Police

Black Lives Matter Organizer DeRay McKesson on Libertarians, Police Unions, Campus Free Speech, and Why He Hasn't Reached Out to Rand Paul

A conversation with the activist who finds some common ground with libertarianism but diverges sharply on other issues.

|

DeRay McKesson and Reason
Anthony L. Fisher

DeRay McKesson has been the most prominent face of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement since the summer of 2014, when protests over the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department triggered a national conversation about the militarization of police, the lack of transparency or available data pertaining to the use-of-force, and the racial disparity in prosecuting petty crimes and non-violent drug violations.

Though BLM is probably best known for its style of protesting, which includes shutting down political rallies, blocking traffic, and even storming into restaurants during brunch hours, the movement has also done some incredibly valuable reporting in the public interest.

In creating Campaign Zero, BLM activists utilized the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requesting use-of-force policies from the U.S.' 100 largest cities' police departments. In posting this material on a single easy-to-navigate website, BLM completely streamlined the web of local and federal bureaucracies, which largely exist to keep the public from knowing too much.

McKesson insists he's not a "leader" of the movement, but rather, a highly active organizer. He's quick to credit the efforts of his allies, who he says particularly took up a lot of the slack during his recently concluded unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination for mayor of Baltimore. Over the past two years, he's made innumerable appearances on major media outlets and met with President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and a number of other elected officials, including some Republicans.

Rarely (if ever) seen clad without his blue vest, McKesson, 30, has spent much of his career in public education, as a 6th grade teacher in Brooklyn and a senior director in the Minneapolis public school district. He briefly taught as a guest lecturer at Yale University's School of Divinity last year, and a few hours after we met up in a midtown Manhattan coffee shop last month, he received an honorary doctorate from The New School.

McKesson and I had a spirited conversation where we discussed the common cause shared by libertarians and BLM when it comes to police accountability and the systemic racism which informs much of the war on drugs, as well as the areas where the the two movements diverge, particularly when it comes to defining and defending freedom of speech.

McKesson says he won't be endorsing either Democratic nominee for president. But he agreed with a comment Sanders made at April's Democratic debate in Brooklyn in which the Vermont senator described Hillary Clinton's 1996 use of the term "superpredators" —referring to young people she deemed incorrigible when defending the Crime Bill her husband signed as president as racist.

McKesson says, "I know she tried to distance herself from it, but she said it. She said it in a specific context in a specific climate that it seems certain she is aware of."

He also says it's nice that former President Bill Clinton has admitted that the Crime Bill had "dire consequences" which contributed to the crisis of mass incarceration, but that "his acknowledgment doesn't undo the damage."

Considering some of the most vocal allies in favor of criminal justice reform and an end to the drug war have been libertarian-leaning Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), I wondered if McKesson had reached out to them for a meeting.

Though he credited Paul with being "one of the first candidates" to make an issue of civil asset forfeiture even before Bernie Sanders made it a pet cause of his McKesson says he hasn't reached out to Paul.

"When I taught a course at Yale," he explained, "all people heard about it was a reading I assigned called 'In Defense of Looting,' which people haven't even read and I think is a really interesting piece. Rand said something like 'I wouldn't send my child to a school where they teach that.'"

McKesson says he'd have no problem meeting and working with Paul, who he credited with using his platform to talk about how civil asset forfeiture and the drug war are wrong and disproportionately affect poor people and minorities, adding, "We might not have the same goals, but hopefully we'll be happy with the same outcomes." But, McKesson says, once Paul dropped out of the presidential race, "it seemed less urgent to meet with him."

Citing the fact that he agreed to an interview with Reason, McKesson says he and BLM have "proven that we want to talk to people, we want to work with people." He says, "some people want to only talk about class and not about race and I think that's a challenge because class is racism's center point," but that "our success will be about how we build coalitions and making people understand that this work impacts them, too."

In addition to Campaign Zero, BLM launched Check the Police, which also relies on FOIA-procured documents, in this case detailing major cities' police contracts, which frequently reveal a shocking level of privilege and immunity enjoyed by police officers. McKesson thinks "the media has been slow to report on it, partly because it's a lot of data."

He also pushes back on the suggestion that the problem with reforming police unions is analogous to other public sector unions, such as the teachers' union, who tend to circle the wagons and protect the worst actors in their ranks rather than reform from within.

McKesson argues, "The police in most cities have been almost wholesale unwilling to acknowledge that there's even a problem." He adds, "I've worked in two public school districts, Minneapolis and Baltimore, one as a senior leader. And while we might not always have agreed with the union and we might have had deep differences, they came to the table. There was some compromise, there was some give-and-take. Neither one of us would get what we want, and we might disagree on what the course of action should be. The police are literally like, 'there is no problem.' That is different."

In an interview with New York magazine last year, McKesson said that when it comes to the debate over free speech on college campuses, he didn't believe every idea deserved to be awarded the same merit or right to be heard.

In that interview, Mckesson described "free speech" as "code for this notion that there should be a 50-50 split for how we discuss topics" and added that he believes "Students are protesting in order to create spaces that promote dialogue and rich conversation. They are protesting to bring the First Amendment to campus in ways that actually speak to and acknowledge the black experience."

I offered that it's fair to say that some ideas are dumber than others, and that certainly there's a difference between shouting racist taunts at people and expressing potentially retrograde viewpoints, but I wondered if he thought the concept of free speech should provide space for people to be wrong or offensive? McKesson replied, "Yeah, but being wrong and being bigoted or racist, those are different things."

McKesson continues, "It's important to acknowledge the danger when we provide an academic venue for racism. It's interesting to hear people push the quote 'free speech' narrative in this way. They deny the speech of the people who disagree."

He adds, "You believe that all speech not endorsed by the government but even in public settings should get equal airtime, then that means that protesters do, too. That's a form of free speech. So, sure, if that's the world people want to paint. But I don't believe that's reality. People actually say you shouldn't uninvite a speaker. That's not the same time of free speech that people are proposing. Because if they were, they could be invited and boycotted, right? That would be a form of speech. So, I don't think people ask that question in an honest way, I think they ask, 'how can you believe in free speech and believe in protest?'" 

Offering that I am fully in favor of the right to protest, I asked him to consider that protests which include shouting down a speaker are different because they deprive the speaker of his/her right to self-expression. McKesson disagrees.

"It's still free speech," he counters. "You're saying you don't like the way the free speech of protesters manifests itself. Which I respect, I get your point of view. There's a way that we can exercise the right to free speech that puts us in a place where we can learn and grow even if that's uncomfortable. I get that. Which is different from saying you have a commitment to free speech, I don't think they're the same thing."

I brought up President Obama's recent commencement speeches, where he argued that bad ideas should be exposed, debated, and defeated in the arena of ideas, and that shouting somebody down creates martyrs out of people with bad or wrong ideas, but McKesson was unmoved.

"I would say don't say you have a commitment to free speech," McKesson offered. "If you have a commitment to free speech, you would be equally protective of people shouting that person down because that is also free speech. What you're saying is when that tactic comes up, it's the wrong tactic. And that makes sense to me, I respect that, that's fair. I don't agree with it fully but I get it. But it's not a commitment to free speech."

But what happens when the other side gets to invoke safe spaces, I asked, referring to a recent incident at George Washington University where a Palestinian flag was ordered to be removed from a dorm room window because it made some other students uncomfortable. I wanted to know if McKesson could see how this becomes a vicious cycle when anyone can claim offense or that their feelings were hurt, and how giving institutions the authority to police "correct" speech will inevitably lead to his and his allies' speech being abridged, as well.

McKesson says, "That is really dismissive of people's real struggle. If City Hall started projecting swastikas, no one would say 'You know what? Free speech.' People would say that is wrong." I countered that I didn't believe that was analogous to my argument, which was essentially that people should have to deal with their political opponents' right to express things that make them uncomfortable as long as it's not directly advocating for violence or harassment.

Unmoved, McKesson says, "I think you get to say that from a place of immense privilege. If someone in walks down the street in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, the way that impacts your life is very different from the way it impacts mine. To you, you'd say 'that's fine, he should be able to do whatever he wants.' I exist in a legacy of people where that outfit means something that's not about hurt feelings, it's not about people being upset today. It's about an entire broken history that for you to dismiss as something that should be able to be in the world is really sad."

At this point, I felt it necessary to make myself clear that I felt such behavior is wrong, should be shamed, and deemed socially unacceptable. But, I added, if someone walked down the street wearing a swastika, I think that exposes them as a racist and an idiot and hopefully somebody that would be ostracized from society. I just don't think it should be officially illegal and that's where he and I diverge. McKesson says he respects my position, but thinks "laws on hate speech and hate crimes do important work in a world that has been rooted in racism and bigotry since the inception of this country, which was not founded on ideals of justice."

Referring to the presumptive Republican nominee, McKesson says, "It appears that Trump's platform and his ideas are firmly rooted in hatred and bigotry and that's unacceptable. It doesn't seem that he's fit to lead. But Trump's presence is a reminder that the work of organizing must continue."

He adds, "no matter who the next president is, we've got work to do."

Advertisement

NEXT: Bill Kristol's Clownshow Has Made the Moobs-Stripper Party Look Sane

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. Rarely (if ever) seen clad without his blue vest

    #BlueVestLivesMatter

    1. They do indeed. DeRay McKesson openly admits he supports campus speech codes, and Anthony Fisher still tries to cozy up to him. What did Lenin say about fellow travelers?

      The comments below are equally stupid. The fact that blacks are disproportionately arrested for violent crimes is because they commit such crimes, like murder, at higher rates, as FBI crime data shows. This is not the product of police racism, real though that may be, because it is the victims of those crimes — usually also black — reported those crimes and identified the perpetrator. Police are not making up phony murders and rapes to pin on black people.

      43.7% of all rapists in state prison were black, as were 22.8% of people incarcerated for lesser sexual assaults, according to a 1997 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, compared to about 13% in the general population. See BJS, “Sex Offenses and Offenders,” http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF.

      Blacks, who are only 13 percent of the population, commit nearly half of all murders. See FBI, “Crime in the United States,” 2010.

      Disproportionate minority arrests are not the result of racism, but identification of perpetrators by minority victims. Minority rape victims themselves identify their perpetrator as being minority in most cases.

      1. He’s just another rotated that wants to crush anything that isn’t in line with his ideas.

        1. ‘Progtard’, not ‘rotated’. Fucking auto correct.

          1. Fuck this guy. Shouting someone down is a form of free speech? Ok, lemme pay someone to follow this assmunch around with a loudspeaker and talk over him any time he tries to say something. Free speech, right? You can’t separate free speech from property rights. When someone rents a hall to give a speech, they have a right to kick out any screaming douchebags that interfere with that speech.

      2. To which I would reply, it is less a racial aspect than a wealth aspect. I fully believe the African-American community has been seriously duped by the Democrats. I believe that most of the policies implemented in the name of helping the African-Americans works to keep them right where they are, in the ghetto. In doing so, the Dems have created a perpetual voting base. When someone tries to point out that Dem economic plans are ineffectual, they double down on the mantra that ” we just need more of program XYZ, but those racist Repubs won’t let us.” The rich commit white-collar crimes, the poor commit violent crimes. But I cannot believe that our genetics (race) predisposes whether we are criminal or not.

        1. ^This. Let’s take a look at the likely causes for the discrepancies, rather than trying to deny reality.

        2. So much this. Racism is an ineradicable problem. Man is a racist being. Either we deny reality and live in a climate of racial paranoia while authentic racism festers under the surface, or we admit to it, air it out, put it to bed, and strive to reform the institutions in which it does the most damage. Democrats have a lot to answer for.

        3. It’s not simply poverty. In Michigan, for example, Detroit and Flint are full of poor, black residents and crime rates are very, very high. Many northern counties, on the other hand, have lots of poor white residents (often living in old trailers or houses every bit as run down as those in Detroit), and in those places crime rates remain low. Would you hang out at a bar around the corner from this place on Saturday night?

          https://goo.gl/HEfI5s

          In Northern Michigan? Sure, why not. But a neighborhood like that In Detroit? *Hell* no.

