, such as to our civil liberties. The 4th Amendment has practically been done away with by the current crop of such rights-corroding laws such as the PATRIOT Act and the MCA. But they all had their start in the DrugWar.
Quite frankly, I don't mind if an idiot gives himself a 'hot-shot' and dies of his own hand. I really take exception, though, when law abiding citizens are harmed by bad laws and their enforcement in equally bad fashion. Said idiot, under a drug regulation regime such as we have with alcohol and tobacco, would for the most part hurt mainly himself, in much the same way a juicer does. but the drug laws have spawned other laws that proved injurious to civili liberties our grandparents thought were inviolable. A situation that arguably would not exist, were the drug laws as they stand today eliminated.
nemo at August 11, 2008 11:15 AM
No, I equate your words with being racist. Thanks though. Your "I said it about these other groups!!" is no different than someone saying "I'm not a racist! I have black friends!"
You also failed to answer his point there, but hey, at least you tried.
Andrew at August 11, 2008 11:24 AM
nemo - you have no way of knowing that any of the side-effects of drug prohibition would be different if only we hadn't made drugs illegal.
You do understand the genesis of prohibition, right? That came about because of the concerns of a small group of nanny-staters about the damaging social impact of strong drink. Since alcohol impaired morals, it needed to be outlawed.
Drugs are different. Before prohibition, the majority of alcohol "users" were not drunks, roaming the street engaging in petty crime and harassment. They were productive citizens who were not obsessed with finding their next fix.
I'm going out on a limb here because I don't have the scholarly documentation to back it up, but other than weed (where the laws were, in fact, a racist response to anti-mexican sentiment), most drug users were upper-class whites who were getting hooked on opiates.
And seriously, are you really going to try to argue that the majority of hard drug users AREN'T addicts? Do you think that heroin users will become more responsible with their consumption if only we legalize it? Please.
The problem with the drug laws is not the laws themselves, but the manner in which they are enforced. We keep trying to control both sides of the game. Concentrate on drying up demand, and the supply will necessarily disappear.
brian at August 11, 2008 11:24 AM
Personally, the reason I push for legalization of drugs.
If its legal you'll get a better quailty, and a larger quantity and addicts will be more likely to od and die thus solving the problem for us.
Quite franlky I'd like to see hard core drugs given away for free, expidite the process
lujlp at August 11, 2008 11:41 AM
To quote Brian, "Drugs are different". Sadly another myth that is propagated by the drug prohibitionists.
Alcohol is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Caffeine is a drug. Even chocolate contains a drug called theobromine. They're drugs. People who use them are drug users. People who use them too frequently often become drug addicts. And if you're going to tell me that alcohol, with all it's myriad health-destroying properties, is not a 'hard drug', then you are contradicting your own premise about the dangers of such drugs to society, and somehow booze is 'different'.
Yet compared to the societal damage that is caused by the laws to prevent (previously legal and now illegal) drug usage, the users are less destructive of our rights than the laws are.
And, as to your assertion that everyone who uses hard drugs winds up an addict, then this should be of interest to you: The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction by Bruce K. Alexander Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University. As always, it's a lot more complicated than a simple open/shut attitude can support.
But my main thrust is that society as a whole is harmed more by the drug laws than by the drugs and their users. A regulation schema that replaces the cartels with a state-control mechanism would lead to the diminution of the harms that we are presently suffering courtesy of drug prohibition....which is purportedly functioning for the 'greater good', but arguably does the exact opposite.
nemo at August 11, 2008 11:43 AM
No, I equate your words with being racist.
Why?
And if I'd say the exact things about white people -- and do -- why is it racist to say them about black people?
I find it racist to say I can't criticize black people.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 11:52 AM
"But when you compare a black woman to an animal "squeezing out litters," you open yourself up to charges of racism." Um she says that about any one squeezing out a litter. The argument your using is that in the past white people may have used that to refer to all black people thus you can not use that reference when it fits, regardless of race. So due to the action of dumb white (western European immigrants) we are now band from using speech that may be colored with racial epitaphs. I can see that reaction to outright racial slurs but your pushing it. This is the same as stupid crap about black holes that Amy blogged about earlier.
Now I'm going to do something rarely seen by us crackers, I'm plying the race card. First not all white people are the same race. Half literate mayflower era southerners are not remotely related to us recent arrivals and we will not be held accountable for their action. That's like having to pay restitution for your neighbor dealing coke which is bullshit.
Now as far as the shooting, the cops can either be inept or racist not both. He knew he was shooting an unarmed black women and thus is a racist, that would make him one stupid racist. He could have just fired into a dark room or at motion, either of which is not right as per procedure. He could not have done both. Should it have happened obviously not, we are all agreed on this point and yet someone wants to debate through insults about it.
The drug war: Well one quick and easy way would be for community leaders to push against local people using the stuff. However drug related recidivism is lower for productive members of society, so the leg up program seem to work. Making it legal will do very little for the drug war. Has no one heard of black market cigarettes and booze, both are quite lucrative. Smokers would rather pay 15 buck a carton illegally than 70 at the corner store. Legal and affordable are two very different things.
Final though: Think before you scream racist, they may just hate you for being an asshole your race may be coincidence.
vlad at August 11, 2008 11:58 AM
I never said it's racist to criticize black people. I agree there's a problem in people believing that, just like too many of my fellow jews believe it's anti-semetic to criticize jews or Israel.
That being said, what you said was still racist, from an objective point of view. The fact that you've said similar stuff about other groups matters not.
Andrew at August 11, 2008 11:59 AM
The boyfriends, the pit bulls, the drug deals--why is this all so drearily familiar? While the raid was probably poorly managed, gunfire is an environmental hazard when your house has drug dealers in it.
And as for Alkon's alleged racism--I don't see any proof at that.
Rachel at August 11, 2008 12:00 PM
Amanda, Thanks for your input. I guess it's also quite true that some white people don't value themselves or anyone else, so I don't think it's racist to say one way or the other. Our lovely mayor of Detroit, whenever caught in one of his little mishaps, generally responded that people were trying to persecute him because he's black. (you know, not because he lied under oath, wasted $9 million of taxpayers' money, etc.). I was amazed how opinion of him GENERALLY went down race lines--whites thought he was playing the "race card" and blacks supported him no matter what. Now, I CAN understand wanting to support someone you thought was doing the city good for a while, someone you identify with. But at the same time, anyone can be an ass and if someone's an ass s/he should be called on it, no matter his/her background. (Dave Chappelle is funny as hell, btw!).
Monica at August 11, 2008 12:05 PM
nemo - none of your links work. Please check your HTML-fu.
As to the destructive impact of "drugs", please have a sense of proportion.
I don't know of anyone who would literally kill for a cuppa joe.
In fact, until the Mexican Federales got into the pot industry, not too many people were shot for weed either.
But it appears that violence and depravity have followed narcotics everywhere they go.
Chemicals that fuck with dopamine production are not things I want the public having unregulated access to.
brian at August 11, 2008 12:06 PM
I know I am late in this little debate of ours so I will be brief; I believe that the best way to NOT be hit by a train is to stay clear of the tracks. Having a sexual fetish for dope sellers set you to be shot in a drug-related incident.
I don't expect the Black-Race apologists like Jesse Jackson to understand my simple philosophy to "Stay out of trouble".
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 12:10 PM
Still working my way through it, but here's the link to the study nemo cited. Interesting stuff, so far.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/alexender-e.htm
moreta at August 11, 2008 12:14 PM
Damn. Aint' that true.
Women say, "our bodies, our choice." I agree. I also add, "your body, your choice, your responsibility."
When women have children they can't support, forcing the state to take money from other citizens and subsidize sexual irresponsibility, I say that's prima fascia evidence that the mother is unfit. Take those kids away from her, and give them to someone who can afford to care for them.
Men sometimes act irresponsibly towards their children. We shame the hell out of them. And we should.
Only women get pregnant. It's their body. It's their choice. When women act irresponsibly towards their children, they deserve at least at much shame as men
We don't do that. Women who can't support their children, who literally force other people to pay for their children, those women are often treated like helpless victims of their own vagina.
Bullshit. I can't stand the infantilization of women in our culture. I know these women can't grow a pair, but they could at least grow the fuck up. Our culture and our government could at least treat them like adults, instead of helpless disembodied vaginas popping out random kids. For fuck's sake.
And don't give me that "if the fathers would only pay..." Sure the fathers should pay. Hell yes. But these dimwited baby machines often don't even know who the father is. Absent rape, they're choosing ot have babies with men who can't support a family. Like I said, women have the choice and all the reproductive rights. With all those rights come responsibilities too. Women go ape-shit when I remind them of this fact. I dunno why. We say this kind of thing to men all the time.
And another thing. Amy kicks ass, while having a rather nice one herself.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 12:16 PM
"A regulation schema that replaces the cartels with a state-control mechanism would lead to the diminution of the harms that we are presently suffering courtesy of drug prohibition" That would be the ATF for alchool tabbaco and fire arms, that hasn't worked out great either.
Brian, I have to disagree with you on the alchool being different, it's a matter of dose. However it's a lot harder to get alchool poisoning that it is to overdose on "hard" drugs.
vlad at August 11, 2008 12:16 PM
"That being said, what you said was still racist, from an objective point of view. The fact that you've said similar stuff about other groups matters not." If you feel a certain action is bad, stupid, etc. and you call anyone doing this a moron regardless of race how is that racist? especially from an objective point of view?
vlad at August 11, 2008 12:20 PM
In my view, it's foolish to base drug laws on biochemistry. Law is an area of practical reasoning, not theoretical reasoning. The challenge is to craft laws that are prudent, that tend to promote human flourishing.
Do drug laws retard human flourishing? Would the absence of drug laws? What is the experience of states that have rescinded their drug laws or that have escalated their drug laws?
These are the kinds of practical questions I think we ought to address.
I'm still unsure. I haven't studied the issue sufficiently.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 12:22 PM
vlad hates me, but I have say he's asking the right questions here.
Define racism and then show it applies here.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 12:24 PM
Vlad put it so well:
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 12:26 PM
Amanda, you really got me thinking about how majority versus minority people view other members of the majority/minority. As a white person, I can say unilaterally that I do not identify with another person simply because they are also white. I identify with people based on shared interests, hobbies, professions, because we just click, whatever. But never because someone shares me race/ethnicity. I think America doesn't really truly have a melting pot; Mexicans live in one part of town, Asians in another, African Americans in another, whites in another... so maybe those historically not part of the mainstream felt a stronger allegiance to members of their own group and that carries through today. I don't know. My parents were immigrants but didn't come the same time as others in their country, so I never had this sense of a smaller community within a larger community to whom I felt allegiance. Interesting discussion!
Monica at August 11, 2008 12:28 PM
I know people like to get angry at Jesse Jackson for excusing black people all the time... but didn't he at one point say something along the lines of how he was sick of the way the community was behaving, and sick of being scared when he heard someone walking behind him at night, and turning around and being relieved when the person was white?
NicoleK at August 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Brian wrote: nemo - you have no way of knowing that any of the side-effects of drug prohibition would be different if only we hadn't made drugs illegal.
Brian, I'm afraid that's incorrect; we do, indeed, know what it was like before the drug laws created the black market. No 'dynamic entries', no people or pets being shot, no 'drug courts', no loss of civil liberties, no massive prison population, etc. All these are results of the DrugWar, not the precursors of it.
Vlad, the fact of the matter remains that under the present regulation schema for alcohol, no one is being killed or injured courtesy of the kind of crime this nation experienced thanks to alcohol Prohibition. No one is holding up average citizens to get their fix of booze, you only have to contend with the pathetic panhandlers trying to BS you out of your pocket change. Vastly preferable to Tommy-gun toting 'Mustachioed Petes' gunning down innocent bystanders in the original 'drive-bys'.
Whereas the same cannot be said of today's drug prohibition.
nemo at August 11, 2008 12:30 PM
I know people like to get angry at Jesse Jackson for excusing black people all the time... but didn't he at one point say something along the lines of how he was sick of the way the community was behaving, and sick of being scared when he heard someone walking behind him at night, and turning around and being relieved when the person was white?
NicoleK at August 11, 2008 12:31 PM
Well not really. Maybe this me being a picky logician, but existentially he could be both. He could be a racist who also shot randomly into the dark. But we couldn't state evidence that he was both from the facts presented here.
We know de dicto he can't be both, but we don't know that de re. But I'm probably being a pedantic asshole again.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 12:32 PM
Jeff wrote "Women who can't support their children, who literally force other people to pay for their children, those women are often treated like helpless victims of their own vagina." LOL!!! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when reading that.
Monica at August 11, 2008 12:35 PM
I'm not sure if its so much "harder to get alcohol poisoning" or we just have better life-experience, conditioning and control of alcohol. Take a newbie to alcohol and put 40 oz of whiskey in front of them and I see a recipe for quick and easy alcohol poisoning.
If coke was sold at the corner store in single dosage blister packs and kids experimented by stealing small bits from their parent's stash and replacing it with baking soda (not sure if that works like water in alcohol -- I avoided coke), and then someone knows a friend who knows a friend that nearly died and you did some really stupid stuff that one time...wouldn't it be similar? I dunno...just asking.
moreta at August 11, 2008 12:35 PM
It's almost rhetorically impossible to criticize black people without being called a racist, if you criticize women you will be called a misogynist (trust me I know!). Therefore, it's really hard to criticize black women.
Amy's taking the heat. You gotta' respect it.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 12:37 PM
"Litters"?
Nope. No racism there...
nitpicker at August 11, 2008 12:39 PM
Nitpicker, please define racism and show it applies here.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 12:45 PM
"We know de dicto he can't be both, but we don't know that de re. But I'm probably being a pedantic asshole again." No you have a very valid point I should have been more specific. The act could have been racially motivated or the action of an inept cop, not both.
""Litters"?
Nope. No racism there..." Look up the term racism. If you think that any women who has 6 kids in 8 years by multiple father is making litter then you might be a sexist but so long as you'd say it about any race your not a racist.
vlad at August 11, 2008 12:47 PM
The very definition of racism involves treating people differently because of their race. If Amy is applying the same standards to men and women of all races, I fail to see how that is racism. We can't cry racism or sexism simply because we don't like what people are saying.
MonicaP at August 11, 2008 12:48 PM
I must be simple, so I need someone to explain it to me simply. Amy calls any batch of kids more than you can afford a "litter". She distributes her cutting analogy equally across all races. I'm missing how this indicates she views race as the "primary factor determining human traits and abilities." Just telling me it does, doesn't help me as I'm not very good a "faith-based" reasoning.
moreta at August 11, 2008 12:49 PM
Whenever we get some news story about the "miracle" of some woman on fertility treatment having 6 babies, the first thing I say is "humans are not supposed to have litters."
6 babies of any species, race, or whatever grouping you want to use is a litter by definition.
Now, maybe having 6 babies one by each over 6 years isn't technically a litter, but it's close enough for me.
Nemo - you're confusing causality with coincidence. In your haste to condemn the government at every turn, you see the drug war as the genesis of all bad things.
The only thing that the drug war gave us that was bad that we wouldn't otherwise have is the SWAT-style raid. Absent the drug war, we'd still have the drive-by shootings, still have the dealers on the corners.
You can argue all you want that legalizing the drugs would get rid of this, but you'd be wrong for the simple reason that there is virtually no amount of a drug like heroin that doesn't render its user incapable of being a productive member of society such that they can then afford their drugs.
So, unless you're proposing that we not only legalize the drugs, but also subsidize the users such that they don't need to be productive members of society OR criminal leeches, I don't see how legalization does anything for us.
I'd like to see the SWAT tactics go away. But the other problems won't be solved by ignoring them and hoping the unicorns take them away.
brian at August 11, 2008 12:49 PM
Moreta et. al. :
Racism is defined thus:
Anything a white person says about a black person.
Thus, my calling Halle Berry hot makes me a racist.
It's so much simpler when you can think at the low level of the race pimp.
brian at August 11, 2008 12:51 PM
Maybe if Amy is getting labeled a racist often, she should maybe look at herself.
amen at August 11, 2008 12:56 PM
I'm losing track here. Can someone enumarate for me the top 5 justifcations for a cop shooting to death an unarmed woman kneeling on the floor with her child in her arms?
Legalize at August 11, 2008 12:58 PM
"Litters"?
"Nope. No racism there..."
Any woman who has six children by five diffrent men has "litters of children". Get it? It's not about her race it's about a woman who breeds like an animal. My grandma had litters of children, she had 13. Do you know the reason? Because she bred like an animal in a society that considered it acceptable (Mexican). Of course she did this with only one man...but somehow I dont think they put much philosophical thought into the whole reproductive process.
PurplePen at August 11, 2008 12:58 PM
Brian -- doesn't your argument suppose that if the drugs were legal, more people than we have right now, would become unproductive members of society?
Theoretically, we'd have a much smaller illegal distribution system (I'd agree there will always be bootleggers, etc.) and so the crime from that would diminish to the relatively small (my supposition...no hard data) scale of cigarettes & alcohol.
We'd probably get more middle-class experimentation with some of these drugs, but I don't believe we'd see an increase in addicition and therefore we'd have the same level of crime related to users.
Less dealer crime, same user crime. And in my unicorn-infested world, the resources being used to bust corner dealers and people carrying a personal quantity of drugs could go towards rehab and taking down the thieves feeding a habit.
moreta at August 11, 2008 1:03 PM
"I'm losing track here. Can someone enumarate for me the top 5 justifcations for a cop shooting to death an unarmed woman kneeling on the floor with her child in her arms?""
1) Didn't know what he was shooting at
2) Under heavy fire and panicked
3) She went for a weapon
4) Hit during heavy fire and gun went off
5) Ricochet
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:03 PM
women in the black community who squeeze out litters of fatherless children
Humans don't have "litters". Animals do.
If you don't want to be called a racist then don't talk about black people like they are animals.
Its not really hard to understand if you think about it.
libarbarian at August 11, 2008 1:04 PM
"I'm losing track here. Can someone enumarate for me the top 5 justifcations for a cop shooting to death an unarmed woman kneeling on the floor with her child in her arms?" No one said the cop was correct in his actions, he screwed the pooch and should be punished. We are all questioning the racial aspect of it.
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:06 PM
Thanks, vlad. I meant justifications for actions taken in the present case.
Legalize at August 11, 2008 1:07 PM
p.s. vlad, the list you provided is a list of excuses, not justifications.
Legalize at August 11, 2008 1:10 PM
"If you don't want to be called a racist then don't talk about black people like they are animals." She says the same thing about white people doing the same thing. Again being black is coincidence to the litter making.
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:11 PM
If you are hurling charges of racism often, perhaps you should reexamine yourself. Maybe you're misusing the concept 'racism,' or maybe you're using it a proxy for reasonable engagement.
Heh. That kind of writing is why PirateJo used to make fun of me.
"proxy for reasonable engagement"
Holy shit.
I meant: "Maybe you're confusing racism and criticism. Examine your own self, amen."
Jeff at August 11, 2008 1:11 PM
I'm also losing track. I can't see where anyone said there was "justification" for a cop shooting to death an unarmed woman kneeling on the floor with her child in her arms.
There are reasons he may have done it accidentally, and there are (deplorable) reasons he may have done it purposefully. These are not the same things.
Her decision to live with and make babies with not one but several drug dealers is what I believe is at issue. And more specifically, that this isn't veiwed as a character flaw in her community. If it was viewed as such in her community, she'd have been less inclined to be there in the first (well actually, sixth!) place.
moreta at August 11, 2008 1:12 PM
"p.s. vlad, the list you provided is a list of excuses, not justifications." No one is justifying the cops action.
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:12 PM
Vlad, I think that Legalize is looking for "justifications" like:
he was compensating for a really small penis
he likes shooting dogs and women and babies
he likes shooting black people
he likes shooting
he is just a criminal with a badge that has been enabled by a fascist government to slaughter American citizens without fear of retribution or consequence.
You know, the standard litany.
brian at August 11, 2008 1:14 PM
To those of you who believe that the victim here is partially at fault for who she chose to live with and who fathered her children, a question:
Does a woman who goes to a club wearing a short skirt bear the blame if she is raped?
Andrew at August 11, 2008 1:14 PM
"Maybe if Amy is getting labeled a racist often, she should maybe look at herself."
Good question, but the expression of several people in ONE thread doesn't constitute "often", I'd say it was a difference of opinion. Several people over SEVERAL threads would. Amy, you have an excellent grasp of your previous blogs. Have you ever had charges of racism leveled at you prior to this? I've read over so many of your past blogs and don't recall any that stand out....?
juliana at August 11, 2008 1:14 PM
Her decision to live with and make babies with not one but several drug dealers is what I believe is at issue. And more specifically, that this isn't veiwed as a character flaw in her community. If it was viewed as such in her community, she'd have been less inclined to be there in the first (well actually, sixth!) place (moreta)
I agree!
Jeff at August 11, 2008 1:16 PM
Moreta - I think I see where you and I differ.
How many people can "experiment" with meth or cocaine or heroin and not become addicts? I'd wager that is a small number. I'd also wager that there is a significant number of people who don't even experiment because they fear getting their door kicked in and the public humiliation attendant with a public trial.
So I don't believe that the number of drug users/abusers will stay steady or drop. I believe it will increase, and pretty dramatically, with a not insignificant number of people being reduced to useless lumps of flesh in the grand scheme of things.
I also believe the number of innocents killed in the pursuit of these drugs will increase, as armed thugs invade drug stores to forcibly take the drugs that they either cannot get a prescription for, or cannot buy due to lack of income.
Because we both know that there's no way in hell Blue Cross is gonna cover $15,000 a month for "snacks".
brian at August 11, 2008 1:18 PM
"There is nothing we can do about bad personal choices. There is lots we can (and should) do about the totalitarian War on (Some) Drugs and sloppy police work. This post seems to suggest that the bigger problem here are the poor personal decisions this woman made and not the War on Drugs, which is the thing that actually killed her."
Are you f-ing kidding me??? Yes, we can do things about bad personal choices. It's called social shaming, and it used to be a very, very powerful mitivator. Until, coincidently enough, welfare was made available to single mothers. Now, we can't criticize anyone for doing anything. Unless, of course, you're black and criticizing whitey for not respecting your fascination with popping out fatherless welfare kids, and glorifying violence and law-breaking in your music, and thinking it's ok to break the law cause it pays better.
momof3 at August 11, 2008 1:18 PM
Yes.
It doesn't justify her having been raped. Nor does it indicate that she either wanted to be raped, or deserved to be raped.
But if you put yourself into a situation where you ought to realize there is a danger of bad things happening, you bear at least some responsibility if bad things happen.
If you don't wear a motorcycle helmet, and someone intentionally runs you off the road, and you die, well, it's partly your fault, because you weren't wearing the helmet.
Doesn't absolve the guy who ran you off the road. But it also doesn't support the argument that you ought to be able to ride helmet-free without being hit. Because life being what it is, we just can't guarantee those kinds of things.
brian at August 11, 2008 1:21 PM
Andrew -- that depends...is she in a shady (insert your own vision here) bar, "self-medicated" beyond comprehension and wandering into the empty men's room with a big guy she just met? Should she be raped? No. Did she put herself in a situation where she was in likely danger, you bet your ass. I still feel badly for her, but going around whining that all men, all bars, all whatever are out to get women in short skirts is bullshit. She KNOWS she was being stupid and figures if she whines loud enough none of it will be her fault. Oh lord...did I just agree with Jeff???
moreta at August 11, 2008 1:22 PM
"No one said the cop was correct in his actions, he screwed the pooch and should be punished. We are all questioning the racial aspect of it."
Really? 'Cause I kind of question that when I read comments that tend to blame the woman for getting shot, rather than the cop who shot her. I am dubious when I read comments comparing this woman to a drunk driver who killed someone. When the "personal responsibility" meme gets tossed out for the dead unarmed woman, and not the unarmed cop, I get a little suspicious. Contrary to the numerous baseless suggestions, there's is no evidence that this woman was armed or otherwise involved in criminal activity here. There is no evidence proving that she was user herself.
And no, spending time with drug dealers is not a crime; nor is having multiple children by multiple fathers.
Legalize at August 11, 2008 1:25 PM
No, brian. I was looking for actual justifications. Not the good ol': the woman in the short skirt should be blamed for getting raped gag. By your "reasoning" had the mail man been killed in the cross-fire he would deserve some of the blame too. Right? No one FORCED him to delier the mail in such a dangerous neighborhood.
Legalize at August 11, 2008 1:28 PM
Andrew-
I just spent a week in a ghetto in the Dominican Republic. The women in our group, especially the young cuties, were warned; 1) Do not look the local men in the eye 2) Do not say hello or speak to them even if they address you 3)Do not walk the neighborhood alone. Ever.
If any of the women had ignored any of these warnings, it could quickly turn into a tragedy. And while they were being patched up, they would be asked what the hell they were thinking.
It reads like an algebra "If/then" logic statement. If you take risks, then something bad might happen. We would all like to live in a world where rapes and murders don't exist. But I'm not going to cross my fingers, or pray, or whatever, and demand that the world fulfill my utopian view of how it should be, then be surprised when it doesn't. I can also say this possessing a degree in Women's Studies, though my professors would probably try to revoke it upon reading this.
juliana at August 11, 2008 1:29 PM
A swat team doesnt go in on a drug raid without weeks of survalence and a warrant..
actually, you're wrong. PC is needed, but that doesn't include wiretapping or SURVEILLANCE. you may want to work on your grasp of reality and not what you learned on the last episode of SVU.
ani at August 11, 2008 1:29 PM
"Does a woman who goes to a club wearing a short skirt bear the blame if she is raped?" If it's a known shit hole hang out with a heavy criminal element and she goes alone, to some extent yes. Actually the same would go for any women (skits or fatigues) or man (gay bars) going into any seedy shit hole. Amy said as much when she got groped walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night. If you are ignorant of the fact that it's a dangerous shit hole not quite the persons fault. Are you attempting to argue that she had no idea drug dealers were bullet magnets? She made bad choices that put her in harms way and we should learn from them check out the bar and don't go alone your first time, don't date drug dealers. Sound like a simple lesson to me.
This dose not change the fact that the cops fucked up and the rapist should be punished.
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:29 PM
Acutally, Legalize, spending time with drug dealers CAN be a crime.
And the argument here is quite simple.
1) This woman would be dead regardless of her race because of where she chose to spend her time.
2) This cop was going to shoot someone because of poor training, poor discipline, or some other trait that really made him unfit for the position.
3) This woman was at high risk of being shot by someone not in law enforcement, again, because of who she chose to spend her time with.
She did, with no concern for the safety of the six minors in her care, co-habitate with a man who was engaged in a high-risk illegal business where collateral damage is a part of life.
Would all the Reason types be so angry about this if she was shot by a rival gang leader instead of by a cop?
Yeah, that's what I thought. So why don't you guys go re-evaluate your self-righteousness over a nice cold glass of shut-the-fuck-up.
brian at August 11, 2008 1:30 PM
Heh. Or maybe I'm agreeing with you!
Jeff at August 11, 2008 1:30 PM
Legalize, we both know there's no REAL justification for a cop to do a "spray and pray" when he's inside a residence. It's clear that he either freaked out, or was trying to inflict terror. In any event, he acted with reckless disregard for human life.
None of which absolves the deceased for her mating and living choices.
And none of which argues that her last mate's choice of occupation ought to be made less dangerous by accepting the harm to society that the "product" he peddles causes.
But please, feel free to try to use the bad act of a cop to push your legalization agenda. It's terribly humorous.
brian at August 11, 2008 1:34 PM
That makes no sense whatsoever.
a) If it was a rival gang leader, that rival gang leader would have been arrested, charged with the murder of Tarika Wilson and the attempted murder of her child, convicted, and would be sitting on death row.
b) If it was a rival gang leader, he wouldn't have been killing her under color of law, with people so willing to justify his actions.
Andrew at August 11, 2008 1:36 PM
"not using or selling more drugs than whites, makes it easy to understand why many suspect it is a racist war."
Again, are you f-ing kidding me? FIND me a palce in America where you can drive through and see white kids selling drugs on every, and I repeat every, street corner. I challenge you. Do whites do drugs? Hell yeah! Do they sell? No doubt. I did some in my college days. And meth in particular has really hit whites. But no, whites do not use or particularly SELL as much as blacks. You'd think the flood of white methheads hitting prison would've shut up the "drug war is racism" group, but apparently not. Sigh.
momof3 at August 11, 2008 1:37 PM
No, we'd hear "It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand." instead.
This cop will ultimately be prosecuted. So will the ones that shot the dogs in Maryland (or was it Delaware).
You might not like the limited sentences they get, but half of something is better than all of nothing.
brian at August 11, 2008 1:39 PM
"had the mail man been killed in the cross-fire he would deserve some of the blame too." Actually me and Jaime got into that exact argument in a different blog. I'd say no but he didn't know definitively it was a drug den. She knew definitively that it was. Innocent bystanders are one thing, she had a baby with multiple bullet magnets. In fact the first one I'd be much more on her side, six sounds like she just didn't care or like the danger.
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:40 PM
"Acutally, Legalize, spending time with drug dealers CAN be a crime."
No. Really. It can't. Unless you're talking about more than "spending time with," i.e. aiding and abetting or something else in furtherance of a crime. Wasn't the case here.
"And the argument here is quite simple.
1) This woman would be dead regardless of her race because of where she chose to spend her time."
Not if the cop didn't shoot her unarmed and kneeling on the floor.
"2) This cop was going to shoot someone because of poor training, poor discipline, or some other trait that really made him unfit for the position."
Ah, I see. So if the cop had been better trained, more disciplined, or otherwise more fit for his fucking job, the woman in this case would be alive and not dead. I wonder how many incompetent cops we have serving in more affludent communities.
"3) This woman was at high risk of being shot by someone not in law enforcement, again, because of who she chose to spend her time with."
Correct. We call those people "criminals." We prosecute such people and try to put them in jail.
"Would all the Reason types be so angry about this if she was shot by a rival gang leader instead of by a cop?"
Raise your hand if you depend on gang thugs to maintain law and order and for your protection. We expect scum bags to commit crimes; that's why we hire and train cops.
"Yeah, that's what I thought. So why don't you guys go re-evaluate your self-righteousness over a nice cold glass of shut-the-fuck-up."
Aw, the last refuge of a lightweight. "Shut up! That's why!!"
Legalize at August 11, 2008 1:42 PM
Drug war not racist? Really? Here's some quotes from the man responsible for making marijuana illegal in the 1930s:
"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"
"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"Marijuana makes Negroes eat other Negroes when they get the munchies."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"[citation needed]
Andrew at August 11, 2008 1:42 PM
This death of a young mother is certainly a tragedy, but not an unpredictable one. Decisions have consequences. If you enter a relationship with someone, you have to deal with the downside as well as the upside. A woman who marries a firefighter has to deal with the crazy shift-work. A woman whose husband is a plumber learns to wash some truly NASTY workclothes. A woman who lives with a drug dealer assumes the risk of people with guns kicking in her door (police or otherwise). The money may be good, but the risks are a real bitch!
POAndrea at August 11, 2008 1:47 PM
You're a fucking moron.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 1:48 PM
"If it was a rival gang leader, he wouldn't have been killing her under color of law, with people so willing to justify his actions."
Nope the community would go after Smith and Wesson etc. for providing the guns. We all remember that freaking fiasco.
vlad at August 11, 2008 1:48 PM
Thanks for having a sense of humor, Jeff!
brian -- I don't know for sure, but I don't think we'd see a rise in addiction that corresponds to the rate of experimentation. I agree we would see some but isn't that just the "gateway" theory dressed up a bit? Sure, you can't become addicted if you never try, but it doesn't follow that you'll become addicted if you try.
I can't speak personally to meth or heroin, but I have known lots of people who have done and still do coke from time to time without being drains on society. And if the Alexander synopsis of studies cited by nemo has any validity (it "sounds" like real data -- I don't have the expertise to critique it scientifically) it shows that the common beliefs about "near-instant" or inevitable addiction to coke, crack and heroin are statistical myths. The study appears to be pre-meth days so no data there.
I think the issue with addiction/drain on society is mostly socio-economic. When ALL you've got going is feeling high, what else would you want to do? I think generally, the people afraid to try drugs because of everything you suggest don't fall into that category. It's the middle-class you'd be freeing from that fear and I don't think they are as at risk.
moreta at August 11, 2008 1:50 PM
"Legalize, we both know there's no REAL justification for a cop to do a "spray and pray" when he's inside a residence. It's clear that he either freaked out, or was trying to inflict terror. In any event, he acted with reckless disregard for human life."
Yes, brian, and caused in fact, the death of a woman who did not deserve to be shot.
Legalize at August 11, 2008 1:50 PM
And it seems that Andrew is either skimming, or has a reading comprehension problem.
Because I explicitly excluded marijuana from the genesis of drug law on the basis that the marijuana laws were known to be racist in origin.
How can you call the outlawing of cocaine and heroin - the drugs of choice for wealthy white people of the day - racist?
Unless you are being disingenuous, or looking for anything you can use to say that the drug laws are inherently immoral and need to be done away with.
And Legalize obviously isn't familiar with Constitutional law - cops aren't required to protect you. They are there to enforce the law, pick up the pieces, interview the victims, and find the perpetrators. Nothing more.
And in fact, Ms. Wilson WAS relying upon drug lords for protection - both from other drug lords, and the police. She chose poorly.
Regarding police incompetence, I'd argue that it is no less than in any other field of professional endeavor - so no less than 10%.
And the reason I'm suggesting you shut up is that you might prevent embarrassing yourself. I mean really - taking the side of petty thugs just to get your hate on?
brian at August 11, 2008 1:53 PM
"When you grow up in a world like that -- where breaking the law creates more opportunity than keeping it -- it's gotta really screw up your perspective."
No, it doesn't, the only exception is when you have NO PRINCIPLES. I am in a 'world like that', i.e. I have had enough opportunities to partake in corruption with government (with virtually no risk of any legal consequence) that I could've been a millionaire multiple times over by now. It didn't "screw up my perspective", in fact I remain steadfast to my PRINCIPLES, earning the modest amount of money I make honestly and with integrity.
It's called being responsible for your own actions, and not 'blaming society' for your own decisions. Perhaps if you think that peoples situations always corrupt them, you are unconsciously basing that on what you would probably do in a distorted world. It doesn't apply to all of us. To twist the old phrase, some people need fences to stay honest, others would be honest even without fences.
David J at August 11, 2008 1:58 PM
Wow. Way to blame the victim. You've found a particularly disgusting way to make a point. Reminds me of PETA's latest ad likening a cow's plight to that of the Canadian who was beheaded and cannibalized on the Greyhound. Not exactly apples and apples, but the remarkable lack of consideration for the victims' families sure is similar.
I like how Balko's take on SWAT's involvement in the war on drugs is nothing more than a secondary consideration. We shouldn't HAVE to question whether or not the police value life.
Once upon a time, I lived in an apartment in Seattle's south side. My upstairs neighbors were drug dealers but, aside from their rather unhealthy career-choice, they were good people. Unarmed people. This particular fact made them the repeated target of robberies.
At about 4:00AM one summer morning, my boyfriend and I heard footsteps in the gravel outside of our bedroom. Having been burglarized ourselves just recently, he headed to the window to investigate. As he slowly pulled the blinds back, a cop in full SWAT garb pointed his rifle directly at my him and told him to get back into bed. Just as soon as he stepped back from the window, we heard what sounded like an explosion upstairs. There was yelling and screaming and women crying...It was the scariest thing I've lived through to date, and it was all over an unarmed family and their drug possession.
Now, what if my boyfriend had pulled those blinds back too quickly or approached the window with a gun of his own and had gotten shot? What would you have said about US?
The truth is, the vast majority of those killed in drug raids are not baby's mamas with multiple children by drug-dealing boyfriends. But even if they were, does that make SWAT overuse any less of a problem?
Athena at August 11, 2008 1:59 PM
"You're a fucking moron." Could you be more specific this thread moves really fast.
vlad at August 11, 2008 2:02 PM
"If you don't want to be called a racist then don't talk about black people like they are animals." She says the same thing about white people doing the same thing. Again being black is coincidence to the litter making.
A few points in response:
1) She may actually use the term "litters" in an equal-opportunity way when averaged over the whole of her writing, but in this context is was explicitly linked to "women in the black community who squeeze out litters of fatherless children".
Even if she is innocent of racism she is guilty of being 100% tactless in how she chooses to express her point - which, given the long history of racists using such "animalizing" language to dehumanize their targets comes close to the point of practically BEGGING for people to mistake her for being a racist.
2) The primary responsibility for avoiding misunderstandings like this is the author - not the reader. It is the job of the author who doesn't want to be accused to racism to try to avoid writing things that "mimic" the patterns and language to racist propaganda. It is manifestly NOT the job of a reader, upon encountering language which appears, at least at first, pretty unambiguously racist to search through however-many years of archive material in order to make sure that he is correct.
If you stumbled on a blog which contained the expression "Jew vermin" would you think "Boy, I shouldn't even suspect this person of antisemitism until I find out if he's ever called any Gentiles 'vermin' as well"? I doubt it. Someone who doesn't want to be suspected of antisemitism should at least try to avoid language which has historically been a telltale sign of antisemites. Likewise with racism against blacks.
3) It is especially funny that this episode of extreme tactlessness comes during an article devoted to criticizing a woman for her own tactlessness.
If you don't hook up with drug-dealers then you're a lot less likely to have cops kick in your door and mistakenly shoot you?
Well, Amy - if you don't write offhand and context-free quips about black women having "litters" of babies with drug-dealing jailbirds then you don't have to worry about the racism-police kicking in the doors to your blog and mistakenly calling you a racist.
If you are going to use such loaded language than at least do what you criticize others of not doing - take some personal responsibility for your choices and stop whining about being the victim.
libarbarian at August 11, 2008 2:08 PM
"Well not really. Maybe this me being a picky logician, but existentially he could be both. He could be a racist who also shot randomly into the dark. But we couldn't state evidence that he was both from the facts presented here.
We know de dicto he can't be both, but we don't know that de re. But I'm probably being a pedantic asshole again."
No, you aren't --- never behave apologetically for correcting a weak or incorrect argument or statement with logic and rationality. "Who speaks reason to his fellow man bestows it upon them". (You sound like you've been shot down one too many times for injecting reason into debates and now feel like it's something you should apologize for and be ashamed of.)
David J at August 11, 2008 2:13 PM
"they were good people. Unarmed people." Based on what and how do you know they were unarmed?
vlad at August 11, 2008 2:14 PM
Okay, so the term "Litter" is racist when linked to African-Americans?
Cool.
I think the list shouldn't stop there. What about these terms:
Education
Parental Responsibility
Self-Control
Self-Critic
Maturity
Every time those terms are used in a conjecture with African-Americans, Racism is always the answer (In some case, as Jesse Jackson showed before, Castration is also an idea).
