The Seattle Times reports today that the local NAACP will have its third president in two years, James Bible of The Defender Association. A Seattle NAACP board member tells the Times of the last year: "we didn't do a lot, but we held on." Yes. A once-vital and necessary force here, the Seattle NAACP has held on to an antiquated notion that fighting racism rather than accenting individual initiative and family cohesion is what "disadvantaged" blacks need today.
The Seattle chapter's last big hurrah was a now-fizzled 2004 lawsuit against the Kent School District involving allegedly improper, racially-based use of handcuffs and physical restraint by security personnel against unruly students. Despite reams of early publicity, it was dropped and never re-filed, after plaintiffs' attorney and then-Seattle NAACP President Alfoster Garrett Jr. found himself overwhelmed by the actual particulars of lawyering the case and the scarcity of competent plaintiffs' attorneys who'd take the consolidated Kent cases on a contingency basis. Apparently, the real legal merits of the cases were not as advertised by Garrett's confrontational predecessor, Carl Mack.
Garrett's problems with courtroom punctuality were a secondary challenge. He dragged the chapter down further by blowing off meetings with the governor and Seattle schools superintendent, and then lying about actually meeting with the governor. His departure came none too soon; his replacement lasted a year in the post.
Juan Williams comes to Lynnwood Friday. If the Seattle NAACP had their act together, they would have booked Seattle's Town Hall for a community forum featuring Williams on the bracing challenges posed to black activists in his recently-published book, "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It."
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 10, 2007 12:12 PM | Email ThisThis is as it should be. Discrimination should be based on merit, content of character, basic respect, reasonable decorum, and one's willingness to politely engage one's fellow man.
More and more people of every color are recognizing that this is the true standard, and not some arbitrary assignation of preferences based on color, language, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 10, 2007 12:15 PMSo, Michele, what do you think about a black 20-year-old with a 1-year-old son who is caught selling drugs? Should he be sent to jail so that his son grows up without a father? Until members of both parties get real about the effect that the drug war is having on what we both agree is the biggest problem with the black community (the lack of fathers), nothing will change.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 01:29 PMI'm thinking the mother should have given the child up for adoption when she gave birth to a drug dealer's baby.
Posted by: Mark D on January 10, 2007 01:41 PMThere are a lot of ways we can do a better job handling meth addiction, but I don't have time to go into that now. I just like to point out, whenever this subject is raised, that drug policies implemented by the law-and-order conservatives (which get enforced much more strictly in poorer communities than elsewhere) are the biggest reason why so many black fathers are not at home raising their kids. Some of them would arguably be bad fathers anyway, but most of them would be making a huge difference in their child's life.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 01:55 PMOh really? You don't think our drug laws and how they're enforced are playing a major role in why so many people are in jail in this country? When you look at the profiles of most career criminals, you'll find that an alarming number are people who are caught up in the black markets that have formed to control the supply of drugs in this country.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 02:37 PMIn an ideal world, this is absolutely how it should work. But because we've created these gigantic black markets for illegal drugs, there will inevitably be people willing to risk the punishment in order to make more money. In the end, by sending drug dealers off to jail, you accomplish nothing, because someone will always take that person's place on the corner, and now you may have one more fatherless child. The notion that drug dealers are "predators" is one manufactured by politicians.
If nothing else works, then give them a sentence. For those people, those kids are probably better off without that father.
Again, though. What if it means the child goes hungry? I realize that I'm oversimplifying. Not every case is the same, but at some point, I think we need to take a step back and look at what we're accomplishing by having some many Americans behind bars for a cause (eliminating drugs from our society) that is absolutely unattainable. Is it worth it? The black community, by and large, strongly disagrees with me. In fact, the black community was one of the loudest voices calling for a tougher drug war. But it was a mistake, and sadly, they've been the ones paying the biggest price.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 02:48 PMThe underclass, todays "victims," need to develop a culture based upon functional, two parent families, and responsible social institutions, who recognize that social and economic advancement are dependent upon a good education and self-motivation.
A bi-partisan political effort is an essential catalyst for change. Sadly, Democrats seem to be committed to the status quo.
Posted by: PADDY on January 10, 2007 02:49 PMAt any rate, it's like Michael Steele says: "Yes, we can now sit at the lunch counter, but I want to OWN the lunch counter." Social and cultural stability, the rule of law, and economic empowerment: The path out of poverty is clear. The question now is whether courageous leaders like Juan Williams and Bill Cosby will convince others that this is the right way.