          But that certainly doesn’t mean that genetics is the explanation. Instead, it seems pretty obvious that the ‘honor culture’ of inner cities is responsible (probably imported from the ‘honor culture’ of the south where their parents and grandparents came from during the great migration).

          1. There are serious social pathologies in the inner cities due to decades of damaging policies that just don’t exist in rural areas because the policies and population densities are not the same.

            1. There are serious social pathologies in the inner cities due to decades of damaging policies that just don’t exist in rural areas because the policies and population densities are not the same.

              BOOM. I fully agree.

            2. I don’t believe it. That is, I certainly believe there have been a lot of bad policies, but I don’t believe that is the source of ‘honor culture’ in inner cities. Violence and ‘honor culture’ have long been features of many (white) areas in the south, too:

              http://www.chicagomag.com/Chic…..n-Culture/

              And it’s not just rural areas — look at Marquette in the UP. There has been long-term economic stagnation due to the declining mining industry. Median incomes are far below the national average — but so are crime rates.

              1. “And it’s not just rural areas — look at Marquette in the UP.”

                loololololololololololololol

                The UP is rural AF, and Marquette is barely a blip on the GPS at 20k people. There are colleges that have more people than that. If you think Marquette is urban you are from Canada or something.

          2. I remember making points like this once and being forever derided as a racist by the douchier elements of reason. Reminded me of when a student in one of my classes said “ya, but should we publish results of research if they’re negative toward a specific racial group?” I started laughing, but soon realized she was serious and that about half the class thought she made a good point…

        4. The democrats co-opted the black community into a gutter trash culture of victimhood. Blacks were doing much better in terms of literacy, employment, crime stats, etc., before the democrats ‘helped’ them.

        5. I fully believe the African-American community has been seriously duped by the Democrats.

          Yeah, no shit. LBJ was a clever son of a bitch.

          -jcr

        6. To which I would reply, it is less a racial aspect than a wealth aspect.

          Absolute bullshit.

          My mom grew up in a family of 9 in a house without running water in Appalachian PA during the Great Depression without anybody raping or murdering anyone.

          1. Meanwhile, stupid black criminals now post their crimes on Facebook and WorldStar…

            They ain’t “poor”.

      3. “Blacks, who are only 13 percent of the population”
        I watch Family Feud a lot and I’m pretty sure it’s 50%.

  2. When a very, very narrow demographic of a particular race and age range are responsible for a tremendously disproportionate amount of murder and violent crime in general, why is it racist to point that out, or even to use a term like “superpredator”? I mean, is it racist because Predators wears dreads or what?

    1. When cops disproportionately arrest blacks, the arrest statistics lose value. See, for instance, the record in DC, where a study showed that blacks and whites smoke pot at the same rate, but blacks are busted for possession twice as often.

      San Francisco, that progressive bastion of political correctness, has a little scandal on its hands because the police were caught being racist in private with each other. Do you not think that spills over into their policing habits?

      If you think “arrested for driving while black” is not real, you are in denial.

      1. Oh wait, I see how I misunderstood you.

        When a very, very narrow demographic of a particular race and age range are responsible for a tremendously disproportionate amount of murder and violent crime in general

        You mean white cops.

        Gotcha.

        1. No, your suggested is refuted by where the disparities are. The disparities in arrest rates by race are smallest for crimes like smoking pot, and biggest for crimes unaffected by police racism, such as murder and rape.

          43.7% of all rapists in state prison were black, according to a 1997 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, compared to about 13% in the general population. See BJS, “Sex Offenses and Offenders,” http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF.

          Blacks, who are only 13 percent of the population, commit nearly half of all murders. See FBI, “Crime in the United States,” 2010.

          Disproportionate minority arrests are not mostly the result of racism, but identification of perpetrators by minority victims. Minority rape victims themselves identify their perpetrator as being minority in most cases.

          Racism is real in things like victimless crimes and pot arrests (where police discretion matters more because there is no victim to demand prosecution; discretion begets racial double standards), but it is a tiny factor in the overall disparities in arrest and conviction rates by race.

          1. Police are not making up phony murders and rapes to pin on black people.

            Ohio Man Beaten and Stuffed in Closet for Four Days Awarded $22 Million

            Huh, look at that willya? No, not murder or rape, but give me a few more seconds and I could come up with probably a few dozen more cases where the cops framed someone, often black, on false charges.

            Anthony Fisher still tries to cozy up to him

            I’ll give him credit for trying to get through to him.

            I’ll give more credit to Fisher to exposing what a dishonest and loathsome character that McKesson is, who is nakedly seeking power over others, and is someone who shouldn’t be taken seriously at all, like someone who overtly rationalizes their own pea-brained racism.

            [Waits to see if FSM gets it.]

            1. “No, not murder or rape”

              So why bother writing a diatribe about how you think it proves anything ?

              1. Oh, Danny. Go to school. Learn something.

                1. Well, in school I learned that stuffing someone in a closet isn’t raping or murdering them. No doubt it is horrible, but when discussing rapes and murders it should be left out, if you’re trying to be honest.

                  1. Well, in school I learned that stuffing someone in a closet isn’t raping or murdering them.

                    Gosh, nothing gets by your well-honed intellect, does it?

                    By all means, drop some more fat beats of wisdom on us.

                    1. “By all means, drop some more fat beats of wisdom on us.”

                      Ok, I’ll start by posting a link to something that isn’t rape or murder in a thread specifically about rape and murder, you won’t have any problem with that right?

                      Fuck off clown.

                    2. Ok, I’ll start by posting a link to something that isn’t rape or murder in a thread specifically about rape and murder, you won’t have any problem with that right?

                      Are you seriously so dense that you can’t connect the dots of a claim that cops don’t make up false charges and a cite, *from today* that invalidates the claim of LEO honesty and integrity?

                      Seriously?

                    3. So you’re saying you’re so stupid that you don’t understand why rape and murder are broken out from those statistics, you’re really that fucking stupid?

                      Because it really looks like you are.

                    4. [Pats Danny on the head. Walks away.]

                      Come back when you’re worth my time.

                    5. It’s pretty obvious now you don’t even understand this discussion, I originally thought you were malicious but you’re just dumb.

                    6. “the claim of LEO honesty and integrity”

                      I don’t see anywhere in this thread such a claim being made.

                      Because it wasn’t. No one claimed that. Your shitty intellect and poor reading comprehension conjured that up out of thin air, because you are legitimately too stupid to understand what is being discussed.

                      This entire subthread is a monument to your lack of intellect and petulance.

                2. “Oh, Danny. Go to school. Learn something.”

                  Things clownish assholes say.

                3. Watch out. He IS Iron Fist after all.

            2. Why are you quibbling over symptoms of a greater evil? The extent to which police are bigots and the extent to which police work offers outlet for bigotry are two sides of the same coin.

              1. Why are you quibbling over symptoms of a greater evil?

                Is this to me? 0_o confused.

              2. I thought the discussion in this subthread was murder and rape, two crimes which have more credible stats associated with them.

                I saw no point in muddying the waters, but others like you seem to.

                1. Danny, there are a couple of places where certain libertarians start ignoring facts. Although we tend to be the most objective due to a belief in individual liberties, for some it goes right out the door when facts or statistics show either:

                  A. That African Americans are more likely to commit violent crimes than other groups,

                  B. When life, scientifically, begins or

                  C. That religious people are actually capable of being intelligent.

                  I’m sure there are others, but those are the big 3.

                  1. You forgot the pants shitting when anyone suggests that having open borders is a bad idea.

                    1. Oh ya! Good point

                    2. You forgot the pants shitting when anyone suggest that having open borders is a good idea.

                    3. You forgot the pants shitting when anyone suggest that having open borders is a good idea.

          2. Looking at how many blacks are in prison for murder and rape doesn’t tell you the percentage of murders and rapes that are committed by blacks. It tells you the number of SOLVED murders and rapes that are committed by blacks. Maybe because the police work harder to convict blacks, or whites plea bargain to lesser crimes, or it’s just easier to convict black people so why waste time trying to convict a white that might get off anyways because the jury demands a higher standard of evidence.

            1. Clearance rates for murders among blacks are significantly lower than for whites, taking into account those groups typical victims. This suggests that actually, there are EVEN MORE black murderers than the statistics show, not FEWER.

      2. Friend of mine and probably soon-to-be cousin-in-law (sale at the hyphen store) got jumped by three marines at a local bar and sent to the hospital. The (white) police arrested (black) him and let the (white) marines go free–but not before they had to evacuate the bar following another fight the marines started while the police were questioning my friend.

        The short version is that, had they realized that he has a pretty solid grasp of his rights and that his fiancee’s uncle is a circuit court judge they probably would have: mirandized him, allowed him to contact an attorney, released the relevant information of the attackers so that he could file charges, taken photographs of the several bleeding bite wounds on his neck, arm, and torso, and made the arresting officer fill out the report. Needless to say, one of the uncle’s former clerks is taking up this case with gusto.

        But yeah, no racist cops just bad black people. Totally.

        1. You assume that’s race and not an issue where the they were three marines. Or without asking how many other marines were in the bar.

          1. Three marines total, although apparently one of the marine’s parents (they were all in their early 20s) is Somebody and pulled some strings for his son. And the bouncer straight up had to stop in the middle of telling the responding officer about how he had to drag the marines off my friend to break up another fight they started while the interview was happening. This was in a bar/restaurant in a large hotel, so we’re talking about 200 people, give or take, at the time. The second fight was so bad that the cop who responded to the first one had to call for backup to evacuate the bar. They then questioned those guys–following their identification by my friend and the bouncer, who corroborated his story–and told them they were free to go. Cuffed my friend and took him to the hospital and then to jail for the night.

            He eventually got the police to release the names of the attackers three days after the fact so that he could fill out the charging documents only to be told by the commissioner himself that he wouldn’t accept them. Incidentally, two of the attackers have multiple convictions for assault and giving false statements (presumably regarding same) on the books.

            Given the state of our local constabulary, I’m sure incompetence and laziness could be at play, but I’m just sayin’, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

            1. one of the marine’s parents (they were all in their early 20s) is Somebody and pulled some strings for his son

              I think that pretty much sums up what happened there.

            2. Because we all know blacks would never circle the wagons to protect criminals and defame victims

              1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

              2. :Snitches get stitches”…

        2. bleeding bite wounds on his neck, arm, and torso

          Jesus, the zombie plague has started in the Marine Corp? We’re doomed.

          1. That was kinda my reaction when I saw him. I’ve known several Marines, and I was always under the impression that while they wouldn’t be above starting a fight over nothing, pride would prevent them from ganging up on someone or cheap shit like biting a prone opponent.

        3. What city? Chicago, Detroit, NYC? Who runs those cities? Keep voting for them and you will continue to get the same results. Most police unions support which party? Remember the law President WJC signed in to law? Now the BLM are screaming but continue to ‘support’ the same party.

          “According to data provided by the nonpartisan research organization MapLight, police unions and law enforcement lobbying groups have spent millions since 2008 to influence elected representatives and candidates, most of them Democrats.”
          From the “Truth Out . Org” website.

          1. Annapolis, Maryland.

            1. There is the answer to your question, “although apparently one of the marine’s parents (they were all in their early 20s) is Somebody and pulled some strings for his son.”, 7 of 8 councilmen are democrat. The republican mayor has been in office since Nov 2013. 3 previous mayors were democrats enacting laws that are now used against “people of color”.

        4. Because anecdotal evidence is way strongest than empirical evidence…

      3. I’m sure there are racist cops, but do you seriously think that the fact that black males, who make up about 6% of the population, yet commit nearly half of all violent crimes, is just an artifact of racist cops disproportionately targeting blacks?

        1. What do you not understand about arrest statistics being distorted by racist cops? Are you having trouble with the English language this morning, or is it your grasp of logic and how to connect thoughts?

