Also, apparently The Daily Beast reported on the Sherrif’s words:
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., says he believes the Black Lives Matter movement will team up with the so-called Islamic State to destroy the United States. Clark, who is black, is a frequent guest on Fox News and often attacks the minority activism group. “Before long, Black Lies Matter will join forces with ISIS to being down our legal constituted [sic] republic,” he tweeted late Tuesday evening. “You heard it first here.” Several hours later, he followed up with another word of confidence: “I have been right on every call I have made about these subversives. I will be right again.”
“How many black people do not use drugs, do not get arrested for drug possession?” Clarke asked. “A lot. We’re talking about this small segment here as if we’re supposed to have pity — ‘Well, they can’t find a job. Well, you know, life is unfair. Racism, discrimination.’ BS!”
It is not so much the paper as the level of rhetoric and propaganda in the writing, like calling a statement a “rant” and using words like “egomaniacal”, “extreme” and “attention-grabbing”. I do not care for the hypocrisy of journalism that uses such language to report about someone using such language.
I can tell for myself that this man is playing to his base, at least some what, and I know clearly his opinions on the matter. That is sufficient.
It’s your pretty standard left-wing attack . Fox News is evil. Criticizing African-American is hate speech. The Southern poverty Law Center criticizes him ,therefore, he must be evil.
Only substantial criticism is that he fed lousy food to prisoners and that in his 14 years in office a white supremacist killed some people therefore, evidently, proving white supremacism rampant in Milwaukee even though he claims it is not.
Crimes have material origins. People don’t just commit crimes because they’re evil or stupid. There is a reason impoverished black people are more likely to commit crime than middle-class white people - they’re likely to attend worse schools, likely to have less opportunities in life, likely to have to resort to crime, etc. It isn’t just an issue that the police kill a disproportionate number of unarmed black people (which they do). The police are an oppressive force against impoverished communities. They keep them in their place, they don’t help them. The level of classicism in this thread and lack of sympathy for even criminals who don’t have victims like drug users is appalling.
What a scumbag. We’re supposed to sympathise with the police why? Screw drug addicts and the unemployed, am I right? Look at his attitude towards the poor, no wonder the police have such a disregard for human life.
[quote=“from Milwaukee Journal”]“How many black people do not use drugs, do not get arrested for drug possession?” Clarke asked. “A lot. We’re talking about this small segment here as if we’re supposed to have pity — ‘Well, they can’t find a job. Well, you know, life is unfair. Racism, discrimination.’ BS!”
[quote=“from Milwaukee Journal”]“Let me tell you why blacks sell drugs and involve themselves in criminal behavior instead of a more socially acceptable lifestyle — because they’re uneducated, they’re lazy, and they’re morally bankrupt,” Clarke said. “That’s why.”
[quote=“Sheriff Clarke’s Blog”]Q: Why as a top law enforcement official have you continually been outspoken on the failure of K-12 public education in Milwaukee?
For the seven years that I have been Sheriff of Milwaukee County, I have been outspoken on the research-proven nexus between school failure, violent crime and criminal behavior; between school failure and disproportionate minority incarceration rates; and between school failure and jail and prison overcrowding. The connection is clear and that’s why I have had from day one a sense of urgency about the need to fundamentally improve K-12 public education in Milwaukee—and that means Milwaukee Public Schools.
If we’re ever going to solve the problems of poverty, crime, violence, disproportionate minority incarceration rates and jail and prison overcrowding, no remedy is more important than dramatically improving MPS.
Q: The latest idea of education reform for Milwaukee Public Schools is mayoral control. Talk about that.
Unfortunately, K-12 public education in America has always been politicized. I want to remind politicians and special interests that children are not mere pawns of the state to be used to achieve some political end. Parents alone should decide how and where their kids are educated, not the government. The proper role of government in education is to provide the funds for this to happen, set some basic standards and then get out of the way. The government monopoly of K-12 public education in our urban centers today is a big part of the problem. Competition encourages innovation and serves as an incentive to succeed.
I’m suspect about the timing of Governor Doyle and Mayor Barrett’s announcement for structural reform at MPS. Doyle has been governor for seven years and only now on his way out the door does he see a need to get involved in the affairs at MPS. When did he get this moment of sudden intuitive understanding? Up until now, other than the occasional “we have to improve education” statement from his office, he’s been missing in action. I find his sudden concern to be disingenuous. He certainly wasn’t thinking about parents, kids and taxpayers when his last budget eliminated the Qualified Economic Offer aspect of collective bargaining, which kept costs under control. WEAC has been trying to get him to do this since he became governor and in politics timing is everything so this must have been a going away present to the teaching establishment who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. This is where his allegiance lies. Currently, college is out of the reach of an increasing number of Americans. Eliminating the QEO is going to put K-12 education out of the reach of taxpayers.
