MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Eldon on July 03, 2013, 07:55:52 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html
"freshman" is sexist. It is now "first-year student." "Fisherman" is now "fisher." "Penmanship" is sexist as well, apparently. And many others. Nine other states considering removing gender-biased language.
Keefe, what's the sentiment over there in Washington? Are gender-specific pronouns doomed over there in Seattle?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html
"freshman" is sexist. It is now "first-year student." "Fisherman" is now "fisher." "Penmanship" is sexist as well, apparently. And many others. Nine other states considering removing gender-biased language.
Keefe, what's the sentiment over there in Washington? Are gender-specific pronouns doomed over there in Seattle?
What are they going to do about woMAN, are we just going to switch to chics or something.
-
Hairy, wet cats
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html
"freshman" is sexist. It is now "first-year student." "Fisherman" is now "fisher." "Penmanship" is sexist as well, apparently. And many others. Nine other states considering removing gender-biased language.
Keefe, what's the sentiment over there in Washington? Are gender-specific pronouns doomed over there in Seattle?
Well, it's not WA state. It is King County. The level of anxiety over horsesh1t here in Seattle is ludicrous. The only thing that surprises me is that WA wasn't the first to do this. Why people worry about such things is beyond me. The world is difficult enough, really.
Interesting note about King County. It was named after William King who was VP when the WA territory was established. King was from North Carolina and owned slaves. This fact so disturbed some members of the County Board that they voted to change the namesake to MLK, even though MLK had no connection with Seattle. This is still controversial as the County Board did not hold hearings or a referendum on the matter. Personally, I don't care one way or the other but I find it ironic that the state is named after a slave holding plantation owner. As was Jefferson County.
-
What are they going to do about woMAN, are we just going to switch to chics or something.
womyn. that's old news.
-
Let me guess, this brilliance was initiated by the right wing in this country? /sarc
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
-
Let me guess, this brilliance was initiated by the right wing in this country? /sarc
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
Well, the right wing of the People's Democratic Republic of King County would make old Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov himself blush.
True story: A B1 Driver bro was visiting from Texas. As we drive across the Fremont Bridge to swill microbrews my buddy spots the 20' statue of Lenin that stands watch over the northern approach. He comments that you can't find a Lenin statue in Moscow anymore but you can in Seattle.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3148/2765281818_d1ba56b357_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
Well, the right wing of the People's Democratic Republic of King County would make old Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov himself blush.
True story: A B1 Driver bro was visiting from Texas. As we drive across the Fremont Bridge to swill microbrews my buddy spots the 20' statue of Lenin that stands watch over the northern approach. He comments that you can't find a Lenin statue in Moscow anymore but you can in Seattle.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3148/2765281818_d1ba56b357_z.jpg?zz=1)
I am not surprised....it's a cottage industry down here, by the way. Lenin and Mao shrines. It's almost to the point it isn't startling anymore. Just a few short years......keep the eye on the prize...few short years to escape the insanity of what is going on.
-
I am not surprised....it's a cottage industry down here, by the way. Lenin and Mao shrines. It's almost to the point it isn't startling anymore. Just a few short years......keep the eye on the prize...few short years to escape the insanity of what is going on.
You did well securing a patch in Idaho. I love Ketchum and the Sawtooths. I don't think Sun Valley skiing is the best, mainly for reasons of snow, but the après ski is superb. Idaho is a strange land. The panhandle is White Supremacy Central while the southern potato belt is teeming with beer-shunning Mormons. I doubt you bought in Burley or Twin Falls so I'm guessing you are likely in either Ketch or Hailey?
-
I once read a student newspaper where there was a piece on how econ classes need to teach more of Karl Marx.
I really really wanted to email the author and point out that no economist takes Karl Marx seriously thanks to one of the godfathers (err, rather, godparents) of modern economics, Paul Samuelson. Samuelson lays out Das Kapital formally and shows that, with respect to economic insights, it is virtually useless.
"The contradictions of capitalism, which Marx saw everywhere, are as nothing compared to the contradictions of Marx himself"
-Paul Samuelson
Statues commemorating these guys is ridiculous, especially when they are erected here in the US.
-
I once read a student newspaper where there was a piece on how econ classes need to teach more of Karl Marx.
I really really wanted to email the author and point out that no economist takes Karl Marx seriously thanks to one of the godfathers (err, rather, godparents) of modern economics, Paul Samuelson. Samuelson lays out Das Kapital formally and shows that, with respect to economic insights, it is virtually useless.
"The contradictions of capitalism, which Marx saw everywhere, are as nothing compared to the contradictions of Marx himself"
-Paul Samuelson
Statues commemorating these guys is ridiculous, especially when they are erected here in the US.
I think the fundamental flaw of Marxism lies in its refusal to recognize such basic human traits as greed, avarice, self-esteem and individual accomplishment. The world of Karl Marx was brutal. Some of the best chronicles of the Industrial Revolution are the works of Charles Dickens. Here in the States, read Upton Sinclair. Utopian visions have never offered pragmatic solutions. But they make people feel good.
-
I think the fundamental flaw of Marxism lies in its refusal to recognize such basic human traits as greed, avarice, self-esteem and individual accomplishment. The world of Karl Marx was brutal. Some of the best chronicles of the Industrial Revolution are the works of Charles Dickens. Here in the States, read Upton Sinclair. Utopian visions have never offered pragmatic solutions. But they make people feel good.
We have to be careful with statements like this. Although it is true in todays society, cultures like the Pueblo (next time you're in Santa Fe/Taos talk to the natives about their old economic system, flourished under Marxist principles. A large part of that was because things like greed and avarice were suppressed...you'd be kicked out into the desert for displaying such characteristics. That led to a community type culture where self-esteem and individual accomplishment were replaced with group esteem and group accomplishment.
Now, the socio-cultural landscape of today can not support these principals, but to call it a fundamental flaw is denying historical success.
-
We have to be careful with statements like this. Although it is true in todays society, cultures like the Pueblo (next time you're in Santa Fe/Taos talk to the natives about their old economic system, flourished under Marxist principles. A large part of that was because things like greed and avarice were suppressed...you'd be kicked out into the desert for displaying such characteristics. That led to a community type culture where self-esteem and individual accomplishment were replaced with group esteem and group accomplishment.
Now, the socio-cultural landscape of today can not support these principals, but to call it a fundamental flaw is denying historical success.
We are in agreement. Society underwent profound cultural change with the shift from agrarian to urban which is why I cite the works of Dickens and Sinclair as an excellent source of insight into the intense psychological change wrought by industrialization.
Your point about the Pueblos is well taken. Taos Pueblo is 1,000 years old and one still hears Tiwa spoken there. They have a communal philosophy which works when the numbers are small and there is a long, deep familiarity as a people.
The mass migration to cities blurred the lens of intimacy. The meat packing plants of Chicago threw together Lithuanians, Poles, Russian Jews, Latvians, Swedes, Irish, and Italians who shared neither language, religion, diet, tradition, nor lore. Their commonality was their plight as wage slaves and the unifying force was Socialism-Marxism. But unifying forces are often artificial constructs - witness the immense popularity of Orthodox Catholicism in Russia today after a century of brutal repression.
-
It is a fundamental flaw if it cannot be reproduced save in extraordinary circumstances.
I think those touting socialism tend to ignore reality like the Trotskyites who still believe that Socialism is superior and they just need better leaders. Several years ago I took a Greyline tour of Manhattan. Our Tour Leader was a high school teacher who kept pointing out the tenements which he pronounced were proof of the failure of Capitalism. I finally had had enough and asked him "where are the descendants of those tenements who came here decades ago"
" Aren't those descendants living in Rye, Scarsdale, White Plains and Long Island?" He finally went back to making crap up about who lived where as we passed each street until we reached the Battery.
-
It is a fundamental flaw if it cannot be reproduced save in extraordinary circumstances.
I think those touting socialism tend to ignore reality like the Trotskyites who still believe that Socialism is superior and they just need better leaders. Several years ago I took a Greyline tour of Manhattan. Our Tour Leader was a high school teacher who kept pointing out the tenements which he pronounced were proof of the failure of Capitalism. I finally had had enough and asked him "where are the descendants of those tenements who came here decades ago"
" Aren't those descendants living in Rye, Scarsdale, White Plains and Long Island?" He finally went back to making crap up about who lived where as we passed each street until we reached the Battery.
I hope you stiffed him when the tour was over. After all, it would be insulting to throw filthy lucre at him...
-
What are they going to do about woMAN, are we just going to switch to chics or something.
There's rat pack speak: "brauds".
-
My personal favorite is the need to change the term "mailman" to "personperson."
-
I think the fundamental flaw of Marxism lies in its refusal to recognize such basic human traits as greed, avarice, self-esteem and individual accomplishment. The world of Karl Marx was brutal. Some of the best chronicles of the Industrial Revolution are the works of Charles Dickens. Here in the States, read Upton Sinclair. Utopian visions have never offered pragmatic solutions. But they make people feel good.
That part is the key. There are people that fundamentally are lazy, don't want to do jack squat and there are those that want to work, innovate, create, risk, etc....those people are not rewarded in that situation. We already have enough of this nonsense going on here where we pay people to stay unemployed, provide additional funding for extra kids, etc. What could possibly go wrong?
-
My personal favorite is the need to change the term "mailman" to "personperson."
Yeah, that one was good. So was woMAN and personholecover, just to name a few. My wife, a staunch conservative, had an absolute field day with this article. It was fun just to watch her in action. LOL
-
My wife, a staunch conservative
I am shocked your wife, a rational free market laissez faire capitalist, would tolerate your centrally planned command system convictions.
-
I am shocked your wife, a rational free market laissez faire capitalist, would tolerate your centrally planned command system convictions.
C'mon, Crash. Chico only abdicates his free market principles in "special" cases - like when he or one of his comrades is a commissar on the planning committee.
-
I am shocked your wife, a rational free market laissez faire capitalist, would tolerate your centrally planned command system convictions.
She's a social conservative, I should have clarified.
She's also a huge Green Bay Packers fan and she realizes a "centrally planned" sports league like the NFL is good idea. Just as she knows, like her husband, that's not universal across all of industry.
-
That part is the key. There are people that fundamentally are lazy, don't want to do jack squat and there are those that want to work, innovate, create, risk, etc....those people are not rewarded in that situation. We already have enough of this nonsense going on here where we pay people to stay unemployed, provide additional funding for extra kids, etc. What could possibly go wrong?
I guess we could always go back to the days of slave wages and orphanages. That was a lot better.
-
I guess we could always go back to the days of slave wages and orphanages. That was a lot better.
As if that is the alternative, which it clearly isn't.
Saw the reports out today, underemployment soars to over 14% while 47.3% of adults have a full time job.
Maybe it's the cynic in me with some of family in Ohio and Michigan who game the system, freely admitting it, to get out of having to do a lot of work if they can get by just fine being subsidized.
-
As if that is the alternative, which it clearly isn't.
Saw the reports out today, underemployment soars to over 14% while 47.3% of adults have a full time job.
Maybe it's the cynic in me with some of family in Ohio and Michigan who game the system, freely admitting it, to get out of having to do a lot of work if they can get by just fine being subsidized.
I was just meeting nonsense with nonsense. Sorry.
-
I was just meeting nonsense with nonsense. Sorry.
Nothing Chico said about humans having a range of work ethic, ambition, intelligence, risk aversion, etc... is incorrect. Which is precisely why large, post-industrial societies cannot make centrally planned economic systems work. Ask your favorite Pole, Russian, Estonian, Hungarian, etc.. how well it worked. If you genuinely believe in Karl Marx' panacea I strongly urge you to spend a year in North Korea or Cuba and then we can talk.
-
It's not so dichotomous. You can agree that central planning and social safety nets are more efficient (and thus desirable) than the free market in some instances while still maintaining that Marxist economics is a terrible (as both theory and history show) ideology. Even the 'anarchy' of the great Robert Nozick is consistent with an interventionist government for purposes of creating and ensuring equal opportunity (rather than forcing equal outcomes).
And embracing capitalism does not entail 'returning to child labor'.
It is truly unfortunate for our society that we need to be reminded of this.
-
It's not so dichotomous. You can agree that central planning and social safety nets are more efficient (and thus desirable) than the free market in some instances while still maintaining that Marxist economics is a terrible (as both theory and history show) ideology. Even the 'anarchy' of the great Robert Nozick is consistent with an interventionist government for purposes of creating and ensuring equal opportunity (rather than forcing equal outcomes).
And embracing capitalism does not entail 'returning to child labor'.
It is truly unfortunate for our society that we need to be reminded of this.
Replacing free market demand mechanisms with centralized planning models are efficient in times of crisis. FDR coopted the American industrial base in 1942, replacing automobiles and refrigerators with tanks and aircraft. In exigent circumstances it is warranted to supplant free market dictates but such applications must be limited in both scope and duration.
The reality is that we have neither a libertarian free market system nor a Soviet centrally planned forced draft industrialized archetype.
-
The reality is that we have neither a libertarian free market system nor a Soviet centrally planned forced draft industrialized archetype.
100% correct. As I've said often here, there is no free market system here and when people say there is, they are just flat wrong. Gov't regulation exists all over the place, some industries more than others, but there is not true free market. It comes down to a matter of degree in which things are measured to determine if it is more free or less free depending on that regulation.
-
100% correct. As I've said often here, there is no free market system here and when people say there is, they are just flat wrong. Gov't regulation exists all over the place, some industries more than others, but there is not true free market. It comes down to a matter of degree in which things are measured to determine if it is more free or less free depending on that regulation.
Nobody ever suggested we have a free market system. In fact, nowhere near it. And the further we move away from it and towards a blend of central planning/crony quasi-capitalism the less vibrant/competitive we become. But as long as there are enough "it's ok in my industry, we're an exception" guys out there willing to "partner up" and basically get guarantees from Uncle Sam we'll continue down that road. Sadly.
-
. Ask your favorite Pole, Russian, Estonian, Hungarian, etc.. how well it worked. If you genuinely believe in Karl Marx' panacea I strongly urge you to spend a year in North Korea or Cuba and then we can talk.
When in the Czech Republic all we heard was how good things were "since the Communists"
-
When in the Czech Republic all we heard was how good things were "since the Communists"
And Mr. Dubcek's "Socialism with a Human Face" Czechoslovakia was the least compliant of Moscow's Cavalcade of Brother Socialist States. Imagine how awful it was in the Baltic States or the DDR which felt the jack booted heel more earnestly. Communism was the most morally bankrupt political and economic philosophy of the Nation State Era.
-
Nothing Chico said about humans having a range of work ethic, ambition, intelligence, risk aversion, etc... is incorrect. Which is precisely why large, post-industrial societies cannot make centrally planned economic systems work. Ask your favorite Pole, Russian, Estonian, Hungarian, etc.. how well it worked. If you genuinely believe in Karl Marx' panacea I strongly urge you to spend a year in North Korea or Cuba and then we can talk.
But you're both taking what I said, and stretching it to fit what you are getting at. I was making a joke and pointing out the absurdity of his original comment.
-
But you're both taking what I said, and stretching it to fit what you are getting at. I was making a joke and pointing out the absurdity of his original comment.
Wait! Are you saying Chico said something absurd?? :o :'( :D ;)
-
Nobody ever suggested we have a free market system. In fact, nowhere near it. And the further we move away from it and towards a blend of central planning/crony quasi-capitalism the less vibrant/competitive we become. But as long as there are enough "it's ok in my industry, we're an exception" guys out there willing to "partner up" and basically get guarantees from Uncle Sam we'll continue down that road. Sadly.
Isn't it all relative? I mean, "less vibrant/competitive" compared to whom?
-
Nobody ever suggested we have a free market system. In fact, nowhere near it. And the further we move away from it and towards a blend of central planning/crony quasi-capitalism the less vibrant/competitive we become. But as long as there are enough "it's ok in my industry, we're an exception" guys out there willing to "partner up" and basically get guarantees from Uncle Sam we'll continue down that road. Sadly.
Nobody? Go back and read some of the posts in the other threads where this came up....several did. Emphatically.
-
That part is the key. There are people that fundamentally are lazy, don't want to do jack squat and there are those that want to work, innovate, create, risk, etc....those people are not rewarded in that situation. We already have enough of this nonsense going on here where we pay people to stay unemployed, provide additional funding for extra kids, etc. What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, I really wanted to stay unemployed for those 6 months back in 2009. The worst 6 months months of my life. It's extremely frustrating, when there weren't even openings or listings to apply for. Thank God for Unemployment Insurance. I may have lost my house without it. It is what it says it is --- insurance.
-
Yeah, I really wanted to stay unemployed for those 6 months back in 2009. The worst 6 months months of my life. It's extremely frustrating, when there weren't even openings or listings to apply for. Thank God for Unemployment Insurance. I may have lost my house without it. It is what it says it is --- insurance.
You seem to be thinking that my comments were addressed to all unemployed. Most certainly NOT the case, especially in recent years. Those programs I support as do most Americans as a safety net for your very situations. They are the right thing to do.
I'm talking about people that have made it a life choice not to work and we reward that behavior. I'm talking about two of my cousins in the midwest, one who worked for Ford for a number of years. Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, is a liberal filmmaker and did a great video expose of this a few years ago on the Bill Maher show...much to Bill's dismay. That is what I'm talking about. We are creating an entitlement culture. That is what I was referencing. No incentive to work because Uncle Sammy will take care of them.
-
Sounds like my brother-in-law and his wife. Disability and ,then for both, unemployment for years. Neither had any intention of returning to the workforce. Now living off investments in Italy.
That being said, I also know people with great skills who have spent years looking for employment and can't find
-
Sounds like my brother-in-law and his wife. Disability and ,then for both, unemployment for years. Neither had any intention of returning to the workforce. Now living off investments in Italy.
Wow. Are they hiring?
-
Sounds like my brother-in-law and his wife. Disability and ,then for both, unemployment for years. Neither had any intention of returning to the workforce. Now living off investments in Italy.
That being said, I also know people with great skills who have spent years looking for employment and can't find
Do you know how much they pay for disability? Good luck living off of that.
-
We're in California. With both "incomes" they managed to live well in Santa Barbara
-
Do you know how much they pay for disability? Good luck living off of that.
California state disability maxes out at $55K per year, or $1067 per week.
That doesn't even include the federal disability, which I believe maxes out at $2053 per month, or about $30.4K per year. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on that number.
-
You seem to be thinking that my comments were addressed to all unemployed. Most certainly NOT the case, especially in recent years. Those programs I support as do most Americans as a safety net for your very situations. They are the right thing to do.
I'm talking about people that have made it a life choice not to work and we reward that behavior. I'm talking about two of my cousins in the midwest, one who worked for Ford for a number of years. Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, is a liberal filmmaker and did a great video expose of this a few years ago on the Bill Maher show...much to Bill's dismay. That is what I'm talking about. We are creating an entitlement culture. That is what I was referencing. No incentive to work because Uncle Sammy will take care of them.
The problem is that conservatives (ok, maybe not you, but most) keep using these anecdotal examples of abuse as reasons to defund entire safety net programs, eliminating them for the rest of Americans who rely on the programs as they were intended.
-
California state disability maxes out at $55K per year, or $1067 per week.
That doesn't even include the federal disability, which I believe maxes out at $2053 per month, or about $30.4K per year. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on that number.
You leave out the fact that in California you can receive a maximum of 52 weeks at that rate and in order to qualify for that maximum you need to be making close to $110K per year. It also takes on average 11 months to get a disability hearing.
-
100% correct. As I've said often here, there is no free market system here and when people say there is, they are just flat wrong. Gov't regulation exists all over the place, some industries more than others, but there is not true free market. It comes down to a matter of degree in which things are measured to determine if it is more free or less free depending on that regulation.
As it should be. This economic model has served our country incredibly well. The regulated capitalism our country embraced in the 20th century led us through the greatest economic expansion of any country in history. It is the change from the proven successful status quo that many progressives oppose.
-
As it should be. This economic model has served our country incredibly well. The regulated capitalism our country embraced in the 20th century led us through the greatest economic expansion of any country in history. It is the change from the proven successful status quo that many progressives oppose.
Nobody denies the need for some regulation, but I respectfully disagree that progressive programs like Dodd/Frank, Cap and Trade, Obamacare, etc are somehow maintaining the successful status quo.
-
Nobody denies the need for some regulation, but I respectfully disagree that progressive programs like Dodd/Frank, Cap and Trade, Obamacare, etc are somehow maintaining the successful status quo.
To be clear, when I refer to status quo I mean that regulation which was in place for most of the 20th century that was completely dismantled in the 80s, 90s and 2000s under presidents Reagan, Clinton and W Bush. Dodd-Frank is just a watered-down version of Glass-Steagall which was repealed in the 90s, "Cap and Trade" was favored by many Republicans before Obama took office and Obamacare was modeled off the health care proposals of Richard Nixon (originator of the employer mandate) and Mitt Romney. It was status quo until the right need to something to rail against to rally the base.
-
To be clear, when I refer to status quo I mean that regulation which was in place for most of the 20th century that was completely dismantled in the 80s, 90s and 2000s under presidents Reagan, Clinton and W Bush. Dodd-Frank is just a watered-down version of Glass-Steagall which was repealed in the 90s, "Cap and Trade" was favored by many Republicans before Obama took office and Obamacare was modeled off the health care proposals of Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney. It was status quo until the right need to something to rail against to rally the base.
I have/had no problem with Glass-Steagall. Goldman Sachs et al acting as both principal and agent is a conflict of interest. Any small portion of Dodd-Frank that addresses that conflict I'm all for. I'm not for saddling small businesses with mountains of needless paperwork, though. I don't care who has favored Cap and Trade in the past - it's never been part of the status quo and it's a job killer when we can least afford it. Ditto for Obamacare.
-
The problem is that conservatives (ok, maybe not you, but most) keep using these anecdotal examples of abuse as reasons to defund entire safety net programs, eliminating them for the rest of Americans who rely on the programs as they were intended.
Perhaps if there was a bit more adult supervision on who gets things and who doesn't, there would be a lot less cynicism. The amount of fraud going on is ridiculous.
Secondly, I'd like to see where the majority of conservatives want to defund the ENTIRE safety nets programs. That's a red herring. Sure there are some, just as there are some liberals who would like to eliminate the department of defense, but that doesn't mean everyone.
-
You leave out the fact that in California you can receive a maximum of 52 weeks at that rate and in order to qualify for that maximum you need to be making close to $110K per year. It also takes on average 11 months to get a disability hearing.
Wasn't leaving anything out, the source I went to didn't have the details, just the maximum number. Appreciate the follow up.
Question is, for someone making say $30K in California, how much can they make in disability from the state and from the federal govt? From what I understand, the state of California you can earn up to 55% of your base pay in disability. So in this case, $16,500. That's BEFORE federal disability. If they make $30K having to go to work but end up making $22k (don't know the number, just throwing it out there) to do nothing, there are people that will pick the $22K to do absolutely nothing. It becomes a no brainer for a lot of people.
That's the problem.