Just my 0.02$
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 2:14 PM
libarbarian - don't make me call Jeff Goldstein in here to open up a can of hermenuetic whoop-ass on you.
I'll do it.
brian at August 11, 2008 2:18 PM
I knew I should have just walked away...
"No, it doesn't, the only exception is when you have NO PRINCIPLES. I am in a 'world like that', i.e. I have had enough opportunities to partake in corruption with government (with virtually no risk of any legal consequence) that I could've been a millionaire multiple times over by now. It didn't "screw up my perspective", in fact I remain steadfast to my PRINCIPLES, earning the modest amount of money I make honestly and with integrity."
Did you really just write that? Don't get me wrong, dude - as a libertarian, I place the utmost importance on personal responsibility. However, to compare your experience with government to her experience as a black woman growing up (presumably) in an urban environment is to assume that she was doled out the same set of principles to begin with. That's not a safe assumption.
If you had GROWN UP in the corrupt government environment that you speak of, is it difficult for you to imagine that, perhaps, you might have developed lower standards of integrity as a result?
I was raised in shiny, white, upper middle class suburbia before I moved to "the 'hood" for four years as an adult. I can tell you for a fact that, generally speaking, these PRINCIPLES you reference are not inherent to the human condition.
Athena at August 11, 2008 2:19 PM
Actually, libarbarian, I have to disagree with item 2 when it comes to personal blogs & conversations. This is Amy's place. She pays for it and all the space we take up commenting here. As a guest, I spent considerable time reading before I made comment. This prevented me from making an ass of myself by writing things about which I had no context of understanding. It would have been extremely rude of me to barge in without doing otherwise. The same would apply if I come into the middle of a conversation and started yapping without listening and understanding first.
While it may be argued that I still say "stupid" things from time to time, at least I do so within context and respect for my host.
moreta at August 11, 2008 2:25 PM
Yes, I was referring to Ms. Alkon. She's a fucking moron.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 2:28 PM
Yes, as I was saying. Please see Bruce.
moreta at August 11, 2008 2:29 PM
"How can you call the outlawing of cocaine and heroin - the drugs of choice for wealthy white people of the day - racist?"
"Cocaine crazed Negro Rapes White Woman" was the headline.
rolf at August 11, 2008 2:30 PM
"Based on what and how do you know they were unarmed?"
They were my neighbors for four years. Now, having lived in both "worlds", I realize that suburbanites are generally not as inclined to get to know their neighbors as people in "the 'hood" are. But, I'll tell you that, after four years, we knew these people quite well.
The day we moved there, I came home from work to find their oldest son helping my boyfriend move our things into our house. The grandmother who spoke next to no English but visited frequently made us plates of lumpia in return for giving her rides to the Asian market. The father helped us change my fuel pump for no charge. The point I'm trying to illustrate is that we were as close with these neighbors as anyone is with neighbors.
So, yes, you caught me on a technicality in that, going into it, I couldn't have known without a doubt that these people were unarmed. But I do know that SWAT found no weapons during their raid, and they found so few drugs that none of them spent more than the weekend in jail. Still, if these people had been armed, would that automatically justify a SWAT raid?
Athena at August 11, 2008 2:31 PM
Yeah, Moreta, and who's trough are you feeding at, you sycophantic little shit.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 2:32 PM
Okay, so the term "Litter" is racist when linked to African-Americans?
Main Entry:
1lit·ter Listen to the pronunciation of 1litter
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-tər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French litere, from lit bed, from Latin lectus — more at lie
Date:
14th century
1 a: a covered and curtained couch provided with shafts and used for carrying a single passenger b: a device (as a stretcher) for carrying a sick or injured person2 a (1): material used as bedding for animals (2): material used to absorb the urine and feces of animals b: the uppermost slightly decayed layer of organic matter on the forest floor. 3: the offspring at one birth of a multiparous animal 4 a: trash, wastepaper, or garbage lying scattered about b: an untidy accumulation of objects
— lit·tery Listen to the pronunciation of littery \-tə-rē\ adjective
Considering the term "litter" IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HUMANS BUT ONLY TO ANIMALS then saying black women have "litters" of children implies that black women and their children ARE ANIMALS in the same way that talk of Jews as "vermin" or "parasites" was explicitly used in the past to dehumanize them.
It is possible to use language like that with no racial intent. I have given people the benefit of the doubt before. What is NOT possible is for an intelligent person to fail to honestly not understand why they might be suspected of racism for equating black women and children to animals.
libarbarian at August 11, 2008 2:33 PM
Of course Amy's racist - she said "black", didn't she?
Dang, that's me too.
Norman at August 11, 2008 2:37 PM
"If you had GROWN UP in the corrupt government environment that you speak of, is it difficult for you to imagine that, perhaps, you might have developed lower standards of integrity as a result?"
This is treading into some very sketchy territory where we hold minorities and the poor to a different standard than everyone else. I mean, poor black women can't possibly understand the consequences of their actions, so we need to make allowances for their moral handicap, yes? [This part is sarcasm, in case it wasn't coming through.]
People who grow up in challenging environments may have distorted perceptions of right and wrong, but they are not cut off from the rest of the world. We keep them weak and helpless when we don't demand better.
MonicaP at August 11, 2008 2:38 PM
brian,
Please don't. I'm quaking in my boots.
libarbarian at August 11, 2008 2:39 PM
"If you had GROWN UP in the corrupt government environment that you speak of, is it difficult for you to imagine that, perhaps, you might have developed lower standards of integrity as a result?"
To be honest, I credit my parents and grandparents for imbuing with me the principles I have. I most certainly didn't pick them up from the society around me (as I don't entirely share the values of the community I grew up in either). (If this means anything, it implies that black parenting is a major part of the problem, but that I can't say.)
Regardless: Sane adults are responsible for their own actions. ALWAYS. The entire foundation and structure of our society is based upon this precept - if it's false, as you suggest, we are in for some trouble: Not just the entire legal system but democracy itself would have to be re-thought.
David J at August 11, 2008 2:41 PM
Maybe if Amy is getting labeled a racist often, she should maybe look at herself.
I have values and they're formed by reason, hard-wired morality (sorry, on deadline but read Boyd and Richerson for more on that) and secular ethics, not by popular vote.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 2:43 PM
The drug laws are stupid - that's true. Which is why I advised my children to steer clear of illicits. The law is worse than the drug; so watch out for the law. A side effect is that you don't know what you're buying, so that's bad too.
Net result: they don't hang out with pushers; they don't get shot.
Norman at August 11, 2008 2:44 PM
"This is treading into some very sketchy territory where we hold minorities and the poor to a different standard than everyone else. I mean, poor black women can't possibly understand the consequences of their actions, so we need to make allowances for their moral handicap, yes? [This part is sarcasm, in case it wasn't coming through.]"
I understand the implications of my comment, but I believe you are exaggerating its intent (or I phrased it inaccurately).
While ones upbringing is no univeral excuse for poor judgment, to completely ignore the impact it has one ones principles is intellectually dishonest. Believe me, being the child of two RAGING alcoholics, I play the "I grew up to be a productive member of society, so why can't you?" card all the time. But the fact remains - the abused are statistically much more likely to be abusers, those born to young mothers are statistically much more likely to be young mothers themselves, etc.
Athena at August 11, 2008 2:49 PM
"Still, if these people had been armed, would that automatically justify a SWAT raid?" Armed and dealing yes. The fact that you are dealing by default means that you have no respect for law enforcement and will do anything to turn a profit. Also if your dealing your a target for associates and more likely to open fire on strangers entering your house. You can't be certain that they are actually cops and not your rivals going to kill you. Most logical thing to do is stay out of it completely.
BTW just cause they were nice to you dose not preclude them from having people killed in their line of work. John Gotti was considered a great neighbor and never caused any problems.
"why they might be suspected of racism" Right and then we point out that she's not a racist because she would say that of ANYONE who has 6 kids by six different fathers. If your more prone to see racism everywhere and not a regular reader I can see the reaction, first thing you read of her's is "black community" and "having litters". However if she were to only use the having a litter euphemism for white women wouldn't she be the racist she's being accused of.
"Yes, I was referring to Ms. Alkon. She's a fucking moron." Wow more pointless load moth name calling. Yeah so deeply constructive. We all applaud! Care to be more specific?
vlad at August 11, 2008 2:49 PM
"load moth"
Yeah, put down the crack pipe and drop another "litter". That make sense, load moth?
Bruce at August 11, 2008 2:53 PM
Just in case anyone else was confused!
Vlad wrote: " No one said the cop was correct in his actions, he screwed the pooch and should be punished. We are all questioning the racial aspect of it..."
In fact, the officer was unpunished.
He was cleared of the charges.
Amy's original story was from January - the update below is from August 5.
An all-white jury found Sgt. Joseph Chavalia not guilty Monday on misdemeanor charges of negligent homicide and negligent assault in the drug-raid shooting death of an unarmed black woman and injury of her year-old son.
Jody Tresidder at August 11, 2008 2:54 PM
"But the fact remains - the abused are statistically much more likely to be abusers" Yeah but they still should and do go to jail when they become abusers. Should we cut her some slack for growing up poor, if she's heading to college and getting her life around sure. Getting caught with a bag of weed for personal use should not bar her from scholar ships or other opportunities. Having a kid by accident and then trying to get your life around same thing, Amy judges these more harshly than I do and I disagree with her there. But come on six kids with five different drug dealers, she's not even trying.
vlad at August 11, 2008 2:55 PM
"I have values and they're formed by reason, hard-wired morality (sorry, on deadline but read Boyd and Richerson for more on that) and secular ethics, not by popular vote."
Again, if many people are labeling you as a racist, you might want to take a look at yourself. Or are you one of those people who believes "it's everyone else, not me". David Duke has "values" too!
burp at August 11, 2008 2:57 PM
She's a fucking moron.
I think that means "While I disagree with her opinions, I defend her right to hold and express them, and recognize that they may have some validity."
Norman at August 11, 2008 2:57 PM
"An all-white jury found Sgt. Joseph Chavalia not guilty Monday on misdemeanor charges of negligent homicide and negligent assault in the drug-raid shooting death of an unarmed black woman and injury of her year-old son."
Well, there you have it.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 2:58 PM
Burp - be specific. If you think Amy's racist, then explain how. Or are you one of these people who believes that facts are settled by some kind of popular vote.
Norman at August 11, 2008 3:00 PM
"She's a fucking moron."
"I think that means "While I disagree with her opinions, I defend her right to hold and express them,..."
I don't disagree with that.
"...and recognize that they may have some validity."
...this time, not so much.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:02 PM
"I believe that the best way to NOT be hit by a train is to stay clear of the tracks."
Word, Toubrouk.
JMoczy at August 11, 2008 3:02 PM
""I believe that the best way to NOT be hit by a train is to stay clear of the tracks."
And if you get raped, it's your fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, until You get raped.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:04 PM
"loud mouth". Still care to explain?
"misdemeanor charges of negligent homicide" negligent homicide is not a misdemeanor charge. I still don't think it's an issue of race. The cop would have been cleared of all charges had it been a white women. In fact the sniper from Ruby Ridge was aquited for just that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:04 PM
Athena, I agree with you on this point, that one's environment does a great deal to shape perceptions and behavior, but I think this is where the concept of public shaming has to come in. The police will continue to do their jobs of enforcing the laws as long as drugs are illegal, and, when you have humans running around with guns, people will get shot.
The only way this sort of thing will not be so commonplace in black communities is when the people in those communities stop coddling people who make poor choices. Being a single mother of half a dozen kids by almost as many fathers can't continue to be applauded. Being a drug dealer can't be considered "making it" in the world.
We can feel bad for people in these situations all we want. Feeling bad won't keep kids from growing up in foster homes because their mom was shot in a drug raid, and feeling bad won't keep black men from spending the best years of their lives in prison.
MonicaP at August 11, 2008 3:04 PM
"I believe that the best way to NOT be hit by a train is to stay clear of the tracks."
And if one gets raped, it's one's own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, until YOU get raped.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:05 PM
"And if you get raped, it's your fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, until You get raped." Did you bother reading the rest of the posts or did you see "black community" and "having litter" and start channeling Al Sharpton.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:07 PM
"And if you get raped, it's your fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, until You get raped." Did you bother reading the rest of the posts or did you see "black community" and "having litter" and start channeling Al Sharpton.
Is that straw man black or white?
Amy, you truly deserve your audience.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:10 PM
An all-white jury found Sgt. Joseph Chavalia not guilty Monday on misdemeanor charges of negligent homicide and negligent assault in the drug-raid shooting death of an unarmed black woman and injury of her year-old son.
In "RaceSpeak", it just means that the bastard is guilty as hell. After all, we can ask to anyone in the entourage any "Race Apologist" and he will tell you that if a white man is found not guilty of killing a black man by a white jury, there's no justice. If the same case is filled over a Black jury and he's found not guilty, there's no justice neither since the jury is made by uncle-toms!
Ah, the Black Race... the new master race around...
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 3:11 PM
Bruce - There's a difference between being targeted by a rapist, and being caught up in a mindless but dangerous process like a train. How do you advise your children not to be hit by a train? Do you insist on their "right" to play on the track?
To avoid being raped, do you advise them to stay home and wear a burka?
Can you see a difference between these two cases?
Norman at August 11, 2008 3:11 PM
Her decision to live with and make babies with not one but several drug dealers is what I believe is at issue. And more specifically, that this isn't veiwed as a character flaw in her community. If it was viewed as such in her community, she'd have been less inclined to be there in the first (well actually, sixth!) place.
Here's the thing... A woman raised in the projects with little or no education (have you ever seen public schools in poor neighborhoods? You wouldn't want to go there either) has few choices in life. No one can afford to live on minimum wages in most cities. To live alone is to invite rape or robbery. Armed drug dealers offer protection - inadequate protection, but better than none. And they have money, something both White and Black folks respect.
Thanks to the tireless work of Christopathic right-wingers, there are few choices available to poor people for reproductive rights. Abortion clinics are few and far between, and expensive, as is access to birth control. And due to the heavy influence of evangelical churches, abortion is heavily stigmatized in Black communities. (So that shows it's not impossible to stigmatize behavior in Black culture - just say it's "un-Christian"!) In a rational world, Tanika would have had easy and free access to contraceptives and abortions would not be called "baby murder" by the only authority figures many Black folks respect - "family values" religious leaders. Then perhaps she may not have had squeezed out that litter of children. But before you condemn choices people make, be sure you understand what restrictions they had on those choices in the first place.
Joe Max at August 11, 2008 3:12 PM
"Is that straw man black or white?" No straw man, that same question was asked and answered earlier.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:13 PM
"People who grow up in challenging environments may have distorted perceptions of right and wrong, but they are not cut off from the rest of the world. We keep them weak and helpless when we don't demand better."
This is true. But in another sense, one's "background" does not even matter, because we as a society don't rely on that to enforce various general behavioral standards - that is why we have the Law, and no matter how disadvantaged your background, it remains amply clear that (for example) dealing drugs or helping someone do it is against the law (regardless of if it's right or wrong) and that there are consequences to being involved with it. And this is not some secret sprung upon minorities who are unaware of this whole "legal system" thing. In that sense, we do hold minorities to the "same standards" already; I don't automatically expect people from poor backgrounds to all have been able to imbue themselves with great values, but I do expect them to follow the law.
David J at August 11, 2008 3:13 PM
"No straw man, that same question was asked and answered earlier."
And that indicates what...the price of oranges?
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:15 PM
I was gonna mention Lon Horiuchi, but Vlad already did.
And Horiuchi didn't even do a spray 'n' pray, he was using a sighted sniper rifle, and shot through a door, not knowing for certain who was on the other side.
He killed Vicki Weaver and her infant son.
But Jesse Jackson didn't care. Because she was white.
brian at August 11, 2008 3:15 PM
Armed and dealing yes. The fact that you are dealing by default means that you have no respect for law enforcement and will do anything to turn a profit. Also if your dealing your a target for associates and more likely to open fire on strangers entering your house. You can't be certain that they are actually cops and not your rivals going to kill you. Most logical thing to do is stay out of it completely.
BTW just cause they were nice to you dose not preclude them from having people killed in their line of work. John Gotti was considered a great neighbor and never caused any problems."
This post smacks of sensationalism. You clearly don't have much experience with drug dealers. And good for you! That's by no means meant to disparage you. Still, you make some inaccurate assumptions. We're not talking gangland or mafia, here. Lots of drug dealers are relatively normal people who have jobs and go to school and aren't having people offed or shooting at "rivals". =P
You say that dealing drugs automatically signals total disregard for law enforcement. On what grounds do you make such an assertion? Simply for the fact that they're intentionally breaking the law? I hope there's more to it than that.
But, as the facts pertain to my particular example - The cops knew they could enter the household without resistance. Cops had come knocking before and were never met with any difficulty. Furthermore, armed inhabitants aren't generally inclined to shoot when cops make it clear that they are police and they've got a search warrant.
If you read Mr. Balko's blog, you will see that, time after time, what causes people to fire is the fact that SWAT teams are essentially simulating an armed robbery. If two cops (or four or eight) came in regular uniform, knocked on the door and informed the occupant of a warrant (you know, like we USED to do things), this particular problem would go away.
If the cops wouldn't emulate "rivals" or robbers, they wouldn't have to worry near as much.
Athena at August 11, 2008 3:16 PM
"If you think Amy's racist, then explain how."
It's been explained several times. It's pointless to keep explaining it. The more its explained to certain people, the more those very same people will continue to go out of their way to make sure they don't get the point. She is what she is and she will do it again.
burp at August 11, 2008 3:18 PM
Brian, the national prohibition of both cocaine and opiates was part and parcel of the attempt to - and eventually passage of - alcohol Prohibition. All were meant to be exercises in 'social engineering' undertaken by those who felt that society would be better off without those substances, and very naively attempted to legislate them out of existence. Nowadays we'd call such people 'liberals' (using the modern understanding of the term, not the classical one that denoted lower-case libertarianism').
As Professor Whitebread points out in his [url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm]1995 address to the California Judges Association conference[/url], there were very specific groups targeted for this attempt at 'behavior modification', namely Blacks and Hispanics. Both groups were popularly thought by most of the dominant White society of the day as being inherently criminally oriented, and needful of 'supervision'. Articles such as [url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/negro_cocaine_fiends.htm]NEGRO COCAINE "FIENDS" NEW SOUTHERN MENACE: New York Times, Sunday February 8, 1914[/url] didn't help matters.
Such yellow journalism served to cause the same kind of hysterical reaction amongst the average citizen as the screaming headlines about crack did in the 1980's. And like the latter laws, the former ones had not a shred of scientific evidence presented as a rationale, just faulty 'public knowledge'...and were supported by those who had a much more self-serving agenda in mind. Thus the cycle was begun, a cycle in which the drug laws became ever more punitive, making the trade ever more lucrative through the inherent 'risk tax' associated with the trade. One might as well pour petrol on a fire in trying to put it out.
I repeat, the historical evidence shows that the drug laws were deliberately crafted as a weapon to insure that minorities would remember to 'keep their place' as second-class citizens within society. The only 'public safety' that was of concern was that of the dominant group, namely, Whites. It certainly wasn't done for the the sake of the 'Negroes' and 'wetbacks'.
nemo at August 11, 2008 3:18 PM
I an unrelated aside, just what HTML tage *are* permitted at this site?
nemo at August 11, 2008 3:21 PM
"by the only authority figures many Black folks respect - "family values" religious leaders." But she had sex out of wedlock which is equally fround upon by this authority.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:21 PM
You know what, Amy Alkon? Fuck you.
Doctorb at August 11, 2008 3:22 PM
And if one gets raped, it's one's own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, until YOU get raped.
I love to see my points butchered sideways... :)
Rape is a horrible thing but I don't live in the demented, feminist fantasy that a woman can walk in the worst part of a city, at night, while holding piles of money in each hands, only wearing a pair of 4" stilettos and a thong while hoping to stay safe until the end of the night.
You know, seatbelt or not, cars accident happen. The seatbelt is just around to be sure that you are not ejected out of the vehicle. Reason is the seatbelt of your life, use it.
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 3:25 PM
"Rape is a horrible thing but I don't live in the demented, feminist fantasy that a woman can walk in the worst part of a city, at night, while holding piles of money in each hands, only wearing a pair of 4" stilettos and a thong while hoping to stay safe until the end of the night."
My God, you are a greasy mf. Are you Amy's identical twin?
I say again, Amy, you deserve your audience.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:27 PM
"If the cops wouldn't emulate "rivals" or robbers, they wouldn't have to worry near as much." Agreed whole heartedly, again never said the cops did not screw up.
"You clearly don't have much experience with drug dealers. And good for you!" Actually I have met quite a few from the Sub-urban dip shit who had his house tapped 24-7 and never got raided. To the low end street thug who as far as I know is still out there dealing. Yes I was sensationalizing a bit. They could have been very nice people but they were involved in an inherently dangerous en devour that even without the SWAT raid brought a lot of unhealthy attention. Just out of curiosity did they deal out of need or just for some extra cash (the sub urban idiot did that).
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:29 PM
Athena, I agree with you on this point, that one's environment does a great deal to shape perceptions and behavior, but I think this is where the concept of public shaming has to come in. The police will continue to do their jobs of enforcing the laws as long as drugs are illegal, and, when you have humans running around with guns, people will get shot.
The only way this sort of thing will not be so commonplace in black communities is when the people in those communities stop coddling people who make poor choices. Being a single mother of half a dozen kids by almost as many fathers can't continue to be applauded. Being a drug dealer can't be considered "making it" in the world.
Funny you mention shaming. I don't make it a habit to plug my site at other people's blogs, but I'm site staff over at The Dreamin' Demon, a true-crime site that focuses on publically shaming all sorts of people including child-molesters, spouse-killers, and other particularly depraved creatures. I'm a big proponent of shaming and fully appreciate the effect it can have. But there's a big difference, to me, between shaming activity that's illegal and shaming activity that's unhealthy or unpopular. Last I checked, having multiple children by multiple different men is not illegal.
That being said, I don't think the issues within the black community can be fixed by external shaming, anyway. It's much more complex than that. And, while I realize that no one here is applauding her death, I don't like the general tone that she should be held responsible for it.
We can feel bad for people in these situations all we want. Feeling bad won't keep kids from growing up in foster homes because their mom was shot in a drug raid, and feeling bad won't keep black men from spending the best years of their lives in prison.
I'm not asking for anyone to feel bad. I don't necessarily feel bad. I did want to point out, however, that the individual ranting about "PRINCIPLES" and talking about his experience in government was making a wildly inaccurate comparison.
Athena at August 11, 2008 3:31 PM
"very specific groups targeted for this attempt at 'behavior modification', namely Blacks and Hispanics." Eugenics programs using white children, commie hunters, same shit different race. Not saying the government didn't cross lots of lines for the sake of "public good". I don't see how any group got it any worse than any other.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:32 PM
Hey Amy? You might want to tone down the racism. The proxy at my work place blocks your site due to racist content.
Hilarious!
Ted at August 11, 2008 3:36 PM
""very specific groups targeted for this attempt at 'behavior modification', namely Blacks and Hispanics." Eugenics programs using white children, commie hunters, same shit different race. Not saying the government didn't cross lots of lines for the sake of "public good". I don't see how any group got it any worse than any other."
And that makes it ok? Wow
(yup, amy does deserve her audience)
burp at August 11, 2008 3:37 PM
"My God, you are a greasy mf. Are you Amy's identical twin?" Are you actually going to make a point or just keep spouting off about us white oppressors and Amy being a bitch?
BTW greasy can be a racial slur too jack ass. So does that make you a racist as well?
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:38 PM
Greasy, as in coated with a thin film of oil when leaving the factory.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:40 PM
"And that makes it ok? Wow" No it just doesn't make it racist. If your equally fucked no matter what race you belong to then the government is corrupt but it's not racist.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:40 PM
Bruce, on behalf of all the greasy dagos in the Internet, I am officially offended by your racist tone.
Please report to the nearest Attitude Readjustment Facility so that the helpful staff may assist you in your proper education regarding racial slurs.
brian at August 11, 2008 3:43 PM
" us white oppressors and Amy being a bitch? "
Did you pull that out of your ass all by yourself, cause I don't see that in any of my posts. Could it be....another....STRAW MAN?
For Amy...because she deserves her audience.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:44 PM
"Greasy, as in coated with a thin film of oil when leaving the factory." Yet greasy as per
http://www.johncglass.com/racialslurs.htm
is a racial slur against Italians, Greeks, and Hispanics.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:44 PM
"If your equally fucked no matter what race you belong to then the government is corrupt but it's not racist."
Ahhh i see. If i just hate mexicans im a racist but if i hate mexicans, blacks, pollaks, czechs, the irish and the germans, then im not a racist. Now i understand.
burp at August 11, 2008 3:45 PM
"Greasy, as in coated with a thin film of oil when leaving the factory." Yet greasy as per
http://www.johncglass.com/racialslurs.htm
is a racial slur against Italians, Greeks, and Hispanics."
You asked me, I told you. The rest is your perverse mind.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:45 PM
Just out of curiosity did they deal out of need or just for some extra cash (the sub urban idiot did that).
Hard to say, really. I wouldn't say anyone deals out of necessity for very long - eventually, opportunity will open up. However, they were an immigrant family who dealt with less opportunity than they might otherwise. I'd say it was more an issue of convenience. When they moved here, family members already had established, reliable connections, and they happened to move into an area where demand was open and plentiful. Coming from SE Asia, perhaps the risks associated with drug dealing did not strike them as particularly extreme?
Either way, I won't downplay the amounts they were pushing through that little apartment. It was significant. But, when it comes to weed, Seattle's got a particularly liberal take on it. It's hard to keep in mind the fact that selling it is illegal when possession is the city's lowest criminal priority.
Athena at August 11, 2008 3:46 PM
"Did you pull that out of your ass all by yourself, cause I don't see that in any of my posts." Yup the white oppressor one was right out of my ass (called baiting) since you do not actually explain your issue with her is and ask if my straw man is black or white. That would give me the distinct opinion that you have an issue with her racial stance, and word choice.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:48 PM
If it makes you feel better, vlad, after reading your comments and seeing bruce call you "greasy", i assumed he meant "sleazy".
burp at August 11, 2008 3:49 PM
"Greasy, as in coated with a thin film of oil when leaving the factory." Yet greasy as per
http://www.johncglass.com/racialslurs.htm
is a racial slur against Italians, Greeks, and Hispanics."
Hey, hey, now let's calm down. I happen to be an Italogrecohispanic. You got a problem with that?
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:50 PM
"Ahhh i see. If i just hate mexicans im a racist but if i hate mexicans, blacks, pollaks, czechs, the irish and the germans, then im not a racist." No ass clown if you feel that your are superior to EVERYONE and know what's best for EVERYONE then that makes you an asshole not a racist.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:51 PM
Bruce, do you really believe in the demented, feminist fantasy that a woman can walk in the worst part of a city, at night, while holding piles of money in each hands, only wearing a pair of 4" stilettos and a thong while hoping to stay safe until the end of the night?
Bruce, come on. Don't you have any self-preservation inside you? There's no little light inside your brain that go on and says "This situation will get me in trouble, better not being there"? love the old maxim "If you play with fire, you will getting burned". If you don't believe in this, you better sign you organ donor card. Someone might have a use for your kidneys...
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 3:51 PM
"If it makes you feel better, vlad, after reading your comments and seeing bruce call you "greasy", i assumed he meant "sleazy"."
Yeah, that'll do it too. Add a little sex to the mix and I'll throw in smarmy and salacious too.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:52 PM
"If it makes you feel better, vlad, after reading your comments and seeing bruce call you "greasy", i assumed he meant "sleazy"." Last I checked the comment was not towards me.
If you look long and hard enough every thing is a racial slur against someone.
vlad at August 11, 2008 3:55 PM
"Bruce, come on. Don't you have any self-preservation inside you? There's no little light inside your brain that go on and says "This situation will get me in trouble, better not being there"? love the old maxim "If you play with fire, you will getting burned". If you don't believe in this, you better sign you organ donor card. Someone might have a use for your kidneys..."
I spent most of my life in Manhattan my friend, so give me a fucking break.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:56 PM
"No ass clown if you feel that your are superior to EVERYONE and know what's best for EVERYONE then that makes you an asshole not a racist."
So Amy is an asshole then? I mean she fits your defintion of it. She gets called on a few things so she states she has values. Mind you she wasnt speaking of her values but rather other peoples values, which to her are "hangups" because she doesnt like them. I certainly get that "high and mighty" attitude from her and most of her posters. I suspect a large percentage of her articles involve writing about how many kids someone has and how they had them, and other perfectly legal activities that little miss priss amy happens to not like.
burp at August 11, 2008 3:57 PM
It's not the level of sheer ignorance in the post that awes me, or the reflected ignorance in the commentariat. It is the absolute aplomb with which the ignorance is presented.
Tell you what, Amy, if you want to seem less like a racist twit, you should probably abandon the attempt at coy sarcasm and the use of "litter" when describing a woman shot dead by police in her own home. A woman who wasn't even under investigation. It might behoove you to mention that her child was also shot in the raid, or would that have thrown a little rationality on your drivel? So, an innocent woman and her child shot, the woman dead, but if she had made better life choices it wouldn't have happened. No mention of the cop who shot this woman and her son. None.
That aside from the fractionally human commenters who were content to label the woman a probable drug user. As if that somehow excuses her death at the hands of law enforcement.
I am also particuarly amused at the total failure to mention the war on drugs. How many billions spent over the last few decades? How man lives, both police and criminal, destroyed asa result? And yet drugs remain on our streets. Why is that, do you think?
Finally, I would recommend that you tone down the rhetoric on values, while you stand back from the fray with your lilly white hands, and type furiously about how a young black woman deserved to die because of the choices she made. More than being a racist, commentary like that makes you an idiot, too.
officious_pedant at August 11, 2008 3:58 PM
Incidentally, I think people are being a bit hypersensitive about race. Amy is a racist because she happened to use the term "litter" in regard to a black woman. Bruce is a racist because he used the term "greasy". Both assertions are pretty silly. Racism is pretty clearly defined. If you think maybe someone possibly stated something that could be questionable, you really ought to save the pitchforks and torches for some more absolute proof. By screaming "Racist!" every time, you're diluting the significance of the accusation.
Athena at August 11, 2008 3:58 PM
"If you look long and hard enough every thing is a racial slur against someone."
I'll agree with you there, but in this instance and this article that's also a straw man, and a justification.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 3:59 PM
"It's not the level of sheer ignorance in the post that awes me, or the reflected ignorance in the commentariat. It is the absolute aplomb with which the ignorance is presented.
Tell you what, Amy, if you want to seem less like a racist twit, you should probably abandon the attempt at coy sarcasm and the use of "litter" when describing a woman shot dead by police in her own home. A woman who wasn't even under investigation. It might behoove you to mention that her child was also shot in the raid, or would that have thrown a little rationality on your drivel? So, an innocent woman and her child shot, the woman dead, but if she had made better life choices it wouldn't have happened. No mention of the cop who shot this woman and her son. None.
That aside from the fractionally human commenters who were content to label the woman a probable drug user. As if that somehow excuses her death at the hands of law enforcement.
I am also particuarly amused at the total failure to mention the war on drugs. How many billions spent over the last few decades? How man lives, both police and criminal, destroyed asa result? And yet drugs remain on our streets. Why is that, do you think?
Finally, I would recommend that you tone down the rhetoric on values, while you stand back from the fray with your lilly white hands, and type furiously about how a young black woman deserved to die because of the choices she made. More than being a racist, commentary like that makes you an idiot, too."
Quoted for truth.
burp at August 11, 2008 4:02 PM
"and other perfectly legal activities that little miss priss amy happens to not like." Yeah she's not a big fan of SUVs either. She makes judgments as do we all. You judged her an asshole no one is disputing your right to do so just have the chops to back it up with some logical arguments or evidence not just name calling.
You claim she's a racist ok, back up that assertion. Then when you get more evidence that she is not a racist then go get better evidence or drop it.
vlad at August 11, 2008 4:05 PM
"You claim she's a racist ok, back up that assertion."
Earth to Vlad, come out of your bubble.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 4:08 PM
I spent most of my life in Manhattan my friend, so give me a fucking break.
So tell me, can you avoid being mugged if you don't visit the wrong part of the town at night? Of course, mugging is a crime and if you are attacked you are a victim but can you bend your mind around the idea that not hanging at a dangerous place might help you NOT getting mugged? This logic also applies for not getting raped by hanging in cesspool bars and not getting shot by not having a sexual fixation over drug dealers?
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 4:13 PM
A woman is dead and her children are orphaned. She deserves better than grave-robbers trashing her corpse as a pseudo-intellectual exercise. It serves you well to reduce her to a few facts - the number of men she had, their profession, the number of children she had - because any greater knowledge of her circumstances might humanise her to a point where you can no longer disassociate yourself and acknowledge that one day something terrible might happen to you, whether you deserve it or not. How people chose to have their families is nothing to do with you.
Leslie Smith at August 11, 2008 4:19 PM
I can "bend my mind around" the concept that not everyone in Amerika has the same spectrum of possibilities in their lives that our dear Amy has. I can "bend my mind around" the idea that spending a good portion of one's life admiring one's self in a mirror coiffing one's hair gives one a pretty limited insight into the choices that a "different" kind of American can have.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 4:23 PM
"So tell me, can you avoid being mugged if you don't visit the wrong part of the town at night? "
It isnt about whether one can avoid it. Its about whether you are the one responsible for a crime being committed against you.
burp at August 11, 2008 4:24 PM
burp - if you are going to make the argument that a woman ought to be able to walk down any street in America without fear of being molested, I'm going to hit you on the back of the head with a 2x4.
There is a clear delineation between responsibility for a criminal act, and the responsibility to not put oneself at risk for same.
If you go walking up 131st shouting racial epithets at the top of your lungs, you ought to expect to get the living shit beat out of you.
And if you live with a drug dealer, you ought to expect to die a violent death.
The rightness or wrongness of the cop's activities is not at issue here. Nor is the alleged racism of anyone who analyzes the case.
What's at issue is whether or not the choices that were made by Tanika Wilson had any bearing on her demise. The answer to that is an unqualified yes.
You can argue to the hills that if the cops weren't militarized that she wouldn't be dead, but that's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome there. Sure, she wouldn't have been shot by a cop. But she just might as well have wound up dead by other means.
As to whether the cops ought to be doing what they do, that's not germane to the accusation that Amy is a racist.
brian at August 11, 2008 4:32 PM
Brian, that's as circuitous and absurd as it gets.
Amy, you deserve your audience.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 4:35 PM
"burp - if you are going to make the argument that a woman ought to be able to walk down any street in America without fear of being molested, I'm going to hit you on the back of the head with a 2x4."
Cool, but your doing so will be all on you. None of it will be my fault. Youll also likely end up eating through a tube for the remainder of your life for attempting it. That would be all my fault. :D
burp at August 11, 2008 4:39 PM
Ecrite Flynne:
Thomas,
Those are all examples of overzealousness of SWAT teams, yes, yes, you win. Yes, the cops were wrong. But I still maintain that if Tarika Wilson hadn’t been in that particular drug dealer’s house at that particular time, she’d be alive. Prove me wrong.
But, really, Flynne et. al., is it not the case that 90% of those accidentally caught in these raids live, by virtue of their poor life choices, in marginal circumstances? Thus, they are indeed to blame for some of their misfortunes, as if they had lived properly, they would not live in places such as Harlem or Prince George County, etc. And indeed, this applies to all ghetto residents: if they took responsibility for themselves and lived appropriately, they would not have drug dealers around them, and thus would not be accidently shot, nes pa?
Max Renn at August 11, 2008 4:40 PM
"If you go walking up 131st shouting racial epithets at the top of your lungs, you ought to expect to get the living shit beat out of you."
Not by a cop.
"And if you live with a drug dealer, you ought to expect to die a violent death."
Not at the hands of a cop.
"Sure, she wouldn't have been shot by a cop. But she just might as well have wound up dead by other means."
Or not.
"What's at issue is whether or not the choices that were made by Tanika Wilson had any bearing on her demise. The answer to that is an unqualified yes."
Had she been shot by a rival gang member yes. Had she been shot by a cop after pulling a gun on one, yes. Her being shot while being unarmed by agents of the government who arent supposed to shoot unarmed people, no.
Keep putting more lipstick on that pig, though. Its still going to be a pig.
burp at August 11, 2008 4:46 PM
Since, "reality check," all you can talk about is how ugly I am, let me ask you directly: Do you think it's a positive thing for a woman to have six children in eight years with five different drug dealing men? Do you think that this is really healthy and good?
its kinda hard not too,
LOL at August 11, 2008 4:51 PM
It is important for an advice columnist to never take advice ever and thus demonstrate the utility of advice columnists.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 4:51 PM
Because I don't live and write in fear of being considered racist, and couch my every syllable in the most P.C. language doesn't mean I am racist. In fact, I am anything but.
Perhaps those of you who require that should pussyfoot around and not speak up about problems I see (that is, when they happen to somebody with a different color skin than I have) should ask yourselves why you do.
There's a problem I see and I've written about it. It happens to be a problem in the black community. I write about problems in various communities, and I'm a huge critic of the evidence-free belief in god. Does this mean I hate religious people? Of course not.
As for whether you are responsible for a crime committed against you, if you go to Afghanistan and hitchhike through Taliban territory, no, it's not right that you'd be tortured and beheaded, but if you are, it's not quite the same as sitting at home and dying when a meteor suddenly and unexpectedly flattens you in your easy chair.
Yes, I'm guilty, but it's not of hating people, but of refusing to buy into P.C. bullshit. As I wrote above, when I got attacked in New York City, I bore some responsibility for it, for walking in an area that was dark and desolate. The guy had no right to touch me. But, by saying that I was attacked, not because it was some weird turn of events that happened in the middle of a crowd of people in a diner, but because I was unwise about protecting myself is a way of taking responsibility for myself in the future: a way of preventing myself from being victimized.
Again, it's terrible that this woman is dead, and terrible that any woman is raped, and terrible that so many terrible things happen in our society. But, what I'm calling for is personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Is that really a hateful thing?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 4:53 PM
No, bruce, you are a marginal thinker for whom the subtle nuance of reality is unfathomable.
In the real world Bad Things happen. However, there are ways to minimize ones risk of having those Bad Things happen to one.
First and foremost is to avoid the attention of armed people who want to kill you. Whether those people wear bandanas on their faces, turbans on their heads, or badges on their chests.
Because, let's face facts, politicians aren't terribly interested in the plight of the Tanika Wilsons of the world. So having someone advocate against police tactics on her behalf isn't really going to gain any traction. In which case, it would behoove persons with a strong sense of self-preservation to avoid being in the presence of people that other people want to shoot, no?