          WTF, dood. Srrsly.

          1. Are you seriously saying that in spite of the statistics showing that 6% of the population are committing nearly 50% of the violent crimes and murders, that it is all just racist cops skewing the statistics by orders of magnitude and all race actually commit these crimes proportionate to their population? Where is your basis for such an assertion? Talk about a lack of logic.

            1. …that it is all just racist cops skewing the statistics by orders of magnitude ….

              “Just racist cops” is not the most likely answer. We don’t know the actual answer, because if the government which collected the crime statistics possessed any damned self-awareness then we probably wouldn’t be having this problem.

              Occam’s Razor suggests that the most likely answer isn’t race but vulnerability.. Cops are predators. They prey on those who can’t fight back, or who they perceive as being less able to defend themselves. We have laws in such abundance and arrangement as to serve for constant universal exposure by citizens to police predations. Some fruit are easier to pluck than others.

              Poor people, prostitutes, the homeless, children and the elderly, the mentally ill… Tell me, do you see this as the typical pattern demographics for targeting by police? I certainly do. The news cycle seems to support this theory (though we all know our little cognitive biases sometimes get in the way).

              A poor black man up on drug charges may be convicted because of racism. I suspect that the racism isn’t the point even in this example; it’s more likely that race is one of a number of vulnerabilities that signal to feral thugs, “Here is an easy mark. No one will care.”

              What is decidedly not the most likely solution is that the government is and has only ever arrested and convicted people who were guilty criminals.

              1. Once one concedes that the police routinely arrest whomever they want with no care for law and order, and prosecutors prosecute for motivations other than law and order, the statistics must be acknowledged as flawed. We know those statistics to contain bullshit. Now it’s just a matter of how much weight one cares to give known bullshit.

                I don’t give it much, personally. According to FBI methodology, blacks are statistically criminal and the FBI itself is statistically pure and only makes good choices.

                Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

                1. It’s all well and good to say that the numbers are bad, but the scale of the disparity seems, on its face, difficult to explain entirely via bias.

                  Especially in the case of, say, murders, it’s difficult to understand the premise that blacks and whites actually offend at the same rate, because there would seem to be a lot of missing white murder victims.

                  I do not generally accept the conclusions of people who cite these numbers, but if there’s a good response to them that explains the scale of the disparity USING STATISTICAL METHODS then I haven’t heard it. This makes me suspicious, because, if done properly, it would tear the heart out of this argument.

                  1. The War on Drugs, yo.

                    President Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs for one specific reason: to decimate his perceived political enemies?”the anti-war left, and black people. We know this. And it has only worsened exponentially over time.

                    Prisoners incarcerated just for the obvious WoD charges compromise large portions of our famously inflated prison population. We know this.

                    Minimum wage laws and occupational credentialism implemented and designed specifically to crowd blacks and “lesser” demographics from employment markets. We know this. And minimum wage laws and occupational credentialism have only worsened exponentially over time.

                    The New Deal and our Great Society, meant from the start to foster government dependence. And that push to dependence has only worsened exponentially over time.

                    And yet blacks are unemployed dependent criminals because it’s just how those people are. This is known.

                    Sit down and let me tell you a story of The Economic Theory of Everything. This may take a moment.

                    1. B*I*N*G*FUCKING*O

                      Distorted and perpetuated state incentives for the win.

                    2. I agree, it seems likely that the above trends (especially the war on some drugs) lead to a disparity in lifestyles, which leads to a disparity in violent offense rates.

                      But that seems a totally different argument than “the difference in offense rates is due entirely to police racism in arrest and therefore conviction rates”?

                    3. But that seems a totally different argument than “the difference in offense rates is due entirely to police racism in arrest and therefore conviction rates”?

                      the only explanation for them is white racism.

                      I cannot for the love of me figure out what this means. The pair of you seem to be concluding that I think “racism” is the causative factor here. Considering I kicked this off with a manifesto about why “just racism” is not the most likely answer, I admit confusion.

                      Show me where communication broke down. We can repair it.

                    4. Show me where communication broke down. We can repair it.

                      The communication appears to have broken down around the following area :

                      1) blacks statistically offend in crimes-people-really-care-about-and-notice at a much higher rate than whites
                      2) “your side” seems to suggest that either these numbers are totally invalid (which means that people don’t actually care about or remark on murder and rape, which seems unlikely) or that if they are valid, they are due to systemic racism
                      3) “my side” doesn’t care what the disparity is due to, because what it is due to is not germane to our argument (or mine, at least..) unless it is somehow entirely due to factors unrelated to actual offense rates
                      4) “my side” only cares that the statistics do in fact show that “blacks” murder and rape at a rate significantly disproportionate to their population, and that the way those statistics are formulated do not appear to potentially allow for enough variance to eliminate the disparity

                      Waving your hands and saying “the statistics are bad” seems, to “my side”, to require asserting that there are either a bunch of white-perpetrated murders and rapes no one cares about, or that a VERY large number of blacks convinced of rape and murder are wrongly convicted. Both of these seem like “extraordinary claims” which require extraordinary evidence.

                    5. 2) “your side” seems to suggest that either these numbers are totally invalid (which means that people don’t actually care about or remark on murder and rape, which seems unlikely) or that if they are valid, they are due to systemic racism

                      CZmacure, bolding mine.

                      “Just racist cops” is not the most likely answer.

                      Me. This sentence followed by 1500 words describing why racist cops is not the most likely answer, vulnerability is.

                      I can’t stop you from concluding that I think racist cops are the issue, I’m just buggered as to how you’re arriving at this position based on me saying they aren’t.

                      “Just racist cops” is not the most likely answer.”

                      “Okay, so you think it’s just racist cops.”

                      I mean what?

                    6. You and JW both referred to systemic racism, as express through policing, laws, lack of opportunity, and an assortment of other things. Perhaps I’m using the words “systemic racism” to mean something they don’t, because you apparently summarize “systemic racism” to mean only “just racist cops”?

                    7. As an aside, OMG THE REASON COMMENT SYSTEM IS UNBELIEVABLY TERRIBLE AT SUPPORTING COMPLEX THREADED DISCUSSIONS.

                      LET’S FOCUS ON THE *REAL* ISSUE HERE, PEOPLE!

                    8. As an aside, OMG THE REASON COMMENT SYSTEM IS UNBELIEVABLY TERRIBLE AT SUPPORTING COMPLEX THREADED DISCUSSIONS.

                      We should sue.

                      We’re solving problems here, Welch! FUCK!

                    9. … you apparently summarize “systemic racism” to mean only “just racist cops”?

                      This might be the crux of the communication issues. I don’t define “systemic racism” at all. It’s like nailing Jello to a tree.*

                      I cited Nixon. Now, one could surmise that Nixon inventing the drug war and aiming it at black people with malice aforethought was racist. Seems racist on its face. But Nixon’s stated goal was his personal political benefit. He might indeed have had a raging hate-boner for black people but his intent wasn’t “Get them black people!” His professed intent was securing political power.

                      What is systemic racism? The policing, laws, lack of opportunity and an assortment of other things are not confined to one race, nor do they originate with one. Those things, which can be defined as systemic racism, can also be recognized as mere tools of social engineering. When applied to pressure points, these tools cause stress fractures along the lines of the culture’s weak points.

                      The same tools that could explain black unemployed criminal dependence can be used to explain a poor white skyrocketing death/suicide/drug abuse rate. Policing, laws, a lack of opportunity and an assortment of other things.

                      Peoples is peoples.

                      *You can sure try, but efficacy will be limited.

                    10. Those things, which can be defined as systemic racism, can also be recognized as mere tools of social engineering.

                      Oh, if your point is that the racist seeming result of their policies does not necessitate a racist MOTIVE then sure, we agree.

                      But JW appeared to be arguing a different thing, that the statistical difference in murder (reporting/arrest/conviction) rates is not due to the fact that blacks actually do murder more people.

                      You appear to be arguing the far more reasonable position that to the extent that they do murder more than one would expect with a naive statistical 1:1 proportion to their representation in the population, that it is due to a wide assortment of societal forces, not their inherent racial/genetic corruption.

                      As I am not a racist or biological determinist, your point is easy for me to accept. I do think that american black urban culture (with tons of help from the media and government machines) has accepted many of the most self-damaging self-perceptions and thereby bears some responsibility. But that’s a statement about culture, and not race…

                    11. Nixon didn’t invent the drug war, he just put it into overdrive. The drug war in the USA started with a much earlier bunch of progtards, called the “temperance movement”, who wanted to outlaw the wine and beer that the eye-talians and the paddies were guzzling while they ogled nice protestant girls and sold them into white slavery! Horrors! (Sales of fainting couches went through the roof!)

                      -jcr

                    12. Now, one could surmise that Nixon inventing the drug war and aiming it at black people with malice aforethought was racist.

                      Nixon signed the Harrison Act in 1913? I did not know that!

                    13. Here in Columbus, OH duirng the 90’s, we had a black police chief, a black mayor, a black majority city council, a black majority school board, and even a black fire chief… somehow a black population of 25% committed 57% of the murders because- “STRUCTURAL RACISM!”

                    14. This is just a theory. I’m not an expert. But this is what looks likely to me once the bullshit and feelz gets stripped down to the social engineering mechanics.

                      Minimum wage laws and occupational credentialism successfully barred portions of “lesser” demographics from employment markets. Government dependence provided an unsuccessful panacea to this centrally-derived problem. People turned to unregulated markets free from minimum wage laws and occupational credentialism in an attempt to self-correct their employment issues. In America, these are known as black markets.

                      Enter the drug war, invented by Nixon as a weapon against the anti-war left and blacks. First, enact hurdles to employment and then target them specifically as criminals for their off-market employment. Then wonder why people keep accepting so much of this dependence we keep pushing.

                      The unions had a short-lived success in raising the potential options for trades and low-tier workers. And then they got cocky and ate the golden goose. The decimation of this sector was should have been of economic benefit. See my previous thoughts on robots and automated ordering kiosks. But in You Can’t Do That America, we’ve forbidden people from innovating the jobs and skills to replace the jobs lost. The jobs were dead weight, and yet we replace them with nothing because innovations might upset some college buddy’s apple cart. Politicians’ wives’ nephews have to eat too, you know!

                    15. And none of that addressed specifically the murder rate disparity, I know. I have something to address that with and ran out of character space. Now I see there are replies, so put a pin in the murder rate disparity while I get caught up and then I’ll get back to that.

                    16. Couple the Drug War with what we know about the roots of violence (education, alienation from the justice system, etc) and the system is set up to put blacks in prison.

                  2. For example :

                    MARTIN: You found that 86 percent of least year’s homicides involving a white victim have been solved compared with 45 percent of murders with a black victim and 56 percent of murders involving a Hispanic victim.

                    By the FBI stats, 82% of whites are killed by other whites, and 86% of cases involving such a victim have been cleared. There doesn’t seem, on their face, to be enough play in these numbers to create a giant mass of ignored-by-police white murderers.

                    1. * in the order of 86%, the 86% number is actually NYC-centric, to be clear.

                    2. The Economic Theory of Everything – Murder Rate Disparity

                      Again, the drug war. Young black men account for a statistically disproportionate number of murders/homicides in this country for economic reasons.

                      Namely, that we’ve barred an industry from civil courts for redress of harm. People are people. What do you do when your business is broken into and your inventory stolen by your competitor? Well, if you’re Wal-Mart then you call the cops and get all the assorted alphabet agencies designed to handle this shit on the phone. If you’re Mr White, you break some kneecaps until the competition realizes you make an economically unpalatable target.

                      It breaks down to basic vigilanteeism. When you bar people from redress through a civil institution, they seek it through an uncivil one. Does this mean that every murder/homicide was justified? No. Just that every one was seeking redress.

                    3. Asking yourself whether there would be fewer murders if black people weren’t so violent is the wrong question. Ask yourself instead whether there would be so many murders if drug dealers could just sue instead.

