Most of the “divisiveness” came from the racists who came out of the closet when we dared elect a non-white President. Twice.
Vouchers schmouchers…
Going off on a bit of a tangent, but is it now a conservative goal that poor students should have government funded access to private schools? That sounds positively socialist.
(Or, alternatively, “vouchers” are a thinly-disguised means to fund white flight.)
And religion-centered education. Talk about a twofer!
thank you.
I looked at the DOJ lawsuit earlier and don’t have it in front of me, but I believe you’re describing it totally wrong. What I read was that Louisiana is under special scrutiny by Federal courts because of a history of segregated schools, and that the state government seemed to think that a voucher system eliminated the need for the state to show the court that the vouchers were being used in a way consistent with the court stewardship. Again, I’m going from memory of the lawsuit that I skimmed earlier this afternoon, but your summary is totally at odds with what I read.
If I were to summarize the case, I’d say that the state of Louisiana tried to exempt itself from court monitoring for civil rights compliance by using vouchers, and the DOJ and the courts called them on that BS.
Found the link again - http://media.nola.com/education_impact/other/US%20DOJ%20petition%20vouchers%20deseg.pdf
Just read the first line of the lawsuit: it says the DOJ wants to enjoin vouchers until the state gets permission from the federal court overseeing desegregation matters. That, to me, seems totally reasonable.
Then go down to the bottom of page 2. It says Federal courts since 1975 have monitored Louisiana schools to make sure the state wasn’t funneling public money to segregated private schools. On page 3, it says the DOJ asked for information about matters relating to the desegregation orders and the state never responded. Again, the DOJ seems to have a very reasonable argument.
But this gets summarized by folks with an axe to grind as “Obama and Holder hate black kids and don’t want them to get a good education!” Give me a break.
No.
Well, no, they just don’t think there should be publicly funded schools, period. If you want your kids to go to school, find one that will take them, even though private schools get to pick and choose which students they will accept.
The news might be covered differently, but if Obama wasn’t president and Holder wasn’t AG nothing much would be different.
Much has been made that Obama, as a black man, cannot do what a white person can regarding race without being seen as “racial” since he stands to benefit from it. For the same reason why Nixon could go to China after having attacked them for so long, people won’t believe the sincerity of someone who is part of an affected group trying to help that group. Doubtless, Obama’s election did much to advance the cause of minorities, even if by his ethnic makeup he cannot readily act on such sensibilities.
You mean the white cop that was vilified by the media for shooting an unarmed innocent black teen in Ferguson… or the cop that shot a suspected strong arm robbery suspect after he was attacked and beaten by the said thug as he was trying to get the cop’s gun, which was proven to be the correct narrative by physical evidence. You choose the narrative you want to believe.
Michael Brown is the only black person ever shot by a cop?
You mean he isn’t? Funny how you know his name though, huh? Think you would know his name if the media reported the facts without bias instead of lighting the torch that burned Ferguson down.
Well, actually, I didn’t know his name. You said it happened in Ferguson, I literally had to look up his name. I don’t know if the media was biased, I don’t watch much tv and what I read at the time was naturally confused at first but passed on the facts as soon as they came in. What I remember is that the first eyewitnesses said he was gunned down in cold blood and that started riots but when the evidence came in, it didn’t support that. That’s pretty much everything I know about Michael Brown.
Are you saying the media knew exactly what happened immediately afterward? You give them far too much credit. During any event, the media is confused, speculating and passing on everything they hear, even stupid shit like tweets, to fill time until the actual story emerges. They aren’t sinister conspirators, they’re fools.
The scrutiny did, however, shine a light on a lot of terrible issues between law enforcement and the black community in Ferguson, which I have paid a little more attention to and know more about than Michael Brown. Following Michael Brown, other incidents happened across the country and now the black community is finally getting people to pay attention to some racial issues.
And that’s what I was getting at. Nobody was talking about Michael Brown. There are plenty of issues other than Michael Brown.
Fools at best… antagonist at worst. Here is what you are missing though. The same scenarios play out weekly if not daily in the U.S. with white on white shootings and black on white shootings that never make the news. The media went into a frenzy playing the racial oppression card in Ferguson. Try as you might, but it is hard to deny that the media plays a part in the divide.
Here’s what you are missing, there WAS racial oppression in Ferguson. Maybe not with Brown, but it was there and the media didn’t invent it. The problem is not that it was brought to light, the problem is that it exists.
The main idea is to reduce funding for public schools. Parents of non-poor students attending private schools would be getting a nice rebate.
That’s not my recollection of what happened. Henry Louis Gates (who is famous) made the national news because he was arrested for “breaking in” to his own home. Then, Obama was asked about it in a press conference (because it was a national news story at the time). He responded that it was stupid to arrest someone in their own home for “breaking in”, which led to a lot of gnashing of teeth, which led to the “beer summit” between Gates, the cop, and Obama.
Now, perhaps it was inelegant for the President to criticize a police officer, and he might have been better served by not answering the question (I happened to agree with him; once the cop realized that Gates lived in the home he was being accused of breaking in to, the cop should have left without incident, even if Gates was ranting and raving about being questioned about his actions).
But the President didn’t elevate this to a national issue. Your description makes it seem like Mr. Obama called a news conference, or gave a speech, about a regional event. This didn’t happen.
Describe the oppression. Was it because the police force was predominately white? Why won’t more minorities pursue careers in law enforcement in order to have a more balanced police force and more positive impact on their community?
The city of Ferguson used court fines as a major revenue generator. These fines were disproportionally levied on Black residents. In a poor town, this had deleterious effect, and led to a general distrust and uneasiness between the police and the residents. Apparently, the practice was so egregious that a judge has thrown out all arrest warrants issued before December 31, 2014.
From the links
I see this over and over again, and it never fails to amaze me that so many people don’t get it.
The story in Ferguson wasn’t that a white man shot a black man; it was that a cop shot an unarmed man (and their relative races are undoubtedly a factor). Therefore, playing the “why doesn’t anyone ever mention all the black-on-black crime?!??!!” is spurious.