Posted by: DJ on January 10, 2007 03:01 PMI have personally experienced what meth does to another human being, and I was horrified how it destroys peoples' lives. It destroys families. Selling drugs like this cannot go unpunished. Something has to be done to get these people on a different track.
We cannot eliminate all drugs, but we can focus on those drugs like meth which have the worst effects. I'm not concerned with some guy selling a bag of pot, and no one should serve time for selling pot. Meth is a different story.
Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 03:12 PMThe total amount of meth users in the United States is actually lower than the amount of people arrested each year for marijuana possession (not even dealing, just possession). Some of these people are serving very long sentences.
This absolutely takes the focus off where it should be, it wastes ungodly amounts of taxpayer dollars, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. People can still find pot anywhere.
And by the way, meth is actually very rare in the black community. Nearly all meth users are white and live in rural areas of the U.S. In fact, the rates of drug users for all types of illegal drugs are roughly the same among the different ethnic groups.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 03:28 PMBut I will never advocate an unchallenged supply of meth or crack or PCP. Regardless of what community is affected by drugs like that, it has to stop. I would rather the full resources of drug enforcement are focused on drugs like this.
Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 03:38 PMPart of what problem? Drug dealers are a result of drug use, not the cause of it. It has been shown very clearly over the past 30 years that putting drug dealers in jail does nothing to stop drug use.
there should be no excusing selling something as hideous as meth to help someone harm themselves.
Some people are going to harm themselves with dangerous drugs no matter what we do. And as I mentioned in a previous comment, meth use is a very small part of the overall number of people who get arrested for drug offenses. It's overwhelmingly marijuana. Cocaine and crack also have many more users than meth.
There is no reason to claim "I had to sell drugs" to support my family when other people are finding ways to support their family by whatever legal means necessary everyday. Those people are all around us everyday.
There are many people who are faced with the prospect of either breaking a law or going without basics for their family. Look at the large numbers of illegal aliens working here. To just say that all those people should find "legal" jobs is sticking your head really far into the sand. The reality is that we now have an economy that pushes the least fortunate into situations where they have to break the law to make a living. And the one thing I've found is that the damage being done by the drug war plays a major role in that, both north and south of the U.S.-Mexico border.
When fathers are present and teaching the next generation honor, duty, obeying the law, the lie that "I have to sell drugs" has far less chance of getting a foothold.
Well, that's a warm and fuzzy thought in the suburbs, but pretty far from the reality in many parts of the country. In many of our poorest neighborhoods, the only jobs available are illegal ones. You can be all high and mighty about how wrong that is, but you're not the one who's broke and hungry with no other avenues. Especially when a teenager who decides to go down that doomed path doesn't know his father because he made the same decision once too. Drug dealing has a foothold because people use drugs (over 20 million Americans use illegal drugs regularly - most of them are responsible citizens who raise children), not because morality is not being taught to children in poor neighborhoods.
And let's be honest, women AND men of all colors have to grow up and realize that there are consequences to behavior and start respecting themselves by making good choices.
So does government. And this mess is one that has been caused by administrations (both Republican and Democratic) for the past several decades.
Studies show that fathers' involvement in their children's lives are a greater determiner than the mother on the child's eventual emotional well-being as they grow up. People don't begin to understand how much.
Oh, I absolutely understand this. This is exactly why I think we need to take a long look at our mentality of just building more prisons and finding ways to put as many people in jail as possible. All this is doing is creating more and more fatherless children to become the next generation of criminals.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 04:14 PMDrugging is a choice. So is getting a legal/illegal job. YOU decide which it is going to be.
Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2007 08:08 PMAbsolutely incorrect. No matter what we do at the border, we will need to allow legitimate commerce and people to cross it. As a result, there will also be corrupt border guards who take bribes to let things get through. Always. Do you have any idea how often border guards already get bribed to let things in? There is no practicality at all in believing that we can stop drug use by controlling supply.
If we want to ensure that people can find jobs, we need to ensure that they speak the language of the country in which they live.
This doesn't even make sense. If someone has a language barrier to overcome for doing a job, they won't get hired. Spanish-speaking people can do any number of jobs here. They get hired every day all across the U.S.