And again, your brain's inability to grasp nuance means you read that and translated it as "the bitch got what she deserved", because your feeble mind is incapable of separating action from responsibility.
Because of the choices she made (which some people will readily claim were forced upon her by a white-run society that doesn't care for the well-being of a black woman) she was living on borrowed time (as I said before).
Her life choices and the fact that it was a cop that shot her have no bearing upon each other, for purposes of analyzing her life choices. In fact, as I put forth previously, had Ms. Wilson found herself the victim of an "airing out", we'd probably never have heard a single word of the incident.
I understand that you hate cops. I understand you don't like the SWAT powers that they've been given. But if you have ever voted for a politician that supports expanding the drug war, then you are incrementally responsible for the death of Tanika Wilson.
Ending the drug war won't bring Tanika Wilson back. And it wouldn't have prevented her being killed. She just wouldn't have been killed in your name.
brian at August 11, 2008 4:53 PM
I'm sorry that you believe that. A cop can shoot anyone and get away with it. It's pretty much always been that way. Cops being charged with murder is exceedingly rare. So it's always prudent to make sure that you don't put yourself in a situation where a cop has the opportunity to shoot you.
But I love how you worked that 60's counterculture reference in there. That was far out, man.
brian at August 11, 2008 4:57 PM
Just took time to ride home and the debate has mushroomed again! In catching up, it was good to see some mud-free, rational discussion from new contributors.
Bruce, I'm sorry you think being polite and understanding other people's perspective before commenting makes me a sycophantic shit. Being passionate about your position using whatever language works for you is great, please forgive me that I don't believe there's a need to be rude in doing so. Clearly your mileage varies.
I do understand why some people jump to the conclusion about racism. The term "litter" and "black woman" was used in the same post and not knowing that this term is applied equally to everyone who has more kids than they can afford, could reasonably lead one to believe the author believes black = animal. What I don't understand is the ongoing assertion that the author is a racist when the equality has been clarified over and over again.
I also understand that the author could choose different words to avoid the confusion. But what does it say if calling other big families "litters" doesn't create a single wave and has to be self-censored here simply because THIS story is about a black person? Is there something different about black people? Isn't that a form of racism? To me it indicates that we've become way too sensitive and ready to throw around "ism's" as if just saying so, makes it so and makes the comment and commenter undefendable. At the very least, the extra traffic has brought some new and articulate commenters!
moreta at August 11, 2008 4:59 PM
"But, what I'm calling for is personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Is that really a hateful thing?"
No, but recognize that the choices available to you are not readily available to many others of different strata.
Brian
"And again, your brain's inability to grasp nuance means you read that and translated it as "the bitch got what she deserved", because your feeble mind is incapable of separating action from responsibility."
Are you telling me what I perceive you pompous little shit?
"Because of the choices she made (which some people will readily claim were forced upon her by a white-run society that doesn't care for the well-being of a black woman) she was living on borrowed time (as I said before)."
See above statement to Amy.
"I understand that you hate cops. I understand you don't like the SWAT powers that they've been given. But if you have ever voted for a politician that supports expanding the drug war, then you are incrementally responsible for the death of Tanika Wilson."
Your "understanding" sucks ass. I don't hate cops. I've worked with them, and empathize with their own specific problems with how society sees them. And I haven't voted to expand the drug war.
"Ending the drug war won't bring Tanika Wilson back. And it wouldn't have prevented her being killed. She just wouldn't have been killed in your name."
And you're an asshole.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 5:05 PM
"But I love how you worked that 60's counterculture reference in there. That was far out, man."
So not only are you clueless about this subject, you are also clueless as to what "lipstick on a pig" means as well? Cool.
Amy you TRULY deserve your audience.
burp at August 11, 2008 5:06 PM
It is important for an advice columnist to never take advice ever and thus demonstrate the utility of advice columnists.
It's actually important for an advice columnist, or for me as a person, to take advice from people whose minds, values, and judgement I respect. Hint: They aren't the people above who write only "fuck you," and attack my looks when my ideas and the idea that I'm racist really don't mesh.
What's funny is that I'm not only on deadline for my column, but I'm writing a section of my book on where I do go wrong and have gone wrong. I'm probably one of the more open people out there. And I'm very concerned with figuring out when I'm wrong because it's the best way for me to be a better person. If anything, I consider myself and my life a work in progress.
What I see here is a lot of people not reading or considering what I wrote above or in the comments, simply because they are of the (rather racist) mind that criticizing a certain group is racist, when it's excluding a group from criticism, simply by virtue of the color of their skin is what's really the racist thng.
And again, do you think I go donate an afternoon of my time at an inner city school once a month during the school year because I hate black people -- or because I saw a problem, that kids from the inner city don't have a lot of really great role models, and I thought I could demystify what it takes to make it (hard work, not going for the iPods and all the trimmings right away in your 20s, working for somebody who will kick your ass and teach you everything, not getting pregnant young before you develop yourself and get a career under your belt).
Again, I bring these issues up here out of concern, not hatred. I know I can't convince some of you otherwise, but that's because of the preconceived notions in your head, not any nasty thoughts in mine.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 5:08 PM
The term "litter" and "black woman" was used in the same post and not knowing that this term is applied equally to everyone who has more kids than they can afford, could reasonably lead one to believe the author believes black = animal. What I don't understand is the ongoing assertion that the author is a racist when the equality has been clarified over and over again.
Thanks, moreta. Exactly right.
I showed, in a couple blog links, how I use it to describe various people who have a bunch of children, and yet, the "Fuck you"-ers above refuse to be swayed.
What's funny is that this is exactly the sort of thinking that propels racism: having a global belief that you cling to and refuse to change even when shown individual pieces of evidence that it isn't true.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 5:12 PM
"and attack my looks when my ideas"
Your looks are fair game. They are in your title. The "GODDESS" part. When i close my eyes and picture a "Goddess", nothing remotely resembling your picture comes to mind for me either.
Just keepin' it real.
burp at August 11, 2008 5:13 PM
"If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, the violence would not stop. You cannot legitimize a product whose sole purpose is to render the user non-functional. Those people will still resort to crime to get the money needed for their next "fix"'
I think Brian has made some excellent points here. As a trailer park owner, I can attest that hard drugs are very different from alcohol. I have many alcoholics here that are still somewhat functional, but once people get on meth or crack, they are basically worthless human beings.
There is no way that I can justify feeding these people their method of suicide, not to mention giving them the "all clear" to get high and drive around, possibly killing my children. It's bad enough with alcohol, but expanding the use and availability of hard drugs is irresponsible.
"But before you condemn choices people make, be sure you understand what restrictions they had on those choices in the first place".
Very true. I agree with Amy that there isn't enough outrage in black communities regarding these poor life choices. But there's not enough outrage in white communities either.
As a guardian-ad-litem in FL, most of the unwed mothers I deal with are white. And they are all pretty much the product of generational poverty and a welfare system that rewards their behavior. Mom lived off the system, squeezing out "litters" of babies, and now even grandma or great-grandma did too! It is excepted behavior within the girl's family, and by and large, she is poorly educated and doesn't see any other options. Even when she does, the older generations often try to sabotage her. There is a strange, yet pervasive, resentment whenever a family member tries to do better.
Sometimes, when I've tried to help these young moms find some independence - to go back to school and support herself, for instance - the system works against that. There are "do-gooders" who rush in to offer even MORE assistence, so she can stay dependent. It makes them feel good to "help" temporarily, but they are crippling her - and likely her children - in the long run.
It is beyond frustrating. So, I sympathize with the argument that we should be responsible for our foolish choices....walking through bad neighborhoods, mixing with the wrong people, etc. Yet, I don't believe that there should be anywhere in America, where a young woman might lie her head down on a pillow at night - even next to a drug dealer - and presume that her own government - her own civil servants - will gun her down, while on her knees, in a few hours!
That takes "personal responsibility" too far, in my opinion. And I think it is sickening that we are allowing our police to get away with this.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2008 5:14 PM
"You people are a real trip. Its nice Amy puts up a blog for her intellectually challenged fans."
Ahh, it's "realitycheck". You claimed you wouldn't be back, and you were shown how every allegation you made about Amy's career was false.
Hang around. You'll serve as an example to others.
Meanwhile, every crime statistic backs the notion that black people are disproportionally responsible for crime in the US, across every social stratum.
Radwaste at August 11, 2008 5:15 PM
And theres this too:
Amy Alkon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amy Alkon, also known as the Advice Goddess, is a male-to-female transsexual who writes an advice column, Ask the Advice Goddess, which is published in more than 100 newspapers within North America.
For many years, Alkon worked on the streets of New York City as one of the three "advice ladies" [1]. She co-authored a book, Free Advice - The Advice Ladies on Love, Dating, Sex, and Relationships with them. Before billing herself as the "advice goddess", Alkon wrote Ask Amy Alkon, an advice column published solely in the New York Daily News.
[edit]
Campaigns
In her daily life, and in her online blog[2], Alkon campaigns against SUVs [3], calling them a compensation for a tiny penis.
She also campaigns against what she considers bad parenting, although she has chosen to not have children. Other regular targets are inconsiderate cellphone users, and copyright violators. She campaigns in favor of good food and vacations in Paris.
Amy Alkon is a staunch atheist. She considers the eradication of the "god delusion" to be an important goal for the betterment of society. She has stated that not only religion but the personal expression of any spiritual notion, not purely grounded in science and observable phenomena should be treated as manifestations of mental illness. Alkon maintains that the benefits of society often attributed to religion and innate human spirituality are better accounted for by the forces of evolution. According to Alkon, since people are social animals, ridicule and derision are effective and appropriate means by which to coach people toward abandoning their faith and pursuing a secular lifestyle.
She has been accused of being a "rape apologist" [4] after she said about date rape, "I call [it] bad judgment" on the part of the woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Alkon
burp at August 11, 2008 5:17 PM
"Yes, I'm guilty, but it's not of hating people, but of refusing to buy into P.C. bullshit."
As soon as I hear PC complaints I know the conversation's over.
As they say in Calif, PC, yeah right, whatever. May your mirror never shatter.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 5:29 PM
burp - I overestimated you. You're not even a marginal thinker, you're a member of the room-temperature IQ crowd.
See, I know the phrase "lipstick on a pig" (which doesn't change the fact that you're still kissing a pig). But there's this thing called "double entendre" where something has an extra meaning that can be put into it.
See, in the 60's counterculture, the word 'pig' was used to describe the cops.
See? Funny!
But with your addled brain, I wouldn't expect you to get it.
You know, there's a world outside of your mommy's basement. You might wanna go check out the lights.
brian at August 11, 2008 5:29 PM
Brian,
Hey jerk, "Pig" in that particular saying has absolutely nothing to do with police, except in you weird little mind. As in: "lipstick on a pig is still a pig", or "don't try putting lipstick on a pig, it's very difficult, and it just irritates the pig".
I would guess you missed the free love days by just a few years, and never got over it.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 5:37 PM
"See, in the 60's counterculture, the word 'pig' was used to describe the cops."
Has the phrase "lipstick on a pig" been used in that manner in the 1960's? Nope. See, dude... while "pig" may very well be able to be used as a double entendre, the phrase "lipstick on a pig" cannot. Usually when i run into someone who takes a phrase like that picks one word and tries to fit it to a certain time frame or group of people, they do so because that is one of the groups they despise most. In other words, you hate hippies from the 60's.
"But with your addled brain, I wouldn't expect you to get it.
You know, there's a world outside of your mommy's basement. You might wanna go check out the lights."
When you cant attack the message...
I am sure you are very familiar with the low IQ crowd. Youve probably posted here for a long time. You probably have Amys old penis in a pickle jar.
burp at August 11, 2008 5:40 PM
Again, I bring these issues up here out of concern, not hatred.
You can be concerned and racist, and you can be kind and racist. You really did write a racist column, and people are on you for it. I hope that if I do something so stupid I'll just rewrite it. It seems you don't reread your work anyway as there's a crappily-formed sentence before the AP article that has stood through 300 comments now.
Really, go back, reread, and see if you can figure out who puts the lowest value on black lives between the cop, the mom who was shot holding her child and you, using it all as grist for a sensationalist mill.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 5:42 PM
Actually, you ignominious twit, the phrase you are so inadequately grasping for is:
Never mud wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
And the more apt one in this case:
Never argue with a fool - passers-by might not be able to tell the difference.
And with that, I'm off to watch the game. Please, feel free to continue your irrelevant ramblings in my absence.
brian at August 11, 2008 5:44 PM
Amy you deserve your audience.
Bruce at August 11, 2008 5:47 PM
Is your solution to legalize the Drug Trade or am I reading this incorrectly?
I'm about 299 comments late on my response, but: Yeah.
Steve at August 11, 2008 5:52 PM
Amy Alkon,
You may not have noticed, but there are very few people who consider themselves racists. While I am quite certain that you don't think of yourself as one, you have been accused of racism many times in this thread. The fantastically named officious_pedant describes quite accurately why it seems to so many people that the accusation is justified.
Also, it is the very defenses of your behavior that flag you. That you use the term "litter" to describe the spawn of Catholics so that they can "keep on procreatin' and fill up those collection plates, kiddies! After all, the Church has got all those pedophilia fines to pay for protecting and moving around all the kiddie-diddling priests." That's not exactly a defense of your use of the word "litter". That you are hateful towards white Catholics does not preclude your being prejudiced towards black people.
Please read, from the original post, the paragraph immediately before the MSNBC quote. Then keep in mind that we are talking about a woman who has been shot dead in her home and her baby injured as well.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 5:53 PM
I just realize how the Internet can turn into an amazing way to waste one's time...
I can almost hear the scream: "Stop the presses! Amy Alkon used the term "Litter" to describe a dead black woman who loves to be breeded by drug dealers!"
Over 300 comments on this? I don't know if I should be amazed or scared silly.
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 6:09 PM
First and foremost, is the assumption that the street dealers (with no marketable skills, no education, and no prospects in mainstream society) are going to willingly watch their 'business' pulled out from under them.
Wow, this Brian guy is something else.
It doesn't matter what the drug dealers want or accept, they, like moonshiners, can't compete with legitimate businesses on price or quality. As far as 'turf' is concerned, ultimately, legal establishments have the protection of the police, the courts, and, if necessary, the national guard. Rival drug gangs do not, which is why conflicts are solved through violence instead of lawsuits or phone calls to the police.
Drug dealers prosper, when they do, by avoiding the State. What you're suggesting is that the non-unified group 'drug dealers' can challenge the State and win (or even survive). That's the silliest thing I've heard all week.
As for Brian's equally foolish statement about the difference between drug and alcohol addiction, it might interest him to know that ethyl alcohol is one of only two known substances so addictive that the effects of withdrawal are fatal. I'll also point out that even crack isn't addictive enough to cause fatalities through its absence.
Steve at August 11, 2008 6:12 PM
Re: Wikipedia
The only nugget of info from the Wiki entry that made me go, "Holy crap!" was this: " ....in more than 100 newspapers within North America." Dare I hope some of these are in Canada, and how do I find out?
catspajamas at August 11, 2008 6:17 PM
Toubrouk, I've just gotta ask: Does it hurt to be you? Because it should. It really should.
Candy at August 11, 2008 6:28 PM
"Amy you deserve your audience."
Well, not you. Got anything new?
I'm not impressed with any of you who have just jumped in here and started shouting, having, in some cases, not even finished the article.
Apparently, you've had your say.
As if...
And for those of you totally out of ideas, talking about how horrible a hag Amy is - it's time to switch hands. You don't wanna blister.
-----
By the way, has anybody looked at the trial transcript?
I'd sure hate to go on about what happened based only on hearsay.
Radwaste at August 11, 2008 6:31 PM
Steve would do well to look into the history of organized crime. They didn't exactly just say "Well, that's that. I guess we'll all just go work down mill then."
I don't get this child-like belief that somehow merely legalizing hard drugs will make the violence go away. Steve, are you really saying that you'd approve of a woman and her child being shot in a crossfire in the local CVS because some junkie is holding up the place to get a fix?
Besides, it was a call to the police that started this whole sordid affair that wound up with women, children, and dogs being killed.
And Steve, it is not the addictive properties of alcohol that make the withdrawal from excessive use potentially fatal, it is the metabolic impact that the alcohol has on the system. And the level of abuse required to put someone in such a position is likely to kill them outright anyhow. A nice try, and we have some excellent parting gifts from our sponsors.
brian at August 11, 2008 6:34 PM
Also, it is the very defenses of your behavior that flag you. That you use the term "litter" to describe the spawn of Catholics so that they can "keep on procreatin' and fill up those collection plates, kiddies! After all, the Church has got all those pedophilia fines to pay for protecting and moving around all the kiddie-diddling priests." That's not exactly a defense of your use of the word "litter". That you are hateful towards white Catholics does not preclude your being prejudiced towards black people.
So...is the determination now that I not only hate black people, but Catholics and rich women? Or could it be that I think it's irresponsible to have a large number of children? Irresponsible in terms of what you can provide for those children, at the very least in terms of attention, whether you're rich, poor, black or white, and irresponsible especially if you're a single, drug-dealer-dating woman.
It is in the Church's interest to promote huge families as they are all parishioners to give money to the church -- and yes, to pay off the fines of kiddie diddling priests. You thought, perhaps, that the church might sell some of their vast landholdings instead of making the parishioners pay?
I would direct you to the ideas of Walter Benn Michaels, who explains the difference between prejudice and disagreement in The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality (a book recommended by my leftiest bleeding heart lefty friend):
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 6:37 PM
The thing is, a lot of "addicts" can and do function just fine...if they can have their "maintenance" doses without having to warp their whole lives into a frantic quest for the next dose. "Drug addict" =/= "useless waste of oxygen." (And if you think that "legal" drugs can't force this sort of behavior...you should have seen both my parents. They'd head out into the teeth of a Midwestern blizzard, despite both being lifelong Midwesterners who knew how dangerous that was, if the cigarette supply ran out.)
And no harm "drug addicts" may do to themselves is worth the damage done to our polity by giving the police the right to behave like the NKVD in Stalin's day.
Technomad at August 11, 2008 6:44 PM
Have I mentioned, lately, that I'm against the drug war?
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Toubrouk, I've just gotta ask: Does it hurt to be you? Because it should. It really should.
I am supposed to hurt in some ways? I am supposed to be in pain because I am not a member of the "Anal-Retentive, Politically Correct, Bleeding Heart Legion" (A.R.P.C.B.L.)?
No, Wait! Maybe you are right! Let's put Amy Alkon on the public stake and let's immolate her for the TERRIBLE CRIME of DARING using the word "Litter" to describe the spawn of a dead pusher-lover who just happen to be Black! Let's call Jesse Jackson and All Shapton right now!
Candy, give me a break. Drop the niggardly attitude and open your eyes. I am not the type of people who is seeking days and night nor new words to not offend people. If you do, get over it. I am not in the business of finding new ways to justify the ridiculous offense of other people.
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 7:10 PM
Wow, a Wikipedia citing. That sure trumps all.
JMoczy at August 11, 2008 7:16 PM
"Have I mentioned, lately, that I'm against the drug war?"
Yes. Somewhere in between expressing your frustration at not being able to have children by criticizing others parenting and blaming an unarmed black woman for her own death at the hands of the government, you did mention it.
burp at August 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Yes. Somewhere in between expressing your frustration at not being able to have children by criticizing others parenting and blaming an unarmed black woman for her own death at the hands of the government, you did mention it.
Translation: At the beginning of the the seventh paragraph.
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 7:25 PM
"Wow, a Wikipedia citing. That sure trumps all."
It may very well answer a lot. It sure did for me.
:)
burp at August 11, 2008 7:26 PM
"The thing is, a lot of "addicts" can and do function just fine...if they can have their "maintenance" doses without having to warp their whole lives into a frantic quest for the next dose".
That really isn't true. There isn't a "maintenance dose" of crack or meth. What I've seen of substance abuse can fill several novels. I've found tenants dead in their trailers from overdoses, so I know about the reality of substance abuse.
Almost all my tenants drink (and smoke). But those who ONLY drink usually still have jobs and somewhat productive lives. They clock out at 5, come home and get drunk. Those who get into harder substances become totally wasted lives. I've seen it up close and personal. It's not some conjecture based on what makes a convenient argument.
The only thing that keeps these addicts from completely killing themselves (though many eventually still do) is the difficulty and risk of aquiring the drugs. I can't imagine how bad it would be if they could get their "fix" as easily as going to the drugstore.
However, I doubt the government would make it that easy. I'm sure they'd throw in a lot of conditions, probably for treatment, so there would STILL be an illegal market serving a sizable number of addicts who don't want to play by the government's rules.
As long as there are poor people, who have few options to better their lives, you will have people who wish to distract themselves and get high by whatever means possible. That is a given. But we can't become complicit in this self-destructive behavior. It's not just about what the addict chooses to do to himself - it's also the danger he poses to others.
If a drunk driver kills someone after being served too much liquor at a bar, the bar is often liable. Is the government going to pay for all the lost lives as a result of drug addicts killing or maiming innocent people? That would be very costly.
The better thing to do is to provide more effective treatment options. We send these addicts to jail, over and over, but it doesn't address the underlying causes of their addictions, which is often mental illness. If you successfully treat more people, you'll have less demand, which will naturally minimize the supply chain.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2008 7:34 PM
Toubrouk, what I said has nothing to do with your not being PC or any other similar horse shit. It has to do with the glaringly obvious fact that you are an unmitigated asshole who thinks it's okay to take lightly the death of a fellow human being - an unarmed woman who was shot while holding her child, and whose child was also injured in the shooting. That you can't see the distinction is a fair indicator of your sociopathy.
I wish you joy of yourself.
Candy at August 11, 2008 7:36 PM
"What I don't understand is the ongoing assertion that the author is a racist when the equality has been clarified over and over again." -Moreta"
Because the "clarification" is dubious.
It seems like an honest clarification of an innocent mistake would at least have indicated that she could understand why people had misinterpreted her words - especially in a column lambasting other people for not taking "personal responsibility" she could have shown a little herself and at least symbolically coped to "I chose my words poorly and can see how other misinterpreted me but .... "
Instead, we get the standard "wounded victim" act where she refuses to even admit that she had any part in giving people the wrong impression and that she is just a wounded victim and cannot understand how anyone could ever even suspect she might have a racist bone in her body and that none of this is even 1% her fault at all. Frankly, I don't care if shes racist because I'm more fascinated by victim act and pondering it's motives.
And the truth is that I understand that maybe it "racist" per se in that maybe she doesn't think that there is anything genetically "inferior" or otherwise care about "race" per se, but she definitely seems to think that some people, who don't live up to her values, are somehow less than fully human. Thats fine - we can talk about how people are defined apart from animals by our behavior - but at least cop to it and spare us the victim act.
libarbarian at August 11, 2008 7:41 PM
"Somewhere in between expressing your frustration at not being able to have children by criticizing others parenting and blaming an unarmed black woman for her own death at the hands of the government, you did mention it."
False, again. Snore.
Radwaste at August 11, 2008 7:41 PM
Amy, the fact that you're against the drug war doesn't change the horrible tone of your post.
Plus it's funny that many of the people criticism Amy are being referred to as politically correct left-wingers, considering that the way most of these "new" posters made it here was through a libertarian blog, certainly not the home of people who are politically correct, or left-wingers.
Andrew at August 11, 2008 7:45 PM
libarbarian - let me give you the generic apology I reserve for people who misinterpret what I say:
I'm sorry that you're too stupid to comprehend the series of words I assembled and the point that they convey. Furthermore, I apologize for the fact that your critical reasoning facilities have been compromised by your desire to find hidden meanings and code words where none exist.
That a word can be misconstrued to mean something that the writer did not intend to say is not the fault of the writer. It is the fault of the ideology-addled person that reads it and assigns it the meaning they want it to have to suit their preconceived notions.
Neither I, nor Amy, nor any other writer should find themselves constrained by the most ignorant among the populace when writing. Doing so demeans and denigrates us all.
brian at August 11, 2008 7:50 PM
Andrew - there's no law that says libertarians can't be assholes and imbeciles, you know.
brian at August 11, 2008 7:51 PM
Hey lovelysoul, I realize you have some experience, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
Andrew at August 11, 2008 7:51 PM
"Plus it's funny that many of the people criticism Amy are being referred to as politically correct left-wingers"
Oh no. Its not funny. Its very understandable. They cant stand the criticism so rather than admit it may be at least partly valid, its easier to try to label those people as part of a group they despise. If you havent noticed, Amy and her poster friends seem to spend quite a bit of time labeling all sorts of people for all sorts of things. We arent exactly dealing with think-tank material with these people.
burp at August 11, 2008 7:52 PM
"Andrew - there's no law that says libertarians can't be assholes and imbeciles, you know."
And there is no law saying you must be.
burp at August 11, 2008 7:55 PM
Well, burp, I find that when I'm in the presence of marginal thinkers my natural tendency to be an asshole just comes out.
Because people like you are just so much fun to tweak, because I know you're just running around in little circles trying to figure out why I just won't go away in the presence of the intense heat of your burning intellect.
That might be, of course, because I've forgotten more than you'll ever know. And the idea that you're not the smartest person in the room just irks you to no end.
brian at August 11, 2008 8:00 PM
OK, asshats. Listen up.
I've been in some terrible scrapes here at Amy's place. I mean terrible, too. Epic, really. I've had every insult in the book thrown at me.
Amy and I've argued over some things. Sometimes we've argued pretty roughly. She's never used dirty tricks. She sticks to the issues. She argues hard, and she's rhetorically skilled, but she fights fair.
I've developed a lot of respect for her because she doesn't expect a double standard or a pedestal. She can take as good as she gives. She's got the goods you only wish you had.
And she is not a goddam racist. You people are nuts.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 8:00 PM
"Well, burp, I find that when I'm in the presence of marginal thinkers my natural tendency to be an asshole just comes out."
If only that natural tendency ever went away.
"Because people like you are just so much fun to tweak, because I know you're just running around in little circles trying to figure out why I just won't go away in the presence of the intense heat of your burning intellect."
Actually dude, this is an internet forum. I would never let it "tweak" me. I think you are really projecting your own behavior onto others and claiming it as theirs. You seem like that type and have been tweaking on people here all day.
"That might be, of course, because I've forgotten more than you'll ever know. And the idea that you're not the smartest person in the room just irks you to no end."
Theres that projecting again.
burp at August 11, 2008 8:10 PM
And she is not a goddam racist.
The column certainly is. She can fix that of course.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 8:11 PM
I don't believe Amy is a racist. From all I've read of her columns and blogs, I think she tries very hard to be fair. Yet, I understand some of the anger here, and why she has been perceived that way over this issue.
As someone said earlier, and I quoted them, you have to truly understand the limited options people have, and I don't really believe it is possible for those of us who have grown up white, in much more affluent neighborhoods, with boyfriends who are accountants and lawyers, not drug dealers, to fully understand those limitations.
I go into people's homes on a regular basis to determine whether they are "fit" parents, but I long ago abandoned the idea that I could judge them by the same standards that I might apply to my own parenting choices...because there is such a disconnect between the options and advantages I have and the ones they have.
And it is the same here. What was this woman supposed to do? Amy tells the story of walking in the bad neighborhood and feeling like a "moron" for being there late at night. Well, that's because Amy had the CHOICE to be somewhere else. Yet, what if you LIVE in that neighborhood? Are you a "moron" for not moving away? Does that mean you deserve to be killed?
I mean, the argument is that she put herself and her children at risk. But she's POOR...in an already dangerous place! She could've been killed by a stray bullet just walking to the store. Her life was already at risk every day. And, as someone pointed out, being with a drug dealer, in that environment, often provides more protection than being alone. Having his baby might provide you even more protection. So, by her standards, she may have felt she was doing the best she could to keep herself and her children safe.
That seems foreign to most of us, but that is specifically why we really can't judge her moral choices the same as we do our own.
lovelysoul at August 11, 2008 8:11 PM
"And she is not a goddam racist."
If you makes you feel better, than she's just an idiot that blathers racist things and then defends them as virtuous.
Better?
Oh, and way up where Amy starts mewling about the identity of a poster. That part is hilarious. As though the "Amy Alkon" byline stood for decades of objectivity and truthfulness.
Get over yourself first Amy, then try dealing with your race issues.
ice weasel at August 11, 2008 8:20 PM
Amy you also deserve your misogynists (your audience).
Bruce at August 11, 2008 8:23 PM
Amy Alkon,
If you really need your rationalizations to continue believing that you are free from prejudice, then that is your own business. But make no mistake, they are just that - sad rationalizations you are clinging to in order to protect your self-esteem.
Consider what you said:
It is in the Church's interest to promote huge families as they are all parishioners to give money to the church -- and yes, to pay off the fines of kiddie diddling priests.
Are these two positions not mutually exclusive? Are the large number of offspring in a stereotypical catholic household a drain on their providers or are they resource providers for the Church?
Regardless of how you explain that inconsistancy away, it is clear in the post you selected as a defense of your use of the word "litter" that you meant it in a demeaning and insulting way. That you are intolerant of the religious is not a defense against being a racist.
You do realize that the prejudiced bigots you are claiming not to be like, make the exact same type of statements. It's not that I hate black people because they are black, just that they are immoral and violent. It's not that I hate Mexicans, it's just that they are lazy and smell bad.
As to your quoted definition of prejudice - well you have not come out and said it - but it is very difficult to read either this post or the one about Catholic baby factories without getting the impression that you think you are superior to blacks and Catholics.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 8:32 PM
I don't get this child-like belief that somehow merely legalizing hard drugs will make the violence go away. Steve, are you really saying that you'd approve of a woman and her child being shot in a crossfire in the local CVS because some junkie is holding up the place to get a fix?
I never said legalizing drugs would make all violence go away. What I said was that legalizing drugs would make the black market violence go away. Junkies shoot people for fixes now--it's already the status quo (though junkies shoot people with far less frequency than dealers).
What I'm arguing, if you'll look at post #1, is not that drug legalization will end drug addiction or the violence associated with it. There are three distinct types of violence associated with drugs: violence perpetrated by users for drug money, violence perpetrated by illegal businessmen who function in a state of kill-or-be-killed anarchy, and violence occasionally perpetrated by the State against everyone involved in use or sale.
I have no solution for the violence committed by the first group, but my way largely eliminates the violence by the other two groups, which greatly exceed the violence that remains (particularly the second group). You want to preserve all three simply because judging others with naive little platitudes makes you feel good about yourself. Or at least I haven't seen any other explanation for your support for keeping drug violence at triple the rate it could be (and no, legalizing drugs doesn't create enough more violent users to make up the difference, see Holland).
And spare me the 'mafia still exists' BS. Of course it still exists, but prohibition was far-and-away the high water mark of its power, which began waning immediately after Prohibition's repeal. Anyone who has studied even a day of Economics knows that's no coincidence. Repeal put them out of the bootlegging business for good and I don't recall Sam Giancana raiding Budweiser's breweries as you stupidly and ahistorically predict will happen with drugs. Remove the other black market and the mafia weakens still. So do the gangs.
Steve at August 11, 2008 8:33 PM
Here's the wierd. If it was her house, she shouldn't have allowed the allaged dealer to stay over. Nothing on the warrant - or permission to knock and enter - being issued for an address where there was no alleged criminal living there.
If it was his house, she shouldn't be involved with him, and she'd taken all her 6 kids for a sleep over, making her a bad mommy.
No-one has assumed they lived together, as this might lead to legitimisation of their relationship - you know, the de facto wife of...and we couldn't interrupt the fun of rabid slut shaming with language like that.
So. Whose name was on the rental agreement? Did the police raid the home of a woman accused of nothing, by anyone, except a bunch of bloggers after the fact of having the wrong number of children to the wrong guys with the wrong coloured skin? Cos, y'know, Amy, Vlad, that's still not a crime.
MagnaNemoUs at August 11, 2008 8:45 PM
That's because Holland is Holland. It isn't here. What are they gonna do - throw wooden shoes at each other?
lovelysoul at August 11, 2008 8:46 PM
Steve -
I think in your haste to eliminate "violence perpetrated by the state" you are coming to a conclusion that does not follow. You are also making some huge assumptions that also do not follow.
First, the assumptions. You start from the premise of legalization eliminating the present distribution system. And replacing it with, what precisely?
If you intend to replace it with retail distribution, you are either going to have to convince or coerce existing retail establishments such as pharmacies to carry products which presently have no commercial availability (which leads to another problem, on which more later). So, now that you've strong-armed the pharmacies into carrying cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, you have to get someone to supply them. And you're going to have increased police costs and presence to protect the employees and facilities from people who do not want to pay for these drugs.
And here's where the next problem comes in. Unless you're going to have the federal government grant blanket immunity to the producers of these drugs, you're going to have a replay of the whole tobacco lawsuit thing again - virtually guaranteeing that no profit will be had.
So, now that we have involved the federal government in forcing business to carry a high-risk product, and granted a federal protection to the companies that will produce this high-risk product, we have to have a regulatory regime to keep it under control.
The FDA has spent 60 years telling us that cocaine, et al have no medicinal value. Are they going to do a 180 on that when they are in the process of arguing that they ought to have regulatory authority over cigarettes for the sole purpose of limiting access to tobacco?
OK, now that we've gotten over those hurdles, now we have the IRS wanting a piece of the action, and coming up with a taxation regime for hard drugs.
Now we've gone from a government that is relying upon an over-militarized police force to control the production, distribution, and usage of hard drugs to a government that has a vested financial interest in maximizing the usage of these drugs they've spent the past 60 years trying to get rid of.
The same government that's in a dichotomy over tobacco where they are actively telling people to buy it so that the tax revenues can go to all sorts of programs, but don't smoke them anywhere.
I would suggest to you that the likelihood of anyone willingly marketing or selling such products is between slim and none given the regulatory and litigatory hurdles they would have to clear, leaving the illicit channel as the only remaining distributor.
Which means the entire source of violence you mean to eliminate simply will not go away.
They call it the law of unintended consequences. What it really should be called is the intellectual laziness of not thinking your proposals through to their logical conclusions.
brian at August 11, 2008 8:51 PM
Candy, I believe that we all are an example for somebody else, good or bad. Some are fit to the pedestal, other are fit for the compost pile. A woman who make her career of breeding babies for petty drug dealers don't fit on a pedestal.
I give value for things who have value. I do believe that her life had very little. If I am a sociopath for that, so be it.
I wish you joy of yourself.
Thank you.
Toubrouk at August 11, 2008 8:58 PM
Brilliant, Brian. That's exactly what would happen. Can anyone here ever put pettiness aside and give credit when someone puts forth a logical argument? Or are you all so stuck on being right?
lovelysoul at August 11, 2008 9:04 PM
Thank you, LS. It's pleasant to have you on my side for a change.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:05 PM
They call it the law of unintended consequences. What it really should be called is the intellectual laziness of not thinking your proposals through to their logical conclusions.
What a hilarious ass you are. Anyway, glad you've cleared up that problem Solomon. Experts all over the world can cease debating.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 9:07 PM
I would think that anyone who calls himself "Righteous" would have something more substantive to offer than the default ad hominem.
Apparently, I was misinformed. At least Steve seems to have begun to think about the issue.
If I'm as stupid as you seem to think I am, why don't you show me the hole in my analysis?
Or are you yet another of the marginal thinkers that seem to pollute the Internet?
brian at August 11, 2008 9:10 PM
not even an mba you are an idiot.
Of course if your a black guy I am now a racist for writing something that offened you.
Just becuse someone write something about a black person tht you find offense does not make them a racist.
Amy said 1 woman had a litter by a half a dozen different drug dealers.
For that comment to be racist it would have to beleved at the enire race and not the INDIVIDUAL
Can anyone of you race baiting morons understand the difference between pointing out the FACTS of one individuals choices and a sweeping generalization?
lujlp at August 11, 2008 9:18 PM
Wow, that's a lot of posts. . .Almost every time I thought of a point to make, someone eventually made it as I read on.
I would like to add this: I think there's a huge difference between having one very wanted child as a financially secure single mother and having six just happen to you because you were too stupid or weak or lazy (or, I suppose, conniving) to insist on a condom. I'm not saying no dad is the optimum scenario, but also some women just get stuck being single moms, because some men do just up and leave. Oh, and widows. I guess that last one's why your loathing of single motherhood really rankles me personally. It might not be ideal, but sometimes it just is.
This comment of yours did strike me, though:
We're talking about America here and culture within communities in America. Asians seem to have strong family values, and kids who do criminal things or take up with criminals are met with shame from their families. This is not an unimportant element.
In general, yes. Unless, of course, they take up with Asian criminals in, say, any of the various and particularly vicious Asian mobs that now exist in major American cities. Ditto Russians.
I am not defending this woman's choices. You live with criminals you risk dying like a criminal (which isn't to say I condone or celebrate her killing). But, once again, there is a huge difference between being born into poverty in a country and relocating to another country for opportunity. Many -- nay, most -- of the Asians who came here were either educated people in their own countries, giving them an enormous leg up upon landing in the USA because they already had the skills to get ahead, or they came via an assistance program that helped set them up with housing/jobs/etc., or they had families that had already made at least relative successes of themselves (argh, no pun intended, I swear) to welcome them.
This realitycheck person seems off the deep end, but I do think you sometimes use inflammatory language (intentionally so, you say) that makes it hard for some people to hear the valid point you're making. The sweeping condemnations of single motherhood sometimes strike me that way. Same with constantly calling the black woman who robbed your bank account "toothless." Sorry, but $12,000 is no guarantee of affordable dental care (one new tooth recently set me back about $4,500 with extraction, implant and crown). I'm as middle class as they come and I opted to go "toothless" for more than a year.
Sorry, I digress. I meant to say I get that you use the word litter a lot, but maybe in the context of a DEAD mother it was a bit harsh.
JulieA at August 11, 2008 9:20 PM
If I'm as stupid as you seem to think I am, why don't you show me the hole in my analysis?
Guy, your analysis is based on nothing. Feel free to show your work o noble truth-teller.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 9:30 PM
Oh, and one last thing before I go to bed:
Let's just assume, for the time being, that legalization is workable. In order to make a profit, the stores will have to sell the stuff pretty expensively. Which virtually guarantees that a black market will spring up selling the drugs from uncontrolled sources through street dealers, where the risk costs are possibly lower than the regulatory, insurance, and overhead burdens for the retail outlets. We see this today with cigarettes, and to a lesser extent alcohol.
Which means that the police will still be shooting at drug runners in their homes and blowing away innocent mothers and killing mayor's dogs.
