Ferguson

If Democrats Seek to "Rally Blacks" Against Police Militarization, They Might Start with the Congressional Black Caucus

|

The New York Times reports that, "At Risk in Senate, Democrats Seek to Rally Blacks." Specifically, the Times says

Democrats are trying to mobilize African-Americans outraged by the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., to help them retain control of at least one chamber of Congress for President Obama's final two years in office….

"Ferguson has made it crystal clear to the African-American community and others that we've got to go to the polls," said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a civil-rights leader. "You participate and vote, and you can have some control over what happens to your child and your country."

Lewis might want to start with his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, many of whom were blase about police militarization as recently as June. As Ed Krayewski has noted, in June, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) sponsored an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4355) that would have prevented federal giveaways of military equipment to local police departments around the country. "My amendment," explained Grayson, "would prohibit the Department of Defense from gifting excess equipment, such as aircraft—including drones—armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, and bombs to local police departments. Those weapons have no place in our streets, regardless of who may be deploying them." 

The amendment went down to spectacular defeat, with just 62 votes in favor and 355 against. Lewis voted for the amendment, but he was joined by just seven (out of a total of 41 House members with voting privileges) of his Congressional Black Caucus colleagues: John Conyers (MI-13), Donna Edwards (MD-04), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Mike Honda (CA-17), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Bobby Scott (VA-03), Maxine Waters (CA-43).

As Krayewski noted, among the African-American members of Congress voting against the amendment (and thus in favor of continued federally aided militarization of police): Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), who represents Ferguson.

As I wrote at The Daily Beast recently, events in Ferguson have done far more than bring the scandal of police militarization (finally) to a national audience. They also open up a space for new possibilities in politics that break with the exhausted categories of Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, white and black, and so many other seemingly intractable antagonisms. The outspoken response of libertarian-leaning Republicans (such as Rep. Justin Amash, who voted in favor of Grayson's amendment, and Sen. Rand Paul) belied a congruence of interests that is rarely acknowledged by contemporary political discourse:

What Ferguson demonstrates is how tightly related abstract concerns libertarians have about the government's power and the very real-life fears of police harassment that many African Americans have really are. So too are other issues of interest to both groups, ranging from school choice to sentencing reform to occupational licensing. As these sorts of newly recognized common causes filter through the culture, all sorts of new coalitions and possibilities can come to fruition. Glimpses of this are already visible in actions such as the nearly successful effort by Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Democratic Rep. John Conyers to defund National Security Agency surveillance programs last summer.

We should add eminent domain abuse to the list, and I'm sure there are more shared issues that warrant inclusion. Does anyone seriously doubt that standard-issue politics are as played out as the Comstock Lode, which just like the Democratic and Republican parties, predates the Civil War?

Read the whole Beast piece, "The Libertarian Moment in Ferguson," here.

NEXT: Labor Day Replay: The Sharing Economy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You Know Who Else wanted to get rid of the old party system, was shot at by the cops, had the support of the youths, had gay supporters, took drugs, opposed US Foreign Policy, supported immigration and opposed being put to death by the American government?

    1. Sideshow Bob?

    2. Emily Ekins and the rest of the people at the Reason-Rupe poll?

    3. Amadou Diallo?

    4. I’m assuming the last assertion more or less covers everybody.

    5. Johnny Fuckerfaster!

    6. Baron harkkonen?

  2. “Keep voting for us. This time it will be different, we swear.”

  3. More seriously I’m reminded of how Portuguese rebelled against the system of rotating parties only to get 60 years of one-party rule and the current two-party system!

  4. Didn’t the Congressional Black Caucus also call for a “police czar”?

    1. From the people who brought you the ATF, DEA, and NSA, it’s the Police Czar–he’ll make sure only Federal law enforcement agencies can conspicuously abuse your liberties.

      1. If there will be a police czar, I predict that he’ll eventually enfold all police into the federal system. Then only federal LEOs will be able to abuse you, because they’ll ALL be federal LEOs!

  5. seemingly intractable antagonisms

    Nice band name.

  6. Theory: Democrats in power don’t care about poor black people but periodically claim to in order to increase voter participation among one of their most generally apathetic constituencies.

    Also, and this is completely unrelated, Salon apparently thinks it’s possible to have 0% unemployment.

    They want government guaranteed jobs and claim that paying people to work in meaningless jobs that produce nothing would somehow save money.

    Guaranteed jobs would also reduce the Medicaid and food stamp rolls. Since food stamp eligibility never ends, most families receiving guaranteed jobs would eliminate someone from the food stamp rolls. A typical three-person family (a single person with two kids) collecting food stamps received a $400 benefit in 2011, so 9.8 million guaranteed jobs might reduce food stamp spending by billions. That same three-person family costs an average of $10,000 per year to insure via Medicaid, but since eligibility criteria vary widely between states, not every family receiving a guaranteed job would subtract from the Medicaid rolls. (If, for example, we assume about half of them would, 9.8 million guaranteed jobs subtracts another $49 billion from Medicaid costs).

    ‘If we just gave shitloads of money to people in this program, it would decrease the money spent in other programs. Somehow this saves money.’

    1. Whatever happened to the old notion that the End of the Cold War would cause the Left to embrace libertarianish reforms?

    2. Once they can find a large enough bucket, they will finally be able to fill the shallow end of a pool with water pulled from the deep end.

      1. They’ll just declare the entire swimming pool a bucket and then regulate the water. It’s foolproof.

    3. This person has it all figured out!

      Lorin K 6 minutes ago
      This is the only serious proposal I have seen in a while that could actually have some major impact.