                    4. Because everyone knows all drug dealers are black.

                      I’m a white guy who sold pot for 15 years… the only person who died was a guy who ripped me for $12K- he was white, and plowed a tree while drunk.

            2. “Them niggers are just violent savages, yo.”

              1. Cogent argument, well thought-out. I am now convinced the statistics are 100% wrong, and the only explanation for them is white racism.

                1. Excellent. You get it.

                  Why is it that purported libertarians suddenly become collectivists on their pet subjects?

                  1. Holy shit. You have to be trolling, nobody can actually be that thick. Good job, you got me.

                    1. We may be talking past one another.

                      And yes, that was trolling. I thought “nigger” would give it away. But that’s what’s being presented here by more than a few. I may have unfairly lumped you in with them.

            3. WTF, you’re wasting your time on this subject. Most of these people are not capable of rationality on this subject. The obsession with crooked cops overwhelms any sense of reality they have.

          2. When did Reason get taken over by SJWs?

            We’re not talking about arrest rayes. We’re talking about conviction rates. And who cares about weed? We’re talking violence. Although if you really wsnt to go there I have no doubt that blacks are more brazen with public weed consumption and distribution

            1. Can’t get a conviction without an arrest, can ya?

              And of course you don’t care about stats which counter your story, and of course you’re going to throw out made-up stats which you have “no doubt” sound good in your own head.

              1. You are the one who is ignoring the statistics.

                43.7% of all rapists in state prison were black, according to a 1997 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, compared to about 13% in the general population. See BJS, “Sex Offenses and Offenders,” http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF.

                Blacks, who are only 13 percent of the population, commit nearly half of all murders. See FBI, “Crime in the United States,” 2010.

                These are not “made-up stats.”

                These convictions are not based on police racism, but victim identification in the case of rapes.

                1. You are clearly an unthinker who believes the racist government lies because all races really commit violent crimes in proportion to their population, you racisty racist!

                  1. I’m kinda gobsmacked at the level of credibility that some people here are giving to state statistics on crime.

                    There’s no way the gubmint could fuck this up. None!

                    1. If you have better more accurate statistics, let’s see them, as well as the basis for believing they’re more accurate.

                    2. Holy fuck, dude. Have you forgotten the PoliceOne forums?

                      Just spend some time on the Internets to see all of the horror stories about scumbag cops. If you don’t walk away from that with a feeling of dread and absolute distrust for the police, then you might want to re-evaluate those priorities.

                      Seriously, the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel scraping they’ve rounded up today’s LEOs from, plus the parasitic relationship between law enforcement and the state for more and more resources, combined with the disastrous drug war should dispel any notion of fairness in any kind of data gathering from cops.

                    3. No shit, but the disparity is far too large to solely be the result of police unjustly arresting innocent black men. If everyone commits crimes in approximate proportion to their percent of population, where are all the missing white murders, rapes, and assaults? Where are the cops getting all the victims they are unjustly pinning on black men? Logic dictates it just isn’t possible to blame such huge disparities on racism alone.

                    4. What I’m saying is that the system is too fucked to place any trust in the accuracy of their statistics.

                      Inner-city black culture has some real fucking problems, esp. in terms of the cheapness of life. Some of that is self-induced but most of it is from the modern welfare state and the savagery of the drug war.

                    5. So you finally admit there is in fact a large disparity in crime rates. Thank you.

                    6. I never said that there wasn’t. Poverty is always more crime-filled than higher economic strata. It’s pretty much a universal anywhere.

                      I questioned the validity of the assumption that the stats are accurate and are representative of an ethnicity. There are too many countervailing forces at work, both at the state and cultural level, to give the data any significant credence.

                    7. And let’s focus on the theory trotted out by several here: “Them niggers are just violent savages, yo.”

                    8. What I’m saying is that the system is too fucked to place any trust in the accuracy of their statistics.

                      “Any” accuracy? It seems unlikely that statistics about murders are COMPLETELY inaccurate?

                      That’s not usually how statistics work? They have things like Confidence Intervals which describe their variance and likely error rate? You seem to be making a statement that does not seem logically sustainable, including for many of the reasons WTF cites…

                    9. You seem to be making a statement that does not seem logically sustainable, including for many of the reasons WTF cites…

                      I think I’ve made my views on the confidence level pretty clear.

                      You choose to give the stats credence. I don’t. Neither of us has any information on the methodology and validity of the data that aggregates into the statistics.

                    10. You choose to give the stats credence. I don’t.

                      The problem is that your interpretation of reality seems to require a lot of victims of white murderers which don’t seem to exist. “Our” interpretation of reality does not.

                      tl;dr – For the statistics to be as wrong as you appear to claim they are, there would have to be a lot of uncounted white murder victims. As the significant majority of whites appear to be murdered by other whites and the significant majority of those murders are cleared, this seems unlikely.

                      even tl;dr – “Even if there’s somehow actually twice as many white murderers as the statistics say, there’s still a disproportionate number of black murderers.”

                      (Disclaimer : I mean, this should go without saying, but I am obviously not saying that there is anything about their black “race” that makes them murderers, because RACE IS A FICTION THAT DOESN’T FUCKING EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE HEADS OF RACISTS.)

                    11. The problem is that your interpretation of reality seems to require a lot of victims of white murderers which don’t seem to exist. “Our” interpretation of reality does not.

                      Nope. Not saying that at all. Hamster pretty much nails it above (or below, I’ve lost track).

                      All I have been saying is that the criminally low standards of policing, institutional racism, corrupt city gubmints, the welfare state and the drug war so heavily distort the data, to the point of having no confidence in them as it relates to inner-city blacks.

                    12. I’ll go one further and state that I see the issue as so large and pervasive, that this space is insufficient to flesh it out.

                      I’m not saying that violent crime isn’t an issue in the inner-city; I work in Bal’mer fercrissakes. I’m saying that I don’t believe that the data is too corruptedh to warrant confidence in it and to draw any conclusions from it.

                    13. Shit.

                      “I’m saying that I don’t believe that the data is too corrupted to warrant confidence in it and to draw any conclusions from it.”

                    14. But, almost all those “corrupt” city gov’ts are overwhelmingly black and elected by blacks.

                      Lotta “self-hatin” negros out there….

                    15. Some of that is self-induced but most of it is from the modern welfare state and the savagery of the drug war.

                      Which are both “self-induced”… I lived in my car for over a year- never took a penny of “welfare”. No food stamps, no EITC, no Section 8, no AFDC, no TANF, no WIC, no “Unemployment”, no free school lunches- or breakfasts, no “midnight basketball” or any useless gov’t job training program, etc. ad nauseum.

                      Meanwhile, I did sell pot for 15 yrs– and nobody died… them darkies sure are dumb, right? /sarc

                    16. I must correct this- While living in my car, my 5 AM morning wash (before my job) was in a “public” park… Thank God for the Welfare State!

              2. Yes, clearly nearly every murder pinned on a black man was a frame up by crooked cops. Hell, I’ll bet half of those ‘murders’ were hoaxes.

            2. Not just conviction rates, victim report statistics match the conviction rates.

        2. Where are you getting the 50% statistic? Arrest records, right? Just sayin’.

          1. Convictions show the same disparity. But I guess that’s just racist jurors.

            1. Could convictions follow the same story because you can’t convict someone who wan’t arrested? Maybe? Possibly?

              It’s been a while since I’ve seen so many unthinkers in such a short time in one place.

              1. It’s been a while since I’ve seen so many unthinkers in such a short time in one place.

                Projection much?

        3. You dodged his point. The disparity in arrest rates for marijuana use, for instance, is small compared to the gap in usage. Whites are slightly (like, what, 1-2%) more likely to use per studies. The point was that such stats don’t come even close to counting for the racial disparity in the crime statistics.

          Further, studies like that examine a nuanced issue in the aggregate and try to sweep differences in the cases under the rugs. Like what we are seeing in schools and their supposedly disproportionate punishments for black students.

          1. Bad policies abet racism. BLM wants to tackle the racism, libertarians want to tackle bad policies. BLM will fail because it’s fundamentally unserious, libertarians will fail due to bureaucratic intransigence and groups like BLM.

      4. See, for instance, the record in DC, where a study showed that blacks and whites smoke pot at the same rate, but blacks are busted for possession twice as often.

        Because, in general, whites tend to smoke pot far more privately than blacks.

        1. Back that hypothesis up with some data and maybe you’ll be taken more seriously.

          1. Back up your apparent hypothesis that the huge statistical disparity in arrest/conviction rates is due to racism.

            1. Got my stats from a published study. Where’d you get yours?

              1. Cite? Should be interesting if it actually shows what you’ve been claiming.

                I got mine from the FBI crime statistics compiled by the Bureau of Justice.

                1. Crickets ..

              2. Your “stats” can back up his theory, too, though.

                Your theory: blacks get arrested more because the criminal justice system is based on racism (or something similar)
                His theory: blacks get arrested more because they do it in public more often.

                So what we need are more stats. Preferably from top men.

          2. I submit the movie Friday as exhibit A.
            /adjust prescription glasses without lenses

    2. Heck, yesterday I heard Black Lives Matter was hot up about the gorilla being killed. You’d think they wouldn’t want to touch that w a 10′ Pole, or even a 10′ Czech!

    3. I thought Predators wore propellers.

  3. I think you get to say that from a place of immense privilege. If someone in walks down the street in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, the way that impacts your life is very different from the way it impacts mine. To you, you’d say ‘that’s fine, he should be able to do whatever he wants.

    Immense privilege is so badass it kicks Free Speech’s ass.

    1. When is the last time the KKK lynched somebody? Why is there this notion that black people are correct to live their lives in constant fear of being killed or attacked by a white person or the KKK? A white person is more likely to be killed or assaulted by a black person than the other way around, yet white people who are afraid of black people are called racist. It is indeed illogical to fear any race or person, as crime is at record lows, but it goes both ways.

      1. I have a co worker that is African American. Nicest lady you’ll meet most of the time and we get along. We get along only because I don’t call her out when she points at her palms, indicating how it’s white, every time I get a new contract. Of course we’re both minorities here in Japan, but that doesn’t create a Sister Souja moment between us.

        1. You live a weird live, Mr. Sparkle.

      2. colorblindkind is obviously a racist shitlord.

      3. To the point at which they allow Klansman to exercise tremendous power over black lives without having to move a finger, like the fake racial incidents that pop up now and again. You are giving a tiny cohort of spiteful idiots the fear they want and otherwise wouldn’t have.

        1. “You are giving a tiny cohort of spiteful idiots the fear they want and otherwise wouldn’t have.”

          Actually that applies to both sides, really. Two faces of the same coin.

    2. If someone in walks down the street in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, the way that impacts your life is very different from the way it impacts mine.

      Yeah, McKesson starts wondering how a Klan member got the gate code.

      1. I respectfully disagree with Mr. McKesson’s statement. The only impact an idiot in a KKK outfit has on Mr. McKesson’s life is the impact HE gives it. There’s no physical difference between a white sheet and a black suit.

  4. BLM, La Raza, and the modern version of the KKK. All inherently racist and divisive organizations.

    1. No, only KKK is racist, because intersectionality and white privilege.

  5. So, basically, he’s not a libertarian, has no libertarian sympathies, and, except for some very narrow issues, is opposed to libertarian policies.

    No reason not to give him a favorable write-up in a libertarian magazine.

    1. Trump is worse. That is all.

      1. But is Trump worse than Nikki? If so, how is that possible, given that Nicole is ‘the worst’?

    2. This was favorable?

      1. It certainly wasn’t condemnation. As it should be. BLM are cut from the same kind of cloth as the traitor Obama.

        1. It “should” only be condemnation if your goal is to rile people that already agree with you.

          If you actually want to be persuasive, then a neutral-tone that let’s someone’s words and actions speak for themselves is more likely to persuade people.

  6. McKesson and I had a spirited conversation where we discussed the common cause shared by libertarians and BLM

    “We might not have the same goals, but hopefully we’ll be happy with the same outcomes.”