EDIT: 11 million people on disability last month, highest amount in US history. Almost the size of the entire state of Ohio.
-
I have actually heard people on the radio here ,who were on welfare, say they wanted a better lifestyle. Meaning more money from the rest of us. I guess trading your foodstamps for crack isn't enough for some.
-
Secondly, I'd like to see where the majority of conservatives want to defund the ENTIRE safety nets programs. That's a red herring. Sure there are some, just as there are some liberals who would like to eliminate the department of defense, but that doesn't mean everyone.
Paul Ryan's budget, adopted as an official plank of the GOP, proposed to end medicare as we know it. I'm sorry, but coupons are not the same thing.
-
Wasn't leaving anything out, the source I went to didn't have the details, just the maximum number. Appreciate the follow up.
Question is, for someone making say $30K in California, how much can they make in disability from the state and from the federal govt? From what I understand, the state of California you can earn up to 55% of your base pay in disability. So in this case, $16,500. That's BEFORE federal disability. If they make $30K having to go to work but end up making $22k (don't know the number, just throwing it out there) to do nothing, there are people that will pick the $22K to do absolutely nothing. It becomes a no brainer for a lot of people.
That's the problem.
Understood, but it is also quite difficult to qualify. Takes up to a year to get a hearing, and without a high-priced attorney your chances of succeeding in a disability claim is low.
That doesn't mean that there aren't some people gaming the system...but you have to ask yourself about the greed of the doctors that are signing off on disabilities that don't exist. Should we then punish those that are disabled?
-
The amount of fraud going on is ridiculous.
Honest question: Is it really?
I mean, I hear people rant and shake their fist about it. (ex: did you hear about the lady who has 7 kids because it pays more welfare?!") But, is it really a big problem? Do we have accurate reporting on it? Is it like 2%, or like 72%? Obviously no fraud is "good", but if it's a small percentage, then lets not burn a lot of calories ranting about it.
On the flip side, I hear some people rant and rave about "big business" avoiding taxes and using off-shore accounts. Is this a big problem? Do we have accurate reporting on that? Is it 2% or 72%?
-
Paul Ryan's budget, adopted as an official plank of the GOP, proposed to end medicare as we know it. I'm sorry, but coupons are not the same thing.
That is absolutely not true and you know it. The plank, number one, was to not touch ANYTHING for people over a certain age. ZERO changes.
For those below a certain age, yes there are changes but that's far different than ELIMINATING it, which is what you claimed. FAR, FAR, FAR different.
-
Honest question: Is it really?
I mean, I hear people rant and shake their fist about it. (ex: did you hear about the lady who has 7 kids because it pays more welfare?!") But, is it really a big problem? Do we have accurate reporting on it? Is it like 2%, or like 72%? Obviously no fraud is "good", but if it's a small percentage, then lets not burn a lot of calories ranting about it.
How many able body folks are out there not working? I gave you an example of two of my cousins in the midwest.
Here's a video (this shows Welfare, but same idea with disability) done by Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She's a liberal, so this isn't some ginned up conservative video.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/17/real_time_interviews_shameless_welfare_recipients.html
By the way, you should see some of the disability claims in this state by police and fire miraculously within 3 years before they are to retire. Has a lot of Californians furious because it's a game that is played but the politicians won't do anything because of the police and fire unions AND no one wants to take on the first responders. But there are videos showing guys that claim they can't walk any more, collecting extra disability benefits and next thing you know they are on video water skiing, playing golf, yada yada yada. It's a fun game until you realize you are paying for it.
-
That is absolutely not true and you know it. The plank, number one, was to not touch ANYTHING for people over a certain age. ZERO changes.
For those below a certain age, yes there are changes but that's far different than ELIMINATING it, which is what you claimed. FAR, FAR, FAR different.
Ok, so if you were 60 or whatever the cutoff was you were grandfathered and there were no changes. But in 30 years all those people are gone, and the program as we know it is eliminated.
Explain to me how moving from a defined benefit program like our current medicare system to a defined contribution program like the one Ryan was proposing is not eliminating it? That's like claiming a pension is not eliminated if you replace it with a 401k. Its a ridiculous notion because the two are completely different concepts.
-
This might be slightly OT, but there's a great blog out there written by a person known as The Last Psychiatrist. He (or she ... but I'm pretty sure it's a he) has written a couple of times about SSI and has a worthy take on the subject.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_1.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/04/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_5.html#more
-
Paul Ryan's budget, adopted as an official plank of the GOP, proposed to end medicare as we know it. I'm sorry, but coupons are not the same thing.
You can reform it (end it as we know it) or suffer the consequences. I don't know if Paul Ryan has the answers, but at least he's trying to deal with this enormous elephant in the room that other politicians claim not to see.
-
A third of the nation on food stamps
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/101m-get-food-aid-federal-gov-t-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers
-
A third of the nation on food stamps
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/101m-get-food-aid-federal-gov-t-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers
Err ... that's not what the story says. The number of food stamp recipients is actually less than half of what you claim.
-
How many able body folks are out there not working? I gave you an example of two of my cousins in the midwest.
Here's a video (this shows Welfare, but same idea with disability) done by Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She's a liberal, so this isn't some ginned up conservative video.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/17/real_time_interviews_shameless_welfare_recipients.html
By the way, you should see some of the disability claims in this state by police and fire miraculously within 3 years before they are to retire. Has a lot of Californians furious because it's a game that is played but the politicians won't do anything because of the police and fire unions AND no one wants to take on the first responders. But there are videos showing guys that claim they can't walk any more, collecting extra disability benefits and next thing you know they are on video water skiing, playing golf, yada yada yada. It's a fun game until you realize you are paying for it.
I appreciate the response, but this doesn't tell me anything I don't know.
There are people out there gaming the system and getting benefits. Got it.
Is it 50% of all claims? Its it 1% of all claims? I hate to oversimplify, but before I rage, I'd like to know the actual size of the problem.
Let's work big to small. If it's a big problem, move it up the list. If it's a small problem, then let's move on to something else.
-
A third of the nation on food stamps
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/101m-get-food-aid-federal-gov-t-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers
I always save this link for discussions like this.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
-
I always save this link for discussions like this.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has an equally nonpartisan and unbiased take on the subject.
-
This might be slightly OT, but there's a great blog out there written by a person known as The Last Psychiatrist. He (or she ... but I'm pretty sure it's a he) has written a couple of times about SSI and has a worthy take on the subject.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_1.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/04/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_5.html#more
Most people don't want the truth and are even willing to pay extra not to get it. Great articles - thanks Pakuni.
-
I appreciate the response, but this doesn't tell me anything I don't know.
There are people out there gaming the system and getting benefits. Got it.
Is it 50% of all claims? Its it 1% of all claims? I hate to oversimplify, but before I rage, I'd like to know the actual size of the problem.
Let's work big to small. If it's a big problem, move it up the list. If it's a small problem, then let's move on to something else.
Due to the size of the country, I'm making an educated guess to say it's a big problem. Remember in 1986 when we were going to do amnesty ONE TIME and ONLY ONE TIME. Here we are 20+ years later and the problem is exponentially bigger (to the point the gov't doesn't even know how big but only has estimates into the millions of people). Because we can't even enforce the laws on the books to contain situations like this, I have zero faith that we can do the same with gov't benefits. It's why the system is gamed. If my cousins who are not exactly the brightest guys in the world can drive a truck through the holes that exist, I have to think the problem is big.
This is a good article to get started with in terms of the size of the issue. http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/01/14/fraud-and-disability-equal-a-multibillion-dollar-balck-hole-for-taxpayers/
-
Due to the size of the country, I'm making an educated guess to say it's a big problem. Remember in 1986 when we were going to do amnesty ONE TIME and ONLY ONE TIME. Here we are 20+ years later and the problem is exponentially bigger (to the point the gov't doesn't even know how big but only has estimates into the millions of people). Because we can't even enforce the laws on the books to contain situations like this, I have zero faith that we can do the same with gov't benefits. It's why the system is gamed. If my cousins who are not exactly the brightest guys in the world can drive a truck through the holes that exist, I have to think the problem is big.
This is a good article to get started with in terms of the size of the issue. http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/01/14/fraud-and-disability-equal-a-multibillion-dollar-balck-hole-for-taxpayers/
I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough for me.
Good Government policy can't be derived from from "My cousin is a dumbass and must be stopped!"
I've heard of billionaires paying very little taxes and sending their money off shore. Now, just because I have "heard of it" doesn't mean we need to undertake a bunch of government legislation. It might be a huge waste of time and money.
Governmental action needs to be based upon good data, not conjecture and political posturing.
Let's spend some time figuring out the BIG problems in the county. I'm not sure chasing down waterskiing firemen is the magic bullet we are all looking for.
Get the data. Prioritize. Work big to small. Triage.
EDIT: I'm going to have to spend some more time with the forbes stuff.
-
Timely article from MJS
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/landlords-self-employed-get-state-aid-on-honor-system-b9929264z1-214508041.html (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/landlords-self-employed-get-state-aid-on-honor-system-b9929264z1-214508041.html)
-
Guns:
You may like this one from the most recent The Atlantic.
Can Government Play Moneyball?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/can-government-play-moneyball/309389/
Co-written by former Obama & W advisors. Asking for more studies on what government programs work and which ones don't, so SABREMETRICS can be applied afterwards. It's a realtively quick read.
-
I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough for me.
Good Government policy can't be derived from from "My cousin is a dumbass and must be stopped!"
I've heard of billionaires paying very little taxes and sending their money off shore. Now, just because I have "heard of it" doesn't mean we need to undertake a bunch of government legislation. It might be a huge waste of time and money.
Governmental action needs to be based upon good data, not conjecture and political posturing.
Let's spend some time figuring out the BIG problems in the county. I'm not sure chasing down waterskiing firemen is the magic bullet we are all looking for.
Get the data. Prioritize. Work big to small. Triage.
EDIT: I'm going to have to spend some more time with the forbes stuff.
Guns, while Adam Carolla and myself are in agreement with you on the big to small but statistics are part of the issue. I would make the argument if we could document the fraud in all it's various forms to determine the size of the problem, we could take care of it. Having said that, I'd love to see the accounting for all spending on assistance programs at all government levels and the number of people pulling from those programs. I think the number would be staggering.
I know it's anecdotal, but my wife works in the medical industry at a pretty affluent hospital. At least 3% of her patient base consists of folks on some disability signed off by doctors of which there is no apparent disability.
-
Guns, while Adam Carolla and myself are in agreement with you on the big to small but statistics are part of the issue. I would make the argument if we could document the fraud in all it's various forms to determine the size of the problem, we could take care of it. Having said that, I'd love to see the accounting for all spending on assistance programs at all government levels and the number of people pulling from those programs. I think the number would be staggering.
I know it's anecdotal, but my wife works in the medical industry at a pretty affluent hospital. At least 3% of her patient base consists of folks on some disability signed off by doctors of which there is no apparent disability.
Yea, I mean, I'm not one for a bunch a bureaucracy and needless studies... BUT, we need some FACTS before we act.
Right now, we can't even define what the largest problems are. Some people think it's illegal immigration, some say water skiing firefighters, some say corporate fraud. Whatever. I don't care which it is, let's just figure out the biggest problems and work on them.
I'm not saying it's easy. It's going to be painful. But, we need to start attaching real $$ to these issues and then working on them.
Without that, we are just shooting in the dark.
EDIT: I also like Carolla, although I find myself listening to him less and less. His podcast has become a lot more like a traditional radio show, which I'm not that interested in. His first 6 months of podcasting were fantastic though. Lots of cool long form interviews. Adam is actually a good interviewer when he wants to be.
-
Ok, so if you were 60 or whatever the cutoff was you were grandfathered and there were no changes. But in 30 years all those people are gone, and the program as we know it is eliminated.
Explain to me how moving from a defined benefit program like our current medicare system to a defined contribution program like the one Ryan was proposing is not eliminating it? That's like claiming a pension is not eliminated if you replace it with a 401k. Its a ridiculous notion because the two are completely different concepts.
Age 55 and above not impacted
You make it sound like no more benefits will be given...$0. That's not the case at all. This is not a zero sum exchange.
-
Guns:
You may like this one from the most recent The Atlantic.
Can Government Play Moneyball?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/can-government-play-moneyball/309389/
Co-written by former Obama & W advisors. Asking for more studies on what government programs work and which ones don't, so SABREMETRICS can be applied afterwards. It's a realtively quick read.
Good read, thanks for sharing. I appreciated the part about the business aspect and certainly realize that gov't isn't business...we can debate whether it should be run that way or not. We have extremely complex models we use to prove out short term and long term ROI on any number of things and good to see the gov't trying to do the same thing. What will get the pols fighting about is the definitions of success, failure, etc....that's where stats can prove anything you want them to prove, or sometimes despite what they prove it doesn't matter because they will spend it anyway for any number of reasons.
Again, thanks for sharing.
-
My personal favorite is the need to change the term "mailman" to "personperson."
Isn't per"son" as sexist as hu"man"
-
Isn't per"son" as sexist as hu"man"
perchildperchild....corrected :P
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html
"Fisherman" is now "fisher." Keefe, what's the sentiment over there in Washington? Are gender-specific pronouns doomed over there in Seattle?
I went down to Ballard today where the commercial fishing fleet hangs out. The facility is still named the "Fisherman's Terminal." I bought a salmon off one of the boats. As I handed over my money I asked the Captain about changing his title from 'fisherman' to 'fisher.' He replied, "That's f#cking stupid." Pure eloquence. W.H. Auden could not have captured the insanity better.
-
It's crazy what politically correct a$$-holes come up with when they're bored.
-
Good read, thanks for sharing. I appreciated the part about the business aspect and certainly realize that gov't isn't business...we can debate whether it should be run that way or not. We have extremely complex models we use to prove out short term and long term ROI on any number of things and good to see the gov't trying to do the same thing. What will get the pols fighting about is the definitions of success, failure, etc....that's where stats can prove anything you want them to prove, or sometimes despite what they prove it doesn't matter because they will spend it anyway for any number of reasons.
Again, thanks for sharing.
I agree with all of this, but I think the problem is that potential solutions get lost in the political wash...too many interests have a vested interest to not change anything.
-
It's crazy what politically correct a$$-holes come up with when they're bored.
Even crazier when they become the law of the land. They can all get bent.
-
I agree with all of this, but I think the problem is that potential solutions get lost in the political wash...too many interests have a vested interest to not change anything.
That's why it won't change
-
Actually it might be even more sexist to refer to the new co-eds on campus as "fresh women".
-
I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough for me.
Good Government policy can't be derived from from "My cousin is a dumbass and must be stopped!"
I've heard of billionaires paying very little taxes and sending their money off shore. Now, just because I have "heard of it" doesn't mean we need to undertake a bunch of government legislation. It might be a huge waste of time and money.
Governmental action needs to be based upon good data, not conjecture and political posturing.
Let's spend some time figuring out the BIG problems in the county. I'm not sure chasing down waterskiing firemen is the magic bullet we are all looking for.
Get the data. Prioritize. Work big to small. Triage.
EDIT: I'm going to have to spend some more time with the forbes stuff.
More info out today....not at all shocking.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/exography-many-disability-recipients-admit-they-could-work/article/2533626
-
"Citizens" and "brown bag" now a problem
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/
-
"Citizens" and "brown bag" now a problem
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/
Thanks for the update. Not sure why you care so much about language usage in Seattle...
-
"Citizens" and "brown bag" now a problem
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/
'Citizen' is offensive? No. Nobody has ever been offended by that word and never will be. If someone had told me that that was a banned word, i would have thought they were joking.
If citizen is offensive to noncitizens, why isnt resident to non-residents?
-
"Citizens" and "brown bag" now a problem
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/
#1 This crap is insane. I can't believe we are wasting time on it. So stupid.
#2 Honest question for you Chico's: Do you search the internet for things that make you mad, or do they just find you? I'm really not trying to be an a-hole, but you seem to post links to a lot of stuff that makes you upset. Are you actively looking for this stuff?
I don't think I could research and find so much stuff I hate everyday. I think it would wear me out.
-
#1 This crap is insane. I can't believe we are wasting time on it. So stupid.
#2 Honest question for you Chico's: Do you search the internet for things that make you mad, or do they just find you? I'm really not trying to be an a-hole, but you seem to post links to a lot of stuff that makes you upset. Are you actively looking for this stuff?
I don't think I could research and find so much stuff I hate everyday. I think it would wear me out.
You're kidding right? He lives for this kind of thing.
-
you'd have to have a certain set of values to understand.
-
you'd have to have a certain set of values to understand.
and what values might those be? Please elaborate.
-
#1 This crap is insane. I can't believe we are wasting time on it. So stupid.
#2 Honest question for you Chico's: Do you search the internet for things that make you mad, or do they just find you? I'm really not trying to be an a-hole, but you seem to post links to a lot of stuff that makes you upset. Are you actively looking for this stuff?
I don't think I could research and find so much stuff I hate everyday. I think it would wear me out.
He is well on the way to "get off my lawn" existence. He probably does it already.
-
you'd have to have a certain set of values to understand.
That's perfect.
Help me understand, that's what I'm asking.
What values are talking about?
-
Sucks... Citizen Coffee was one of my favorite places for breakfast in Seattle. Maybe it will become "Comrade"
-
you'd have to have a certain set of values to understand.
Exactly, you have to value feigning outrage, talking about how things used to be, and basically act like this guy when you read stories like this, the war on Christmas, illegal immigrants invading neighborhoods...
(http://i56.tinypic.com/jv58i1.gif)
-
Exactly, you have to value feigning outrage, talking about how things used to be, and basically act like this guy when you read stories like this, the war on Christmas, illegal immigrants invading neighborhoods...
(http://i56.tinypic.com/jv58i1.gif)
Seems to me the "outraged" in this discussion are the members of the Office for Civil Rights in Seattle. They're the ones banning words like citizen and phrases like "brown bag".
I think it's just silly, but if my tax dollars were going to paying government employees who were wasting time on this sort of stuff I'd be pissed.
-
The Seattle stuff is stupid.
I have no idea what the thought process is there. It sounds like an article from The Onion.
BUT... realistically, I don't care. I just can't muster up enough energy to be upset.
-
Thanks for the update. Not sure why you care so much about language usage in Seattle...
I care about the absurdity of it all and people getting even "brighter" ideas that find themselves permeating various aspects of life. Besides, I'd hate to do one of my business trips up to Seattle and accidentally call someone a citizen not knowing the grave international damage it is doing to non-citizens.
-
#1 This crap is insane. I can't believe we are wasting time on it. So stupid.
#2 Honest question for you Chico's: Do you search the internet for things that make you mad, or do they just find you? I'm really not trying to be an a-hole, but you seem to post links to a lot of stuff that makes you upset. Are you actively looking for this stuff?
I don't think I could research and find so much stuff I hate everyday. I think it would wear me out.
Honest answer for you....they find me. Usually from people at work, friends, Cato institute, Drudge, Huff Post, stuff like that....usually in my emails delivered.
More honesty, most of this stuff doesn't make me mad....usually makes me laugh or sad, depending on what it is.
-
He is well on the way to "get off my lawn" existence. He probably does it already.
You bet, I cut that lawn every week myself. Those blades are tenderly cared for, nurtured, etc. Unlike the other 99% of folks in my hood that have someone do it for them (nearly all of them illegal). If I wanted people on my lawn, I wouldn't have a lawn, I'd have a circus or a mall or a park. ;D
-
That's perfect.
Help me understand, that's what I'm asking.
What values are talking about?
Sure. I guess some of it has to do with my age and I confess to having occasional twinges of nostalgia about the post war era when I grew up. The values I refer to are pretty standard but are constantly under assault: rule of law, personal property rights, a belief in equal opportunity not equal outcomes, taking personal responsibility for openers. Nothing too unusual.
-
Sure. I guess some of it has to do with my age and I confess to having occasional twinges of nostalgia about the post war era when I grew up. The values I refer to are pretty standard but are constantly under assault: rule of law, personal property rights, a belief in equal opportunity not equal outcomes, taking personal responsibility for openers. Nothing too unusual.
Yea, I get where you are coming from...
I guess for me, I have a set of values and ethics that I live by.
However, I don't actively seek out opportunities for me to complain about people who don't have the same values or ethics. I don't think it's unique to "conservatives" or "liberals". I just feel like some people put a lot of energy into stirring themselves up, and I'm not exactly sure why. It seems exhausting to me. I don't have the emotional energy for it.
AM radio has made an industry out of it. Both in it's political and sports format.
I'm just curious how/why some people seem to look for opportunities to be disappointed.
-
Honest answer for you....they find me. Usually from people at work, friends, Cato institute, Drudge, Huff Post, stuff like that....usually in my emails delivered.
More honesty, most of this stuff doesn't make me mad....usually makes me laugh or sad, depending on what it is.
Not to nitpick, but you could easily avoid some of that stuff, right?
I know some people that read Drudge religiously, and it basically just gives them topics to bitch about. I haven't had the guts (yet) to ask them why they even read it if they are just going to bitch.
Now, I'm not saying people should only read stuff they agree with, but there is a percentage of the population who seems to like to be upset... at least in my unscientific research.
It just seems exhausting to me.
-
Yea, I get where you are coming from...
I guess for me, I have a set of values and ethics that I live by.
However, I don't actively seek out opportunities for me to complain about people who don't have the same values or ethics. I don't think it's unique to "conservatives" or "liberals". I just feel like some people put a lot of energy into stirring themselves up, and I'm not exactly sure why. It seems exhausting to me. I don't have the emotional energy for it.
AM radio has made an industry out of it. Both in it's political and sports format.
I'm just curious how/why some people seem to look for opportunities to be disappointed.
Don't forget the victimization. Everyone is a victim these days.
-
Not to nitpick, but you could easily avoid some of that stuff, right?
I know some people that read Drudge religiously, and it basically just gives them topics to bitch about. I haven't had the guts (yet) to ask them why they even read it if they are just going to bitch.
Now, I'm not saying people should only read stuff they agree with, but there is a percentage of the population who seems to like to be upset... at least in my unscientific research.
It just seems exhausting to me.
Too much confirmation bias out there in my opinion. People only read their narrow focus in life and then they are shocked when some other viewpoints are out there. I try to read the WaPost or NY Times every day, the WSJ....in my office I typically have CNN, FOX and MSNBC on....a bit of everything.
Yes, I could avoid it, but I guess I don't see the point. Why bury the head in the sand. It's the little things, death a 1000 cuts, the slow creep that happens and next thing you know you wake up one day and say WTF.
-
AM radio has made an industry out of it. Both in it's political and sports format.
I'd say it goes WAY beyond those two mediums.
-
Too much confirmation bias out there in my opinion. People only read their narrow focus in life and then they are shocked when some other viewpoints are out there. I try to read the WaPost or NY Times every day, the WSJ....in my office I typically have CNN, FOX and MSNBC on....a bit of everything.
Yes, I could avoid it, but I guess I don't see the point. Why bury the head in the sand. It's the little things, death a 1000 cuts, the slow creep that happens and next thing you know you wake up one day and say WTF.