      -Full employment, obviously

      -Halting wage decline, giving workers leverage

      -Reducing the need for “nanny state” programs, instead giving people work experience, wages for labor, and to make formerly unemployed people more desirable to the private sector

      -drastically increasing demand for consumer goods, leading to a need for private sector hiring and a positive growth cycle

      -finally doing that one thing Republicans are fanatically against: fixing potholes

      -That other thing Republicans hate: reducing poverty for communities of color that have experienced disproportionate joblessness for most of modern American history.

      1. Government is magic!

        1. Where do they get the idea that construction workers are in want of employment?

          It isn’t 1937 where there are million of uneducated young men out of work that can be hired and trained to build stuff.

          You think the unemployed Jewish Lesbian Studies graduate is going to put on a hard hat and fill in pot holes?

      2. finally doing that one thing Republicans are fanatically against: fixing potholes

        That’s weird. The worst roads I’ve ever seen are in California.

        Must be all those Republicans.

        1. I thought the proggies didn’t want a society of manual laborers?

        2. Everybody in California knows that it’s always the obstructionist Republicans’ fault.

          1. It’s all because of prop 13! If only extremist Republicans weren’t trying to starve the beast, CA would have the revenue it needs to make the roads immaculate.

      3. Did you read the article, too? The person uses terms that sound like they should be accepted economic terminology, but as far as I can tell they’re actually meaningless.

        Example:

        The conservative objection to jobs programs is usually that such win-win scenarios are impossible. Writing in National Review, Kevin Williamson writes that what guaranteed jobs provide, “by definition, is: nothing of economic value.” But this objection only holds if the market perfectly provides all human wants at the correct human prices.

        First of all, ‘all human wants’ can never conceivably be provided. I want to own a yacht and marry a super model. I am not rich enough to do either of those things and it’s impossible for the government to allow everyone to own yachts and marry super models. Yachts and super models are, unfortunately, scarce resources.

        Secondly, the term ‘human prices’ has no meaning of which I am aware. I googled the term, and there is no economic principle called ‘human prices.’ Does he mean price of labor? Because that’s an actual term, but it has no meaning in this context.

        1. “Human prices” sounds an euphemism for “phenomenally high minimum wage” like “living wage.”

        2. Secondly, the term ‘human prices’ has no meaning of which I am aware. I googled the term, and there is no economic principle called ‘human prices.’ Does he mean price of labor? Because that’s an actual term, but it has no meaning in this context.

          I imagine that it means something like price controls are a human right.

          1. Price and Wage controls are a human right!

          2. This.

        3. Consider the case of cleaning a park versus cleaning a house. If somebody pays someone else to clean her house, we unquestioningly include such activity as economic activity and include the transaction in our national accounts, and conclude the purchaser must get some benefit to a clean house. A community almost certainly gets a similar benefit when a public park is cleaned or a dilapidated building is rehabilitated. The difference is that since no one person owns the park, no one person realizes the economic benefits to cleaning it, and thus no one pays to have it cleaned. A government job fixes the market failure of non-coordination.

          It’s pure fucking gibberish.

          1. Conversely, if the government didn’t own that property in the first place, the person who owned it would clean it.

            This guy basically thinks he discovered the tragedy of the commons.

            1. He thinks government spending doesn’t get included in measuring economic activity. But my favorite part is the last line “A government job fixes the market failure of non-coordination.” So tragedy of the commons is a market failure? And non-coordination? Another pulled-out-of-his-ass economicy sounding phrase.

        4. I’m guessing “human prices” is a stupid euphemism for “humane prices,” which is a stupid euphemism for price controls.

      4. This person has it all figured out!

        I’m not even sure I could parody this moron.

        1. I think this is great. In trying to shore up the poors votes, democrats do the only thing that could lose the poors allegience. Make them work.

      5. Let me make sure I have this right.

        Step 1) Take the money we’re giving them now, and continue to give it to them in exchange for meaningless labor.

        Step 2) ???

        Step 3) Profit!

        1. Step 2 is easy: Deus ex machina. There ya go, problem solved.

      6. drastically increasing demand for consumer goods, leading to a need for private sector hiring and a positive growth cycle

        When you inflate the money supply, the natural result is increased aggregate demand and more goods being cranked produced via the multiplier effect and the easing of animal spirits. Not price inflation and asset bubbles that lead inexorably to a bust, but government-sponsored inspiration that will lead us away from panicky, inefficient markets. Gotcha.

        -Full employment, obviously

        Obviously. We’ll have everyone dig holes or sit in the cafes and write poetry, print however much money we need to pay them a living wage (would $200k a head suffice?), and then aggregate demand and consumer confidence will make us all rich by inspiring businesses to hire more workers, who would then quit their guaranteed state jobs to assume a position with a business that does not create the money it uses to pay its wages and which could well fire them in a year or so.

        Sounds good. But just in case, why don’t we try that out in MA for a year before implementing it in the rest of the US?

    4. A typical three-person family (a single person with two kids)

      I think I know what the problem is.

      1. Not enough kids?

        1. Not enough federal money PER kid.

    5. More words of wisdom from Lorin K. I asserted that construction is not a sector of the economy in want of workers nor is the current pool of unemployed and marginally attached workers (funemployed liberal arts majors in their 20s) are going to want to do menial labor.