    The libertarian sees this as a common cause. The BLM guy openly admits, in the interview, that they don’t have the same goals.

    Citing the fact that he agreed to an interview with Reason, McKesson says he and BLM have “proven that we want to talk to people, we want to work with people.”

    Have you? I don’t think BLM blindsiding random white people on college campuses demanding they say “black lives matter” is wanting to work with people, or the traffic blocking or practically any other tactic this group uses (with the exception of the database, kudos on that).

    “Students are protesting in order to create spaces that promote dialogue and rich conversation.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Then a straw man. Then a privilege check. Look, it’s fine if you want to believe we share a ‘common cause’ with BLM, but don’t be surprised when they turn on you.

    1. Haven’t been in the States for decades, but WTF happened to people? If I recall correctly, dudes would pop you in the face if you rushed at them and started screaming.

      1. Yeah, I’d like to think I would. But you’re way, way outnumbered in these mobs. And campus ‘police’ aren’t going to do anything ‘cuz racism.

        1. You either fight them now or wait for true racists like Golden Dawn to fill the void.

          1. That works for me. Racist idiots kill each other while I sip a mint Julip. Not too much simple syrup.

            1. Will you be chewing on sprig of wheat, giving out old timer advise?

              1. There will also be whittling and stories that go nowhere while focusing on pointless details.

                1. Looks like rain.

                  1. Warm today. Warm yesterday, too. Even warmer today.

                    *plays banjo*

                  1. The weather’s the only thing the jews don’t control

                2. “Back then nickles had a bumblebee on them. Give me five bees for a quarter, you’d say.”

            2. That works for me. Racist idiots kill each other while I sip a mint Julip.

              This is the proper response to Trump and Sanders’ backers threatening to riot at the convention. Knock yourselves out.

      2. If someone rushed at me screaming, they would be lucky to continue breathing.

  7. So he thinks a dorm window Palestinian flag is equivalent to a city hall swastika?

    Methinks he is unclear on the difference between private and government.

    1. He’s unclear on the principle of freedom of expression as well. Or, he’s just a disingenuous little shit playing on white liberal guilt. I’m leaning towards the latter.

      1. He makes that clear with the privilege checking.

      2. Calculus is difficult and unnecessary when your family is loaded. Much easier and much more fun to tromp around campus screaming at people.

      3. …he’s unclear about anything other than ‘I WANT!’.

  8. Fuck this asshole and fuck his movement.

    1. More cult-Marx racist violent negro nihilism.

      1. “negro nihilism” Good punk rock band name.

        1. Isn’t Racist Violent Negro Nihlist one of the X-men teaming up with Negasonic Teenage Warhead for the Deadpool sequel?

    2. Came here to post this.

  9. I wanted to have an open mind about ‘In Defense of Looting’. But it’s just filled with shit like this.

    On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, “opportunistically,” and in excess. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable?

    Looting is ok because something about white supremacy and because the looters’ lives become more comfortable.

    1. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable?

      That’s what I keep saying, but, noooooo, apparently I’m not allowed to buy black people to clean the house and do the yard work.

      1. I think you’ll find that rentals are fairly reasonable.

      2. Having Halle Berry as a sex slave sounds appealing.

    2. Who wrote this, and where do they live??

      1. Willie Osterweil is a writer, editor, and member of the punk band Vulture Shit.

    3. I too tried to read that drivel with an open mind. In summary I got this:

      America is wholly racist and white supremacist
      The media is wholly driven by white racism
      The civil rights movement never would have happened without violence
      Violence is justifiable as long as it is against white racism

      The only thing of value that came from that tome was a clear demonstration that black racism and violence is justifiable because of an overwhelming imposition of white racism in everything.

      I’ve never before seen such a justification for abject racism in my life.

  10. Wow. You know, I started off hopeful, but that dude just reaffirmed how shitty the BLM thing is. He’s obviously an intelligent guy, clearly very motivated and very ambitious, although his grasp of logic is tenuous at best. He’s also, like a lot of these “social justice” types, primarily interested in using bullying, shame, and fear not to cure injustice but to make sure the people gaining from it look like him.

    He’s accusing Trump of being a racist and espousing hatred. Maybe he is and maybe he does, but at least he has the grace to deny it; this guy is proud of being a bigot. He just comes out and says that speech he finds offensive should be stifled. He straight up tells Fisher that his opinions are invalid because he’s white. He should change the group’s hashtag: Only Black Lives Matter, or maybe Only My Black Life Matters.

    Short version: dude is a bigoted would-be authoritarian who’s taking his cue from people like Al Sharpton, and he and his fellow travelers–to the extent they agree–are potentially worse than the police they’re protesting.

    1. BUT WE HAVE THE SAME GOALS

      1. Not really. I want police held accountable. He wants white people to shut up.

    2. ^This.

      I honestly wanted to see something that would convince me that BLM could be an ally.

      Absolutely not. They’re the predecessors to jack-booted citizen thugs.

      If he is at all indicative of that movement (and being the de-facto leader, I assume that’s the case), these folks should be immediately ostracized (non-violently if possible, and without government’s “help”).

      1. My guess is that there’s a significant portion of the movement that are these upper-middle class Cosby kid motherfuckers like this guy (nice vest brah #TheStruggleIsReal) who have liberal arts or social science degrees and aren’t afraid to use them. It’s that combination of the stereotypical millennial only-child entitlement along with waking up one day and realizing that you’ve been horribly oppressed and YOU ARE OWED.

        1. A-fucking-men.

          I grew up in a lower middle class black household and my parents told me that my goal and only goal when I went to college was that I get an education then get a good job with that education. I wanted to go to a protest on campus (when I was a flaming liberal) during my sophomore year and my parents basically told me to cut that shit out and be at the library studying.

          1. Now THAT’S parenting.

            I will do the same for my daughter.

          2. Not sure the library is the place to study anymore.

            1. So, BLM is proving the eternal truth: protestors are annoying as fuck, and protest movements draw people who have pathological needs for attention.

    3. Maybe he is and maybe he does, but at least he has the grace to deny it; this guy is proud of being a bigot.

      Trump is the product of racialists like this. All of that racial tension festering ignominiously under the spackle of PC naziism has finally burst like a rancid carbuncle in the form of Donald Trump. BLM and Trump deserve one another.

  11. I’m for free speech, but….

    *sigh*

  12. What an asshole.

    What kills me about these sorts is that they are more then willing to make any speech that offends them against the law but never once think that those same laws they use against people whom they disagree with will some day be used against him and his ilk.

    1. Politics is social myopia. These people don’t think or don’t care that they’ll someday fall out of power, because the point of power is to exercise power and power isn’t permanent so you exercise power good and hard while you have it.

    2. He’s a thug at heart. So is the rest of BLM.

  13. This guy is a pussy that wants to use the jackboot of government to silence his political adversaries. He needs to learn what principles are and then he needs to learn that they apply to everyone and not just his group.

    Now I could be wrong and his founding principle might just be “whoever has the muscle has the power”. If so, he’s in some dubious company.

    1. I’ve always told people that a true believer of freedom defends even the worst sorts. Not because they agree with them but because the law that is used to crush those who disagree with you, may be the same law that crushes you tomorrow.

      1. This guy hates freedom. He wants his opponents forcibly silenced and wants to exact revenge on today’s white people for the sins their ancestors committed against his ancestors. And he wants to collectivize guilt for the evils carried out by police officers that have institutionalized and consolidated their protections by use of a heavy-handed and excessively progressive-minded civil service apparatus.

        He’s an utter waste of space from a libertarian perspective. And I share virtually no common ground with him as his starting point (principles) and end goal (revenge and control vs more individual liberty) are polar opposites of libertarianism.

        1. This guy hates freedom.

          I used to think liberals (back when I considered myself a liberal) don’t hate freedom per se, they hate conservatives for coopting the ideal of freedom and perverting it to mean things conservatives like. And that’s probably true to an extent, but progressives (now that I no longer call them liberals) really do appear to hate freedom for its own sake. Freedom runs contrary to social engineering, rewards the people they despise, and fails to lift up the people they cherish. They don’t understand that freedom is not a motive force but the absence of compulsion.

          1. I have had two co-workers within the last year say, explicitly, that people are too stupid to be free and that they (people) need to be controlled, with violent force if need be, for their own good.

            Both are public school teachers… in a rather conservative state even.

            If we ever want to rid the world of these types of people it will either be with violent force in an attempt to defend our rights when the system comes to knock down our door (I pray I die before that option comes) OR we must be willing to enter schools and crowd out this type of claptrap and start to challenge it during the formative years of the next generation of kids… even if that means taking a government job as a public school teacher.

            1. Is this a Poe or sincere? I can’t tell.

              If sincere… you do realize your response is basically agreeing with them, right? Your first idea is using violent force to control “these types of people”, and the second assumes that the “right” teachers during “formative years” is all that’s needed to make sure they have the right thoughts. That assumes that children are too stupid and are easily manipulated.

              So if this is sincere, I’m not sure where you actually disagree. You might disagree on *who* is “too stupid to be free”, but you don’t seem to disagree on the solution.

              1. Way late to this, but here I go with this dead horse–

                If we ever want to rid the world of these types of people it will either be with violent force in an attempt to defend our rights when the system comes to knock down our door

                Note that it says ‘defend’ when attacked, not ‘seek out and destroy’. Got that?

                we must be willing to enter schools and crowd out this type of claptrap and start to challenge it during the formative years of the next generation of kids

                You seem to think the above means propagandize

                But this–

                people are too stupid to be free and that they (people) need to be controlled, with violent force if need be, for their own good.

                seems to be the ‘claptrap’ referred to as being something we need to get rid of.

                It appears that you’re the one who thinks that’s a bad idea.

                1. This is America. You can “defend” yourself by calmly going back to your car, getting your gun out of the car, going back to the bar, and shooting the guy you were arguing with in the back.

                  So sure, I’m not being charitable. That’s a fair cop. But to be fair, people that claim to want to “defend” themselves with lethal force haven’t given me much reason to be.

                  And yes, if you are entering schools with the specific purpose of crowding out opposing viewpoints, you *are* talking about propagandizing.

                  “It appears that you’re the one who thinks that’s a bad idea.”
                  Sure. Because unlike you guys, I think kids learn most of their values and morals at home, and schools fail at that. It’s much ado about nothing.

                  Or, in other words… if your kid grows up to have views you don’t like, blame yourself, not the schools they went to. Take some fucking responsibility for your own messed up kid.

        2. This guy, and BLMmin General, would be perfectly happy enslaving the white population.

      2. Which is what the ACLU used to do, defend the civil liberties of all regardless of how repugnant they may be. Not anymore, though. A once-great organization reduced to just another leftist outfit.

        1. We went from the left defending the Illinois Nazis at Skokie to “get some muscle over here” in a pretty short time span.

          Not to mention we went from the left mocking idiots to wanting them banned.

          Not that I’m surprised. Power corrupts, and all that. These people defended speech until they got into the seats of power in college faculties. Now they want to spread their views by making it illegal to oppose them in an open forum.

          They’re thugs. Jackboot thugs who have no place but on the fringes of an open society…where those that oppose them on principle can mock them as much as possible.

          1. Wanting people banned while simultaneously raising the profile and esteem of those people by orders of magnitude. It really does just leave me incredulous how short-sighted and dumb lefties behave.

          2. Ohnoyoudidn’t use the word “thug” in the comments of an article about a person of color.

            omg, so racist.

    2. Is this not a manifestation of cult-Marx violent racist garbage?

      You know that I despise and loathe the state and its privileged purveyors of violence, be they white, black, brown, red or yellow.

      But I also despise and loathe group think gurus and racist gasbags like this guy. If black lives mattered so much, why not work on the greatest source of black homicide – young black men?

      1. I don’t want to get into collectivizing guilt so I’ll leave that alone. But if he can’t see that the institutions he wants to expand (as long as they have goodthinking people in charge) are the cause of most social ills then he’s a hopeless case.