I hear ya about confirmation bias. I try to watch/read and listen to some people I don't always agree with to see if I am missing something in my viewpoint.
It seems like you chose to consume a ton of media and information. I just don't consume that much. I'm not that into politics, I hate TMZ, and I'm not into 24hr news because I don't think there is news 24 hrs per day.
I read a couple different news sites and catch the evening news a couple nights per week. That's it. I guess that's probably the difference. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
As far as the "death by a thousand cuts": In the 1950's, they said the same thing about civil rights and Elvis' pelvis. In the 60's, it was the Beatles and hippies that destroyed America, and so on and so forth. America will always be evolving. It's never going to be comfortable for everybody.
Now, this doesn't mean people shouldn't take a stand for something you believe in, but maybe people should focus less energy on the "cuts", and spend more energy on the important stuff.
-
Yes, they said some of those things back then. The use of language and what we find offensive (according to some) is an interesting one. I guess Charlie Rangel yesterday saying certain folks are just white crackers is ok still....I'm also interested in how some people can get away with stuff constantly with maybe a slap on the wrist and others are sent directly to the 7th circle of hell by the media and those crying outrage.
So the article on Seattle with words like Citizen being a problem makes me laugh because it only exposes the nutjobs for what they are...complete nutjobs. The more either side does it, the better in my opinion.
-
Too much confirmation bias out there in my opinion. People only read their narrow focus in life and then they are shocked when some other viewpoints are out there. I try to read the WaPost or NY Times every day, the WSJ....in my office I typically have CNN, FOX and MSNBC on....a bit of everything.
Yes, I could avoid it, but I guess I don't see the point. Why bury the head in the sand. It's the little things, death a 1000 cuts, the slow creep that happens and next thing you know you wake up one day and say WTF.
I am with you. Its not so much what they report as to what they don't report. What happened to Who, What, Where and When in journalism. Now its all about their particular agenda.
-
Yes, they said some of those things back then. The use of language and what we find offensive (according to some) is an interesting one. I guess Charlie Rangel yesterday saying certain folks are just white crackers is ok still....I'm also interested in how some people can get away with stuff constantly with maybe a slap on the wrist and others are sent directly to the 7th circle of hell by the media and those crying outrage.
So the article on Seattle with words like Citizen being a problem makes me laugh because it only exposes the nutjobs for what they are...complete nutjobs. The more either side does it, the better in my opinion.
I'm sorry, I just can't work up enough emotion to care about who calls white people crackers. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
By that same token, the Seattle "citizen" vs "resident" thing is stupid too. I don't care. It's dumb. Move on, everybody.
With all of this said, not every change to society is part of it's ultimate demise. I'm less worried about kids with jeans hanging off their butts, and I'm more concerned about the baby boom generation in retirement and their healthcare requirements. I'm concerned about renewable energy, and clean fresh water sources, etc. etc.
I think sometimes people focus too much on the little stuff, working under the assumption that it's the little stuff that leads to big stuff. I'm just not convinced society works in such a linear manner. Sometimes little stuff is just little stuff, and we need to leave it alone.
-
I'm sorry, I just can't work up enough emotion to care about who calls white people crackers. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
By that same token, the Seattle "citizen" vs "resident" thing is stupid too. I don't care. It's dumb. Move on, everybody.
With all of this said, not every change to society is part of it's ultimate demise. I'm less worried about kids with jeans hanging off their butts, and I'm more concerned about the baby boom generation in retirement and their healthcare requirements. I'm concerned about renewable energy, and clean fresh water sources, etc. etc.
I think sometimes people focus too much on the little stuff, working under the assumption that it's the little stuff that leads to big stuff. I'm just not convinced society works in such a linear manner. Sometimes little stuff is just little stuff, and we need to leave it alone.
I agree that "we" need to leave it alone, but who are the "we" who initiated this silliness? Not Chicos or anyone else of his ilk. Tell the language police in Seattle to leave it alone - they're the one's who decided this was a weighty enough issue to spend our time and money on - Chicos is only reacting to their stupidity, as should we all.
-
I'm sorry, I just can't work up enough emotion to care about who calls white people crackers. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
By that same token, the Seattle "citizen" vs "resident" thing is stupid too. I don't care. It's dumb. Move on, everybody.
With all of this said, not every change to society is part of it's ultimate demise. I'm less worried about kids with jeans hanging off their butts, and I'm more concerned about the baby boom generation in retirement and their healthcare requirements. I'm concerned about renewable energy, and clean fresh water sources, etc. etc.
I think sometimes people focus too much on the little stuff, working under the assumption that it's the little stuff that leads to big stuff. I'm just not convinced society works in such a linear manner. Sometimes little stuff is just little stuff, and we need to leave it alone.
Double standard, isn't it? You don't care about somebody using the term "white cracker" but drop the N word or or use an indian symbol as a mascot and it's a federal case. I think it's the hypocrisy of the whole deal that pisses people off.
-
I'm sorry, I just can't work up enough emotion to care about who calls white people crackers. I don't care. It doesn't matter.
By that same token, the Seattle "citizen" vs "resident" thing is stupid too. I don't care. It's dumb. Move on, everybody.
With all of this said, not every change to society is part of it's ultimate demise. I'm less worried about kids with jeans hanging off their butts, and I'm more concerned about the baby boom generation in retirement and their healthcare requirements. I'm concerned about renewable energy, and clean fresh water sources, etc. etc.
I think sometimes people focus too much on the little stuff, working under the assumption that it's the little stuff that leads to big stuff. I'm just not convinced society works in such a linear manner. Sometimes little stuff is just little stuff, and we need to leave it alone.
I get worked up about it because if someone from a certain political ideology said the equivalent, there would be calls for resignation, etc in full throat. The double standards are incredible and largely led by our "impartial" media (LOL).
-
I agree that "we" need to leave it alone, but who are the "we" who initiated this silliness? Not Chicos or anyone else of his ilk. Tell the language police in Seattle to leave it alone - they're the one's who decided this was a weighty enough issue to spend our time and money on - Chicos is only reacting to their stupidity, as should we all.
I agree that the Seattle stuff is stupid.
However, sometimes I think people's reactions to this stuff is a bit over the top.
If Seattle wants to enact silly language rules, go for it. I don't care. I'll let people in Seattle worry about it. I don't think it's the start or continuation of some sort of decline of American civilization, or death by a thousand cuts.
-
Double standard, isn't it? You don't care about somebody using the term "white cracker" but drop the N word or or use an indian symbol as a mascot and it's a federal case. I think it's the hypocrisy of the whole deal that pisses people off.
Absolutely it's a double standard. I understand logic well enough to know that.
However, society is filled with double standards. Black colleges, women's-only gyms, etc. etc, yet Augusta National draws all of the attention.
With this said, I'm not sure we need to make our stand against hypocrisy with "cracker" vs "n-word". I don't think there is anything to gain there.
I'm not mashing my teeth over that one, nor do I think anybody should. It's waaaaaay down the list of social injustice.
-
I get worked up about it because if someone from a certain political ideology said the equivalent, there would be calls for resignation, etc in full throat. The double standards are incredible and largely led by our "impartial" media (LOL).
Honestly, I don't follow politics or media closely enough to tell you if you are right or wrong.
I have a general idea of which news organizations have a slant, and I take their stories with a grain of salt. I guess that's as far as I go with this stuff.
-
I agree that the Seattle stuff is stupid.
However, sometimes I think people's reactions to this stuff is a bit over the top.
If Seattle wants to enact silly language rules, go for it. I don't care. I'll let people in Seattle worry about it. I don't think it's the start or continuation of some sort of decline of American civilization, or death by a thousand cuts.
You want government to identify and solve the big problems and leave the little stuff alone, but if the government of Seattle wants to waste their time on the silliest of stuff your response is "I don't care, go for it".So you're being inconsistent, espousing diametrically opposing views. Why?
-
You want government to identify and solve the big problems and leave the little stuff alone, but if the government of Seattle wants to waste their time on the silliest of stuff your response is "I don't care, go for it".So you're being inconsistent, espousing diametrically opposing views. Why?
Because it's Seattle's problem. Not Milwaukee's.
I mean, I don't like what they are doing, and if I lived in Seattle, I suppose I would do something about it.
I don't like taxpayer funded stadiums, but I'm not going to read Miami newspaper's everyday to see stories about the Marlin's ballpark and then mash my teeth and shake my fist.
I just don't have the time or energy to worry about everything that comes up around the country, and that was my initial question to Chico's. Do you find this stuff everyday, or does it find you?
-
Because it's Seattle's problem. Not Milwaukee's.
I mean, I don't like what they are doing, and if I lived in Seattle, I suppose I would do something about it.
I don't like taxpayer funded stadiums, but I'm not going to read Miami newspaper's everyday to see stories about the Marlin's ballpark and then mash my teeth and shake my fist.
I just don't have the time or energy to worry about everything that comes up around the country, and that was my initial question to Chico's. Do you find this stuff everyday, or does it find you?
if I travel to Seattle it becomes my problem! I don't and haven't liked the trend. First Seattle, then the state, then Oregon and CA think it's a good idea, not long after, the ultra left east coast, not to be out-libbed, outlaws the offensive terms and decides to go further by banning soda. Oh wait....
In a nutshell, I'm tired of others having the right to call me names while I am prohibited from replying in kind. Is it a small thing? Maybe, but if someone doesn't stand up to the crazies you wind up with, well, Obamacare! I know it's not exactly analogous, but you're starting to sound like rodham at the Benghazi hearings. What does it matter......
-
if I travel to Seattle it becomes my problem! I don't and haven't liked the trend. First Seattle, then the state, then Oregon and CA think it's a good idea, not long after, the ultra left east coast, not to be out-libbed, outlaws the offensive terms and decides to go further by banning soda. Oh wait....
In a nutshell, I'm tired of others having the right to call me names while I am prohibited from replying in kind. Is it a small thing? Maybe, but if someone doesn't stand up to the crazies you wind up with, well, Obamacare! I know it's not exactly analogous, but you're starting to sound like rodham at the Benghazi hearings. What does it matter......
Well OK...I guess we just got a bunch of conser-vo-talk that really wasn't relevant to the issue at hand.
BTW I travel to Seattle regularly and this wont impact me one bit.
-
Well OK...I guess we just on a bunch of conser-vo-talk that really wasn't relevant to the issue at hand.
BTW I travel to Seattle regularly and this wont impact me one bit.
Sure, because you are willing to conform to this idiotic statute. Let's just give away a little bit more of our freedom to satisfy some oversensitive liberals in Seattle. Chief Seattle must have been a pacifist!
-
Sure, because you are willing to conform to this idiotic statute. Let's just give away a little bit more of our freedom to satisfy some oversensitive liberals in Seattle. Chief Seattle must have been a pacifist!
Should this be in teal? I don't "conform" to anything more than I do in my nice little midwestern city.
-
Should this be in teal? I don't "conform" to anything more than I do in my nice little midwestern city.
Are you allowed to use the term "citizen" in your nice little midwestern city?
-
If you haven't seen Portlandia you are missing some pretty funny stuff. Left Coast PC taken to its absurd limits. Not far from reality though as I am reminded each time I am there. Humor that even Portlanders find funny about themselves.
At Powells book store the cashier and I were amusing ourselves recounting episodes and she told me that she has heard of people moving their apartments by bicycle.
-
Are you allowed to use the term "citizen" in your nice little midwestern city?
Sure. But I don't use the term "citizen" anyway. But I could call people it all day in Seattle and be just fine
-
Are you allowed to use the term "citizen" in your nice little midwestern city?
How often do you actually use the term "Citizen" or "brown bag" in your daily conversation? I probably have never uttered the words "brown bag" in my life. Citizen maybe slightly more often.
I haven't been to Seattle in 10-12 years.
So does this have ANY impact my life? Not in the least. Thus, I don't give a sh!t.
Like Ammo says, this is a LOOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGG way down on the list of things that I am going to worry about. If you choose to let yourself get all bent out of shape about it, that's on you.
-
if I travel to Seattle it becomes my problem! I don't and haven't liked the trend. First Seattle, then the state, then Oregon and CA think it's a good idea, not long after, the ultra left east coast, not to be out-libbed, outlaws the offensive terms and decides to go further by banning soda. Oh wait....
In a nutshell, I'm tired of others having the right to call me names while I am prohibited from replying in kind. Is it a small thing? Maybe, but if someone doesn't stand up to the crazies you wind up with, well, Obamacare! I know it's not exactly analogous, but you're starting to sound like rodham at the Benghazi hearings. What does it matter......
Well, this is where we differ.
#1 I just don't have the energy or interest in reading stuff from around the country that gets my blood pressure up. I don't say that to be condescending, it's just the truth. It would wear me out, and I think I would be emotionally bankrupt and angry all of the time.
#2 It's hard to get my blood pressure up, because I don't see the decline of civilization is such a linear format. I don't think standing up for "n-word vs cracker" is going to prevent America from going down the tubes. America is always evolving, and it's always going to be a challenge, for all of us. Some things are worth taking a stand on, some things aren't. I have several issues that I'm more active about. Once all of those issues are "solved", then I'll move on to why I'm not allowed in a "Curves" gym!! Grrrrr!
#3 Seattle and Washington can do whatever they want (within reason). I believe in states rights, and quite honestly I wish/hope all states continue to evolve and be different from one another. If Seattle wants to be crazy PC, and you don't like that, then don't go there. Boom. Solved. If everybody in Texas carries a gun, and you don't like guns, then don't go there. Boom. Solved. See what I mean?
-
Well, this is where we differ.
#1 I just don't have the energy or interest in reading stuff from around the country that gets my blood pressure up. I don't say that to be condescending, it's just the truth. It would wear me out, and I think I would be emotionally bankrupt and angry all of the time.
#2 It's hard to get my blood pressure up, because I don't see the decline of civilization is such a linear format. I don't think standing up for "n-word vs cracker" is going to prevent America from going down the tubes. America is always evolving, and it's always going to be a challenge, for all of us. Some things are worth taking a stand on, some things aren't. I have several issues that I'm more active about. Once all of those issues are "solved", then I'll move on to why I'm not allowed in a "Curves" gym!! Grrrrr!
#3 Seattle and Washington can do whatever they want (within reason). I believe in states rights, and quite honestly I wish/hope all states continue to evolve and be different from one another. If Seattle wants to be crazy PC, and you don't like that, then don't go there. Boom. Solved. If everybody in Texas carries a gun, and you don't like guns, then don't go there. Boom. Solved. See what I mean?
As I said, it's just another little bit of our freedom being taken away. I'm not willing to give up any more of it. If you are, that's your problem. What if I can't avoid going to Seattle? I think my right to use the term "citizen" is federally guaranteed as is my right to arm myself in Texas, or really, anywhere in the US. So give up your rights if you wish. others will stand up for theirs and yours.
-
As I said, it's just another little bit of our freedom being taken away. I'm not willing to give up any more of it. If you are, that's your problem. What if I can't avoid going to Seattle? I think my right to use the term "citizen" is federally guaranteed as is my right to arm myself in Texas, or really, anywhere in the US. So give up your rights if you wish. others will stand up for theirs and yours.
#1 I don't see freedom as some sort of linear concept that gets taken or given one step at a time. It's a constant evolution and balance, but I don't think it's step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4, boom... freedom gone! I just don't think it works like that. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
#2 I wish the federal government was smaller and states had more power. Therefore, I'm ok with Seattle and Washington deciding whatever they want (within reason). I don't need the fed taking on another project.
#3 There is no reason why a person would ever HAVE to go to Seattle. If you don't want to go there, then don't go. Personal responsibility.
-
#1 I don't see freedom as some sort of linear concept that gets taken or given one step at a time. It's a constant evolution and balance, but I don't think it's step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4, boom... freedom gone! I just don't think it works like that. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
#2 I wish the federal government was smaller and states had more power. Therefore, I'm ok with Seattle and Washington deciding whatever they want (within reason). I don't need the fed taking on another project.
#3 There is no reason why a person would ever HAVE to go to Seattle. If you don't want to go there, then don't go. Personal responsibility.
1. erosion of rights little by little is to be feared and fought whether it is linear or exponential.
2. agree on smaller government at all levels would be a good thing.
3. job considerations compel the travel and there are many factors that could make the trips unavoidable. Boom. simple as that.
-
Regarding #3...how the hell would this impact you at all? You can use the word "citizens" and "brown bag" all you want. From the first paragraph:
"Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms "citizen" and "brown bag" are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions."
So unless you are travelling to Seattle to work on "official documents and discussions," using those words isn't a problem. Or do you lose freedom simply by existing in such a city???
-
Double standard, isn't it? You don't care about somebody using the term "white cracker" but drop the N word or or use an indian symbol as a mascot and it's a federal case. I think it's the hypocrisy of the whole deal that pisses people off.
This is one of the stupider arguments I see. Acting as though 'cracker' and the 'N' word are equivalent.
"Crackers" have money, power, and land - and always have in this country. They bought, sold, imprisoned, and murdered minorities who got in their way.
Much of that is in the past - but it still goes on. A person convicted of a drug crime is 35 times more likely to go to prison if black. The sentences for cocaine and crack are another example - with convictions for crack much more severe. But then crack is generally considered a "black" crime.
You stated in another post that you may be different because you grew up post-war - talking about the rule of law and equal opportunity. Well, we know what the laws were regarding blacks in the '50s and how much equal opportunity was available then.
"Cracker" is just a cute little name. It has none of the connotation of the "N" word and the history behind it.
-
All this thread really needs is for everyone to read the responses from Guns N Ammo.
Common sense and reason are NOT a bad thing.
Well done GNA
-
Regarding #3...how the hell would this impact you at all? You can use the word "citizens" and "brown bag" all you want. From the first paragraph:
"Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms "citizen" and "brown bag" are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions."
So unless you are travelling to Seattle to work on "official documents
Bingo, we finally have a winner!
-
So unless you are travelling to Seattle to work on "official documents
Bingo, we finally have a winner!
Really? You might travel to Seattle to work on official City documents? And if that happens, they actually might tell you what words you can't use?
Man, you are really oppressed.
-
Absolutely it's a double standard. I understand logic well enough to know that.
However, society is filled with double standards. Black colleges, women's-only gyms, etc. etc, yet Augusta National draws all of the attention.
With this said, I'm not sure we need to make our stand against hypocrisy with "cracker" vs "n-word". I don't think there is anything to gain there.
I'm not mashing my teeth over that one, nor do I think anybody should. It's waaaaaay down the list of social injustice.
We should expect more than a double standard from the 5th column who routinely tell us how they are playing it down the middle and here for a "free society". I don't think that is asking much, but apparently it is.
-
Because it's Seattle's problem. Not Milwaukee's.
I mean, I don't like what they are doing, and if I lived in Seattle, I suppose I would do something about it.
I don't like taxpayer funded stadiums, but I'm not going to read Miami newspaper's everyday to see stories about the Marlin's ballpark and then mash my teeth and shake my fist.
I just don't have the time or energy to worry about everything that comes up around the country, and that was my initial question to Chico's. Do you find this stuff everyday, or does it find you?
Because what happens is one nutjob in Seattle has this great idea and then it becomes Milwaukee's problem, L.A.'s problem, Omaha's problem.
-
I love it when white guys (of which I am one) sit around and talk about their loss of freedoms.
Man we've had it rough the last couple hundred years ;D
-
I love it when white guys (of which I am one) sit around and talk about their loss of freedoms.
Man we've had it rough the last couple hundred years ;D
Shhh...Chicos doesn't like when you bring a silly little inconvenience like state-sponsored racism into the conversation.
-
Because what happens is one nutjob in Seattle has this great idea and then it becomes Milwaukee's problem, L.A.'s problem, Omaha's problem.
It's stupid. But in the grand scheme of things isn't much of a problem.
-
I love it when white guys (of which I am one) sit around and talk about their loss of freedoms.
Man we've had it rough the last couple hundred years ;D
Compared to?
-
1. erosion of rights little by little is to be feared and fought whether it is linear or exponential.
2. agree on smaller government at all levels would be a good thing.
3. job considerations compel the travel and there are many factors that could make the trips unavoidable. Boom. simple as that.
#1. Fine. We'll agree to disagree.
#2. Yep.
#3. If your job makes you go, get a new job. Personal responsibility. Seattle and it's residents are allowed to govern however they wish... if you don't like it, don't go there.
-
Because what happens is one nutjob in Seattle has this great idea and then it becomes Milwaukee's problem, L.A.'s problem, Omaha's problem.
Then if you live in Milwaukee, LA or Omaha, you have the power to vote those individuals out. The beauty of this thing called democracy and extending the power to govern local issues to the local political institution is that people have the power to legislate how they like in their local community. They can shape local issues how the like and legislate accordingly.
If someone where you live likes these policies they can try to institute them in their local community, but the kicker is, they have to get the local community to support it. If they do support it, the system is working, even if you don't like it.
So in that regard, it doesn't affect you, and if it bothers you if you visit...too bad, they live there and they like it that way.
-
Shhh...Chicos doesn't like when you bring a silly little inconvenience like state-sponsored racism into the conversation.
????
-
We should expect more than a double standard from the 5th column who routinely tell us how they are playing it down the middle and here for a "free society". I don't think that is asking much, but apparently it is.
Again, based upon strict logic, you are 100% correct.
Just like:
- I shouldn't have to hold the door for women (Women's lib!)
- Every date I go on should be "dutch" (Hooray women in the workplace)
- "woman and children first" is incorrect (Only the strong survive!)
- I shouldn't give up my seat to an older lady in church (I was here first!)
There is some nuance here, right? Can we agree on that? Not everything is just based upon A+B=C.
I do pay for dates, I do hold doors open, I do let women and kids go in front of me, I do give up my seat. It's my own personal values, as well as what is socially acceptable. It's not simply logic based like you are implying.
America has a LONG list of issues we can work on. I'm not sure N-word vs Cracker makes the top 100,000.
Work big to small, guys.
-
Then if you live in Milwaukee, LA or Omaha, you have the power to vote those individuals out. The beauty of this thing called democracy and extending the power to govern local issues to the local political institution is that people have the power to legislate how they like in their local community. They can shape local issues how the like and legislate accordingly.
If someone where you live likes these policies they can try to institute them in their local community, but the kicker is, they have to get the local community to support it. If they do support it, the system is working, even if you don't like it.
So in that regard, it doesn't affect you, and if it bothers you if you visit...too bad, they live there and they like it that way.
That's cute. If you truly think this stuff is isolated to certain locales I don't know what to say. My example was to suggest it permeates many places. You'll forgive me, too, about simply voting people out. This is the same country, specifically in some locales, that routinely reelects criminals, sexual deviants, etc. He\she who gives the most goodies out usually gets reelected.
-
Because what happens is one nutjob in Seattle has this great idea and then it becomes Milwaukee's problem, L.A.'s problem, Omaha's problem.
You could use this EXACT same argument for every bit of progress this country has ever made (women's suffrage, civil rights, native American rights, bi-racial marriages, Brown vs board of education, Jackie Robinson, Harvey Milk, etc.)