      So basically crazies like Elizabeth Warren will just argue for government jobs for the sake of government jobs. Response:

      ….even from a non-Keynesian point of view, jobs are the only thing that matters to people. They want dignity in work, and the wages keep them from being ruined. You believe in supply side economics, which has been an abject failure for a while now. Money is just sitting in banks. Yet you probably want to cut capital gains or something. The “job creators” are actually parasites when you get to the end stage capitalists, the bankers and mega corporate CEOs would sell their grandmother for a ham sandwich and they don’t deserve any more motivation to continue to suck our economy dry.

      1. end stage capitalists

        There’s a giveaway if I ever saw one.

      2. Holy shit, that’s not a serious quote, is it? If it is, please tell me that his Lorin K is just a nutty gender studies blogger at Salon or something.

    6. Once we start investigating the numbers, it’s surprising how doable guaranteeing jobs looks. If there are 9.8 million unemployed people, giving each of them a $30,000-a-year full-time job (approximately $15 per hour) would cost about $294 billion.

      This person has obviously never heard of overhead, something in which the government specializes.

      1. So are these people with guaranteed jobs actually going to do any work or are they going to forced around depending on what jobs are needed and where?

        1. I don’t see any mention of how they transition off the government payroll either. Of course, the author probably sees that as a feature.

      2. He forgot to calculate for absolutely everything other than direct wages.

        I suppose, actually, that since we’re talking about the government, they can just ignore taxes completely. And since the feds control medicare and medicaid, they can give them free healthcare as well.

        So, each worker would probably end up costing about twice as much per year, and never have an incentive to seek other employment because of the everlasting benefits of having a government job.

        And if other government jobs are any indication, they will be impossible to fire. So, in what way is this not a horrible and expensive boondoggle?

      3. So what happens when all of the people making 30k or less at real jobs quit so they can get one of these no-show gov’t jobs? And how about benefits and 401k plans and working your way up and all that stuff.
        I really wish you guys would stop posting this type of stuff because it’s so depressingly stupid that it ruins my day. (though it does give more credence to Lizzie in 2016 – The End of Times).

    7. We can look abroad and to the past to see real-life ways the government can run jobs programs. After its 2001 economic meltdown, Argentina created a jobs program…

      Stop right there. If you’re referencing Argentina on how to run an economy, then you have no sense at all.

    8. “Socialism means equality of income or nothing… under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” ?George Bernard Shaw

    9. Glanced at the Salon article. Pretty funny. If it wasn’t actually serious.

      Guaranteeing everyone a job! Perfect. This, of course, used to be called slavery, but what the heck…calling it a job sounds much better.

  7. Does anyone else think it’s strange that a random 4Chan hacker was able to get long ago deleted nude pictures of celebrities, but the government is somehow incapable of retrieving IRS emails?

    1. While I assume there are copies of the IRS emails out there somewhere, it’s easy to believe that Apple’s archival system is far more robust than whatever the feds use.

    2. If they have nude photos of Lois Lerner I hope they opt for non-disclosure.

      1. Don’t worry, their hard drive withh eat itself the same way Lerners’ hard drives did.

    3. The obvious solution is to federalize 4chan.

    4. I don’t find it hard to believe the teenagers on 4Chan are more skilled than government bureaucrats.

  8. Yes! Vote to make sure the Democrats keep control of the US Senate! That will… prevent another Ferguson. Somehow.

    You participate and vote, and you can have some control over what happens to your child and your country.

    I guess ~0.00000001% of votes cast is technically “some control.”

  9. They also open up a space for new possibilities in politics that break with the exhausted categories of Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, white and black, and so many other seemingly intractable antagonisms.

    According to Jennifer Rubin, Rand Paul is indistinguishable from Obama, so black people should just continue to vote the straight Democratic ticket if they truly want social justice.

  10. The solution to the status quo is to vote for the incumbents!

    1. After all this is what the independent millenials did.

  11. It’s interesting to me how few of the Tea Party Caucus voted for it as well (3 out of 48). I guess Free Stuff from the Feds is OK as long as it goes to law enforcement.

  12. You Know Which Other Republicans supported the use of militarized police in Missouri?

  13. Taking away their military toys won’t change their attitude that we exist to obey or die.

    1. You got it. The governing class isn’t interested in restricting the overall authority of law enforcement one whit which is where the rubber really meets the roadz.

  14. I guess Free Stuff from the Feds is OK as long as it goes to law enforcement.

    Nothing gets past you, does it Sherlock?

    1. If you’d like to expound on the inconsistencies of the Tea Party I’m all ears.

      1. I’ve got an idea! Why don’t you compare libertarians to Republicans, then attack Republicans!

        1. What are you talking about?

          1. He’s talking about your mom, Bo.

            She’s a whore.

            1. You mean I am actually your brother? Wow, that’s news!

              1. I have an actual question, pissy headbutting aside.

                Are you black? I don’t know why, but I always envision you as a tall, skinny black male with a buzzed head (still a little fuzzy) wearing horn rimmed glasses and a university t-shirt.

                I don’t know where I got that image from, but it’s stuck in my fucking head.

                1. I’ve always figured he was part of some griefer group based on his socon paranoia, so I picture him as a skinny Gay guy with a goatee and ironic hipster glasses. Who cares, but I think we all kind of form pics in our head based on on line persona.

                  To be fair, I’m a short, stocky (ha) straight guy of mixed race who passes for white, though I don’t really fit in any racial box.

              2. Also, since we’re both aggravating and pedantic, and love to say things for the express purpose of agitating people or garnering attention, YES, we could be brothers.

                  1. Crap, that would have been better than admitting my faults.

  15. does there ever come a point when blacks realize how stupid the Dems believe them to be?