  14. So, yeah, if he can’t acknowledge or even understand that stopping the things he says he wants to stop starts with dialogue, and he is a leader in the movement, then the movement is doomed to failure from the start to achieve any stated goals. Stifling open debate on these issues will not solve them.

    And, yes, you will never get an activist/teacher to talk smack about teachers unions unless it’s that they’re too weak.

    1. He has some good, I don’t know, blind spot in that story.

      BLM “When I was a teacher negotiating with the teachers union I didn’t get a solid gold fiddle, but I did get a smaller silver fiddle.”

      Me: what about tax payers negotiating with teachers unions?

      BLM: *9 seconds of silence

      1. Sadly, McKesson’s audio recording of the interview will not reveal any common sense

        1. It will once Katie Couric edits it.

    2. Then he would actually have to acknowledge that the union he supports is actively screwing poor black students by offering them a shitty education.

  15. and I guess this story about a black grievance monger is as good a place as any to post this revisionist tripe. Fucking ESPN. Go back to writing about sports like your (many former) readers want.

    Beware: you might catch the retardation if you make it to the end.

    1. Crunching survey data, a team led by Stanford University researcher Josh Pasek concluded that Obama lost about 5 percentage points of the vote in 2008 because he is black.

      Uh. This is an odd statement to make about a person who isn’t even nominated if he isn’t black, and won in large part due to racial block voting by blacks who didn’t vote before 2008 and didn’t vote after 2008.

    2. I would love to excise all ESPN channels from my satellite package.

  16. “McKesson says he and BLM have “proven that we want to talk to people, we want to work with people.””

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha–oh shit, excuse me, I think my spleen actually burst.

    I had a discussion with my friend about this — he said that he disagrees with their tactics, but they have a legitimate goal. I said that BLM as a movement or an organization behind the movement has been irreparably tainted — if they want a serious discussion on issues of police brutality, disproportionate impact of drug laws, civil asset forfeiture, BLM needs to disappear and another organization has to take up the platform. Calling the system inherently racist and shouting down anyone who disagrees with your thesis gives me no reason to listen to you.

    However you stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Rubio had a good quote about it during one debate — “You can’t negotiate with a party that’s not coming to the table in good faith.” A desire to arbitrarily define what speech is actually acceptable and free is the definition of bad faith.

    1. They have legitimate goals if you view them through a smudgy telescope from the moon. Once you begin hewing down to what they actually want, to double down on the failed social and economic policies that rendered their situation what it is, you realize it’s not about addressing police brutality or economic inequality but about stepping into the shoes of latter-day racialists.

      1. Their goal is to exact revenge on me for the sins of people I never met but happen to share a skin color.

        And they are gimmiedats. Same as the minimum wage people. Same as the free college people. Same as the free health care people. Same as any group of people that wants to use the force of the state to steal from someone else and give to them. They don’t value free association. They don’t value free speech. They don’t value private property rights. They don’t value anything that expands individualism of those who have more than they do.

        They are anathema to libertarianism or liberalism, accurately defined.

        1. The main body of the left didn’t always hate freedom, but it was behind the curve of the progressive vanguard comprised of racialists and feminists and hardcore socialists. Those marginal groups are fruiting a generation actively and avowedly hostile to liberty. There is no home for libertarians on the left; the token moderates are an alienated fringe that doesn’t want to admit they’re no longer lefties.

  17. You believe that all speech ?” not endorsed by the government but even in public settings ?” should get equal airtime

    No, just an equal chance to attract an audience. If no one shows up to listen, or no one is interested in trying to set up a speech in the first place, then that’s fine. We shouldn’t be mandating a 50/50 split, we should be creating a climate in which anyone can speak, and then let the “marketplace of ideas” decide.

    1. ” we should be creating a climate in which anyone can speak”
      In modern America, there are precious few people that can’t “speak”.

      For that matter though, is there a single recent person that’s been disinvited, shouted down at an event, or so-on wasn’t immediatly afforded the opportunity to get thier message out anyway? Whether it’s being asked for interviews and comments, doing their own press releases, writing on their blog, on twitter, who doesn’t have the ability to get their message out even if you don’t have a podium on a college campus?

      You may not *like* that some people use their Freedom of Speech to drown out others, but while the Westboro Baptists might have the right to their chants of “Thank God for IEDs”, the biker gangs also have a right to rev their engines and drown them out.

      1. “You may not *like* that some people use their Freedom of Speech to drown out others, but while the Westboro Baptists might have the right to their chants of “Thank God for IEDs”, the biker gangs also have a right to rev their engines and drown them out.”

        There’s a difference between also using your right to speak or make noise in a public place versus disrupting someone else’s event or preventing them from speaking in the first place. I highly doubt this guy would be ok with right-wing activists disrupting his events in the same manner.

        1. “I highly doubt this guy would be ok with right-wing activists disrupting his events in the same manner.”
          … and?

          The thing about sincerely defending Freedom of Speech is that you don’t just get to defend the idiots you like.

          As to the rest… sorry, but that’s free speech too. It’s disruptive, loud, and messy. And yes, sometimes it’s bullying, can mean someone loses a platform, and so-on. That’s part of free speech and free association.

      2. Like all leftists, the chants of the Westboro Baptist Church of ‘Thank God for IEDs’ are used to drown out the free speech of others–in most cases these days, of funeral officiants.

        The bikers provide a layer of noise over that.

        No part of the right to free speech includes forcing someone else to not be heard or keeping others from hearing something they want to hear.

  18. “the summer of 2014, when protests over the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department triggered a national conversation about the militarization of police, the lack of transparency or available data pertaining to the use-of-force, and the racial disparity in prosecuting petty crimes and non-violent drug violations.”

    It was also about how a racist cop shot a “gentle giant” who totally wasn’t doing anything, but a racist DA and racist grand jury refused to indict the racist cop. It turns out this was all BS, and even the Obama/Holder Justice Department couldn’t find enough evidence to prosecute the cop.

    Hence the revisionism – oh, this totally wasn’t about the bogus case against Officer Wilson, this was about blah blah.

    DeRay McKesson said last year that “Mike Brown should be alive today…This August, we remember Mike Brown….Justice is a living Mike Brown.”

    So they own this part of their narrative, and should be held accountable for the narrative falling flat.

    Of course Mike Brown ought to be alive today, and the person who caused him to die is greatly to blame. That person is Mike Brown.

    1. Saying Mike Brown should be alive today is saying Darren Wilson should be dead today.

      I was never truly racist until a few years ago. But people like McKesson have led me to want blacks out of the US entirely. They are not like us.

      1. Screw you, you’re part of the reason McKesson is popular, just as McKesson is part of the reason Trump is popular.

        I hope a black dude *does* bang your wife.

        1. And fuck you sideways for suggesting I wanted the cop to die, you lying POS.

        2. First satisfying lay she’d have since their marriage. Well, the first he’d know about.

        3. Aww did I trigger you lmao

          And no I didn’t imply that I thought you think Wilson should have died. Reading is fundamental!

          1. “Saying Mike Brown should be alive today is saying Darren Wilson should be dead today.”

            I *did* say Michael Brown should be alive, with the proviso that he was to blame for his own death.

            So take your racist ass and fuck right off.

      2. Um,,,I don’t think you’re at the correct site.

        1. Did you read the rest of the comments? He seems to be fitting in fine.

          1. Arguing over statistical significance is really not the same as this idiot.

      3. Good story, bro.

      4. You sincerely believe Michael Brown intended not just to beat up Wilson, but murder him?

        Based on… what evidence, exactly?

        1. Wut? There is no onus on the cop for knowing the intentions of an attacker. Hopefully nobody on this site would think it not justified (and the right to self defense) to shoot an assailant if they were in the same situation. Michael Brown was possibly one of the worst causes for the BLM to take up. There were a myriad of unjustified killings by police in this country in that timeline that would be much more effective. They were quick to pick up the cause of MB and when more details/evidence were released, BLM doubled down and tried to rewrite history. The militarization of the police force wasn’t a cause for them until the state escalated in response to the rioting.

    2. Here’s what an honest man sounds like when he is confronted with the reality that a story he desperately wanted to be true…is false.

      “What DOJ found made me ill. Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101….

      “…we must never allow ourselves to march under the banner of a false narrative on behalf of someone who would otherwise offend our sense of right and wrong. And when we discover that we have, we must acknowledge it, admit our error and keep on marching. That’s what I’ve done here.”

      1. And it’s utterly devastating for those of us who think cops often escalate violence hastily and unnecessarily. Now the copsuckers have a legitimate case to point to when the argument isn’t about Darren Wilson but about institutional corruption.

        1. “Shooting this guy was totally justified because shooting Michael Brown was justified!”

          What that argument lacks in logical rigor, it makes up in demagagic tit-for-tat-ism.

          1. Innocence by association.

          2. And the problem is that they’ll often be right by accident. Cops in the majority of cases are likely in the right, or at least not imminently wrong. I burned myself on Brown. I was certain Wilson was a murderer. I said as much here. And I was wrong. I learned my lesson, ish. I still get angry, but I try to moderate my response.

            The problem is that high-profile cases, whether right or wrong, are the tip of a colossal iceberg of hostility by many police and ambivalence to it among their peers. BLM is sadly wrong on this issue, because even while they seem to understand that the problem is fundamental and institutional, they committed to the racialist narrative rather than the overarching problem of accountability and restraint.

            So Wilson was unfairly tarred in this incident, and his crucifiers (myself included) were wrong. That doesn’t invalidate critiques of policing.

            1. BLM is sadly wrong on this issue, because even while they seem to understand that the problem is fundamental and institutional, they committed to the racialist narrative rather than the overarching problem of accountability and restraint.

              This has consistently pissed me off for the past four years or so. These idiots and their accomplices in the media hijack issues of police brutality and government overreach and turn them into idiotic episodes of race-baiting. They create the strawmen for authoritarians to pull down, ensuring that nothing will be done.

      2. The truth made him ill.

        My praise for him coming out is offset a little by the fact he and the media didn’t wait until these facts came in before doing their thing and building the false narrative. That’s how false narratives are created – by not letting the facts come in.

        He did his part in that game.

  19. As far as protesters go, I’d say that is really more of a property rights issue. Property owners should be free to block protesters from attending an event, or to let them attend. If it is a publicly owned space, then I’d say the protesters have every right to be there and to shout down their opponents, even if I think that is wrong or ineffective.

    1. Since DeRay apparently believes that what “white people” (or recent Korean immigrants for that matter) own was stolen from someone else, he probably doesn’t recognize most property rights

    2. I would say that depends on the venue.

      Setting aside politics, if a public university theater hosted a play, and some crazy people came in loudly chanting and disrupting it, would it be illegal or wrong to remove them from the venue? They have a right to protest on campus, but I don’t think that extends to disrupting and ruining other people’s events.

      1. That’s a fair point. I guess I was thinking more of public spaces to which access is generally not controlled.

        I generally don’t think of public universities as being government entities, anyway. They are, mostly, privately operated organizations that get some of their money from the government, and in which the government gets some say in high-level operation. Private universities are not really that different – they just launder the money differently.

        Still, if a university wears that “public” designation, then they have to accept that it comes with certain strings attached. The Constitution, for example.

  20. Yeah.

    He’s a lost case. Not surprising, though, given what I’ve seen from BLM.

    I’m not sure why Reason gave him such space as if he’s a budding libertarian. His views on free speech and expression are ignorant as they are grotesque.

    1. Unlike these jackasses, Reason should be open to talking with everyone — if only to let us rip him a new one on the comments section.

      1. Methinks Reason would readily dropkick the commenters here if they had the option. We’re pretty much no different from Adam Lanza when you think about it.

        1. At least Nick hasn’t published any of Sheldon’s drivel in a while.

    2. Calm down. It’s one (interesting) interview. Should Reason also not run an interview with Bernie Sanders or Paul Krugman if they had the opportunity?