-
That's cute. If you truly think this stuff is isolated to certain locales I don't know what to say. My example was to suggest it permeates many places. You'll forgive me, too, about simply voting people out. This is the same country, specifically in some locales, that routinely reelects criminals, sexual deviants, etc. He\she who gives the most goodies out usually gets reelected.
Then don't live in those locales.
We aren't victims of government. We have the freedom to chose where we live and where we pay taxes. If we don't like our community, or who the community is electing, we have the power to move.
This isn't that complicated. If Amarillo is more your style, move to Amarillo.
-
That's cute. If you truly think this stuff is isolated to certain locales I don't know what to say. My example was to suggest it permeates many places. You'll forgive me, too, about simply voting people out. This is the same country, specifically in some locales, that routinely reelects criminals, sexual deviants, etc. He\she who gives the most goodies out usually gets reelected.
This is where you start to sound like a person that looks around trying to find things to be angry about. If it is not isolated to these locales then that means it is a majority held belief, which you are in the minority on. That's part of being in a democracy...there are some issues where you will disagree with the majority.
Just reading the above post, it would seem that you are in favor of restricting the vote to those that agree with your line of thinking.
-
That's cute. If you truly think this stuff is isolated to certain locales I don't know what to say. My example was to suggest it permeates many places. You'll forgive me, too, about simply voting people out. This is the same country, specifically in some locales, that routinely reelects criminals, sexual deviants, etc. He\she who gives the most goodies out usually gets reelected.
But yet - based on your politics - I would guess that you support the Citizens United ruling which allows these unqualified buffoons to be able to give out more of those goodies and allows these deviants and criminals to get elected.
-
You could use this EXACT same argument for every bit of progress this country has ever made (women's suffrage, civil rights, native American rights, bi-racial marriages, Brown vs board of education, Jackie Robinson, Harvey Milk, etc.)
You can hardly equate these with someone wanting to ban the term "Brown Bag Lunch" A bit overreaching
-
Let me see if I can make it a bit easier. Riley Cooper is being vilified for hate, racial speech. As he should. Charlie Rangel..........
Hate speech is hate speech. Racism is racism. Sure, there are "more hateful" words than others, but if race is truly going to conquered in this country, then the vary people that scream at the top of their lungs should be equally loud when all people do it and not give them a pass and let certain people get away with it.
-
Then don't live in those locales.
We aren't victims of government. We have the freedom to chose where we live and where we pay taxes. If we don't like our community, or who the community is electing, we have the power to move.
This isn't that complicated. If Amarillo is more your style, move to Amarillo.
It would be nice if that's how it worked. Let me give you an example. The city I live in is part of Orange County. We have our crap together. Budget surplus, spent money wisely, etc. The state, on the other hand, in typical total cluster mode. So what does the state do? They tell all the locales with redevolpment agencies that we're (the state) is going to be taking money from your budgets because we aren't capable of handling our own. So regardless of where you live, they just came and smacked cities up and down the state. Awesome. You can't escape it sometimes, even if you "don't live in those locales".
-
But yet - based on your politics - I would guess that you support the Citizens United ruling which allows these unqualified buffoons to be able to give out more of those goodies and allows these deviants and criminals to get elected.
You'll have to show me where the Citizens United ruling somehow helped people like Jesse Jackson Jr., Marion Berry, William Jefferson, etc, to get elected.
If you are asking if I believe in the first amendment, yes my politics does support the 1st amendment. ;)
-
Let me see if I can make it a bit easier. Riley Cooper is being vilified for hate, racial speech. As he should. Charlie Rangel..........
Hate speech is hate speech. Racism is racism. Sure, there are "more hateful" words than others, but if race is truly going to conquered in this country, then the vary people that scream at the top of their lungs should be equally loud when all people do it and not give them a pass and let certain people get away with it.
I fully agree with you in that hate speech is hate speech. I had a coworker (hispanic) who insisted on referring to her white friends and coworkers as gringos. The number of times I heard us referred to as just a bunch of stupid gringos was unfathomable. My friend was greatly upset by this, and informed her that it is not polite and he viewed it as a derogatory term. She went off on him for suggesting that a term applied to whites could ever be derogatory. Things should be applied equally, with that said...
The one thing that I would caution against is getting up in arms over it. Frankly, I've never understood anger on either side when it came to words. There are a lot of them, I don't care what the word is, if someone tells me it upsets them, I'll go out of the way to not use that word. I had a friend who didn't like the word 'moist' for some reason, so I avoided using it around them.
As Guns has commented, quite eloquently, there are a lot of things worth our attention, words are not. Lets focus on the big issues. I'll eagerly concede minor issues to more quickly tackle those that are most important.
You work in an industry where negotiations are important. Don't you routinely concede elements of a negotiation to build equity for the key issues you need?
-
It would be nice if that's how it worked. Let me give you an example. The city I live in is part of Orange County. We have our crap together. Budget surplus, spent money wisely, etc. The state, on the other hand, in typical total cluster mode. So what does the state do? They tell all the locales with redevolpment agencies that we're (the state) is going to be taking money from your budgets because we aren't capable of handling our own. So regardless of where you live, they just came and smacked cities up and down the state. Awesome. You can't escape it sometimes, even if you "don't live in those locales".
Bad example, I think. Orange County is quite affluent - Median home price is close to $500,000. Of course there is going to be a surplus.
And before arguing that your taxes shouldn't support other counties in the state, I could opine that my taxes shouldn't be used to support Red states down south. But life isn't fair. I don't know if they would survive down there without all the $$$ that they receive from liberal NE states.
Mississippi and West Virginia (Red states) are at the head of the class — each take nearly $3 from Washington for each dollar they pay in taxes. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Delaware and Minnesota (Blue states) both get about 50 cents for each $1 they pay in federal taxes.
-
You can hardly equate these with someone wanting to ban the term "Brown Bag Lunch" A bit overreaching
Ugh...
I wish people could read.
They are not "banning" anything. The City of Seattle is requiring that it's workers not use certain terms in "official documents and discussions." You guys make it sound like they are going to arrest people for using that word.
While I agree that this is extreme, lots of businesses have similar policies. For instance we are not supposed to refer to our "residence halls" as "dorms."
This is hardly some sort of restriction of freedom that people are painting it out to be.
-
1. erosion of rights little by little is to be feared and fought whether it is linear or exponential.
BTW, no one's right are being eroded here. If my employer requires that I refrain from using certain words in official communication, they have the authority to do so.
-
You can hardly equate these with someone wanting to ban the term "Brown Bag Lunch" A bit overreaching
That's exactly my point.
It's a dumb rule by some weird PC people, and a huge overreaction by some people who think this is their freedom being infringed upon.
-
It would be nice if that's how it worked. Let me give you an example. The city I live in is part of Orange County. We have our crap together. Budget surplus, spent money wisely, etc. The state, on the other hand, in typical total cluster mode. So what does the state do? They tell all the locales with redevolpment agencies that we're (the state) is going to be taking money from your budgets because we aren't capable of handling our own. So regardless of where you live, they just came and smacked cities up and down the state. Awesome. You can't escape it sometimes, even if you "don't live in those locales".
Then don't live in California.
Live in Montana.
We aren't victims. We can vote, we can lobby, and we can chose where we live/pay taxes.
-
Let me see if I can make it a bit easier. Riley Cooper is being vilified for hate, racial speech. As he should. Charlie Rangel..........
Hate speech is hate speech. Racism is racism. Sure, there are "more hateful" words than others, but if race is truly going to conquered in this country, then the vary people that scream at the top of their lungs should be equally loud when all people do it and not give them a pass and let certain people get away with it.
Again, you are technically correct, but you aren't seeing the nuance?
We have a group(s) that were persecuted for a LONG time (still are in some places). "Separate but equal" wasn't that long ago. I don't think it's too much to ask white people to lay off the racial slurs for another 100 years. In 2100, if you want to use the n-word... go for it.
-
Again, you are technically correct, but you aren't seeing the nuance?
We have a group(s) that were persecuted for a LONG time (still are in some places). "Separate but equal" wasn't that long ago. I don't think it's too much to ask white people to lay off the racial slurs for another 100 years. In 2100, if you want to use the n-word... go for it.
Almost 60 years ago, wasn't it? The cloak of victimhood is holding people back. If you want equality, then you gotta' expect that if you use a slur you may get one in return. What's sauce for the goose....etc.
-
Then don't live in California.
Live in Montana.
We aren't victims. We can vote, we can lobby, and we can chose where we live/pay taxes.
A vast oversimplification.
-
A vast oversimplification.
Not really.
Listen, I live in the midwest because I have family ties and my career is here. So, I'm sort of "stuck with it".
BUT, in reality, there is no restriction on where I live. If I don't like how society is developing, I'm welcome to move. Nobody can stop me from doing that.
Ultimately, I'm in control of my own destiny, and I'm not a victim. I can participate (voting, campaigning, lobbying, etc.) and live with the outcomes, or I can withdraw and live near the arctic circle in Alaska or Montana, or Wyoming, or even Texas. Whatever.
We are not victims. We have the freedom of choice.
-
Almost 60 years ago, wasn't it? The cloak of victimhood is holding people back. If you want equality, then you gotta' expect that if you use a slur you may get one in return. What's sauce for the goose....etc.
Yes, ONLY 60 years (at least that is how I view it).
Anyways, we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I don't think "racial slur equality" is important... at all.
-
BTW, no one's right are being eroded here. If my employer requires that I refrain from using certain words in official communication, they have the authority to do so.
But when people who work for me (as a citizen and taxpayer) are wasting their time and my money on something so stupid it's my right to call them out on it. If you own a company and one of your employees wants to sleep in his truck on your dime that's none of my business. When it's a city worker that's a different story.
-
But when people who work for me (as a citizen and taxpayer) are wasting their time and my money on something so stupid it's my right to call them out on it. If you own a company and one of your employees wants to sleep in his truck on your dime that's none of my business. When it's a city worker that's a different story.
Exactly correct.
Waste of time and resources? Yep.
Infringing upon my God given freedoms as an American Citizen? Nope.
-
Yes, ONLY 60 years (at least that is how I view it).
Anyways, we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I don't think "racial slur equality" is important... at all.
yes, we will. if you want respect you have to give it.
-
The one thing that I would caution against is getting up in arms over it. Frankly, I've never understood anger on either side when it came to words. There are a lot of them, I don't care what the word is, if someone tells me it upsets them, I'll go out of the way to not use that word. I had a friend who didn't like the word 'moist' for some reason, so I avoided using it around them.
I think the reality is that certain individuals use the hate speech to try and harm people, their careers, etc. Whether it is a Food Network host that said something decade plus ago, a football player, or whatever. People go out of their way to try and put a scarlet letter on them and destroy them. Literally destroy them. These very same people, apparently, have a free get out of jail card and can say something without harm. It's ridiculous. Here we have a 2nd rate football player that is vilified for saying something while drunk and someone captures it on a cell phone yet we have a sitting United States Congressional House Representative that gets nothing despite being sober, saying it to a media member in front of the world. Meanwhile this football player isn't going to impact you or me at all, but this Representative votes on legislation that impacts all of us every day. Something very wrong about that.
Quite frankly, I do think it is worth getting up in arms about it, especially when some of these people are out literally trying to destroy the lives of others.
-
But when people who work for me (as a citizen and taxpayer) are wasting their time and my money on something so stupid it's my right to call them out on it. If you own a company and one of your employees wants to sleep in his truck on your dime that's none of my business. When it's a city worker that's a different story.
I agree with that. But I don't think anyone here lives in Seattle...and I agree it's completely stupid.
But it isn't infringing on anyone's rights.
-
Then don't live in California.
Live in Montana.
We aren't victims. We can vote, we can lobby, and we can chose where we live/pay taxes.
Idaho is next for us, though Montana was in high consideration.
-
Again, you are technically correct, but you aren't seeing the nuance?
We have a group(s) that were persecuted for a LONG time (still are in some places). "Separate but equal" wasn't that long ago. I don't think it's too much to ask white people to lay off the racial slurs for another 100 years. In 2100, if you want to use the n-word... go for it.
Oh I see the nuance just fine....I would like white people to lay off the racial slurs period....and guess what, I'd like everyone else too, as well. That's the other half of the problem. How can we be a color blind society if we still have people that push those divisions? When people are out there pushing this stuff, saying things that others would lose their jobs over. I'm sure that's healthy for racial relations in this country. ::)
We had our HR managerial reviews the other day. I had to rate each of my employees. About 70% of my staff is female and 80% of my entire team is deemed a "minority". Mostly Asian-American, in this particular case. I had to think about the questions because I don't see any of these people as Asian or Hispanic or Caucasian. I could not care less. On the forms each employee was identified as such...male, non minority. Male, minority. Female, non-minority. Female, minority. My HR guy, who happens to be an African American chap, good dude...I asked him why can't we just get down to the essentials here. Can they do the job or can't they? Are they good, are they promotable, are they tomorrow's leaders, have they hit a ceiling, etc? Whether they are a minority or not, whether what gender they are or what sexual orientation should not matter one hill of beans. Not one iota.
-
I think the reality is that certain individuals use the hate speech to try and harm people, their careers, etc. Whether it is a Food Network host that said something decade plus ago, a football player, or whatever. People go out of their way to try and put a scarlet letter on them and destroy them. Literally destroy them. These very same people, apparently, have a free get out of jail card and can say something without harm. It's ridiculous. Here we have a 2nd rate football player that is vilified for saying something while drunk and someone captures it on a cell phone yet we have a sitting United States Congressional House Representative that gets nothing despite being sober, saying it to a media member in front of the world. Meanwhile this football player isn't going to impact you or me at all, but this Representative votes on legislation that impacts all of us every day. Something very wrong about that.
Quite frankly, I do think it is worth getting up in arms about it, especially when some of these people are out literally trying to destroy the lives of others.
Chicos, If even half of the things I have heard about Paula Deen are true than she is rightfully getting what she deserved. That said, I don't like Rangel and frankly think he is scum. Similarly I despise Congressman Lamborn, who referred to the president as a 'tar baby'. I don't get upset about it though, because I have 0 respect for them and have realized that we elect people by name, not ability for a long time.
It is well documented that people will vote for a name they recognize and don't trust over an unknown the majority of the time. Just because they are in a position of power does not mean you have to respect them.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with Rangel's 13 ethics charges than his use of the word cracker. Similarly with what is going on in Seattle, far more concerned with big issues than weather they can use the term "brown bag" for their next meeting.
-
Fair enough....and for the record I'm not defending Ms Deen. I just find it absurd that she is ousted while others are glorified, revered, etc. It's like every time I see Alec Baldwin I think to myself if that was a conservative actor who said those things about his daughter, his ex-wife, his anti-gay nonsense, would he ever work again in Hollywood? The double standards are breath taking.
-
Fair enough....and for the record I'm not defending Ms Deen. I just find it absurd that she is ousted while others are glorified, revered, etc. It's like every time I see Alec Baldwin I think to myself if that was a conservative actor who said those things about his daughter, his ex-wife, his anti-gay nonsense, would he ever work again in Hollywood? The double standards are breath taking.
I dislike Baldwin for the same reason...actually not a fan of his entire family.
-
Oh I see the nuance just fine....I would like white people to lay off the racial slurs period....and guess what, I'd like everyone else too, as well. That's the other half of the problem. How can we be a color blind society if we still have people that push those divisions? When people are out there pushing this stuff, saying things that others would lose their jobs over. I'm sure that's healthy for racial relations in this country. ::)
We had our HR managerial reviews the other day. I had to rate each of my employees. About 70% of my staff is female and 80% of my entire team is deemed a "minority". Mostly Asian-American, in this particular case. I had to think about the questions because I don't see any of these people as Asian or Hispanic or Caucasian. I could not care less. On the forms each employee was identified as such...male, non minority. Male, minority. Female, non-minority. Female, minority. My HR guy, who happens to be an African American chap, good dude...I asked him why can't we just get down to the essentials here. Can they do the job or can't they? Are they good, are they promotable, are they tomorrow's leaders, have they hit a ceiling, etc? Whether they are a minority or not, whether what gender they are or what sexual orientation should not matter one hill of beans. Not one iota.
#1 "Cracker" and "Honky" etc. aren't 1/2 of the problem. It's part of the problem, but let's not overstate it. I know this is nit picking, but I think it needs to be said. There is a long history tied to the n-word (we all know what it is), so it's ALWAYS going to carry more weight. It just does.
#2 In a perfect world, you are 100% correct. The good news is that in another couple of generations, we probably won't need all of the rules and regulations for protected class.
However, we aren't in a perfect world right now. I don't necessarily agree with every piece of affirmative action legislation, but I understand why it exists. Also, as a white male, from and middle class family, I don't mash my teeth or shake my fist at this kind of stuff very often (if at all). Honestly, my energy is just spent elsewhere. Maybe I'm just too apathetic... and maybe that is America's real problem. ?-(
-
#1 "Cracker" and "Honky" etc. aren't 1/2 of the problem. It's part of the problem, but let's not overstate it. I know this is nit picking, but I think it needs to be said. There is a long history tied to the n-word (we all know what it is), so it's ALWAYS going to carry more weight. It just does.
#2 In a perfect world, you are 100% correct. The good news is that in another couple of generations, we probably won't need all of the rules and regulations for protected class.
However, we aren't in a perfect world right now. I don't necessarily agree with every piece of affirmative action legislation, but I understand why it exists. Also, as a white male, from and middle class family, I don't mash my teeth or shake my fist at this kind of stuff very often (if at all). Honestly, my energy is just spent elsewhere. Maybe I'm just too apathetic... and maybe that is America's real problem. ?-(
I think this is pretty well said.
Its kind of rich for a forum of generally white, middle to upper class males (plus a Warrior Chick here and there) who have had the extreme privileged background of going to a Jesuit university to be complaining about minorities using some minorly offensive word. Its worth having some perspective and taking a look at your life and seeing how blessed you are. If your biggest gripe everyday is that a minority called someone a cracker (BTW cracker is NOT an equivalent to the N word, if you think it is, spend some time learning about the history of the N word and its use in the context of slavery and the Jim Crow South), or that you can't call your favorite college basketball team by its old nickname, you've got it pretty good. I'm not going to waste my energy worrying about these things. I'm going to spend my time being thankful I was born and raised middle class in the world's richest country and trying to find ways to help others who weren't so fortunate. Everything else is wasted oxygen.
-
#1 "Cracker" and "Honky" etc. aren't 1/2 of the problem. It's part of the problem, but let's not overstate it. I know this is nit picking, but I think it needs to be said. There is a long history tied to the n-word (we all know what it is), so it's ALWAYS going to carry more weight. It just does.
#2 In a perfect world, you are 100% correct. The good news is that in another couple of generations, we probably won't need all of the rules and regulations for protected class.
However, we aren't in a perfect world right now. I don't necessarily agree with every piece of affirmative action legislation, but I understand why it exists. Also, as a white male, from and middle class family, I don't mash my teeth or shake my fist at this kind of stuff very often (if at all). Honestly, my energy is just spent elsewhere. Maybe I'm just too apathetic... and maybe that is America's real problem. ?-(
Racism is racism. Where does "Hymie" fit in when Jesse Jackson said it? Sure certain words carry more weight, but a slur is a slur and apparently some people (usually those screaming racism at every turn) can use various slurs with a free pass.
Why not strive for a more "perfect world" and demand accountability from everyone, especially those that want to push for color blind society, they should absolutely be the first in line not using disparaging slurs. Someone should hold them accountable, starting with the media. If you don't show this hypocrisy, it will only continue.
-
Racism is racism. Where does "Hymie" fit in when Jesse Jackson said it? Sure certain words carry more weight, but a slur is a slur and apparently some people (usually those screaming racism at every turn) can use various slurs with a free pass.
Why not strive for a more "perfect world" and demand accountability from everyone, especially those that want to push for color blind society, they should absolutely be the first in line not using disparaging slurs. Someone should hold them accountable, starting with the media. If you don't show this hypocrisy, it will only continue.
You're right, but now I think you are now mixing several topics together.
#1 Should the media show the hypocrisy of racial slurs? Sure. Let's see it. Hugh Douglas is in hot water. Great. Fire him.
#2 Do we live in a perfect world where we don't need to have protected class categories? Not yet. Again, the rules aren't perfect, but I'm not going to mash my teeth over it.
Equality is a process, and we (as a country) are growing/going through it. It's not perfectly linear, and there are going to be bumps along the road. I'm cool with people striving for the best and pushing people to be "better". But, less save some of the moral indignation.
I'm white. I'm middle class. Generally, I don't have a lot to be upset about. As long as I can afford a cold beer on a hot day, I'm generally pretty happy.
-
I think this is pretty well said.
Its kind of rich for a forum of generally white, middle to upper class males (plus a Warrior Chick here and there) who have had the extreme privileged background of going to a Jesuit university to be complaining about minorities using some minorly offensive word. Its worth having some perspective and taking a look at your life and seeing how blessed you are. If your biggest gripe everyday is that a minority called someone a cracker, or that you can't call your favorite college basketball team by its old nickname, you've got it pretty good. I'm not going to waste my energy worrying about these things. I'm going to spend my time being thankful I was born and raised middle class in the world's richest country and trying to find ways to help others who weren't so fortunate. Everything else is wasted oxygen.
+1
As Louis CK would say, white people problems.
A lot of people on the right show very blatant disregard for the office of the president and say all kind of derogatory things about him, some with a racial slant, but even though I generally fall on the left side of the aisle, I don't really get too worked up about it. I'm definitely not going to come on here and whine and complain about the media hypocrisy or the double standards like some other crotchety old white dudes on here.
-
+1
As Louis CK would say, white people problems.
A lot of people on the right show very blatant disregard for the office of the president and say all kind of derogatory things about him, some with a racial slant, but even though I generally fall on the left side of the aisle, I don't really get too worked up about it. I'm definitely not going to come on here and whine and complain about the media hypocrisy or the double standards like some other crotchety old white dudes on here.
Well said...
-
It is well documented that people will vote for a name they recognize and don't trust over an unknown the majority of the time. Just because they are in a position of power does not mean you have to respect them.
There's a good Eddie Murphy movie on this, The Distinguished Gentlemen where he plays a con man and he finds out he shares a name with a recently deceased Congressman so he decides to run and his campaign slogan is "The name you know!"
-
You're right, but now I think you are now mixing several topics together.
#1 Should the media show the hypocrisy of racial slurs? Sure. Let's see it. Hugh Douglas is in hot water. Great. Fire him.
#2 Do we live in a perfect world where we don't need to have protected class categories? Not yet. Again, the rules aren't perfect, but I'm not going to mash my teeth over it.
Equality is a process, and we (as a country) are growing/going through it. It's not perfectly linear, and there are going to be bumps along the road. I'm cool with people striving for the best and pushing people to be "better". But, less save some of the moral indignation.
I'm white. I'm middle class. Generally, I don't have a lot to be upset about. As long as I can afford a cold beer on a hot day, I'm generally pretty happy.