    1. I’m sure that plenty do, but they keep their mouths shut for fear of being labeled an Uncle Tom.

    2. I don’t think most blacks were very exercised about the militarization angle.

      1. no most blacks did what the party and left would have them do – play the role of the victim. It’s tedious. Proggie policies have done more harm to blacks than anything that the worst of klansmen could have imagined.

        1. Militarization is a big issue, but so is bias in law enforcement. And when it’s your group being the target it’s not unreasonable to care more about that.

          1. every drip of evidence made the shoot look more and more justified. Even people on a site known for not being cop friendly noticed. And people here were the only ones talking about militarization, to the point that even the likes of Slate and Salon had to notice.

            Black areas tend to have much higher crime rates. Blame it on stupid policy that criminalizes things ought not be criminalized, but try and keep in mind that many of the morons in the CBC were just fine with crackdowns on drugs and the like. And as a bonus, they are also the leading proponents of making sure innocent blacks are virtually defenseless.

            1. The Ferguson Dept is all white in a neighborhood at least half black and had a record is stopping and arresting blacks at higher rates than whites. Of course blacks are going to be kind of focused on that

              1. at the very least, Michael Brown was a thief. He compounds it by walking down the middle of a road, which I suppose any cop would suggest is stupid. Then comes the rest. Just stop. Had Brown paid for what he took and walked on the sidewalk like anyone else, no one would even know his name.

                Perhaps blacks could ask WHY their neighborhoods are more likely to crime scenes, why their kids are less likely to graduate high school, why more of them will proportionally be on welfare. White cops did not cause this; but they focus on the outlier rather than the direct results of day to day things that stem almost solely from the very policies passed by the politicians they elect. So again, at what point do blacks figure out that they’re being played by the party?

                1. Regardless of whether the black crime rate is higher it’s pure collectivism to think that justifies stopping and harassing blacks more.

                  1. No, its not, Bo. It looks that way on the surface, but it isn’t when you think about it. Tough for progs to get past the surface I know.

                    Let’s use the example of the black Harvard prof Henry Gates breaking in to his own house.

                    1. Most thieves in the area are black. A fact.
                    2. Most homeowners in the area are white. A fact.
                    3. Most thieves wear hoodies and wear hats and carry backpacks. The hoodies and hats obscure their faces from cameras and the backpacks are where they put their stolen loot, which keeps their hands free.
                    4. Most thieves don’t have keys so they break in through windows.

                    Henry Gates was breaking into his own house wearing a hoodie and a hat, and carrying a backpack. The policeman didn’t shoot him, but he treated him as a criminal suspect.

                    Profiling? Sure, because only an idiot doesn’t profile. The cop had a couple of daughters at home. We pay him to protect our TVs with his life. We do so because we have to draw the line somewhere, so that is where we draw it. This is a bad trade on his part. But, he did his job, no one got shot but Henry Gates finally got to be Mr. Street Cred guy, which he exulted in.

                    So, yes, it is reasonable to be a little more suspect of thuggish looking young black men, than it is to say suspect….old white women.

              2. Here’s a bonus: Libertarians have for a long time also focused on racial bias in law enforcement!

                1. so fucking what? The teas are not the libertarian party; perhaps you noticed that all of them run as Repubs and what began as people pissed off at spending has morphed into being pissed at all sorts of things.

                  As to collectivism, give me a break. No one said a word about things being justified, and you continue to ignore the disconnect between policies that make blacks wards of the state and/or criminals, AND black support for the party that is frequently behind those policies. Like I said, hobby horse. It’s tiresome.

                  1. If I had my druthers blacks and everyone would vote LP. But none if that would preclude a focus after an event like this on racial bias in law enforcement. That community did not react that way because they feel happy, protected and treated fairly by the pd.

                    You act like blacks are stupid dupes because they responded to a policing event in a black neighborhood with focus on policing tactics re blacks. What they really should have done in your opinion is reevaluated their entire social welfare policy attitudes. That’s patronizing and silly. I’d like them and everyone to eventually do that, but I won’t insult them if they instead respond to what they see as the narrower issue at hand affecting them

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.|9.1.14 @ 3:04PM|#

                      “Regardless of whether the black crime rate is higher it’s pure collectivism to think that justifies stopping and harassing blacks more.”

                      ””’
                      Bo Cara Esq.|9.1.14 @ 3:21PM|#

                      “That community did not react that way because they feel happy, protected and treated fairly by the pd.

                      ….That’s patronizing and silly. I’d like them and everyone to eventually do that, but I won’t insult them if they instead respond to what they see as the narrower issue at hand affecting them”

                    2. So you think treating members of a group differently based on the actions of some in the group is the same as referring to a group’s motivations based on what many in the group express? If it will satisfy your pedanticism I will rephrase as ‘the people in that community that responded that way…and…if those who focused on racial bias responded to what they see as the narrower issue at hand affecting them.’

        2. Proggie and klansmen aren’t mutually exclusive.

    3. does there ever come a point when blacks realize how stupid the Dems believe them to be?

      Does a heroin addict really care that his dealer thinks he’s just a stupid junkie?

    4. Nope. Blacks are genetically incapable of voting for their best interest (meaning Republicans, presumably). They’re victims of themselves. Almost all of them. They nearly unanimously support Democrats because Democrats are so racist and make bad policy, and blacks are so stupid.

      Yep, winner of an argument there dude. I’m sure the blacks will be rushing to your side any moment.

      If they weren’t so universally stupid, I mean.

      1. It’s your beloved progressives who assume that blacks are inferior and in need of a helping white government hand.

        1. And blacks are so dumb for nearly universally supporting them, right?

          I mean, the party of Cliven Bundy is right there with open arms!