As for Mayor Barrett’s interest in taking control of MPS, I find it peculiar that for the six years he’s been chief executive of the city and as MPS continued to fall further into an abyss of failure he too demonstrated no sense of urgency other than the occasional statement of “concern” about what was occurring. Most big city mayors who have pushed for mayoral control of schools have done so immediately after taking office and usually ran for office on the issue, sending a signal that it was one of their top priorities. Mayor Barrett introduced the issue when he first ran for mayor in 2003, and when he got considerable blowback quickly abandoned the issue. He lacked the will to take the political risk in trying to get elected and let over five years of school failure go by before wanting to try it again.
Sheriff Clarke’s position seems to be that a small segment of the black community is using drugs, are lazy, and are morally bankrupt. Are you suggesting that there isn’t a small segment of the black community that are using drugs, lazy, and morally bankrupt?
Not included in the article is Sheriff Clarke’s position on the education system in Milwaukee. He puts a big part of the blame on what’s going on in Milwaukee on the public school system. I’ve included his thoughts on that here.
Despite poor schooling and parenting, a vast majority of the black community are not lazy and morally corrupt. He is speaking to the small segment of Milwaukee’s black community that is. I’m not sure why stating the obvious - that persons behaving in immoral behavior are bankrupting themselves by participating in immoral behavior - is not an accurate statement.
Do you believe it is possible to be immoral? (Not familiar with your attitudes regarding moral and immoral behavior and how you define that)
What are the origins of his ‘scumbagginess’? Does that have material origins too?
Or is your position that only criminals get a free pass on being evil and stupid, and those who do not commit crimes are morally responsible for their own bad behavior and stupid attiudes?
There is an inconsistency in your logic here. Why are you unable to give conservatives, even black ones, a free pass on moral responsibility and personal accountability along with everyone else?
When a person is a victim of a crime, or when a person is threatened, then the police help. They do not help with a job search, rent, or counseling. That is not what they are paid to do. that is not what they are trained to do.
There is a reason impoverished black people are more likely to commit crime …
The police are not social workers. I do not even know if the above statement is universal, but where it is, then there will also be a reason beyond racism that more black people will also be detained, tried and even shot. The police are not a cause in this, but a symptom.
If we really want to help black people we need to work on root problems of inequity, not the effects. It is hypocritical to judge the police as racist because the respond more to black criminals, and at the same time use the underlying causes of black crime as justification. Consider this:
Poverty leads to increase in substance abuse.
Increase in substance abuse leads to increase in crime.
Increase in crime leads to increase in negative police interaction.
You, like BLM point to the last in this chain and say this must change. Those who oppose BLM will point to the cause and say it is all about the crime. What both should do is recognize the primary causes that effect this disparity. What all should do is understand also that free will still exists and criminals still have culpability in their choices. The police are mostly doing all they can to train and be transparent so that the final effect is only proportion. Likewise, some judges are starting to understand the need to address the problem of substance abuse instead of just punishing crime. However, in the long run, the root causes that lead to crime and drugs need addressing the most.
A notable amount are using drugs and are involved in crime. I’m not sure that’s because they’re lazy or morally bankrupt. People don’t just decide to live those kind of lifestyles because they’re lazy or morally bankrupt.
Why does he think that poor students do worse at school? They attend worse schools and struggle to meet the costs of education.
Because it’s idealist and he’s doing it to excuse the behaviour of cops. People don’t just turn to crime or drugs because they’re “lazy and morally bankrupt.” These are systematic issues, the result of their socioeconomic condition. There is a reason a poor person who has attended a worse school and been given less opportunities will be more likely to turn to addictive and crippling drugs than middle-class people, and it isn’t simply due to their own personal failings. He is arguing these things because the police don’t help the situation of impoverished communities, they agitate it and make it worse. By blaming personal failings rather than the socioeconomic conditions these people have been forced into, he can justify police violence. “It isn’t our fault that man was tased or beaten, he was a violent, lazy, morally bankrupt junkie!”
Yes, but this isn’t an issue of morality. It’s a systematic issue, a socioeconomic one. It isn’t enough to just ask that people behave themselves.
Of course. His position in the police force means it isn’t in his interest to acknowledge the roots of crimes. Arguing that crime is caused by people being lazy and morally bankrupt means he is able to justify police violence, and it seems to be working. Take a look at this thread.
His views are definitely a result of his material conditions. He is part of an organisation that actively participates in the oppression of impoverished communities. It isn’t in his interest to acknowledge that or the roots of crime, but it is in his interests to attack the poor and justify police brutality. I’m not by any means surprised he’s saying this, and I wouldn’t expect him to say otherwise.