So for all the pontificating that legalization will remove all these horrible things, it quite simply won't. You'll just end up adding a slew of affluent junkies to the already large population of the permanently intoxicated.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:31 PM
Last call for bubba:
put up or fuck off.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:32 PM
lujlp,
I don't know what post you're talking about, because the one at the top of the page is totally different than the one you are describing:
(emphasis mine)
Yes, one INDIVIDUAL "women in the black community". Sure, this is about individuals - but that's only because they are all the same to you.
But just in case you haven't had enough:
Meaning - black folks glamourize and worship crime.
Look, justify whatever you want, however you want - the original post is racist. It makes wide sweeping and very unpleasant generalizations about the black community. It justifies the killing of a woman based on who her relations were with. But please, do call me a moron again - it pleases me since everything you say is so obviously wrong.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 9:32 PM
put up or fuck off.
I'm simply asking for references for your scholarly paper Mr. Scientist. Oh, you have none because you're a blowhard.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 9:33 PM
Whoops. I actually answered lujlp directly. I should have realized that the hate-filled spiteful mysogynistic shithead who wrote
was beyond reach. I can load up some more ad hominems for you so that you can tell yourself that you're a better argue-er than me, but that's still not going to wash out the stain you left with your first comment in this thread.
Asshole.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 9:45 PM
Wait - Steve comes in here advocating for complete legalization, offers no credentials, no references, no peer-reviewed journal publications, and you expect me to be credentialed?
You're a bit of an arrogant motherfucker, aren't you?
Unable to find anything unreasonable in what I wrote, you immediately turn to the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" to indicate that I can't possibly be right, because it upsets your worldview.
You're going to have to face the cold, hard, fact bubba: some things just flat don't work.
And if anyone in the pro-legalization crowd had actually learned from recent history, they'd try to price in some of the externalities I mention into their analysis. That they do not is telling.
What sane person is going to start a company to produce cocaine for public sale knowing full well that the first overdose is going to land him in court and quite likely put him out of business?
The cigarette industry in the United States is rather an interesting thing. See, the same government that regulates them, sues them, and restricts the use of their products (all the while profiting from their sale) is also subsidizing them, and helping them market their products in developing economies where the concept of tort law is not so strong as it is here.
That said, I apologize for not being appropriately credentialed. I was unaware that I needed special authorization to think.
brian at August 11, 2008 9:45 PM
It's obvious what Amy's doing here, and it isn't racism.
Are you equating racism with valid criticism of a some black people? 'Cause if you are, that's dumb.
Jeff at August 11, 2008 9:49 PM
Unable to find anything unreasonable in what I wrote, you immediately turn to the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" to indicate that I can't possibly be right, because it upsets your worldview.
Not at all. I just spotted you as a blowhard who has done no reading whatsoever on drug policy. I see I am correct. You may perhaps be an untutored savant except that, you know, you're not a savant.
Righteous Bubba at August 11, 2008 9:51 PM
Jeff,
Look, I'm new here, so I don't want to step on too many toes, but are you people reading the same post as the one at the top of this page?
Amy's quote, the one you're using to show that she has a modicum of respect for Tarika Wilson's child rearing skills? Here's Amy's lead in to it:
Yeah, right. Amy's totally not a racist, she just has, uh special views about black people.
So while it may be "obvious what Amy's doing here, and it isn't racism" to you, that's only because your reading comprehension is poor.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 9:55 PM
Meaning - black folks glamourize and worship crime.
Yes, too often, I believe this is the case. You do not? And if not, why not? Do those rap songs about bitches and hos and killing cops have some double meaning I am not privy to?
Now, I am not saying ALL black people glamorize and worship crime. But, many do, and I believe there's too much complacency about this in the black community, as there is too little complacency for women having children without daddies. This is a generalization, yes, but is it not true for far too many?
Forget the ridiculous notion that it is somehow racist for me to say what I've observed. If you've observed differently, if you see a push, beyond a few like Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, and Thomas Sowell, and that judge I quoted above (linked on "jail"), please do let me know how your observation differs.
So many people have poured out so much of their time today calling me names, when they could instead be educating me on how wrong I am in my observations. Go right ahead!
Meanwhile, here's I guess who some of you above would consider my fellow racist, Juan Williams, via City Journal editor Myron Magnet:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/07/22/bill_cosby_wake.html
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2008 10:47 PM
She was selling her pussy for drugs mba, the fact that she was black does not make that statment racist.
A few years ago here in AZ before the locals got serious about homes being turned into meth labs youe here half a dozen stories a month about fucked up children brething in the vapors durring the cooking process, and you know what- those white women were selling their pussy for drugs.
Are you going to say I am racist againt white people as well?
lujlp at August 11, 2008 11:09 PM
Amy Alkon,
Your accusation is harsh. You proclaim an entire community to be anti-social and criminal. Do you, perchance know anyone in that community? Maybe I'm mistaken and you are actually someone who is well versed in the nuances of the Lima black community. I doubt it.
You base your conclusion on the fact that the community is black.
Oh- but what about all that crazy rap music? Well what about it? The top three movies in theatres right now are Batman, Pineapple Express and the new Mummy movie. Therefore, Americans love vigilante justice, getting high on pot and disturbing the dead to steal their treasures. Would you agree with that assessment?
There certainly are some groups of people, some of whom are black, that glamourize crime. You assumed that Tarika Wilson's was one of them - but all you know about her community is that it's black. So I say again:
You base your conclusion on the fact that the community is black.
There's a word for that type of reasoning, and I think you've already seen it several times today.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 11:21 PM
lujlp,
I haven't called you a racist yet. If I did, it would be for your denigrations throughout this thread of the black community.
My pointing out your statement about Tarika Wilson selling her pussy for drugs wasn't to call you a racist. It was to point out that you are a pathetic and ignorant piece of shit. I just wanted you to know that I recognize that you are one of those assholes who are unable to comprehend that other people are human beings.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 11:26 PM
Let me clarify for you Amy.
Tarika's uncle, John Austin is the one who said "She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that,"(emphasis mine)
Do you honestly believe that John Austin meant that the community respected her ability to find drug dealers who would get her pregnant? Because that's sure as hell what you implied in the very next line.
Now ask yourself why you wrote it the way you did.
Ask yourself if you attributed gang-banger bling bling bitches hos and cop killas characteristics to this community. And then ask yourself why you did so.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 11:37 PM
I would say she is basing her assertion on
1 the report that Wilson had 5 children with 5 different drug dealers and was currently shacked up with a sixth dealer.
2 quotes from freinds and familly that housing her kids in a drug den with trained attackdogs was 'good mothering' on her part
3 not one local leader commenting on her poor choices in relationships, housing and career moves
I wonder if the did a blood screen on Wilson, you dont live with six drug dealers in a row without getting some action I dont care what her familly says.
And even if she didnt let drug be sold from her house(why attack dogs) she was complict in the sale and profited from the sale.
And why would Wilson if she was a 'good mother' let a drug dealer live with her?
Did anyone read the article - apparently no one in Lima wants to be a cop so they have to hire people from out of town to do the job.
If people in the comunity are so concered over racist cop why dont they go down and sign up to be cops themselves?
lujlp at August 11, 2008 11:37 PM
Okay, I'm calling it a night. Let me try to leave on a good note though.
As much as I am offended with the original article, that realitycheck guy went way too far. And I would like to state that I think that Amy Alkon did an admirable job of not rising to his petty attacks on her looks. You handled that troll quite well.
not even an mba at August 11, 2008 11:46 PM
mbs she shacked up up six drug dealers, what is the ne thing all drug dealers have in common?
Answer: drugs - therfore it is logical to surmise she sought out drug dealers for the only thing the all had in common.
And I am able to comprehed that other people are human beings, I just dont care, and neither do you.
The futher removed an indvidual is from my circle of familly and close freinds the less I care for them.
The same is true for all people. If Tibet were freed tomorrow the Dami Lama wouldnt be spending his time protesting, he'd be home farming or getting a job in the governmet.
There are only a few reasons people react to stories such as these
1. They have a personal connection - self interest
2. They see how such actions might affect them in the future - self interest
3. They see how such action might affect their familly in the future - self interest
4. They see a way to further themselves, finacially or political - self interest
5. To proke discussion in order to affect change - self interest
6. They enjoy arguing with other people - self interest
SO I guess there is only one reason why people care about stories like these - self interest
lujlp at August 11, 2008 11:48 PM
Let me clarify for you Amy.Tarika's uncle, John Austin is the one who said "She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that,"(emphasis mine) Do you honestly believe that John Austin meant that the community respected her ability to find drug dealers who would get her pregnant? Because that's sure as hell what you implied in the very next line.
I meant exactly what I said -- see below -- that there should have been great shame and disrespect for a woman who lives as she did -- which would likely have prevented her from living as she did:
"Maybe if the community disrespected women who live this sort of lifestyle she would've been less likely to get knocked up six times by a bunch of drug dealers, then taken up with yet another."
Here is a woman who pumped out children by the half-dozen, with men who did not stick around or take care of them, and whose mere presence, considering their "occupation," endangered those children -- let alone their absence (children need daddies).
You, as an adult, are entitled to muck up your own life as you please. You don't get to do this to children, at least not as far as I'm concerned. Those who feel this is no big deal, whatever color you are, you are part of the problem.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 12:02 AM
"You base your conclusion on the fact that the community is black."
Oh, spare me the uninformed opinion and righteous apologies. Do some research for a change.
I'm guessing you'd rather whine on and on about how the "man" has made it impossible for black people to do anything else but take his money, by political extortion or by immediate force.
And Amy, I think you've struck a nerve with the religious. Some of the posters here - I'm betting there are at least three "sock puppets" - distinguish themselves by having literally nothing to back them up. Eager to speak, they cannot hear anything but their own voice.
Radwaste at August 12, 2008 2:16 AM
Well, I should have listened to the voice in my head telling me not to come back here.
ljulp, you said:
The futher removed an indvidual is from my circle of familly and close freinds the less I care for them.
If this is truly how you feel, then I am sorry for you. Really, that's all there is to say about that.
Radwaste, the US incarcerates black people at a rate of 10 times that of everyone else. Is your position that the only reason for that is because black people are much more prone to crime? As for having "nothing to back me up" - I guess you haven't been paying attention.
Amy Alkon,
I will concede that you did not mean that the "community" that John Austin was referring to glorifies crime - if you concede that reading your sentence immediately after the quote (exactly the way it is laid out in your post) gives exactly that impression. And then, I request again:
Now ask yourself why you wrote it the way you did.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 4:23 AM
mba - do you spen any money on yourself or your friends and familly above and beyond simple room and board?
Do you have any savings? A TV? A csr? Anything that run on battaries?
If you answered yes tp just one of those questions then you care more for yourself and your comfort then for those you dont know.
Otherwise you would own practicaly nothing, spend all your time working and vollenteering, and have donated all your spare cash to charity.
Given you have the time and hardware to spend debating this online proves my point.
Everyone cares less for people they dont know.
To prove me wrong gimme $40,000
lujlp at August 12, 2008 4:49 AM
Wait! - I'll accept $30,000 and your proof will be just as valid.
Norman at August 12, 2008 5:32 AM
Um, Amy: shaming doesn't work. It may have some short term spatial effect in moving people or crime or offence to middle class lifestyle out of their face, but someone else cops it later the vast majority of the time.
It's called kick-the-dog syndrome - you know, boss shames [male] employee, who goes home to humiliate wife, who lays into kids, who kick dog. Widespread, well documented, totally human. Anyone who has ever parented a teenager will recognise if they don't already know the dynamic intimately.
Quit advocating shaming unless a human you have personally brought onto the planet has benefitted from it because the humans I've put here suffer deeply when they are shamed; and then, in their immaturity (they have an excuse, you don't) turn around and cause pain to another human - or animal.
magnaNemoUs at August 12, 2008 5:39 AM
Then you're doing it wrong.
brian at August 12, 2008 6:03 AM
Let me spell it out again lujlp:
Are there people that I care about more than others, absolutely. I too am aware of the "monkeysphere". Are there people that I don't consider human beings? - well it's starting to get to that point...
I believe that all human beings have a right to a certain level of dignity and respect, even strangers. I believe that speculating on whether someone I had never met, (who was shot in her own home) traded sex for drugs - well I believe that that is rude, offensive and ignorant. I also believe that I'm in the majority position - but I'm optimistic that way.
Are there people for whom I would risk serious injury or death for, yes - a precious few. But the level of caring between that and the respect I'd give to livestock is wide enough that it leaves room for everybody.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 6:11 AM
Well lets see, she had enough sex with five previous drug dealers often enough to get pregnant by each of them.
It is no leap of the imagination to assume she was sleeping with dealer #6 given she let him move in.
And I find it hard to belive you never speculate.
Afterall this story allows us to speculate that living with a violent drug offender might result in cops kicking in the doors of your house in an atempt to find them.
From this we can resonably conclude that living withdrug dealers is a "bad risk"
And lets be honest, you have speculated about this case otherwise you wouldnt feel the need to post an opinion because you wouldnt have one.
lujlp at August 12, 2008 6:28 AM
"I just wanted you to know that I recognize that you are one of those assholes who are unable to comprehend that other people are human beings."
Well, yes, tecnically. But we are a social species. I feel sorry for her kids. I feel sorry for the kids caught by stray bullets in ghettos every day. I do not feel sorry for people who bring misfortune on themselves via their own decisions and actions.
Murderers and child rapists are human beings too, I suppose, but I feel no sympathy for them no matter what their history. And I am happy for them to die. I save my sympathy for those deserving of it.
momof3 at August 12, 2008 6:36 AM
Have I said anything regarding what my opinion about Tarika Wilson's activities were?
Perhaps this is the part you don't understand because you don't care. A woman died because of who she associated and lived with. A one-year old was injured and had a finger amputated. The current official position is that nothing went wrong during the raid - i.e. this was an acceptable result.
Let's bear that in mind when we look back to the initial question:
Who Places A Lower Value On Black Lives?
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 6:38 AM
"Quit advocating shaming unless a human you have personally brought onto the planet has benefitted from it because the humans I've put here suffer deeply when they are shamed; and then, in their immaturity (they have an excuse, you don't) turn around and cause pain to another human - or animal."
Then you've given birth to sociopaths. Do the world a favor and remove them! When my kids are ashamed, they do NOT go hurt others or animals. They are sad. And I see less of the behavior in the future.
momof3 at August 12, 2008 6:39 AM
The ironic thing, Amy, is that most of the social structure that used to be in place for "shaming" and moral outrage was religious, which you are against, as an atheist. In the black community, particularly, the religious structure used to be strong and effective in promoting marriage over out-of-wedlock parenthood.
Yet, now, we are not supposed to have religion because that spurs married people to have babies (at least they're married!). We should legalize drugs, so that will send...what moral message, exactly? That it's ok to get high?
So who's then supposed to do the shaming? The heroin addict on the street? The grandma who no longer goes to church or believes in God?
It's hard to send a message of moral outrage in an "anything goes," godless environment. And I'm not particularly religious. I just see where the religious structure holds families together better than what's happening now.
I don't think there's enough successful liberal women to go down to every black slum and school and tell girls how many "options" they have - for birth control and/or great daddy material. WE have those options, but many of those girls DON'T. That's why their families aren't filled with moral outrage and judgement.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2008 6:39 AM
Most of the commenters here have freely chosen to live in the US. The US has a very high rate of gun crime. Therefore you deserve to be shot. Or did I miss something?
Malcon at August 12, 2008 6:48 AM
WOW, this thing has taken on a life of its own.
But I think we are forgetting the original article. A woman was killed in her home, by a police officer during a SWAT style drug raid.
1. Said woman was known to associate with drug dealers, having 6 children from 5 drug dealing fathers.
2. Woman was currently living with a known drug dealer and was aware of his activities.
3. Woman endangered the above mentioned children by living with drug dealer.
4. Police raid was in most respects poorly planned and carried out.
5. Police officer shot an unarmed women who, according to testimony was kneeling on the floor.
Sounds to me like both parties need to accept blame for there part in this tragedy.
The woman, who tragiclly lost her life in this situation, must be held accountable for her poor life choices. She was having a relationship with a known drug dealer. I will leave the multiple children from multiple fathers out of the equation, as it has little to do with the situation at hand other than to show a pattern of behavior.
The police officer was held accountable for his part in this tragedy, that a jury of his peers found him innocent is a fact most people try to forget.
As Amy wrote, "Judge a person on there character not there skin color".
The woman did not deserve to die, but she without question made poor choices in her life. Was she forced to make these choices by the "White man", I seriously doubt it. She choose to live her life the way she thought was best for her. We have to assume that she tried to take care of her children, but again multiple children from multiple fathers. Not exactly a screaming endorsement for common sense or a sound reasoning abiliy.
Her uncle says she was well repected in the neighborhood for taking care of her children.
Isn't that her job as a parent? Isn't that the job of every parent out there?
We can argue until we are all gasping for breath but the fact remains that single motherhood is on the rise and will continue to do so until people stop accepting it as the norm. And when I speak of single motherhood, I am not talking about widowers, or divorced mothers. I am talking about women who decide that they just have to have a child or the women who don't demand that their boyfriend wear a condom.
And lastly, Amy is about as much a racist as I am. Stop using base tactics to try to portray people who don't agree with you on subjects based on moral beliefs.
Matthew at August 12, 2008 6:51 AM
RACIST.
I wonder: HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE YOU FUCKED, sweetie?
more than one? guess that makes you a slut worthy of writing off as a 'she deserved it' if you get copshot.
maybe they should have RAPED or BEATEN her first? would that be EQUALLY written off because she's BLACK or because SHE IS A MOTHER?
I love American racists, you're such easy meat... because you're too damned arrogant to realize what racist 'American Exceptionalists' you really are...
I mean, you actually ENJOY being cretins.
ENJOY YOUR FASCIST STATE! just remember the walls that you go bankrupt BUILDING to keep out them there BROWN "ILLEGAL" humans... also KEEP YOU IN...
& the BILLIONS OF US that constitute the Rest of the World is grateful for it.
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n at August 12, 2008 7:00 AM
We should legalize drugs, so that will send...what moral message, exactly? That it's ok to get high?
Alcohol is legal, and most people aren't drunks. I could get heroin easily and I don't.
BlueBerry Pick'n is just too idiotic to respond to. It's actually shocking how many people post here without the slightest tether to rationality in their posts, kind of like they're taking a big dump, and about as persuasively.
Matthew is exactly right:
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 7:14 AM
Most of the commenters here have freely chosen to live in the US. The US has a very high rate of gun crime. Therefore you deserve to be shot. Or did I miss something?
More failed reasoning. This woman did not "deserve" to die. Her death was contributed to by her poor life choices. Some of these SWAT raids do take place at the houses of people who are entirely unconnected to crime. This woman had six children with five different criminals and continued to consort with a criminal, wanted by the police. By doing so, you put your children at ENORMOUS risk. From death by some associate of the criminal or death by police. Not to mention the fact that all of these people were drug dealers.
My neighbors are architects. The police are not interested in breaking into their dwelling. The father's friends and associates are fellow architects and professors. The mother's friends and associates are fellow architects and stay-at-home moms, and then there's her knitting circle.
Lie down with "nutty knitters," as she calls her knitting group that pops over on Wednesday, get up with...a piece of mohair in your eye?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 7:19 AM
Andrew said: "That being said, what you said was still racist, from an objective point of view. The fact that you've said similar stuff about other groups matters not."
I'm gonna plod, forgive me all.
This is, Andrew, not a supportable conclusion. A claim of group prejudice requires a showing that specific groups are favored or disfavored relative to others. Also you should be aware of the bloody history of your "objective point of view". Google for Beria, Laventri.
Let's transpose into the key of nonsense, just to avoid the fnords. "Stop thinking now" markers seldom aid discourse.
Amy says Venusians shouldn't schmardle, and Amy says Earthlings shouldn't schmardle, and Amy says Martians shouldn't schmardle.
Amy is prejudiced against Venusians! She said Venusians shouldn't schmardle!
This non-thought pattern is all too common. It is not objectively, subjectively, injectively, projectively, or surjectively valid. It works only as a stop-thinking-now trigger for self-sustaining outrage. It is profoundly unhelpful.
--
phunctor
phunctor at August 12, 2008 7:20 AM
I will concede that you did not mean that the "community" that John Austin was referring to glorifies crime
I mean the black community in general.
And to another poster above, shaming and familial and community pressure indeed prevents bad behavior. I'm writing a book on this now, dear, backed up by a mountain of data.
I also go to an inner city school to talk to kids about what's possible, if you work hard, and don't buy into the quick fix mentality of drugs and gangs. Pretty amazing for a hardened racist like me, huh?
As for all of you calling me a racist, simply because I see a problem within the black community in America, what are you doing besides calling me ugly and telling me to fuck off?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 7:25 AM
What is the mindset of these people who think Amy (and many of the rest of us here) are racist? I find it hard to understand their thinking. Don't say they have no thinking - sure they do. But what's wrong with it, precisely?
I recently listened to a radio program here in the UK where people put questions to a panel. One of the questions was about the National Health Service. One of the panelists - Billy Brag, who has now sunk to bottom in my estimation - said there should be no limit on how much we spend on health even in individual cases. He's of the "how can you put a value on a human life" set. What an idiot: he seemed to think that we choose to have finite resources, not that there are only finite resources available to us. Basically, he is infantile in his thinking. He can't cope with the difference between what he wants and what is possible.
Are these muppets who post here also infantile, or are they something else?
Norman at August 12, 2008 7:34 AM
The short answer to your question is: yes.
There is a certain infantile worldview that holds that all life choices, all sets of morals, and all cultures are precisely identical and worthy of praise.
There is another infantile worldview that supposes that humans can peaceably exist in a completely unstructured world with no defined rules and no command structure.
And then there are the people who are just plain broken, who fly into an argument, drop a load of dung, and fly off. They have nothing constructive to add because they have either opted out of the thinking process, or they are actually unable to think.
And then there are the rest of us who will look at a situation, remove all the "markers" from it, and analyze it for what it is.
To the infants, doing this makes one a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Because we aren't supposed to bear judgment upon others.
But someone's gotta do it, or everything flies apart.
brian at August 12, 2008 7:47 AM
phunctor,
Radley Balko addressed this very point way way back near the beginning of this long thread. Indeed, if you remove all context then nothing is racist - what a fantastic point you made.
In some limited contexts, you could hang an effigy as a decoration - say as part of a Hallowe'en "House of Horrors" thing, or on Guy Fawkes day. But doing so in, say a predominantly black neighborhood in the Deep South - that's racist.
Also, note that even in your context-free scenario, if you follow the logic, the fact that neither Earthlings nor Martians should schmardle does not preclude prejudice agains Venusians. Amy was the one who brought up her derogatory views on Catholicism - I just pointed out that that was no defense against the charge of racism.
The evidence is at the top of the page. People have read it and been offended. Perhaps they've misunderstood, each and every one of them. I've made an attempt to explain why I personally viewed the original post as racist. Perhaps my understanding of what's written is wrong, but if it is, it has yet to be explained to me how I was mistaken.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 7:49 AM
Very well-put, brian.
For those like you describe above who'd like to make rational thought a part of their lives, I recommend Dalrymple's book, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas.
And no, it's not a book praising racism, but judgement.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 7:49 AM
Amy Alkon,
If your view is that "the black community in general" glorifies crime then please explain to me how that is not racist.
Please, I would prefer to be wrong then to think that someone who's first impression of a black person is "criminal" is dispensing advice in over a hundred newspapers across North America.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 7:55 AM
OK, gotta ask. Is the inner city school you're always mentioning geographically set in the inner city? Otherwise it's just a euphemism for poor black school. Drives me nuts when newspapers do it, drives was nuts when people do.
JulieA at August 12, 2008 7:56 AM
not even an mba
Please, I would prefer to be wrong then to think that someone who's first impression of a black person is "criminal" is dispensing advice in over a hundred newspapers across North America.
It's not racist because it's true. In any grouping, there will be outliers and exceptions. However, the general trend among the "black community" (a term which I despise, by the way, for its lack of specificity - I prefer the "black thug community" or some such) is to at best tolerate, and at worst glorify criminal, anti-social activity -- especially if that activity is perceived as anti-white.
All you need to do is actually LISTEN to the popular music to understand this. You can start with 50 Cent and work your way back to Dre and B.I.G. if you like.
I mean, if you're of a mind to view the popular culture as a mere exposition of the "facts on the ground", I suppose you'll take my view as racist. If, however, you take the view that the popular culture represents the elevation of certain things and the denigration of others, then there's a certain uncomfortable truth that bubbles up through the surface.
Of course, you're also making the assumption that all black people are members of the "black culture" -- an assumption that would make Walter E. Williams bristle.
brian at August 12, 2008 8:34 AM
Dammit! Bitten by the formatting bug again. Paragraph 2 above is part of the quoted text, not my text.
brian at August 12, 2008 8:35 AM
The idea that the mob has waned in the years after the end of prohibition is laughable. They don't do bootlegging as much but it sure as hell didn't wane. La cosanostra is pretty much dead but their area has been filled by far more dangerous groups. The only way that legalizing drugs would stop crime organized or other is if everything became legal, and cheap.
"Most of the commenters here have freely chosen to live in the US. The US has a very high rate of gun crime. Therefore you deserve to be shot." No but I'm well aware that getting into a bar fight in Texas would probably lead to me getting shot so I stay out of bars in Texas.
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced" you rip Amy a new one for speaking her mind and you have the fucking stones to put this at the end of your post? Is this some strange form of sarcasm from Blue Berry Pickers that I'm not aware of. Offensive speech is the only speech that needs to be protected. Non offensive speech has no one threatening it.
"Candy, give me a break. Drop the niggardly attitude and open your eyes. I am not the type of people who is seeking days and night nor new words to not offend people. If you do, get over it. I am not in the business of finding new ways to justify the ridiculous offense of other people." BTW how did any of you finger pointing dip shits miss this one. While the root of the word is not actually racist but originated from Norway meaning cheap. I refuse to believe most of you knew this.
LS: I have to disagree with the "options open to them" argument. Poor immigrant family we all made it. Even as FOB we slowly and painfully became successful. Easy? No not by a long shot but I never dealt drugs. Dad told me point blank he'd kill me for it. Went to very expensive school we had the spectrum of wealth. Some (like me) had to work as an EMT to keep myself in beer and skittles a few kids had 100K plus cars. The students who's parents were really poor got need based scholarships so they graduated without the horrific student loans I have. So if some kid from the projects (not me) can get into BU I'm sure the rest can do better then deal and make babies.
vlad at August 12, 2008 8:35 AM
"The evidence is at the top of the page. People have read it and been offended."
That's not proof of racism. That's proof of being offended. Are you saying that any time someone thinks it might be racism, it is? I'd counter that some people are offended entirely too easily - some even actively seeking out reasons to find offense.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 8:35 AM
I've read very direct (and sometimes harsh) criticisms here towards groups of pretty much every category you can think of. However, I've seen no evidence that those judgments are unfairly biased due to race, color, religion, or anything else. The statements are regarding specifics - and are stated clearly.
It was a poor choice for the woman to continually co-habitate and have children with known drug dealers - knowing the dangers involved and the type of life they lead. It put all of those children in danger long before her life was ended by a racist/incompetent/whatever cop. She also blamed the community for not condemning having a bunch of children in a dangerous environment and for not condemning the whole thug lifestyle.
Amy would have made the same remark (and has, with similar adjectives) had they been white/brown/black/paisley doing the same behavior. I also haven't seen anyone refute the actual points - just nit-pick, excuse the mother's choices due to the drug war, and accuse her of racism.
I never saw her state that the woman deserved to die, that the drug laws were a good idea, nor that the SWAT tactics were warranted (the opposite, in fact). Am I reading a different blog? People are still thinking other things were said.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 8:36 AM
Racist drivel.
If the mayor of Berwyn Heights had been black, he'd be dead today.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/
So far as this article (and most comments) are concerned - the lengths to which people will go, to justify their bigoted beliefs, continues to astound (and depress) me.
It's time to reform our draconian, ineffective, and inequitably enforced drug laws. Myself, I'm in favor of legalization and tight regulation in the form of state clinics.
But it'll never happen, because the world is full of conservative Christian wannabe Ubermensch addicted to the pursuit of moral superiority as a justification for the myriad benefits they enjoy because they were born on the "right" side of the tracks, and because they're blessed with somewhat less melanin in their skin than those litter-mongers in the ghetto.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 8:40 AM
Jamie - what you are witnessing is the absence of thought. People see a white woman being critical of a black woman, and emotion takes over.
Once emotion is admitted to the party, thought is not permitted, and solutions will not be forthcoming. The best you can hope for is that the emotional will burn themselves out and fall asleep again so the adults can work things out amongst themselves.
brian at August 12, 2008 8:44 AM
Hey smart-ass, have you thought this through at all? Who's going to foot the bill for the clinics? Who's gonna pay for the drugs?
What, you thought you were gonna turn a profit off the junkies?
No, your plan puts more people on MY FUCKING WALLET.
Let me make a suggestion for you - instead of trying to justify your irrational bigotry against Christians, how about coming up with a solution to people who want to spend their entire existence in an opium-derived stupor?
Oh, but that wouldn't allow you to feel superior to us, would it?
brian at August 12, 2008 8:47 AM
Heh. Amy Alkon -- Christian Ubermensch. No stereotyping and prejudice there.
moreta at August 12, 2008 8:48 AM
If your view is that "the black community in general" glorifies crime then please explain to me how that is not racist.
If it isn't glorified, it's at least tolerated a LOT more than it should be. When Bill Cosby gave his speech at the NAACP, his premise was that "it's not about what is being done to you, it's about what you're NOT doing." His speech pretty harsh. It was also what a lot of people didn't want to hear. Take responsibility for your situation and DO something about it rather than blaming others. Blame doesn't fix anything.
If he hadn't been black, there would have been a public outrage that he was racist. Why are the same words any more or less racist depending on who spoke them?
Have you taken even a brief look at the popular culture? The whole thug/gangsta (black, latino, what ever) culture seems to glorify crime. Examples: The kids reflexively performing the gang hand-signs for almost every picture taken. The music on their playlists that glorify crime, and demonizes "snitching". The young teens that brag on their myspace profile that they're a Blood, Crip, member of MS-13, etc.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 8:51 AM
"Myself, I'm in favor of legalization and tight regulation in the form of state clinics." How do you propose to set this up? Legalize it and then let the states sort it out? Have the clinics run by the feds, perhaps the DEA? I'm all for the clinics if they can be made to work. If you have a plan that would actually work under scrutiny I'm listening. Just remember the same fed that are doing such a great job fighting drug would probably do as good a job or regulating those same substance. Also would you be willing to set up a company that produces and distributes heroine, coke, crack, etc. for human use cause the drug companies won't go near it.
"they were born on the "right" side of the tracks" Again no I was not, nor am I conservative. Do what ever the fuck you want with two limitations 1) Do not endanger me or mine 2) Don't make me pay for it*.
* If you made some mistakes in your life and are actually trying to get your shit together I'm all for it. My wallet is open to a point.
vlad at August 12, 2008 8:52 AM
Exactly, Brian. And not ONE of those emotional, self-righteous anal-retentive glory-seeking hypocrits has answered Amy's question about what THEY were doing actively, right now, to help anyone in the "black community" like she is, going to the inner city high school and actually demonstrating that their IS more to life than being the next generation of welfare recipients. And if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the homeless shelter and work my shift now. I hope the mom I met last week is there, I brought some clothes that my girls have outgrown for her daughter, and I've gotten together a bunch of new school supplies for the other kids. It's not much, I know, but it's a start.
Flynne at August 12, 2008 8:52 AM
When you deliberately ignore a plethora of social problems that are directly related to the social impact of racism while busily blaming a crime victim for her own victimization, that's racist in precisely the same was as the "she shouldn't have been wearing that transluscent miniskirt" defense against rape charges is sexist.
You seem like a bright enough fella' to understand the similarity. If you're not getting it, maybe you should examine that a little.
So should the author of this article.
Hey Brian... at August 12, 2008 8:54 AM
Jamie, I totally agree. That some people have taken offense is absolutely not proof of racism.
That said, I am one of the people who have taken offense. Over the course of several comments I have tried to explain my position on this. Perhaps you think I am either wrong or delusional. If that's the case, please explain to me where my mistake/misunderstanding is.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 8:55 AM
""she shouldn't have been wearing that transluscent miniskirt" defense against rape charges is sexist." Re think your choice of words. Especially the "defense against rape charges", this is legal terminology as in that which would be used in court. No one has suggested that her having 6 babies all with drug dealers should be a deffence for the cop shooting her.
vlad at August 12, 2008 8:58 AM
If, however, you take the view that the popular culture represents the elevation of certain things and the denigration of others, then there's a certain uncomfortable truth that bubbles up through the surface.
Brian,
That quote is horrendous.
"Represents... blah blah blah"
"Bubbles up through the blah blah surface..."
What are you? Some sort of junior anthropologist trying to formulate truths by peering hard at the funny natives and their peculiar ways?
How many middle class black families do you know?
Go on - time to prove you actually discuss black cultural stereotypes with black people you know extremely well.
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 8:59 AM
"Over the course of several comments I have tried to explain my position on this. Perhaps you think I am either wrong or delusional." Just wrong. If you think that anyone who has 6 kids with 5 different fathers is having litter then then you may be judgmental, Amy makes no bones about being judgmental. If you think that it's only litters is the person is (insert race here) while a white trailer park baby factory is just having a family your racist.
I'd support the argument that she maybe a classist at least at the outset. That successful people (especially self made ones) are viewed more highly by her by dint of their accomplishments I'd agree. She gives the most credit to those that have climbed out of a shit circumstance.
vlad at August 12, 2008 9:05 AM
No Vlad, it's being used as the basis to undermine criticism of the police who shot her. Are you saying there's no relationship between legal defenses and moral or ethical defenses? Not even I'm that jaded.
What the author is doing is criticizing the social critics for not holding the victim accountable for her actions.
Which is a lot like saying a rape victim should never have been in that seedy bar in the first place.
Isn't it?
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 9:06 AM
"That said, I am one of the people who have taken offense. Over the course of several comments I have tried to explain my position on this. Perhaps you think I am either wrong or delusional. If that's the case, please explain to me where my mistake/misunderstanding is."
My point is that arguing racism without refuting the point is MISSING the point entirely. Take the meaning without attaching emotional value to how she said it. Is her point racist? That a woman having 6 children by different men, all of which chose to be drug dealers, good for her - or her children?
It's nearly impossible to state a criticism without SOMEONE getting offended. Offense at how something is said is subjective. Her criticism was objective. If you want to debate a point, debate the objective meaning of the criticism - not why you found it offensive.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 9:09 AM
brian,
You said:
Your proof is violent rap music.
Well then, there we go. We can dismiss all of black culture because of 50 Cent. That's totally awesome. Also, I take it that we can dismiss everyone who's commented on this thread because of they're misogyny based on the first dozen or so posts in this thread.
You don't even know if Tarika Wilson or Anthony Terry listened to rap music. You don't know if Sgt. Chavalia doesn't.
Also note that the original post was tarring "black leaders". You think Jesse Jackson's a Wu Tang Clan fan?
Here's your argument: Oh, but it's rap music - it represents the entirety of black culture so it's true that blacks glorify crime.
But do go on about the "absence of thought" again. Clearly it's something you're an expert on.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 9:11 AM
Ok, so I'm supposed to excuse bad behavior on the basis of prior maltreatment. Sounds a lot like "I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived".
You've drawn a line in the sand, and I don't really like what it delineates. On one side is you - with the justification defense: past racism justifies present criminality. On the other is me: personal responsibility is good for everyone.
And many on your side of the line have decided that those on my side of the line are racist because we believe that since we cannot change the past, we must work on the future.
And we aren't getting anywhere with a bunch of people screaming about whitey holding them back when they've got more access to opportunity than most other people in the world, but they have immersed themselves in a culture that denigrates intellectual pursuit as "acting white".
brian at August 12, 2008 9:12 AM
Brian my plan fo drug legalization is simple.
State run clinic where you can get all the hard stuff you want for free. I'd be cheaper than prison and treatment programs and I'd be willing to bet the addicts kill themselves off quickly, again saving money in the long run
lujlp at August 12, 2008 9:12 AM
uh... right. I never suggested that, I don't think. It represents what is presented to us as "authentic black culture", that's for sure.
There was a time when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both spoke out forcefully against "gangsta rap". They don't do that any more. I wonder why?
brian at August 12, 2008 9:19 AM
It wasnt politically or finacially expediant once white politicains jumped on their bandwagon.
Better points to be scored in pointing out how white wants to hold a brother down
lujlp at August 12, 2008 9:23 AM
>>And we aren't getting anywhere with a bunch of people screaming about whitey holding them back when they've got more access to opportunity than most other people in the world, but they have immersed themselves in a culture that denigrates intellectual pursuit as "acting white".
No, Brian.
No one is getting anywhere due to your telepathic super-knowledge of how chippy black folk think based -as fas as I can tell -on the awful music you hear on your car radio.
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 9:25 AM
Brian: are you saying that Tarika Wilson is a criminal? I'm all for personal responsibility. But I also understand the difference between reasons and excuses.
lujlp: offers of treatment would be continuous, at the point of access. Drug trafficking is essentially a financially motivated endeavor. What do you suppose would happen if we, as a culture, removed the financial incentive for engaging in drug sales? What would happen to availability? What impact would it have on crimes committed in the service of drug acquisition?
Think about it.
Jamie: the author deliberately uses language that dehumanizes the victim(s) in her story. How does this not fit an objective definition of racism? "Litters" indeed.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 9:28 AM
Well fieldingbandolier if drug were legal users would still comit propery crimes and theft in order to feed their habits which is why my plan call for all the free drugs you want.
No questions asked just go in a room down the hall until you're capable of walking out on your own
or dead
Either way
And she was a criminal - ever here of accessory?
lujlp at August 12, 2008 9:37 AM
WTF?
I don't know if she was or not. She was consorting with criminals, for good or ill.
And that is, in large part, why she is dead. Yes, I understand that the immediate cause of her death was a cop, and you can have all the arguments you want about whether he should have been there, whether he should have shot, and the whole litany.
None of which changes the primary point of the original article - Wilson intentionally put herself in a position of danger, with no apparent regard for the well-being of her children. This was not a Good Thing. In fact, her death is precisely tragic, because her death is a result of her own moral failings.
You can argue until the sun burns out that she had no choice but to consort with drug dealers, but I will not accept such excuses. As long as she had feet, she had the option to leave.
brian at August 12, 2008 9:37 AM
brian -- way back in the ether we had a brief exchange about whether legalizing hard drugs would lead to more addicted (aka drain on society) users. We've had anecdotal evidence from lovelysoul about the trailer park, which I think still speaks to socio-economic challenges, not race (supported by that trailer park being primarily white). I'm wondering if you've had a chance to read that study nemo cited and your opinion on its validity.
