Today's Constitution is a realistic document of freedom only because of several corrective amendments. Those amendments speak to a sense of decency and fairness that I and other Blacks cherish. – Thurgood Marshall
The one thing that troubles me about many on the right and the left is both sides belief that the Constitution is untouchable and engraved in stone. The American Constitution despite the proclamations of tea-baggers was not written by the hand of God Almighty, instead it was written by a group of 18th century men with the limited knowledge of the world and history that they had. I will grant strict constructionists the fact that many of the concepts they enshrined in the constitution were ahead of their time, but let’s not forget all of the concepts that they neglected in the document or perverted due to their prejudices. All “men” were created equal so long as they were men, white, and property owners.
I believe that instead of looking at the constitution as absolute and complete we need to view it as a living, breathing document. A document whose basic tenets we hold untouchable but one where we also recognize that it can be amended to include those situations that men of the 18th century would never have imagined would exist. How could we expect them too, unless we believe that it was written by the hand of God a position which I personally do not subscribe to? Students of history can attest to the fact that the complexion of our country has changed dramatically and continues to change. There are those who want to cling to the America of the 18th century in the false hope that the sands of time can be stopped by the sheer will of stubbornness and ignorance.
What does it mean to be a strict constructionist? Does it mean that you believe that the constitution was complete as originally written or does it mean it was complete after certain amendments? I have never been sure what exactly these people believe. As a member of one of the groups who were originally left out of the constitution I find it difficult to accept the completeness of the original document. We are not the society we were in the 1700’s and we will never be again. Our society and our country are evolving and if we believe that our constitution will not have to evolve then we are laying the foundation for our demise into irrelevancy. I find it interesting that those who label themselves strict constructionists are usually those who were included in the original document and therefore believe that there is no reason to make it more inclusive.
"With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of out whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether [252 U.S. 416, 434] it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved." – Oliver Wendell Holmes
I believe that the constitution has been incorrectly interpreted in decisions like Dred Scott, the Santa Clara County decision, and even today with the recent decision to allow corporations unlimited campaign funding. These decisions have one thing in common and that is they were decided using strict constructionist views. The courts rather than applying the standards of the period they were in chose to retain the standards of the original framers complete with their prejudices and ignorance. As the President continues to fill vacancies on the court, as groups like the tea party continue to call for strict constructionist reading of the constitution, as states continue to enact draconian legislation, and as the threat of terrorism continues to loom over us it is important that as nation we define what we stand for. Do we stand for a society that is inclusive and believes in the value of all people or will we continue to claim this right only for those who look like we do?
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy - Charles de Montesquieu
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Moses & The Constitution
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Republicans, the Supreme Court, & the Corporations
I use to think that what has occurred over the last few years has just been a random series of political events and while they were devastating they were still unrelated. As I see more of our democracy breaking down I am becoming more skeptical concerning the randomness of these events. I have still yet to figure out how you lose two election cycles in a row and yet claim victory for your ideas that were soundly rejected and proven to be bankrupt. The thing about the Republican PR machine is that they have been allowed to create an alternate reality.
This alternate reality resembles our reality in many ways albeit one. In both realities the facts are the same but how they are interpreted are very different. It is a fact that the Republicans were decisively defeated in the election of 2008, no one can dispute that. Yet according to this alternative reality the election was not a repudiation of Republican ideas it was a repudiation of George W. Bush as if he were acting single-handedly to bring down the government and the country. It didn’t take long for them to throw George W. under the “straight talk” express bus. The sad part of all this is how Democrats have allowed this re-writing of history to continue unabated. It is one thing for Dick Cheney to come out from under his rock to defend his torturous record, but to allow these other clowns to distance themselves from the impending collapse that the Dems inherited is unconscionable. There have been more Dick Cheney sightings since he left office than the entire eight years he was in office. I don’t recall him being this accessible when he authorizing torture.
But let’s take a moment to see if we can connect the dots. First the Republicans work to cripple the government and make it appear incapable of solving the problems of average Americans. These average Americans become disillusioned with their government and accept the Republican meme that the government cannot be trusted to do anything and therefore all government intervention is anti-American and anti-founding fathers. Yet the government has a record when allowed to perform of successfully running programs like Medicare and Medicaid which these same average Americans count on every day. Add to this mix that you prevent any Democratic legislation from being enacted not because it is bad for the country but merely because it is politically expedient and you now have a dysfunctional legislative process. So you have a government that is not trusted to correctly sell postage stamps and a legislative process that is being obstructed to the point of a standstill.
The next dot is in the event that the federal government no longer functions to solve average American’s problems who then fills the void? Who then is able to advance policy and get legislation through? Well, thanks to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court that void will now be filled by the corporations. Let’s be clear it is not that the corporations were not instrumental in our body politic prior to this ruling. Corporations have continued to circumvent our democracy through campaign cash and lobbying efforts. Corporations have historically influenced public opinion and policy through the media by using advertising; they have used campaign cash and lobbying efforts, and the threat of extortion through plant closures and higher prices. What the Supreme Court has done is allowed the corporation’s unfettered access and influence in our political system at a time when the system is perceived as broken. What they did was the equivalent of giving Halliburton a no-bid contract to America to provide arms and materiel during war time.
The final dot is the corporations themselves who have historically shown that they have little regard for democracy or the will of the people. It is common wisdom in the world that the capitalists of America will sell you the rope to hang them with and this decision by the Supreme Court may bring this gem of wisdom to fruition. Once the will of the people has been stymied by corrupt politicians and obstructionists the only coherent voice from the chaos will be the benevolent corporations who will ride in and rescue the American public from its impending doom at the hand of government mismanagement. These of course would be the same corporations who took this economy to the brink of Armageddon and continue to provide each other with immoral compensation for these failures. I guess the Republicans are not the only ones living in this alternative reality. You now get giant bonuses for running your company into the ground by gambling with its assets and why not your company will not be liable for it anyway.