          1. It is purely rational to support people who give you free shit.

            As the old saying goes: Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on support of Paul.

            1. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on (the) support of Paul Tony.

              1. Those who use coercion can always count on Tony’s support. There’s nothing he abhors more than liberty.

          2. So you spend your spare time on a Libertarian website, not trying to convince anyone that your group of thugs has anything to offer us, but for the sole purpose of telling us that Repub thugs are worse than Dem thugs. Again, on a Libertarian website.

            OK. I think we get the point.

      2. SHUT THE FUCK UP

  16. Sewer Workers Battling A “fatberg” The Size Of A Boeing 747 Under London:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..32806.html

    The berg is apparently composed of baby wipes, turds, and cooking oil poured down sinks that then congealed.

    1. To balance that out how about an uplifting story of charity?

      http://www.businessinsider.com…..aid-2014-8

      1. I’m not too proud to say I’d love to have attended that event.

    2. “The berg is apparently composed of baby wipes, turds, and cooking oil poured down sinks that then congealed.”
      Is this what republicans and democrats are made from?

      1. This is what they are BIRTHED from.

        Their father is Satan, Lord of Hell and Filler of Senate Seats.

  17. If you’d like to expound on the inconsistencies of the Tea Party I’m all ears.

    Anybody who wants to pretend the so-called Tea Party is a monolithic cohesive political organization with a clearly defined set of core beliefs is a fucking retard. That means you.

    There. I threw your stick once, and now I’m done. Fuck off.

    1. But, but, but the Tea Party are all social conservatives! Sean Hannity said so!

    2. Oh I see, you and sarc were defending the Tea Party here.

      I is surprise

      1. they’re not defending the tea party, they are calling you out.

        1. Really? It sure looks like they’re busy furiously hand waving the fact that this bill got less support from the Tea Party Caucus than the Black Caucus.

          1. The same Tea Party Caucus which, you know, unlike the CBC, ostensibly against federal government meddling and largesse.

          2. the article is about the Dem Black Caucus, not the tea party. I know this because the title mentions the Dems specifically, the teas not at all.

            You’re not new here so it’s not ignorance. There is a consistent anti free shit sentiment here, whether it’s for the nanny state, police state, or some other version. Libertarians were against cops being militarized long before a few scribes on the left “discovered” the topic.

            1. So why be so upset when I point out the similar CTPC hypocrisy on the same vote?

              1. because the teas are irrelevant to the story and because you have a habit of focusing on your particular hobby horse of so-cons when they, too, are irrelevant.

                1. I don’t consider the Tea Party to be SoCons, though some overlap). But this article is not just about the CBC but this bill and about Republicans like Amash who supported it. When I clicked on the vote record link provided I saw that the TP support was, for a group that ostensibly opposes federal largesse, so low. And yet so many so upset. Let’s not be coy, there’s a lot if people here whose main libertarian principle is limited to hatred of liberal groups. But of course a consistent application of libertarian principles requires us to note when groups like the CTPC do wrong too

                  1. The tea party lobby isn’t the same as my local tea party members.

                    My local tea party members are not the same as the tea party members in the town over from me.

                    The tea party members in. . .well, I think you see where I’m going with this. You say TEA PARTY as if there’s some kind of actual, centered party. And there isn’t. It’s a loose conglomeration of people who all have diffrent ideas and viewpoints and just happen to gather together under a shared name.

                    I suppose you could say that about a lot of political organizations, but the Tea Party in particular is so decentralized that claiming the tea party did something is like claiming that Larry from down the block did something bad. Yes, I know my name is Larry as well, what difference does that make? We’re not the same person, and have nothing at all to do with each other.

                    Understand?

                    1. “You say TEA PARTY”

                      Actually, what I said originally was:
                      Bo Cara Esq.|9.1.14 @ 2:18PM|#

                      It’s interesting to me how few of the Tea Party Caucus voted for it as well

                      But it’s obvious from your comment above you’re just angry at me for some thing I’ve long forgot, so keep building points on the comments of the Bo in your head, by all means.

                      Of course, even if I didn’t say that, you and others seem to have no problem about generalizing about blacks from the votes of the CBC, so that’s not really your point, anyways.

                    2. Hang on now, that’s not true.

                      I’m just jumping on the bandwagon. Insulting you seems to be popular lately, and I’ve decided to take a crack at it.

                      If you didn’t know this, I’m sometimes an asshole. But really, no, it’s nothing personal and I’m not even slightly angry.

                      And it is a marker of my personality that I would find reciprocation of my attacks both amusing and emotionally fulfilling. I enjoy the back and forth, the silly and unnecessary bickering. So, I’d appreciate it if you’d up your game a little bit, and call me a few names that might actually cause me to crack a smile.

                      I admit, though, I did laugh when you insinuated that our collective mother was a whore. Good on you. 🙂

                  2. “Let’s not be coy, there’s a lot if people here whose main libertarian principle is limited to hatred of liberal groups. But of course a consistent application of libertarian principles requires us to note when groups like the CTPC do wrong too”

                    Can you even begin to imagine how tiresome you are?
                    People on here rip on the right more than the left because the left is in power and expanding their version of gov’t almost on a daily basis. Additionally, we’re bombarded with leftist ideology by most of the media and entertainment industries.

                    On top of that, the fucking article in question is about the Congressional BLACK Caucus and their reaction to the BLACK people rioting in Ferguson, so ofcourse here comes Bo to a libertarian site to rail about Rubpulicans because, um, you just enjoy being an asshole I guess.

