http://youtu.be/rtBvQj2k6xo#aid=P85ba5L1rrw (Listen to This Idiot)
The Republican Revolution wanted to take us back in tie, 100 years. They won, we now have a backward regressive social system.
A Texas high school student who was kicked off her high school’s cheer leading squad after refusing to cheer for her rapist had her lawsuit dismissed as frivolous and was ordered to pay $45,000 in legal fees. The 5th Circuit upheld the ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.
Emma Sulkowicz has been carrying a heavy load ever since starting classes Tuesday at Columbia University. Literally.
The visual arts senior has brought a twin-sized dorm mattress everywhere she goes and plans to continue lugging it around until her alleged rapist gets kicked off campus. She says it’s a statement about the way the university has handled the situation, as well as a work of art, which will serve as her senior thesis project.
Sulkowicz said she was assaulted in her dorm room by a classmate on the first day of her sophomore year.She accuses Columbia administrators of mishandling the investigation into the incident, and has protested the dismissal of her case against the assailant, particularly as two other women have claimed they also were raped by the same man in separate incidents.
Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.
On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police. The numbers appear to show that the shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing.
The reports show that 18% of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7% of whites. The victim in Ferguson was 18-year-old Michael Brown. Police have yet to identify the officer who shot him; witnesses have said the officer was white.
he term “prison–industrial complex” (PIC) is used to attribute the rapid expansion of the US inmate population to the political influence of private prison companies and businesses that supply goods and services to government prison agencies. The term is derived from the “military–industrial complex” of the 1950s. Such groups include corporations that contract prison labor, construction companies, surveillance technology vendors, companies that operate prison food services and medical facilities, private probation companies, lawyers, and lobby groups that represent them. Activist groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) have argued that the prison-industrial complex is perpetuating a flawed belief that imprisonment is an effective solution to social problems such as homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy.
The Prison industrial complex’ has been used to describe a similar issue in other countries’ prisons of expanding populations.
The promotion of prison-building as a job creator and the use of inmate labor are also cited as elements of the prison-industrial complex. The term often implies a network of actors who are motivated by making profit rather than solely by punishing or rehabilitating criminals or reducing crime rates. Proponents of this view, including civil rights organizations such as the Rutherford Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), believe that the desire for monetary gain has led to the growth of the prison industry and the number of incarcerated individuals.
The Social Equality of Whites and Blacks
W.E.B. Du Bois
When The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was organized it seemed to us that the subject of “social equality” between races was not one that we need touch officially whatever our private opinions might be. We announced clearly our object as being the political and civil rights of Negroes and this seemed to us a sufficiently clear explanation of our work.
We soon found, however, certain difficulties: Was the right to attend a theater a civil or a social right? Is a hotel a private or a public institution? What should be our stand as to public travel or public celebrations or public dinners to discuss social uplift? And above all, should we be silent when laws were proposed taking away from a white father all legal responsibility for his colored child?
Moreover, no matter what our attitude, acts and clear statements have been, we were continually being “accused” of advocating “social equality” and back of the accusations were implied the most astonishing assumptions: our secretary was assaulted in Texas for “advocating social equality” when in fact he was present to prove that we were a legal organization under Texas law. Attempts were made in North Carolina to forbid a state school from advertising in our organ THE CRISIS on the ground that “now and then it injects a note of social equality” and in general we have seen theft, injustice, lynchings, riot and murder based on “accusations” or attempts at “social equality”.
The time has, therefore, evidently come for THE Crisis to take a public stand on this question in the interest of Justice and clear thinking. Let us openly define our terms and beliefs and let there be no further unjustifiable reticence on our part or underground skulking by enemies of the Negro race. This statement does not imply any change of attitude on our part; it simply means a clear and formal expression on matters which hitherto we have mistakenly assumed were unimportant in their relation to our main work.
We make this statement, too, the more willingly because recent events lead us to realize that there lurks in the use and the misuse of the phrase “social equality” much of the same virus that for thousands of years has separated and insulted and injured men of many races and groups and social classes.
We believe that social equality, by a reasonable interpretation of the words, mean moral, mental and physical fitness to associate with one’s fellowmen. In this sense THE CRISIS believes absolutely in the Social Equality of the Black and White and Yellow races and it believes too that any attempt to deny this equality by law or custom is a blow at Humanity, Religion and Democracy.
No sooner is this incontestable statement made, however, than many minds immediately adduce further implications: they say that such a statement and belief implies the right of black folk to force themselves into the private social life of whites and to intermarry with them.
This is a forced and illogical definition of social equality. Social equals, even in the narrowest sense of the term, do not have the right to be invited to, or attend private receptions, or to marry persons who do not wish to marry them. Such a right would imply not mere equality–it would mean superiority. Such rights inhere in reigning monarchs in certain times and countries, but no man, black or white, ever dreamed of claiming a right to invade the private social life of any man.
On the other hand, every self-respecting person does claim the right to mingle with his fellows if he is invited and to be free from insult or hindrance because of his presence. When, therefore, the public is invited, or when he is privately invited to social gatherings, the Negro has a right to accept and no other guest has a right to complain; they have only the right to absent themselves. The late Booker T. Washington could hardly be called an advocate of “social equality” in any sense and yet he repeatedly accepted invitations to private and public functions and certainly had the right to.
To the question of intermarriage there are three aspects:
The individual right
The social expediency
The physical result
As to the individual right of any two sane grown individuals of any race to marry there can be no denial in any civilized land. The moral results of any attempt to deny this right are too terrible and of this the southern United States is an awful and abiding example. Either white people and black people want to mingle sexually or they do not. If they do, no law will stop them and attempted laws are cruel, inhuman and immoral. If they do not, no laws are necessary.
But above the individual problem lies the question of the social expediency of the intermarriage of whites and blacks today in America. The answer to this is perfectly clear: it is not socially expedient today for such marriages to take place; the reasons are evident: where there are great differences of ideal, culture, taste and public esteem, the intermarriage of groups is unwise because it involves too great ,a strain to evolve is compatible, agreeable family life and to train up proper children. On this point there is almost complete agreement among colored and white people and the strong opinion here is not only that of the whites–it is the growing determination of the blacks to accept no alliances so long as there is any shadow of condescension; and to build a great black race tradition of which the Negro and the world will be as proud in the future as it has been in the ancient world.
White Americans who felt this way actually had to confront the demographic reality of poverty, if they came to understand that white people make up the single largest group of the poor, how white America thinks about poverty and policy might start changing.
Well-meaning white Americans have for decades been aware that black people face the risk of poverty than whites. But “poverty,” we all need to understand, is more and different than “race.”
Sociologist Robert Ross directs the International Studies Stream at Clark University.
Whites also face mounting Social Injustice and are also eliminated as equals in teh struggle for Social Justice.
– See more at: http://inequality.org/poverty-matter-black-white/#sthash.Iqc2wY8t.dpuf