TagRon Paul

Black Boys Seen as Older, More Responsible for their Actions Than Other Children

From a paper titled “The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children”:

The social category “children” defines a group of individuals who are perceived to be distinct, with essential characteristics including innocence and the need for protection (Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000). The present research examined whether Black boys are given the protections of childhood equally to their peers. We tested 3 hypotheses: (a) that Black boys are seen as less “childlike” than their White peers, (b) that the characteristics associated with childhood will be applied less when thinking specifically about Black boys relative to White boys, and (c) that these trends would be exacerbated in contexts where Black males are dehumanized by associating them (implicitly) with apes (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008). We expected, derivative of these 3 principal hypotheses, that individuals would perceive Black boys as being more responsible for their actions and as being more appropriate targets for police violence. We find support for these hypotheses across 4 studies using laboratory, field, and translational (mixed laboratory/field) methods. We find converging evidence that Black boys are seen as older and less innocent and that they prompt a less essential conception of childhood than do their White same-age peers. Further, our findings demonstrate that the Black/ape association predicted actual racial disparities in police violence toward children. These data represent the first attitude/behavior matching of its kind in a policing context. Taken together, this research suggests that dehumanization is a uniquely dangerous intergroup attitude, that intergroup perception of children is underexplored, and that both topics should be research priorities.

Full Story: Metafilter: “they cry because they are not allowed to be children at all”

This reminds me of how Ron Paul (or whoever was writing his newsletters) that only black male minors should be tried as adults:

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.

TNR uncovers more of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters

typical ron paul supporter

Above: typical Ron Paul supporter.

TNR’s story here.

Scans of newsletters here.

Paul’s official response.

The Paultards are still in deep denial about all of this. Read Ron Paul racist newsletter FAQ for a swift debunking of the claims of Paul’s defenders. And that was written before TNR released their selection of newsletters came out.

I doubt this will hurt Paul much. If anything, it will only galvanize his supporters (who refuse to believe anything bad about him) and attract more racist supporters.

(Hat tip and apologies to Nick Pell for the picture and caption).

R.U. Sirius’s Open Source Political Party

R.U. Sirius has setup a site for a new project: the Open Source Political Party. It appears to be a relaunching of his old Revolution Party idea, but more… serious.

The Revolution Party was a huge influence on me. I’ve always had a sort of mix of libertarian and progressive ideals, and the Revolution Party platform was the first I saw that tried to reconcile both modes of thinking.

In college, I tried to start a Washington State Revolution Party. We had a couple meetings, but the interest just wasn’t there. I went on to spend some time working with the local Democratic Party and doing community work, and after the crushing defeat of the Dems in 2002, decided that the voting public was still pretty far from supporting progressive or libertarian policies.

It wasn’t long after that “Dean-mania” hit and suddenly the “netroots” was born. 2004 came and went, but people were looking to the successes of Democrats in the “libertarian” mountain-west (such as Brian Schweitzer in Montana and Dave Freudenthal in Wyoming) as the model for the future of the Democrats. Looking back it was an exciting time. Reid seemed to be whipping the remaining Dems into some sort of a cohesive opposition party, and Howard Dean become the DNC chairman, pushing “50 State Strategy.” In 2005 I started Rose Colored News, partially to track the successes of this “new progressivism.” The crowning achievement of the netroots movement came in 2006, with the Democrats taking back both the Senate and the House and of course wins by Jim Webb and Jon Tester.

But this year has been a big disappointment. Back in charge, the Dems seem to have accomplished precious little and have taken to playing it safe now that they’re in charge (Reid has been particularly infuriating). The netroots hasn’t really found a candidate in the Democratic presidential race, instead splintering support amongst pretty much everyone running. Meanwhile, Ron Paul has become the Republican Howard Dean, preventing a sort of libertarian/progressive coalition from forming around any Democratic presidential candidate (Richardson and Gravel seem like particularly choice candidates for something like this).

I guess maybe it’s because it’s more fun to root for the underdog that I’ve found myself drifting back over to the thought of 3rd parties, so I guess the timing of R.U.’s new party is apt. But I can’t really get that excited about the prospect of starting a whole new party from the ground up. Lately I’ve been more interested in stuff like Kevin Zeese’s run for senate in Maryland on a Libertarian-Green-Populist fusion ticket, and the libertarian Freedom Democrats.

I’ve actually been working on an Extreme Democracy inspired “open political platform” myself. The basic idea is not a platform for a party, but a collection of policies and solutions that can be modified and used by candidates running for different offices on different party tickets. So I’m sure I’ll participating in the Open Source Party, at least in the platform discussions. Maybe this will finally motivate me to get my stuff into some sort of presentable form.

An open letter to Dr. Ron Paul

The following is an open letter that I have just sent to Dr. Ron Paul. I have added hyperlinks throughout for reference.

Dear Dr. Ron Paul,

My name is Klint Finley, and I’m a blogger and freelance writer. I’ve been following your campaign for some time now, and commend you on many issues such as: your unequivocal call to end the war on drugs; your condemnation of the death penalty; your call to repeal acts such as the National Security Act of 1947 and the Patriot act; and your condemnation of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. I believe you are the only presidential candidate from either major party to specifically address the National Security Act of 1947 and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

However, I can’t help but be disturbed by some of your statements and positions and have written various blog entries saying so. I’m writing because I believe I should offer you the chance to clarify some of these remarks. I apologize in advance that some of these questions are hostile, and in some cases read more like attacks than questions. Many of these issues are emotional to me, and frankly some of these positions look bad. I understand that you are probably too busy to respond to me yourself, and will be just as happy to receive a reply from someone on your staff.