There is a foundation being laid in America and I am afraid that we are so busy concentrating on the minutiae of the 24 hour news cycle that we are missing the larger picture. As Pink Floyd so aptly stated you build a wall one brick at a time and these are just more bricks in the wall.
I find rebellion packaged by a major corporation a little hard to take seriously. – David Byrne
Thursday, March 20, 2008
With A Friend Like Him
As if things in America were not hard enough for blacks, what with Barack Obama having to explain and denounce his relationship with his “angry” black pastor to ease the fears of his white supporters. It is amazing to me how we allow and accept comments from whites without so much as a whimper, but let a black man say them and all hell breaks loose. It is this double standard and hypocrisy that created the “invisible” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. I call him invisible because unfortunately for him he is too black to be white and too white to be black. He is lost in a false reality that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. He is a black man that hates black people, what a terrible place that must be.
Justice Thurgood Marshall was the first black man appointed to serve on the Supreme Court. Justice Marshall had a distinguished career as a civil rights attorney many times arguing before the Court he would someday join. He brought an appreciation and an understanding of the plight of the black man in the American criminal and social justice systems. He understood that the laws of this land had been skewed in favor of white men and against women and minorities. This was the Justice that Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace. Many wanted and expected the nominee to replace Justice Marshall to bring a similar sensitivity to the Court.
Justice Thomas was not that person. I can accept that he wants to believe that he lives in a color blind society and that racial prejudice is ancient history. I can accept that he wants to interpret the laws written by imperfect and bias people as if they weren’t. I can even accept the fact that he doesn’t believe that after centuries of prejudice and bias that blacks do not need help in leveling the playing field. I can never understand it, but I can accept it. What I cannot accept is when a black man who doesn’t want to help other blacks does want to intentionally harm other blacks. I can not accept it from the dope dealers that prowl our neighborhoods selling poison to the their brothers and sisters. I can not accept it from the gang bangers who have replaced the Klan as the biggest threat to other black men. I can not accept it from a member of our highest Court concealing it as equal protection under the law.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the conviction and death sentence of a Louisiana man who killed his estranged wife in a jealous rage, finding that the trial judge “committed clear error” in excluding black jurors.
By 7 to 2, the court ruled in favor of Allen Snyder, whose case came before the justices for the second time last December, two years after they had sent it back to the Louisiana Supreme Court and told that tribunal to consider whether the jury selection had been tainted by racial bias.[1]
In the case that the Court overturned the prosecutor had dismissed all the potential black jurors from the jury pool for ridiculous reasons, reasons that were not used to excuse the white jurors. There were two Justices that voted against the majority opinion. Mind you, this is a case involving a black man being tried by an all-white jury and the sole black Justice on the Court did not see a problem with this scenario. Once again Justice Thomas displays why he is despised by many of his fellow black Americans. You are telling me that 7 whites including the Chief Justice who is by no means friendly to black causes finds fault with this case, but Justice Thomas can’t see a problem.
Ok Justice Thomas, you have proven that you don’t want to help your fellow black citizens or represent their causes, but why would you want to harm those same people and causes? As much as I despise the dope dealers and gang bangers, I despise Clarence Thomas more because due to his position on the Court he has the capabilities to do more harm to blacks than either of those two combined. He makes decisions that can affect all black people by a single vote. This is too much power to give any man that suffers from the degree of self-hate that he suffers from. Doctors have to take an oath that they will do no harm, I wish Justice Thomas had taken such an oath.
Why do we appoint women and blacks to the Supreme Court? Many will argue it is because they represent the best jurisprudence irrespective of race or gender. In a perfect world this would probably be true, however as many have tried to point out we do not live in that perfect world. We live in a country that for centuries believed that women and blacks were inherently inferior. We designed laws, public and social policies to enforce those beliefs. As a nation it took us 200 years to place the first black and woman on the Supreme Court. Why do we have diversity in our criminal justice system if justice is blind? Because our history and current experience has shown us that justice is not blind, that because of our racial and gender biases justice has been meted out unfairly. How many murderers of blacks were freed by all white juries? How many murderers of women were freed by all male juries?
We have diversity in our criminal justice system to ensure that everyone gets equal treatment under the law. We believe that by having blacks and women serving as jurors, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges that we open the system up to prevent past injustices from continuing. We also believe that they will bring their unique experiences to these positions to help temper justice with mercy. The whole purpose of being judged by ones peers is to bring this understanding of being in the other person’s shoes into the system. So we now know that it is inherently unfair to have a jury of all whites, or all men, or all blacks to judge anyone. Our court system is based on the belief of fairness and impartiality. Justice Thomas should be a better student of history than he is a student of ideology maybe then he would be more sympathetic to the plight of his brothers and sisters. With a friend like him on the Court, we certainly don’t need any enemies.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/washington/19cnd-scotus.html?hp
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
What’s Next Poll Taxes Again?
In what I can only call absurd the Supreme Court appears primed to uphold the Indiana Voter ID law recently enacted by a Republican majority in the State Legislature to disenfranchise the poor and the minority voters of Indiana. As I have written before, this is a red herring cooked up by Republicans in states where they hold a majority to suppress voter turnout of primarily Democratic voters. The simple fact that these legislatures are able to do this crap should be a reminder to all of us that we can never take our civil liberties for granted. There are constant challenges to our citizenship and our ability to exercise our rights. There are currently three states that require all voters to present photo ID’s to vote they are Florida, Georgia, and Indiana.
The Bush administration has raised the suspicions of Democrats by making what they call “voter fraud” a priority for Justice Department enforcement. No prosecution for impersonating a registered voter, the type of fraud that would be prevented by a photo requirement, has ever been brought, however. “No one has been punished for this kind of fraud in living memory in this country,” Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer arguing for the Democrats, told the justices.[1]
The technicality that the Supreme Court is going to use is devious if not immoral. The “deciders” are going to say that because this is a facial challenge it should not even be argued at this point before the Court. According to their logic the case should not be argued until after there has been damage or in other words after the election has been held. Where did this strategy come from? The Indiana Solicitor General who is arguing the case on behalf of Indiana? No. The strategy was the brain-child of none other than the Bush Administration in their brief filed before the Court in support of upholding not only the Indiana law, but all voter ID laws.