                    1. I’ve explained all the commonalities of the two (and addressed the irrelevance that the caucus in question was a racial one) do I actually need to number them?

                      So even though both cases involve 1. congressional caucuses 2. of equivalent size 3. voting in the same way 4. on the same bill 5. seemingly inconsistent with their goals, this article was about a racial version of 1. so bringing up the other is just being an a-hole!

                      Wow.

      2. How would you define the Tea-Party, Bo? Be specific.

        1. How did I specifically define it here Pathogen?

          1. That is not an answer to my question. My question was.. “How would you define the Tea-Party, Bo? Be specific.”

            1. In this discussion I defined it to the Congressional Tea Party Caucus

              1. My question was.. “How would you define the Tea-Party, Bo? Be specific.”

                1. It’s interesting that some accuse me of trolling and pedanticism! What’s your point?

                  1. I assumed you were at least somewhat capable of reading for comprehension. My point? Without understanding how you define the Tea-Party, Bo I cannot follow your logic on why you would mention the TP at all, in an article which is critical of an identity based political organization, allegedly established to look out for the concerns and well being of an exclusive group of the American populace. Perhaps there is a connection?

                    1. Maybe because this article was about this bill, and how the CBC voted in a way that we not only disagree with but seems inconsistent with their stated goals, and lo and behold when you click on the link we find that on the same vote an equivalently sized congressional caucus also registered little support. Now, given that second caucus is one given to libertarian rhetoric you’d think that could be pointed out without so many people here getting upset

                    2. I’m not upset.. are you upset, Bo? Sooo.. are we calling the TP the “Congressional White Caucasus” now? Are they specifically founded in order to defend the white demographic from chronic, systemic abuse.. whilst quietly voting in favor of the tools, mechanisms, and funding that make such abuse possible? If that’s the case, I could see the relevance. But alas, you still haven’t defined your perception of the TP, you dodged that question entirely.. imagine that..

                    3. ” Are they specifically founded in order to defend the white demographic from chronic, systemic abuse.. whilst quietly voting in favor of the tools, mechanisms, and funding that make such abuse possible?”

                      So wait a minute, are you upset because you think that we should limit our criticism of groups that failed to support this bill seemingly inconsistent with their stated goals to race based caucuses? Because I’ve already explained how the CTPC low support on the same bill fits everything else

                    4. “So wait a minute, are you upset because you think that we should limit our criticism of groups that failed to support this bill seemingly inconsistent with their stated goals to race based caucuses?”

                      No.. But the CBC has stated that their goal is to further the interests of the African American community, and prevent systemic abuses similar to the injustices dealt by the police during the time the civil rights act became law. Has militarizing those LEO agencies accomplished any of those chartered goals? If the police depts. had access to the military hardware of today, would the civil rights marches ever succeeded? Why would the TP have any relevance in this discussion? You still haven’t defined your perception of the TP, either..

                    5. Because the TP is an equivalent congressional caucus which had equally low support inconsistent with their goals in the same vote on the same bill! That’s, what, five commonalities. Far from it being odd to bring it up in this context, it’s actually odd for so many to see it as incongruent.

                      As to your definition question, I answered it by noting it’s irrelevant unless you have some point to make, if that’s so make it.

                    6. “As to your definition question, I answered it by noting it’s irrelevant unless you have some point to make, if that’s so make it.”

                      No, you repeatedly dodged the question. My point was fairly straight forward, I didn’t inject the TP into the discussion. I didn’t draw the connection between them and the CBC. I didn’t label the TP as pseudo-libertarians. You did, out of the blue, entirely unsolicited and beyond the purview of the article. You insist that the TP is somehow germane to a discussion on the CBC’s inconsistencies, while dismissing my asking you to define *your perception* of the TP as irrelevant. Without such a definition, you just appear to be off on an inane rant about a TP tu quoque salad sandwich. I simply want to discern what I’m comparing apples to..

              2. Which is packed with congresscritters riding the Tea Party wave to get (re)elected.

                Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if relatively few Tea Party voters cared about police militarization, but it’s the same situation as the CBC (whose constituency definitely cares).

                It just goes to show that representative democracy is anything but.

                1. Sure, a pox on both if them seems the right answer, but you’ve got people falling over themselves here to handwave the lack of Tea Party support.

                  1. I didn’t see that anywhere, again, what actually happened was people falling all over themselves to point out what an asshole you are.

                    1. He’s more of an ass than an asshole.

                    2. The asshole is the part that shit actually spews out of.

                      That seems an awful lot like what we’re reading here.

        2. Stormy’s not gonna like Bo muscling in on his Tearritory, Path.

          1. Is it just me and Stormy that see the Tea Party as falling short of libertarian ideas? Are we supposed to ignore it when they do things we criticize the CBC for ?
            That’s interesting

            1. Soo.. Nick should write an article called.. “Tea Party as falling short of libertarian ideas” and compare it to the CBC, for Bo.. and Stormy?

              1. No, but you’d think a commenter could point out that the Tea Party Caucus had even lower levels of support for the measure without all of these 100% libertarians, not Tea Party lurkers getting upset about it

            2. The Tea Party, for all its flaws, isn’t hypocritically courting the votes of black voters outraged by events in Ferguson.

              1. But it does pitch to libertarians and says it opposes the scope if the Feds. So it’s a wee bit interesting their even lower support for this, right?