While I agree the work of setting up the distribution & regulation system would be expensive, I don't see these drugs being sold at your local pharmacy. They are for recreational use -- like alcohol -- and would be manufactured, regulated and sold in a similar manner. Maybe you could buy marijuana at 7-11, but harder stuff would be sold at specialty stores, similar to the way wine and liquor are sold. Or at least that's my understanding of how booze is sold in the US. Up here in Canada we have a seperate store for all alcoholic products.
If there was profit to be made, surely SOMEONE would be willing to manufacture it. Tobacco and alcohol are good examples. If the industry admitted outright their product wasn't safe and you're at risk if you use it, wouldn't that prevent the crash the tobacco industry is facing right now from the racketeering lawsuits?
moreta at August 12, 2008 9:39 AM
>>As long as she had feet, she had the option to leave.
Huh, brian?
You mean she was supposed to walk out on her dead feet?
(I think you need to qualify your statement).
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 9:42 AM
So, basically, you're saying that the music is not representative of anything, and the fame that has come to the performers of such is completely unrelated to the content of their music?
Please.
Are you trying to tell me that the entirety of gangsta rap is an elaborate ruse, and that the joke's on white people? There's no acceptance of criminal behavior in certain black neighborhoods?
I mean, I'm willing to accept that there are certain groups of people dedicated to fighting off the criminals, and groups that have simply resigned themselves to the presence of criminals in their midst, and groups that have just walked away.
But that still leaves a group that tolerates, and perhaps celebrates criminality.
Or am I a racist for even noticing?
brian at August 12, 2008 9:43 AM
Jody - you are being deliberately dense. Wilson, as a young woman, had plenty of opportunities to leave. Hell, her mother did too. But none of them thought to avail themselves of it. Why? I suppose it is partly because everyone they knew was already where they were. But I think the primary cause is that nobody ever told them that they had a right to expect better of themselves and their families. Instead, they've been fed a steady diet of "you ain't gonna get nowhere on account of the white man won't let you", and they sit and never realize what they could be.
moreta - I couldn't because his links were useless. Did he fix them? I'll go check and get back to you.
brian at August 12, 2008 9:48 AM
"Then keep in mind that we are talking about a woman who has been shot dead in her home and her baby injured as well."
Which actually makes what this woman did all the more despicable. As Amy said, "Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids" is a simple fact, so Tarika Wilson deliberately and knowingly placed her own children in harm's way. It would've been one thing to place herself in harm's way, but her children? What the hell did she think was going to happen, that the police would gently knock then come in with pillows and frilly dresses and shower the place with flowers? Come on. The WORST thing a parent can ever do is knowingly place their child in harm's way. It goes against everything a parent is supposed to be. That is not 'taking great care of kids', as John Austin claimed. "Hi I'm a great parent I placed my kids in a drug raid situation!" - WTF.
On a side note, I don't appreciate people who play the "OMG people someone is *dead*" card, as if that's a card that allows you to control what other people say by appeal to guilt --- an appeal to emotion does not trump rational reasoning, ever.
David J at August 12, 2008 9:54 AM
Don't think (s)he fixed the link -- but I went looking for the study (or more accurately an analysis of various studies). It's here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/alexender-e.htm
moreta at August 12, 2008 9:55 AM
lujlp: an accessory is someone who is contributing to the commission of a crime. Are you privy to some inside information that reveals that Tarika Wilson was either actively or passively involved in drug sales?
I'm also in favor of a "junkie card" system that allowed free use of illicit substances. Turns out, however, that the majority of health problems associated with drug use are due to unfortunate aspects of their manufacture. When you provide a heroin addict with an unadulterated product, the corollary health problems are drastically reduced. (So, sorry - not going to be a lot of people dying off if we're providing pharmaceutical-quality substances and supporting a maintenance habit.)
Brian:
"None of which changes the primary point of the original article - Wilson intentionally put herself in a position of danger, with no apparent regard for the well-being of her children. This was not a Good Thing. In fact, her death is precisely tragic, because her death is a result of her own moral failings."
What you're doing here is ignoring the myriad, and compelling, pressures exerted on this person to make the choices she made - pressures that are intrinsically associated with her ethnic status. You are assuming moral failings because of the outcome, while giving absolutely no credit at all for what her mother describes as an intact (albeit different from yours, and the author's) values system. Frankly, from a social perspective, she is precisely the sort of person who exerts the most positive influence on the people around her - a continuing member of the community she lives in who continues to affiliate with people engaging in behaviors she does not condone or participate in. When you do nothing more than ostracize "bad" people, who abdicate any influence you might have had on the choices they have yet to make.
"You can argue until the sun burns out that she had no choice but to consort with drug dealers, but I will not accept such excuses. As long as she had feet, she had the option to leave."
Yeah - God forbid she might actually feel a part of that community, and balk at abandoning the people she identifies with (not evening mentioning extrinsic pressures). By staying, she retains influence - an influence that, given what little we know, was positive. Why would you not want a beneficial member of that alienated community to remain a part of it?
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 9:59 AM
Her criticism was objective. If you want to debate a point, debate the objective meaning of the criticism - not why you found it offensive.
Okay Jamie. I'll try to be objective.
You know what? I'd have to say that the cop in body armor and carrying an assault rifle who fired live rounds into a dark room, in a house where he knew there were black children residing - that guy places a lower value on black lives. What do you think?
Also, considering Amy Alkon's position on no-knock raids, that the article would then go on to focus on the dead woman is troubling. Or is that not objective enough for you?
How about that at 7:14 AM Amy Alkon endorsed Matthew's take on it - that there's plenty of blame to go around. That's right, 24 hours after she targetted Tarika Wilson, Anthony Terry, Jesse Jackson, Pastor Arnold Manley and the black community in general for blame, she concedes that...oh wait no she cut out that part of Matthew's quote:
5. Police officer shot an unarmed women who, according to testimony was kneeling on the floor.
Sounds to me like both parties need to accept blame for there part in this tragedy.
That's right. This entire long thread has been heaping blame on the dead woman and her crime glorifying community. Anyone here know John Austin from Adam? Anyone here ever have a sit-down conversation with Pastor Manley? Anyone here know any black people in Lima? And yet it's all about how the black community should bear the blame. Maybe I am losing my objectivity, because that attitude is sick.
At the end of the day, Tarika Wilson is dead, her infant child was operated on- and Joseph Chavalia is cleared of all charges - likely to return to his position on the Lima SWAT Team any day now. Who has more of a right to be upset, the black community or you lot of pissants who think black leaders are being opportunistic.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Think about it. Jamie: the author deliberately uses language that dehumanizes the victim(s) in her story. How does this not fit an objective definition of racism? "Litters" indeed.
Oh, please. Because something COULD be racism doesn't mean it is racism -- except for people looking to find racism in every "a," "an" or "the."
I have said several times that I have used litters to describe many other kinds of people having numerous children, including Catholics and rich white women. I have an issue with people who have many children, because it dilutes the level of care they can provide for their children -- most certainly when they are mothers to children of five different drug dealers, and taking up with yet another.
Once again, I'm not a racist, but as of yesterday and today in this comments section, I am starting to get extremely impatient with people who use their heads merely as holding places for their hair.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Jody - you are being deliberately dense.
Nah, it was simply a joke in poor taste tailored to your "inner man", Brian. You see, I'm telepathic too!
Your entire comment at 9.48 am is just more of this same exasperating mind-reading garbage.
What the hell has gotten into you?
Why are you wasting time making up this shit about the bankrupt inner life of a dead woman who, apparently, listened uncritically to gangsta rap?
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 10:08 AM
fieldingbandolier:
Jamie: the author deliberately uses language that dehumanizes the victim(s) in her story. How does this not fit an objective definition of racism? "Litters" indeed.
It doesn't "fit" because she'd use the same terms to describe people of her own race doing the same thing. None of the terms are race-specific. I'm dead certain, that if a white woman squeezed out a pack of 6 kids - almost all by different fathers - all of which were leading criminal/dangerous lifestyles - nearly identical adjectives (if not worse) would be used. Prove me wrong.
The person wasn't NON-human by any means, but raising children that way certainly seems inhumane to me.
Calling a black person a Neanderthalic asshole because they're acting like a primitive idiot isn't racist if the critic would use the same words to describe the same behavior from a white person. It's addressing the behavior, not their race.
Had Amy said this about a white woman (and I've seen plenty of white women live similar lives), or had Amy been black, would people still be accusing her of being racist? If not, then she isn't being racist now, either.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 10:09 AM
"What do you suppose would happen if we, as a culture, removed the financial incentive for engaging in drug sales? What would happen to availability? What impact would it have on crimes committed in the service of drug acquisition?"
You'd get a bigger group of addicts. Many people don't use drugs because they don't want to screw up their bodies. Others don't use (or TRY) drugs because they're afraid of getting in trouble. From this latter point comes the stigma attached to users (many people don't want to be associated with criminals or addicts). This stigma must also be influenced by the fact that addicts don't really do much for anyone. Feeding the addiction is priority 1. You might love your addicted child and he loves you but he'll steal that $20 in your wallet if it means a huge dose of whatever.
Legalization doesn't change addict behavior. Why?
Because addicts aren't rational.
Maybe there's a voice inside their head (not the LSD voice) saying "Geeze my life is a mess. I should get a job and pay back my mom all the money I stole to buy drugs." But the addiction is WAYYYY more powerful than that.
So if you legalize drugs you break down that appealing, high profit business as well as the legal stigma/consequence that keeps some people from starting in the first place. That will drive the prices way down and, dare I say, increase demand on its own never mind the fact you won't get in trouble. You can just walk to CVS and get a single hit which is the right strength and amount calculated for your body type (b/c the gov. is regulating now) just like other medicine. And you get a clean syringe. That decreases the OD and disease risk. Not only are people addicted but now they don't need to spend 6 hours begging to buy something. They can beg for 1 hour. By the time 9 PM comes around they're going to buy their 4th hit instead of their 2nd.
Removing each of these barriers (most at tax payers' expense, mind you) will infinitely increase demand.
So legalization doesn't fix the behavior of addicts, including the high rate of returning to a drug ridden lifestyle. Rehab is barely effective. It's enhancing the attractiveness of the lifestyle. Why work when you can sit around shooting up - consequence free - and have the stupid tax payers support you?
Go ahead and subsidize the shit out of treatment clinics and rehab facilities. Unless you start talking lobotomies you're not going to help anyone by increasing the accessibility of hard drugs.
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 10:09 AM
I have. Accessory charges need more evidence than "knowing it's going on and not doing anything about it" (protip: You can watch a crime be committed and you're under no obligation to say anything to investigators). It requires actual material support -- more than just words, more than just "knowing it's going on and saying nothing". Where is your proof she provided such support?
Leave the lawyering to those of us who have actually studied the law.
Andrew at August 12, 2008 10:09 AM
Gee Amy, it seems odd that you'd use your less discriminating use of objectifying language as a defense against racism. Why would I not think that you're bigoted in a more general sense, and that you also happen to be racist?
I don't blame you for not wanting to see the racism inherent in your post. If I'd written it, I'd be feeling pretty uncomfortable as well, by now.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:10 AM
My mom says I'm a good person too. That doesn't mean I'm having a positive influence on my community. My observable behaviors and the outcomes determine what type of influence, if any, I'm having on my community.
What positive influence was she having? That she didn't do drugs in front of her 5 kids or let her man sell from the house? I know her social surroundings didn't suggest there is more to being a good mom than that...but isn't that the issue at hand? And when, as an adult, can you be expected to open your eyes and brain to say, "Damn...hanging out with multiple drug dealers probably isn't the best place for my kids"?.
moreta at August 12, 2008 10:10 AM
Because sometimes one has to realize that they are using a teaspoon to drain the ocean, and the time has come to move on and abandon the others to their fate.
brian at August 12, 2008 10:14 AM
Did she or did she not provide shelter and support to a drug dealer?
lujlp at August 12, 2008 10:16 AM
Amy Alkon,
Despite having been told why this excuse is irrelevant, you just said:
Yes, you have used that term in reference to Catholics and the "too Posh to push" set. But always in a derogatory nature. Everytime you've used it, it's clear that you don't mean it as a compliment. Stop trotting that excuse out, it just makes you look worse.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:16 AM
Whether the drug raid was carried out terribly or not is irrelevant in the judgment of this woman's moral fiber, because no matter how well it is done, a drug raid is ALWAYS a potentially highly dangerous and volatile situation. There is no such thing as a "good" drug raid. Let me re-emphasize:
This woman deliberately placed her own children in a drug raid situation.
Think about that. There just is no way to defend that without sounding absurd.
"What you're doing here is ignoring the myriad, and compelling, pressures exerted on this person to make the choices she made ..."
Phew ... it must be hard work continually fencing out reality with that web of rationalisations and fallacies. And the moral relativism, nice touch .. there are no "bad" people, only "different" people, right.
"Hi honey today I dragged the kids into a drug raid situation, but don't worry, it was just a small drug raid, nothing risky or anything" ... I don't know how some of you manage to keep a straight face defending this.
David J at August 12, 2008 10:18 AM
Jamie:
Objectifying language serves to undermine our identification with another person. In this instance, the author was using that language in an article in which she is talking about a racial community. Were she merely talking about, say, Catholics (as she mentioned), then that would be religious bigotry. When you talk about people like they're animals, that pretty much defines bigotry. Doesn't it?
Gretchen: about 20 years ago, Nightline had a great story on drug treatment clinics in (I believe) Great Britain. We're not talking about legalization + deregulation, we're talking about drastically increased control over distribution through legalization and the opportunity for increased regulation that legalization could afford.
Moreta: You're judging this person's entire life on the basis of what little you know about a single incident. Her mom says she was a good mother, and that she never allowed drug sales around her. Think about it - she identifies with her community. What you're asking her to do is abandon the community of people she identifies with in favor of a larger community of people, many of whom are manifestly prejudiced against her.
But it's much easier to judge her, because that way we can disown any feelings of vicarious responsibility we might otherwise entertain for what happened to her.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:19 AM
So unless I compliment people for doing things that I judge to be stupid, I am a racist?
moreta at August 12, 2008 10:22 AM
moreta,
you ask:
If you read the linked NYT article, or even the quoted bit in Amy Alkon's post, you'll see that "She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that".
But, to the issue at hand - guilt by association. Did you read any of the comments near the beginning of this thread? Sure Tarika Wilson lived with a drug dealer, but there is zero evidence that she did any drugs. Using your criteria of proof and based solely on the output of lujlp, I can assume that you too are a misogynist. So it's nice to know that your mom still thinks you're a good person despite you're constant abuse of women.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:22 AM
"Okay Jamie. I'll try to be objective."
I do appreciate the effort. But maybe you could try a little harder?
The point of the article is that people in the black community are outraged at the police officer (and I think, rightly so), but not outraged in the least at their own members that are having children irresponsibly, nor those who are criminals.
Nothing was said that removes responsibility from the police (did she say the cop shouldn't have been charged?), but resents that NO responsibility was placed on the mother for essentially putting herself and her children in a situation where if they wouldn't be fired upon by police, they'd be fired upon by rival dealers, or their parents would end up in jail, or in an environment that increases the chance the children would also deal and/or use drugs themselves.
I linked Bill Cosby's speech earlier. If you haven't, you should read it. It's more mildly spoken, but the points are similar.
This is a quote regarding people blaming society or "unfair laws" for there being a disproportionate number of black men in prison:
"I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don’t you know where he is? And why doesn’t the father show up to talk to this boy?"
And a quote that ties in well to Miss Wilson:
"Fifty percent drop out rate, I’m telling you, and people in jail, and women having children by five, six different men. Under what excuse? I want somebody to love me. And as soon as you have it, you forget to parent."
Is he a racist, too? He's not racist since he's black, right? He doesn't pull any punches, his language is generally less offensive since he generally tends to cuss a whole lot less than the Godless Heathen.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 10:25 AM
Think about that. There just is no way to defend that without sounding absurd.
Or how about, veteran police officer in full SWAT gear, with a team of ten other SWAT officers with him, discharges his assault rifle blindly into a room when he knew that there were children in the house. Oh wait, that was defended successfully in a white judge/all-white jury court of law.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:25 AM
>>This woman deliberately placed her own children in a drug raid situation.
David J.
What on earth do you mean?
That she heard about the raid and purposefully rushed home to make sure her kids were all there when it went down?
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 10:26 AM
fieldingbandolier -- Aren't you're giving her a free pass on personal responsibility based on the same thing? Are there no bad decisions? No bad people? Just victims of circumstance? Maybe she was speaking out about problems in her community, maybe she was volunteering at the rehab...but we know nothing except she had 5 children and continued to choose, over and over again, to knowingly live with drug dealers, which decision appears to have been supported by her family as being good.
moreta at August 12, 2008 10:27 AM
*Despite having been told why this excuse is irrelevant*
".... the Grand Poobah harrumphed. Harrumphing was his favorite utterance, as he used it when he had run out of ideas but desperately wanted to have the last word in a disagreement. And these days the Grand Poobah was harrumphing quite frequently, as he was usually disagreeable."
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 12, 2008 10:28 AM
not even an mba, that's the whole point. Amy has used "litter" in the exact same way to describe the exact same behavior across race and class boundaries for a very long time. You may find the term offensive, but that does not make it racist. I'm starting to think the problem here is that people do not understand what the word "racism" means.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 10:29 AM
DavidJ: she didn't allow any drug trafficking in her home, right? Did the police find any?
So if she was breaking no laws, how did she "drag her children into a drug-raid situation"?
Moral relativism: a couple of my high school friends ended up in prison, later. They weren't all bad; were I to continue to associate with them, would I be placing myself at indefensible risk?
I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that uniformly ostracizing people who violate behavioral prohibitions rather exacerbates the problem, rather than remediating it. That seems blatantly obvious to me - that affiliation doesn't necessarily constitute enabling. Doesn't it seem obvious to you?
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:29 AM
Accessory charges need more evidence than "knowing it's going on and not doing anything about it" (protip: You can watch a crime be committed and you're under no obligation to say anything to investigators). It requires actual material support -- more than just words, more than just "knowing it's going on and saying nothing". Where is your proof she provided such support?
She provided such support by letting the drug dealer live in her house with her children in it. She provided such support by feeding him. She provided such support by sharing her bed with him. She didn't HAVE to do any of these things, yet she did. Innocent bystander, indeed.
Flynne at August 12, 2008 10:29 AM
"What on earth do you mean?"
Quoth the blog post: "Lie down with drug dealers, wake up with drug raids."
Do you think it is realistic to say that if you keep bedding down with one drug dealer after another for years, that you should be genuinely and honestly SURPRISED one day when a drug raid occurs?
(The funny thing is, if a white 'soccer mom' type had done this I have no doubt that this non-subtle point would be extremely obvious to anyone here.)
David J at August 12, 2008 10:30 AM
fieldingbandolier:
When you talk about people like they're animals, that pretty much defines bigotry. Doesn't it?
I don't think we'll agree here. I think racial bigotry is making statements specifically based on race. In this case I'd argue that she saw behavior that is inhumane - so she used language that described such. If she described people as animals for no reason other than their race, that'd be racial bigotry.
However, I don't think she'd use those terms if Wilson was raising a bunch of kids in a stable household/family where the parents made their living through legal work.
So if Amy's a bigot, she's a behavioral bigot. I'm doubt anyone would disagree on that point at least. Though some might not see it as a compliment.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 10:34 AM
">>This woman deliberately placed her own children in a drug raid situation.
David J.
What on earth do you mean?
That she heard about the raid and purposefully rushed home to make sure her kids were all there when it went down?"
Jody,
If you sit down in the middle of the highway you'll probably get hit by a vehicle going 80. And you'll probably die.
If you consistently choose to surround yourself by a group of people (live w/ them, make babies with them, etc.) who choose to sell drugs you must realize, unless you're mentally handicapped, the potential to get caught up in some sort of fiasco is a statistical probability.
Death by being shot by a police officer who was not prepared to handle a raid? No. I don't even think a murderer expects that.
But being caught in a potentially violent situation or becoming involved in legal fallout? Absolutely. 100%
To then put yourself, and your children, into a situation surrounded by career criminals who may carry weapons of their own (do people ever get shot at a drug deal gone wrong? Yes.) is wreckless. Irresponsible. Deserving of death? No. Stupid? Yes. She had NO...***NO***...right to put her kids in that position. But she did.
That's what we're talking about. Not whether she wanted her child to get hurt or wanted to die herself. And not whether she deserved it (no one does. Ever.).
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 10:35 AM
Well, how about we all agree to assign her just as much blame as the Lima police force, and the man who pulled the trigger are assigned. ZERO.
Here's your take-home message. The Lima police force think nothing went wrong. This was how the situation should have unfolded. i.e. so long as the police are looking for drugs, they can kill anyone they want to. So, make sure you never find yourself anyplace that might be the target of a drug raid, even if the cops have the wrong address (and it happens) otherwise, it's your fault.
I wonder what the response would have been if both of Tarika's parents had been white.
I wonder what the response would have been if Tarika's baby was white.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:36 AM
P.S: Jody I have no idea if you were being serious, sarcastic or what (long day!). So if you were sarcastic, sorry! If you were being serious then I guess I had a beef w/ your statement :-)
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 10:38 AM
Moreta: No, I'm not advocating that we don't hold people responsible for their behavior. I am arguing that we take context into account when we're laying on judgments about their behavior, however.
My point is that there's often a complex calculus being employed in a decision like this, and for us to automatically assume there is not - that she made the decisions she made out of a position of moral failing - is not only absurd, it's offensive.
And, in some cases, pretty obviously racist.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:38 AM
>>Do you think it is realistic to say that if you keep bedding down with one drug dealer after another for years, that you should be genuinely and honestly SURPRISED one day when a drug raid occurs?
But you didn't originally say she could hardly be "honestly surprised" by the drug raid, David J.
You said she "deliberately" put herself and her kids in that situation.
Important difference.
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 10:38 AM
libarbarian - let me give you the generic apology I reserve for people who misinterpret what I say:
I'm sorry that you're too stupid to comprehend the series of words I assembled and the point that they convey. Furthermore, I apologize for the fact that your critical reasoning facilities have been compromised by your desire to find hidden meanings and code words where none exist.
I'm sure you'll go far with that attitude, brian. People love cocky assholes who pretend to be way smarter than they are.
libarbarian at August 12, 2008 10:38 AM
I have read all links and followed this thread since the beginning. I'm sorry I used my mom in my example -- what I should have said is that my uncle says I'm good to my kid and people respect me for that. A much more unbiased view than my mom. Not sure that translates to a positive influence (fielding's word, not yours) on the community...which was where that part of my question came from. And thanks for calling me a mysoginist -- now that I've been labeled as such, it must be so and I have no other defense or argument to make. Damn women...I hate us so! If I'd just go back to the kitchen and do what my man told me to, I'd quit causing such a ruckus on the internet.
moreta at August 12, 2008 10:39 AM
not an mba -
Will you PLEASE stop using the fact that the cop was not punished as a proof that Amy is a racist?
In fact, will you please stop trying to excuse the bad choices made all around because a cop shot someone. The cop acting like Rambo does not excuse any prior bad acts by anyone he happens to kill.
If I'd have been on that jury, I can tell you that this white person would have voted to convict, and that jury would have either come to my way of thinking, or hung.
And even if that cop wound up going to death row, it STILL would not absolve Tarika Wilson of complicity in her own demise.
brian at August 12, 2008 10:40 AM
"She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that"
The community respected her for having multiple children by multiple fathers? Basically respecting a woman who apparently never thought of birth control or getting involved with someone whose lifestyle isn't likely to get them shot or put in jail? And apparently thought it was okay to have more children in that same environment?
Pretty fucked up values to respect someone by.
Pretty fucked up way to take care of her kids, too.
I value raising children in a stable, safe, and financially/emotionally healthy environment. I made a point to not have kids until I knew I could provide that to them. When I see someone that has MULTIPLE children without providing that environment, I condemn their choices. I could care less what their race is.
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 10:41 AM
Not even an mba:
Some people agree w/ the police that nothing went wrong (and the jury that acquitted the officer).
But many of us disagree and think what happened was wrong. The police should be above competency and ability.
It's been a sad realize the police are not held to a higher standard.
The fact the mother was irresponsible and shouldn't have stood in front of a Mac truck going 80, I mean live with dealers, is irrelevant.
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 10:41 AM
It's gotten me a lot farther than believing in unicorns, I can tell you that.
And it ain't braggin' if you can do it.
You're just jealous because I am smarter than you. I don't need to pretend.
brian at August 12, 2008 10:44 AM
I don't see why there has to be a choice between blaming the incompetent/racist cop or blaming Wilson. In a complex world such as this one, there's usually plenty of culpability to go around.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 10:45 AM
Jamie: If I use a racial epithet in a manner uncharacteristic with my typical behavior and attitudes, haven't I behaved in a racist manner? I have no idea whether or not the author harbors persistent racist beliefs or not - this is my first visit to her blog.
However, it's pretty easy to discern that, in this post, she employed a dehumanizing/objectifying term to a member of a racial minority while simultaneously criticizing stereotyped aspects of that culture, making assumptions about the person objectified on the basis of those stereotyped assumptions, and using those ill-founded conclusions to criticize people who dare allege racism.
So yeah, today she's a racist. Tomorrow? Who knows. Unlike the author (today), I have great faith in the capacity for people to evolve, and great appreciation for the manner in which making global judgments on the basis of isolated behavior in a single context is really misleading, and really dumb.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:47 AM
Will you PLEASE stop using the fact that the cop was not punished as a proof that Amy is a racist?
Well, except for the fact that she opened the post by asking who places a lower value on black life. Actually, that's like the second or third time I mentioned it in my flurry of responses. I guess the fact that he got off scot free means that we can deny the existence of any racism at all. That must make you uncomfortable.
Also, while I understand that people are up in arms over the "litter" comment - and it's a doozy, my racism accusation is based on the post in toto.
Broad generalizations of "the black community", blaming the victim and attributing motives to her that are base and stereotypical, applying the same filter to the actions of every black person involved in the story, complete disregard of any details that contradict her storyline - that sort of thing. But it's okay - I appreciate that you can't see those sorts of thing brian. That's just who you are.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:49 AM
>>"She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that"
>>The community respected her for having multiple children by multiple fathers?
And another contender for the stupidity award...
Jamie (SMS),
You are an idiot here.
The obvious interpretation here is that DESPITE having multiple children by different fathers, the mother AT LEAST made an effort to take care of her kids. And this was noted in her favor by those who knew her UP UNTIL the tragic events.
Gretchen,
You've made a great deal of sense. Fwiw.
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 10:51 AM
The community respected her for having multiple children by multiple fathers?
You see, this is the kind of stupid fucking bullshit that's making everyone associated with this thread look like ignorant racist fuckwads.
Please tell me that you honestly believe that "She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that" means the same as "You go girl and get knocked up by all them dealers. That's fly." Go ahead.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 10:53 AM
"I wonder what the response would have been it Tarika's baby was white." (not an mba)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for my response.
The mother was horribly irresponsible for putting that innocent child in that situation. I have a relative who has had 3 children by various guys - starting when she was 15 and was an alcoholic since she was 12. She dropped out of school, and no matter how many times her relatives tried to help her get back into school or get training for a decent job, she would run off (leaving her parents/grandparents with the kids), drink herself into a hole, and then wander back when she had no more money - sometimes with yet another kid.
I condemn her parents choices for not being parents ENOUGH to raise her better - and I condemn her for making stupid and selfish choices that aren't even REMOTELY in the best interests of her children. Eventually reality dawned on her (about 10 years later) and she's in rehab/counseling, and working towards getting job training so she can provide for her kids. Oh, and she's white.
Until then, my words to describe her and her behavior were far worse than anything Amy's said about Tarika. A parent that doesn't take care of their children or deliberately chooses to put them in harms way is worse than an animal in my opinion.
Speaking of taking care of kids, this will likely be my last reply of the day, since I need to get work done so I can CONTINUE to provide a good environment for my kids. Have fun, guys and gals, I'll check in later. :)
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 10:58 AM
The one thing I'm curious about that hasn't been answered by not even an mba or fieldingbandolier is whether Bill Cosby, Juan Williams and Thomas Sowell are also racist for suggesting there are problems within the "black community". Hell, is Reverend Jesse Jackson racist for grouping all black people together and saying they have a problem -- even if that problem happens to be white men?
I think someone pointed out earlier and it was conveniently glossed over...no one has suggested that all people of African descent are the so-called "black community" in question. However, there is a group of individuals who seem to identify themselves in this community that is poverty-stricken, poorly educated and accepting of criminal behavior. What can we call it to acceptingly point out that there is a problem that needs fixing?
moreta at August 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Jamie:
"The community respected her for having multiple children by multiple fathers? Basically respecting a woman who apparently never thought of birth control or getting involved with someone whose lifestyle isn't likely to get them shot or put in jail? And apparently thought it was okay to have more children in that same environment?"
So what you're saying is, because she made some decisions you think unwise or don't approve of, she was unable to be a positive influence on the people around her. Like, getting 80% on an exam is equivalent to failing - if you don't know it all, or get it all right, then you essentially don't know any of it.
The solution to ghettoization is for the larger community to actively affiliate with the minority - to meet them where they are, rather than implicitly demand they meet us where we are. Does that mean we have to approve with every decision someone makes? Of course not! But, there are issues we ought to be considering as we choose our points of influence (or, if you prefer, choose our battles).
Or alternatively, we can decide we disapprove of them in a global sense and use that disapproval to shamelessly abdicate any inconvenient feelings of responsibility/kinship we might otherwise be stuck with.
Which solution do you think the author is advocating with the post under discussion? Judas - were I her, I'd be squirming in my seat by now. I just hope she's not one of those people who'd rather be "right" than learn something, if you know what I mean.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 11:02 AM
"Please tell me that you honestly believe that "She took great care of those kids, without much help from the fathers, and the community respected her for that" means the same as "You go girl and get knocked up by all them dealers. That's fly." Go ahead."
not even:
I believe that people don't always elaborate clearly. I'll try...
No, it doesn't mean the same thing. But what people seem annoyed by is the fact that this woman behaves irresponsibly and continues to have children with men who didn't support her or their children. (SHE MUST HAVE KNOWN THIS WOULD HAPPEN! Once shame on you...but six times?) She put these children in danger. She did nothing to provide them with positive role models.
How do I know this? Because she kept having children. If she was at all sensitive to how her behavior affected and endangered her children she wouldn't have done it. The saddest thought is that she probably was keen on this but did it anyway. Which is far worse. And not an assumption I'll apply haphazardly to a dead woman. Though that would be consistent with her behavior of the negligence of her children's welfare and well being.
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 11:03 AM
That should be "behaved." Past tense.
Heh...
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 11:06 AM
Jamie (SMS),
You are an idiot here.
The obvious interpretation here is that DESPITE having multiple children by different fathers, the mother AT LEAST made an effort to take care of her kids.
And you're too quick to absolve her of all fault.
If a women made an effort to take care of her kids and had one, maybe two, and people respected her for that, that'd be one thing. To respect her after 6, when long ago "taking care of her kids" would be to STOP HAVING MORE, use birth control, so she could actually take care of the kid or two she already had, is absolute lunacy.
If a woman decides to pack her kids in a van, and drive 100 mph on the freeway while driving drunk and trying to text her friends, is our focus to say she's an irresponsible mother for doing that, or do we "respect" her by saying "well, at least her kids were buckled in?"
Oh, and do I get to call you an idiot now, since I disagree with your position?
(okay, now I have to go do work, I mean it this time)
Jamie (SMS) at August 12, 2008 11:09 AM
"So what you're saying is, because she made some decisions you think unwise or don't approve of, she was unable to be a positive influence on the people around her. Like, getting 80% on an exam is equivalent to failing - if you don't know it all, or get it all right, then you essentially don't know any of it.'
She didn't get the equivalent of an 80% on the exam b/c she didn't even show up to class to take it.
You can make a few mistakes and still be productive and have a good influence on your kids. Her mistakes were so egregious, her judgment so poor and her disregard for her children's safety so blatant that it far out weighs any potential good.
Teaching her children to say please and thank you means dittley squat when they're living in a drug den surrounded by thugs.
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 11:10 AM
I'm not willing to put that much stock into what people say about someone who is recently deceased. Those kinds of remarks, especially when made to the media, tend to be tinged with fuzzy sentiment. Her family may have talked about her poor judgment behind her back, but it's unlikely they would have said those things to outsiders so soon after her death. It's more likely that they would have focused on the good things about her.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 11:12 AM
Gretchen,
You continue to make sense.
I understand why people are mad.
I understand the frustration with the serial foolish choices the woman apparently made.
I also understand that people get used to adapting to a way of life that seems bizarre and dangerous and sickeningly irresponsible to many of us.
But I can also understand that the 26-year-old shooting victim may have assumed - quite wrongly - that she'd muddle through. Or - at the very least - that she didn't see herself as someone who'd be gunned down by a cop while holding her youngest kid. Not in her own home.
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 11:16 AM
With no respect intended, you don't know a fucking thing about who I am.
What you have just said is precisely the thing that this thread was on about from the beginning - that it is unacceptable for a white person to pass judgment upon a black person because every criticism is either blatant racism, or codewords for racism.
We get it. We can't criticize her because the cop was white, and he was acquitted by a white jury, and why can't you just admit that all you white people hate blacks and want the cops to keep shooting them in their homes.
Except that none of your analysis is even remotely based upon truth.
You want to know why that cop walked away? The same reason that cops of every race walk away from most of these cases: white juries are more prone to believe the cops than they are the perps. Black juries, the opposite.
There's racism there, and it's up to you to figure it out. Me? I usually base my decisions on the evidence.
But that's too nuanced for most of your ilk to figure out.
And on that note, I'm out. I've devoted too much time to this, and not enough to working.
brian at August 12, 2008 11:17 AM
Jamie and Gretchen are right on.
Which solution do you think the author is advocating with the post under discussion?
That black leaders and everyone in the black community come out against the admiration of thuggery, the putting down of achievers and people who "talk white" (i.e. learn to speak so they are employable in a job out of the fast food industry) and who get educated and try to do something with their lives, and that leaders and others speak out against women who take up with multiple drug dealers and have multiple children raised without a daddy present, and then taking up with yet another drug dealer. Shouldn't this sort of thing be stigmatized? Like so people feel funny or even bad about doing it?
What in that sounds unreasonable to you?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 11:18 AM
Teaching her children to say please and thank you means dittley squat when they're living in a drug den surrounded by thugs.
Well it's a good thing that:
Oh wait, we're not dealing with facts, we're just attributing whatever stereotypical black behavior we want onto Tarika. I imagine that she must have lazed around all day in go-go boots while the black drug den thugs twirled their diamond tipped canes a poofed the feathers on their bitchin' pimp hats.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 11:19 AM
Clarity edit: change "perps" for "accused". Word choice was incorrect.
brian at August 12, 2008 11:20 AM
racist crackers, nemo? Is that purposely an oxymoron? Is my reaction to that supposed to be any different than yours would be if I called you the n word? Unfortunately, we are all just human and racists come in all colors.
Jeff, your body, your choice, your responsibility. Hear, hear! That whole post was well and sensibly stated. Even included making women responsible did not mean men are let off the hook. Good post.
brian: loved your bit about the fertility drugs -- I always have the same reaction to it. Plus it seems abusive to the mother, frankly. Christ, giving birth to one baby is hard enough, natural twins and triplets more complicated. 4, 5 & 6? Just because you took some drug because it had to be your DNA is just plain fucked up. You want a baby that bad, adopt one needs a home. Of course, I also have the creepy feeling these people shouldn't be parents -- let alone made into celebrities just by virtue of being freaks. And, yes, I think 6 kids over any number of years is a litter. And I have 7 siblings. My mother had 8 kids in 10 years time. I think that qualifies as a litter. Those abusive assholes shouldn't have had one let alone 8, let alone so close together but this is your brain on religion.
Andrew, no a woman who goes to a club with a short skirt doesn't deserve to be raped -- but she is inviting trouble, at least inviting sexual attention from males -- and if she goes to said club unescorted, she is definitely wooing trouble. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and you don't make yourself an easy victim. And, frankly, a woman -- black, white or green with purple polka dots -- who takes up with dealer after dealer is inviting inevitable trouble. Your woman in the mini-skirt is playing with a match fire-wise, she may go her way unmolested; the woman who got shot was playing with a blazing inferno. It amazes me that it amazes anyone that she got burned.
"And no, spending time with drug dealers is not a crime; nor is having multiple children by multiple fathers." No, Legalize, it's just fucking stupid and she is partially at fault for not self-protecting and failing to protect her children. And, frankly, if you are hanging out with known drug dealers, that alone should be enough to get your children taken away from you. And, btw, isn't it at times (not in this instance)? Aren't there conditions to probation/parole sometimes about not consorting with known criminals?
With all due respect, Athena, I'd have little sympathy for you in that situation. You obviously knew about their drug dealing and chose to report it to neither the police or landlord because you liked them and then you were fucking surprised when the SWAT team arrived!? Me, I'd at least report it to the landlord (and probably at least phone in an anonymous tip to the cops) and if the landlord didn't do something about it, I'd make it grounds for breaking the lease (yes, legally it would be) and move the fuck out. Umm, because it's hello fucking dangerous to live downstairs from drug dealers. Also, bullshit on the principals thing. I grew up in a variety of neighborhoods and am vastly different from all my siblings. You can have scruples or not. It's not like they're unheard of no matter where you're from. I knew good and bad in the ghetto when we lived there; I knew good and bad when we lived in a town so small K-12 was under one roof; likewise, everything in between.
Amy, way to generate conversation! I've said it before and I'll say it again. You have a good exchange of ideas on this blog. I looked at over 300 hits and saved the best for last today and I bet when I post this it'll be even higher than the 343 it was this am when I surfed on.
T's Grammy at August 12, 2008 11:22 AM
Jody,
My mother, a hard working nurse in the Maternity Triage unit, is divorcing my mental/emotionally unstable and abusive father. She's scared shitless. She has to sell the home they built and cannot rely on the man she's been married to for 28+ years. He's in treatment and making strides but he isn't working and is NOT a good influence.
She will muddle on (she rocks and is way stronger than she thinks).
Maybe you "muddle on" b/c "this is my life and I have to accept it" (which is a victim's attitude and speaks volumes about her upbringing and feelings of powerlessness over her destiny).
But you don't keep having kids...with scummy men!! I muddle on b/c for as far as I'm concerned I don't have the father I did when I was a child (mental instability increased over time). I can't change him. But I can deal with it. And so can my mom, brother and sister. And we won't do it by having kids and dragging them down with us!
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 11:24 AM
one last try -
white juries will believe the cops over the accuser or the accused.
black juries believe the opposite.