      1. I AM CALM!

        1. Yeah, waving the fucking gun around?!?!

          -The Dude.

      2. Yeh, seriously, I have to admit it was interesting…he’s no fool. Just too bad about his position and points out what free speech is up against.

    3. When they start Canadian Reason you can determine who gets space. You and Cytotoxic.

      Until this is America Reason. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

      1. “Canadian Reason”

        Oxymoron.

        And they can’t take that whiny little butthole Winston with them.

        1. He’s such a butthole he’s probably French Canadian.

        2. You would do that to me? Put me in a dingy with Cytotoxic and Winston?

          1. A raft. A raft where you’re Pi and they’re both the tiger.

            1. Wait. The tiger was a metaphor, right? Or something.

              1. If only Winston and Cytotoxic were as real as that Tiger.

          2. You aren’t that bad, but the case for guilt by association mounts almost every day.

            1. Yeah! And that made me realize I need to preface my earlier comment.

              I hate collectivizing guilt of Americans. Collectivizing guilt of the flappy-heads is perfectly legitimate. I daresay it should be encouraged.

            2. Have I been on double secret probation or something?

              And I think I’m swell.

              /crosses arms.

              1. No, I don’t mean all Canadians. I’m sure some of them are good people. It’s more that I expect you to keep your compatriots in line, because of how badly there antics reflect on you.

                Contemplate this from Full Metal Jacket:

                Private Pyle has dishonored himself and dishonored the platoon. I have tried to help him. But I have failed. I have failed because YOU have not helped me. YOU people have not given Private Pyle the proper motivation! So, from now on, whenever Private Pyle fucks up, I will not punish him! I will punish all of YOU!

                1. I want $15 min. wage for that kind of work.

          3. With Winston’s mom too???

      2. You forgot ‘FUCK YEAH!’

        http://wapo.st/1TUOVfk

  21. Interesting…. it appears that despite his disdain for Trump, McKesson and Trump are cut from the same cloth.

    Wrapping your tyranny in the language of helping the downtrodden and oppressed doesn’t make it less tyrannical. And it wouldn’t be novel. Pretty much every single 20th century mass-murdering dictator used that line.

    Just to put a fine point on the full Godwin, here’s wikipedia on Hitler’s brown shirts:

    [The Sturmabteilung] played a significant role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties,

    McKesson on disrupting meetings of opposing parties:

    McKesson offered. “If you have a commitment to free speech, you would be equally protective of people shouting that person down because that is also free speech. What you’re saying is when that tactic comes up, it’s the wrong tactic. And that makes sense to me, I respect that, that’s fair. I don’t agree with it fully but I get it. But it’s not a commitment to free speech.”

    1. McKesson and Trump are both distilled from the wellspring of pure will to power. Neither has any intellectual or philosophical coherence, nor logical process linking actions to consequences, nor tangible deliverables. Both view racialism as a means to an end. Both are bigots. Both emote rather than think. And both want to bootstrap themselves a political career at the expense of the people they claim to want to help.

    2. When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick”.

  22. One time I tweeted a Radley Balko article on police brutality and some crazy woman responded with a barrage of tweets about how me and my “buddy Deray” were racist black (I’m a nerdy white guy) anti-Americans who encouraged people to kill cops and rape white women. I had no idea who or what she was talking about. I still don’t really. Apparently this guy said some things.

    1. It is an effective means of derailing the calls for law enforcement reforms. So effective that one might wonder if the attention given to the BLM folks and the particular cases highlighted at a national level are a planned tactic to rile up one group and pit them against another group – eliminating the risk that any serious reforms will take place but ensuring an activist base will be active and engaged come election time.

    2. One time I tweeted

      Well, there’s your problem.

  23. Storming into a private event to shout down a speaker has nothing to do with speech rights and everything to do with property rights (ie trespassing)

  24. McKesson = “useful idiot” for statism. I mean, how stupid can you be with the comment once Paul dropped out of the presidential race, “it seemed less urgent to meet with him.” A senator is closer to the grass roots than the POTUS ever is. You’ll actually get legislation introduced and see where your House and Senate opposition is. McKesson obviously isn’t interested in that.

    Ripping on Clinton for “superpredator” seems rather childish. The implication is that she made the term up when she most likely co-opted the term from black leaders of that era who were adamant in calling for “moar police” in their neighborhoods.

    You’re not going to eradicate racism. The world zeitgeist is heading towards nationalism, not away from it – so fighting racism is fighting the wrong battle.

    The easiest way to roll back on police abuse – whether it be racially-motivated power-motivated – it to get rid of victimless crimes. BLM seems to go out of their way to avoid the issue of victimless crimes. This is because, like the black leaders before them, they LIKE the idea of “moar police/moar government” its just the wrong TOP. MEN. are in charge.

    McKesson is no friend of liberty.

    1. To them white people can never be victims. I’m not denying that I might get off easier than a black guy if I got caught smoking pot, but then again I’m smart enough to limit my interaction with drugs in the open — believe it or not, police are probably not going to bang down doors looking for people smoking in their bedroom on a routine basis, regardless of the neighborhood’s racial makeup. I’m also smart enough to not rob a convenience store in broad daylight and reach for a cop’s gun.

      #HalfWhitePrivilege

  25. he didn’t believe every idea deserved to be awarded the same merit or right to be heard.

    And I’m done. Godspeed on police accountability, but this is off-putting.

    “Yeah, but being wrong and being bigoted or racist, those are different things.”

    “People of African descent have lower IQs and are more prone to criminal behavior.” Now, is that wrong or is that racist?

    1. It’s extremely wracist

  26. the quote ‘free speech’ narrative

    Still, let’s give the dude a platform to expound on his mush-minded misconception that “free speech” is actually about ‘fairness’ and equal air-time (“a 50-50 splot for how we discuss topics”?), rather than a principled commitment to dialogue free from violent retaliation or censorship.

    1. All bigots and morons are welcome to expose themselves

      1. indeed, give the man a centerfold. He’s the anti-Libertarian playmate of the month.

        1. Clothed right?

          Just checking.

    2. Meh. Sunlight/disinfectant and all that. The article is enlightening.

      1. Maybe i’m not being clear enough =

        By all means, ask him what he thinks. Give him as much space as he needs to document his own ignorance.

        Its just disappointing that no one points out his wild-misconceptions in the process, and lets comments like the below slide sans any real rebuttal =

        “I would say don’t say you have a commitment to free speech,” McKesson offered. “If you have a commitment to free speech, you would be equally protective of people shouting that person down because that is also free speech. What you’re saying is when that tactic comes up, it’s the wrong tactic. And that makes sense to me, I respect that, that’s fair. I don’t agree with it fully but I get it. But it’s not a commitment to free speech.

        If you’re going to let him propose this sort of mindless gibberish pretending to be “insight”, at least make an attempt in the course of the dialogue to point out how, or insert the editorial note that =

        “It seemed apparent from this exchange that McKesson had never actually developed even a rudimentary understanding of what ‘Free Speech’ actually means – instead confusing negative rights to ‘not be interfered with’ with a positive-right “to be given equal air-time” or other formulations of enforced fairness”

        McKesson’s entire thesis of ‘justice’ is at root a loathsome authoritarianism. Yes, give him all the airtime in the world, then do what Buckley used to do = nod, and say, “Rubbish”.

        1. They were two guys in a coffee shop, not debating on TV. And does Anthony need to hold your hand any more than he already has in the article?

          1. does Anthony need to hold your hand

            That’s not what i said, is it?

            1. So, one of the two guys in a coffee shop chatting cannot insist upon robust debate?

        2. Yeah, nicely said. And also ask him if he believes in private property rights. The author could have really gotten some insight into McKesson’s core beliefs and really gotten into new territory* had he done so.

          *new territory because the BLM folks keep wrapping themselves in the 1A when they’re disrupting private events. It would be nice to see if they respect the rights of others to hold private events or if we should expect them to continue trespassing.

          1. I would like to the event holders exercise their property rights and send these BLM assholes to the hospital. What they do is no better than a home invasion.

          2. And also ask him if he believes in private property rights.

            By joining a government employees labor union, one is denouncing the concept of property rights in the very act.

        3. Freedom of Speech includes a right to “not be interfered with” now?

          I think I’m gonna ask for a clarification on what you actually mean, because a straight-forward reading leads to some pretty silly places.

          1. Article 19 should suffice

            1. And read plainly, that’s absurd.

              First part is fine.
              “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference […]”

              But the second part?
              “[…] and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
              Sorry, but that’s absurd. If a turn up my boombox to drown out a street preacher, I’m violating his rights? If I want to give a speech at a university and they say “who are you again? Fuck off.” they’re violating my rights? If a motorcycle gang parks their bikes and revs their engines, drowning out the Westboro Baptists as they protest a funeral, the gang is violating the Westboro Baptists’ rights? Heck, what if the media I want to impart information and ideas through is television. Do I have a “right” to my own television show? Of course not, that’s a privilege that has to be *paid* for.

              I’m trying *not* to turn you into a Strawman here, which is why I find it hard to believe that’s what you actually mean. So I’m really not sure what this right to “not be interfered with” is supposed to mean in practice.

  27. Let’s take a look at the Defense of Looting article which Rand Paul totatally misunderstood:

    “…I offer this critique, as a way of invigorating discussion amongst those engaged in anti-oppression struggle, in Ferguson and anywhere else the police violently perpetuate white supremacy and settler colonialism. In other words, anywhere in America….

    “…in trying to correct this media image?”in making a strong division between Good Protesters and Bad Rioters, or between ethical non-violence practitioners and supposedly violent looters?”the narrative of the criminalization of black youth is reproduced….

    “In working to correct the white-supremacist media narrative we can end up reproducing police tactics of isolating the individuals who attack property at protests. Despite the fact that if it were not for those individuals the media might pay no attention at all….The media’s own warped procedure instructs that riots and looting are more effective at attracting attention to a cause….

    “In the 400 years of barbaric, white supremacist, colonial and genocidal history known as the United States [etc. etc.]…

    1. “…it is also the emergent threat of rioting that forced JFK’s hand. Both Malcolm X and MLK had armed bodyguards….the Watts rebellion of 1965…

      “As Raven Rakia puts it, “In America, property is racial. It always has been.”…transatlantic slave trade….

      “…when people of color loot a store, they are taking back a miniscule proportion of what has been historically stolen from them, from their ancestral history and language to the basic safety of their children on the street today…

      “[A protester] retorts the all too common accusation thrown at rioters: “People wanna say we destroying our own neighborhoods. We don’t own nothing out here!” This is the crux of the matter…”

      I think we get the idea.

      1. I’m sorry, was that 40″ LED stolen from your great-grandfather when they wouldn’t let him vote?

        So basically the message is “Your ancestors had some terrible laws, so we get to ignore the legal system entirely. #Fairness”

        1. And I’m sure that the store owner, who in many cases is a brown- or black- skinned immigrant, is *totally* complicit in the Systems of White Supremacy blah blah, so let’s take his stuff, suck it, Whitey!

          And of course, if they should happen to find a white store owner, that person is of course not an entrepreneur trying to sell stuff people in the neighborhood want to buy, no, he’s basically a stand-in for Bull Connor.

          1. Oh…and those civil rights leaders who carried guns to protect their homes and families from night-riding terrorists? Those civil rights leaders are *just the same* as people who break into a store, take stuff, and set the store on fire. It’s simply a continuum of activism.

            If you don’t realize that, it’s because you’re a racist.

          2. Black business owner showing out for the white business owner

            1. Black business owner showing out for the white business owner

              Ice Cube couldn’t have said it any better.

      2. When someone wants to loot my home or store, I just figure what they’re really trying to say is “shoot me in the face”.

    2. Despite the fact that if it were not for those individuals the media might pay no attention at all

      Sure, I guess it is a fact that something else might happen. May as well rebut, “It’s a fact that the media attention might be more favorable without looting.”