It is way past time that we acknowledge that voting is not a privilege like driving which can be revoked by the state, but a right; a fundamental right on which this nation was founded. Somehow in recent years we have lost sight of the many struggles involved in allowing all Americans the opportunity to vote. It began with a tea party in Boston, then it went to New York, and finally it made its way to Selma. It is amazing to me that in 2008, I have to write an essay in support of the right of all Americans to have unimpeded access to voting. This is indicative of the policies of Karl Rove and his Neo-Con clowns, they don’t care about what is best for America. There only concern is what is best for them and their wealthy friends. How can anyone call themselves a patriot and not support the right for all Americans to participate in our democracy?
These charlatans began with removing the voting rights of felons and no one complained, after all they’re criminals. As if to say that criminals would band together and elect who? The Joker or some other arch fiend! And once they were able to marginalize the criminals then they went after the handicapped and now due to their success they have become so brazen that now the poor and minorities that have not committed any crimes are being attacked. Let’s be honest here, this is voter disenfranchisement pure and simple. The fact that they have been able to achieve getting it state law should be a disgrace to all Americans who believe in democracy and the right of all citizens to enjoy that right.
If the Supreme Court chooses to use the argument that no one has been discriminated against yet, then they will de facto condone election piracy and voter suppression. You cannot take a pass with democracy. You can’t allow millions of votes to be suppressed and then say, “oops, my bad”, we should have looked at this sooner. Have we become so complacent in America to the point where the lost of the right to vote for our fellow citizens is no longer important? Will we not complain until it is just white male property owners who can vote again? The Supreme Court is trying to pull a fast one and is showing just how politicized the Court has become under Bush and his legal hacks.
For those who are waiting for that one defining moment, it won’t happen. Loss of freedom is done in drips and drops, a slow erosion of our morals, our democracy, and finally our resistance. Once we are locked in our goose-stepping then we are capable of anything. We must protect the homeland from undesirables and inferiors. Some will ask what’s so wrong with making everyone show a picture ID, you have to use them anyway in today’s world, right. Wrong there are many people who don’t have a picture ID. There are those who cannot afford them, there is a segment of the population who don’t want them, and there are those who are physically unable to get them. It is just another case of using a nuclear weapon to kill a mosquito.
There is no proof of wide spread voter fraud in America. Even with our porous borders no one has demonstrated that millions of illegal’s are crossing the border to affect our elections. There has been no proof of any voter fraud conspiracies anywhere in America, except that one in 2000 down in Florida or that one in 2004 in Ohio. Why are we creating new laws to protect us from a non-existent threat? The reason for the need is of course to marginalize and disenfranchise millions of voters the majority of who would support the Democrats. Rather than making voting more difficult, maybe we should try making it easier for all Americans to join our democratic process. Instead of trying to narrow the voting pool to support their narrow policies, maybe the Republicans should consider broadening their policies to gain broader support with the American electorate. Every year the pool of eligible voters that actually vote grows smaller, do we really want to return to the opinions of a view to dictate the direction of the country?
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/washington/10scotus.html
Monday, December 17, 2007
Cocaine Sentencing Is Cracked
It is unfortunate that it took the Supreme Court to do what the Congress should have done a long time ago and that is to allow Federal judges to consider the disparity between powder cocaine and crack when sentencing offenders. Rather than showing leadership and courage, the Congress even with a Democratic majority refused to act on the huge disparity in sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine for fear of appearing soft on crime. Once again political expediency outweighed moral conviction and the Congress failed to act. I don’t know about you but the Democratic majority was long on promises and has been short on delivery.
It took the US Sentencing Commission to right a wrong that has sent thousands of blacks to prison for possessing crack for sentences that would require someone with powder to have 100 times as much to receive the same sentence. Needless to say the majority of crack users are black and the majority of powder users are white. Everyone in Washington knew the system was broke and even after years of protests by the ACLU and other civil rights organization, no one in the Congress would show any backbone and right the wrong. What we have in Washington are professional politicians who are more concerned about getting re-elected than they are about doing what is right for the country. I’m sorry but I am having a hard time believing that the answer is electing more of the same, to me having experience in how things are done in Washington is not a real selling point.
In their decision to allow the judge’s discretion in sentencing, the Supreme Court began the process of removing more racial barriers in the criminal justice system. In what has become an almost comical situation, Judge Thomas, the only black on the Court was one of the dissenting votes. And he wonders why he gets no love from other blacks. Maybe because he doesn’t represent the black people he was selected to represent. Mr. Thomas you do not have the luxury of saying I am a Supreme Court Justice that just happens to be black, no sir you filled a spot vacated by a man who represented those who did not have a voice in this country. Now for you to come along with that black conservative crap of I want to be just another Justice who happens to be black is ludicrous. Black people need you on the Court to represent their interests, I believe that the whites you want to represent have enough representation, look around you sir when you are in the chambers and count the number of blacks there with you. I can understand his not wanting to be limited to being a color, but until we have equal protection under the law sir, you are representing not just a color but a people, a people who have long been denied and continue to be denied equal protection. The fact that this case even came before the Court should be evidence enough of that fact. Your denying this fact does not make it go away.
Now the Commission has the opportunity to complete the process they have begun when they vote whether to make the sentence reductions retroactive, this would affect some 19,000 inmates who could see their sentences shortened. The commission in the past has made similar reductions in penalties for drugs primarily used by whites and have made those reductions retroactive. It would only be fair to do likewise in this case.
