Seth's Reblog Catchall

politicalprof:

This is startlingly accurate. My favorite is #3: 

Say, “Today’s Tom Friedman column was really interesting. You should read it.  He makes some good points.” My parents do this to me.  All.  The.  Time.  I suspect other political scientists have the same reaction I do.  Bonus tip: Same statement, but replace “Tom Friedman” with “Maureen Dowd.”

That will work. Believe me.

witchnews:

Ending Marijuana Prohibition Must Take a Historical Perspective
When the New York Times called for the federal government to repeal its prohibition of marijuana and let the states decide its fate — for medicinal or recreational use, production, and sale — it did not rely solely on issues of the here and now, such as economics, science, public safety, and current levels of racial disparities in arrests and incarceration rates (all of which are important considerations). Instead, through the publication of seven pieces, the editorial board provided a more comprehensive argument in support of their stance, connecting today’s legalization movement to the past’s criminalization crusade. For the New York Times, history matters — as it should for the legalization campaign nationwide.
Underlying marijuana prohibition is a familiar philosophy: to preserve social order and white supremacy and secure profits for an influential few, it is permissible, even advisable, to construct profit-bearing institutions of social control. Historically, this philosophy has been advanced by governmental action, guided by special interests. The traditional tactics: manufacturing mass fear, criminalizing the target or demoting them to a sub-citizen status, and profiting from their subjugation.
Cannabis prohibition did all three. The Times editorial board dedicated an entire article to explaining this phenomenon. Part 3 of the series begins, “The federal law that makes possession of marijuana a crime has its origins in legislation that was passed in an atmosphere of hysteria in the 1930s and that was firmly rooted in prejudices against Mexican immigrants and African-Americans, who were associated with marijuana use at the time. This racially freighted history lives on in current federal policy, which is so driven by myth and propaganda that it is almost impervious to reason.” This limited analysis refers to the refer madness hysteria and xenophobia that infiltrated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.
Additionally, business interests play a part in keeping cannabis illegal. Some pharmaceutical companies, drug-prevention nonprofits, law enforcement agencies, and the private prison industry have an economic interest in criminalization, what is known as the drug control industrial complex. It pays big to help fight the war on drugs, and marijuana prohibition is a crucial facet of that effort. The Nation has recently called these interests “The Real Reason Pot is Still Illegal.”
The United States should legalize marijuana. It should also end the drug war, which would be a tremendous and beautiful accomplishment, but it would not be enough.
The war on drugs is a mechanism of social control — not unlike African slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol Prohibition, or the systematic relegation of immigrants to an illegal status or substandard existence. Different in their nature and severity, all of these institutions were tools used to control and profit from the criminalization, regulation, and dehumanization of minority communities. Legalizing marijuana will not alone rid society of the tendency to turn fear into hatred, hatred into regulation, and regulation into profit. To address this cycle, we must put cannabis prohibition (and the drug war) in its historical context and connect the dots where appropriate.
Already we have seen that the reality of legalization does not alone ensure justice or equality. As law professor and best selling author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander points out, thousands of black men remain in jail or prison in Colorado (where licit weed has been on the market since January) while white men make money from the now legal marijuana market — selling the drug just as the incarcerated men had done. She warns that legalization without reparation is not sufficient, drawing the parallel to what happened to black Americans post-Reconstruction. “And after a brief period of reconstruction a new caste system was imposed — Jim Crow — and another extraordinary movement arose and brought the old Jim Crow to its knees…Americans said, OK, we’ll stop now. We’ll take down the whites-only signs, we’ll stop doing that,” she said. “But there were not reparations for slavery, not for Jim Crow, and scarcely an acknowledgement of the harm done except for Martin Luther King Day, one day out of the year. And I feel like, here we go again.”
Alexander’s historical perspective is warranted because despite the size and intensity of marijuana prohibition, of the drug war in its entirety, its purpose is not unlike that of Jim Crow or other structural forms of social control and oppression. The drug war was never about drugs. Therefore, our solution to it can’t be either.
We must frame the campaigns for cannabis legalization across the states as civil rights movements — as institutional reform efforts — so that the public might demand justice oriented outcomes from the campaigns. We must also make the public aware of the dangerous relationship between profit and criminalization so that they can identity the potential dangerous within the relationship between profit and legalization. We must make legalization about more than raising tax revenue, increasing civil liberties, and lowering arrests rates for possession (all of which are important and positive outcomes of legalization, nonetheless).
In order to undue the damage — to the extent that that is possible — that the criminalization of marijuana specifically and the war on drugs more broadly have caused, we must pay reparations and retroactively apply reformed drug laws. More importantly, we must undermine the philosophies that allow for the construction of institutional harm, and we must be able to identity them when they creep up again and be ready to take action against them, to arm our minds and our bodies against the next wave of social oppression — whatever and wherever it may be and to whomever it may be applied.
This is my plea to make history matter so that it doesn’t repeat itself — again, and again, and again.