If we want to have fewer miserable illegal aliens here, we need to encourage them to not enter our country illegally. If they're so miserable, they should go home.
How? There are 11 million people here illegally looking for work precisely because what you say is completely incorrect. We already encourage them to not enter our country illegally. It doesn't work. Why? Because of supply and demand, and because everyone has a price for which they'll break a law in pursuit of money or pleasure. Everyone.
If they go home, there's no work. Why? Because drug prohibition has destroyed the Mexican economy the same way alcohol prohibition destroyed the economies of many U.S. cities. It gave too much power to organized crime groups.
If we want fewer people to break laws, we need to stop plea bargaining,which eliminates their fear of jail time.
No, this is absolutely false. The threat of jail time does not stop people from breaking these laws, at all. They are coming here illegally to work as a method of survival. You're not going to threaten them with jail time and have them just wander back home where there's no opportunity for them.
If you're talking about drug users here, for one, the threat of jailtime means nothing to an addict, and it means little to many youths who don't see real opportunity for themselves anyway.
If we want to promote fatherhood, we need to stop killing babies.
Huh?
If we want the children of this country to succeed, we need to ensure they receive the education they deserve, rather than processing potential voters of any stripe.
I have no idea what this means. I think you're jumbling up some of Rush's talking points here.
Tough work, but it needs to be done, and we need to have the stomach to do it.
Sounds like Iraq, but sadly, much like Iraq, there comes a point where you have to face the facts and recognize that no amount of "stomach" matters. And when you reach that point, it requires self-reflection to determine where we went wrong. In the war on drugs, the problem was that we went away from the core American principle of self-reliance, that American adults should not be treated like children and should be expected to be responsible with the temptations that exist in life. That's what real conservatism is about.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 09:54 PMIn my worldview? I beg to differ. That's your worldview. In my worldview, I think that the government should butt out of what people do with their own lives because adults do and should have the ability to take responsibility for themselves. In your worldview, the government is a nanny that runs our lives and makes laws to protect us from doing things that may harm ourselves. In case you weren't already aware, the overwhelming majority of bad things that result from drugs do not result from the effects of the drugs on people, it results from the illegality of those drugs and the markets that form to provide that illicit supply.
Don't try to mix ghetto 'dads" with illegal aliens. Different issue.
These problems have some similar veins, one of which is that the drug war makes these problems worse.
Just stop making excuses and let's acknowledge that when people take responsibility for their lives instead of claiming they had to sneak into a country illegally, or sell drugs, they are doing a wrong thing for what they think are the right reasons.
What does that accomplish? Nothing! Shake your fist at them all you want, but it's still going to happen. People are still going to come into this country illegally and people are still going to still drugs until we start facing these issues intelligently. What on earth does being condescending about it do?
It is still a problem. Meth sucks, drugs suck, people can choose not to take them; people can avoid selling them.
But they won't! Either you want to fix this problem, or you just want to talk about how terrible these problems are. I want to fix them. I don't give a rat's ass about left or right or conservative or liberal, I want Americans to wake up to the reality of what's going on.
Nobody forces anyone to break the law. Stop making excuses. Not buyin' it. Over and out.
Yes, nobody forces anyone to break the law, but when you create a system where people see some advantage to breaking the law, people will break the law. This is something very important to understand if we want to move towards practical solutions to the problems we face.
Posted by: thehim on January 10, 2007 10:06 PMWhat we can agree upon:
1. Single parenthood probably dooms the parent and child to poverty - no matter what the color.
2. A substandard education probably dooms an individual to poverty and limits life choices.
3. Acceptance of hip hop culture and a hip hop life style will only allow rap moguls into the social and economic mainstream.
"Racism" is now such a loaded word that it has lost its currency, let me use another concept which is probably more fitting. Let's call the concept tribal preference. If you belong to my tribe, I will give you benefits. The question many here don't want to admit is that it exists. The question is how to deal with it? I'm sure that many who post here don't see a legal remedy for tribal preference.
Finally, the NAACP is fighting the last war. The war in a global economy is capital formation and economic advancement. That is why education and developing a cultural that values education is so important.
The question, in my opinion, that two significant groupings face is akin to the Protestant Reformation and what that beneficially did for Christianity:
1. Moderate Muslims are going to have to decide whether they control their religion and make it compatible with modern societies.