I'm not hunting down the relevant documentation of this, I don't have the time. But if it isn't true, then ask yourself why the lawyers went venue shopping after the Rodney King beating.
brian at August 12, 2008 11:25 AM
Joe Max: "In a rational world, Tanika would have had easy and free access to contraceptives"
So you're saying she had six kids because she can't afford contraceptives --- but she CAN afford to feed, shelter, educate and clothe six kids? You really think the latter is cheaper? Either contraceptives must be hell expensive in the US, or they're banned from being sold to blacks (if that's true, I'm not aware of it).
David J at August 12, 2008 11:30 AM
Gretchen,
You sound as if you're gonna be a rock to your rocking Ma too.You often sound very wise - even when we've disagreed.
At heart, I feel bleak the woman we're discussing never got the years she needed to see she was compounding what seemed to be the same bad choice by doing it over and over. At 26 I was still an idiot. At 28 - I wasn't...:)
Jody Tresidder at August 12, 2008 11:40 AM
I finally undertand not even an mba's reasoning
Any time anyone says anything that anyone else finds offensive the person who spoke is a bigot so long as they are white.
That about sum up your world view mba?
lujlp at August 12, 2008 11:43 AM
What in that sounds unreasonable to you?
Asking that black leaders and everyone in the black community - everyone! - do what you want 500 comments down at the bottom of a racist blog post. "Unreasonable" doesn't quite cover it.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 11:43 AM
One thing I wanted to add during though it's repetitious. I predicted that my ex-husband would be dead by the time he was 30 because of his drug/criminal life style (which is why he became an ex husband). People thought I was crazy, you couldn't get rid of a bad penny, etc. But, because he was white, no one called me racist. I was off but not my much. Dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at 33.
So a black woman is living a similarly dangerous lifestyle and, predictably, winds up dead and somehow it's suddenly racist to point out just how very fucking predictable it was that she'd die young? Like hell.
I also think the "don't speak ill of the dead" thing is coming somewhat into play here. How many would still be saying it'd be wrong to point out how wrong she was going if she were still alive?
Wow. 486 comments and growing. No wonder I didn't get through them all. I need to retire. Instead of hanging out a gone fishing sign, I'll hang out a gone blogging sign.
T's Grammy at August 12, 2008 11:45 AM
There's racism there, and it's up to you to figure it out. Me? I usually base my decisions on the evidence.
brian, thread history is all here. You wanna talk about throwing the first stone? You want to talk about attributing motives?
But anyways, onto the evidence. I've listed it out before, and I'll do it again:
SWAT Team - 11 members (BTW think of what that's doing to your wallet. They are on call 24-hours and do raids an average of weekly) with body armor and assault rifles.
Veteran of the force Sgt. Joseph Chavalia hears gunshots, but sees no muzzle flashes from a dark room. And then, knowing that there were children present in the house, fired multiple times into the dark room. The shots were fired by his team mates at a pair of attack dogs. Tarika Wilson, who was probably kneeling and holding her infant son at the time is killed.
These are undisputed facts. There is your evidence.
The verdict is not guilty of negligent homicide. Not guilty of negligent assault.
Here's some more facts for you. This thread is filled with people who think the bulk of the blame lies with Tarika Wilson for associating with very bad elements. The bulk of this thread thinks that because she had several children with bad men, she should bear the brunt of the responsibility for her death and her baby's wounding. The bulk of this thread is offended at the response of black leaders, and think that the problem is that of the "black community" or of black culture or black society.
Despite the fact that the bulk of this thread acknowledges the insanity in no-knock raids.
Despite the fact that the bulk of this thread acknowledges that the War on Drugs isn't being waged well.
Okay brian, I've reassessed just for you. You're not a racist. You're an insecure jackass who's so afraid of ever being wrong that you have to disregard reality in bulk.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 11:46 AM
I'm 23 and can be quite an idiot. But my being an idiot usually involves a $100 bottle of perfume or setting my alarm clock wrong and waking up late.
...Not popping out children which I know full well I'm incapable of raising (esp. with my own set of addictions, only to perfume not to seedy men.)
Sorry I keep going at this. I need to just. Walk. Away. Hah! Ok, dropping off this line of argument right now!
Gretchen at August 12, 2008 11:47 AM
"DavidJ: she didn't allow any drug trafficking in her home, right? Did the police find any?"
Oh yeah, if only the police had just looked at their magic crystal ball, it would've TOLD them in advance that the house that harbored drug dealer after drug dealer for years didn't have drugs in after all. So unreasonable of the cops to suspect such a house.
David J at August 12, 2008 11:50 AM
"Unreasonable" doesn't quite cover it." lets make sure we are on the same page. Asking community leaders (I don't give a mickey mouse shit what community (yes I hate mice I know fucking bigot)) to tell people that it would be a good idea to stay the hell away from drug dealers and not birthing kids they can't support is unreasonable? Oh I'd love to get your logic there.
vlad at August 12, 2008 11:52 AM
I finally undertand not even an mba's reasoning
No, lujlp you don't. I don't know who in this thread is white. You don't know if I'm black.
I've presented some pretty clear arguments as to why I think the post at the top of the page is racist. The first few people who disagreed with me apparently didn't read that post since they claimed it said thing it didn't. I didn't call them racists, I called them dumb.
But as I recall, I didn't call you a racist either, first I called you a shithead, then I called you an asshole, then I called you a sociopath. Finally I realized that all of those things were wrong, because you are instead a poor pathetic shell of man who (in his own words) doesn't care about the humanity of others. Unfotrunately, I let your show of macho bravado get me riled up, and I was probably a lot meaner to others than I should have been. That's certainly my fault, even if you are intensely annoying.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 11:55 AM
Asking community leaders
Vlad, "everyone in the black community" is everyone, not just community leaders. It includes the kid who got shot, who is unlikely to have the vocabulary you or I do.
Amy wrote a stupid thing. Who could have guessed?
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 11:59 AM
"she should bear the brunt of the responsibility for her death" No, and this would be the main reason you are wrong. We did not say that she should bear the brunt of the responsibility that would be your imagination. We said she should bear a PORTION of the responsibility.
vlad at August 12, 2008 12:00 PM
We did not say that she should bear the brunt of the responsibility that would be your imagination. We said she should bear a PORTION of the responsibility.
Well who else is responsible? Because the mention of Sergeant Chavalia at the top amounts to this:
(emphasis mine)Seriously, if you don't think that she's the primary author of this tragedy, who do you think is? And where have you tried to point the finger?
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 12:07 PM
"This thread is filled with people who think the bulk of the blame lies with Tarika Wilson for associating with very bad elements. The bulk of this thread thinks that because she had several children with bad men, she should bear the brunt of the responsibility for her death and her baby's wounding. The bulk of this thread is offended at the response of black leaders, and think that the problem is that of the "black community" or of black culture or black society."
For the record, I do NOT think the bulk of the blame lies with Tarika Wilson. As best I can tell, the cop fucked up. That there was little or no punishment for his mistake is wrong.
However, the spokespeople for the community in which Tarika lived, who are black and which you point out fall into that poverty-stricken, poorly educated, no-other-way-than-to-live-with-drug-dealers group of individuals we've named (for want of a better term -- still waiting for your take on what would be acceptable) the "black community" appear to place ALL the blame on the cop and the system. And apparently see NO issue with the behaviors this women chose before her unfortunate death. No, she was a "great mom" and "respected" by the community.
That's what's fucked up. It's OK to categorize her into some victim stereotype because of the social environment in which she grew up, but not OK for someone to point out that social environment and the decisions it apparently supports are just...BAD?
moreta at August 12, 2008 12:09 PM
And please...will one of you please answer whetehr you believe Bill Cosby, et al are racists too? Or even more specifically if the speech Bill Cosby gave (linked above) was a racist work.
moreta at August 12, 2008 12:14 PM
"Amy wrote a stupid thing. Who could have guessed?" Or she wrote something inflammatory to get everyones attention. It sure as shit got everyone here and arguing. Now had it stated with wow shit your sure you want to phrase it that way sounds kind of racists, here's why. I have actually had this same fight with Amy over Muslims vs Fundamentalist Muslims, no name calling. No calling her an ugly bitch etc. is fairly pointless other than get everyone hostile. Now the argument over civil rights behavior, has Rosa Parks gotten off the bus when she was told it would have been counter productive. Calling the judges at the supreme court a piece of shit racist cracker would have been equally unproductive.
Now outside of blogging when someone comes out of left field with shouted open hostility my first response is "Shit did I leave my gun at home?" Or "Fuck can I reach the chair, pool cue, bottle etc." Long before I turn around to discover if he/she is white, black, Asian, or Martian.
vlad at August 12, 2008 12:16 PM
Asking that black leaders and everyone in the black community - everyone! - do what you want 500 comments down at the bottom of a racist blog post.
It's in the very blog item, the fact that leaders (and everyone) should speak out against this sort of thing and not just mmmhmm as they go past.
Rabbi Hillel said it well:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am for myself alone, what am I? If not now, when?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 12:17 PM
Amy:
"That black leaders and everyone in the black community come out against the admiration of thuggery, the putting down of achievers and people who "talk white"...and that leaders and others speak out against women who take up with multiple drug dealers and have multiple children raised without a daddy present, and then taking up with yet another drug dealer. Shouldn't this sort of thing be stigmatized? Like so people feel funny or even bad about doing it?"
Amy, haven't you ever put any thought into why it is a cultural prohibition against "white" culture developed in the first place? Why someone would choose to handicap themselves from participating in that culture?
In the most simplistic sense, one of the most important developmental tasks in adolescence is the development of a positive self-concept. Without it, people don't feel capable of managing the life challenges facing them, and thus avoid them instead. In fact, it's so important that we can often observe people developing an inflated self-concept that isn't even very reality-based. Because frankly even that's preferable, if it gets you out of your house and about the business of living and operating in the world, because even ineffective or inefficient attempts are better than no attempt at all.
We develop that self-concept in large part on the basis of feedback we receive from people around us, but this presents a problem - who to trust? To whom do you grant credibility as a source of information? Without getting too far into details, it is very difficult for people in general (and children and adolescents in specific) to grant credibility to a person selectively (like, I'll only believe them when they're being helpful, and ignore all that invalidation related to things like racism). It's a devil's choice - accept the priorities being impressed on you by representatives of mainstream culture, and simultaneously disregard yourself shaming/racism while alienating myself from the people around you, who've already adopted a stance of refusing to accept the credibility of a population of people who, in many instances, don't really mean them well.
See, this is what you're accomplishing in your post - you're shaming this (deceased) woman. You're not allowing any opportunity to save face (which would have to be vicarious at this point). You're not encouraging other people to view her in anything like a sympathetic light, and instead you're providing a blanket invalidation on the basis of a narrow band of her behavior. Members who identify with the community in question have the choice of granting you credibility and feeling vicariously ashamed and alienated from the community that contains their most consistent allies, or disregarding everything you have to say - even when some of what you have to say is helpful.
Political motivations aside (and yes, there certainly are some), this is what black community leaders are being sensitive to, while you are not: they're picking their battles. They understand that instilling a sense of hopelessness or shame is not sufficient, or even helpful on it's own. They might also understand that providing people with validation for the basis on which they made their choices (not necessarily the choices they made) - by providing them with an opportunity to save face while simultaneously making new choices - is the only way to instill any motivation for changes in attitude and behavior.
Juan Williams, Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell have greater latitude to make judgments about the community because, as members, we presume they know something about what motivates people within that community. If they want to be really persuasive, however, they'll do what non-community members ought to do if we hope to have any influence on that community; we ought to attempt to understand and acknowledge the validity of what motivates people in it - even when (especially when) we disagree with the choices they're making.
If you want to accomplish something helpful, find a way to validate the positive choices this woman made, while (in a non-shaming way) mourning the consequences of the poor choices she made. Don't settle for the easy score - the titillation associated with ridicule, and the entertainment associated with controversy. Use your podium to promote affiliation with people who've been understandably alienated from mainstream culture.
You don't have to approve of the behavior, but you're foolish, naive or hypocritical if you think you can accomplish anything helpful with a blanket disapproval of the entire person under discussion.
Oh well - lecture finished. Gotta' get back to work.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 12:21 PM
"Would that be a police officer who accidentally shoots and kills a black woman" Firing into the dark room and hitting someone is an accident (if you don't know what you are shooting at and you hit it it's accidental) but what the hell are you doing firing into a dark room. Should he have fired into a dark room? No. Should they have done a no knock raid on any house, especially one with kids? No.
Why is it so offensive to ask should she have had those kids in a house that by virtue of it's occupants is a bullet magnet?
vlad at August 12, 2008 12:23 PM
Jeff- "Are you equating racism with valid criticism of a some black people? 'Cause if you are, that's dumb."
Thanks for taking it upon yourselves to criticize black people. Like who? Or is this just another helpful observation? We are all dazzled by your weak-ass opinion that if "some black people" stop doing X then they will have earned enough of your backhanded and patronizing respect. You don't really give a damn about black people being socially acceptable, you just want them to conform to your lame preconceptions.
Amy - "the fact remains that the police generally don't seek to break down the doors of homes of women who've had five boyfriends who are all, say, accountants, architects, or managers at Subway."
The FBI raided Ted Stevens' home to investigate kickbacks from shady oilmen. You don't have to sling crack to get a no-knock. Fact.
The police stormed the house of Cheye Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland and killed their dogs. They were innocent victims. It was the "latest embarrassment for Prince George's County law enforcement", but "Calvo said he was astonished that police have not only failed to apologize, but declined to clear the couple's names." But I'm sure those cops have every reason to call them suspects in order to cover their own incompetent asses. They're justified.
What's the problem, Amy? It doesn't matter what the cops are looking for. You have this lazy notion of what crime is supposed to look like. You're so hung up on fathers, boyfriends, drugs and all the bullshit that you continually ignore the fact that innocent people get hurt and killed by these raids. And Tarika was innocent. She didn't deserve to be killed. Period. Jesus. Nice though that you use an innocent woman killed in an unnecessary police raid to throw a blanket assessment about "black lives" in general. Touching.
David J - "This woman deliberately placed her own children in a drug raid situation. Think about that. There just is no way to defend that without sounding absurd."
Yeah, it's so absurd to say that the cops should have just arrested Anthony the first seven times they bought drugs off him. You think the cops automatically pile into the SWAT van every time they get a call about some drug dealer? Really, I don't even know who I'm talking to anymore.
It's a freakshow watching Amy contort to rationalize all of this. Anything to validate her self-appointed role of being an 'advice goddess', whatever the hell that is.
Something tells me that the "black community" just doesn't give a fuck what some snooty white bitch has to say about who values who.
Neon Ovenlight at August 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Ok, since I'm on a soapbox, last thought (a quote) for you, Amy, and a challenge to inspire "passion for the possible", rather than doing your small part to squelch it.
"I want to join the many people I know in the United States and abroad, and the many more I have yet to meet, who feel as I do that fresh energies have been released, that now is the time to devote themselves anew to the creation of a world without famine, a world without borders, a world at one and at peace. It may well be that our efforts will not be successful if only because what human beings seem most to fear is not the evil in themselves but the good - the good being so demanding. But it's there, stubbornly there, even after we have finished deploring all that is deplorable in human nature. So while not optimistic, I am hopeful. By this I mean that hope, as opposed to cynicism and despair, is the sole precondition for a new and better life. Realism demands pessimism. But hope demands that we take a dark view of the present only because we hold a bright view of the future; and hope arouses, as nothing else can arouse, a passion for the possible."
William Sloane Coffin.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Well mba if you say the same offensive thing about people of all races it cant be racist, I dont see how that is so hard to understand
And to be fair I dont recall you calling me a sociopath here are the signs of a sociopath
Glibness and Superficial Charm
I'm not that charming, otherwise you wouldnt have called me a shit head
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
I will admit I am manipulative, but I am not a conner
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
True enough
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
I have no problem lying but do not feel compelled to do so
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Not a complete lack but a muted response
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Not quite true
Incapacity for Love
not true
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
not true
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
partially true
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
I have superhuman impulse control
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
not true
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
not true
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
not true
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
not true
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
not true
Sociopaths are immoral with impulse control problems - I consider myself to have muted emotial response and a slightly dissociatve view on life(the world is but a stage . . ), but given my upbringing and the nervous breakdown I had at 18 that isnt too unexpected.
lujlp at August 12, 2008 12:30 PM
the "black community" appear to place ALL the blame on the cop and the system. And apparently see NO issue with the behaviors this women chose before her unfortunate death. No, she was a "great mom" and "respected" by the community.
You know what I think? I think that in the weeks and months and years before Tarika Wilson died she recognized that she was in a bad situation. I think it's entirely possible she was looking to get out, but didn't know how to do it, especially with six kids. That's certainly a heck of a more positive story, and I did say I was an optimist. But here's the thing, I don't know. I have no idea what she was thinking, and frankly neither do any of you. To claim that she was a junkie trading sex for drugs, or that she thought living in a rental with six kids, two attack dogs and a drug dealer was the shizzle - well that's not just bad form.
But here's the thing - someone pulled the trigger.
As I've mentioned before, the Lima police force feels that nothing wrong was done. The feel that Sgt. Chavalia acted appropriately. And so does the court.
There are plenty of black voices speaking out about the very real issues that black people face. Other commenters have mentioned names upthread. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who you're excoriating as an opportunistic media whore has done that very thing. But they don't do it in the condescending manner that's all over this entire thread, myself included.
This story isn't just about the black and the white - there are also actual human beings involved. When we talk about the "black community" - that's a community of actual people. And if you dismiss all of them because they somehow couldn't stop a teenaged/early twenties woman from getting involved with the wrong people then you don't know people in their teens and early twenties.
Here's another important point. A lot of you have said that you don't care if she ruined her own life, it's the kids that shouldn't have to pay for any mistakes she made. Well the youngest of them was shot with an assault rifle. Eleven heavily armed men broke into that house, ready to blow the shit out of anything that threatened them. They knew there were kids inside - there were toys on the lawn.
So then, who places a lower value on black lives?
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 12:32 PM
It's in the very blog item, the fact that leaders (and everyone) should speak out against this sort of thing and not just mmmhmm as they go past.
"The community" is less explicit than "everyone in the black community" but if you meant "everyone" in the blog post, well what can be said?
I am impressed that you would invoke Rabbi Hillel in defense of a post that compared a dead black woman to an animal and called for her disrespect after she and her child were shot. Perhaps it's the Golden Shower Rule.
I wonder if any of the victim's children can read yet?
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 12:34 PM
Something tells me that the "black community" just doesn't give a fuck what some snooty white bitch has to say about who values who.
I'm a "snooty white bitch" because I point out what I perceive to be a problem?
Am I also a snooty white bitch when I criticize the amount of taxes we pay or the way we're all expected to pick up after people who gambled on ARMs?
It seems YOU are the racist. Please give me your list of things I'm not allowed to discuss, per you, because I'm white. Not that I'll abide by it, just because I'm fascinated.
I've mentioned here above, several times, that I have a program I have started in an inner city school where I go speak to kids to see if I might help change things. Change also takes discussing what the problem is, not sweeping it under the rug as a way to avoid angering rather disgusting "thinkers" like Neon Overlight.
I've criticized Ted Stevens a number of times with anger here. Does that make me a white bitch, too, or just somebody that's pissed off at scummy elected officials?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 12:35 PM
fieldingbandolier: Oh shit a well reasoned argument for why and how her post could have been better written. Why did this not come up before the name calling?
vlad at August 12, 2008 12:35 PM
And to be fair I dont recall you calling me a sociopath here are the signs of a sociopath
Oh, I'm not surprised that you missed it. That was when I said you were incapable of accepting other people as human beings. You know, casting yourself into the starring role of the movie, and everyone else is merely an extra.
Incidentally, as to "glibness and superficially charming" - you're right in that you're not charming, but you do get full marks for glibness and superficiality.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 12:39 PM
I am impressed that you would invoke Rabbi Hillel in defense of a post that compared a dead black woman to an animal
Are you retarded? I've brought up again and again and again and again here that I've used the "litters" of children reference on blog items about Catholics and rich white women. It's about people who have loads of children, as I think they can't provide well for a whole bunch of kids -- especially not women who have these kids with a bunch of different drug dealing "daddies" in eight years between 18 and 26.
Again, dimwit, I am not for raids like this, nor am I for these drug laws, nor do I think she "deserved" it. But she had poor values, to say the least, and she's dead and her drug dealer-spawned daddyless children are now mommyless too because of her terrible values.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 12:40 PM
It is quite true that the community places a very low price on black lives. I mean, of course, the black community. It is only the do-gooder whites and the black racists like Sharpton that place such an inordinate value on the the lives of degenerate drug dealers. I spent half my life living in Africa, a place where one could find the remains of a baby chopped up for medicine, people butchered for being the wrong tribe and a 1000 other examples of the total lack of human
decency.
ciccio at August 12, 2008 12:41 PM
I've brought up again and again and again and again here that I've used the "litters" of children reference on blog items about Catholics and rich white women.
It does not matter that you also treat others badly when you write something that is racist. I know you think this is some kind of marvellous knock-out punch, but you can call white folks monkeys all day long and it's still racist when you do it to a black person.
Are you retarded?
Again with the quotes from the great and wise Hillel!
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 12:47 PM
not even an mba -- you are welcome to quote me and respond in context, but I do take some offense (although I'm over it) that you'd quote me and then talk about some of the assumptions made above that Ms. Wilson was a crack whore who just loved the life she was living. It creates the implication that I made such comments or assume such things. In so doing, you discredit the point I was making with stuff I didn't say or believe. Not exactly "good cricket". There is no evidence in the articles to support either that view or your optimistic one...which is why I believe it appropriate to ignore them rather than fan them.
moreta at August 12, 2008 12:51 PM
"but you can call white folks monkeys all day long and it's still racist when you do it to a black person." That is absolute horse shit. A racist is a person who treats people differently according to race. Look up the definition or give me a site that has your definition of the word. There is a big difference between racist and offensive.
vlad at August 12, 2008 1:02 PM
Amy - what do you expect from these people? It took them 500 posts to finally admit that it is automatically racist for any white person to offer any criticism of any non-white person by virtue of their not being a member of that group.
And of course, we get the one schmendrick trying to say that if only the police weren't there.
Cry me a mother fucking river.
Consider this, coming from someone who has no love for law enforcement himself.
The police are on edge every fucking day. And when they're patrolling in "da hood", they know that they've got targets on their chests. The people aren't merely wary of the police, they are openly hostile to them.
So, now the police are tasked with serving a warrant to take an alleged criminal into custody. Since in the past cops have been shot doing this, they create the concept of a no-knock warrant.
I'll grant that the no-knock warrant is inherently bad, and has been abused badly. I'll grant that it probably should never have come to pass.
But you have to admit that the whole swat team thing would never have happened if certain elements of society didn't conclude that it was a good idea to fucking shoot cops.
brian at August 12, 2008 1:03 PM
Look up the definition
We aren't arguing what a racist is, we're arguing about what a racist does. If you're saying that racists don't call black folks monkeys you're obviously not worth taking seriously.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 1:06 PM
If the conversation doesn't start with what racism is, then it's meaningless what one does. Racists also shit and have sex, but shitting and having sex are not racist acts.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 1:10 PM
moreta,
That was my point. I was specifically playing "not good cricket" for the purpose of demonstrating the wrongness of guilt-by-association.
You said:
Well, we have people saying that she was a good parent and didn't do drugs - but there's an implication in your statement that she did. Why? The man she was living with was a drug dealer. That actually is the "strongest" point anyone has come up with against her - and it is simply a charge of guilt-by-association.
Although in light of your statement that you're ignoring the fantasy scenarios that everyone, myself included, are pulling out of their asses, I do hereby apologize. I was trying to demonstrate the inherent wrongness of applying a guilt-by-association standard, but it was wrong of me to catch you specifically, moreta, in that net.
I was wrong about that, and I'm sorry.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 1:16 PM
If the conversation doesn't start with what racism is, then it's meaningless what one does.
Please go look it up, and feel free to look up the word "context" while you're at it. Wouldn't want you hung up on semantics like some kind of fundamentalist.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 1:17 PM
"DavidJ: she didn't allow any drug trafficking in her home, right? Did the police find any?"
One bag containing 1 to 5 grams of crack.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/NEWS17/851774718
Totally worth a raid involving 11 SWAT team members and leading to the death of a civilian and the injury of her one year old.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 1:21 PM
One bag containing 1 to 5 grams of crack.
Crack is still ILLEGAL, last time I checked. But all involved are innocent, right? You're quite a schmuck yourself pseudo-mba. Obviously you 're "not even an mba." You reek of insipidness.
Flynne at August 12, 2008 1:27 PM
When you're calling someone a racist based on the words she uses, then the debate is entirely about semantics (semantics:the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.)
And as for racism, just so we can be clear:
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Based on this definition, Amy's words are not racist: They are merely offensive to you. If you wish to argue that they are needlessly offensive, then that would be a different matter entirely.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 1:27 PM
Based on this definition, Amy's words are not racist: They are merely offensive to you.
You're being so vague about your reasoning that I'll simply disagree: based on that definition it's obvious that Amy's words are racist.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 1:35 PM
Crack is still ILLEGAL, last time I checked. But all involved are innocent, right?
Now where did I claim that all involved were innocent? Just the dead woman, oh and her kids. That's something that Lima Chief of Police Gorlock agrees with. Anthony Terry has pleaded guilty to the drug charges. Incidentally, it's "a single baggy" so it was probably his personal stash.
And yes, I am obviously "not even an mba", it says so right there after Posted by:
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 1:36 PM
not even an mba -- thanks, that was big of you. I certainly did not mean to imply that I assumed she was doing those things. The article clearly quoted someone from her family (mom, uncle or sister, I can't recall which) saying she did not do drugs or allow them to be sold from the house. I was simply trying to suggest that I believe there should be more to being a "great" mom than that.
BTW, fieldingbandolier, my post got eaten but I wanted to thank you for your "lecture", as you named it. I thought it was a well thought out, insightful and a respectful argument that got your point across well. I wish we could have started from there instead of "Racist drivel" and "Christian Ubermensch". It's probably the knee-jerk reaction of perceived slights on both sides of this discussion that makes this argument continue on and on here AND in the context of real world problem solving, discussion, policy, etc. It's taken this long for a handful of people to come to some bits of common ground.
moreta at August 12, 2008 1:39 PM
From:
http://www.crackcocaineaddictiontreatment.com/
A big rock is $40 and a quarter gram.
It was less than 5 grams because that's the dividing point for getting serious charges laid - so less than a thousand dollars of drugs, possibly as little as a couple hundred bucks.
That raid was so TOTALLY worth it.
Now Flynne, who is it that's the schmuck?
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 1:41 PM
BTW, fieldingbandolier, my post got eaten but I wanted to thank you for your "lecture", as you named it.
I meant to do this earlier, but let me agree with Moreta and Vlad about this.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 1:41 PM
ooops...a couple posts go by and the shreds of common ground vanish into sarcasm and character baiting.
moreta at August 12, 2008 1:43 PM
thanks, that was big of you
No, it wasn't. I misinterpreted what you wrote - the fault was entirely mine. And even if the "Personal Responsibility Police" weren't patrolling this thread, it would still have been only proper to admit error and apologize.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 1:45 PM
"One bag containing 1 to 5 grams of crack.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/NEWS17/851774718
Totally worth a raid involving 11 SWAT team members and leading to the death of a civilian and the injury of her one year old."
Yes, because the police TOTALLY could've predicted that that was all they would find in a house regularly harboring drug dealers - they just look into their crystal ball and consult a psychic, that's how they know what's in a house.
David J at August 12, 2008 1:52 PM
a couple posts go by and the shreds of common ground vanish into sarcasm and character baiting.
Well, in penance for my earlier wrong, I'll step back from the brink for a while and see if my blood pressure goes down enough to comment in a civilized way again.
Also, I'd like to add my thumbs up to fieldingbandolier. I was working on something about Ahmadineajad or Chavez making comments about the US political system, but his lecture is so much more relevant, on topic, and is probably much better written than what I would have come up with.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 1:52 PM
Nothing vague about it. I provided the definition of racism. Using that definition, I truly want to understand how this is racist beyond people shouting, "This is racist because I say so." Is it racist because some people refer to black people as animals, and the term litter is used to refer to animals, so "litter" could be a racist word if used by a white woman to refer to a dead black woman? Seems like an awful lot of rules white people are supposed to remember to avoid offending delicate sensibilities.
While this thread has gotten more than a little angry and repetitive, defending the meaning of words is extremely important to me because if we use it incorrectly, then people become desensitized to true racism. It is important to separate what is truly discriminatory from what is merely offensive.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 1:55 PM
"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." I see nothing what so ever vague about the reasoning. Amy would call anyone who has 4+ kids as having a litter. She is not making character assertion based on race but based on action.
Being told you have a litter would be offensive to anyone who thinks they should have huge families as you are equating their life choices with being animal like.
vlad at August 12, 2008 1:57 PM
Seems like an awful lot of rules white people are supposed to remember to avoid offending delicate sensibilities.
Lord yes, it's very difficult being a white person and not comparing the folks who've historically been compared to animals to animals.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 2:00 PM
Yes, because the police TOTALLY could've predicted that that was all they would find in a house regularly harboring drug dealers - they just look into their crystal ball and consult a psychic, that's how they know what's in a house.
Well, perhaps they could have done a little more investigating and a little less assault rifle powered raiding. In fact, in order to get a warrant to do this type of crazy no-knock raid, you pretty much have to prove that there is a significant quantity of drugs in the house in question. I wonder how that worked?
Also, please note that Anthony Terry was the target. It had nothing to do with Tarika, or her previous drug dealer boyfriends. They weren't targetting that specific house for any reason other than Anthony Terry. I assume Anthony Terry must never have left that building, because they couldn't seem to get him anywhere else - despite the fact that there were children in the house.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 2:09 PM
Every ethnic group at one time or another has been called something derogatory, and animal imagery is often used because people don't like being referred to as animals. The French, to use a recent example, were called cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Canadians were called frogs. Arabs are still often called sand monkeys. Blacks do not have a monopoly on being called nasty names. If Wilson had been French-Canadian, would we be having this conversation? Why do certain rules apply to discussing black people that don't apply to discussing other ethnic groups? Is there a book crackers like me can buy that will tell us what we're allowed to say and when?
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 2:18 PM
Every ethnic group at one time or another has been called something derogatory
This is why I wanted you to look up context.
Is there a book crackers like me can buy that will tell us what we're allowed to say and when?
Oh my, the world is so difficult that 99% of us function perfectly well within it. Grow up.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
"Oh my, the world is so difficult that 99% of us function perfectly well within it." Really 99% of us never insult any one's history, creed, personal senabilities etc. So all racial intolerance from all sides is committed by 1% of the population? Only 1 percent of whites people are guilty of having offended someone? Come on if this were true then you have nothing to complain about.
vlad at August 12, 2008 2:39 PM
RB - Never understood opera myself...just don't get it. Nice pics of the Ukraine on your site. Must have been a good trip. You must be of Ukranian heritage which makes it OK to poke fun at them. "Engrish" and "The locals don't seem especially happy about their choices, but they're Ukrainian and so must be cut some slack."
I do understand what you're saying and see the difference in the mild fun you poke and the perceived racial slur you're reading, but I believe the contextual error may be yours. If you were here regularly and did some back-reading you'd already know the word "litter" is used across the board for anyone who behaves a certain way and expect it to be used in that context. It has nothing do do with the parent's race. I honestly didn't make the connection about that particular fuss (black = animal) until someone specifically pointed it out...because I knew the context in which it was delivered.
moreta at August 12, 2008 2:43 PM
Really 99% of us never insult any one's history, creed, personal senabilities etc.
A wild estimate based on the fact that society is really pretty orderly for all the scare-mongering in the thread.
Monica's concerned that there is a banana peel on every street corner and that she can't help but slip on it; the determined klutz will find a way.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 2:44 PM
If you were here regularly and did some back-reading you'd already know the word "litter" is used across the board for anyone who behaves a certain way and expect it to be used in that context.
I understand that, but you don't get to pretend the context is isolated in the way that it would be if you were sitting around with your friends. The broader context is obvious or the thread wouldn't be so long.
I honestly didn't make the connection about that particular fuss (black = animal) until someone specifically pointed it out...because I knew the context in which it was delivered.
My bet is that you don't compare black folks to animals when their within earshot, in other words when the context is different. You've internalized that successfully, as reasonable people do. The web, oh joy and alas, is broader than this site.
On to trivia:
You must be of Ukranian heritage which makes it OK to poke fun at them.
You can poke fun at anybody and indeed every race or culture - if such tightrope-walking is your thing - but be aware of the context.
That said, I had a lot of fun on my trip but don't really recommend it as a tourist destination...well maybe Lviv and Odessa.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 3:11 PM
Actually, that's not true at all. I've been navigating this tumultuous world for three decades without any major "ism" issues. I allowed my sarcastic bitch out of her box for a second, and for that I do apologize, since she's difficult to cram back in, but I don't apologize for the sentiment behind it: that we must feel free to criticize people who deserve it even if the language hurts their feelings, and that offensive does not equal racist when the language is being applied across racial boundaries.
Since I have nothing to add beyond that that hasn't been said again and again and again, I will head into my evening commute knowing I did what I could to save semantics from an ugly demise. A good night to all -- even you, Righteous Bubba.
MonicaP at August 12, 2008 3:17 PM
Um...ok.
"No, you're the racist. No, YOU'RE the racist! No, you're the racist!" I like ping-pong, too.
Hey, you can say whatever the hell you want, Amy. That's the beauty of the "series of tubes" we call the internet: you say dumb, unflattering missives about the "value of black lives", and people will call you out on your cluelessness. Snap, the system works! Folks love nothing more than smirking chickenheads sqwaking on the sidelines about race and crime. You seem to underestimate that demographic just a bit.
Hell, it's your blog, and I'm sure you're paying premium for hosting and that bile colored banner you got there. "The Official Amy Alkon website"? Like there are any unofficial ones?
You layeth your holy smackdown on "women in the black community" shitting kids left and right, even though every ethnicity is egregiously guilty in the same affair. Where's your godly vitriol for them? Did it slip your mind, or did you think that was a given? Nice that only one community is singled out for your screed against the menace of multiple fathers/multiple kids.
Why should the pastors care or denounce what her proclivities were? She was killed in a raid with poor planning and poor execution by some gung-ho cop. Hello? You're the only one outraged that she had so many kids. You're the only one pissed that they won't bleat about her promiscuity, even though it's none of anyone's business. They're angry because she was blown away, on her knees, with her child in her arms by some cop who was just 'confused'. At the least, your priorities are misplaced. At the worst, you're a jerk.
I could care less about what your thoughts are on taxes or ARMs or little green men. This is the issue: you used the death of an innocent woman by a peace officer to opine about her "strong value system" and of "black lives" in general. And your "it's awful, BUT" caveat is pretty slimy, too. Like she was supposed to expect getting ventilated complying with the cop's demands. You took this horrible tragedy and used it to talk trash about her, not to mention taking a swing at black preachers because they didn't use her killing as the clarion call for people to stop fucking. Oh yes, disrespecting this poor woman would have set her straight, not to mention cure cancer and have rainbows shoot out of our asses. Classic.
The last thing people want to do is listen to a white boy (or hag, in your case) using a victim of vicious police stupidity to admonish the black community. But please, snoot away.
Neon Ovenlight at August 12, 2008 3:21 PM
If you intend to replace it with retail distribution, you are either going to have to convince or coerce existing retail establishments such as pharmacies to carry products which presently have no commercial availability (which leads to another problem, on which more later). So, now that you've strong-armed the pharmacies
Sigh. If it's legal and someone can make money selling it, they will. There's no coercion necessary and I can't understand why there would need to be. If Eckerd doesn't like selling cocaine, RiteAid will take the business. If not RiteAid, then CVS. If not CVS, then I will personally open the only chain of pharmacies that stocks legal drugs and retire in five years as the richest man on Earth.
Why would pharmacies refuse to stock drugs, anyway? Oxycontin's worse than the majority of illegal drugs and they never had a problem with that. Some people believe morning-after contraceptives are instruments whose goal is pre-meditated murder and only isolated pharmacies seem to have problems with that. Pharmacies are loyal to shareholders, not society.
I didn't read beyond this because there was no point. You can't really engage in a discussion about black markets with someone who doesn't already know how a legal market works on the most basic level.
Vlad
The idea that the mob has waned in the years after the end of prohibition is laughable...it sure as hell didn't wane...La cosanostra is pretty much dead
It's a joke that the mob waned after prohibition even though you claim it died (which is further than I'll go). I'd suggest reading your own words before you post them, particularly when you're trying to argue someone elses' are "laughable."
And no, the groups that came after the mob aren't bigger, worse or more influential. You've been watching too many movies.
Steve at August 12, 2008 3:36 PM
"A one-year old was injured and had a finger amputated. The current official position is that nothing went wrong during the raid - i.e. this was an acceptable result."
Bull.
You keep repeating this, as if the police think the shooting was on the order of soiling a napkin.
You never cite any of the trial, nor do you produce a transcript of the warrant. You have merely blown yourself up long enough that your opinion sounds best to you.
The M4 is astonishingly easy to shoot. It was built that way so that more American soldiers could live, by killing someone else first in an environment where there are no other choices. It is, in fact, so easy that you may actually think it into action.
You may not want to believe such a thing. What? Killing, efficiently? How horrible!
Yes. It is. It's also how it really is.
Is it stupid for police to be so armed? Yes. Well, sometimes. I really doubt that you could wrestle up so much outrage if the police saved you from some thug. But that's another story.
Speaking of thugs - another thing you don't seem to think about:
Is it common for someone shooting at police to crouch and open fire? Yes!
But, eager to paint the policeman as a murdering racist thug, and Amy as abetting same, you charge in full of sound and fury and nothing else.
I'd love to see your plan for apprehending a criminal with the evidence to put him away. You haven't even fired the brain cell necessary to realize that catching the thug on the street doesn't tie him to his stash - and so he walks away.
Good gravy. Why do people with the least to say feel the need to go on so long?
Radwaste at August 12, 2008 3:54 PM
"You layeth your holy smackdown on "women in the black community" shitting kids left and right, even though every ethnicity is egregiously guilty in the same affair. Where's your godly vitriol for them?"
Have you ever read her Columns? Her blog beside this particular entry? I always hear the "godly vitriol" for any woman who has children without a father.
Amy hates single motherhood. I hate single motherhood. Get it?
I personally think it's more acceptable to be a single mom in two situations:
1) you are a rich white older woman
2) you are a poor black young woman.
This entry just happens to be about the latter. Trust me there are no kind words paid to the former either.
PurplePen at August 12, 2008 4:26 PM
"My neighbors are architects. The police are not interested in breaking into their dwelling. The father's friends and associates are fellow architects and professors. The mother's friends and associates are fellow architects and stay-at-home moms, and then there's her knitting circle".