  28. Yeah let’s have a war on speech! The answer to racist policing, massive incarceration of minorities, and a failed drug war is obviously to give police even more arbitrary powers! With “leaders” like this guy, it’s hardly surprising that African Americans are having such a hard time.

    1. Let’s give all the cops powered exoskeletons, or maybe the super so,dire formula. That would be good.

  29. I hate how people in this country do not realize the different between government speech and private speech or do not understand the Constitution is a document that restrains government action, not the actions of citizens. You cannot debate people if they do not recognize some fundamental principles of law.

  30. “At this point, I felt it necessary to make myself clear that I felt such behavior is wrong, should be shamed, and deemed socially unacceptable. But, I added, if someone walked down the street wearing a swastika, I think that exposes them as a racist and an idiot and hopefully somebody that would be ostracized from society. I just don’t think it should be officially illegal and that’s where he and I diverge.”
    It’s possible Mr. Fisher believes that, but I don’t believe that libertarians/Libertarians, as a whole, do.

    I’ve seen far too many people ’round here complaining about Brandon Eich, who resigned due to social pressure and boycott threats, to believe that. Too many people point at Melissa Klein, who closed her storefront because of social pressure well in advance of any judgement in her legal case, for me to believe that.

    In short, I’ve seen lots of libertarians/Libertarians claim that such social tools are how people should react to bigotry/discrimination, but that support evaporates the moment the tools become *effective*. Once they actually succeed, it swaps from “Freedom of Speech/Association” to “censorship” and “bullying”.

    1. Didn’t Klein also get death threats? That’s not what I’d consider an appropriate use of social pressure.

      1. I don’t know about death threats the Klein’s may have received, but I do know that they doxxed the lesbians who were suing them (which was part of why the final judgement against them was so high). And after a quick review, I can’t find any articles linking death threats to them closing their store-front (remember, they continued/continue to operate as an online business).

        That said, I’d argue that the proliferation of anonymous death threats in America is a serious problem without a solution that doesn’t infringe on Freedom of Speech. As the SCOTUS ruled earlier this year (or was it last year?) even when you name a specific person, whom you have a fair amount of knowledge of their day-to-day habits, and list specific violent acts you’d do, it can be “Free Speech”.

        But that problem, real as it is, is a larger American problem, and not specific to any specific specific ideology or issue. That said, I’m *expected* to ignore death threats.

        1. That said, I’d argue that the proliferation of anonymous death threats in America is a serious problem without a solution that doesn’t infringe on Freedom of Speech.

          If there were a correlation between “anonymous death threats” and any risk of death, George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson would be dead as fuck.

          1. Correct.

            Which is the problem. Hollow threats of violence are (A) difficult to distinguish from serious threats of violence and (B) greatly outnumber them.

            This creates a very serious “false positive” problem for people receiving such threats or tasked with handling such threats. I have no doubts that many people murdered received threats prior to the event, but they thought they were false positives rather then true positives. And then on the flip-side, we have people who turn their lives upside down because they receive so many false positives that they feel unsafe.

            That’s an unfortunate consequence (people ignoring real threats and feeling unsafe because hollow threats) of the current culture of America, which finds such empty threats to be largely acceptable.

            To be clear, I’m not suggesting any solution, other then perhaps a cultural one. I’m just saying that it’s a problem.

    2. Just because someone should be free to do something doesn’t mean I have to like it or agree with them.

      1. That’s correct.

        But when you repeatedly tell someone “you don’t need X to achieve Y, try Z instead”, then get outraged when they try Z and get Y, it’s hard to argue that your problem was *actually* with X, and not in-fact with Y.

  31. Why would any libertarian care what any racist member of the BLM says, much less it’s leader? Gee Reason, show some self-respect, would you?

    1. Reason regularly publishes Shedlon Richman’s horseshit. So I’m pretty sure that ship sailed long ago.

    2. Coming back late, but this deserves an answer. BLM has latched on to several issues that are very important to HnR folk and libertarians in general. They are succeeding in twisting the momentum that was building toward reform of the police state (witness the right to record police in the course of their duties, honest coverage of Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop”, pot decriminalization, etc.) toward a purely racism based argument.

      When someone with a bigger microphone takes your side in an argument, it behooves you to learn if they are truly on your side. From all outward appearances, this dude is truly not on our side.

      The BLM racism red herring has combined with an abysmal set of example cases for police brutality to polarize the argument into wacko leftist + african nationalist racists against reactionary law and order whites. Allowing this guy to take our side unchallenged allows the entire movement to be derailed.

    3. I doubt McKesson is the leader of BLM. The latter’s web site mentions Alicia Garza, Opel Tometi and Patrice Cullors but not McKesson. BLM is somewhat informal, with lots of fellas using its handle. McKesson seems to have jumped on board after Ferguson, when BLM was almost 3 years old.

  32. I’m struggling to find a reason any of this particular commentariat would give 2 flips what this steaming turd has to say about, well, anything…. But to each his own I guess.

    1. Because cosmos, or something.

      There *is* something to the argument that Reason writers try too hard to appeal to the left. It’s not something to hold against them since Reason is an advocacy organization and, as evidenced by BLM’s tepid results, they’ll get more mileage out of engaging than shutting down debate. But at the same time I think they’re fundamentally wrong about how educable committed progressives are. GILMORE’s right, give them enough rope to hang themselves (RACIST).

    2. Know your enemy. I was hoping he would be an ally in the fight against police abuse of power, but it turns out he’s an enemy of freedom.

    3. I give two flips because he’s a leader of a current movement that has a lot of momentum. And we need to understand that momentum and see how we fit in with it and how was disagree with it so we can better form an opinion on whether he has merit or not.

      Do you not also listen occasionally to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and myriad others to get insight into their thoughts or see what their future actions are likely to be and how those might impact you?

      Having said that, I gleaned a lot from this article. Very little of it favorable to McKesson.

  33. I wish this guy would understand that his side won’t be in power forever, that once the other side gains that power, they could twist those “hate speech” laws he craves to target HIS free speech. You don’t wanna play with fire like that.

    1. He figures that the white racists are all out to get him anyway, and they’d censor him if they could get away with it, so he may as well fight fire with fire.

      That’s my best guess of what his “thinking” is.

      1. To someone like him, the bad guys are the Wehrmacht, and the Wehrmacht are going to use tanks no matter what the Allies do, so the Allies would be irresponsible *not* to use tanks.

        (Wehrmacht = Whitey, tanks = censorship, Allies = him and his buddies who fight the Whitey)

  34. Acting like BLM is a legitimate organization completely discredits you.

  35. I had a “conversation” with Deray on the twitters…after one question I was blocked. Yay dialogue. (it was not racist, but I think Deray believes anything a white man says is automatically racist).

    1. Is Deray his real name? Is it pronounced “d’rA”?

  36. Lots of comments… didn’t read them all.

    But regarding this guy’s views of free speech and the reporters responses:

    I can’t remember if it was Mises or Roth and or who… but I once read a great piece about free speech not really being a defensible thing consistently unless seen as an extension of property rights. I can say what I want… so long as I have the property rights for the place I am speaking. If I have received them in part via contract, then there may be restrictions. If we all have a right to speak, then in a room of 50 people but only one microphone… who gets to speak? The owner of the mic gets to decide. As libertarians, we should be careful accepting “rights” conversations without first defining a right or what may or may not impose upon it lest we end up granting a sense of legitimacy to a progressive notion of “rights.”

    1. By your argument, right to speech in a public space belongs to everyone equally. So they can yell over each other bring their own microphones, whatever…

    2. That sounds like an internally consistent idea of Free Speech. It is not the idea that’s consistently bandied about, where “the owner of the mic” is accused of censorship for changing their mind on who to give it to.

      1. If you have ever been to speakers’ corner in London, this discussion comes to fruition. The loudest nuts always get the conch. It might be a good analogy to BLM. By admitting that they are not interested in public dialogue of anything that differs drastically from their own, they might be proving themselves as the loudest nuts on the soapbox.

        It’s nice that our police state is being exposed somewhat but the unfortunate outcome for the black community is that not much will change because this whole thing has simply been well received as a national distraction from Washington’s epic fuck ups. BLM is old hat to the bureaucrats and crooks in Washington.

  37. BLM wants black people to be murdered; to influence power of prison gangs. I’m sure they even ally with white supremacist groups.

  38. So a guy who objects to use of force and intimidation praises use of force and intimidation?

    BLM is a fraud in the making. As it grows, their will be criminal politicians exposed over time fomenting problems.

    If this guy really was a crusader for good, he would understand that lives matter and that he has fallen victim to the brainwashing that is endemic in american society.

    Black peoples’ lives have never been better if considering all of history. The problems of the American black community are the fault of government programs to increase sloth and attempted cradle to grave hand outs.

    That is not black peoples’ fault but it certainly is not the fault of educated, tax paying, hard working people.
    The condition of over-burdensome and scary policing tactics is a consequence of a police state gone awry. All americans should be aware and unfortunately, black people are stuck in those cross hairs more than others. Not white guy’s fault though. This privilege crap is another hilarious fraud and this guy is just part of the problem..

  39. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    Click This Link inYour Browser

    ========== http://www.path50.com

  40. I brought up President Obama’s recent commencement speeches, where he argued that bad ideas should be exposed, debated, and defeated in the arena of ideas, and that shouting somebody down creates martyrs out of people with bad or wrong ideas, but McKesson was unmoved.

    “I would say don’t say you have a commitment to free speech,” McKesson offered. “If you have a commitment to free speech, you would be equally protective of people shouting that person down because that is also free speech. What you’re saying is when that tactic comes up, it’s the wrong tactic. And that makes sense to me, I respect that, that’s fair. I don’t agree with it fully but I get it. But it’s not a commitment to free speech.”

    No, you don’t get to violate someone else’s rights and call it ‘free speech’. Otherwise the KKK lynching people was just them expressing their distaste for blacks and other minorities. What an odious individual.

  41. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  42. I am making $95/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $12 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…

    —————————————>>>> http://www.earnmore9.com

  43. I am making $95/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $12 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…

    —————————————>>>> http://www.earnmore9.com

  44. Germany’s hate speech law, against “incitement to hatred,” prescribes, among other things, that “insulting” a racial group is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. McKesson would love such a law because it would make it illegal to criticize blacks, their culture, or their behavior in any way. But Germany values national unity over freedom of expression; an analogous US law would have nothing to do with national unity at all, only with enabling black groups to speak and act as they wish without accountability. (From the link in the article, including riot and looting as well.)

  45. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  46. The most dangerous thing about BLM is that it will likely derail real police reform.

  47. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $98 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…

    ____________________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  48. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  49. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  50. 2″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time.You can also do this.

    >>>>>>> https://www.Cashpay60.tk

  51. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.selfcash10.com

  52. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 98usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    ====> http://www.Maxcenter20.Com

  53. McKesson’s “understanding” of free speech is warped, so that free speech is only speech that he approves of. He seems to have no idea of the hazard of letting armed authorities decide what is permissible speech. His extended quotes make no sense at all. His knowledge of court rulings on 1st Amendment speech cases is apparently non-existent. His historical knowledge is little if any better: Is he even aware that the KKK persecuted Catholics also, most of whom are white, and Jewish people?

    While he has some legitimate criticisms of the police and government – which libertarians have expressed for years as well – the extremist views and illegal actions of BLM (including chanting death to police, which Anthony did not mention) make it an open question whether any benefits will outweigh the negative results of their actions.

  54. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  55. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  56. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link…

    ===== http://www.maxincome20.com

  57. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  58. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  59. Banning speech is like banning rattlesnakes from rattling.

    We should always provide as many legal avenues to express oneself as possible, because speech reduces violence, either because it allows the speaker some relief, or because it gives the public some warning. Would he ban rap? or rock? or poetry? We need to have more confidence that we are not victims of other people’s speech. Adding armed uniforms and politics to the equation will likely have the opposite effect of the one desired.

  60. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

  61. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

  62. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. – – – – – ????? ???????????? ???????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.