1. You advocate the use of letters of marque and reprisal to deal with foreign terrorist threats, and in an interview with Hugh Hewitt say that “certain companies” could be hired to attack our enemies for us. Is Blackwater one of those companies? How would these companies be held accountable for their actions? If they are “deputized” as you said to Hewitt, does that many their actions on behalf of the United States reflect the United State?

2. In 1996 the Dallas Morning News and the Austin Chronicle exposed several racist remarks printed in your newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report. At the time, you defended the remarks saying they were based on “current events and statistical reports of the time.”

In 2001, in an interview in Texas Monthly, you backtracked saying “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around… They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.”

Why did you feel that it was more important to defend racism for political gain than to speak your mind?

3. Why did it take you 5 years to denounce the statements made by a rogue staffer in your newsletter? Couldn’t you have revealed this right after the election?

4. Why were the remarks not simply renounced after they were published in 1992? Did you not read your own newsletter? If not, why did you think it was a good idea to have a newsletter published in your name that you did not even read?

5. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The War on Religion” you state “Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”

Are you aware that “God” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution?

6. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “The Immigration Question” you describe the United States as being Balkanized and state that there are millions of immigrants in the United States who do not speak English and do not “participate fully in American life.”

Yet a PBS report on immigration states that “About half of recent immigrants report speaking English ‘very well’ or ‘well,’ despite the fact that some may not speak English in the home.”

What sources do you have that say that English is not being adopted by immigrants, and what are your criteria for “participating fully in American life”?

7. In an article appearing on lewrockwell.com titled “Rethinking Birthright Citizenship” you stated that you want to amend the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Are there any other parts of the Constitution that you would like to repeal?

8. In an article appearing on ronpaul2008.com titled “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban” you state that “Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age” but that though you intended to vote for H.R. 760 (as you subsequently did) you believed it to be “constitutionally flawed.” This appears to be in direct conflict with the statement on ronpaul2008.com that “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” How do you reconcile your vote for the partial birth abortion ban with your constitutionalist approach, and is there any other legislation that you would vote for despite its not being constitutional?

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your, or your staff’s, response.

Sincerely,
Klint Finley
http://www.klintron.com

Ron Paul on Separation of Church and State

(Since I’ve already pissed off the Truthers once today…)

No God Zone questions Ron Paul’s libertarian credentials:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

(The above quote is from Paul’s essay “The War on Religion“).

No God Zone counts the references to God in the constitution: zero.

Also of note, from the comments:

Local laws are easier to change and easier to avoid. But that doesn’t mean local violation of rights is okay. It is just another version of the ‘love it or leave it’ school of thought. I argue from a rights perspective and it is wrong to violate rights at ANY level of government.

Ron Paul said it is the government’s funciton to support ‘traditional marriage’ so he is willing to have his view enforced by the state. He only bickers over at which level the coecion should be done. That may be Constitutionalism but it is not libertarianism.

I’ve been trying to come up with a concise way to express my distinction between conservative constitutionalism and libertarianism and I think this hits close to the mark.

Full Story: No God Zone.

More Ron Paul skepticism here and here.

Political poll results

Ron Paul (36%)
No one/I don’t vote (20%)
Unsure (14%)
Barack Obama (12%)
Other Democrat (4%)
John Edwards (2%)
Mike Gravel (2%)
Other Republican (2%)
Third party candidate (2%)
Bill Richardson (1%)
82 total votes

Anarchist (19%)
Libertarian (11%)
Left-Libertarian (11%)
Other (9%)
Liberal/Progressive (8%)
Anarcho-Capitalist (8%)
Constitutionalist (5%)
Conservative (4%)
Anarcho-Primitivist (4%)
Socialist (3%)
Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist (3%)
Fascist (3%)
None (3%)
Anarcho-syndicalist (1%)
Communism (0%)
84 total votes

FWIW, I’m leaning towards Bill Richardson (even though I agree more with Mike Gravel) and my politics are probably closest to social democratic (but I don’t really fit neatly into that category).

Ron Paul and the racist right

I’m posting this here because I think there’s a fairly large cross-over between Technoccultists and Ron Paul supporters, and because I’d really like to get the bottom of this. Paul’s not going to get to get a fair shake in the mainstream media or the progressive media, and the libertarian media (such that it is) seems a bit quiet on the issue of Ron Paul’s alleged racism. Though I admittedly skew to the left for the most part, I have a few libertarian tendencies as well so I feel like maybe I can give him a fair shake. For your inspection:

Ron Paul, In His Own Words.

Ron Paul: The Radical Right’s Man in Washington.

The defenses of Paul I’ve seen so far are:

1. Deny that the newsletters even exist and claim that the Daily Kos poster who posted this is “obviously a neocon Guiliani supporter who has been building up a record on this site in an attempt to give you some sort of street cred to run bullcrap like this diary throughout the Republican primary.” (From “libertynow”‘s comments on the Kos diaries).

2. Take the Paul’s defense that he didn’t write the newsletters at face value.

The former I find fairly absurd, and the latter just doesn’t quite work for me. And while it’s true that you can’t choose your supporters, one has to look at why the racist right tends to support Ron Paul. Even before I read about these newsletters, I was worried by Paul’s immigration positions and asserted that he was deliberately playing to the racist right. But I’m quite open to being proved wrong.

© 2019 Technoccult

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