Exactly my point. You don't realistically have to worry about being shot in a drug raid. But what were this woman's options? You never name them, just blame her. Was she supposed to move out of that neighborhood?
To criticize her for "associating with known drug dealers" is absurd because she probably GREW UP WITH THEM! They were most likely her classmates and neighbors, who happened to grow up and become drug dealers, just like your neighbors and classmates grew up to become lawyers and architects.
I lived near Miami during the 80s, and a lot of my neighbors were drug smugglers. Some I knew were, and some I didn't. That was the "Miami Vice" days, so I kinda thought they were "cool." Yet, by your logic, I should've known I was putting my family in danger of being killed just by "associating" with them, by living in proximity to them.
I could've afforded to move away, but I doubt this woman had that option. Nor should she be blamed for associating with people who have probably been life-long friends. Who would you pefer for her to make babies with? Your architect neighbors? How would she have met them? How would she have ever gotten into your social circle, so she could make the "proper life choices"?
I've said I don't believe you're a racist, but you do come off as condescending and arrogant (I'm writing a book, dear..."), which makes you seem like you feel you are better than black people. That you, in your world of relative safety, have such supreme authority to judge the choices of this poor woman, who lived in an entirely different universe from you.
I really don't think that's what you intend, as you pride yourself on fairness, but, as with all of us, our prejudices slip out in little ways, and I'm afraid that you have come off in this thread as believing yourself to be superior to this woman and much of her community, regardless of whether you volunteer in black schools or not.
That said, I happen to agree with you about the need for more black leaders to step up and try to stigmatize much of this behavior, but I am afraid it is too late. The white community, itself, is bombarded with images of unwed mothers and slutty role models, from celebrities to our own neighbors. Only organized religion has a successful track record for stigmatizing a lot of these poor choices, yet we educated elites routinely knock the churches for their restrictive and old-fashioned views.
Remember when Dan Quayle criticized "Murphy Brown" for making unwed parenthood seem ok? Liberals ridiculed him.
We can't have it both ways. So, we must all take responsibility for helping de-stigmatize a lot of this behavior by the very choices we have made. If we are going to cohabitate without benefit of marriage, have children out of wedlock, laud our celebrities for doing so, we can't very well say to the black community, "Well, WE can do it, but you're too primitive to handle this. For you, it's 'poor choices'. You must start stigmatizing this!"
And, let's face it, a lot of these social problems were created by our well-intended support of welfare, without which unwed mothers could not keep having so many babies.
For instance, I have 2 black men who work for me, and they each have, what they call, more than one "wife". Each "wife" has 4 or 5 kids by them. These fathers are not actually "absent" - they see their kids and pay these women regularly, but it's under the table, so the women can also collect welfare.
That is the kind of system and society we ALL are responsible for. Those are our poor choices too.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2008 4:29 PM
JUses FUCKING christ lovelysoul what is with you blinders when it comes to women?
What could she have done different?
Not had sex with six drug dealers or invited any of them to live in her house.
She could afford to move away? Could she have possibly not invited this guy in in the first place given is vocation?
She screwed up, she didnt desrve such extreme karmic bitchslapping but it never would have happened had she not allowed this guy into her home
lujlp at August 12, 2008 4:36 PM
And I'll ask it again
If the black residents of Lima are so damn concerned about white racist cops why dont they join the force?
According to one of the articles above so few people from town are willing to do the job that out of towners have to hired.
What does that tell you? They wont even help their own community
lujlp at August 12, 2008 4:40 PM
I missed this:
"Radwaste, the US incarcerates black people at a rate of 10 times that of everyone else. Is your position that the only reason for that is because black people are much more prone to crime?"
"Prone", my ass. They stand up, proud to do it. This is why I posted the link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Black vs. black crime is higher.
Black vs. white crime is higher.
Go do some research.
In case you don't want to, here's something. Ten years ago, I was a frequent poster on CNN's "Guns Under Fire" forum. I found this:
In the statistics published for 1991 by the Justice Department, there were 100 rapes committed by whites against blacks but 20,204 rapes committed by blacks against whites. As for robberies, 7,031 involved a white perpetrator and a black victim while 167,924 robberies involved a black perpetrator and a white victim.
White assaults of blacks were 49,800, but black assaults of whites were 431,670. In the category of all violent crimes, 55,301 involved white perpetrators and black victims; 572,458 violent crimes involved black perpetrators and white victims.
Even if a Klansman banged the gavel NINE out of TEN TIMES, blacks still commit more crime!
Here's the capper: Conviction rates were lower for blacks than for whites in 12 of 14 felony categories.
Now, you can make excuses all you want.
But why would you? You may feel some huge gulf of need to be responsible for somebody else, or that there isn't enough "nice" in the world. But coming at it with a headful of air isn't getting you anywhere.
You and I can't make these people behave. They have to do it. There is significant evidence that they cannot do it. Hypocrites that we are, we are less tolerant of the pit bull terrier's tendency to main and kill than we are of these people as a class, because the Constitution correctly treats them as responsible citizens and individuals.
I suggest that you have a built-in logical fallacy waiting to trap you at every new utterance: you will defend a race based on the actions of individuals who are upright citizens, while decrying the actions of other individuals as indicative of a class or group.
It's time for you to do some quiet thinking. Emphasis on the thinking.
Radwaste at August 12, 2008 4:47 PM
"We can't make these people behave"? Well, that tells me a lot about you.
Whites are the ones that started misbehaving, if you will. We started the "sexual revolution" of the 60s, and we began de-stigmatizing unwed motherhood, divorce, and cohabitating couples and persist in doing so.
I'm not even against those things, but I'm saying WE lowered the bar. We were the first to lower expectations for morality - in the media, which we controlled, and in our own lives - and naturally that is going to trickle down to the lower socioeconomic segments of society in a very destructive way, which is what has happened.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2008 5:01 PM
even though every ethnicity is egregiously guilty in the same affair. Where's your godly vitriol for them?
If you weren't posting the same post over and over and over here, you might find that vitriol.
I repeatedly criticize those women, of any race, but usually privileged white women, who seek to be "single mothers by choice." I think this is reprehensible.
However, single mother by by choice, by almost a half-dozen drug dealing boyfriends, and involved with yet another, and thus immersing her children in daily risk of death, is reprehensible beyond compare.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 5:05 PM
My god, is there a full moon out tonight or what? Or did you get linked by the Daily Kos? Some of these new posters/trollers have no clue. Next they will be accusing you of bashing gays and the French, you racist bitch. :)
People libelling Amy as being a racist or a hater or not giving a shit about people miss the point entirely. It is only because she actually cares about our freaking society is she trying to hold people up to correct standards of behavior. Boo freaking hoo, people have been doing that forever, in all cultures. One poster even took her to task about not caring that a child was shot. On the contrary, she is outraged that the child was ever put in the position to get shot. Aren't you?
When I read some of these comments, I truly despair.
I suppose most of your detractors also keep their keys in their cars with the doors unlocked.
Amy, you are the intellectual daughter of Camille Paglia.
Good luck with your book.
liz at August 12, 2008 5:15 PM
However, single mother by by choice, by almost a half-dozen drug dealing boyfriends, and involved with yet another, and thus immersing her children in daily risk of death, is reprehensible beyond compare.
Look, it just isn't reprehensible beyond compare unless you're a handwaving crazy person. There are more reprehensible things than having a drug-dealing boyfriend.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 5:17 PM
Rigtheous: "Look, it just isn't reprehensible beyond compare unless you're a handwaving crazy person. There are more reprehensible things than having a drug-dealing boyfriend."
"Raising" her six kids? I can think of little more reprehensible. Murder, child rape. That's about it.
It is child abuse.
liz at August 12, 2008 5:27 PM
Again, who would've been the choice for her, among the many fine eligible prospects?
Define "daily risk of death"? I mean, she lived in a dangerous neighborhood. Like someone else said, drug dealers often offer PROTECTION in those places.
I think she could've presumed her man would be arrested. But to say she was supposed to have known she was living a "daily risk of death" is silly. I think she probably already figured THAT was a given anyway, based just on where she lived.
And relationships don't always work. How many of us women can say we haven't had 5 or 6 boyfriends? The only difference is (and I LOVE this one) she didn't "make" them wear a condom. If she could "make" some street-smart guy from the 'hood wear a condom, she'd be kick-ass hero to me! I had trouble getting nerdy bankers or attorneys to wear them.
So, she got pregnant. I guess she was supposed to have 5 or 6 abortions. Yet, I doubt an abortion for one of us would be the same as an abortion for her. I'm just guessing it would be a lot more safe and sterile where we live.
No matter how "slutty" she was, there was no way she could've predicted that her life would be in that much danger...any more than it already was, day to day, in the dangerous place she lived.
And, at any rate, the one direction from which she had the right NOT to fear danger was from her own civil servants, her own government.
The police are supposed to be there to protect innocent civilians, and she was not committing a crime. You can say, after the fact, that she wasn't "innocent", yet that's the same claim our military often makes whenever they murder civilians in Iraq - that they were "insurgents" or "known associates of insurgants". It sounds less lame over there than it does here, but it's still lame.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2008 5:34 PM
It is child abuse.
What is child abuse? Spell out what you believe the abuse consisted of.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 5:39 PM
"Again, who would've been the choice for her, among the many fine eligible prospects?
*Move. Meet people who don't deal drugs.*
Define "daily risk of death"? I mean, she lived in a dangerous neighborhood. Like someone else said, drug dealers often offer PROTECTION in those places.
*Move. Meet people who don't deal drugs.*
...But to say she was supposed to have known she was living a "daily risk of death" is silly. I think she probably already figured THAT was a given anyway, based just on where she lived.
*Move. Meet people who don't deal drugs.*
... she didn't "make" them wear a condom. If she could "make" some street-smart guy from the 'hood wear a condom, she'd be kick-ass hero to me! I had trouble getting nerdy bankers or attorneys to wear them.
*And you ended up not dead from a screwed up drug raid. Good on ya!*
So, she got pregnant. I guess she was supposed to have 5 or 6 abortions.
*Or condoms, diaphragms, b/c pills, get the ol' tubes tied*
No matter how "slutty" she was, there was no way she could've predicted that her life would be in that much danger...any more than it already was, day to day, in the dangerous place she lived.
*Move. Meet people who don't deal drugs.*
And, at any rate, the one direction from which she had the right NOT to fear danger was from her own civil servants, her own government.
*Not according to the history of planet Earth*
The police are supposed to be there to protect innocent civilians, and she was not committing a crime.
*Just living with crack dealers*
You can say, after the fact, that she wasn't "innocent", yet that's the same claim our military often makes whenever they murder civilians in Iraq - that they were "insurgents" or "known associates of insurgants". It sounds less lame over there than it does here, but it's still lame."
*Actually, the cops said it was an accident, not that she was collateral damage. Try to stay on topic.*
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 12, 2008 5:52 PM
"What is child abuse? Spell out what you believe the abuse consisted of."
Shuffling these kids from dad to dad. Living with a criminal. Being surveilled by the police. Surely having dodgy people coming over to score, or, if he was big time, to distribute.
Do you think that this is a stable life for these kids?
Sorry, but I will not dream of pie in the sky perfect home life for the kids here, just because the mother was black.
liz at August 12, 2008 5:56 PM
I didn't claim it was what the cops were saying, but it's obviously what a lot of people here are saying.
And you are so lucky to be so smug in your ability to pick up and move. If that was the case for most, there would be no bad neighborhoods. Everybody would just move out.
That is what I mean. Everything we say about this woman is filtered through our own much more expansive options. It gets to be racist when you don't even realize, much less acknowledge, the difference.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2008 6:02 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, lovelysoul, but according to Warren v. District of Columbia the police have no responsibility to protect you.
Steve - the fact that you decided to dismiss my point immediately upon hitting the fact you think you can disprove denied you the opportunity to be enlightened.
Tell ya what - when you open that coke shop, and someone dies of an OD from your product, I'll start the class action suit that will put you out of business. I'll just use the various state suits against the tobacco firms as a template.
Still wanna open that coke shop?
brian at August 12, 2008 6:06 PM
A big rock is $40 and a quarter gram.
It was less than 5 grams because that's the dividing point for getting serious charges laid - so less than a thousand dollars of drugs, possibly as little as a couple hundred bucks.
That raid was so TOTALLY worth it.
Now Flynne, who is it that's the schmuck?
YOU, not even an mba. And Tarika Wilson. And Anthony Terry. And Chavalia. And everyone involved in the raid. And a host of others. And I'll include myself, too, because I know women just like Tarika. And asshats just like Anthony Terry. But that fact remains that it was an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE. The amount doesn't mean diddly, because where there's some, there's more. If not right away, tomorrow or the next day. Because they KEEP MAKING THE SHIT SO THEY CAN KEEP SELLING IT. Try to keep up now. ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE. ABUNDANT SUPPLY. SINGLE MOM WITH 6 SMALL KIDS FROM 5 DIFFERENT MEN LIVING WITH A DRUG DEALER. Recipe for DISASTER. Now shut the fuck up. You bother me.
Flynne at August 12, 2008 6:06 PM
You know, I really don't give a shit.
You make bad choices, patently illegal choices, and get shot?
Don't come whining to me.
You think Amy is a bitch? I am much worse. I have no respect or sympathy for criminals, people who shit on society's laws. Because that is the real decivilization. And yeah, I got my brownshirt on, so don't even break Godwin's law on my ass.
Life sucks. Deal with it. If you don't like the laws, change them. Or move to Canada.
liz at August 12, 2008 6:13 PM
And now that I think about it, all you of other self-righteous asshats bother me too. I challenge EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU to come with me to Father Panik or Marina Village on a Saturday afternoon and help me hand out clothes and school supplies and canned goods to the under-privildged kids who live in the drug, bug and shit-infested tenaments and talk to any damn one of the moms who dares to be seen talking to "whitey" while their kids hang on you and beg you to push them on the broken swings or take them to the candy store. Where most of the mothers are resentful but a few of the grateful ones will talk to you and ask you to help them get to the women's shelter on the sly so her fucked up boyfriend doesn't find out. One of you. And then I'll shut the fuck up myself.
Flynne at August 12, 2008 6:19 PM
Nobody is saying the kids had a perfect life. I guess because I am trained to go into people's homes and evaluate them as parents, I come at this so differently. I have been taught NOT to judge by the same standards that I would have for myself as a parent.
I mean, I go into lots of homes where I think, "Why don't you move out of this roach- infested trailer?" But that's because I, in my affluence, would definately move, but THEY can't afford to.
So, people live in dusgusting places and raise their kids, and it DOESN'T mean that they don't love them or that they are abusive. That is what I have learned.
In and of itself, it does not constitute "child abuse" for a mother to live with a criminal (unless a child molestor). Sorry, if that offends a lot of you, but that's just the truth. If a child-abuse claim was made to CPS, then I'd have to evaluate whether it was a good placement, but without a report of child abuse, the occupation of her boyfriend isn't "child abuse". I haven't read anywhere that either she or the boyfriend were under investigation for being abusive to the children.
I'd have to remove almost every kid I saw from their homes and family if I applied the lilly-white standards that some of you do. And that's just not realistic, much less good for the children.
But it's scary to me to see how quick most of you are to "judge a book by its cover." That is very dangerous thinking when you feel you sum up someone's whole life and their concern for their children based on a few facts in a newspaper.
lovelysoul at August 12, 2008 6:21 PM
Ahh, back from my bourbon break, and this thread is still festering like an open wound. Well, where shall we start?
Radwaste,
From the NYT article linked at the top of the page:
from a Lima local news site (dateline last week):
http://www.limaohio.com/news/beck_26590___article.html/officers_city.html
The city is experiencing the same indicators of high drug and gang crime of the early 1990s, Beck said, including graffiti, shots-fired calls and increased violence. Neither department can successfully combat the problem alone, Beck said.
from the Toledo Blade:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080805/NEWS02/226480100
and
Although I will concede this error. Sergeant Chavalia is apparently unlikely to return to duty as a police officer in Lima. Note that this is by his own choice, and incidentally is the second civilian homicide he's been investigated in connection to.
So which one of us is spewing Bull?
I'll concede that you know more about guns than I do, honestly I'm not surprised by that at all. But did you ever think to actually check into things, actually read for yourself some of the reporting associated with the stuff you're shooting your mouth off about?
Incidentally, if I had the choice between getting beaten up a bit by some thug or watching him get shot off of me by some trigger happy gun nut I'll take the beating. My body will recover a lot faster than my psyche.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 6:43 PM
Radwaste, apparently you weren't the only one who missed something.
"Prone", my ass. They stand up, proud to do it. This is why I posted the link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
And tada. I've had to take back my accusations of racism against a few posters here. lujlp because he's too pathetic to be a racist and brian because he's too insecure and delusional. but you radwaste, you're a piece of work you are.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 6:51 PM
Flynne,
I didn't realize that you meant schmuck in the good way. Sure we all have our foibles,for example, I appear to be an obssessive and insufferable bastard - so okay than, we're all schmucks.
But here's the issue. No-knock raids or raids executed under no-knock warrants are a very special class of police activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
Got that? The intent is to be able to get in and nab the evidence before they have a chance to flush it away. Now what evidence did they find? One small to medium sized stash, likely Anthony Terry's personal one. I'm not sure how they managed to get a no-knock issued. Regardless, the SWAT raid was clearly a hideous misuse of resources - and that's without considering that during this fiasco they managed to kill a bystander and injure a one-year old.
Am I still bothering you? Would you rather not think about such things?
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 7:05 PM
You say that like it's a good thing. Did you really mean that to be a compliment?
That's the first thing I've read from a hater that made me actually laugh out loud. Most of the time y'all aren't that funny.
Candy at August 12, 2008 7:10 PM
"but you radwaste, you're a piece of work you are."
It's a sick and twisted individual who can take a citation to a statistics site and invent things about its poster.
You still haven't said anything of merit. You're just inventing new ways to say what you've decided already: the mean old white man is responsible for everything bad.
Go ahead, gasbag. Rebut the stats. Tell us all how the poor victim was actually on her knees begging for her life before the Klansman carefully killed her and scarred her baby to leave a calling card.
You've already made shit up about the police. You've already posted irrelevent stuff you think backs your posts - and they don't.
You're just an armchair quarterback, professing to know about the situation with Cheetos in your lap. You'd make so much better a police officer than those Nazi pigs, wouldn't you? If you could only lower yourself, demean yourself that far, to actually wear a uniform.
You know so little that anything would be an improvement, but you can't be bothered with thinking first. I'm not projecting, either - it's obvious because you haven't produced anything about the case, and know nothing about raid or defense tactics.
It's just too bad that doesn't stop you from making up malicious crap about others.
Radwaste at August 12, 2008 7:30 PM
Radwaste,
I guess it's one of my weaknesses that I rise to challenges - I'll note that very few of the many questions I've posed have been answered.
Umm, listen you stupid moron, I'm calling you a racist because you somehow seem to believe that because the statistics show more black criminals, that blacks love crime - that they stand up and revel in it. I'm calling you a racist because of your attitude - because of your words. It has nothing to do with statistics, and everything to do with the hateful bile spewing from your blowhole.
As to your assertion that I think all whiteys are racist crackers - well, that's because you're an idiot as well as a racist. Hey, you can certainly win the argument if you get to changhe my words to mean whatever the fuck you want. How about addressing my actual points for a minute.
Okay -now listen carefully - FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.
I claimed that this was an acceptable outcome for the police. I claimed that the police believed that they did nothing wrong. My link showed that every Lima SWAT member that took the stand in Chavilia's trial said that in the same position they would do exactly the same thing.
But what do you have. Oh - you feel differently, your experience with the police is that they're all sunshine lollipops and rainbows. Fucking paramilitary SWAT team members never ever make bad decisions - and they of course face perfect accountability. But you've given shit fuck all to back it up. And then you have the unmitigated gall to claim that I fucking made shit up. FUCK YOU.
Someone's making up malicious crap and it's you you fuckwad. You wanna prove that I'm full of shit - fucking do it. Go right ahead. Thread history stretches all the way back to the top, you can use "the google" or whatever else you want, until then take your dick outta your hand and stick it back in your pants, 'cause you haven't brought the cover charge.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 8:08 PM
And that's exactly what I mean, Amy.
Reprehensible. That's how you describe single mothers by choice who aren't taking a cent from the system?
Jeez, what does that make Idi Amin or the Ayatollah or Osama bin Laden?
So, what over-the-top description do you have for two mommies or two daddies who use a sperm donor or a surrogate to create their families? Is it ok because there are two of them? What about women who choose to leave horrible relationships (that, yes, they had the bad sense to get into but had the good sense to get out of, perhaps even for the children's sake)? How about women who get pregnant and decide to keep the child? If they don't abort, does that make them reprehensible to you? What about the women who get left and who choose to stay single, support themselves, and raise their kids without a man around? And what of those who choose single motherhood but also choose to involve lots of men or even the biological fathers in their children's lives, as so many do? Still -- what's the word? -- oh yeah, right, reprehensible.
Really, you're starting to piss me off even when I agree with you. I think you have lots to say but are just wasting your voice now with intentionally inflammatory language. So your regulars applaud as usual and the people who ought to hear can't because their ears are swollen shut.
JulieA at August 12, 2008 8:46 PM
Way up thread, fieldingbandolier said:
"This is what black community leaders are being sensitive to, while you are not: they're picking their battles. They understand that instilling a sense of hopelessness or shame is not sufficient, or even helpful on it's own."
Right on, brother! That's why it's good that (pick as many as you like)
1. Black leaders celebrated OJ murdering two white people
2. Black leaders framed white prosecutors in the Tawana Bradley case
3. Black leaders cheered on three white kids getting framed for rape at Duke
4. Black leaders got charges reduced for a gang of black criminals that beat up a white kid in Jena
Way to go, self-esteem! Go Obama!
WhoUCrappin at August 12, 2008 8:47 PM
WhoUCrappin,
Jena? Really? The place where after a black guy had the nerve to sit under the whites-only tree, they put up fucking noooses?
Really?
Come on, it's like you guys aren't even trying anymore.
not even an mba at August 12, 2008 9:59 PM
Dear WhoUCrappin: [what a fittingly banal name to match your post]
It's funny - there's plenty of research to support the idea that people selectively seek information that provides affirmation for their beliefs, but it's not like that'd be news for anyone who spends time commenting on blogs or participating in discussion forums; the evidence is ubiquitous.
Your post hardly credits a response, but for what it's worth, here it is:
When you spend an entire lifetime being repeatedly mistreated, without recourse, it tends to instill a certain craving for what most might believe is justice. If you're a leader of an entire community with a similar set of unfortunate experiences, you might attempt to provide that for the people who are looking up to you with, shall we say, somewhat less discernment than would be optimal. This, of course, leaves you open to criticism from idiots such as yourself, who carefully select from the few egregious cases of misjudgment they are aware of, while remaining blissfully ignorant (intentionally so, perhaps) of the thousands and thousands of cases in which black people are abused or mistreated, but have no hope of justice. People tend to keep bringing up names like Abner Louima over and over because it's one of the few cases of it's kind where any form of justice, or even acknowledgment, was ever forthcoming.
Turns out, victims are generally more magnanimous than you give them credit for anyway, because they'll generally settle for validation of their experience as opposed to a form of delayed justice that never ends up being all that satisfying in the end. Really, that's what they crave - recognition of their trauma.
What a shame the majority culture is so fucking stingy when it comes to providing it.
So yeah - keep talking about OJ and the Duke case. It makes you look like an idiot, to selectively cherry-pick those aberrant few cases so often cited to support the rampant bigotry at sites like Stormfront, while conveniently ignoring the overwhelming number of situations where the reverse occurs.
It's funny - that traumatized mayor up in Maryland is in a position to make some waves on the topic of no-knock warrants, and he might even be able to instigate some change. That's the difference between people who have power and people who are disenfranchised. If I wasn't such a pragmatist about the social value of those changes, I'd laugh about how the death of two dogs belonging to a white major trumps the experience of thousands of minority people who've lost much, much more.
But I doubt you'd see the humor, "black" as it is.
Oh, and I voted for Hillary in the primary, but I'll gladly cast my vote for Obama on election day (much good it will do him here). We certainly do not live in a world conducive to the cultivation of optimistic realism.
Or enlightenment, for that matter.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:09 PM
Oh, and btw Amy:
When you write a post like this one - a post generates hundreds of comments and attracts people from far and wide - and when a sizable proportion of those people are expending some effort to explain something to you, don't you think it prudent to carefully consider whether or not they have something worthwhile to say?
Even if you don't want to hear it?
Just sayin'.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 10:54 PM
Why would I be persuaded to a point of view because many people (with Google alerts, apparently) think something? I think what I think because I have considered my opinions, and done a great deal of reading and thinking, and not just in the moment, but over the years.
Because many people believe something is often just a sign that few people think very much at all. The world being flat would be an example.
And the fact that you think majority rules is a wise form of directing one's thinking suggests I should not respect your thinking very much at all.
Don't assume I listen to no one because I don't listen to you. I take advice and wisdom from people whose minds and ability to reason I respect.
Those who think that simply being a white girl who has a critical thought about a woman who lived as this one did, and the culture that contributes to the way she lived, are not on the list of minds I respect.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 11:05 PM
Those who think that simply being a white girl who has a critical thought about a woman who lived as this one did, and the culture that contributes to the way she lived, are not on the list of minds I respect.
Those who think that what, Ms. Professional Writer Lady?
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 11:11 PM
I'm genuinely curious (and not assuming I know the answer), but is there somewhere on this prolific blog of yours an instance in which you made an admission you were wrong?
You seem like a rational person, and I find your perseveration puzzling.
Those who think that simply being a white girl who has a critical thought about a woman who lived as this one did, and the culture that contributes to the way she lived, are not on the list of minds I respect.
It's the combination of delivery and selectively attending only to the polarized aspect of a cultural subset, while ignoring the other end of the pole, really - it's not the criticism per se, but the set of assumptions that underlies it.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 11:15 PM
And now that I think about it, all you of other self-righteous asshats bother me too. I challenge EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU to come with me to Father Panik or Marina Village on a Saturday afternoon and help me hand out clothes and school supplies and canned goods to the under-privildged kids who live in the drug, bug and shit-infested tenaments and talk to any damn one of the moms who dares to be seen talking to "whitey" while their kids hang on you and beg you to push them on the broken swings or take them to the candy store.
Yay, Flynne.
Like me, you're actually getting your butt out of your chair to try to change things for some of these kids.
How many of those people above, calling me racist simply because I have strong opinions about what parents owe children, and what good or even adequate parenting is, actually do anything to help underprivileged kids?
I was raised by parents who pushed me to work hard and succeed and in an environment where it seemed possible that I could. I have a mother and a father who are still together -- married almost 50 years. They raised us in a safe neighborhood, not one filled with guns and drugs. All this time, my dad has been going to work every day, at an office, not selling drugs on the street. This is what parents owe kids.
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 11:26 PM
How many of those people above, calling me racist simply because I have strong opinions about what parents owe children
You wrote a racist column because you're somewhat dense, not because you have strong opinions. Go to directly fail.
Righteous Bubba at August 12, 2008 11:30 PM
Kudos to your parents, Amy. What a splendidly solid base they provided you, to launch yourself into the world. What a magnificent set of advantages you've capitalized on.
And kudos to you as well, for taking advantage of the opportunities life presented you with. Many don't.
I wonder what it would be like, growing in an impoverished Black urban neighborhood. I understand that the disproportionate incarceration rates have left, in many cities, a dearth of men.
Ah well. Apparently, the people you're most inclined to accept advice and wisdom from are the people who agree with you, but that hardly makes you unique. I suppose rapid-fire cognitive closure and a certain degree of self-righteous indignation are valuable attributes, in a syndicated advice columnist. Come to think of it, they're fairly valuable attributes in a discussion forum junkie as well.
I do appreciate that you made the effort to respond to me today, regardless of the tenor.
Regards.
fieldingbandolier at August 12, 2008 11:41 PM
Dense about what? How great it is when women take up with multiple drug dealers, and have multiple children with those drug dealers, and then take up with yet another drug dealer?
Let's pretend this woman was white, and I said the exact same thing about her. I'd have three comments on this entry. Maybe.
Again, I've used the term "litter" to describe various people of various colors and socioeconomic backgrounds who have lots of children. Because you're not used to people who don't write in P.C.-ese doesn't mean I'm racist.
Calling me "somewhat dense" doesn't prove I'm racist. It suggests you aren't smart enough or articulate enough, nor do you have enough of a "case," to actually give substantive, supportable reasons I should be considered racist.
Are you saying it would it hurt mothers like this one to hear Jesse Jackson and a few other black leaders decry having children out of wedlock with multiple drug-dealing fathers? Because that's what I suggested would be a good idea. A little stigma for drug dealing and taking up with drug dealers, and having a whole bunch of fatherless children. Is that suggestion the problem or is it just the fact that a white girl's making it. And if so...if that's your problem with it...who's the racist here, me or you?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 11:43 PM
And kudos to you as well, for taking advantage of the opportunities life presented you with. Many don't.
Again, I started a program in an inner city school to show kids what is possible with hard work.
All you people criticizing me, what are you doing besides spewing about what a hater I am?
I didn't have it easy growing up. I didn't have a single friend until I was in my mid-teens. Kids chased me around and called me dirty Jew, and egged our house, and threw chairs at me in junior high.
Being poor and growing up in a bad neighborhood is, for many, a motivator. Especially if they come from a community where drug dealing and thuggery is not deified.
Take, for example, a Korean assistant I had, the daughter of immigrants, who grew up in a bad neighborhood. Her cultural tradition urges her to excel -- which she did, going to a community college and eventually getting a scholarship to Northwestern. Being poor and having family members who speak no English (in her case) is not a sentence to a life of crime, criminals, and daddyless children.
So why aren't more black leaders going out there and sending the message I am at the school one afternoon a month? The message that Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and Juan Williams send? Where is the leadership? And why, pray tell, is it "racist" for me to ask that? And why, all you accusing me of being racist, don't you see complacency by black leaders, other than the handful who do speak out against drugs, thugs, and daddyless children, as the real problem?
Amy Alkon at August 12, 2008 11:53 PM
Dense about what?
Dense about the meaning of words.
Calling me "somewhat dense" doesn't prove I'm racist.
I did not call you a racist. I said the column is racist. If you were better with words you might get the distinction.
Are you saying it would it hurt mothers like this one to hear Jesse Jackson and a few other black leaders
Ah, we have backed off from "everyone in the black community". Treating a group of people as a monolith is pretty insensitive and it was wise to reverse course.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 12:11 AM
Dense about what?
Dense about the meaning of words.
Calling me "somewhat dense" doesn't prove I'm racist.
I did not call you a racist. I said the column is racist. If you were better with words you might get the distinction.
Are you saying it would it hurt mothers like this one to hear Jesse Jackson and a few other black leaders
Ah, we have backed off from "everyone in the black community". Treating a group of people as a monolith is pretty insensitive and it was wise to reverse course.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 12:15 AM
My apologies for the double-post; Macs really aren't all that.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 12:24 AM
Dense about the meaning of words.
But, wait: if I use "litter" to describe a white woman's children, is that racist?
I'm well-aware of the meaning of words, Bubbles. I simply refuse to write like a white woman who is terrified of being accused of being racist.
The problem with all of you accusing me of being racist is really that.
I use "litter" to describe the children of Catholic women and rich women and Muslim women in other blog posts here. It's about the number of the children not the race, religion, or socioeconomic background of the women.
The issue: The more children you have, the less care and attention you can give them. This is especially the case if you are a woman who is not married or in a longterm relationship with the children's daddy. It goes downhill from there when the children have multiple "daddies," all of whom are drug dealers.
Do none of you understand the value of a father in a child's life?
And as for "the black community" as a generalization, take it from a girl who happens to be black, LaShawn Barber, to whom I've linked to in a post for Wednesday:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/04/25/chastity-in-the-city/
"About 75 percent (more in some cities) of black babies in the U.S. are born out-of-wedlock."
At what point are we allowed to say this is a problem for the black community? Should we wait until it's 89 percent? 95? 98?
And I'm not surprise that you debate so dishonestly. When I said "everyone in the black community," I was suggesting that "everyone in the black community" should come out against "the glorification of thuggery, the putting down of achievers and people who 'talk white' (i.e. learn to speak so they are employable in a job out of the fast food industry) and who get educated and try to do something with their lives, and that leaders and others speak out against women who take up with multiple drug dealers and have multiple children raised without a daddy present, and then taking up with yet another drug dealer."
Are you saying it would be a bad thing for everyone in the black community to come out against these things?
Which of these things do you think some black people should come out for? Would that be "women who take up with multiple drug dealers and have multiple children raised without a daddy present, and then taking up with yet another drug dealer"?
Yes, surely that would do wonders for children.
Lemme ask you something, Bubbles: What do you do to help make things better, when you aren't farting out disingenuous comments on my blog?
Feel free to ask me for help so you can start a speaker program at the inner city school nearest you like I have. And I'm not being sarcastic. I would actually be quite happy to help you or anyone who'd like to do what I'm doing.
Amy Alkon at August 13, 2008 1:31 AM
Again, thanks for the reply Amy.
I never said you had it easy; I said you availed yourself of the advantages your parents provided for you. Many of us have our own unique hurdles, and we either cleared them, or we didn't.
I've worked extensively with vulnerable populations of people (mostly kids and families) in the past. At the moment, I'm frying other fish. When I have the opportunity, I'll contribute what I can.
"...don't you see complacency by black leaders, other than the handful who do speak out against drugs, thugs, and daddyless children, as the real problem?"
I see the problem as being far more complex, actually. But I'm done criticizing you, and I'm not going to call you a racist anymore.
I thought I'd make one more point before I leave this thread [was that a sigh of relief?]:
There are many people who continue to escape the ghettos in our country. They do avail themselves of the opportunities afforded them, choose participation in mainstream culture over the exclusionary counterculture you're decrying, and they leave. They represent the majority of the most capable people there, and they leave. They leave the less capable - the people with fewer options, and less capacity to avail themselves of what options there are.
They leave communities bereft of admirable figures the local youth can use as potential models for the kinds of people they would like to become.
So many of the remaining kids turn to the fictional characters available to them in the media, and the locals who seem most successful. It always struck me as ironic that the most ambitious young men in blighted minority areas have one ready avenue available to them - an avenue in which there are available role models, but certainly not anyone one would consider characterizing as ideal.
From an evolutionary psych perspective, we seem to be weeding that trait (ambition) out of the population (very few viable procreative options for the incarcerated).
As a last note, I've a friend - a social psychology professor, actually - who predicted the LA riots a year before they happened. As a graduate student at Berkeley, he'd done research on the factors contributing to the Watts riots. He talked a lot about role models, the perception of opportunity, and the invaluable pressure valve that military service had provided for a proportion of minority youth who were ambitious, limited in opportunity, and inclined to pursue their ambitions in more socially desirable ways than the alternatives most readily apparent to them. He predicted the LA riots when the military made significant moves to tighten up recruiting standards. A year later, there they were.
In Watts, it was a very distinct group that began the riots. They were young men (17-mid twenties) from blue collar families - not broken homes - whose fathers had been employed in manufacturing (and related) jobs.
What motivated Watts was the disparity between the lives these young men had anticipated, based on the examples set by their fathers, and the drastically reduced opportunities available to them after all those blue collar jobs dried up. They were the young men who anticipated creating a life for themselves, and raising kids, and working like their fathers had.
But there was no work to be had at a wage that could support a family (for a more current example, see Detroit).
"So why aren't more black leaders going out there and sending the message I am at the school one afternoon a month? The message that Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and Juan Williams send?"
The answer to your question is - it's complicated. It's complicated because most black leaders don't want to further alienate members of their communities, and they're stymied by the difficulties facing community members. They want to strengthen entire communities, not encourage a greater exodus and abandonment of those lacking the latitude to join it. And they understand that even for people trying to make the right choices, racism presents a potent barrier.
There's a prominent Unitarian minister living in my predominately Caucasian, middling-sized Western city who happens to be Black and drives an aging Ford Galaxy. He testified in front of the state legislature on the subject of racial profiling, and how he'd been pulled over eight times in the previous month for the crime of being a black man in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Were he a person of less cohesive values, what impact do you suppose that sort of thing would have on his sense of belonging to the larger community? He's an admirable man, but the profiling he'd been subject to amounts to a campaign to alienate him from the larger culture. I'm just glad he has the conceptual wherewithal to resist it.
But I'm done trying to convince you, or anyone else. Thanks for your responses, thanks for providing the space for me to park my soapbox, and thanks for providing sufficient irritation to motivate responses from me. You don't seem too interested in cultivating diversity of opinion in your space here, though, so I think I'll go back to that rock I crawled out from under.
Peace.
fieldingbandolier at August 13, 2008 1:41 AM
I dated a black man who is a movie star, and HE was pulled over -- in his super fancy car. It sucks. Just as it sucked when I encountered a lot of anti-semitism as a child, and spent a good 10-plus years friendless, terribly lonely, and miserable.
Then again, people who've had far more happen to them than the movie star, the "prominent Unitarian minister" you speak of, or I -- growing up in countries where there's terrible violence, seeing members of their families murdered, etc., -- have made it in this country. And then some. Of course, they don't "make it" by the perpetuation of a culture of victimhood, which is what I see in the black community, and the leaders (or "leaders") have blame in this.
As for calling me a racist, I'll just think you're probably not able to put together a coherent argument if you do. I almost never ban any commenter, not even the class acts above who attacked my looks. But, I see LaShawn Barber's point in this bit she posted on her site:
http://lashawnbarber.com/index.php?s=out-of-wedlock
Again, all you inarticulate people who are incapable of forming a rational argument are free to keep calling me racist here if you wish. That's from LaShawn Barber's site. I won't ban you. But the lady's got a point, huh?
And again, I started a program of my own to help inner city kids. Flynne, above, one of my regular commenters, does her part, too.
So...what are all of you doing besides screeching about what a racist I am?
Amy Alkon at August 13, 2008 1:55 AM
not even an mba, getting louder doesn't obscure your ignorance at all.
Do notice the >10:1 crime stats in most, not just a couple of categories. Then, notice two things: the silence of the bulk of posters, including you, as to this being a bad thing.
Feel free to fabricate things about situations you've never thought about, much less experienced, but don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone of wit.
Radwaste at August 13, 2008 2:28 AM
fieldingbandolier - From an evolutionary psych perspective, we seem to be weeding that trait (ambition) out of the population (very few viable procreative options for the incarcerated).
We had a discussion about something similar on a different thread a while back - under the topic of "white flight." (Wikipedia's article makes depressing reading.) Seems we'll need to change it's name from "white," though.
