Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00401)

--- In theos-talk@y..., Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> No, he went to jail for life because he was a crook. 

I agree totally that he broke the law. No question about that. The 
issue is whether he would have faced any penalty had he not been 
poor. You will not admit it, but I know you seretly agree on this.

> Well, I oppose most drug laws; I believe that they are part of a
> campaign to deny that there is a basic right of freedom of thought 
(hate
> crime laws are another step in that direction). Besides, I like to
> consider them to be evolution in action.

No problem there. The drug laws exist because there is a drug law 
industry whch employs thousands of people who would raise hell if the 
laws were modified. It is a modern form of the WPA. My point was 
that the congress commissions a study to determine what sort of drugs 
blacks use (crack cocaine) then decides to selectively enact 
Draconian penalties for just those offenses which are committed 
mostly by blacks. Then they excuse themselves and other members of 
their class if they get caught violating those same laws. If you do 
not see that as being a wee mite on the cynical side, then I am 
starting to understand how you can defend Ariel Sharon and Israel.

> If she does it again, watch what happens.

Let me guess. Another year long publicity stunt disguised as a trial?

> And there is no reason in the United States that anybody has to beg 
for
> pennies, sleep under bridges, or steal bread, unless they are 
mentally
> ill, or have a mental illness they brought upon themselves (such as 
drug
> addiction).

Regrettably not true. Anyway, the point is that the laws are 
designed to protect the rich and punish the poor. The fact that the 
point was cleverly stated does not make it an invalid observation.

> So, what do you suggest we do to the rich so that they are more
> motivated to commit crimes?

Given all the stuff that is in the news day after day I would say 
they are plenty motivatd to commit crimes. What is lacking is 
motivation to commit to equal justice.

> I don't believe Tawana Brawley's story. Not even Al Sharpton still
> believes Tawana Brawley was telling the truth. 

Al Sharpton believes things nonody could believe. He published a 
book recently defending his Tawana Brawley campaign yet again. I 
began to wonder about him recently when a black security guard 
strangled a man in a parking lot for stealing some trinket. The 
thief was black, the security guard was black, the management of the 
store was black, and the owners were all black, and Al starte d a 
campaign to convince his followers that "whitey did it." I still 
like him personally but I have wondered ever since if he is serious. 
Ditto with Jesse Jackson after he characterized serial criminal and 
murderer Gary Graham as a new Moses and Jesus. Unlike Sharpton, I 
never did like Jackson much, and have suspected after that he is just 
a well dressed clown.

> Except a few little things like integration, black voting rights, 
and
> affirmative action, just to name a few. 

I suspect Harry Belafonte would say that's just tokenism, Bart. 
Tokenism is not only meaningless but insulting.