the look on their faces though. its like “omfg, charles. charles, charles. THE HUMAN IS WAVING. WAVE BACK, HURRY.”
omg cutest ever
Republicans like to blame poverty on the breakdown of the “traditional” family. The numbers tell a different story
Hung my zines up in my new room today
10/10 - was a good decision.
Ohmygosh I want to do this!!
Just a reminder
boyswanna-be-her this reminds me so much of something you would do and this is why is like to be your pal.
parental figure: “sit like a lady”
P accurate tbh
Books that CLEARLY deserve the Choose Your Own Adventure treatment.
Oh dear god, please someone make this happen…
As the rules of acceptable discourse changed, however, segregationists distanced themselves from an explicitly racist agenda [despite being nakedly racist in congress in the 50’s, Republican leadership from Goldwater, Byrd, Wallace, McClellan, Erwin, and Thurmond all stayed in office for decades well into the Reagan 80’s]. They developed instead the racially sanitized rhetoric of “cracking down on crime” - rhetoric that is now used freely by politicians of every stripe. Conservative politicians who embraced this rhetoric purposefully failed to distinguish between the direct action tactics of civil rights activists [which terrified and infuriated racist whites of the 50’s and 60’s], violent rebellions in inner cities [sparked by specific racist police brutality], and traditional crimes of an economic or violent nature [the only of these three that wasn’t a direct result of segregation and Jim Crow]. Instead, as Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project has noted, “all of these phenomenon were subsumed under the heading of ‘crime in the streets.’
Crime and welfare were the major themes of Reagan’s campaign rhetoric. According to the Edsalls, one of Reagan’s favorite and most-often-repeated anecdotes was the story of a Chicago “welfare queen” with “80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards,” whose “tax-free income alone is over $150,000” The term “welfare queen” became a not-so-subtle code for “lazy, greedy, black ghetto mother.” The food stamp program, in turn, was a vehicle to let “some fellow ahead of you buy a T-bone steak,” while “you were standing in a checkout lion with your package of hamburger.” These highly radicalized appeals, targeted to poor and working-class whites, were nearly always accompanied by vehement promises to be tougher on crime and to enhance the federal government’s role in combating it … Reagan’s racially coded rhetoric and strategy proved extraordinarily effective, as 22% of all Democrats defected from the party to vote for Reagan. The defection rate shot up to 34% among those Democrats who believed civil rights leaders were pushing “too fast.”
Once elected, Reagan’s promise to enhance the federal government’s role in fighting crime was complicated by the fact that fighting street crime had traditionally been the responsibility of state and local law enforcement. After a period of initial confusion and controversy regarding whether the FBI and the federal government should be involved in street crime, the Justice Department announced its intention to cut in half the number of specialists assigned to identify and prosecute white-collar criminals and to shift its attention to street crime, especially drug-law enforcement. In October 1982, President Reagan officially announced his administration’s ‘War on Drugs.’ At the time he declared the new war, less than 2% of the American public viewed drugs as the most important issue facing the nation. This fact was no deterrent to Reagan, for the drug war from the outset had little to do with public concern about drugs and dealers, Reagan made good on his promise to crack down on the racially defined “others” - the undeserving.
Practically overnight the budgets of federal law enforcement agencies soared. Between 1980 and 1984, FBI anti drug allocations increased from $33 million to $95 million. Department of Defense antidrug allocations increased from $33 million in 1981 to $1,042 million in 1991. During that same period, DEA anti drug allocations grew from $38 to $181 million. By contrast, funding for agencies responsible for drug treatment, prevention, and education was dramatically reduced. The budget of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, for example, was reduced from $274 million to $57 million from 1981 to 1984, and anti drug funds allocated to the Department of Education were cut from $14 million to $3 million.
- from ‘The New Jim Crow’ by Michelle Alexander
tl;dr kids … THIS is who white conservatives say is their hero. THIS has as much to do with current events in Ferguson as anything else. Stay woke.
Support Grant’s work by getting yourself one of his awesomely inspiring posters HERE.
I feel like this series does a great job of answering the question “where do I find my design inspiration?”
This what some of you guys missed when watching the Anaconda video by Nicki Minaj
A low income person can get a hold of iPhones, Jordans, they can travel (especially if they’re first generation American)
What a low income person can’t do is purchase a house, pay for college without assistance, pay serious medical bills…build wealth… like the major stuff…