witchnews:

Ending Marijuana Prohibition Must Take a Historical Perspective

When the New York Times called for the federal government to repeal its prohibition of marijuana and let the states decide its fate — for medicinal or recreational use, production, and sale — it did not rely solely on issues of the here and now, such as economics, science, public safety, and current levels of racial disparities in arrests and incarceration rates (all of which are important considerations). Instead, through the publication of seven pieces, the editorial board provided a more comprehensive argument in support of their stance, connecting today’s legalization movement to the past’s criminalization crusade. For the New York Times, history matters — as it should for the legalization campaign nationwide.

Underlying marijuana prohibition is a familiar philosophy: to preserve social order and white supremacy and secure profits for an influential few, it is permissible, even advisable, to construct profit-bearing institutions of social control. Historically, this philosophy has been advanced by governmental action, guided by special interests. The traditional tactics: manufacturing mass fear, criminalizing the target or demoting them to a sub-citizen status, and profiting from their subjugation.

Cannabis prohibition did all three. The Times editorial board dedicated an entire article to explaining this phenomenon. Part 3 of the series begins, “The federal law that makes possession of marijuana a crime has its origins in legislation that was passed in an atmosphere of hysteria in the 1930s and that was firmly rooted in prejudices against Mexican immigrants and African-Americans, who were associated with marijuana use at the time. This racially freighted history lives on in current federal policy, which is so driven by myth and propaganda that it is almost impervious to reason.” This limited analysis refers to the refer madness hysteria and xenophobia that infiltrated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.

Additionally, business interests play a part in keeping cannabis illegal. Some pharmaceutical companies, drug-prevention nonprofits, law enforcement agencies, and the private prison industry have an economic interest in criminalization, what is known as the drug control industrial complex. It pays big to help fight the war on drugs, and marijuana prohibition is a crucial facet of that effort. The Nation has recently called these interests “The Real Reason Pot is Still Illegal.”

The United States should legalize marijuana. It should also end the drug war, which would be a tremendous and beautiful accomplishment, but it would not be enough.

The war on drugs is a mechanism of social control — not unlike African slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol Prohibition, or the systematic relegation of immigrants to an illegal status or substandard existence. Different in their nature and severity, all of these institutions were tools used to control and profit from the criminalization, regulation, and dehumanization of minority communities. Legalizing marijuana will not alone rid society of the tendency to turn fear into hatred, hatred into regulation, and regulation into profit. To address this cycle, we must put cannabis prohibition (and the drug war) in its historical context and connect the dots where appropriate.

Already we have seen that the reality of legalization does not alone ensure justice or equality. As law professor and best selling author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander points out, thousands of black men remain in jail or prison in Colorado (where licit weed has been on the market since January) while white men make money from the now legal marijuana market — selling the drug just as the incarcerated men had done. She warns that legalization without reparation is not sufficient, drawing the parallel to what happened to black Americans post-Reconstruction. “And after a brief period of reconstruction a new caste system was imposed — Jim Crow — and another extraordinary movement arose and brought the old Jim Crow to its knees…Americans said, OK, we’ll stop now. We’ll take down the whites-only signs, we’ll stop doing that,” she said. “But there were not reparations for slavery, not for Jim Crow, and scarcely an acknowledgement of the harm done except for Martin Luther King Day, one day out of the year. And I feel like, here we go again.”

Alexander’s historical perspective is warranted because despite the size and intensity of marijuana prohibition, of the drug war in its entirety, its purpose is not unlike that of Jim Crow or other structural forms of social control and oppression. The drug war was never about drugs. Therefore, our solution to it can’t be either.