                1. “It” doesn’t exist. As Brooksie and sarc tried to explain to you above and yet keeps whooshing over your head is that The Tea Party is not a defined entity. It has almost become a rorschach test. Conservatives want to see it as a conservative entity, libertarians (at least at first) hoped it was a libertarian entity. Liberals want it to be an entity consisting of old racist, sexist white men trying to steal old people’s medicine and roads. “It” doesn’t exist.

                  1. The Congressional Tea Party Caucus most surely exists.

                    What, you say the CTPC may not reflect the entire Tea Party movement? Like how the CBC might not accurately reflect blacks as a whole?

                    Remember, all I did originally was to note the low support of another congressional caucus seemingly inconsistent with their stated goals. If we can rightly criticize one caucus for that, why not another for the SAME? Because they have Rs after their names?

                    1. Short Bo: Tu Quoque. TU Quoque! TU QUOQUE!!!!!!!!!!!

                    2. I have literally never seen you do this same jig when Reason has an article about the GOP or some conservative and someone inevitably brings up how the Democrat or liberal equivalent is worse, so why not stop your game?

                      But more importantly, I’ve spelled out the commonalities here. I literally came to the knowledge by clicking on the link Nick supplied in the main post, so it’s pretty Germane. If screaming ‘tu Quoque’ is the best way you can make sense about your buddies here getting so upset about mentioning that the CPTC did even worse on this than the CBC, well, scream away.

                    3. I have literally never laid eyes on Mount Everest, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Don’t presume to speak for me, troll.

                      I think that my thoughts about the “tea party” should be pretty clear from a post that you responded to, so your “I’ve never seen you do the same jig” line is even more tired.

                      Tu quoque is what you did, and tu quoque it remains. At least PB has the courtesy to mostly confine it to a simple BOOOOSH!!

                      If the article was “Tea Party Caucus doesn’t seem to be so liberty or financially friendly regarding the militarization of police” or some such then bringing up the abysmal performance of the CBC to obfuscate the point would have been a tu quoque. Does that help make it clear?

                2. Not really. I mean, if you bought the BS that “tea party” politicians were somehow a breed of New Conservative Man with 75% more libertarian in the box then I guess it would be interesting.

                  For those of us who saw the same opportunistic charlatans in new outfits it isn’t very interesting at all. Particularly when they are allied with the political party that has been so WoT/WoD gung-ho for so long.

                  There have actually been some surprising results in that any of them are meaningfully libertarian. As sad as it is there are no Democratic versions of Rand Paul or Justin Amash, which, were I a self-aware liberal, would concern and embarrass me greatly.

                  Also, my comment about Stormy had nothing to do with you at all. It is a running joke from before you descended from Mt. Lybertarius to save us all from the horrors of ideological impurity. You didn’t get the joke, and I’m not surprised you used it as a moral superiority launchboard. That’s your thing.

                  The reason that people jumped all over you for your TP comments are because 1) You have justifiably earned a reputation for deflecting from criticism of the left by trying to balance it out with examples from the right. You have straight up admitted this was your mission in the past and it’s tiresome. 2) This article was about the CBC and racial identity politics, mentions of republicans were incidental to the larger point yet you dove right for the Tu Quoque, and then shit up the thread defending it.

                  1. Er, I gather no one here really thought the CBC was going to be libertarian too, but it seems their inconsistency is worth noting here, so why not equivalent Republican groups doing the same? This article is not narrowly defined to racial identity groups- it’s about a caucus which not only voted in a way with which we disagree but inconsistently with it’s stated goals. If I notice that another caucus roughly the same size and with even closer political and rhetorical affinity with libertarians did the same in the same vote on the same bill is not like I’m pulling a PB and going ‘yeah but Bush and Iraq!!!!

                  2. Self Aware Liberal

                    Ah, yes, that most rare of creatures! I heard they’re mostly found riding on the backs of unicorns or prancing about the woods with Satyrs.

  18. We’re mostly talking about blue states, too.

    Giving the same Democrats even more cover for protecting the police unions isn’t the solution.

    I think a much more effective strategy, in areas where there’s thought to be a lot of discrimination and brutality by the police, is for volunteers who care to imitate the black panther citizen patrol strategy.

    http://www.forwardprogressives…..las-video/

    I know this story is really about Democrat politicians trying to capitalize on the mood of the moment, but if the black community really wants to police itself, give racist and predatory cops a good reason to think twice before brutalizing them, etc., then they should support the Second Amendment, open carry, and police themselves–like the Black Panthers did.

    Look at this image of the Black Panthers standing on the steps of the Washington State legislature protesting for their Second Amendment rights:

    http://theprogressivecynic.com…..amendment/

    This prog put a caption on the photo that says, “When Blacks wanted to carry guns in the Sixties to protect themselves from the police. [sic] The NRA supported Ronald Reagan signing the 1967 Mulford Act that restricted people carrying guns.”

    The perfect rejoinder to that statement is:

    When Blacks wanted to carry guns in 2014 to protect themselves from the police, the Democrats campaigned on denying them their civil rights.

  19. My prediction – voting to stop federal funding for police militarization won’t do much to stop police misconduct because (1) the police or the community may find other ways to spend taxpayer money to acquire those military items (2) the police don’t need military equipments to chokehold, taze, pepper spray, or beat up on homeless people.

    Grayson would employ similar logic to ban random guns for civilian. “These guns hold 15 rounds and they look military. They have no place in our community!”

    The truth is, the libertarians are buying into the logic that fuels the gun control crowd. There’s no evidence that armored vehicles and police dogs with bullet proof vests are killing massive amount of people. Police shooting is probably on the decline, and most of the time it’s justified. Or it’s impossible to prove that the cop was crooked.