Who gets to decide when we live in this perfect world? Who gets to decide when classes no longer need protecting? If there is hate crime on whites, are they a protected class now? In a few years when whites are no longer a majority, are they now a protected class? I'm just curious.
Of course the bigger question is what about the folks that have no intention of wanting to see any sort of racial harmony because it would hurt their reason for being, hurt their bank account, hurt their ability to drum up more hatred at every turn?
I'm white, a minority in my own town and certainly my neighborhood. I'm generally happy with the local area, the state is in the sewer and I have no love affair at all for the jackholes that run it. I find racism ugly and disgusting, I find people that perpetuate it and stoke fires to advance their agenda to be even worse.
-
+1
As Louis CK would say, white people problems.
A lot of people on the rightleft show very blatant disregard for the office of the president and say all kind of derogatory things about him, some with a racial slant, but even though I generally fall on the left side of the aisle, I don't really get too worked up about it. I'm definitely not going to come on here and whine and complain about the media hypocrisy or the double standards like some other crotchety old whiteyoung liberal dudes on here.
FIFY (happy to provide 1000's of examples from 2000 to 2008 if you wish)
-
Who gets to decide when we live in this perfect world? Who gets to decide when classes no longer need protecting? If there is hate crime on whites, are they a protected class now? In a few years when whites are no longer a majority, are they now a protected class? I'm just curious.
Of course the bigger question is what about the folks that have no intention of wanting to see any sort of racial harmony because it would hurt their reason for being, hurt their bank account, hurt their ability to drum up more hatred at every turn?
I'm white, a minority in my own town and certainly my neighborhood. I'm generally happy with the local area, the state is in the sewer and I have no love affair at all for the jackholes that run it. I find racism ugly and disgusting, I find people that perpetuate it and stoke fires to advance their agenda to be even worse.
I answered your first question back on Aug. 7th.
#2 In a perfect world, you are 100% correct. The good news is that in another couple of generations, we probably won't need all of the rules and regulations for protected class.
However, we aren't in a perfect world right now. I don't necessarily agree with every piece of affirmative action legislation, but I understand why it exists. Also, as a white male, from and middle class family, I don't mash my teeth or shake my fist at this kind of stuff very often (if at all). Honestly, my energy is just spent elsewhere. Maybe I'm just too apathetic... and maybe that is America's real problem. ?-(
As far as your "whites as a minority point", I don't really know how to answer that. I guess when we get there, we can address it then.
-
I'm white, a minority in my own town and certainly my neighborhood.
A little misleading - you are probably talking population only. I would guess that money and power-wise the whites are still the overwhelming "majority".
-
A little misleading - you are probably talking population only. I would guess that money and power-wise the whites are still the overwhelming "majority".
Nope. I live in a predominantly Asian community. Good jobs, control most of the power positions in city gov't (mayor, 70% of the elected representatives, etc), etc.
-
FIFY (happy to provide 1000's of examples from 2000 to 2008 if you wish)
Your "FIFY" here didn't really make any sense. I'll readily admit that people insulted GWB, but my point was that I don't get too worked up about words (in regards to Obama from the right-even though I fall towards the left). You, on the other hand, seem to get plenty worked up about words said by the left, and I'm sure you were very fired up when the left attacked him. Thus, I'm not really sure what you would provide 1000s of examples of.
-
Your "FIFY" here didn't really make any sense. I'll readily admit that people insulted GWB, but my point was that I don't get too worked up about words (in regards to Obama from the right-even though I fall towards the left). You, on the other hand, seem to get plenty worked up about words said by the left, and I'm sure you were very fired up when the left attacked him. Thus, I'm not really sure what you would provide 1000s of examples of.
I'm glad you admit it, because a bunch of folks don't. Currently we have people get all bothered and dusted up when someone currently critiques the man in charge, often rooting it in racism or making the claim as such. It's basically Godwin's Law V2...when in doubt, throw out the racism charge. My God, even in Alaska the stupid rodeo cowboy mask thing got on the air and racism BS coming from pundits on air. Yet when masks of other presidents are used for Archery competitions, rodeo competitions, etc....someone wake me when I hear folks screaming about it. Again, glad you admit it, wish more people did.
-
I'm glad you admit it, because a bunch of folks don't. Currently we have people get all bothered and dusted up when someone currently critiques the man in charge, often rooting it in racism or making the claim as such. It's basically Godwin's Law V2...when in doubt, throw out the racism charge. My God, even in Alaska the stupid rodeo cowboy mask thing got on the air and racism BS coming from pundits on air. Yet when masks of other presidents are used for Archery competitions, rodeo competitions, etc....someone wake me when I hear folks screaming about it. Again, glad you admit it, wish more people did.
Theres nothing really profound here. People from the other side will always take shots at the guy in charge. Bush was made fun of for his perceived intelligence, or lack there of. I'm sure it was overboard at times, and not respecting the dignity of the office. But its NOT an equivalent of tea baggers waiving signs of Obama dressed like Hitler or the Joker
-
I'm glad you admit it, because a bunch of folks don't. Currently we have people get all bothered and dusted up when someone currently critiques the man in charge, often rooting it in racism or making the claim as such. It's basically Godwin's Law V2...when in doubt, throw out the racism charge. My God, even in Alaska the stupid rodeo cowboy mask thing got on the air and racism BS coming from pundits on air. Yet when masks of other presidents are used for Archery competitions, rodeo competitions, etc....someone wake me when I hear folks screaming about it. Again, glad you admit it, wish more people did.
Will you admit there's a lot of garbage said about our current president?
-
There is crap said about every President.
Whether it is more vs less or better vs worse depends on your viewpoint.
If you have a vested political interest, you probably feel like "your guy" gets picked on more.
-
I'm glad you admit it, because a bunch of folks don't. Currently we have people get all bothered and dusted up when someone currently critiques the man in charge, often rooting it in racism or making the claim as such. It's basically Godwin's Law V2...when in doubt, throw out the racism charge. My God, even in Alaska the stupid rodeo cowboy mask thing got on the air and racism BS coming from pundits on air. Yet when masks of other presidents are used for Archery competitions, rodeo competitions, etc....someone wake me when I hear folks screaming about it. Again, glad you admit it, wish more people did.
If you don't think the man's race had anything to do with much of the animosity directed towards him throughout his first term in office then I don't know what to tell you. You are smarter than that.
-
Theres nothing really profound here. People from the other side will always take shots at the guy in charge. Bush was made fun of for his perceived intelligence, or lack there of. I'm sure it was overboard at times, and not respecting the dignity of the office. But its NOT an equivalent of tea baggers waiving signs of Obama dressed like Hitler or the Joker
It isn't the Hitler or Joker stuff that bothers me. It is the ones like this:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg)
(http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/pages/images/RacistObamaPic1.png)
-
Theres nothing really profound here. People from the other side will always take shots at the guy in charge. Bush was made fun of for his perceived intelligence, or lack there of. I'm sure it was overboard at times, and not respecting the dignity of the office. But its NOT an equivalent of tea baggers waiving signs of Obama dressed like Hitler or the Joker
LOL. Uhm, ok. There are literally tens of thousands of images portraying just that. I don't know where you were living from 2000 to 2008, but please.
(http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-01-13-CNNRoesgen.jpg)
(http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/03/21/bush-hitler_3-19-06.jpg)
(http://familiesonly.com/Community/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/overdad/BushHitler.jpg)
(http://whatistaxed.com/images/jokerBush-small.jpg)
(http://www.mtonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/bush_joker2-700x838.jpg)
-
If you don't think the man's race had anything to do with much of the animosity directed towards him throughout his first term in office then I don't know what to tell you. You are smarter than that.
Did I ever say it had nothing to do with it? Of course not, there will always be some that go down that path. The problem is that you can't even criticize the man without someone yelling racism, so it goes both ways. Any legit criticism, any time someone votes against programs or policies, someone throws that grenade...that is despicable and cowardly.
Speaking of race, I can't wait to hear all the outrage over the Christopher Lane shooting....I can't wait for POTUS to weigh in if he had a son he would look like....
Crickets very silent right now.
-
It isn't the Hitler or Joker stuff that bothers me. It is the ones like this:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg)
(http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/pages/images/RacistObamaPic1.png)
But remember, this was "funny".
Calling him a racist was cool. I love the hypocrisy (not calling you a hypocrite, but I'm calling people of one ideology vs another exactly that). It's ok for their side to level racist charges (because they think they are true even without a shred of evidence). Interesting.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cO0IpLClLOQ/TEe4Fv5E6RI/AAAAAAAABwg/QNVSyBoPE9Y/s400/9george-bush.jpg)
(http://bluenred.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/bush_hate_black_peoplethumb.jpg)
(http://bradley.chattablogs.com/kkk4bush-2005.06.15-21.55.26.jpg)
Reminds me of a cartoon
(http://www.ithp.org/images/racist.jpg)
-
Reminds me of a cartoon
(http://www.ithp.org/images/racist.jpg)
That's funny.
-
"NUFF SAID"
-
Did I ever say it had nothing to do with it? Of course not, there will always be some that go down that path. The problem is that you can't even criticize the man without someone yelling racism, so it goes both ways. Any legit criticism, any time someone votes against programs or policies, someone throws that grenade...that is despicable and cowardly.
You're right.
Of course, the flip side is that often those critical of Bush - especially in the lead up to the Iraq War - were labeled America hatin' unpatriotic surrender monkeys.
Also despicable and cowardly.
Now, who wants some Freedom fries?
Speaking of race, I can't wait to hear all the outrage over the Christopher Lane shooting....I can't wait for POTUS to weigh in if he had a son he would look like....
Crickets very silent right now.
Says the guy who lambasted those who made a political issue out of Trayvon Martin. Apparently some tragic deaths (like those in say, Benghazi and Christopher Lane's) are ripe for political exploitation.
-
But remember, this was "funny".
Calling him a racist was cool. I love the hypocrisy (not calling you a hypocrite, but I'm calling people of one ideology vs another exactly that). It's ok for their side to level racist charges (because they think they are true even without a shred of evidence). Interesting.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cO0IpLClLOQ/TEe4Fv5E6RI/AAAAAAAABwg/QNVSyBoPE9Y/s400/9george-bush.jpg)
(http://bluenred.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/bush_hate_black_peoplethumb.jpg)
(http://bradley.chattablogs.com/kkk4bush-2005.06.15-21.55.26.jpg)
Reminds me of a cartoon
(http://www.ithp.org/images/racist.jpg)
If you don't understand the difference, but I can't say that I am surprised.
-
89 year old WWII vet beaten to death by two teenagers in Spokane last night. Can't wait to here those that were screaming at the top of their lungs about a previous case on this one.
"If I had a son grandpa still alive, he would look like Trayon Delbert."
(http://www.kxly.com/image/view/-/21574984/highRes/2/-/maxh/500/maxw/500/-/10skd1kz/-/Delbert-Belton.jpg)
I expect some wonderful commentary by the pols, the talking heads, etc on this, especially considering the suspects. Maybe we'll have months of coverage on this, every news program for hours on end talking about it. Hmmm....somehow I expect the outrage will be gone in short order.
RIP Mr. Burton. Very sad.
http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/elderly-man-dies-after-being-attacked-outside-ice-arena/-/101214/21574858/-/9flm7iz/-/index.html
-
You're right.
Of course, the flip side is that often those critical of Bush - especially in the lead up to the Iraq War - were labeled America hatin' unpatriotic surrender monkeys.
Also despicable and cowardly.
There were morons on the right who questioned the patriotism of those who opposed the war in Iraq just as there are morons on the left who consider any opposition to the Obama agenda to be rooted in racism. No shortage of intolerance or stupidity on either side.
-
I never quite understood the entire "hey your side does it too" method of arguing. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter who does it and shouldn't be justified either way.
I mean, Chicos just posted a picture of a guy beat to death by a couple of kids to prove that the media doesn't care about old, white people apparently. Really? This is the best counter argument now?
-
I think the point is that national media and outcry only reaches hysterical levels when the rare white( or presumed white) person commits a crime on a minority . When the reverse is true......Crickets. While the horrendous numbers of Black on Black crimes are ignored.
I smell mendacity in the room..
-
I never quite understood the entire "hey your side does it too" method of arguing. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter who does it and shouldn't be justified either way.
I mean, Chicos just posted a picture of a guy beat to death by a couple of kids to prove that the media doesn't care about old, white people apparently. Really? This is the best counter argument now?
You're right... but I think it's more about people in glass houses, ya know?
With this said, for me personally, this is one of the 2 main reasons I don't identify myself with either party:
#1 Fundamentally, I just don't agree 100% with either party.
#2 (applicable to this situation) I think both parties/people in the parties spend far too much time playing "GOTCHA" with each other. It's a waste of energy and doesn't produce anything.
-
I think the term racism is used because it is easy. The problem is really ethnocentrism. We are conditioned to use code words for the races. The articles on Yasiel Puig are a perfect example of this. Reading the articles, it's as if minority players are like a wild horse that needs to be broken - while young white players (Bryce Harper for example), who do stupid things just need to 'mature.
I saw in one article where Yasiel was accused of "jetting off to South Beach to join a conga line for the winter". Would a white player ever be accused of jetting to Peoria to fox-trot for the winter? When Adam Eaton slides into home plate after a walk off homer, are there articles denouncing him for it? Then why shouldn't Puig, who is 10 times the player, get the same benefit of the doubt?
The first inclination is to yell "racism" but I don't think that is usually the case.
-
89 year old WWII vet beaten to death by two teenagers in Spokane last night. Can't wait to here those that were screaming at the top of their lungs about a previous case on this one.
"If I had a son grandpa still alive, he would look like Trayon Delbert."
(http://www.kxly.com/image/view/-/21574984/highRes/2/-/maxh/500/maxw/500/-/10skd1kz/-/Delbert-Belton.jpg)
I expect some wonderful commentary by the pols, the talking heads, etc on this, especially considering the suspects. Maybe we'll have months of coverage on this, every news program for hours on end talking about it. Hmmm....somehow I expect the outrage will be gone in short order.
RIP Mr. Burton. Very sad.
http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/elderly-man-dies-after-being-attacked-outside-ice-arena/-/101214/21574858/-/9flm7iz/-/index.html
Ridiculous. Of course it is tragic. The circumstances are not comparable, nor has there been a controversial case about self defense.
-
Ridiculous. Of course it is tragic. The circumstances are not comparable, nor has there been a controversial case about self defense.
+1
If it comes to light that the local PD has a history of ineptitude and conducting shoddy investigations in cases involving elderly white gentlemen, then you might have something CBB.
But by all means please feel free to continue posting all the terrible crimes you can find. It really proves your point (whatever that is).
-
You're right... but I think it's more about people in glass houses, ya know?
With this said, for me personally, this is one of the 2 main reasons I don't identify myself with either party:
#1 Fundamentally, I just don't agree 100% with either party.
#2 (applicable to this situation) I think both parties/people in the parties spend far too much time playing "GOTCHA" with each other. It's a waste of energy and doesn't produce anything.
Agree on both counts. Which is also why I avoid MSNBC, Fox, Rush, etc. like the plague.
-
Agree on both counts. Which is also why I avoid MSNBC, Fox, Rush, etc. like the plague.
Yep.
As I said a long time ago in this thread, I just don't have the energy for it.
And honestly, maybe my apathetic approach really is part of the "problem". I honestly don't know.
-
I never quite understood the entire "hey your side does it too" method of arguing. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter who does it and shouldn't be justified either way.
I mean, Chicos just posted a picture of a guy beat to death by a couple of kids to prove that the media doesn't care about old, white people apparently. Really? This is the best counter argument now?
I would label the "hey your side does it too" method as, "the media you pay attention to won't tell you about it, so I will tell you".
I know, I know. There is no such thing as media bias.
-
I would label the "hey your side does it too" method as, "the media you pay attention to won't tell you about it, so I will tell you".
I know, I know. There is no such thing as media bias.
An honest question:
Media companies are ultimately concerned with viewership and readership. Therefore, they look for stories that people want to see, hear, or read about. Right?
While it's certainly possible that there could be liberal writers/programs/hosts, wouldn't the general "media" just be a reflection of what people want to see, hear and read?
If (insert media company) isn't delivering what people want, they will ultimately be forced out of business, right?
Wouldn't the free market ensure that the general "media" deliver content that people want, in a way that people want it?
As a whole, is is possible for "media" to even be "liberal" or "conservative"? Isn't it just a reflection of our current society and it's values?
-
You're right.
Of course, the flip side is that often those critical of Bush - especially in the lead up to the Iraq War - were labeled America hatin' unpatriotic surrender monkeys.
Also despicable and cowardly.
Now, who wants some Freedom fries?
Says the guy who lambasted those who made a political issue out of Trayvon Martin. Apparently some tragic deaths (like those in say, Benghazi and Christopher Lane's) are ripe for political exploitation.
Fairness doctrine, isn't that what is always pushed by one side. If we're going to talk about race in this country and make an entire episode for a year about white (Hispanic) on black crime, why aren't we talking about black on white crime? Or black on black crime? Or black on Hispanic crime, or Hispanic on black crime. Sorry, but for all the poutrage of the last 12 months, the silent echo chamber from people screaming about this is deafening. Why aren't we having the full discussion? No, they're right for political exploitation, but you're damn right they're right to expose the hypocrisy that has been going on....why are we ignoring what happens 14X more often?
Good article by Columbia professor. http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/
If we're serious about a discussion, why aren't we talking about the much bigger problem?
-
If you don't understand the difference, but I can't say that I am surprised.
And if you can't understand what Jimmah and others opine...they can't possibly imagine it could be any reason other than racism. I can't help you.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/are-obamas-critics-racist-jimmy-carter-thinks-so.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-scream-martin-bashir-accuses-obama-scandal-critics-of-racism/article/2531519
When in doubt, throw the grenade.
-
And if you can't understand what Jimmah and others opine...they can't possibly imagine it could be any reason other than racism. I can't help you.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/are-obamas-critics-racist-jimmy-carter-thinks-so.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-scream-martin-bashir-accuses-obama-scandal-critics-of-racism/article/2531519
When in doubt, throw the grenade.
C'mon CBB, you moan about liberal bias, and you quote Andrew Malcolm and the Washington Times to support your case?
-
Fairness doctrine, isn't that what is always pushed by one side. If we're going to talk about race in this country and make an entire episode for a year about white (Hispanic) on black crime, why aren't we talking about black on white crime? Or black on black crime? Or black on Hispanic crime, or Hispanic on black crime. Sorry, but for all the poutrage of the last 12 months, the silent echo chamber from people screaming about this is deafening. Why aren't we having the full discussion? No, they're right for political exploitation, but you're damn right they're right to expose the hypocrisy that has been going on....why are we ignoring what happens 14X more often?
Good article by Columbia professor. http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/
If we're serious about a discussion, why aren't we talking about the much bigger problem?
Apparently I missed the part where people thought that the attack on Lane was justified. That was kind of a key element to the other case getting national attention.
-
I never quite understood the entire "hey your side does it too" method of arguing. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter who does it and shouldn't be justified either way.
I mean, Chicos just posted a picture of a guy beat to death by a couple of kids to prove that the media doesn't care about old, white people apparently. Really? This is the best counter argument now?
You missed the point. Here was a WWII veteran walking to the lodge and he was beaten to death with two flashlights by two African American kids. We spent one whole year hearing how racist George Zimmerman as he defended himself (or at the very least there was enough doubt to suggest that). Wanna bet this WWII vet's murder isn't talked about beyond next week, or certainly not for the next year....his crime was not approaching a kid with a gun and suspecting something was up...profiling and stalking were the words used here and by the hustlers out there. No, his crime was walking to the Elks Lodge. I would expect at LEAST the same amount of outrage and coverage. Are we going to get it? Is the POTUS going to weigh in?
We all know the answer.
-
C'mon CBB, you moan about liberal bias, and you quote Andrew Malcolm and the Washington Times to support your case?
They were his words.....here, totally unfiltered....have at it. Embarrassing. When in doubt, throw the grenade.
http://www.youtube.com/v/rtfzMLS_-NU
-
Ridiculous. Of course it is tragic. The circumstances are not comparable, nor has there been a controversial case about self defense.
You're right, the circumstances are WORSE....MUCH WORSE....and there will be crickets.
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz071913dAPR20130719074512.jpg)
-
Apparently I missed the part where people thought that the attack on Lane was justified. That was kind of a key element to the other case getting national attention.
I didn't say anyone said the attacks were justified. We'll spend a week or two on this as a nation, not 9 months. Not every day, every hour, column inches on magazines and newspapers.
Proportionality.
I loved the question to the W.H. yesterday about a comment on it and the spokesman said he didn't even know about the case. What a far cry that was from another case where it went all the way to the POTUS to make a statement it was THAT important.
Where's the REAL conversation....why are we ignoring the overwhelming murders that are caused and who they are committed by? Why isn't that daily, nightly conversation? Hmmmm.
Is that not a fair question? Do you not see any tilting in coverage and a rather shocking lack of reporting on what is routine?
-
You're right... but I think it's more about people in glass houses, ya know?
With this said, for me personally, this is one of the 2 main reasons I don't identify myself with either party:
#1 Fundamentally, I just don't agree 100% with either party.
#2 (applicable to this situation) I think both parties/people in the parties spend far too much time playing "GOTCHA" with each other. It's a waste of energy and doesn't produce anything.
+1 for #1
I've been a Democrat and I've been a Republican. I haven't belonged to either party in many many many years. It's kind of fun around election time because I get bombarded by crap from both parties since I'm registered independent. I think both parties blow, one blows a lot more, but they both blow. They don't get one dime from me and rarely do I vote for them as the POTUS. I can think of only twice in the last 6 elections, otherwise it was 3rd party or left it blank.
-1 for #2, at least in this case. Are we going to have a true dialogue about this in this country about race and violence or not? You can't spend all that money, time, energy, media coverage to cover the exception to the rule and ignore what is happening on a daily basis. Why are we doing it?
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz071713dAPR20130716094520.jpg)
-
I didn't say anyone said the attacks were justified. We'll spend a week or two on this as a nation, not 9 months. Not every day, every hour, column inches on magazines and newspapers.
Proportionality.
I loved the question to the W.H. yesterday about a comment on it and the spokesman said he didn't even know about the case. What a far cry that was from another case where it went all the way to the POTUS to make a statement it was THAT important.
Where's the REAL conversation....why are we ignoring the overwhelming murders that are caused and who they are committed by? Why isn't that daily, nightly conversation? Hmmmm.
Is that not a fair question? Do you not see any tilting in coverage and a rather shocking lack of reporting on what is routine?
I know you didn't say that. But that is the reason why their isn't as much uproar here. This is senseless violence. The other was a controversial case where a kid died and many claimed it was justified.
That because of controversy is news worthy. The cases you are talking about now are not remotely comparable and should not be brought up in the same discussion. Everyone agrees that the new cases are just senseless violence. Universal agreement means no controversy...see how that works.