In previous years, the sentencing commission reduced penalties for crimes involving marijuana, LSD and OxyContin, which are primarily committed by whites, and made those decisions retroactive.[1]
True to their script, the Bush administration is opposing making the sentences retroactive, the thought of blacks being released from prison early is obviously scaring the hell out of the wing-nuts. Citing that there would be a rise in violent crime with the early releases, they are once again using the justice system to promote their racial animosity towards blacks. The problem with their logic is that these are not inmates who have committed violent crimes, these are primarily crack users and low-level dealers. Make no mistake if they were violent criminals their original sentence would have been enhanced to reflect that. This was the same logic used when the original sentencing disparity was first passed, because crack users were more violent than powder users they require stiffer penalties. It was false then and it continues to be false today. It isn’t that they are more violent, it is that their skins are darker.
Making the guidelines retroactive is opposed by the Bush administration. A senior Justice Department official warned Tuesday that retroactive guidelines could have a disastrous effect on crime-riddled communities that are not ready to receive crack offenders who could be released early from prison as a result.
"Areas that already are seeing an increase in violent crime -- this is going to affect those areas dramatically," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the commission had not formally acted.[2]
While I applaud the recent movement on this issue, it is still up to Congress to permanently fix this problem, by removing the current sentencing guidelines that provide harsher penalties for one form of a drug versus another form. There is no scientific or rational basis for the disparity, it is racist at its core and must be removed. Senator Joe Biden has introduced legislation to do just that and must be applauded and supported, even though it was his bill that created the Drug Czar.
UPDATE: The Sentencing Commission voted to make the sentencing recommendations retroactive.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/cocaine.sentencing.ap/index.html
[2] Ibid.
Friday, October 19, 2007
“Sprinkle A Little Crack On Em”
The sentences for crack cocaine are some of the harshest in our criminal justice system. Crack cocaine is the crystallized, highly-addictive form of cocaine used primarily by blacks and other poor people. The disparity between the sentences given out to crack users and low-level dealers and the same given to powder cocaine users is 100 to 1. Which means a powder cocaine user would have to possess 100 times the amount of powder as a crack user to receive the same amount of jail time. Now both users would possess the same drug, just in different forms. It would be like me getting 20 years for having ice cubes and you getting 5 years for having water, we both would have the same thing. So why is there a discrepancy in sentencing?
When crack cocaine was introduced, America was in the midst of another one of its “get tough” on crime initiatives. Crack was being depicted as the scourge of all that was bad in the ghetto and so required harsher sentences according to the logic. The sad part about it is that many of the black legislators at the time signed off on these harsher sentences. Because crack is used primarily in the black community, it soon became apparent that the black community was hit disproportionately by these new sentencing guidelines.
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), a division of the judicial branch that monitors and advises Congress on sentencing policy, in 2006, more than four-fifths of crack cocaine offenders in federal courts were black.
The 1986 drug laws have had a devastating effect on the U.S. criminal justice system. Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased 1100 percent since 1980, from 41,000 people to nearly 500,000.
Nearly 6 out of 10 people in state prison for a drug offense have no history of violence or high-level drug-selling activity but are often receiving harsher sentences than people who do. People caught with the drug in 2004, the last year for which data is available, served an average of ten years in federal penitentiaries, while the average convict served 2.9 years for manslaughter, 3.1 years for assault and 5.4 years for sexual abuse.[1]
We are sentencing people for crack cocaine related offenses more harshly than those convicted of manslaughter. Is that crazy or what, you get more time for crack than you do for killing someone. There is something dreadfully wrong when this occurs. Because of the mandatory minimums associated with crack, the federal judges are powerless to alter the sentences. Judges are no longer allowed any discretion in their sentencing of crack defendants, they must impose the harsher sentences even if they feel they are not warranted.
There is currently a case before the Supreme Court where a federal judge decided not to impose the harsher sentence and was overruled by the appellate court because he did not have the authority to change the sentence. The federal judge felt it was wrong to impose harsher sentences for crack versus powder cocaine and so he imposed the lower sentencing for powder. It is important to see if the Supreme Court will rule the disparity in sentencing unconstitutional, because the only difference in the two drugs is who uses them and where they use it.
I know firsthand the devastation that crack cocaine can do to a family and a community, so I would never try to minimize its effects. I also know that crack like all drugs is a social health issue and not a criminal issue. To say that one drug is more immoral to take than another is illogical and bias. There are millions of Americans who are receiving legal prescriptions for all types of mood enhancers and suppressants, are we to believe that because they are prescribed by doctors and made by pharmaceutical companies that they are any less addictive and safe. So, the housewife in Brentwood gets her valium, while the poor person in Watts gets 20 years for crack. I personally side with the same approach we took with alcohol and tobacco; we educate and try to minimize the adverse effects to our society from its misuse.
People are going to take some form of drug or attempt to escape life in some form. You have people who drive too fast, you have people who skydive, and there are millions of Americans who participate in risky behavior that we do not outlaw. The Draconian drug laws we try to enforce have had a devastating effect on the black community and there needs to be changes. I believe that the current bills in Congress go toward alleviating some of those effects. I find the bill sponsored by Senator Joe Biden to be especially enlightened and support it whole-heartedly.
It is time we remove the inherent unfairness and possible racism from our drug policies. As Black Americans we need to begin to ask our candidates and political leaders to begin to take these issues to the frontline of the political debate. We need to know where the candidates stand on the issues that affect our communities in a disproportionate fashion. The time for blind loyalty is over, if candidates want our votes they must address our issues. The devastation of crack is a major issue in our communities and must be addressed. So let’s sprinkle a little crack on Hillary, Obama, and John.
[1]http://www.alternet.org/rights/65406/
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Supreme Court Versus Brown Part Infinity
The fallout from the recent Supreme Court decisions concerning school desegregation is starting to surface in many communities now embolden to return to the segregated past. I recently read about the situation in Tuscaloosa, AL; where the majority white school board and the white superintendent have drawn up a rezoning plan that looks dangerously close to a return to segregation to many observers.