We must frame the campaigns for cannabis legalization across the states as civil rights movements — as institutional reform efforts — so that the public might demand justice oriented outcomes from the campaigns. We must also make the public aware of the dangerous relationship between profit and criminalization so that they can identity the potential dangerous within the relationship between profit and legalization. We must make legalization about more than raising tax revenue, increasing civil liberties, and lowering arrests rates for possession (all of which are important and positive outcomes of legalization, nonetheless).

In order to undue the damage — to the extent that that is possible — that the criminalization of marijuana specifically and the war on drugs more broadly have caused, we must pay reparations and retroactively apply reformed drug laws. More importantly, we must undermine the philosophies that allow for the construction of institutional harm, and we must be able to identity them when they creep up again and be ready to take action against them, to arm our minds and our bodies against the next wave of social oppression — whatever and wherever it may be and to whomever it may be applied.

This is my plea to make history matter so that it doesn’t repeat itself — again, and again, and again.

questionall:

WHAT IS MORE LIKELY? Over 50 countries around the world ban GMO crop cultivation and/or at least label GMO foods and ingredients so their people have the freedom to choose. On the other hand, Monsanto is fighting tooth and nail against mandatory labeling and county-by-county GMO crop cultivation bans in the United States. Why are they trying to hide their GMOs from the public?
Colorado and Oregon voters have the opportunity to make mandatory GMO labeling the law this November at the polls, and to stick it to Monsanto, the agrichemical industry, Big Food and Big Ag. Colorado. Oregon. Make it happen.
Help out - volunteer, donate and vote. Beat the corporate interests this November:
COLORADO YES ON 105http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/ Right To Know Colorado - GMO
OREGON YES ON 92http://oregonrighttoknow.org/ Oregon Right To Know

questionall:

WHAT IS MORE LIKELY? Over 50 countries around the world ban GMO crop cultivation and/or at least label GMO foods and ingredients so their people have the freedom to choose. On the other hand, Monsanto is fighting tooth and nail against mandatory labeling and county-by-county GMO crop cultivation bans in the United States. Why are they trying to hide their GMOs from the public?

Colorado and Oregon voters have the opportunity to make mandatory GMO labeling the law this November at the polls, and to stick it to Monsanto, the agrichemical industry, Big Food and Big Ag. Colorado. Oregon. Make it happen.

Help out - volunteer, donate and vote. Beat the corporate interests this November:

COLORADO YES ON 105
http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/
Right To Know Colorado - GMO

OREGON YES ON 92
http://oregonrighttoknow.org/
Oregon Right To Know

Arguably, one of the most potentially destructive things that can happen to a faith is for it to become the accepted and established religion of the political, cultural, and social unit in which its adherents live. Certainly, there is no question that Constantine’s preempting of Christianity in the fourth century was the great pivot point by means of which Christianity became a dominant institution . It is also the point at which the so-called Hellenization of the faith began to accelerate, infiltrate, and eventually dominate Christian theology.
Phyllis Tickle (via azspot)

Do you know what I think of when someone asks for solidarity? I think of cops. Nobody shows more solidarity than cops. You could have a cop on video beating the crap out of someone, with a dozen of his fellow cops standing there watching, and not a one will cross that blue line to do what is right…

Solidarity is about group cohesion, which means you have to see value in group belonging. And I don’t. I’ve never wanted to belong to a group. All too often, group belonging means conformity. It’s why the Amish all dress the same. It’s why every kid in middle school has to run out and buy the same pair of jeans as their friends…

If you want me to do something or support something, do not appeal to me on the basis of group identity. Appeal to me on principle. Appeal to a real human relationship that we have. If I think your cause is just, I’ll be there…

If you just want solidarity, join the mob or the white nationalists or the police force.

Melanie Pinkert (via eccentric-opinion)

Thank you.

(via laliberty)

If this isn’t an entrance to a fairy world then I don’t know what is…

Fairy Glen, Isle of Skye, Scotland, April 2014

witchnews:

Ending Marijuana Prohibition Must Take a Historical Perspective
When the New York Times called for the federal government to repeal its prohibition of marijuana and let the states decide its fate — for medicinal or recreational use, production, and sale — it did not rely solely on issues of the here and now, such as economics, science, public safety, and current levels of racial disparities in arrests and incarceration rates (all of which are important considerations). Instead, through the publication of seven pieces, the editorial board provided a more comprehensive argument in support of their stance, connecting today’s legalization movement to the past’s criminalization crusade. For the New York Times, history matters — as it should for the legalization campaign nationwide.
Underlying marijuana prohibition is a familiar philosophy: to preserve social order and white supremacy and secure profits for an influential few, it is permissible, even advisable, to construct profit-bearing institutions of social control. Historically, this philosophy has been advanced by governmental action, guided by special interests. The traditional tactics: manufacturing mass fear, criminalizing the target or demoting them to a sub-citizen status, and profiting from their subjugation.
Cannabis prohibition did all three. The Times editorial board dedicated an entire article to explaining this phenomenon. Part 3 of the series begins, “The federal law that makes possession of marijuana a crime has its origins in legislation that was passed in an atmosphere of hysteria in the 1930s and that was firmly rooted in prejudices against Mexican immigrants and African-Americans, who were associated with marijuana use at the time. This racially freighted history lives on in current federal policy, which is so driven by myth and propaganda that it is almost impervious to reason.” This limited analysis refers to the refer madness hysteria and xenophobia that infiltrated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.
Additionally, business interests play a part in keeping cannabis illegal. Some pharmaceutical companies, drug-prevention nonprofits, law enforcement agencies, and the private prison industry have an economic interest in criminalization, what is known as the drug control industrial complex. It pays big to help fight the war on drugs, and marijuana prohibition is a crucial facet of that effort. The Nation has recently called these interests “The Real Reason Pot is Still Illegal.”
The United States should legalize marijuana. It should also end the drug war, which would be a tremendous and beautiful accomplishment, but it would not be enough.
The war on drugs is a mechanism of social control — not unlike African slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol Prohibition, or the systematic relegation of immigrants to an illegal status or substandard existence. Different in their nature and severity, all of these institutions were tools used to control and profit from the criminalization, regulation, and dehumanization of minority communities. Legalizing marijuana will not alone rid society of the tendency to turn fear into hatred, hatred into regulation, and regulation into profit. To address this cycle, we must put cannabis prohibition (and the drug war) in its historical context and connect the dots where appropriate.
Already we have seen that the reality of legalization does not alone ensure justice or equality. As law professor and best selling author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander points out, thousands of black men remain in jail or prison in Colorado (where licit weed has been on the market since January) while white men make money from the now legal marijuana market — selling the drug just as the incarcerated men had done. She warns that legalization without reparation is not sufficient, drawing the parallel to what happened to black Americans post-Reconstruction. “And after a brief period of reconstruction a new caste system was imposed — Jim Crow — and another extraordinary movement arose and brought the old Jim Crow to its knees…Americans said, OK, we’ll stop now. We’ll take down the whites-only signs, we’ll stop doing that,” she said. “But there were not reparations for slavery, not for Jim Crow, and scarcely an acknowledgement of the harm done except for Martin Luther King Day, one day out of the year. And I feel like, here we go again.”
Alexander’s historical perspective is warranted because despite the size and intensity of marijuana prohibition, of the drug war in its entirety, its purpose is not unlike that of Jim Crow or other structural forms of social control and oppression. The drug war was never about drugs. Therefore, our solution to it can’t be either.
We must frame the campaigns for cannabis legalization across the states as civil rights movements — as institutional reform efforts — so that the public might demand justice oriented outcomes from the campaigns. We must also make the public aware of the dangerous relationship between profit and criminalization so that they can identity the potential dangerous within the relationship between profit and legalization. We must make legalization about more than raising tax revenue, increasing civil liberties, and lowering arrests rates for possession (all of which are important and positive outcomes of legalization, nonetheless).
In order to undue the damage — to the extent that that is possible — that the criminalization of marijuana specifically and the war on drugs more broadly have caused, we must pay reparations and retroactively apply reformed drug laws. More importantly, we must undermine the philosophies that allow for the construction of institutional harm, and we must be able to identity them when they creep up again and be ready to take action against them, to arm our minds and our bodies against the next wave of social oppression — whatever and wherever it may be and to whomever it may be applied.
This is my plea to make history matter so that it doesn’t repeat itself — again, and again, and again.

witchnews:

Ending Marijuana Prohibition Must Take a Historical Perspective

When the New York Times called for the federal government to repeal its prohibition of marijuana and let the states decide its fate — for medicinal or recreational use, production, and sale — it did not rely solely on issues of the here and now, such as economics, science, public safety, and current levels of racial disparities in arrests and incarceration rates (all of which are important considerations). Instead, through the publication of seven pieces, the editorial board provided a more comprehensive argument in support of their stance, connecting today’s legalization movement to the past’s criminalization crusade. For the New York Times, history matters — as it should for the legalization campaign nationwide.