The correct individuals will go to jail and everyone will agree who the victim was.
-
I know you didn't say that. But that is the reason why their isn't as much uproar here. This is senseless violence. The other was a controversial case where a kid died and many claimed it was justified.
That because of controversy is news worthy. The cases you are talking about now are not remotely comparable and should not be brought up in the same discussion. Everyone agrees that the new cases are just senseless violence. Universal agreement means no controversy...see how that works.
The correct individuals will go to jail and everyone will agree who the victim was.
Stop making so much sense. ;D
-
An honest question:
Media companies are ultimately concerned with viewership and readership. Therefore, they look for stories that people want to see, hear, or read about. Right?
While it's certainly possible that there could be liberal writers/programs/hosts, wouldn't the general "media" just be a reflection of what people want to see, hear and read?
If (insert media company) isn't delivering what people want, they will ultimately be forced out of business, right?
Wouldn't the free market ensure that the general "media" deliver content that people want, in a way that people want it?
As a whole, is is possible for "media" to even be "liberal" or "conservative"? Isn't it just a reflection of our current society and it's values?
"Of course the media are liberal"
-Walter Cronkite
Yes it's possible and if you see the news media that "play it straight", they tend to have some of the worst ratings and readership. People gravitate toward what their belief system is. The "free market" can deliver products to certain audiences and do so all the time. Is anyone truly going to say MSNBC is not far left? That Fox isn't right? It happens all the time.
For a good read, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind by UCLA professor Tim Groseclose. Or Harvard University prof, Robert Barro's The Liberal Media: It's No Myth
-
I know you didn't say that. But that is the reason why their isn't as much uproar here. This is senseless violence. The other was a controversial case where a kid died and many claimed it was justified.
That because of controversy is news worthy. The cases you are talking about now are not remotely comparable and should not be brought up in the same discussion. Everyone agrees that the new cases are just senseless violence. Universal agreement means no controversy...see how that works.
The correct individuals will go to jail and everyone will agree who the victim was.
You do realize that there was a tremendous push by certain individuals to say in the other case it was race based...right? I'd be happy to give you hundreds of quotes and articles that suggest it was race motivated, despite the facts that showed otherwise or ATL's head in the sand. So I ask, in these new cases why the media and these particular individuals in question haven't come to that same conclusion. Weird.
Or is it that when a minority is killed by a "white person" (including a White Hispanic) it is racist until proven otherwise, but when a white person is killed by a minority it's just "senseless violence"? I think that is a fair question to ask in light of the nonsense from the other case and how the media and certain individuals pushed their agenda. Is the default mechanism automatically IT MUST BE RACE for one group, but just chalk it up to senseless violence for the other. Hmm.
-
You do realize that there was a tremendous push by certain individuals to say in the other case it was race based...right? I'd be happy to give you hundreds of quotes and articles that suggest it was race motivated, despite the facts that showed otherwise or ATL's head in the sand. So I ask, in these new cases why the media and these particular individuals in question haven't come to that same conclusion. Weird.
Or is it that when a minority is killed by a "white person" (including a White Hispanic) it is racist until proven otherwise, but when a white person is killed by a minority it's just "senseless violence"? I think that is a fair question to ask in light of the nonsense from the other case and how the media and certain individuals pushed their agenda. Is the default mechanism automatically IT MUST BE RACE for one group, but just chalk it up to senseless violence for the other. Hmm.
Dude.
-
I know you didn't say that. But that is the reason why their isn't as much uproar here. This is senseless violence. The other was a controversial case where a kid died and many claimed it was justified.
That because of controversy is news worthy. The cases you are talking about now are not remotely comparable and should not be brought up in the same discussion. Everyone agrees that the new cases are just senseless violence. Universal agreement means no controversy...see how that works.
The correct individuals will go to jail and everyone will agree who the victim was.
And now we have the racism part coming into it....I'm sure Reverend Al will be all over this...oh wait, Rev Al is...he says no racism. "Rev. Al Sharpton responded Thursday to calls for him to address the Oklahoma murder of Australian student athlete Chris Lane, saying he is not protesting because the killing was not racial and “the system worked.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/al-sharpton-chris-lane-murder-oklahoma-95834.html#ixzz2crPNevCA
Hmm, makes you wonder if it wasn't racial why the suspect said this and this and this in the last week....yup, not racial...nothing to see here.
"90% of white ppl (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM."
"With my n****s when it's time to start taken life's"
etc, etc
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/black-teen-who-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets/
You can't make this stuff up, you really can't. Al says no racism here, but GZ was racist. Truly amazing.
And Forgetful, please opine. If an African American college baseball player was out for a jog and three white teens shot him in the back (cuz they were bored) along with posting racial tweets leading up to the event, what would be the coverage here in the press and the outrage level? Same? Second question, an African American WWII vet beaten with flashlights by several white kids...what would the reaction be? Same? How many stories would we have on the evening news about how deep racism is in this country...how many marches...how many protests?
I think those are fair questions to ask and should be part of the bigger question as it relates to race, crime, etc. If we want to solve racial issues in this country, we need to treat racial injustice (of all kinds) appropriately, not in a pick and choose scenarios that advance an agenda.
-
Dude.
Do you have another way to explain it...I give you Rev Al Sharpton's response today as exhibit A. Please, I'm all ears after you read his comments. I look forward to it.
-
Do you have another way to explain it...I give you Rev Al Sharpton's response today as exhibit A. Please, I'm all ears after you read his comments. I look forward to it.
"I protest when I’m called in and when there’s an injustice. The three were arrested, there was nothing to protest. The system worked there, and racial? Not only did the police not say it was racial, one of the three were white,” Sharpton said.
So as he says it, he protests when there is an injustice. As he notes, all three were arrested and will go to jail...therefore no reason to protest. He continues that the police said it was not racially motivated as one of the three involved in the attack was white.
Did one of the three make a racist tweet/comment yes. Is he likely racist, yes. Does that make the crime racially motivated, in this case likely no...as the kids said, they were bored and decided to kill someone...therefore senseless violence.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this case and how it is fundamentally different than the one you are trying very hard to relate it to.
-
Actually you should credit Sharpton for not getting involved. The two black teens (age 15 and 16) are being charged as adults for first degree murder, even though only 1 shot was fired. The white teen (age 17) is being charged as a juvenile offender (allows for weaker punishment) for accessory to commit murder after the fact and use of a vehicle to discharge a weapon.
-
And now we have the racism part coming into it....I'm sure Reverend Al will be all over this...oh wait, Rev Al is...he says no racism. "Rev. Al Sharpton responded Thursday to calls for him to address the Oklahoma murder of Australian student athlete Chris Lane, saying he is not protesting because the killing was not racial and “the system worked.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/al-sharpton-chris-lane-murder-oklahoma-95834.html#ixzz2crPNevCA
Hmm, makes you wonder if it wasn't racial why the suspect said this and this and this in the last week....yup, not racial...nothing to see here.
"90% of white ppl (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM."
"With my n****s when it's time to start taken life's"
etc, etc
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/black-teen-who-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets/
You can't make this stuff up, you really can't. Al says no racism here, but GZ was racist. Truly amazing.
And Forgetful, please opine. If an African American college baseball player was out for a jog and three white teens shot him in the back (cuz they were bored) along with posting racial tweets leading up to the event, what would be the coverage here in the press and the outrage level? Same? Second question, an African American WWII vet beaten with flashlights by several white kids...what would the reaction be? Same? How many stories would we have on the evening news about how deep racism is in this country...how many marches...how many protests?
I think those are fair questions to ask and should be part of the bigger question as it relates to race, crime, etc. If we want to solve racial issues in this country, we need to treat racial injustice (of all kinds) appropriately, not in a pick and choose scenarios that advance an agenda.
You apparently have ZERO understanding of why there were protests surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing. ZERO. Stop making a fool of yourself.
-
“The racial double standard about who gets charged with a hate crime has been noticed by white people, and is not something that is going to advance race relations in America,” says Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University law professor and author of “The New White Nationalism in America.” The reality, she says, is that “governments continue to treat black-on-white crimes as plain old crimes, and whenever there’s the reverse order, white-on-minority, there’s a great effort to find the racial motivation.”
BINGO. Absolutely perfectly said. You can't pick and choose. I want racial equality as much as the next one, and that means treating these issues equally.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0823/Chris-Lane-murder-Is-a-racist-dimension-of-the-crime-being-discounted
-
"I protest when I’m called in and when there’s an injustice. The three were arrested, there was nothing to protest. The system worked there, and racial? Not only did the police not say it was racial, one of the three were white,” Sharpton said.
So as he says it, he protests when there is an injustice. As he notes, all three were arrested and will go to jail...therefore no reason to protest. He continues that the police said it was not racially motivated as one of the three involved in the attack was white.
Did one of the three make a racist tweet/comment yes. Is he likely racist, yes. Does that make the crime racially motivated, in this case likely no...as the kids said, they were bored and decided to kill someone...therefore senseless violence.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this case and how it is fundamentally different than the one you are trying very hard to relate it to.
A few things.
Do you consider our POTUS an African American? Most do inculding Al. He is the son of white and black parents...so is suspect three...I find that interesting that the Rev has a different qualification now.
Secondly....if GZ had racial tweets like these kids did, would the media, and more important Al say he was a racist! Hmm...I wonder....actually I don't, he would be labeled as such immediately.
The Christian Science Monitor article is brave enough to address the absolute hypocrisy and double standard. It is beyond ridiculous.
-
A few things.
Do you consider our POTUS an African American? Most do inculding Al. He is the son of white and black parents...so is suspect three...I find that interesting that the Rev has a different qualification now.
Secondly....if GZ had racial tweets like these kids did, would the media, and more important Al say he was a racist! Hmm...I wonder....actually I don't, he would be labeled as such immediately.
The Christian Science Monitor article is brave enough to address the absolute hypocrisy and double standard. It is beyond ridiculous.
First of all, I haven't seen any reports that the third individual is of mixed race. I think you are confusing the fact that in addition to the one suspect being 'white', suspect 2 (Luna) is of mixed race, his mother is White. Everyone referred to him as being of african american decent, so all is well with the president. Moreover, the third suspect, who is the only one who made a racist tweet (not all three did as you suggest) is dating a white girl.
So maybe there is nothing here to get all upset about.
As ATL said, I don't think you understand what the Martin case was actually about.
-
"You apparently have ZERO understanding of why there were protests surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing. ZERO. Stop making a fool of yourself."
Do you know that most of the "protestors" were paid to be there?
-
You apparently have ZERO understanding of why there were protests surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing. ZERO. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Back up there sunshine and look at what was said from DAY ONE about the killing. Here's a little refresher course for you.
US Lawmakers condemn RACIALLY MOTIVATED killing. http://www.presstv.com/detail/233822.html
Race behind killings http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-12/news/ct-met-local-trayvon-martin-sidebar-20120412_1_racial-overtones-murder-charges-special-prosecutor
There are literally 1000's of articles like this....with race either absolutely the reason behind the killings, or potentially one of the reasons. From day one it was drummed up as a racial killing against a young boy (remember pictures of him as a 12 year old) by a racist "white"...so much so the news had to edit 911 calls to fit the meme. You ad Al, Jesse, the entire MSNBC, NY Times, etc cabal preaching it from day one. Then, slowly we find out, there was no racism months later, that in fact GZ had assisted minorities (such as himself) for well over a decade....the damage had already been done. The picture was already painted.
I have plenty of understanding of it....plenty.
What you are failing to understand is that race is treated differently by the media and others in this country. You know without a shadow of a doubt the two killings I just spoke about in the last week if they were reversed the outrage would be off the scales, and racism charges would be front and center. If these victims were minorities and the perpetrators not only white, but also had past racist tweets, behaviors, etc, racism would be the lead story. ZERO DOUBT. ZERO. You are a fool to suggest otherwise.
I ask AGAIN, to you or forgetful or Hards, why the double standard with these cases and others? You guys really going to try and tell us that if the victims and suspects were switched everything would be the same? I'm glad Science Monitor brought it up. I saw even CNN mentioned it (albeit in passing) today. But hey, all is ok because Rev. Jesse and AL sent a tweet...that's certainly on par with all the baiting they did for months and rallies and news shows, etc, etc...with a willing media at every turn to help them along. Double standard and hypocrisy at its highest levels. Duke rape case....GUILTY and Racist conclusions just moments after it came out. GZ....GUILTY and racist conclusions just moments after it came out. Pretty amazing stuff.
-
I assure you if it was a black athlete killed by a black teen, a teen of mixed race and a white teen that the news would have been exactly the same.
In fact, I'll go even further, if it had been reversed there would never have been any implications of this being a race-based crime.
-
As ATL said, I don't think you understand what the Martin case was actually about.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/kehook.jpg)
(http://i39.tinypic.com/29lmjpl.jpg)
Yup...nothing to see here. If a white dude said that and killed an African American jogging, the media would do what exactly? Please. This would not be growns for a race based crime...you are kidding me. It would be the central theme of the case. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise, absolutely ridiculous.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma
-
I assure you if it was a black athlete killed by a black teen, a teen of mixed race and a white teen that the news would have been exactly the same.
In fact, I'll go even further, if it had been reversed there would never have been any implications of this being a race-based crime.
You are delusional. If a white kid had put those tweets out there and then randomly killed a black kid while jogging, you would say there would be no race based crime? HOLY CRAP I can't believe you just said that after what we saw in the last 18 months, or what we saw with the Duke case or many others. Racial motivation was the lead "reason" given from day one by pundits and the media. You are crazy to suggest that it wouldn't be again. So why the double standard?
-
You are delusional. If a white kid had put those tweets out there and then randomly killed a black kid while jogging, you would say there would be no race based crime? HOLY CRAP I can't believe you just said that after what we saw in the last 18 months, or what we saw with the Duke case or many others. Racial motivation was the lead "reason" given from day one by pundits and the media. You are crazy to suggest that it wouldn't be again. So why the double standard?
Remember, the kid who pulled the trigger was of mixed race, so your analysis is not actually representing what occurred. The kid driving the car was white.
Your situation is a fictional case that doesn't represent any that we are actually talking about.
Also, the reason this case got traction initially was aided by the fact that it was mischaracterized as a race based crime, by people like yourself, that are looking to insert an agenda to every case that may fit.
The only parallel to the GZ case here is that the media initially misreported some of the facts.
-
"You apparently have ZERO understanding of why there were protests surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing. ZERO. Stop making a fool of yourself."
Do you know that most of the "protestors" were paid to be there?
No I don't. And you don't either, unless you were one of them and got paid.
You read it or heard it reported somewhere. You don't "know" jack.
-
I wasn't paid to go to the rally I attended.
-
I wasn't paid to go to the rally I attended.
What? Shocking.
-
You are delusional. If a white kid had put those tweets out there and then randomly killed a black kid while jogging, you would say there would be no race based crime? HOLY CRAP I can't believe you just said that after what we saw in the last 18 months, or what we saw with the Duke case or many others. Racial motivation was the lead "reason" given from day one by pundits and the media. You are crazy to suggest that it wouldn't be again. So why the double standard?
This case did happen however and probably got less overall press than the current one.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/justice/mississippi-hate-crime (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/justice/mississippi-hate-crime)
Why did it not create the same kind of uproar? Again justice was served in this case. The people who perpetrated the crime were charged and went to jail.
-
Remember, the kid who pulled the trigger was of mixed race, so your analysis is not actually representing what occurred. The kid driving the car was white.
Your situation is a fictional case that doesn't represent any that we are actually talking about.
Also, the reason this case got traction initially was aided by the fact that it was mischaracterized as a race based crime, by people like yourself, that are looking to insert an agenda to every case that may fit.
The only parallel to the GZ case here is that the media initially misreported some of the facts.
This case got traction initially because 3 teens said they killed someone because they were "bored". It was outrageous and people were pissed. Then we come to find out about racist tweets, etc, and the claim race isn't involved and we all know damn well if the roles were reversed the cries of racism would be all over the place. But not here...hmmm. Makes you wonder. Watching some of the speeches today for the MLK 50th anniversary....couldn't help but note MLKIII who said Martin was killed because of race. Go figure.
And your facts are wrong. Luna is of mixed race, Edwards was the trigger man....Edwards is also the one with the racist tweets. Go figure..your facts are wrong.
http://m.duncanbanner.com/duncanbanner/pm_113452/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=knrv3xGQ
-
This case got traction initially because 3 teens said they killed someone because they were "bored". It was outrageous and people were pissed. Then we come to find out about racist tweets, etc, and the claim race isn't involved and we all know damn well if the roles were reversed the cries of racism would be all over the place. But not here...hmmm. Makes you wonder. Watching some of the speeches today for the MLK 50th anniversary....couldn't help but note MLKIII who said Martin was killed because of race. Go figure.
And your facts are wrong. Luna is of mixed race, Edwards was the trigger man....Edwards is also the one with the racist tweets. Go figure..your facts are wrong.
http://m.duncanbanner.com/duncanbanner/pm_113452/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=knrv3xGQ
My facts are correct according to the prosecutor of the case and this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/21/police-say-teen-shot-australian-student-in-oklahoma-for-fun-it/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/21/police-say-teen-shot-australian-student-in-oklahoma-for-fun-it/)
Luna is mixed race, Edwards is african american and Jones is White.
Go figure.
Oh yeah and your link is broken.
-
This case did happen however and probably got less overall press than the current one.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/justice/mississippi-hate-crime (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/justice/mississippi-hate-crime)
Why did it not create the same kind of uproar? Again justice was served in this case. The people who perpetrated the crime were charged and went to jail.
Find me a case where a white victim is killed and a minority is charged for a racial hate crime. Should be a bunch out there, I mean there are a bunch that are easy to find where a minority is a victim and whites were the killers and charged with a racial hate crime. Considering the proportional number of murders committed is so much higher of black on white than the other way around, I would expect you to be able to find this rather easily.
Hard, isn't it. In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority. Who knew.
Columbia Professor (who happens to be African American) discusses.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/
Ever wonder why almost no racial hate crimes?
-
Find me a case where a white victim is killed and a minority is charged for a racial hate crime. Should be a bunch out there, I mean there are a bunch that are easy to find where a minority is a victim and whites were the killers and charged with a racial hate crime. Considering the proportional number of murders committed is so much higher of black on white than the other way around, I would expect you to be able to find this rather easily.
Hard, isn't it. In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority. Who knew.
Columbia Professor (who happens to be African American) discusses.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/
Ever wonder why almost no racial hate crimes?
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics)
According to the FBI in 2011 20.9% of all hate crimes were committed by african americans. Significantly higher than would be predicted based on population alone.
Not so hard to find such data. So not really that impossible to find.
-
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-hate-crime-statistics)
According to the FBI in 2011 20.9% of all hate crimes were committed by african americans. Significantly higher than would be predicted based on population alone.
Not so hard to find such data. So not really that impossible to find.
I asked for race based murder hate crime
-
My facts are correct according to the prosecutor of the case and this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/21/police-say-teen-shot-australian-student-in-oklahoma-for-fun-it/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/21/police-say-teen-shot-australian-student-in-oklahoma-for-fun-it/)
Luna is mixed race, Edwards is african american and Jones is White.
Go figure.
Oh yeah and your link is broken.
Do you call our POTUS mixed race or only now in this case? Sounds like how "white Hispanic" came out of nowhere. ;) Last I checked, both were charged for murder.
Makes you wonder about the WWII veteran killed the other night. Maybe those punks just didn't like WWII vets.
Link works fine for me. Duncan, OK newspaper where the crime happened.
-
Do you call our POTUS mixed race or only now in this case? Sounds like how "white Hispanic" came out of nowhere. ;) Last I checked, both were charged for murder.
Makes you wonder about the WWII veteran killed the other night. Maybe those punks just didn't like WWII vets.
Link works fine for me. Duncan, OK newspaper where the crime happened.
Your link is still broken, but here is another in case you want one from Duncan.
http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting (http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting)
Obama is of mixed race. No one will claim otherwise. Often, as all these articles do, a person of mixed race is referred to as african american as they qualify as such for government purposes. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
Yes, both African American teens were charged with murder, but the one pulling the trigger is not the one that made the racist comments.
Also, as I note, the one who made the racial comments is dating a white girl. Clearly the hate runs thick with him.
I don't think you understand the concepts of random senseless violence and crimes of opportunity.
20.9% of all hate crimes are committed by African Americans, I don't think the FBI automatically stops at murder and says they won't make charges there. You will have a hard time finding articles, because right now, the current case saturates the hits. I'll stick with the FBI statistics. To ignore them is being stubborn and forcing things to fit your agenda.
You have convinced yourself that there is something to be upset about here. You said if the races were flipped, everyone would be up in arms. I cited a case from earlier this year that fit this description and people weren't up in arms.
You said the one who made the racist comments pulled the trigger. I showed you comments from the DA saying that was not the case.
You said that the driver was of mixed race, I showed you that was incorrect.
You said. "In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority." I provided with FBI statistics indicating otherwise.
Frankly, you have very little dog in this fight. The answer is very simple. Sharpton and others are not involved in this case, because the system worked and the right people are being punished. Quite simple...no conspiracy theory necessary.
-
Heh...that is quite the smackdown.
-
Your link is still broken, but here is another in case you want one from Duncan.
http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting (http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting)
Obama is of mixed race. No one will claim otherwise. Often, as all these articles do, a person of mixed race is referred to as african american as they qualify as such for government purposes. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
Yes, both African American teens were charged with murder, but the one pulling the trigger is not the one that made the racist comments.
Also, as I note, the one who made the racial comments is dating a white girl. Clearly the hate runs thick with him.
I don't think you understand the concepts of random senseless violence and crimes of opportunity.
20.9% of all hate crimes are committed by African Americans, I don't think the FBI automatically stops at murder and says they won't make charges there. You will have a hard time finding articles, because right now, the current case saturates the hits. I'll stick with the FBI statistics. To ignore them is being stubborn and forcing things to fit your agenda.
You have convinced yourself that there is something to be upset about here. You said if the races were flipped, everyone would be up in arms. I cited a case from earlier this year that fit this description and people weren't up in arms.
You said the one who made the racist comments pulled the trigger. I showed you comments from the DA saying that was not the case.
You said that the driver was of mixed race, I showed you that was incorrect.
You said. "In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority." I provided with FBI statistics indicating otherwise.
Frankly, you have very little dog in this fight. The answer is very simple. Sharpton and others are not involved in this case, because the system worked and the right people are being punished. Quite simple...no conspiracy theory necessary.
Exactly. Chicos, you just don't understand.
-
Your link is still broken, but here is another in case you want one from Duncan.
http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting (http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting)
Obama is of mixed race. No one will claim otherwise. Often, as all these articles do, a person of mixed race is referred to as african american as they qualify as such for government purposes. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
Yes, both African American teens were charged with murder, but the one pulling the trigger is not the one that made the racist comments.
Also, as I note, the one who made the racial comments is dating a white girl. Clearly the hate runs thick with him.