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — After white parents in this racially mixed city complained about school overcrowding, school authorities set out to draw up a sweeping rezoning plan. The results: all but a handful of the hundreds of students required to move this fall were black — and many were sent to virtually all-black, low-performing schools.
Black parents have been battling the rezoning for weeks, calling it resegregation. And in a new twist for an integration fight, they are wielding an unusual weapon: the federal No Child Left Behind law, which gives students in schools deemed failing the right to move to better ones.[1]
It is already difficult for most inner-city school districts to desegregate due to white flight and the private school dodge of many white parents. I have to acknowledge that as a parent I understand the desire to have your kids in a safe environment where they are getting a quality education. The problem I have is that instead of complaining about or laying blame why more parents don’t become involved to upgrade and change the existing public education system. It is to all of our benefits that we raise the level of education for all of our children.
Sometimes I just don’t get it; this country could have been the greatest experiment of human interaction in the history of the planet. We could have become the beacon for other nations by demonstrating that people of diverse backgrounds could in fact live together in peace and harmony. I guess alas it is not to be, because all we have done is to further illustrate how fear and divisiveness even among people of the same nation still trumps everything else. Either we are going to try and live together or we are not. It is time for those of us black and white who have a desire to make this thing work to overcome ourselves and come together. I am not advocating that we become one big melting pot, although I don’t have a problem with that, I am suggesting that we are able to atleast have a nation of mutual respect, honesty, and fairness.
We have so much abundance in this land and yet to look at the behaviors of many it would appear that we were in some third world nation struggling to survive on subsistent resources. I couldn’t imagine what this nation would be like if we really had to scramble for survival on a day to day basis. The level of racial animosity would be off the scale. As I have written before, because of our history we have to be compelled within the boundaries of our laws to integrate. I am speaking of integration in the sense of learning to accept our differences and our similarities with empathy and understanding for one another. I don’t expect to someday have us all standing holding hands singing, “We shall overcome” but why are we unable to live together as equals is beyond me. Why must one man dominate another man?
The plan in Tuscaloosa involved redrawing the lines of the district to place more minority students in the lower performing schools. The white parents had complained of overcrowding in the white schools, because so many of the black students wanted to go to the schools where they could get a quality education, go figure. Here is my question, why can’t all the parents come together in the district and raise the level of all the schools? Why must everything in this country be an either/or proposition? If you spread around the students and the resources evenly couldn’t you over time raise the level at all the schools?
Months later, the school board commissioned a demographic study to draft the rezoning plan. J. Russell Gibson III, the board’s lawyer, said the plan drawn up used school buildings more efficiently, freeing classroom space equivalent to an entire elementary school and saving potential construction costs of $10 million to $14 million. “That’s a significant savings,” Mr. Gibson said, “and we relieved overcrowding and placed most students in a school near their home. That’s been lost in all the rhetoric.”
Others see the matter differently. Gerald Rosiek, an education professor at the University of Alabama, studied the Tuscaloosa school district’s recent evolution. “This is a case study in resegregation,” said Dr. Rosiek, now at the University of Oregon.
In his research, he said, he found disappointment among some white parents that Northridge, the high school created in the northern enclave, was a majority-black school, and he said he believed the rezoning was in part an attempt to reduce its black enrollment.[2]
What good is saving money if you are not educating all of your children? No, Mr. Gibson, the cost savings have not been lost in the rhetoric, what has been lost in your calculations is that separate but equal has always been a cheaper way to educate. The way to alleviate the overcrowding in the white schools would have been to raise the level of performance in all the schools, but that would require hard work and commitment which the school board obviously didn’t want to pursue.
In a bizarre twist to the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” legislation the parents of the black students are requesting transfers from the lower performing schools based on the criteria of that legislation. In the rhetoric of Mr. Bush, this was one of the goals of the legislation, but let’s wait to see their reaction to it being used as a tool of integration. I have a feeling we are going to see more of these cases as more school districts begin to remove race as a criteria of equal opportunity.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/education/17schools.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/education/17schools.html?pagewanted=2&hp
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Heat Is On
Many social reformers have long said that low academic achievement among inner-city children cannot be improved significantly without moving their families to better neighborhoods, but new reports released today that draw on a unique set of data throw cold water on that theory.[1]
There seems to be an all out effort of late to roll back the progress and to discredit the data that supports the efforts to continue that progress. First we have the Supreme Court reversing Brown, then we have the Putnam study[2] of neighborhood diversity, and now improving neighborhoods does not improve academic performance study.[3]
The findings of these studies seem to suggest that for all the “social engineering” and all the integration efforts of white liberals and moderate blacks, there is no hope for the Black community in America. Our children are unable to learn under any circumstances and nobody wants to live next to us. Is there no hope left for the Black community? Are we relegated to third class life in a first class nation; the built in impoverished quotient in capitalism? According to what I am reading and hearing there is a growing sentiment in this country including among some progressives, that we have done all we can do for the Black community. The issues we face are to systemic and intransigent to ever be overcome.
No matter what remedies have been tried the past 40 years the results have been abysmal. Many have said that the breakdown currently going on in the Black community is a direct result of many of the programs designed to foster improvement in those communities. The programs themselves have created more problems than they have solved. These programs have created an “entitlement mentality” that has robbed the black community of its initiative and self-reliance. Instead of looking to itself to solve issues like poor academic performance, crime, and single mother households we are looking for outside forces to create remedies for us.
