It was only a matter of time.......

[packinpatland]

CHICAGO (AP) - Rev. Jesse Jackson, in a speech given to the Chicago branch of the NAACP, has made the claim that serious racial issues are present in the federal government's case against Michael Vick, and may have cost Vick his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial.

Jackson stated to the audience that "We can not sit here and ignore the fact that Michael Vick, and African-American male, was more vigorously prosecuted for this crime than anyone in history, and we must assume that racism played a major role in this." Jackson received thunderous applause from the audience.

Rev. Jackson went on to cite statistics from other dog fighting convictions to point out the disparity between whites and blacks being charged and convicted of that same charge, and also cited Vick as yet another example of overzealous prosecutors whose judgement was possibly clouded by racism.

Jackson said that he may be holding a rally in support of Vick in the Atlanta area during the Falcons first home game, but no definite date has been set yet.

[BallHawk]

Will he just go away and shut up?

[oregonpackfan]

Last week, I brought up that several African-American leaders were bringing up the race card re: the prosecution of Micheal Vick.

Several of you poo-pooed the report stating they had never heard of this accusation.

The charges of dog-fighting, gambling, and organized crime apply to Vick irregardless of his race or color. He should not be prosecuted any more or any less because of his race. He should be be recused of these crimes any more or any less because of his race.

[Joemailman]

So it's gonna be Jesse vs. PETA? Hard to cheer for either side in that one.

[MJZiggy]

I just find it interesting that he's holding a rally in Atlanta (where the trial isn't happening) rather than Richmond (where it is). I wonder why...?

And it's not Jackson vs. PETA, it's Jackson vs. the United States Justice Department and the United States Federal Court in Virginia.

Vick plead guilty. He said he did it. He hasn't been sentenced yet. How is it possible that he is being treated differently than anyone else who hasn't been sentenced yet?

[BallHawk]

So it's gonna be Jesse vs. PETA? Hard to cheer for either side in that one.

It's like Bears vs. Vikings. Somebodies gotta win, but you don't feel happy about it either way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rev. Jackson went on to cite statistics from other dog fighting convictions to point out the disparity between whites and blacks being charged and convicted of that same charge.

I'd be very interested to see these statistics. If this keeps up, I suppose they will come out.

[mraynrand]

Rev. Jackson ... also cited Vick as yet another example of overzealous prosecutors whose judgement was possibly clouded by racism.


Just like Nifong. Jesse was on the correct side of that one too, wasn't he? Have fun at the rally Jesse. But name me one other super high profile guy like Vick who got busted for running dog fighting rings. Plus, I didn't follow this closely, but weren't there reports that Vick did some pretty awful things and pleaded to lesser charges?


Also, did racism cloud the judgement of the prosecutors who let Jamal Lewis off so easily for drug charges?

[Harlan Huckleby]

But name me one other super high profile guy like Vick who got busted for running dog fighting rings.

This is not directly relevant. But LeShon Johnson was a co-owner of very large dogfighting ring, and he got a 5-year suspended sentence, I don't think he did any prison time.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=7863

[BEARMAN]

There is only one thing I hate more then the pack, ... M. Vick ! :butt:

[Joemailman]

I just find it interesting that he's holding a rally in Atlanta (where the trial isn't happening) rather than Richmond (where it is). I wonder why...?

And it's not Jackson vs. PETA, it's Jackson vs. the United States Justice Department and the United States Federal Court in Virginia.

Vick plead guilty. He said he did it. He hasn't been sentenced yet. How is it possible that he is being treated differently than anyone else who hasn't been sentenced yet?

What I meant was if Jackson holds a rally in support of Vick, PETA is likely to be there with a counter-demonstration. Those End Zone dogs from Cleveland might show up too.

[MJZiggy]

Those End Zone dogs from Cleveland might show up too.

See now that might get kinda fun...

[mraynrand]

But name me one other super high profile guy like Vick who got busted for running dog fighting rings.

This is not directly relevant. But LeShon Johnson was a co-owner of very large dogfighting ring, and he got a 5-year suspended sentence, I don't think he did any prison time.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=7863

Of course it's relevant. Or would you argue that high-profile people are treated the same as low profile. It's far more likely that Vick was treated more harshly to set an example than due to racism. Just ask Martha Stewart - or do you think her bogus prosecution was due to racism?

When Jesse Jackson starts going after the Travis Henrys like he goes after perceived or invented racism, I might listen to him again. Oh, wait, I'm sane. I'll never take that race whor# seriously ever again.

[Kiwon]

Several of you poo-pooed

Why I haven't done that since I switched to my big boy underwear years ago. :)

This case had an O.J. flair to it from the start. All cases involving high profile Blacks are viewed through the same distorted lens by the Civil Rights and political community.

Goodness sakes, the Congressional Black Caucas meet with and defended Michael Jackson while his legal problems over sex with minors was going on.

What's a shame is that the NAACP has failed its mission and become more problem than solution. They were founded by whites and blacks working together. Now, it's national board is almost 100% black under the leadership of the disgraceful Julian Bond.