Underlying marijuana prohibition is a familiar philosophy: to preserve social order and white supremacy and secure profits for an influential few, it is permissible, even advisable, to construct profit-bearing institutions of social control. Historically, this philosophy has been advanced by governmental action, guided by special interests. The traditional tactics: manufacturing mass fear, criminalizing the target or demoting them to a sub-citizen status, and profiting from their subjugation.

Cannabis prohibition did all three. The Times editorial board dedicated an entire article to explaining this phenomenon. Part 3 of the series begins, “The federal law that makes possession of marijuana a crime has its origins in legislation that was passed in an atmosphere of hysteria in the 1930s and that was firmly rooted in prejudices against Mexican immigrants and African-Americans, who were associated with marijuana use at the time. This racially freighted history lives on in current federal policy, which is so driven by myth and propaganda that it is almost impervious to reason.” This limited analysis refers to the refer madness hysteria and xenophobia that infiltrated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.

Additionally, business interests play a part in keeping cannabis illegal. Some pharmaceutical companies, drug-prevention nonprofits, law enforcement agencies, and the private prison industry have an economic interest in criminalization, what is known as the drug control industrial complex. It pays big to help fight the war on drugs, and marijuana prohibition is a crucial facet of that effort. The Nation has recently called these interests “The Real Reason Pot is Still Illegal.”

The United States should legalize marijuana. It should also end the drug war, which would be a tremendous and beautiful accomplishment, but it would not be enough.

The war on drugs is a mechanism of social control — not unlike African slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol Prohibition, or the systematic relegation of immigrants to an illegal status or substandard existence. Different in their nature and severity, all of these institutions were tools used to control and profit from the criminalization, regulation, and dehumanization of minority communities. Legalizing marijuana will not alone rid society of the tendency to turn fear into hatred, hatred into regulation, and regulation into profit. To address this cycle, we must put cannabis prohibition (and the drug war) in its historical context and connect the dots where appropriate.

Already we have seen that the reality of legalization does not alone ensure justice or equality. As law professor and best selling author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander points out, thousands of black men remain in jail or prison in Colorado (where licit weed has been on the market since January) while white men make money from the now legal marijuana market — selling the drug just as the incarcerated men had done. She warns that legalization without reparation is not sufficient, drawing the parallel to what happened to black Americans post-Reconstruction. “And after a brief period of reconstruction a new caste system was imposed — Jim Crow — and another extraordinary movement arose and brought the old Jim Crow to its knees…Americans said, OK, we’ll stop now. We’ll take down the whites-only signs, we’ll stop doing that,” she said. “But there were not reparations for slavery, not for Jim Crow, and scarcely an acknowledgement of the harm done except for Martin Luther King Day, one day out of the year. And I feel like, here we go again.”

Alexander’s historical perspective is warranted because despite the size and intensity of marijuana prohibition, of the drug war in its entirety, its purpose is not unlike that of Jim Crow or other structural forms of social control and oppression. The drug war was never about drugs. Therefore, our solution to it can’t be either.

We must frame the campaigns for cannabis legalization across the states as civil rights movements — as institutional reform efforts — so that the public might demand justice oriented outcomes from the campaigns. We must also make the public aware of the dangerous relationship between profit and criminalization so that they can identity the potential dangerous within the relationship between profit and legalization. We must make legalization about more than raising tax revenue, increasing civil liberties, and lowering arrests rates for possession (all of which are important and positive outcomes of legalization, nonetheless).

In order to undue the damage — to the extent that that is possible — that the criminalization of marijuana specifically and the war on drugs more broadly have caused, we must pay reparations and retroactively apply reformed drug laws. More importantly, we must undermine the philosophies that allow for the construction of institutional harm, and we must be able to identity them when they creep up again and be ready to take action against them, to arm our minds and our bodies against the next wave of social oppression — whatever and wherever it may be and to whomever it may be applied.