I have recently been studying some Native American writings and I have come away with some interesting concepts. Many Native American writers believe that the cause of many of their ills today was the imposition of a foreign culture at the detriment of their own culture. They suggest that because the problem was the disturbance of their own culture by western culture, the solution cannot come from that same culture that created the problem. The solutions offered by the offending culture will only create other problems will it attempts to solve the original problems. They also suggest that the only way to overcome these problems is to remove themselves from the dominant culture and return to their own culture. That in doing so they will be able to produce their own cultural solutions to overcome the problems they feel inflicted on them by the integration of the western culture.For them the solutions will not be generated by outsiders, but by the ones familiar with the needs of their people and their cultural differences
I think for too long we in the Black community have allowed others to determine what our goals should be based on their cultural dynamics. That while these goals may be benevolent and worthy, they are destined to fail because they may have a cultural bias. In other words these may not be the goals and aspirations of the majority of Blacks. The Native Americans have come to the realization that those goals offered to them by the majority population do not correspond to their cultural ambitions and that by trying to achieve the goals of others they have lost sight not only of their culture, but of their morality. When you try to achieve the aspirations that others have defined for you, you are destined to fail even when you succeed. How many people have fulfilled the ambitions of a parent or other loved one only to be supremely unhappy with the results? While the goal may provide what is considered success, once achieved there is an emptiness in purpose. There are many unfulfilled successful people, who long for the opportunity to reach their dream, defined by them.
Are the symbols of White success applicable to the Black community? Has seeking after the manifestations of another cultures success actually harmed the success of our own culture? Do we as a culture value education, marriage, and material success or are these the expressions of a foreign culture that we have tried to emulate? That once attained we find them empty and hollow of any deeper meaning and we are left with that emptiness; is this all? Does achieving success in this culture actually alienate us from our own culture, hence the ridicule and animosity towards successful Blacks? To be truly successful in the dominant culture do Black people have to assimilate into that dominant culture and lose the bonds to their own culture in the process? Is there now a disconnect between those Blacks perceived as successful and those Blacks that are perceived as not being successful?
I guess the question I would ask is; do the majority of Blacks believe that the American dream is their dream? Not that they can’t obtain the dream, but do they want to? The Blacks that have achieved success in this culture often look at other Blacks as not “getting it” for their lack of success, but maybe it is the successful Blacks that aren’t getting it?
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300966.html?hpid=topnews
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Best Government Money Can Buy 2
In the last article, I wrote that I had 3 opening proposals to wrest our government away from the corporations and the special interest groups that now dictate our political policies and direct our national debate. Like the tick or the octopus with its sticky tentacles, loosening the hold of corporations and special interest money will be difficult and will require the efforts of all of us. These guys rely on the apathy of the masses to continue their hijacking of our government and elected officials. Here are my proposals and I welcome comments and other suggestions on the part of fellow concerned citizens.
The three suggestions I would like to have implemented are:
1) Revoke the personhood of corporations.
2) Limit the number of lobbyists, the amount of money they are able to donate, and require a five year ban on government officials and employees from joining or lobbying for corporations in which they have worked on legislation for.
3) Institute a two term limit for all elected offices.
Revoke the personhood of corporations
This I believe is the cornerstone of any real reform of our political process. Our political system has become more and more unresponsive as corporations have been given more rights as individuals. The founding fathers of this nation were very suspicious of corporations; it was after all a corporation (East India Trading) that was used by the English crown to project their empire on the Americas. It was even debated and proposed by Thomas Jefferson to have freedom from monopolies inserted into the Bill of Rights.
We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.[1]
Corporations were never meant to be endowed with the rights of humans, by their very nature they cannot be human or considered so. In a grave miscarriage of justice and bribery the Supreme Court in 1886 granted personhood to corporations and the rest as they say is history. Because many of the judges were once corporate lawyers themselves eventually the pleas of the corporations that they were in fact people won out. This decision opened the flood gates and allowed the wealthy corporation owners to remove the shackles placed on them by the states that chartered them. They now had 14th Amendment protections from government intrusion. This amendment had been written for one purpose and that was to guarantee the rights of slaves, period.[2] This was stated in the dissenting opinion and still holds true today. Because the original decision was based on incorrect interpretation of the law and bribery on the part of greedy corporate owners, it is in the best interest of the Republic to resend the original decision.
Why is this change so important? With the current sitting Court co-signing on the side of all corporate cases that come before it, the power of the corporations is only going to get greater. We the people cannot compete with the corporations. The founding fathers of this nation knew that and warned of this impending loss of control of the government to these corporate benefactors. It is unfortunate, but they knew that the darker side of human greed for money and power would overrule what is best for the people. As long as we afford corporations 14th Amendment protections they can continue to pump boatloads of money into the political process and continue to corrupt our system of democracy. Democracy is based on one person, one vote and equal protection for all. How can this include a non-entity?
How cruel was it to use the same law that disproved one lie (slavery; one man can own another) to create another lie (that corporations were people). Sometimes the irony of these guys just baffles me. They have the gall to use the same law that freed people and use it to enslave people. The whole purpose of corporations getting personhood was so that the same small group of owners could continue to control the country and maintain “white male privilege”. Remember when all this started “We the people” only included white males, who owned property. This only amounted to 10% of the population at the time and they were the only ones able to participate in democracy. If we are really serious about changing this clusterf**k we call democracy, we must open up democracy to all the people; not just those of privilege.
And please spare me all the corporate PR feel good messages about how corporations have been good for America through its racial policies, gender equality, and foundations. Corporations have done more to harm to the Republic than to help it and we will all be better off once they are relegated to being under the control of we the people once again.
Read more!Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Supreme Court Overturns Roe v Wade
No they haven’t yet, but it won’t be long. This Court has shown with its recent decisions that it is not the Court it claimed to be. These same men who when testifying before the Senate, claimed to respect precedence and stated that the Court had become too activist, are now disrespecting precedence and being activist. This Court is merely waiting for the right case to hang their hats on to overturn Wade.
As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Yesterday's 5 to 4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court's march to the right.
Even after he was confirmed, Roberts was talking about something other than the 5 to 4 conservative court we saw this year on case after case. In a speech at Georgetown University Law School in May 2006, Roberts rightly argued that "the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is." It's a shame this quest for broader majorities had so little bearing on the 2007 Roberts-led court.[1]
Make no mistake about it, if you are a right to choose supporter, your right to choose is about to be greatly curtailed. It is human nature to take things for granted and for many having the right to choose has been taken for granted. It will always be there. No one would dare to turn back the clocks. Yes they not only dare, but will. The frightening thing about the latest decisions is the fact that this Court has no problem vacating precedence of previous courts, while at the same time citing the very precedence they are tearing down. Does this sound familiar to anyone? (Clear Skies, No Child Left behind, etc.)
