This issue is this. In November, Colorado voters just barely (19,000 votes) voted against a change to our Constitution which would have changed this language: “There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.” by removing the exception for prisons.
What were we thinking, right? After all, slavery is illegal and immoral so why should we still allow it as punishment for a crime? Seems like a no-brainer, right? Yet, we got it wrong. Right? Well, it wasn't a no-brainer, and that's why just over half the public voted against it.
The reason is that the measure was pushed by a group whose ultimate goal is to eliminate the prison system. What exactly their intent is was not clear, BUT there was a lot of concern that what this measure would do would be to eliminate prison work programs and community service. A lot of people don't like that. Prison work programs are often the only way to reform criminals and it is often the only skills training they will get in life. What's more, without community service you would either need to let most small crimes go unpunished (essentially eliminating small crimes) or you would need to build more jails to hold people who currently get off with community service. Bad idea all around.
So why did nearly half vote for it? Because it sounds great to eliminate "a reference to slavery" in the constitution. (BTW, Colorado was never a slave state so the idea that this promoted slavery is nonsense.
And that brings me to the article. Rather than presenting what I just told you, the author presented it as a no-brainer. All they wanted to do was to eliminate "hurtful language" from the Constitution. Well, f*ck you. Do a better job of writing your proposed change if that's all it is. Besides, why are we tinkering with the operating document of a state merely to cater to the idiosyncrasies of the delicates?
Further, the author is outraged that the state voter guide dared to state the "no" position "when there was no organized opposition!" In other words, it's unfair to be impartial. How democratic. Moreover, you apparently only need to be fair if there is a recognized lobby on each side. Apparently, we should only hear approved opinions.
Third, he assumes the public was confused, when I suspect the public really saw through the confusion generated by the proposed change. In other words, the public looked past the sales pitch "it says slavery!!!" and looked at the substance of what could happen. We're not confused. He is.
Fourth, he finds someone who was never a slave but gets described as if she and her family were slaves to shame us. Go away. I don't own a plantation or want slaves... no one does, and if one word in the constitution ruins your life, then you have bigger issues than this.
Fifth, he never mentions the goal of the people who introduced this. He instead described the process, using that to make it sound like the legislature spontaneously came up with this idea.
Finally, he never mentions the reason people opposed it. He does, however, try to refute it with a throwaway statement from an expert that "gee, this never meant the end of work programs before." Of course, he omits the fact that this guy is talking about other states and that the Colorado Supreme Court can get batshit crazy whenever it comes to issues like this.
So basically, you have an author who can't understand why more than half the public opposed something, but who thinks it's probably racism or a secret desire to have slavery back. Sound familiar? It's the media in a microcosm. They can't understand why Trump won. They refuse to understand. It must be racism or a failure to understand the truth, right? And both are outraged that the opponents arguments were even presented to the stupid, racist public.
Thoughts?
12 comments:
So, words have meanings? And removing key phrases changes the meaning and makes other giant problems? And the people of Colorado can read and understand and say "Uh, NO!"? My head hurts. I guess that this guy was well meaning, but, if we are going to strike words that are offensive, let's start with "TAXES"! I am personally offended by this word and my family has been made to suffer because of this word since at least 1913! REMOVE "TAXES" - not the concept of taxes, just the word 'cause it's upsetting. Let's call it "secular tithing"!
OT: does it seem like we are replacing "the Illuminati" and "Free Masons" with "Russians" who apparently have the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-disrupting secret hacking plan to take down the world?
To me, the most asinine aspect is that in order to actually remove reference to slavery, one would remove the word "slavery," thereby eliminating the prohibition on slavery.
Interesting point Tryanmax. When we try to remove history and the study of history, we are doomed to repeat the worst parts of history.
Bev, It's always something.
tryanmax, That's an excellent observation!
As an aside, if you asked every black person in Colorado what the Colorado Constitution says about slavery, I doubt more than a handful could tell you. The idea that this is an issue that affects people is ludicrous.
Bev, That's exactly what happened. The people (remember them, leftists?) thought about this and decided not to take the risk of destroying our prison system just to make a pointless change.
I'm actually surprised because I figured most people would see the word "slavery" and would agree with whatever it was.
Full disclosure, I voted for removal primarily on the grounds that the wording seemed unnecessary and archaic. However, I am now finding out that there was more to this question as Andrew pointed out. I wasn't worried about prison work programs or community service being eliminated because there is virtually no one who believes this is slave labor.
Speaking of slavery, this is a topic so hung up on the US experience that we can't have any discussion on the possible merits of slavery. In the distant past in other countries, slavery was used to help clear debts for you or your family. Generally, these people were cared for (fed and housed) and had rights against abuse. Most paid off his debts after 7 years and then was free. I'm not saying we should bring this back but it is important to understand slavery in historical context.
As seen at Threedonia by way of Facebook, "Democrats haven't been this angry since we freed their slaves."
EP! So true!!!
I doubt 1 person in 1000 could quote any part of the state Constitution and fewer people than that care.
Just watched 13th…I was disappointed that it was not entirely up front about who perpetuated the vast majority of the racism and discrimination against the African Americans during the 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s nor did they acknowledge who it was that supported the Civil Rights acts and who didn’t support it and continually voted against it. I heard a quote that I whole-heartedly agreed with…that the young black male population referred to as super predators was “Godless, fatherless, and jobless”. Those three things would have been a great line to pursue in the film and go in depth on how those three things have caused and perpetuated lots of the problems that any young people, not just black males, face. Without God you have no hope and reason to live…you’ve been told you’re a product of evolution and are just here by chance…Without a good father, young men and women don’t have that role model to look to as a symbol of constancy and example of providing for a family and taking responsibility for them. Unfortunately the fatherless tend to look at certain examples in their communities such as gangs or in culture as in musicians and activists who have an agenda. I heard someone say that one of the most common things that all people that are in prison have in common is that they didn’t have a male figure to look up to and lead them and teach them…and now that they’re incarcerated they can’t be that leader and example for their own children if they have them…Without jobs, people tend to fall into laziness and idleness…and as the saying goes “idle hands are the devil’s play thing”. Jobs teach responsibility and work ethic and being an adult…
The use of the clause in the 13th amendment to single out blacks seems to be in poor taste because as far as I know…anyone (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, native american) who commits a felony gives up the privileges of voting and several other consequences.
I don’t recall any calls to take responsibility for their actions but there was a lot of blame shifting to the police, the courts, politicians…and yes some of those groups hold some of the blame…but not all of it…people make choices…some make bad choices and some make good choices…if you can’t handle the consequences of making bad choices then don’t make those choices…it just seems that simple…and I believe it is that simple. There are excellent ways to get attention in life…the squeaky wheel gets the grease they say…but when you break laws to get attention you’ve lost all your credibility…
I was also disappointed that there were no conservative or Republican African Americans represented for their point of view on these issues…I would think someone like Condi Rice, or Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell, or Ben Carson, or Alfonzo Rachel, or Mia Love, or Allen West etc would have had some interesting counter arguments but sadly they weren’t represented.
Has anyone else watched this yet?
Post a Comment