Crack is to Cocaine what hash is to pot, what whiskey is to beer. It is made from cocaine and very concentrated.

Under the law, potency is not the issue as both are on the schedule of illegal narcotics. Which is one reason why industrial hemp is banned. It has a minuscule amount of THC. The law doesn't care. And the punishment for minorities is far more severe than the punishment for non-minorities.

I understand that we now have more drug offenders in prison in the US than the entire prison population (of all types of felons) of Western Europe.

No state (including Florida up until algor) counts under and over votes. THE BALLOTS ARE DISQUALIFIED!

In Florida, not if the clear intent of the voter can be determined. The problem was that the standards were applied un-evenly across the state. Texas has a more detailed law to deal with under-counts.

Another interesting problem that has surfaced in Florida is with overcounts where the voter voted for either Bush or Gore and also wrote in their name. Under Florida law, these should have been counted as, clearly, the voter has gone out of his way to indicate intent.

Remember that all the Florida Supreme Court did was order the Statewide recount. Also remember that a majority of the US Supreme Court agreed that a recount should have been done, except several of them felt there wasn't enough time and sided with the conservative minority.

All in all, the US Supreme Courts decision remains puzzling. Especially for a court that has championed states rights, even going so far as to say that the 11th amendment not only covers suits by citizens of one state against a different state, it was meant to include suits by the citizens against the state they live in and even if it didn't say so, it means it anyway. Which is about as far into judicial activism and the court writing law as you can go.

On the other hand, if W's people had let Gore have the recounts he originally requested (4 counties worth) W still would have won. Now we have the spectacle of recounts by the media. (Which rresponds to kendall's post)

The recount won't change the election outcome, no matter what, and won't convince people who maintain that they were disenfranchised. (Which ought to be the issue but somehow isn't).

My bottom line is that our government functions in large part because of a tacit assumption that the system is fair (which doesn't say a lot about how much people know about the system). It is a matter of belief, rather than empirical proof. The election fiasco (and until the issue of undercounts in other states is addressed it will remain just that)diminishes peoples faith in the process of government.

The got elected because Florida voters voted Republican

The question was, did they offer a viable alternative to more prisons, jail terms and so on. This isn't a party issue. Democrats got elected on the same basis.

Uh.......the public sector means all the union thug bureacrats, Government.

Including the 90% of African Americans who didn't vote GOP? Or the 50% +500,000 who voted for Gore? Were they all deluded. Clearly they didn't perceive that the GOP was any kind of pancea.

I said Clearly, a lot of minorities proliferate in the inner city. A lot of businesses do to, large numbers of them marked by outrageous price gouging, credit schemes and the like. Run by all races. and you replied So you're saying they're equal opportunity?

Exactly. A triumph for our system and all without an affirmative action program in place. We support equal victimization by anyone, regardless of race, creed or color, to anyone, depending on race creed or color.

Well since you guys defined $20,000 as the poverty level and $75,000 as rich, no wonder the middle class seems to be shrinking

The States are free to define poverty as anything they want. The Federal Poverty Guidelines are usually multiplied by some factor. In Texas its 150%, in Florida 200%.

What is shrinking is the number of people who can afford the lifestyle, income notwithstanding. Looking at affordable lifestyle is more predictive than income levels and the relative percentages are shrinking. I said "While a nice, neat simple answer that explains away a very complex problem might be comforting to some, it does nothing to address root causes or solve anything. It offers the solace of style over substance" and you replied You don't like the simplicity of block grants?

There is nothing at all "simple" about any of the block grant programs. The "to be used by the state as they see fit", if political hyperbole. The restrictions remain.

I said "Do you feel there is truly equality of opportunity?" and you replied If there were equality in public education or vouchers, there might be when coupled with Greyhound and a GOOD ATTITUDE!

Greyhound? I miss the connection. (And may be glad I did once you explain)

I only was referring to the NAACP. If there are other self serving divisive groups I would probably say the same thing.

How do you define "divisive? Is it divisive to redline neighborhoods? Is it divisive to create separate Student centers and dorms for minorities? Is it divisive to punish crack possession more severely than cocaine possession? Is it divisive to portray a group as perpetual victims? Is it divisive to demonstrate clear prejudicial behavior and demand it be looked at.

What you really have to ask yourself is; Is it skin color, or attitude, that causes the perpetual dischord?

No, what I have to ask myself is what is causing the discord. You statement implies that it's an either/or issue. Are your categories exclusive?

I said To say there are still not structural (political, social and economic) obstacles to their becoming such is also stupid. you replied "'We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?)' And I said No. We don't. You may wish it was so. It would be comforting if it was. It would mean that it could all go away an we wouldn't have to deal with it. Could happily declare that the symptom is a cause and fell very self-satisfied" My comment referred to my opinion that blacks aren't stupid, are you saying they are?

No. I thought I was fairly clear in saying that there are obstacles imposed from both internal and external forces that mitigate the opportunities to some minorities. Claiming that if the minorities just try hard, all will be well is denying these additional problems exists that are not self caused.

And in another post

Looks like a good reason for an amendment.

Just be careful what you wish for. One reason there hasn't been a serious call for a full constitutional revision is that no one can control the outcome.

Picky, picky, you need a nuclear family before you get a decent extended family.

Damn right I'm picky. If you can't wow them with the brilliance of your logic, bury them in minutea. (To use nice words) The nuclear family is necessary. The study (and others) would seem to indicate it is not sufficient. (Or rather that it is preferred)

It mentioned two significant dates which noted an increase My theory can be summed up in two words, FDR and LBJ.

Insufficient. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I'd suggest that a stronger argument can be made for the LBJ connection than the FDR one. But LBJ would qualify as a very minor cause.

I don't dispute the warming trend. What I want to know is what were they doing in the 1400s to cause global warming?

Maybe nothing. It could have been a cyclic "blip". So could the current trend. It just doesn't look like it is, or at least not only that.

Newt says you're welcome for the Block Grant

Newt didn't have to sit through a two day mandatory meeting on filling out the application.

Regards

John