From an evolutionary perspective, and ignorance on my part, would it not take many, many generations to have an impact? Much longer that the social structures we now have are likely to survive.
Norman at August 13, 2008 3:50 AM
Woops, "change its name".
Norman at August 13, 2008 3:51 AM
Hi lovelysoul, normally I agree with you but not on this one ...
"Whites are the ones that started misbehaving, if you will. We started the "sexual revolution" of the 60s, and we began de-stigmatizing unwed motherhood, divorce, and cohabitating couples and persist in doing so.
I'm not even against those things, but I'm saying WE lowered the bar. We were the first to lower expectations for morality - in the media, which we controlled, and in our own lives - and naturally that is going to trickle down to the lower socioeconomic segments of society in a very destructive way, which is what has happened"
This idea that non-whites have so little self-control that whites "de facto" control them is not new, and was expressed interestingly in the famous poem The White Man's Burden - a classic read for anyone interested in this old debate.
In this "colonial" (so to speak) view, non-whites are seen as having so little self-control that they can be regarded as little more than children, and whites thus inherently - almost by divine positioning - must be their masters. Once you take that view, it then flows from that that even *inaction* by whites damages others (similar to how if you fail to feed your dog, it will probably starve to death, because it can't feed itself ... question is, would it be the dog owner's fault for allowing the dog to starve, or the dog's fault for not being able to take care of itself -- except we aren't talking about animals!)
Thus I don't partake in that view; non-whites are human, and human's are both capable and responsible for taking charge of their own destinies in free (and opportunity-filled) societies like America.
I mean, you may be right that whites started on some stupid paths --- but surely the rational response to that is not "OK well I guess I'll be stupid too", but, "oh hang, whites are doing stupid things, let's not also do that"? People have free will; you can't argue that merely by my being white, if I do something stupid, I'm responsible if other people look at me and copy what I'm doing.
David J at August 13, 2008 5:40 AM
Oh yeah, the poor black students at Jena - they were so traumatized by someone tying a rope in a tree.
Um, wait a minute - no one got hurt? That's all?
It's a nasty gesture but no one got injured. Except for the white kid, who got jumped by a bunch of black thugs and beat him up so badly he was hospitalized.
And then black leaders went to stick up for - the black criminals!
You know what, liberals? FUCK YOU.
WhoUCrappin at August 13, 2008 6:42 AM
"So, what over-the-top description do you have for two mommies or two daddies who use a sperm donor or a surrogate to create their families? Is it ok because there are two of them? What about women who choose to leave horrible relationships (that, yes, they had the bad sense to get into but had the good sense to get out of, perhaps even for the children's sake)? How about women who get pregnant and decide to keep the child? If they don't abort, does that make them reprehensible to you? What about the women who get left and who choose to stay single, support themselves, and raise their kids without a man around? And what of those who choose single motherhood but also choose to involve lots of men or even the biological fathers in their children's lives, as so many do? Still -- what's the word? -- oh yeah, right, reprehensible."
You just don't answer these questions, Amy. And they are good ones. And I am getting curious too.
The problem that you have here, which, interestingly, you don't even try to hide, is that you come from this perfect, Rockwell-type background, which gave you so many advantages, yet you write as if the moral choices and decisions are made on an EVEN playing field by everyone else, when they aren't.
It sounds racist when you stand atop your background and say, "See I reached here, you can too", when they are standing well beneath the place you started from. It becomes racist when you fail to see, much less acknowledge, that difference.
And you keep citing Asians as examples of success against adversity, but many of us who have studied IQ, will tell you that's not fair. Asians, as a group, have a higher average IQ, and less of a broad range (meaning fewer lower IQs) than other ethnicities. They also (maybe because they are so smart!) stress education, which is the GOLDEN KEY to success in this country. They excel in that area, which is one we highly reward.
So, I agree that education needs to be stressed more in black homes. Apparently, according to my dad, who was a part of the civil rights movement and the VISTA program in the deep south, this USED to be more the case.
He drove me around one day and showed me areas where he had worked - building playgrounds and schools - and pointed to homes he'd visited. And he said, "There used to always be BOOKS in those homes. The black parents back then understood that was the key to getting out of poverty. But that's not true of this generation. I don't know why."
I agree that black leaders, like Jackson, have catered to the lower common demoninator. Nobody here, who has "defended" him, even says otherwise ("it's complicated"). Well, true leaders don't balk at complicated. That only means he cares more about his own skin than leading. That's no Mandela, folks.
But I disagree that someone like Cosby carries enough weight to make a difference. Just a few old black men saying something isn't going to drastically change behavior.
I mean, we whites have plenty of old people talking about morality, but it doesn't seem, from where I sit, that it's making much of an impact on the life choices of those at the lower socioeconomic end.
And, to answer your question, I am trying to make a difference by serving as a GAL. There are several people here, like Flynn, who are genuinely involved.
In answer to Amy's question, I am trying to make a difference as a GAL.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 7:39 AM
Ooops, that last sentence got left at the end of my post. Sorry, it's redundant.
David J - I wasn't talking about non-whites. I was talking about everyone at the lower socioeconomic levels. To say that what the upper levels do - and how they behave - doesn't influence their behavior is historically inaccurate.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 7:44 AM
I'm well-aware of the meaning of words, Bubbles.
No hyphen required, Ms. Professional Writer Lady.
I use "litter" to describe the children of Catholic women and rich women and Muslim women in other blog posts here.
Well how sweet. As has been mentioned before it's all about context. Every time you try to justify it you're missing the point.
And in context, consider this: you take no issue at all with neanderthal racist comments on this thread, only with people who disagree with you.
And I'm not surprise that you debate so dishonestly.
And I'm not "surprise" that you throw around accusations without basis.
Lemme ask you something, Bubbles: What do you do to help make things better, when you aren't farting out disingenuous comments on my blog?
Point out which comment was disingenuous and maybe I'll tell you. I'm betting you shoot blanks and that you don't really know what the word means anyway.
I'm not knocking your volunteer efforts at all. I'm just pointing out that your column is racist.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 7:57 AM
Lovelysoul wrote "And you are so lucky to be so smug in your ability to pick up and move. If that was the case for most, there would be no bad neighborhoods. Everybody would just move out.
That is what I mean. Everything we say about this woman is filtered through our own much more expansive options."
Expansive options? I was made homeless the morning of my 18th birthday.
So I went to the bank and to the student financial aid office to get a loan or a grant, but I was told those were for poor students -- not for kids of wealthy businessmen (70's code for "white"). Honest, that's not hyperbole, that's what I was told.
So I joined the military (during wartime, thanks), served 4, got out and worked my way through school. I tried to get a loan again -- but there was a rule against loans to veterans getting the $185/month from the VA.
So I moved pianos, drove trucks, mopped and painted at the old folks' home, and did odd jobs until I graduated and got a real job.
I choose, you choose, she chose.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 13, 2008 8:14 AM
I also just love the fucking assumption that every honky comes from this privileged white middle class background. Nope, no racism there.
(And don't I fucking wish? But me and Gog weren't handed scholarships based on skin color. I was damned if I was gonna take his route and because I had typing and shorthand went on to be a secretary and fortunately one older sister who could take me in until I found a job. However, two of my sisters and my brother also resorted to the Army to keep from being homeless at 18. Oh, and if you don't understand my and Gog's point on this, it's just because you didn't grow up poor white.)
T's Grammy at August 13, 2008 8:44 AM
I applaud you both. I grew up on a farm in AL. I don't know if we were "poor". We had enough to eat, but we were hardly rich.
Still, both my parents graduated from college and were well-read. They were first in their families to go to college. And that, in and of itself, inspired me to higher education.
Both of you were inspired to succeed somehow -by someone. And that is a good fortune that a lot of very poor children do not have.
Sadly, I see an inability to even dream a life that is better in so many of these kids. And both of you actually got where you were because you had to work hard for it - nobody handed you anything - but what's happening in these communities is that they are living on public assistance. Generations of them. And they are often "penalized" for working. When they weigh the benefits of the low-paying job against the steady welfare check, it doesn't make sense, at least at first.
They have to have long-term thinking, which is hard for almost everyone. They have to be able to see beyond their current circumstances, and if two or three generations of their family have lived that way, very few of them are able to imagine a life beyond what they've known.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 9:23 AM
Lovelysoul, according to that reasoning, black people are witless, hopeless, powerless, clueless, incapable, weak, stupid, lack imagination, and are incapable of long-term thinking or making good decisions.
Now that's racism.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 13, 2008 9:39 AM
I wasn't talking about only black people. Most of my cases are WHITE. I'm talking about giving people less incentive to work, which effectively cripples them, white or black.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 9:42 AM
Example: I had a case where a 19 year old (white) girl took in her drug-addicted sister's two preschool age kids. At the time I met her she had a job and was planning to go college, yet when her sister's children were essentially abandoned, she stepped up, rather than let them go to foster care.
Yet, in a matter of months, she'd quit her job and was living (not well, mind you, but ok for a 19 yr old) on all the assistance she was getting. At the last hearing I attended, I heard her say to her attorney, "I hurt my back, do you think I can get disability?" and he happily assured her that she could and he would do the papers for her.
I mean, everyone was trying to help her because she was doing a good thing, but by doing so, we were also crippling her.
And that is happening across the board to blacks and whites. We're giving the wrong incentives.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 9:57 AM
*And that is happening across the board to blacks and whites. We're giving the wrong incentives.*
And the people who fall for it are making their choices. Their lives, their choices, their responsibility.
I didn't HAVE to join the military and take the associated risks. I could've stayed in a jobless situation and taken the associated risks. I could've moved to an unfamiliar urban environment to look for work and taken the associated risks.
I choose, you choose, they choose.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 13, 2008 10:12 AM
Gog's right. Someone inspired me? Plenty. I read a lot and paid attention in school instead of being a fuck-up. When my sister (yes, the same one who took me in) got pregnant at 16 and 18, I saw that it was pretty stupid even though it got her out of our abusive parents house and welfare not only put her up in her own apartment but put her through college. None for me. I kept my legs crossed. Bad example set and rewarded, I still didn't follow suit and despite my sarcasm on this board am glad I didn't. It's a weak excuse at best.
"I choose, you choose, they choose" Very well put. And I'm fed up with those who don't think they should have to deal with the consequences of their bad choices. I chose badly in a husband for no other reason than I was naive in love. How the hell would it have helped if I figured it was up to the world to bail me and my daughter out? It wouldn't have. It would have hurt. Choose and don't blame others when you fail to consider the consequences of your actions.
Frankly, I am thoroughly disgusted at the blatant -- that's right blatant -- discrimination reflected in what you said about different standard for removing a child from a home for white and black or "environment" if you want to call it that. That is utterly, utterly dispicable. How is that fair to children of either race?
Oh, and you can move on little or no money. I've lived downtown which has some vice but hardly the extent in the ghetto and you are not targeted for being white or black. Apartments run from very cheap to very expensive (rich and poor rub elbows, imagine that!) and the land/slum lords of the cheap will usually take Section 8. Not to mention, women's shelters will take them in. It's an excuse to use money to not move if your situation is as dire as all that. A weak excuse.
And, frankly, am I the only wondering what the hell was wrong with her mother? If this were my daughter, I would not be calling her a good mother. I would be asking her what the hell is wrong with her.
T's Grammy at August 13, 2008 11:22 AM
Frankly, I am thoroughly disgusted at the blatant -- that's right blatant -- discrimination reflected in what you said about different standard for removing a child from a home for white and black or "environment" if you want to call it that. That is utterly, utterly dispicable. How is that fair to children of either race?
I'm not really sure what you're referring to, T. I never said there was a difference in black and white homes and choosing to remove children. I said people from more affluent homes will often look down on the homes and environment of those that are poor...and that should not be a BASIS for removing a child from a loving parent. I would hope you would agree with that.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 11:32 AM
"So, I agree that education needs to be stressed more in black homes."
By who though? That passive form alludes to some responsible agency without mentioning it. A child's approach to education comes from one place only, home. It will thus only work if black parents take the responsibility of stressing education more in their own homes. Nobody else can do this. White people can't fix the problem by trying to stress education in black homes from the sidelines. (In any case if it's the responsibility of whites we're back to White Man's Burden.) But as we've seen even criticising obviously poor black parents gets you labelled "racist" in no time. So in reality whites can do nothing.
Lovelysoul, you complain about the underprivileged backgrounds of black Americans preventing them from improving their lot in life. But Americans, all of them, have incredible privilege and opportunity; I would trade places with any black American in a moment, because it would mean the opportunity of being an American. Immigrants arrive far poorer with far less and a language disadvantage and other disadvantages and in just one or two generations attain a middle class standard of living. Black Americans have had 8, 9, 10 generations. Your attitude counts far more than your background.
David J at August 13, 2008 11:46 AM
"So, I agree that education needs to be stressed more in black homes."
By who though? That passive form alludes to some responsible agency without mentioning it. A child's approach to education comes from one place only, home. It will thus only work if black parents take the responsibility of stressing education more in their own homes. Nobody else can do this. White people can't fix the problem by trying to stress education in black homes from the sidelines. (In any case if it's the responsibility of whites we're back to White Man's Burden.) But as we've seen even criticising obviously poor black parents gets you labelled "racist" in no time. So in reality whites can do nothing.
Lovelysoul, you complain about the underprivileged backgrounds of black Americans preventing them from improving their lot in life. Sure, but Americans, all of them, have incredible privilege and opportunity; I would trade places with any black American in a moment, because it would mean the opportunity of being an American. Immigrants arrive far poorer with far less and a language disadvantage and other disadvantages and in just one or two generations attain a middle class standard of living. Black Americans have had 8, 9, 10 generations. Your attitude counts far more than your background.
David J at August 13, 2008 11:47 AM
David J, they haven't had 8 or 9 generations of being free and having a choice of education. So, that is wrong. Most immigrants come here with the background of not being slaves or at least not having slavery within their last few generations.
It takes time for a group on a lower level to rise several levels. Even most of us, with solid (generation upon generation) middle class backgrounds, only manage to achieve a few degrees of success. Most of us are STILL middle class...maybe we're upper middle class...but, for the most part, we only maintain the status quo of our upbringing.
There will always be the rare, adventurous family member, who sets out, like Magellan, and aims for a higher level and conquers it, but most of us generally stay within a few degrees of our upbringing. Nothing to be ashamed of, but in contrast to what we are expecting of those on the lower levels, it's a bit unfair. WE usually haven't risen two or three levels from our parents.
Given that reality, the fact that we have so many successful blacks, who have risen far beyond the economic level of their parents, is remarkable! To think, in a few generations since the Brown case, we'd have a black presidential candidate, who may indeed win, shows remarkable progress.
I agree that it has to come from the parents, but we are in an uphill battle with both black and white communities in that there has been a major "dumbing down" of our entire culture. No agency is going to fix that. You're right, it starts at home, but I really don't how to place it there.
I mean, Obama had a white educated mother and a black, Harvard-educated father. You can't "create" that recipe, but it obviously worked well.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 12:16 PM
Oh lovelysoul, I was so with you on the husband-killing a few days ago, but this sentence from you takes the cake:
"she didn't "make" them wear a condom. If she could "make" some street-smart guy from the 'hood wear a condom, she'd be kick-ass hero to me! I had trouble getting nerdy bankers or attorneys to wear them."
WHAT are you doing having sex with someone you have to "make" use birth control? Do you know these people at all? (you in a general term applying to all people in said sitiation) I whored around the block and then some in college, and condoms were never an issue. It came out, it went on, and then we had sex. Why is this hard for people?? You do not have sex without condoms unless you are in a committed relationship (and that takes more than a few weeks). Period. Pregnancy is the least of the reasons why.
If you (again, generalized you) aren't completely sure you and the guy are on the same page protection-wise, you should not be having sex with that guy. Whether he's a banker or a street-hood doesn't really matter.
momof3 at August 13, 2008 12:47 PM
Lovelysoul, I see what you mean. American blacks are only 6.5 generations out of legalized slavery in the USA, not the 8 or 9 that you require for full societal integration.
No wonder they're only Senators, Representatives, doctors, lawyers, bankers, cops, judges, both Supreme and average, movie stars, singing stars, tv stars, commentators, writers, cooks, chefs, waiters, painters, drivers, construction workers, electrical engineers, computer scientists, pharmacists, pastors, students, housewives and, well, whatever the hell else they choose to be.
Hopefully in 2063 at the end of their 9th generation of freedom they will finally be part of America.
Until then, all we can do is pity their plight.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 13, 2008 4:53 PM
Look, I don't "require" anything, and I think that shows amazing success. Although I don't see how you get 6.5 since Brown vs Board. Yet, I also believe that what you are seeing is the same as what the whites are seeing - an ever increasing divide between the "haves" and the "have nots". And we need to logically and effecively address why the lower realm is not thriving.
And Momof3, you are funny. I was kind of making a joke. I always insisted on condoms, but it's not easy out there - maybe when you're a young college coed, but middle-age men, most of whom have been married and gotten used to not wearing them, are less inclined. They give all sorts of excuses - "I was just tested", I've been celibate the last 3 years", etc. I was just trying to imagine getting a street hood to wear one. Much harder, in my imagination.
lovelysoul at August 13, 2008 5:08 PM
American blacks are only 6.5 generations out of legalized slavery in the USA
Don't be an ass.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 6:16 PM
Hmm.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 6:19 PM
*Although I don't see how you get 6.5 since Brown vs Board. *
Wait, you think black people have only been free since "Brown v. Board of Education?".
Thanks for the laugh.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 13, 2008 6:21 PM
Well, you know, there's the end of legalized slavery and then there's decades of Jim Crow, lynchings, and stuff like that. It wasn't for nothing that Tanney wrote in the Dred Scott opinion that black people had no rights white people were bound to respect. Not really hilarious stuff, actually.
Doctorb at August 13, 2008 7:47 PM
Doctorb why should I, as a white guy who had nothing-who's entire famillyhad nothing to do with slavey, have to suffer the consequence for other peoples choices because they have some bizare notion that what happened to their ancestors is reason enough to ignore the law?
I'm sorry but just because people with black skin were the lastest in a VERY long line to be used as slaves doesnt give black people today an excuse for poor choices.
People throughout history have suffered have sufered at the hands of others - and continue to do so today.
And while were on the subject of slavery, why is it I never hear anyone mention the role africans themselves played in the process?
lujlp at August 13, 2008 9:42 PM
And while were on the subject of slavery, why is it I never hear anyone mention the role africans themselves played in the process?
You hear it all the time from racists.
Righteous Bubba at August 13, 2008 10:25 PM
REally? Its a valid question, afriacan were complicit in the slave trade.
How is it racist to bring it up?
Is it also racist to mention that China outlawed slavey in 1910 that many middle eastern coutries did not outlaw slavery until the 1950-1960's?
How about the fact the africans are today engaed in slavery is that racist as well?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4250709.stm
Tell me why is it racist to ask why "african americans" never speak of other african being complcit in the slave trade?
nice link, kind of obsessive though, been holding on to it for 8yrs now?
Somebodys got an ax to grind
lujlp at August 13, 2008 11:46 PM
Tell ya what - when you open that coke shop, and someone dies of an OD from your product, I'll start the class action suit that will put you out of business.
Sigh, why do you continue? Legalizing cocaine would require FCC approval. FCC approval precludes lawsuits of the sort you're suggesting, presuming one doesn't provide false information to the FCC or hide knowledge of harmful effects, which is why you don't see people with Cirrhosis winning lawsuits against Jack Daniel's.
The class action suit against the tobacco companies was predicated on the fact that RJR, PM, etc. were selling a harmful product and hiding the knowledge of that harm. 'Hiding' is the key. Cocaine's harm is already known. Your situation doesn't apply.
Furthermore, your analogy is inapt. I said I would open a chain of pharmacies, not a chain of cocaine refineries. You'll note that pharmacies were never successfully sued for selling tobacco.
Steve at August 14, 2008 3:06 AM
Don't be an idiot. Of course, I know blacks were free before Brown. But it wasn't an equal playing field before then in terms of education and opportunity.
lovelysoul at August 14, 2008 5:12 AM
REally? Its a valid question, afriacan were complicit in the slave trade.
How is it racist to bring it up?
Because for Americans it's always a way to lump people of one skin colour together and insist that all their circumstances are their fault.
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 5:26 AM
My apologies, lovelysoul. I misread you. Skimming back through this very long thread what you said was that you couldn't judge them by your standards as a parent. I have no excuse other than I'm reading these long threads for too long at a time trying to keep up.
T's Grammy at August 14, 2008 8:28 AM
"Because for Americans it's always a way to lump people of one skin colour together and insist that all their circumstances are their fault."
And, you, Righteous Bubba, haven't done that not even once?
Also, how the hell is it lumping you with people in Niger to link that article? Is anyone implying that you had anything whatsoever to do with what's going on there?
lujlp's point -- correct me if I'm wrong, lujlp, good article, btw -- is that white people are being solely blamed for slavery when it wasn't just the white people's doing and also that we living today had as little to do with what happened in previous generations as you have to do with what's going on in Africa today.
No one's lumping all black people together. There is quite a bit of lumping all white people together going on in this thread.
Who's the racist?
T's Grammy at August 14, 2008 8:51 AM
No one's lumping all black people together.
Please see the post at the top of this thread.
lujlp's point -- correct me if I'm wrong, lujlp, good article, btw -- is that white people are being solely blamed for slavery
Please point out who in the thread blamed white folks and white folks only for slavery. When you don't find that person I'm sure you'll sack up and apologize.
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 8:58 AM
*Don't be an idiot. Of course, I know blacks were free before Brown. But it wasn't an equal playing field before then in terms of education and opportunity.*
The only idiot here is someone who argues that people on the dole are somehow held back by the handouts, then turns around and argues that the same group must be coddled because they haven't yet passed the 8-9 generations out of slavery milestone (which she herself conveniently created), then asserts that she didn't create the milestone, then asserts that freedom is only complete when the oppressed class have overcome every social hurdle via the courts, a process that took some 100 years since their release from bondage, while the people she's talking about have ignored her mewlings and gone on to the highest offices and best neighborhoods and highest tax brackets in the land.
Idiot, indeed.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 14, 2008 9:27 AM
I don't get why you think I've argued anything like that, other than the handout part. I did not say they should be "coddled", and I didn't set any 8-9 generational milestone. You keep attributing that to me, but it's only in your head.
lovelysoul at August 14, 2008 9:43 AM
Au contraire.
August 13, 12:16 pm, you posted:
"David J, they haven't had 8 or 9 generations of being free and having a choice of education. So, that is wrong."
That's where you set the milestone.
As to coddling, you're right, you never used the term, I was attempting to distill your argument and failed. I see now that you don't really seem to take any position at all. My error.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 14, 2008 10:52 AM
That's where you set the milestone.
David J set that milestone.
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 10:58 AM
Well, I think I was answering him. I didn't say 8 or 9 generations was my milestone, and I was clearly meaning "being free and having a choice of education" simulataneously...and in relation to Brown vs Board of Education, which is the point that I find it fair to start comparing generationally in terms of success. You can't compare generations when one ethnicity doesn't have the same educational opportunities as the other.
And if I was going to argue for "coddling", I wouldn't be against handouts. I'd want MORE.
I can't remember enough of your posts to know what your positions are, or why you specifically have such a problem with what I've said. Maybe you just like to agitate people. I mean, you keep pointing out the successes of blacks, and I keep AGREEING with you. Yet, the fact that there are successful blacks (and whites) doesn't to me, mitigate that there are some serious issues at the lower socioeconomic end of the spectrum.
lovelysoul at August 14, 2008 11:07 AM
Whats the atter bubba, wont comment on africans holding african slaves in this day?
Slavey fine with you so long as the master and slave are of the same race?
lujlp at August 14, 2008 12:08 PM
Aww, lujy, go easy on him - you're busting Bubba's bubble! o_O
Flynne at August 14, 2008 12:13 PM
Whats the atter bubba, wont comment on africans holding african slaves in this day?
Given that it has nothing to do with the thread I assumed you were just saying bad things about certain brown people to slur all brown people, as seems to be your wont. What kind of response would you like?
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment in moderation I suppose.
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment in moderation I suppose.
Uh, no. If it got kicked to spam, you'd get a message telling me to get it out.
As T's Grammy pointed out, you seem to be the one lumping all brown people together. Plenty of "brown people" seem to have strong family values and would look upon their daughter with shame if she squeezed out six kids with five different drug dealer boyfriends by age 26, and took up with yet another drug dealer.
This is about a pervasive values issue in the black community. Not with all black people. But, with far too many. Personally, my black friends are pretty much the same as my white friends: hardworking, educated writers and "creative professionals." Regarding "creative professionals," I'm not sure what you call a fashion designer, but I have a very successful fashion designer friend who's black. She was raised with strong values -- I knew her late mother, who was one of the most genteel women I've ever met -- and is a clear product of those values.
Frankly, you and all the others here who continue to yip on about racism, when you've been shown numerous times, by me and others, that I am not racist and why it is not racist to notice and speak out about a problem in the black community any more than it is racist to speak out about a problem that mainly affects white...well, I suspect this is one of those cases where you cry out against something fervently, because deep down, that's what you are: racist.
Oh, and I've been writing my fingers to the bone today on my book, so thanks, everybody, who's been batting cleanup.
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2008 5:36 PM
As T's Grammy pointed out, you seem to be the one lumping all brown people together.
Witness "everyone in the black community" blah blah blah above and how they should be doing this and that in response to your whatever. Pot, kettle, etc.
I am not racist
Obviously the post above is.
well, I suspect this is one of those cases where you cry out against something fervently, because deep down, that's what you are: racist.
Well obviously you cry out against child-molesting fervently because deep down that's what you are: a child-molester.
See how stupid that is? Clearly the people who make fun of you are prescient:
Malaclypse said,
August 14, 2008 at 18:42
Her analysis of racism is clearly a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care. However, she does fail to cite “I’m Rubber, You’re Glue,” which may hurt her in academic circles.
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 5:50 PM
This is off-topic, but I'm curious. Somebody posted a Wikipedia piece about you above, Amy. I'm relatively new here, so I was wondering if it's correct. Are you a male-to-female transsexual? Or did someone just put that on Wikipedia erroneously?
lovelysoul at August 14, 2008 6:29 PM
Or did someone just put that on Wikipedia erroneously?
Seems like vandalism to me.
Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2008 6:31 PM
If she were I doubt shed have posted about her sister grabbing her breast and getting felt up by a guy in a closet durring one of her posts on feminist sensationalism.
lujlp at August 14, 2008 6:38 PM
Yeah, I know. That's why I brought it up because that is what Wikipedia says. At first, I thought the poster on this thread was making that up. Doesn't matter to me either way, but if it's untrue, I thought she might want to change it.
lovelysoul at August 14, 2008 6:46 PM
Actually, I think that's pretty hilarious, but no I'm not.
Can somebody please go correct that, and find out the IP address of the person who changed it so I can see if I can match it to whichever inarticulate loser here has to resort to that sort of thing in the absence of having a good argument.
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2008 6:57 PM
[-snapping fingers]
You know, as I was reading the various defenses you posted yesterday, I kept thinking you were reminding me of someone, and I just now remembered who it was - someone I came across a little while back and exchanged a few words with. He's quite eloquent, really - I thought you might be interested in what he has to say. I can pretty much guarantee you have some common acquaintances already.
Amy Alkon, meet intellectual social commentator, free-speech activist, "telling-the-truth-as-I-see-it" idealist, speaker, advocate for rationality, avowed not-a-racist-but-a-realist Yale alumnus, Jared Taylor.
If you wrote a few words about your experience with that post and the subsequent hysteria here, I'll bet he'd publish it. He may have linked your post already, for all I know.
You're welcome.
fieldingbandolier at August 14, 2008 7:33 PM
Here's the level of dumb I have to deal with here: The mush brain who calls himself "Righteous Bubba" writes this:
QUOTING ME: "well, I suspect this is one of those cases where you cry out against something fervently, because deep down, that's what you are: racist."
BUBBA WRITES: well, I suspect this is one of those cases where you cry out against something fervently, because deep down, that's what you are: racist.
Well obviously you cry out against child-molesting fervently because deep down that's what you are: a child-molester.See how stupid that is? Clearly the people who make fun of you are prescient.
Uh, I'm being accused of being racist, based on nothing more than the fact that I wrote critically about the black community's lack of shaming for behavior like this woman's; I am not going around accusing people right and left of being child molesters.
Look, I'm so sorry you're dim, but the whole level of the discussion here is brought down because you're a part of it. I appreciate the traffic bump, with so many of my regular commenters having to explain to you what a mush brain you are, and then you and all the other mush brains coming back to post more mush-brained stuff, but really, this site is usually a forum for intelligent discussion, and you and so many above make it just tiresome.
Amy Alkon at August 15, 2008 7:47 AM
Pot? Kettle? Indeed, Righteous (at least in your own mind) Bubba.
Anyone who's let you know they were white on this board has become automatically wrong in your eyes. Nothing, absolutely nothing, we can do or say will change that because you are -- plain and simple -- a bigot.
End of story. Good-bye.
T's Grammy at August 15, 2008 8:26 AM
Uh, I'm being accused of being racist, based on nothing more than the fact that I wrote critically about the black community's lack of shaming
That's not the whole story of course, but par for the course, and also racist. That you don't get it is a testament to your skills as a thinker.
Pot? Kettle? Indeed, Righteous (at least in your own mind) Bubba.
Watch as Amy demands that everyone who is black shame single moms. That presumably includes the black dentists, black cable TV techs, or black newspaper columnists who never knew the woman and live fine middle or upper-class lives without trips to crack dens. Why do they have to do what Amy wants? Because they are black.
Anyone who's let you know they were white on this board has become automatically wrong in your eyes.
That's false. It's not my fault you're wrong a lot, but welcome to correction.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 9:02 AM
I understand why Amy feels the way she does about shaming, but I think it's only fair to point out that white families aren't doing such a good job "shaming" their young either. Once the religious structures were weakened, there was less shaming across the board. In fact, we live in a society that is anti-shame. There are few restrictions, just "whatever you feel is right for you".
A lot of that has been positive - schools and other students are welcoming gays, cross-dressers, transsexuals...whatever floats your boat. Today's kids have specifically been taught that sort of tolerance for anyone's "life choices", so it's much harder, in that climate, to say, "Oh but she's pregnant, we need to SHAME her".
Out of wedlock pregnancy is all too common in both ethnicities, and it's been accepted for awhile. You have Jaimie Lynn Spears on the cover of People. You have that movie, "Juno" winning major awards. Our white culture is practically glorifying it!
I don't know how we can put the genie back in the bottle at this point. But it's not just up to the black community to do it - they aren't the only ones with the problem. So, it seems a little racist to take them to task for not doing it, when we aren't doing it either.
lovelysoul at August 15, 2008 9:48 AM
So you guys missed the blog post about white suburbinties turning to heoin because of overbearing miromanaging white parents?
Or did you just ignore it?
lujlp at August 15, 2008 10:27 AM
So you guys missed the blog post about white suburbinties turning to heoin because of overbearing miromanaging white parents?
No.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 10:46 AM
I see so you just ignored it.
lujlp at August 15, 2008 12:35 PM
Yes. Is there a special reason to pay attention to it?
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 12:41 PM
How stupid are you?
Are you really so dense as to incapable of telling the difference between someting racist and something you find personally offensive that a white person said about a black person?
Your problem is you want racism to be subjective, but its not it is objective.
Just because you find something offensive does not make it racist. Amy says the same thing about eveyone regardless of race religion or creed.
As such it is not racist - If she were to say it in regards to one race only then it would be.
Your particullar brand of subjective "I get to decide what is racist" racism is just plain stupid.
Under your rules I would be racist for calling a guy black when he prefers african american - even though I meant no insult
Under your rules I would also be racist for calling a guy african american when he prefers black - again even though I meant no insult
Do you understand how under your rules of racism everyone is racist the moment they say anything that anyone else wants to find offensive?
lujlp at August 15, 2008 1:28 PM
Please follow up your arguments properly: what again was so important about "suburbinties" and "heoin" and "miromanaging"?
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 1:44 PM
Ahh yes pointing out spelling mistakes, the last bastion of a man desperate to score points as he loses an argument
Well done sir, pity about your loss though
Better luck in your next debate
lujlp at August 15, 2008 2:03 PM
I did more than that: I asked you to articulate your argument, which you are unable to do.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 2:14 PM
How mch more articulate do you want it? She did a post on white people screwing up their kids
wereas a racist would focus soely on one race
are your brain dead? do you not see the connection I laid out for you?
lujlp at August 15, 2008 2:26 PM
wereas a racist would focus soely on one race
That is probably the dumbest thing in this thread. I'm glad you saved it until the end.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 2:44 PM
I see, so you think a racist is someone who discriminates against everyone no matter their race.
Well, its easy to see how you think everyone is racist.
lujlp at August 15, 2008 3:07 PM
I see, so you think a racist is someone who discriminates against everyone no matter their race.
That is nowhere implied, but you're not bright so I forgive you.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 3:17 PM
It was implied by your statment that you thought it was stupid that a racist wouldnt focus on race
lujlp at August 15, 2008 4:11 PM
It was implied by your statment that you thought it was stupid that a racist wouldnt focus on race
Please quote what I wrote so that I can see if I actually wrote that or if you're rephrasing it in a way that makes no sense. I'm perfectly happy to own up to what I wrote; it's a long thread.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 4:25 PM
you said That is probably the dumbest thing in this thread. I'm glad you saved it until the end
in response to my comment that a racist focuses on race
lujlp at August 15, 2008 4:52 PM
Ah. Let's quote what you actually said instead of what you pretend you said:
wereas a racist would focus soely on one race
Now, you can't write, so I'll cut you some slack if you want to pretend it's a typo - Firefox has built-in spellcheck by the way - but what you seem to have said in actual English is "focus solely on ONE race", which is stupid, the implication being that the KKK might hate black people but is really not that bothered about any other race and so forth. Naturally a racist CAN pick only one race to despise if they like, but your sentence says that's what they would do.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 5:02 PM
It wasnt a typo, but given Amy gave an exapmle of mexican catholic and you stayed foucused on blacks I figured it was good enough.
But it doesnt matter you brand of racism deems anyone a racist the moment anything they say offends anyone of another race
lujlp at August 15, 2008 5:22 PM
Amy gave an exapmle of mexican catholic and you stayed foucused on blacks
I can't remember what it was, but yes, I'd prefer to focus on her post.
But it doesnt matter you brand of racism deems anyone a racist the moment anything they say offends anyone of another race
This is also false.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 5:26 PM
And yet Amy is a racist for saying the same thing about blacks as she does about whites and every other color inbetween.
How does that work exactly?
lujlp at August 15, 2008 5:35 PM
And yet Amy is a racist for saying the same thing about blacks as she does about whites and every other color inbetween.
How does that work exactly?
The same way that I can say "you little monkey" when a white kid does something cute and I don't say it when a black kid does something cute. It's really not that hard.
Righteous Bubba at August 15, 2008 5:41 PM
Youre an idiot
lujlp at August 15, 2008 6:56 PM
righteous bubba - can you give an example of something you would say to a black kid but not to a white one?
Norman at August 16, 2008 2:00 AM
Still waiting, bubba.
The same way that I can say "you little monkey" when a white kid does something cute and I don't say it when a black kid does something cute.
What you find acceptable to say to a person depends on their "race." (I use quotes because I think "race" just means skin colour, the way you use it.) Don't you see how insulting that is? You don't say "you little monkey" to a black kid. Why not, exactly? I'll tell you why: because you think it is too close to the bone. You think you are being considerate, but in fact you are being patronising and offensive.
Norman at August 16, 2008 11:05 AM
Great point, Norman.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2008 11:11 AM
You think you are being considerate, but in fact you are being patronising and offensive.
Well Norman, if not saying something is patronizing and offensive you'll be impressed at the number of times I've managed to not say something and people did not get angry.
Righteous Bubba at August 17, 2008 10:06 AM
I just cannot come up with words for a woman who has no empathy for another woman. Sometimes people make choices and then have to live with those choices. Do we profess to be inside Wilson's house or life? Do we know what choices she made in order to become a mother to 6 children? We know none of this. And the fact that someone (as in the owner of this blog) should profess to sit in judgment of this woman for these choices is disgusting. It is a fact that there are fewer options available for women. Employers are not supposed to be discriminatory towards anyone, yet I see this every day in my employment. I was in fact asked if I plan to have more children, or if I plan to further my education. This was simply because the employer does not want to be stuck with an employee who might be on a leave of absence or who will not be available 24/7 at their beck and call. Mothers do get discriminated against in jobs.
Again there are no words for a post such as this. This police officer is totally to blame. And no, blame should be placed when it is required. This situation requires it. This animal shot a woman and her child in cold blood. Plain and simple.
hmnmmmmm at August 17, 2008 4:05 PM
Do we know what choices she made in order to become a mother to 6 children?
WE know she chose to have six kids by five seperate drug dealers, we know she chose to spend half of her life from the age of 18 onwards pregnant.
We know she invited drug dealer number six to live in her home.
You make it sound like the cop walked up the stairs into a well lit room and shot her in the head while she was begging for her life.
You want plain and simple?
A cop raids a house in search of a violent drug dealer known to be armed and dangerous, he hears shots being fired at the same time he sees a figuge crouched in a dark room in an apparent firing position.
What would you do? Wait until you had been hit by a bullet before opening fire?
lujlp at August 17, 2008 8:16 PM
Hello Amy,
I learned about you from Glenn Sack's blog. I just want to say that if you are being attacked on your blog, you deserve it.
LorMarie at August 17, 2008 8:53 PM
Bubba - Well Norman, if not saying something is patronizing and offensive you'll be impressed at the number of times I've managed to not say something and people did not get angry.
Not saying something can be patronizing and offensive - if you say that thing to others in different circumstances. When you don't call black kids "little monkeys" out loud, they don't know that you're biting your tongue.
Personally, I don't find "little monkey" an insult. Monkeys and animals in general are not insult material. Nor is "transsexual" (I don't think you've personally adopted that one, but nor have you rejected it). I find that what people use for insults tells me about their values. Insult and offense is not in words (or silences) themselves but in the intent behind them.
Norman at August 18, 2008 2:03 AM
I keep receiving a javascript error popup when I try posting a comment. Does this occur for anyone else? I don't exactly have the most current computer so maybe that is the issue.
Benjamin Perry at May 30, 2011 3:42 PM
Beer cans are being so twitchy these days!
Lecia Pastorin at August 3, 2011 6:33 AM
The thread that keeps on giving!
On heroism and the single mother...
Radwaste at September 17, 2016 9:09 AM
Fixed the link!
Radwaste at November 6, 2017 5:26 PM
Fixed the link!
Radwaste at November 6, 2017 5:26 PM
Leave a comment