I don't think you understand the concepts of random senseless violence and crimes of opportunity.
20.9% of all hate crimes are committed by African Americans, I don't think the FBI automatically stops at murder and says they won't make charges there. You will have a hard time finding articles, because right now, the current case saturates the hits. I'll stick with the FBI statistics. To ignore them is being stubborn and forcing things to fit your agenda.
You have convinced yourself that there is something to be upset about here. You said if the races were flipped, everyone would be up in arms. I cited a case from earlier this year that fit this description and people weren't up in arms.
You said the one who made the racist comments pulled the trigger. I showed you comments from the DA saying that was not the case.
You said that the driver was of mixed race, I showed you that was incorrect.
You said. "In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority." I provided with FBI statistics indicating otherwise.
Frankly, you have very little dog in this fight. The answer is very simple. Sharpton and others are not involved in this case, because the system worked and the right people are being punished. Quite simple...no conspiracy theory necessary.
Interesting, I hardly ever hear any news outlet say "America's first mixed race president", yet I can find over 297,000,000 google hits that says he is America's first black or African American President. Weird. Even weirder, on the White House official site it says he is the first African American to hold the position...someone better get to changing the internets. I don't deny that he is of mixed race, but that is not how he is identified, which is why I asked how you identify him and how, conveniently, you seem to change your description of this dirtbag killer of Mr. Lane. I find it interesting. You identify mixed race Obama as an African American president, but this killer of mixed race. Very interesting....since we're talking about "agendas". Hmm.
On the FBI stuff, apparently I still haven't explained myself well, so let's give it a final go. The crime statistics I asked you why do you think there are problems with some of them and pointed out the murder ones in particular around race. You came back with the FBI statistics. Here's the problem, the FBI Hate Crime statistics are massively flawed and folks on all sides, including the FBI admit this.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/justice/hate-crime-statistics
For example, did you know there was ONE hate crime for an entire year in Mississippi...ONE. Really? The Southern Poverty Law Center (very liberal group) is furious at this, as they should be. The stat is a joke. The reason is that hate crimes are totally dependent upon local police reporting. In other areas of the country, specifically where they have hate crime units, the numbers are off the charts. Now, on the flip side of all this is the argument that minorities over index on crime, so says the FBI. More crime per person than their portion of population, by quite a bit they over index. Yet with hate crimes, that doesn't appear. Why? Some in law enforcement will tell you it is because of political pressure not to label crimes committed by minorities against whites as a hate crime. So you have both sides of this argument feeling the hate crime stats are crap, which they are. There is agreement, where there seldom is.
Not entirely surprising, either, since Eric Holder's response about whether whites, etc would be protected as a class in hate crimes and his response is that it is based on history. Until that is fixed, and everyone is treated equally, there will be a problem. Would love to hear your take on his answers any why he feels only history seems to count in categorizing a hate crime.
http://www.youtube.com/v/YOABBn5Tnm0
Would recommend also reading Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics by NYU Law Professor on the under reporting of hate crimes in this country.
And I'm sorry, we'll just agree to disagree on reverend Al, et al. Looks like plenty of people starting to agree...I see Yahoo picked up that angle today. Needs to be talked about. If we want true racial equality, which we all should strive for, we need to treat these issues equally. That's the whole point...equality.
-
Exactly. Chicos, you just don't understand.
Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america
-
Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america
I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service to his country and legacy than to exploit his murder for political gain.
-
Sorry, the laws of this land should be enforced equally. Isn't that what we are striving for? When we have laws that only account for historical situations that are somehow "make goods", that's a problem.
When Holder says a group attacking gay men is a hate crime because they are gay (I agree), but if a group of gay men attacking a white minister who believes in heterosexuality is not (I don't agree), that's a double standard. So on and so forth on the examples. His response that you must bring in historical treatment I get, but it cannot be the only standard. A hate based crime is a hate base crime. PERIOD.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King
-
Sorry, the laws of this land should be enforced equally. Isn't that what we are striving for? When we have laws that only account for historical situations that are somehow "make goods", that's a problem.
When Holder says a group attacking gay men is a hate crime because they are gay (I agree), but if a group of gay men attacking a white minister who believes in heterosexuality is not (I don't agree), that's a double standard. So on and so forth on the examples. His response that you must bring in historical treatment I get, but it cannot be the only standard. A hate based crime is a hate base crime. PERIOD.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King
And what does any of this have to do with Delbert Belton?
Though I do chuckle at the image of a person being attacked for believing in heterosexuality.
I told you (thwack!) there's no such thing (smack!) as heterosexuality (whap!). I was born (smash!) as a result of (pow!) asexual reproduction (splat!).
-
I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service to his country and legacy than to exploit his murder for political gain.
Amen. It's what he fought for.
-
Sorry, the laws of this land should be enforced equally. Isn't that what we are striving for? When we have laws that only account for historical situations that are somehow "make goods", that's a problem.
When Holder says a group attacking gay men is a hate crime because they are gay (I agree), but if a group of gay men attacking a white minister who believes in heterosexuality is not (I don't agree), that's a double standard. So on and so forth on the examples. His response that you must bring in historical treatment I get, but it cannot be the only standard. A hate based crime is a hate base crime. PERIOD.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King
Has this ever actually happened in the history of humanity or is it just the weirdest, most far-fetched example you could think of?
-
Fun with stats
"Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents)"
Race and crime: a biosocial analysis. Nova Publishers. pp. 44–45.
The problem comes back to the historical argument. There are actually people out there that argue it may not be racist if you are in the majority because you can't really have a racial crime be committed against you because you are in the majority. It's absurd, but it exists. Examples: Felicia Pratto of UCONN or P.J. Henry of Depaul.
The two assert...."certain hate crimes against white people are a valid category, that one can 'speak sensibly of', and that while such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, in a limited definition of the word, they assert do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the alleged and dated power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior, they believe may not be racist. The concept of racism as understood by a limited number of social scientists and some others, they allege, requires as a fundamental element a superior-to-inferior group-based power relationship, which a hate crime against white people they believe does not have." :o
-
Has this ever actually happened in the history of humanity or is it just the weirdest, most far-fetched example you could think of?
It doesn't matter....the question was asked of Holder and the answer of equality should have been the answer. If it happened, would the white minister be protected was the question. Holder's answer...NO. Mindboggling. Absolutely mindboggling. That's a double standard. PERIOD. It's a hate crime. PERIOD. But because historically it had never happened, there is no protection. ABSURD.
I have two gay men that work for me. Great guys, fabulous workers, etc. Now, when our team may go out to a bar for drinks every so often and they loosen up and the words flow, both have disdain for Catholics (they will say this) and "jokingly" hope certain ones die. They have said they would take a swing at someone in the right situation (one of these guys was a collegiate athlete and would do some serious damage if he punched someone). I have a fun rebuttal with them about "tolerance", etc and ask why what they are saying is any different than someone that doesn't share their views. I get their disdain, I get their anger, but are they any more tolerant? If he did take a swing at someone, say solely for expressing their beliefs, would that be any less a hate crime than some heterosexual dude taking a swing at a gay man?
Reminds me of Spike Lee's famous quote. "Black people can't be racist" :o Sorry Spike, racism can exist with any group of people and hatred in other areas can as well. To deny that is beyond ridiculous.
-
Fun with stats
"Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents)"
Race and crime: a biosocial analysis. Nova Publishers. pp. 44–45.
The problem comes back to the historical argument. There are actually people out there that argue it may not be racist if you are in the majority because you can't really have a racial crime be committed against you because you are in the majority. It's absurd, but it exists. Examples: Felicia Pratto of UCONN or P.J. Henry of Depaul.
The two assert...."certain hate crimes against white people are a valid category, that one can 'speak sensibly of', and that while such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, in a limited definition of the word, they assert do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the alleged and dated power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior, they believe may not be racist. The concept of racism as understood by a limited number of social scientists and some others, they allege, requires as a fundamental element a superior-to-inferior group-based power relationship, which a hate crime against white people they believe does not have." :o
This is going to largely be an exercise in futility as we have ventured into the realm of statistics, where anyone can argue that that their side has to be correct. Stats don't include the important aspect of causation.
For instance, you indicate that white violent crimes are more likely to be labeled as hate crimes. You immediately assign this to some sort of ethnic bias. You also cited that African Americans are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, implying that they should then also demonstrate a higher incidence of hate crimes.
This analysis assigns causation without any data to support it. The higher incidence in African American crime is largely a result of environment. African Americans are far more likely to live in poverty. Poverty leads to an increase in violent crime, often in the form of robbery or attacks on individuals more wealthy than them. This will disproportionately increase the incidence of violent crimes on whites by blacks. But it has nothing to do with race, as your analysis implies, it has everything to do with wealth, and crimes of opportunity.
A hate based crime requires that the motive of the attack be solely race. That is why the majority of hate-crimes involve hate-based organizations such as the KKK or white-supremicists movements, whose fundamental purpose is to direct anger in a racial motivated manner. These organizations are disproportionately white.
Attacks based on wealth would thus be completely excluded from hate-crimes and we would expect the incidence of hate crimes relative to total violent crimes to be substantially reduced in black on white crimes. This is what the statistics represent and thus should not be taken a priori to assume some sort of racial bias. That is a political agenda, not a fact based analysis.
-
I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service to his country and legacy than to exploit his murder for political gain.
I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service than to apply the laws of this land equally and stamp out racism by not pretending it exists on one side only and put our heads in the sand. Otherwise, the problem only continues.
“An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study. Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”
If we want a color blind society (we should), we need color blind policies (we don't) and we need to address issues equally in policy discussions, the media, etc (we don't).
-
I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service than to apply the laws of this land equally and stamp out racism by not pretending it exists on one side only and put our heads in the sand. Otherwise, the problem only continues.
“An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study. Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”
If we want a color blind society (we should), we need color blind policies (we don't) and we need to address issues equally in policy discussions, the media, etc (we don't).
As I note above, instead of assigning race to this issue, look at this as a function of poverty.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm)
Also, as to your absurd analogy of a group of gay individuals attacking a priest. That is not what holder was asked. He was asked if an individual at a town hall meeting condemned homosexuality and was attacked after that would it be labeled a hate crime. According to the letter of the law he correctly said no. Lets change the scenario. If a nation of islam individual got up at the same town hall meeting and preached about how whites are worthless, greedy, bastards that are immoral outcasts and then was attacked for those comments by a white person it would also not be a hate based crime.
Why? The motive is not animosity against a group based on race, religion or sexual orientation. It is motivated by anger at statements made by the individual (not a group as a whole).
In your fictitious example of a group of gays selectively targeting a christian, that would be a hate based crime if the motive was solely related to religious persuasion and the individual was targeted for that purpose. I assure you if Holder was asked if a hate-based homosexual organization targeted christians, would they be prosecuted as a hate crime. His answer would be yes. But that has never happened and will never happen.
-
I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service than to apply the laws of this land equally and stamp out racism by not pretending it exists on one side only and put our heads in the sand. Otherwise, the problem only continues.
“An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study. Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”
If we want a color blind society (we should), we need color blind policies (we don't) and we need to address issues equally in policy discussions, the media, etc (we don't).
I'm not sure what your point here is, Chico's. Is it your assertion that all crimes committed by a person of one race against a person of another race is, by definition, a "hate" crime?
Frankly, this and your assaulted minister scenario show that you have no idea what the hate crime statute says or its intent.
Legally speaking, a crime becomes a hate crime when the act is committed "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person."
Now, what evidence is there that Delbert Belton was murdered because he was white?
Likewise with your minister. He wasn't make-believe assaulted because of his race, gender, sexual orientation or even religion. He was make-believe assaulted because of his anti-homosexual views. That's still wrong. It's still a crime. The perpetrators still ought to be prosecuted. But it's not a hate crime. Hate crime statutes don't deal with someone's opinions ... only race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.
And, no, being anti-gay is not a person's religion.
-
In your fictitious example of a group of gays selectively targeting a christian, that would be a hate based crime if the motive was solely related to religious persuasion and the individual was targeted for that purpose. I assure you if Holder was asked if a hate-based homosexual organization targeted christians, would they be prosecuted as a hate crime. His answer would be yes. But that has never happened and will never happen.
Who is going to win the 6th race today at Los Alamitos since you can predict the future.
Secondly, Holder answered it exactly the way he answered it. My point is, the letter of the law is absurd and that was the point of the Senators asking the question.
-
I'm not sure what your point here is, Chico's. Is it your assertion that all crimes committed by a person of one race against a person of another race is, by definition, a "hate" crime?
Frankly, this and your assaulted minister scenario show that you have no idea what the hate crime statute says or its intent.
Nope, absolutely not suggesting that. Some, maybe most are random acts of violence. What I find interesting are comments like MLKIII's yesterday that being black is a license to be killed, because apparently being black and murdered is the reason for one's murder. No racism existed in the GZ case, but people won't let that go.
I just find those arguments ridiculous, but seldom go checked by the media or the sheep that follow them. I find it interesting that racism charges almost always come out in white on black murder, but almost never come out when the reverse happens...and that includes hate crime punishment. Why do you think that is the case? Is there a different standard? If a white person had racist tweets and then with his buddy went and killed a black kid jogging, would it be considered a hate crime? If it wasn't considered as such, would the media EXPLODE along with certain individuals because it WASN'T categorized as such? Of course, but when someone on the opposite side raises this distinction it doesn't count?
So what's good for the goose....
-
Nope, absolutely not suggesting that. Some, maybe most are random acts of violence. What I find interesting are comments like MLKIII's yesterday that being black is a license to be killed, because apparently being black and murdered is the reason for one's murder. No racism existed in the GZ case, but people won't let that go.
I just find those arguments ridiculous, but seldom go checked by the media or the sheep that follow them. I find it interesting that racism charges almost always come out in white on black murder, but almost never come out when the reverse happens...and that includes hate crime punishment. Why do you think that is the case? Is there a different standard? If a white person had racist tweets and then with his buddy went and killed a black kid jogging, would it be considered a hate crime? If it wasn't considered as such, would the media EXPLODE along with certain individuals because it WASN'T categorized as such? Of course, but when someone on the opposite side raises this distinction it doesn't count?
So what's good for the goose....
I answered this above.
As for the MLK III comment. He actually said this. "far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one’s character,”
He never implies being black and murdered is the reason for ones murder. He implies that it is still sad in this day and age that a person is judged by the color of their skin not the content of their character. That still today, people profile and arrest individuals due to their being black and that in some cases this extends to actually killing them, because they are black and profiled as a criminal. A far cry from the outlandish statement you make and a valid point.
Crimes are committed based on poverty in the US. People assign this to race, as you have done. Leading to a misperception that african americans are inherently more violent. It is well documented that his has led to people being shot and killed because the 'individual fears for their life', assigning violent demeanor due to skin color alone.
-
Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE
He practiced his first amendment right and was attacked for it. You're right, it never happened and never would happen. :o This happened less than two months ago.
http://mynorthwest.com/194/2308162/Intolerance-at-the-Pride-Parade-Where-are-the-hate-crime-charges
-
Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE
He practiced his first amendment right and was attacked for it. You're right, it never happened and never would happen. :o This happened less than two months ago.
http://mynorthwest.com/194/2308162/Intolerance-at-the-Pride-Parade-Where-are-the-hate-crime-charges
Seriously? For about 3 minutes they ask him to leave. He stays. Once the police arrive, one guy tries to steal the sign from him. In the process of trying to get the sign, he is pinned to the ground. Another guy sees that part an runs in and takes out the guy on top, should he have done that, no.
Far from a brawl. And definitely not " a group of gays selectively targeting a christian" As I referred to.
Frankly, watching that video, no charges should be filed at all, nonetheless hate crimes.
-
Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.
Dude trolls event, gets pushed.
Hate crime!
In all seriousness, tell us how this is an example of him being attacked because of his race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc.'
It's not, of course. He was "attacked" because he chose to go provoke people, not because he's a Christian. I'm aware of nothing in Christianity says "go provoke people with whom you disagree." At least outside the Westboro Baptist version of Christianity.
I don't advocate violence - even against a--holes who provoke - and if he was assaulted, then the law should intervene. But a hate crime? Er .... no.
-
Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE
He practiced his first amendment right and was attacked for it. You're right, it never happened and never would happen. :o This happened less than two months ago.
http://mynorthwest.com/194/2308162/Intolerance-at-the-Pride-Parade-Where-are-the-hate-crime-charges
My god it is hard to take you seriously. Anybody that suggests this is a hate crime shows a total lack of understanding of what a hate crime is.
If you had your way virtually any violent crime could be construed as a hate crime. That would do wonders for our law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
-
Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america
No. Its logic. I made the same point pages and pages ago. This has nothing to do with liberal/conservative.
Also, a sincere, GO unnatural carnal knowledge YOURSELF, from me for implying that I somehow am not thankful for his contributions you pretentious piece of crap.
-
Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america
So, this made me think. If there are "liberals supporting liberals" in this thread, where are all the "conservatives" supporting your point of view? Surely the "liberals" are vastly outnumbered here.
One would think the silence is deafening, no? And one would think that should tell you how far off base your views are on this matter, no?
Unfortunately, the answer is all too obvious.
-
Fairness doctrine, isn't that what is always pushed by one side. If we're going to talk about race in this country and make an entire episode for a year about white (Hispanic) on black crime, why aren't we talking about black on white crime? Or black on black crime? Or black on Hispanic crime, or Hispanic on black crime.
I just see it and think of it as crime. Period. All of these crimes are disgusting.
-
Seriously? For about 3 minutes they ask him to leave. He stays. Once the police arrive, one guy tries to steal the sign from him. In the process of trying to get the sign, he is pinned to the ground. Another guy sees that part an runs in and takes out the guy on top, should he have done that, no.
Far from a brawl. And definitely not " a group of gays selectively targeting a christian" As I referred to.
Frankly, watching that video, no charges should be filed at all, nonetheless hate crimes.
Furthermore, the incident didn't occur *because* he was heterosexual. (Which would be the standard for a hate crime.)
That would be like some random white guy walking around an NAACP rally holding a sign saying "Black people are the spawn of Satan," and that the response, if criminal, is classified as a hate-crime. Complete lack of logic.
-
Nope, absolutely not suggesting that. Some, maybe most are random acts of violence. What I find interesting are comments like MLKIII's yesterday that being black is a license to be killed, because apparently being black and murdered is the reason for one's murder. No racism existed in the GZ case, but people won't let that go.
I just find those arguments ridiculous, but seldom go checked by the media or the sheep that follow them. I find it interesting that racism charges almost always come out in white on black murder, but almost never come out when the reverse happens...and that includes hate crime punishment. Why do you think that is the case? Is there a different standard? If a white person had racist tweets and then with his buddy went and killed a black kid jogging, would it be considered a hate crime? If it wasn't considered as such, would the media EXPLODE along with certain individuals because it WASN'T categorized as such? Of course, but when someone on the opposite side raises this distinction it doesn't count?
So what's good for the goose....
Do you feel like white, christian, males are a persecuted group?
I feel like that is at the root of everything you are saying. Do you feel like the deck is somehow stacked against you/us?
I have to be honest, I'm white, Catholic, middle class. I've traveled all over the country. I've been apart of service groups and projects in bad neighborhoods. In my previous marketing position, I had a lot of interaction with a WIDE variety of consumers. I've met and talked to people from every economic category, every sexual orientation, every religious affiliation (from Evangelical, to Mormon), etc.
At no point, did I ever feel like being white, middle class, and Catholic was somehow a disadvantage. I've never felt like the rules were stacked against me. I never felt like I was treated unfairly because of my race or religion. Not once. Ever.
-
Do you feel like white, christian, males are a persecuted group?
I feel like that is at the root of everything you are saying. Do you feel like the deck is somehow stacked against you/us?
I have to be honest, I'm white, Catholic, middle class. I've traveled all over the country. I've been apart of service groups and projects in bad neighborhoods. In my previous marketing position, I had a lot of interaction with a WIDE variety of consumers. I've met and talked to people from every economic category, every sexual orientation, every religious affiliation (from Evangelical, to Mormon), etc.
At no point, did I ever feel like being white, middle class, and Catholic was somehow a disadvantage. I've never felt like the rules were stacked against me. I never felt like I was treated unfairly because of my race or religion. Not once. Ever.
+1. To everything you've said. I have the balls to admit that things from my white, male, middle-class Christian perch are pretty damn good. We are a lucky bunch.
Much is to be expected from those who have been given much.
-
Furthermore, the incident didn't occur *because* he was heterosexual. (Which would be the standard for a hate crime.)
That would be like some random white guy walking around an NAACP rally holding a sign saying "Black people are the spawn of Satan," and that the response, if criminal, is classified as a hate-crime. Complete lack of logic.
I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean, is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".
-
I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean, is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".
I actually agree with you. I can stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at him, and it isn't a crime. But if I yell that at him and murder him, it is a "bigger" crime than if I had just murdered him to begin with. That doesn't make much sense to me.
-
I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean, is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".
That's a whole different discussion. Don't give Chicos that easy of an out. He has argued himself into an unwinnable position. I'd like to see where he goes from here, rather than changing the subject.
In any case, all hate crime statutes do is drive sentencing guidelines. Sentences are more severe for those who are clearly motivated by hate against people of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. It has nothing to do with convictions, as you imply. And I'd argue that in determining sentences, it is very relevant.
-
I actually agree with you. I can stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at him, and it isn't a crime. But if I yell that at him and murder him, it is a "bigger" crime than if I had just murdered him to begin with. That doesn't make much sense to me.
That's faulty logic. Aggravating factors do not need to be crimes! Carrying a weapon may not be a crime but possession of a weapon during a robbery is certainly an aggravating factor!
Being racist is not a crime but it can certainly be an aggravating factor and most definitely relevant (i.e. hate crime sentencing guidelines)
-
That's faulty logic. Aggravating factors do not need to be crimes! Carrying a weapon may not be a crime but possession of a weapon during a robbery is certainly an aggravating factor!
Being racist is not a crime but it can certainly be an aggravating factor and most definitely relevant (i.e. hate crime sentencing guidelines)
OK, I understand the fault in my logic. But I am not sure that it *should* be an aggravating factor. I certainly do not feel strong about it either way.
-
OK, I understand the fault in my logic. But I am not sure that it *should* be an aggravating factor.
Fair enough. I disagree with you, but I suppose that's a reasonable opinion.
-
I actually agree with you. I can stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at him, and it isn't a crime. But if I yell that at him and murder him, it is a "bigger" crime than if I had just murdered him to begin with. That doesn't make much sense to me.
You can't necessarily stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at a gay dude. There are laws that may* be against "that". (i.e, discon, etc.)
Personally I mostly hate hate crimes. Punish the crimes. If hating someone and having an awful opinion of a person or group of people is completely OK in this country, then why add on to punishment for it?
But.. once you start going after that.. I wonder where you stop. DUI... you can do zero direct harm to anyone, yet be punished. Hit/injure/kill someone and things get a lot worse for you. Even though the same "crime" was committed - driving under the influence.
a) You're driving, someone runs a red, hits you and they die. If you're sober, no problemo criminally.
b) You're driving, are at a .09, someone runs a red, hits you and they die. Might be up for manslaughter or worse. Enhanced punishment, yes?