Three conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, were willing to admit that in voiding this part of the law they were overturning a precedent set by the court only four years ago. But Roberts and Alito pretended to follow the earlier ruling while ripping its guts out. Scalia called this "faux judicial restraint."
"The court (and, I think, the country) loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the dissenters. Exactly. But upsetting precedent, directly or indirectly, is a major goal of this new conservative majority.
As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted this week in Roll Call, the issue-ad decision demonstrated "not a careful, conservative deference to Congress" but instead "a willingness by Roberts to toss aside Congress' conclusions to fit his own ideological predispositions" -- the very definition of judicial activism.[2]
The Court has gone from legal scholars to a bunch of political hacks with a political agenda that the country has lost faith in. By allowing the Court to be politicized and polarized by these right wing zealots, we have turned the clock back on all of the progressive legislation of the past 50 years. If this Court has its way integration, labor, and abortion will return to their previous pre-war status; civil war that is. While the Supreme Court has always been the protector of White male privilege and over the course of the history of this country have rendered some bad decisions (Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Kelo v. City of New London, & Bush v. Gore), but atleast they were based in law, bad law, but still law. Today we have a group that is unconcerned with the rule of law and only the political agenda of the Conservative movement. A movement that has proven it is bankrupt in both ideas and support.
Those who are activist will need to dust off the protest signs and put on the marching shoes, because there is a fight brewing in this country. You cannot continue to deny people Constitution protection and not expect a backlash. As this nation transforms from white to brown, the old boy standards will try to hold back the tide of change. This Court has shown that those seeking equal protection under the law will need to seek it someplace other than in the Courts. Change will need to come not because of this Court, but in spite of this Court.
Maybe the positive in all of this is that it will force those who want progressive change to come together and wake up from their present apathetic state. We must discontinue the infighting and the separate agendas that have been the bane of progressives for the last decade. In an effort to enlarge the tent we have allowed the movement to incorporate ideas that most Americans are not yet ready to embrace. It is a shame that it will take the issue of abortion to get people off the couch, while issues of discrimination cause little more than a ripple.
Read more!Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Why The Supreme Court Was Wrong
After having read all the reasons why the recent decision of the Supreme Court concerning school desegregation was wrong, I have come to the conclusion that we have all missed the boat. The purpose of integration was not to make black kids smarter by sitting them next to white kids. If you judge the process based on that criteria, it has been a failure. If you talk to the people who were on the front lines of bringing this issue to the forefront or read their stories, it was never for that reason.
The purpose of integrating the two separate systems was two-fold. First of all, it would bring badly needed funding to the black schools which were in such bad shape; it was a wonder anyone could learn how to tie their shoe, let alone reading, writing, and arithmetic. And the second was to give each child a chance to actually see and meet someone from a different place, diversity. An opportunity to talk, play and argue with someone who was not like themselves. It put a face and a life to “those people” that we didn’t talk about or for that matter even see. It made the invisible, visible. It allowed kids that were willing to see, that we were not so different after all, that a lot of those stories and stereotypes were just not true. If gauged in that light it was a great success.
Some will wonder how I can say it was a great success, I mean after all most of the white kids that went through it were those few whose parents believed in it or those too poor to go elsewhere. Why I say it was a success is in how the majority of young people today interact with each other. Think about what it was like before the Brown decision, how young people interacted across racial lines. Kids prior to this Brown would be amazed at how young people today can interact with relative ease. That didn’t come from television or church; it came from sitting next to each other day in and day out feeling the same way about school and being a kid. For that reason alone it should be mandatory that everyone attend a desegregated school.
I have always maintained and truly believed that the reason everyone should be allowed to attend college is not because of the great education that college provides in the classroom, but the great education it provides outside the classroom. The education one receives interacting with the many diverse races and nationalities in the dorms, in the dining halls, and at the parties is far more valuable. For those who are brave enough college can provide an opportunity get to learn about so many different cultures and people. It always troubled me to see kids come to college and be willing to interact with all this diversity only to go back home and pretend it never happened. To get back to their old friends and go back to their old ways, but I believe that internally they will forever be changed. They will know things that their friends will never know. Walls of prejudice will no longer be there even if they try to pretend they are.
I remember when I first went to college. I came from an all-black high school experience. Growing up I had known whites, but after we moved into the neighborhood most of them left. I learned more about how to be successful from the experience of being around all those different people than anything I learned in class. The truth is that success in life is about relationships, how we interact with each other. Those who choose not to participate in this experience will miss out on more than an opportunity for career advancement; they miss out on an opportunity at life advancement; to grow as a human being. We spend so much of our time trying to separate from each other. We build walls to separate ourselves both physically and emotionally, afraid to lower our guards. We take the easy way out believing the stereotypes and the worst about one another.
The Supreme Court was wrong because they were looking at the wrong measuring stick. In America we must constantly reinforce our unity, if we are to survive. It is too easy to forget that we are all Americans stuck in this insanity together. We need to have our walls broken down or we will just be a bunch of tribes struggling against each other when it would be so much easier if we pulled together. This Court chose fear and isolation over inclusion and diversity. In this place we call America, it is the government’s job to bring us together, even if that sometimes means against our will. Our ultimate survival depends on it. Will we someday have a colorblind society? I doubt it, but we can have a color tolerant society and that begins with coming together and learning together as little children.
Read more!Friday, June 29, 2007
Brown vs. the Supreme Court 2007
And let us not grow weary while doing good,
for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart
Galatians 6:9
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected diversity plans in two major school districts that take race into account in assigning students but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances.
The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it further restricts how public school systems may attain racial diversity.