This is my plea to make history matter so that it doesn’t repeat itself — again, and again, and again.

thepeoplesrecord:

A group of Ferguson protesters releases list of demands, calls for national walk outAugust 25, 2014
A coalition of Ferguson protesters met with reporters Friday to announce a list of demands related to the investigation of the shooting death of Michael Brown and to call for college students to participate in a national “Walk Out” from classes on Monday.
The group says it doesn’t yet have a name, but those involved include members of the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment. Meetings are held at Greater St. Mark’s Missionary Church near Ferguson.
Taurean Russell of St. Louis said this is the first time the group has issued an official statement.
“We are the core, and we’re mostly youth. We have demands, counter demands. Actions if demands are not met,” Russell said.
The list includes:
A swift and impartial investigation by the Department of Justice into the Mike Brown shooting, and expanded DOJ investigation into civil rights violations across North St. Louis County.
The immediate arrest of Officer Darren Wilson
County prosecutor Bob McCulloch to stand down and allow special prosecutor to be appointed.
The firing of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.
Accountability for police practices and policies, including effective civilian review of shootings and allegations of misconduct.
The immediate de-escalation of militarized policing of protestors to protect constitutional rights.
The immediate release of individuals who have been arrested while attending a protest.
If demands are not met, Russell said his group would continue to protest. If Officer Wilson is not indicted, Russell says protestors will turn to boycotts and other walk outs.
“We have nothing but time on our hands,” Russell said. “We’re not going to stop until we get justice, not only for Mike Brown. For everybody, until the whole system understands that we’re people, and everyone needs equality.”
Members said they are calling for college students to walk out of their classes on Monday in honor of Michael Brown.
“Back in the ’60s, they were blessed with the pleasure to exercise their rights by sitting in,” said St. Louis rap artist and coalition member Tef Poe. “We want to exercise our rights by calling for a walk out.”
SourcePhoto

thepeoplesrecord:

A group of Ferguson protesters releases list of demands, calls for national walk out
August 25, 2014

A coalition of Ferguson protesters met with reporters Friday to announce a list of demands related to the investigation of the shooting death of Michael Brown and to call for college students to participate in a national “Walk Out” from classes on Monday.

The group says it doesn’t yet have a name, but those involved include members of the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment. Meetings are held at Greater St. Mark’s Missionary Church near Ferguson.

Taurean Russell of St. Louis said this is the first time the group has issued an official statement.

“We are the core, and we’re mostly youth. We have demands, counter demands. Actions if demands are not met,” Russell said.

The list includes:

  1. A swift and impartial investigation by the Department of Justice into the Mike Brown shooting, and expanded DOJ investigation into civil rights violations across North St. Louis County.
  2. The immediate arrest of Officer Darren Wilson
  3. County prosecutor Bob McCulloch to stand down and allow special prosecutor to be appointed.
  4. The firing of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.
  5. Accountability for police practices and policies, including effective civilian review of shootings and allegations of misconduct.
  6. The immediate de-escalation of militarized policing of protestors to protect constitutional rights.
  7. The immediate release of individuals who have been arrested while attending a protest.

If demands are not met, Russell said his group would continue to protest. If Officer Wilson is not indicted, Russell says protestors will turn to boycotts and other walk outs.

“We have nothing but time on our hands,” Russell said. “We’re not going to stop until we get justice, not only for Mike Brown. For everybody, until the whole system understands that we’re people, and everyone needs equality.”

Members said they are calling for college students to walk out of their classes on Monday in honor of Michael Brown.

“Back in the ’60s, they were blessed with the pleasure to exercise their rights by sitting in,” said St. Louis rap artist and coalition member Tef Poe. “We want to exercise our rights by calling for a walk out.”

Source
Photo

The killing of Mike Brown can be a pivotal moment for how we treat the systemic violence and militarism that produced the policing system of today. Ferguson has awakened many Americans to the realities of police militarism on their streets and to the urgent need to demilitarize the police. We cannot afford public apathy on this issue any longer. The people must insist on alternative models of policing that respect and protect civil and human rights. To reverse the trend of police violence in this country, we must work to eliminate the systemic and militaristic roots of this violence, remembering that military-style policing is inextricably linked to America’s belligerence abroad. No matter how you slice it, the weapons of war and other violent tactics used against Ferguson protestors will go down as a tragic chapter in American history. Still, robust and meaningful people-powered action for progressive social change can help make this chapter a turning point toward the positive transformation of policing in the United States. This action, change, and transformation are inevitable because justice demands it.