2. I, only speak for myself, but in this country Black elites are going to have to decide whether they give up phony notions of some socialist nirvana in Africa, Cuba, Venezueala or whever and decide that for better or worse this is a capitalist society and how does the culture fit and mainstream its children into this society. I note that Harry Belafonte, who lives in an elite neighborhood in Califrornia and Danny Glover have not moved to Cuba.
3. The national NAACP and its leaders is firmly entrenched in the Dem party. One should ask whether it is of benefit to belong to either party? The national organization has played party politicals poorly and the rank and file has suffered. The intent of political involvement should be to strengthen the elements that have made Black successful: education and strong families. The discussion of drugs is a tangent. Not because there is no problem, but strong families and jobs lessen the impact.
There is plenty of work to be done within the culture, but a post that doesn't examine the complexities does no one a great service and is just more inflamation from a poster that is on most occasions, clueless about race.
Posted by: WVH on January 10, 2007 11:47 PMWhat about the drug war? We've been trying to "enforce our laws" for decades now, but all we have to show for it are record numbers of prisoners, while we've done absolutely nothing about the actual problem. If we take the same approach with immigration, sadly, we'll end up with the same result.
We have laws about drug use and drug sales, about illegal entry into our country, about hiring illegal aliens, about every single issue you mentioned. We simply don't enforce them because we are so afraid, most of the time, of hurting someone's feelings!
Are you kidding?? We arrest over 750,000 people per year just for marijuana! Do you think we're really afraid of hurting people's feelings? In California, a 60-year-old woman started a jail term this week because she was growing medical marijuana.
The reason we don't enforce these laws more aggressively is because it would shine a spotlight on how absurd the laws actually are, and the politicians who are too chicken to do the right thing would have to actually do something.
Poor drug addict, he can't help it! Poor child abuser, he was abused as a child. Poor thief, can't find a job.
And the child abuser should have his children taken from his home and the thief should go to prison for his crimes. But these things will always happen no matter what the punishment is for the crime. Your confusing sympathy with rationalization. I'm not sympathetic towards a thief or a child abuser, but I'm rational enough to know that some crime happens regardless of what punishment exists to deter that crime. That's why punishments for drugs are foolish, they do nothing, and there's no victim demanding justice. It's foolishness, and a massive waste of my tax dollars.
Most of us observe those laws. Some don't. I'm sorry you are so cynical that you believe everyone has a price. I don't believe that's true. I believe most of us face temptation in some form or another every day, and make the choices that keep us out of trouble and safe.
Sorry, but if a friend of yours offered you $10,000 to help them break a law that you thought was a stupid law anyway, you'd do it. Everyone has a price. And that's why you will never, ever, solve the problems of drugs or illegal immigration through simply enforcing the laws.
Posted by: thehim on January 11, 2007 07:44 AM...
The discussion of drugs is a tangent. Not because there is no problem, but strong families and jobs lessen the impact.
KVH,
I'm having a lot of fun on this thread, and I may come back later and respond in full (I've gotta head out to work now). I agree with a lot of what you say, but discussing drugs is not a tangent. As I explained above, the drug war is a major reason for why #1 and #3 above are happening. By trying to eliminate the drug problem by focusing on families and jobs, you will solve nothing. We're not dealing with some root cultural thing within the black community that the NAACP and other leaders can just tweak through eloquent speeches and by shaming Jay-Z. It's the result of major criminal enterprises being rooted in the black communities of this country, enterprises that should not exist in the first place.
Back in the day, people thought the same things about the Irish and the Italians, in part because those two ethnic groups marked the poorest of the poor in our inner cities and therefore got sucked into the organized crime that exploded during alcohol prohibition.
Posted by: thehim on January 11, 2007 07:54 AMThe King County Bar Association has made legalization of drugs one of their issues. I believe that George Soras is funding a lot of that discussion along with Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance. That is part of their ideology to remake the social structure. I disgree with that because I think that it will cause more harm than good, but that is another discussion on another thread.
Let me say this which pertains to this thread. Follow the money. A lot of porn, especially that available on cable tv and hip hop is funded by "respectable" mainstream corporations. Just like there was and is discussion about whether cigerette and liquor companies should fund sporting events, a lot of companies target poor areas. Also in the real world of political influence organizations and PACs, again follow the money.