The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. The court's four liberal justices dissented. Federal appeals courts had upheld both plans after some parents sued. The Bush administration the parents' side, arguing that racial diversity is a noble goal but can be sought only through race-neutral means.[1]
With its latest decision on school desegregation the Supreme Court has once again rejected the concept of diversity in public education. We are steadily reviving the concept of separate, but equal. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling and the opinion of many White Americans, we have yet to overcome discrimination in this country. If we agree that there is still discrimination and yet we choose to do nothing about it, what does that say about how we really feel about discrimination?
To acknowledge the obvious requires no courage, but to stand on the side of right with action and sacrifice is another story. Let’s face it there is no easy answer to the race problems we face as a nation, but what bothers me the most is that in order for this country to become what it is today millions of Black men and women had to make a sacrifice unwillingly through slavery. Now that a sacrifice is needed from those who have benefitted from the previous sacrifice is required, we want to hide behind “reverse discrimination”. We want to say all things can now be equal; ignoring the past will not bring justice. Confronting it, acknowledging it, and making changes is how the past is remedied.
Can someone explain to me how you can repair racial discrimination without taking into account race in its mending? Did I miss the class where we learned how to fix gender discrimination without using gender? Does anyone remember the remedy for Title IX, for those who don’t remember let me give you some figures to chew on.
In 1972, Congress enacted Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination in education. In the 25 years since its passage, Title IX has helped women and girls make strides in gaining access to higher education, athletics, and nontraditional fields of study.
In 1972 women made up 44 percent of undergraduates; today women are 55 percent.
In 1971 girls made up 1% of high school varsity athletes; today they make up 40%.
Until Title IX, many high schools prohibited girls from taking certain courses, such as auto mechanics and criminal justice.
In 1970 women earned 0.7% of bachelor's degrees in engineering; in 1994 women earned 14.8% of these degrees.
In 1970 women earned 7.1 percent of law degrees and 9.1 percent of medical degrees; in 1994 women earned 43 percent and 38 percent of degrees in those fields.[2]
A conscious effort was made to give women preference in athletics to make up for past discriminatory practices and we can see the results. There were men who screamed “reverse discrimination”, but the country stuck to its guns, because it was the right thing to do. The justices talked about diversity being an admirable goal, but talk is cheap without the tools to carry it out.
Louisville's schools spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. After a federal judge freed the Jefferson County, Ky., school board, which encompasses Louisville, from his supervision, the board decided to keep much of the court-ordered plan in place to prevent schools from re-segregating.
The lawyer for the Louisville system called the plan a success story that enjoys broad community support, including among parents of white and black students.
Attorney Teddy Gordon, who argued that the Louisville system's plan was discriminatory, said, ''Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size. All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable.''[3]
“We will no longer accept that that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable”, to me this sounds dangerously close to separate but equal making a comeback. It is unfortunate that we as a nation require these types of remedies to bring us together. It would be preferable for us to just unite and say let’s all live together in equality and harmony, but that is not reality today. It is always easy to give up on doing good; to say, “We’re tired. Aren’t we there yet? Pull yourself up, we quit calling you ni**er, didn’t we?”
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp
[2] http://www.nncc.org/Release/title9.html
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Swift Boats To The Rescue
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court loosened political advertising restrictions aimed at corporate- and union-funded television ads Monday, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
The court's 5-4 ruling could become a significant factor in the upcoming presidential primaries, giving interest groups a louder and more influential voice in the closing days before those contests as well as the general election.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.
''Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. ''Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.''[1]
With this Supreme Court decision, what was already going to be a contentious election has now been ratcheted up a notch. I am dreading the level that some will be willing to stoop to in the name of “fair and balanced” information. This decision has opened the door for distortion and misrepresentation of our political process. The Court had the opportunity to rein in the fringe that has turned our political process into a cantankerous and character assassination tour de force. Rather than strengthening our political reform process they have in effect continued to place politics over the people and allowed political money to overrule not only good law, but good judgment. At a time when we need to reform our political process, these political hacks have chosen to keep the status quo.
The McCain-Feingold bill was not perfect law, but it was atleast the beginning in the process to restrict the effects that money has turned our elections into. Unfortunately, as we try to control the tap of runaway campaigns and special interest money, there are those who still want to have the best government that money can buy. It appears that we can no longer count on the politicians or the judges to shut off this spigot; it has to come from you and I, the people. We should realize that if we continue to let the special interest groups, corporations, and unions have unlimited access to our elected officials through contributions and by intimidation ads, we will continue to get the politics of division and fear.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has been critical of McCain's stance, promptly hailed the court's decision.
''McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill,'' Romney said in a statement. ''Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.''[2]
What has been masqueraded as free speech is no such animal; it is influence peddling and corruption of our political process. I fail to see the harm in limiting the amount of contributions any single person, corporation, or union can give. If our goal is to give equal representation to all of our citizens then this is the place to start. Is there anyone among us who truly believes that these entities give away all this money and they receive nothing for it?
There were four justices who were willing to stand up and pull the curtain open to see what this really is about. They recognized that this is not about free speech, but an outright attempt to influence elections by those with the money to do so with false and misleading ads. These ads don’t help the political discourse and they allow the politicians to rise over the fray and claim ignorance to the misrepresentation that they spew.
'Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities ... that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations,'' Souter said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.
These guys are like roaches, you close one loop hole and they run in through another. Until we begin to put limits on political contributions we will continue to have politicians that ignore our desires and wishes and vote for the special interest. They go where the money is and the money is with special interest lobbies. We need to level the playing field; it’s like anything else you take away the money and the rats run back into their holes. We have to begin to demand an end to this endless money pit and political influence peddling. It is happening on both sides and everyday there is a new indictment of some politician who received campaign contributions and denies any quid pro quo. Yes, these people give hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make the acquaintance of these guys. I know politicians have big egos, but to think that someone is going to give me money just to know me is the height of arrogance or the bottom of foolishness. It is past due time for real campaign reform. It isn’t going to get any better.
Stumble It!