I am aware of what the police do. I’m just saying that their behaviour - their “helping” impoverished communities - doesn’t help those communities.
Yes, I know why African-Americans are more likely to commit crime, but the police don’t help these root issues. They’re a flimsy and cruel solution to a socioeconomic problem. Instead of tackling the roots of petty crime and drug abuse, the police can be used to subjugate them.
Those causes won’t ever be addressed while the system that the police exist to defend is still around. I don’t care so much about individual cops, the police force itself exists to subjugate the poor. Poverty won’t be solved under capitalism and as a result this behaviour from the police will never stop. I agree that we need to fix the root causes of crime to prevent crime from taking place, but the police exist to stop those root causes from being dealt with. They are more integral to the continuation of poverty than you are giving them credit for. They aren’t responding to the effects of poverty, they exist to help maintain it by defending an economic system that causes it.
That’s essentially what Clarke said. Do you agree with his premise?
He acknowledges the socioeconomic failings of the Milwaukee Public School system and past and present administrations at both the state and local levels ignoring these issues as I pointed out earlier in this thread from his addressing the need for reform within that system.
You and Clarke appear to agree on something: It isn’t enough to just ask people to behave themselves.
Where you and Clarke appear to differ is that Clarke advocates reform within the Milwaukee Public School system, but is adamant that each individual is responsible for his or her personal behavior.
So you are anti-police and anti-capitalism. If you think having no policing is better, also known as anarchy, you are mistaken. In such a case, the poor, those on drugs, the underclass, will face far worse than any police action, and there will be no one there to help them.
It sounds like you are proposing a communist style revolution. Perhaps I am mistaken since the only thing you have said was negative.
He doesn’t seem to acknowledge the material deprivation as the roots of these problems. He is still incredibly idealist, even if he acknowledges issues within the school system. None of what you’re arguing really defends the other things he has said. You are misinterpreting his position to make him seem much more sympathetic to those who turn to crime than he really is.
I don’t think he is a scumbag because he thinks others are scumbags. I think he is a scumbag because he is in a position of privilege and is actively contributing to the oppression of the materially deprived with his view of crime.
I haven’t read much anarchist literature, but this isn’t what anarchists want. Anarchists are not against laws or rules. They also want workers’ control of the means of production as well and would undoubtedly provide all of those who are unemployed with jobs and all of those who are on drugs with assistance, unlike our society. I don’t think we can transition straight to a stateless society, but if it were possible it would undoubtedly be better than our capitalist society.
I am a communist, I favour a transitional state to a stateless and classless society. I accept that it isn’t a useful solution or a realistic solution to these issues for most people, and I obviously accept any means to improve the situation for the impoverished until then, but I don’t think this will be an issue that is ever completely solved under capitalism.
And as the saying goes among criminal defense attorneys: If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Spare me the lily white liberal angst about who is being convicted for the crimes they have committed. The single highest similarity among people incarcerated has been the lack of a father in the home. And that has been a massive problem in the black community since President Johnson made major changes to welfare - requiring that there be no male person in the home. Things have been out of control for decades in the disintegration of families, leading to enormous numbers of children growing up with no father, totally inadequate self discipline, and resulting crime stats.
Then I would most strongly suggest that you move on down to Venezuela, as they are in the midst of a great communist experiment. Their buddies in OPEC don’t seem to care much about what is happening to the country; and the failure of the government to reinvest part of the profits from oil into necessary maintenance of infrastructure, as well as exploration, as well as taking the profits and distributing them rather than saving anything, has put them on the short road to bankruptcy.
Please - tell me - where has communism worked anywhere in the world? And why has it failed to make any gains at all in any first world country?
Russia, China, Vietnam - all have moved toward a different economic model from anything Marx dreamed up.
You may use all the rhetoric you wish. History tells a far more brutal story of the figments of you imagination.
And while you have all the rhetoric of a true blue communist, I don’t see you moving into the middle of the ghetto with your proletariat brethren. That may be a good thing - you wouldn’t last 24 hours before you would be sitting on the stoop, sans any possessions you may have been unwise enough to bring with you.
I was in college in the 60’s, when it was fashionable to be a radical - I am well aware of what SDS was, along with a bunch of other groups. And I realize that having a conversation with a radical is a lost venture from the get go, as it presumes that logic will be used by both sides.
Unless you think you are going to be one of the elite of your communist world, I hope that you can tolerate being told what you will do and how you will do it.
Ah, but I forget: all animals are equal. It is just that some are more equal than others. good luck in Caracas.