    Sure, cops are held to higher standards. Would you feel different if a private police unit were militarized using private funds? I wouldn’t mind, if they followed the constitution.

    1. We just had a 2 week demonstration of why you don’t want cops to have military equipment.

      It’s not the “beating a homeless guy to death” that’s the risk with MRAPs and mounted machine guns. It’s the “mow down the protestors” that’s lurking around the corner.

      South America is filled with examples of what happens when the civilians are significantly outgunned, whether by cops or by a military deployed on the streets.

    2. there may not evidence that armored vehicles are resulting in mass killings, but there is all sorts of evidence that when you dress up people like combat troops, arm them like combat troops, and treat them like combat troops, there is a good likelihood they will behave like combat troops.

      We’re a long way from ‘protect and serve’ and when you could count on a cop not immediately looking at you as a threat but almost like a customer. I grew up in a small town, a college town at that, and cops were not the enemy back then. They were belligerent by default and they did not taze or handcuff people who were a bit on the edge.

    3. Grayson would employ similar logic to ban random guns for civilian.

      Well, that and the whole being raised by billionaire who lost his parents due to gun violence also had an influence.

  20. “Rally Blacks”

    Isn’t there an amendment or something that says we can’t do that anymore?

  21. “…demonstrates is how tightly related abstract concerns libertarians have about the government’s power and the very real-life fears of police harassment that many African Americans have really are.”

    So the same concern is “abstract” when libertarians have it, but real when blacks have it. Puke.

    “…So too are other issues of interest to both groups, ranging from school choice to sentencing reform to occupational licensing. As these sorts of newly recognized common causes filter through the culture..””

    “newly recognized” by who? To the idiots at the Paper of Record maybe, but not to anyone on here.

  22. Handy list of the first 355 traitors to put on trial and execute.

    Any traitor voting against the citizens should be removed from office placed in detention, then a quick trial and execution by firing squad.

    1. Why is that so many people opposed to the Okhrana just want to replace it with the Cheka?

  23. It sure looks like they’re busy furiously hand waving the fact that this bill got less support from the Tea Party Caucus than the Black Caucus.

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

    I thought I was pretty clearly expressing my complete and utter LACK OF SURPRISE at your feeble little “gotcha”. “So-called Tea Party politicians reveal themselves to be generally indistinguishable from mainstream Republican conservatives: Film at Eleven.” Why, I never!

    But we all know what a smarmy little ignoramus you are, so I’m not terribly surprised by how badly you whiffed on that. Preconceptions are a bitch.

  24. It’s not race. Cops are happy to taze/beat/kill white people, brown people,green people, dogs, little old ladies, pretty much anyone who is unlucky enough to be in front of their weapons when they’re in a bad mood.

    It makes no sense to be concerned about the CBC’s race baiting or their hypocrisy on this issue. They have no interest in remedying police brutality or even race relations. Of course they fan the flames with the boogey man of racism.

    Call the cops on a white man and when he reaches for his cellphone in a “furtive” manner, they’ll kill him just as dead and then get the same paid vacation and medal for bravery.

    I grew up in L.A. in the 70s/80s, with long hair, tattoos and Harley-Davidsons. Trust me, the cops have WAYYY more than just one stereotype they heap harassment/violence upon.

    I find the racial component of the Brown shooting offensively disingenuous, no matter who’s invoking it.

    1. They have no interest in remedying police brutality or even race relations.

      Of course. They would be out of a job if they did.

    2. Cops are happy to taze/beat/kill white people, brown people,green people, dogs, little old ladies, pretty much anyone who is unlucky enough to be in front of their weapons when they’re in a bad mood.

      You forgot children. And infants. Heck, it’s not unheard of for cops to beat the shit out of pregnant women for failing to obey, so you could add the unborn to the list.

    3. I grew up in L.A. in the 70s/80s, with long hair, tattoos and Harley-Davidsons. Trust me, the cops have WAYYY more than just one stereotype they heap harassment/violence upon.

      Funny. When I cut my hair short and hung up the torn jeans, suddenly the cops stopped interrogating me and demanding papers whenever they saw me walking down the street.

      Maybe if these black kids pulled up their pants and started walking like normal people, the cops might give them less shit.

      1. Yeah, it’s right there in the “social contract.” The “Conform or be cast out” clause has an explicit dress code. Can’t have people mimicking undesirables.

  25. Really? Wow I had no idea dude.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  26. “open up a space for new possibilities in politics that break with the exhausted categories of Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, white and black, and so many other seemingly intractable antagonisms.”

    One day, someone should go through the Reason archives and catalogue all the times a New Libertarian Era Was About to Dawn. It will make the Millerites look realistic.

    1. Millerites:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..ppointment

      1. Of course the exhausted Democrat and Whig, slavery and anti-slavery, North and South antagonisms vanished between 1854 and 1865 and libertopia resulted.

  27. You lamesters have nothing better to do on Labor Day than argue with Tulpa?

    1. What are we supposed to do? Get drunk and have a barbeque like a union member?

      Communist!

  28. Yes there are systemic problems with law enforcement in general, they are out of control and have been for a long time. They need to be seriously reeled in, no doubt. But saying that there is racial disparity in the criminal justice system is intellectually dishonest at worst, naive at best. Let’s look at New York City murders. 70% of them are committed by blacks and 25% by Hispanics. That’s a disparity for the victims, I don’t know about for the persons doing the murdering and receiving the penalties.

    As for libertarianism breaking out in Ferguson that’s a pipe dream. There is no way these factions will ever work together on anything despite the fact that it would make good sense to do so in many cases.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.