It will be a good day when Jackson and the other "Civil Rights" era folks are off the scene. Then maybe you might witness a more reasoned dialogue.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Last week, I brought up that several African-American leaders were bringing up the race card re: the prosecution of Micheal Vick.

Several of you poo-pooed the report stating they had never heard of this accusation.

The charges of dog-fighting, gambling, and organized crime apply to Vick irregardless of his race or color. He should not be prosecuted any more or any less because of his race. He should be be recused of these crimes any more or any less because of his race.

Weren't you a former teacher? Geez, might be time for a refresher. No such word as irregardless.

[packinpatland]

Origin
The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the consensus among references is that it is a blend of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words. By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."[1]. (Cf. inflammable, flammable.) However, such double negatives are already found in the language in such words as debone and unravel.

Irregardless is primarily found in North America, most notably in Boston and surrounding areas, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana. Barely a decade later, the usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?"[2]


[edit] Appearance in reference books
One way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributed it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it still was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,[3] published in 1965, nor is irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless therein. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[4] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[6]This word was first seen in print in the Gordon family anthology.


[edit] Prescriptive vs. descriptive
The approach taken by lexicographers when documenting a word's uses and limitations can be prescriptive or descriptive. The method used with irregardless is overwhelmingly prescriptive. Much of the criticism comes from the illogical double negative pairing of the prefix (ir-) and suffix (-less), and the argument that irregardless is not, or should not be, a word at all because it lacks the antecedents of a "bona fide nonstandard word." A counterexample is provided in ain't, which has an "ancient genealogy," at which scholars would not dare level such criticisms.[1]

The descriptive approach to "irregardless" is to note that it is considered nonstandard by educated people.


[edit] Summary
Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization.[citation needed] It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose. The fact that its listing as a "humorous usage" has practically disappeared today supplies further evidence in favor of acceptance. However, strong resistance to this word still remains. Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized, since natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.

[oregonpackfan]

Last week, I brought up that several African-American leaders were bringing up the race card re: the prosecution of Micheal Vick.

Several of you poo-pooed the report stating they had never heard of this accusation.

The charges of dog-fighting, gambling, and organized crime apply to Vick irregardless of his race or color. He should not be prosecuted any more or any less because of his race. He should be be recused of these crimes any more or any less because of his race.

Weren't you a former teacher? Geez, might be time for a refresher. No such word as irregardless.

Please see the quote about "irregardless," Tyrone.

",,,both of which are commonly accepted standard English words."

Who needs the refresher course on grammar? :)

[Freak Out]

It will be a good day when Jackson and the other "Civil Rights" era folks are off the scene. Then maybe you might witness a more reasoned dialogue.

Pardon? The "Civil Rights" era folks went out and fought for what was right and just in a time when it was extremely dangerous to do so and many in the COUNTRY were opposed to equal rights and justice. You may not like Jesse and some of stands he has taken over the years but lumping all the Civil Rights era folks together is wrong. They are/were brave Americans when many were cowardly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But name me one other super high profile guy like Vick who got busted for running dog fighting rings.

This is not directly relevant. But LeShon Johnson was a co-owner of very large dogfighting ring, and he got a 5-year suspended sentence, I don't think he did any prison time.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=7863

Of course it's relevant. Or would you argue that high-profile people are treated the same as low profile. It's far more likely that Vick was treated more harshly to set an example than due to racism.

We're dealing with a confusing mix of race and class. I agree with you, Vick got the hammer from the prosecutor (and public) partially because he comes from the rich entertainer class, not because he is black. (I shouldn't have said the Leshon Johnson case was "irrelevant", I just meant it wasn't relevant to the black-white comparison)

Also, I beleive the prosecutors didn't want the case to go to trial because Vick is a rich guy who can afford fancy, attention-seeking attorneys. Like with OJ, he might have gotten off.

[Kiwon]

It will be a good day when Jackson and the other "Civil Rights" era folks are off the scene. Then maybe you might witness a more reasoned dialogue.

Pardon? The "Civil Rights" era folks went out and fought for what was right and just in a time when it was extremely dangerous to do so and many in the COUNTRY were opposed to equal rights and justice. You may not like Jesse and some of stands he has taken over the years but lumping all the Civil Rights era folks together is wrong. They are/were brave Americans when many were cowardly.

Anyone who was around in the 1950's and marched with King is generally considered as part of the Civil Rights era generation. It was a grassroots movement and much good was accomplished.

Now, 50 years later, we still have Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery, John Lewis, and Julian Bond around and each claiming to represent King and the Civil Rights movement in general.

What notable accomplishments have these men performed in the last 20 years that have contributed to the benefit of Blacks? Can you name any? I can't think of one.

As the American society has progressed and become more color-blind, they continue to perpetuate the permanent "victimhood" status of Blacks by maintaining a 1950-60's mentality. It's 2007 but they don't want to know it or acknowledge any progress because if they do, they become less relevant and lose their notoriety.

Andrew Young is a lone, rare exception of a Civil Rights era leader that actually broadened or maintained King's message of equal rights for all, not special rights for one race of people.

My focus was on the "leaders" of the Civil Rights Movement and what they represent today, not the common person who lived through that time.