My thesis is this: Much of the reason the NAACP has lurched left, in my opinion, at the national level is because of money from:
1. Soros and the Peter Lewis crowd
2. Money from hate America types
I think that many national organizations often have national agendas that may or may not serve local communities well. It is interesting that the Gates Foundation will expire 50 years after the death of the founders. My thesis is this:
many organizations change from their original mandate and become more radical over time.
On two occasions I emailed the local chapte president skbr1136@aol.com asking for help on a discrimination matter.
In this case, public housing residents had put up a Nativity scene in the community room and public area of a publicly funded building which deprived one Jewish resident of the opportunity to use the room for a Channukah party.
I had approached the local chapter because the former chapter president had said in a media interview that they would be willing to intervene on (she was referring to investigating non-black discrimination issues).
I never got the courtesy of an email reply. No wonder African-Americans can't get aheard. They have toothless organizations like the NAACP and they have to deal with white society. You can't win either way.
Keith Gormezano
Posted by: Keith "No-No-Boy" Gormezano on January 11, 2007 10:05 PMEvery group has rights advocacy. The Japanese American Citizens League was founded in 1927.
Among the Asian groups are:
Civil Rights Advocacy Organizations
Asian Legal Defense and Education Fund
Asian Americans for Equality
Asian Americans United
Alliance Working for Asian Rights and Empowerment
Asian Immigrant Women Advocates
Filipino Civil Rights Advocates
Japanese American Citizens League
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
Organization of Chinese Americans
I am sorry that some sort of compromise could not have been worked out in the common area. Did the Lady contact the public housing authority. How big was the display? Could it have been covered during the Channukah party? This is a cultural question - is the existence of the creche in a room so offensive that it has to be removed or is it possible to just ignore it?
Posted by: WVH on January 12, 2007 06:53 PMThe female president of the NAACP never contacted the housing authority.
The display in 2005 was about 3 feet in width, a foot and a half in depth and height and covered the entire top over the TV. The display in 2006 was smaller and was on the coffee table.
It could only have been covered up if the owners of the display had given permission to do so and given the animosity between the two groups in this building, that was not likely.
Yes, the existence of a Nativity scene or creche in a pulbic building is so offensive to most Jews that it shouldn't be dislayed.
How would decent Christians feel if a display honoring the Devil, telling people to 'worship Satan and yee shall be saved' complete with an updside down broken crucifix and an altar filled with dried human blood was placed in their community room? It isn't that much different.
Also, what is the point of creating a wall of separation of church and state if people are going to be allowed to breach it. If you live in public housing with all the tax breaks and reduction in rent, then you have to put up with the fact that you can't put up specific religious displays that you could put up in a private higher rent apartment building.
You don't get to eat your cake and have it as well.
1. I can't speak for the NAACP.
2. I think from your description, there was a way to accomodate both beliefs. Public housing is home to people of many faiths and no faiths. I think the approapriate compromise would be to remove the display when the Channukah party was scheduled.
3. I don't agree with you on the law - there is no preference for a state religion, but that doesn't mean that all religious expression is excluded. People have to find a way to live with each other and honor beliefs.
4. It is impossible to comment without knowing all the facts, but I suspect there are a lot of personal individual issues with a religious overlay. Like the typical neighbor disputes of barking dogs and leaves coming onto a neighbor's yard. Those types of disputes can get quite nasty.
5. I don't agree with you that religion has to be eliminated from the public square, but I do agree with you that my version of Christianity would respect your friend's beliefs. During her celebration, I would have removed the creche, but I think that the Christians are entitled to a display. I would not have a problem with the display of the Menorah during Channukah. I just don't believe religion has to be eliminated.
Posted by: WVH on January 14, 2007 01:08 AMI had to sleep on this.
1. Why didn't you go to either the ACLU or one of the local Jewish civil rights agencies on behalf of this resident?
2. Isn't there a resident council for public housing? Why didn't you or why aren't you now going to them and the public housing authority to request guidelines on religious displays in public areas?
3. If you had other avenues of recourse, why the anger against the NAACP?
4. My best guess is that there are underlying issues among the residents that are coming out through religion. Why aren't the underlying issues being mediated or resolved?
5. I disagree on the law, there is no wall of separation regarding religion.
Posted by: WVH on January 14, 2007 08:28 AM