You can also get into the fact that specific BAC levels affect different people in much different ways. So maybe it's good to punish partly based on what harm is actually done. But maybe it's not fair to punish based on an arbitrary figure that everyone is equally subjected to, even though their actions "driving impaired" may be different.
Then again... there are lesser crimes charged for those who fail to carry out their intent. Attempted murder. You shoot someone with the idea of killing them.. you miss and or they don't die. In many cases, you're far better off than if the person died. Maybe you should be treated as a bad murderer vs. a non-murderer.
What are we really prosecuting? Crimes or the outcome or the reason for them? Answer is all of the above and "depends", right or wrong.
I tend to say look at the crime. Aggravating factors like having a kid in the car while driving hammered or pulling a drive by seem reasonable... but aggravating factors for what might* amount to exercising freedom
of speech and opinion? Ehhh..
-
That's a whole different discussion. Don't give Chicos that easy of an out. He has argued himself into an unwinnable position. I'd like to see where he goes from here, rather than changing the subject.
In any case, all hate crime statutes do is drive sentencing guidelines. Sentences are more severe for those who are clearly motivated by hate against people of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. It has nothing to do with convictions, as you imply. And I'd argue that in determining sentences, it is very relevant.
First of all, I'm extremely familiar with Chicos arguing himself into an unwinnable (sic) position and I'm not known as one who gives him an easy out. That said, don't hold your breath waiting for him to admit he's mistaken.
Regarding hate crimes, you may be technically correct that the statute drives sentencing but motive absolutely does and always has had a lot to do with convictions - as it should.
My point is this:if an 18 year old Asian man bludgeons my 91 year old Grandmother to death because he hates women, old people, white people or Catholics I want that or those facts exposed to help convict him and put him away for life, but I'm not impressed with a DA cementing his status with aggrieved groups by grandstanding for a greater sentence than befits the crime.
-
Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.
Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight. The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law. Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion.
Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.
-
Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight. The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law. Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion.
Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.
Says one conservative supporting another conservative's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Do you run around all day with your fingers in your ears?
-
Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight. The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law. Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion.
Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.
Posting pictures of a murdered 88-year-old man and suggesting we hold a moment of silence in his memory is totes logical and not in the least bit an appeal to emotion.
-
Seriously? For about 3 minutes they ask him to leave. He stays. Once the police arrive, one guy tries to steal the sign from him. In the process of trying to get the sign, he is pinned to the ground. Another guy sees that part an runs in and takes out the guy on top, should he have done that, no.
Far from a brawl. And definitely not " a group of gays selectively targeting a christian" As I referred to.
Frankly, watching that video, no charges should be filed at all, nonetheless hate crimes.
No charges should be filed for pushing and assaulting a guy? Interesting.
Again, I ask what would happen if things were flipped. Let's say at a rally pushing traditional marriage. Someone shows up with a gay marriage sign and the person with the gay marriage sign is attacked, signs destroyed and assaulted. What would the media do? Would there be a call for a hate crime charge (you bet your arse there would be....warranted or not, that would be the cry).
He has every right to be there under the constitution as anyone else. He was holding a sign, nothing more. This is what upsets so many people when they see one treatment from one side and when the flip happens, the media is silent, the politicians nowhere to be found. Double standards
-
My god it is hard to take you seriously. Anybody that suggests this is a hate crime shows a total lack of understanding of what a hate crime is.
If you had your way virtually any violent crime could be construed as a hate crime. That would do wonders for our law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
I think you AGAIN miss the point. If the roles were reversed, and a gay person was attacked holding a sign promoting gay marriage at a pro traditional marriage rally, what would the reaction be? Would there be a call for a hate crime? How would the media react?
This isn't hard folks. Double standards. We all know what the media would do, we all know what the cry would be.
Do I think this is necessarily a hate crime? Depends....the man is allowed to be there under the constitution. People don't like what he stands for, too bad, he does not get to be assaulted for that. Why are they assaulting him? Listen to her words...now try to put those exact same words into the scenario I describe above and what would the reaction be? We all know what it would be.
That's the hypocrisy here. What's good for the goose....
-
I agree with you that Chicos is over the top and grasping for straws in this discussion/debate. That said, I think an interesting subject would be whether or not it makes sense to have these "hate crime" statutes at all. I mean, is murder more evil because the perp may have harbored ill will towards the victim because of his/her sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.? If you "hate" somebody enough to murder them, isn't that the ultimate act of evil? Motive should be used to help convict a bad guy, not to open a Pandora's box and let people argue "Who's the bigger victim?".
BINGO
Exactly right. There is lies most of the problem, not only with enforcement but with interpretation of what a hate crime even is. We already have people here saying it's not really hate, "just a crime." I ask again, if the roles were reversed, would the hate standard be used....you bet your arse it would. And that's the very problem with hate crimes. When you have people out there like Spike Lee or MLKIII or whomever saying certain people can't be racist, then they also believe it is impossible for a hate crime to exist for those groups by the very definition. It is absurd, but that is what people think. No different than what I am pointing out here. If a young black man is killed an one of the killers has racist tweets, are we really going to sit here and believe that isn't going to be used to charge not only a hate crime but also be top line of the story? Of course it is.
That is the crux of the problem. Rodeo clown uses an Obama mask, charged with racism. Rodeo clowns have used presidential masks for a long time....get the drift? Different standards. Same with Lane, Delburt, etc. It's as much as the reaction then anything else. The standards by the media and people in general are crazily transparent and ridiculously unequal.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-belton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america
-
That's the hypocrisy here. What's good for the goose....
Of course there's hypocrisy amongst the fringes. So what?
You keep talking about the Zimmerman case, but the fact is Zimmerman never was charged with a hate crime. Just like the kids who killed Christopher Lane and Delbert Belton won't be charged with hate crimes.
Because they didn't commit hate crimes.
Yes, some loons on the left wanted Zimmerman charged with a hate crime.
But some loons on the right are calling for the same in the other cases. I fear you may be one of them.
We ought to ignore these people. Because they're loons.
-
No charges should be filed for pushing and assaulting a guy? Interesting.
Again, I ask what would happen if things were flipped. Let's say at a rally pushing traditional marriage. Someone shows up with a gay marriage sign and the person with the gay marriage sign is attacked, signs destroyed and assaulted. What would the media do? Would there be a call for a hate crime charge (you bet your arse there would be....warranted or not, that would be the cry).
He has every right to be there under the constitution as anyone else. He was holding a sign, nothing more. This is what upsets so many people when they see one treatment from one side and when the flip happens, the media is silent, the politicians nowhere to be found. Double standards
In my opinion no. No charges should be filed. But you will be happy to know, both the guy without a shirt and the man who stole the sign were arrested and charged with assault.
For your hypothetical, absolutely no hate crimes would be charged, unless it was clear that the motivating factor was hatred towards the group being gay. You seem to ignore that critical aspect of the law.
The crime has to be motivated and about the victim solely being a member of a specific race, sex or religion. Being anti-gay is not and never has been a religion. If I go to a badger game wearing MU gear and get into the student section and chant "the badgers suck" and "rodents are nasty" repeatedly and am beaten to a pulp for it, I am also not the victim of a hate crime. The anger is directed at my comments not my association with a particular group.
-
Is the driver really white? Honestly doesn't look white to me at all.
I haven't been following this thread or the story much in the past few days - are people discussing this (that none of the three appear to be white) nationally or has it been generally accepted he's white?
I do see that in "negative stories" if someone can be called white (even if they're clearly not) then the media will do so without regard to the facts. Conversely, if there is a positive story a half-white person will usually be referred to by the non-white race.
If the kid who doesn't look white, but who everyone says is white isn't truly white and the mainstream media knows this, it may not matter. They'd rather continue to call him white. There are probably those who are saying, "they charged 2 with murder, but didn't charge the white kid with murder even though all 3 were together! RACISM!"
Racism is very real and prevalent and it's sick. But so is making crap up and having double standards. If mainstream America could better understand what many blacks go through in a typical day (i.e., simple every day things like being pulled over, people on their back at local store, discriminated against or treated different in various every day settings)... that might go a lot further to improve race relations as opposed to making up stories related to sensational and unusual cases.
Right now more than anything this country could really use some jobs. 40 hour a week jobs.
Of course there's hypocrisy amongst the fringes....We ought to ignore these people. Because they're loons.
Much of the media and folks like Eric Holder are indeed loons. But, they're not on the fringes and a large chunk of this nation garbles their nonsense up.
-
Do you feel like white, christian, males are a persecuted group?
I feel like that is at the root of everything you are saying. Do you feel like the deck is somehow stacked against you/us?
I have to be honest, I'm white, Catholic, middle class. I've traveled all over the country. I've been apart of service groups and projects in bad neighborhoods. In my previous marketing position, I had a lot of interaction with a WIDE variety of consumers. I've met and talked to people from every economic category, every sexual orientation, every religious affiliation (from Evangelical, to Mormon), etc.
At no point, did I ever feel like being white, middle class, and Catholic was somehow a disadvantage. I've never felt like the rules were stacked against me. I never felt like I was treated unfairly because of my race or religion. Not once. Ever.
I'm happy for you. Have some suffered for it? Of course. How many US Presidents have we had that are Catholic? One...and likely blatant cheating in Texas and Illinois for that to happen. Why has only one Catholic become a US President? Tons of history on this.
Now, are Catholics or Christians out getting murdered these days in this country because of it? No. Have there been assaults, property crimes, etc because of beliefs...you bet. Both in the way past with the Klan and as recently as this past year. Some are major incidents, some are minor. Some of our dearest friends are African American Catholics. Our two families have gone to Hawaii, Orlando, etc in three of the last four Spring Breaks. The grief they took by going to the Catholic schools growing up in Compton..you should hear the stories. The assaults, the condemnations, etc....all because they were wearing a Catholic school uniform.
But look at your answer, just like Holder's answer...you believe this stuff is dependent upon HISTORICAL persecution. This is where we fundamentally differ. No one is disputing that some groups have suffered. To the point some suffer so much white guilt that policies going the extreme opposite are now in place and are discriminatory in their own way (nothing like fighting discrimination with more discrimination...always a really good idea ::) ). This isn't about me, so when you say is the deck stacked against me I don't even know where you are going with this, but that's the mindset many people have. "You're white, you've had it easy". "You're a male, the world has been handed to you". "You're a heterosexual, etc, etc".
I believe in equality. Period. Laws should be applied to people EQUALLY. If one group commits a crime and the media gets all ginned up, demands hate crime status, etc, then when the shoe is on the other foot, I expect equal treatment. I expect the hypocrisy to end. Somehow this is where equality goes out the door and the typical response is "well, such and such group has suffered atrocities in the past so "it's different"". As long as we have that viewpoint, the racial divide will continue I'm afraid to say. People see the double standard and that is why so many are upset with the media and certain folks that stand to make money, etc from the exploitation.
-
Chicos, I admire your willingness to take on this fight. The problem is, you are arguing from logic and rule of law. Those arguing with you are using politics and emotion.
Unfortunately, logic and rule of law never win this fight.
LOL.
Chico's entire argument here is an appeal to emotions! Posting links of a fight and a story about an old WWII vet?
-
I believe in equality. Period. Laws should be applied to people EQUALLY. If one group commits a crime and the media gets all ginned up, demands hate crime status, etc, then when the shoe is on the other foot, I expect equal treatment. I expect the hypocrisy to end.
Look at how many blacks end up on death row. You will see it is not being applied equally. And its definitely not in a way that is unfavorable to whites.
There has never been an easier existence in the history of the world than being a white, heterosexual Christian male in the United States of America at this very moment. I don't think your sob stories are going to convince anyone else otherwise. Arguing to the contrary is not brave or prophetic. Its whiny. Get over it. We've all got it good.
-
Good discussion gents, we'll agree to disagree.
I enjoy this quote from MLK more than any others. We share a birthday, I've been doing reports on him since I was in first grade. Great man, flawed man, but I like the cut of his jib. He was smart enough to recognize racism exists everywhere, not just by one group. The faster we understand that as a country and address it, the faster we address these issues. Today, we don't because we view things through a lens that refuses to recognize that reality. As long as we have people screaming racism whenever someone disagrees with the POTUS, we can't move ahead. As long as we use different standards to address the issues in our communities, we will not move ahead.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." This is a quote several of my African American friends have expressed to me on occasion. They are as concerned as anyone that there is outward focus, but seldom inward focus. Or as my good buddy says to me (he is African American), "our own house is not in order but we publicly condemn everyone else because we can and it only harms everyone".
Good discussion.
-
Much of the media and folks like Eric Holder are indeed loons. But, they're not on the fringes and a large chunk of this nation garbles their nonsense up.
So, much of the media and Eric Holder called for George Zimmerman to be charged with a hate crime?
Hmmm. Must of missed that.
Though I'm a huge fan of the "liberal media" meme. Especially when the nation's largest news network (by far) is Fox, its largest newspaper (by far) is the Wall Street Journal and its most listened to radio show is (by far) Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, there is a liberal media. But there's a just as large conservative media.
-
I'm happy for you. Have some suffered for it? Of course. How many US Presidents have we had that are Catholic? One...and likely blatant cheating in Texas and Illinois for that to happen. Why has only one Catholic become a US President? Tons of history on this.
Now, are Catholics or Christians out getting murdered these days in this country because of it? No. Have there been assaults, property crimes, etc because of beliefs...you bet. Both in the way past with the Klan and as recently as this past year. Some are major incidents, some are minor. Some of our dearest friends are African American Catholics. Our two families have gone to Hawaii, Orlando, etc in three of the last four Spring Breaks. The grief they took by going to the Catholic schools growing up in Compton..you should hear the stories. The assaults, the condemnations, etc....all because they were wearing a Catholic school uniform.
But look at your answer, just like Holder's answer...you believe this stuff is dependent upon HISTORICAL persecution. This is where we fundamentally differ. No one is disputing that some groups have suffered. To the point some suffer so much white guilt that policies going the extreme opposite are now in place and are discriminatory in their own way (nothing like fighting discrimination with more discrimination...always a really good idea ::) ). This isn't about me, so when you say is the deck stacked against me I don't even know where you are going with this, but that's the mindset many people have. "You're white, you've had it easy". "You're a male, the world has been handed to you". "You're a heterosexual, etc, etc".
I believe in equality. Period. Laws should be applied to people EQUALLY. If one group commits a crime and the media gets all ginned up, demands hate crime status, etc, then when the shoe is on the other foot, I expect equal treatment. I expect the hypocrisy to end. Somehow this is where equality goes out the door and the typical response is "well, such and such group has suffered atrocities in the past so "it's different"". As long as we have that viewpoint, the racial divide will continue I'm afraid to say. People see the double standard and that is why so many are upset with the media and certain folks that stand to make money, etc from the exploitation.
#1 I don't think having a member of my religion/group be elected/not elected President is really an accurate way of evaluating potential discrimination.
#2 I don't suffer from "white guilt" at all. I'm using my PERSONAL experience to evaluate my position on a topic. I've never felt like I have been at a disadvantage because I'm white and Catholic. I could create a lot of scenarios and hypotheticals (as you have illustrated), but the honest to God answer is that I've never experienced it. Ever. Never. Not once. I'm not saying it NEVER happens, but I don't know if it's happening enough for me to RAGE about.
#3 You are technically correct with your belief that all laws should be blind and equal. However, the world is FULL of these types of situations. We've talked about this before. Augusta National received protests, Curves Gym received praise. Is that fair? Technically, no. Should I be OUTRAGED? No. Equality is a process. Look at the big picture.
#4 Racial/cultural/gender equality is a long, hard, process. It's going to be messy. It's going to take time. I'm not saying I agree 100% with every law that is on the books, but you seem to be VERY CONCERNED about the persecution of white Christians. I'm Irish-Catholic. I can promise you that I have never felt persecuted. 50 years ago, that wouldn't have been true at all.
#5 I don't believe that the regulations/laws that have been put in place are apart of some huge liberal/white guilt/conspiracy. I believe they were put in place to provide some additional protection for groups that have been treated poorly in the past. Now, the next logical discussion is if/when some of that protection needs to be repealed. I'll say from my PERSONAL experience, I don't think we are there yet. Probably need another generation or 2, as behaviors/beliefs take a long time to change.
-
You can't necessarily stand on the corner and yell "I hate gays" at a gay dude. There are laws that may* be against "that". (i.e, discon, etc.)
Personally I mostly hate hate crimes. Punish the crimes. If hating someone and having an awful opinion of a person or group of people is completely OK in this country, then why add on to punishment for it?
But.. once you start going after that.. I wonder where you stop. DUI... you can do zero direct harm to anyone, yet be punished. Hit/injure/kill someone and things get a lot worse for you. Even though the same "crime" was committed - driving under the influence.
a) You're driving, someone runs a red, hits you and they die. If you're sober, no problemo criminally.
b) You're driving, are at a .09, someone runs a red, hits you and they die. Might be up for manslaughter or worse. Enhanced punishment, yes?
You can also get into the fact that specific BAC levels affect different people in much different ways. So maybe it's good to punish partly based on what harm is actually done. But maybe it's not fair to punish based on an arbitrary figure that everyone is equally subjected to, even though their actions "driving impaired" may be different.
Then again... there are lesser crimes charged for those who fail to carry out their intent. Attempted murder. You shoot someone with the idea of killing them.. you miss and or they don't die. In many cases, you're far better off than if the person died. Maybe you should be treated as a bad murderer vs. a non-murderer.
What are we really prosecuting? Crimes or the outcome or the reason for them? Answer is all of the above and "depends", right or wrong.
I tend to say look at the crime. Aggravating factors like having a kid in the car while driving hammered or pulling a drive by seem reasonable... but aggravating factors for what might* amount to exercising freedom
of speech and opinion? Ehhh..
The drive is indeed 100% white, the sheriff even had to come out and confirm it because of mis-reporting in the media. The initial stories reported that they were all black, and included a picture (for the driver) of a completely unrelated black individual to maintain the story lines.
Only later were the correct pictures reported and indication that the driver was White. Later additional stories indicated that the shooter actually had a white mother and was thus of mixed race (still reported as being black). This led the right wing conspiracy theorists to report that the "white driver" was actually mixed race (talking about the wrong individual), and brought up all the talk about, how come Obama is black and this kid is white.
Essentially this whole story has been spun by the right to look as much as possible to be a racial story. Fact of the matter is, much of it is false reporting and forcing a story to fit an agenda.
The important part is that kids are going out and killing people because they are bored and want to see a person die. The better question to be asking ourselves is, what has gone wrong with our culture that such thought processes and behavior is even possible. Moreover, what is wrong with society when instead of focusing on these important issues are individuals trying to spin this into a political story about Obama and hypocrisy.
Thats what got my involved in this debate, the needless politicizing of important events. We apparently can't separate our analysis of events from our own political ideals/emotions.
For instance. GZ case.
Important cultural aspect of the case regardless of ones stance on guilty/not guilty is that a kid walking home from a gas station in the rain is immediately condemned as a criminal because of his appearance and is stalked because of it. Culturally, why is that the case...it led to a loss of life. The rest is tragic, but this is the important cultural detail. By default in that case it brings in racial overtones as the victims clothing/demeanor demonstrated an Urban culture appearance.
In this case. Kids are so morally bankrupt that they thrill kill just to see someone die. What is wrong in these local conditions to allow such behavior. In this case race should never have been an issue, (three perpetrators are 1-black, 1-white, and 1-mixed race). The key is figuring out where society went wrong and what we can do as a society to fix this. Sadly, this case was made into a political weapon and the key issues will never be examined and we will not learn from this tragedy.
-
First of all, I'm extremely familiar with Chicos arguing himself into an unwinnable (sic) position and I'm not known as one who gives him an easy out. That said, don't hold your breath waiting for him to admit he's mistaken.
Regarding hate crimes, you may be technically correct that the statute drives sentencing but motive absolutely does and always has had a lot to do with convictions - as it should.
My point is this:if an 18 year old Asian man bludgeons my 91 year old Grandmother to death because he hates women, old people, white people or Catholics I want that or those facts exposed to help convict him and put him away for life, but I'm not impressed with a DA cementing his status with aggrieved groups by grandstanding for a greater sentence than befits the crime.
Oh I've admitted mistakes here quite often, a simple search reveals that.
In this case, it's a matter of opinion on these issues and I don't feel I'm mistaken. If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be massive cries to label those as hate crimes. I'm simply showing the double standard. I have enough friends running news departments at tv stations, or reporters who will be back me up. Some will flat out tell you in private what they believe vs what they are actually allowed to do because of various pressures. It is what it is, I have zero doubt in my mind if a white kid put those tweets out there that would be a massive cry to label it a hate crime. If a gay person was attacked as a traditional marriage rally, there would be a massive cry to label it a hate crime. Not one shred of doubt.
-
#3 You are technically correct with your belief that all laws should be blind and equal. However, the world is FULL of these types of situations. We've talked about this before. Augusta National received protests, Curves Gym received praise. Is that fair? Technically, no. Should I be OUTRAGED? No. Equality is a process. Look at the big picture.
I am looking at the big picture, as long as you have racial hustlers, racial baiters, and unequal policies and application of laws, you will continue to be a racially divided nation. That should drive outrage. It's impossible to get there until you approach from an equality standpoint. Going about it with more divide, more racial policies, is only going to continue to poison the well for many Americans. You want racial divide to end, start treating people based on the content of their character. Start using meritocracy. Until then, things will continue.
When you have African Americans called Uncle Tom's for having differing view, that will move us forward how? When you have people labeled as racist because they don't like policies (nothing to do with race) of our POTUS, that moves us forward how? And on and on. It doesn't...it only plants new seeds of resentment. When you see the media editing 911 calls and doing everything in their power to make someone appear racist when they aren't, how does this help? When you see the media apply one standard to one group and a different standard to other groups (unprotected classes), how does this help move the process forward?
This isn't hard.
-
Posting pictures of a murdered 88-year-old man and suggesting we hold a moment of silence in his memory is totes logical and not in the least bit an appeal to emotion.
Definitely an appeal to emotion, but also to logic. I'm trying to see if a member of the Tuskegee Airmen was murdered as an 88 year old while on his way to the pool hall by two white teens, how would the media play it? How would Rev Al, Rev Jesse, MSNBC, etc?
I simply apply logic and ask why they aren't treated the same, why the double standard. Sure there is emotion, but there is the logic, common sense question that no one wants to answers. You guys can deny and say they would be treated the same by the media, etc...if you truly believe that, I honestly don't know what planet you live on based on the endless examples we see.
-
Look at how many blacks end up on death row. You will see it is not being applied equally. And its definitely not in a way that is unfavorable to whites.
There has never been an easier existence in the history of the world than being a white, heterosexual Christian male in the United States of America at this very moment. I don't think your sob stories are going to convince anyone else otherwise. Arguing to the contrary is not brave or prophetic. Its whiny. Get over it. We've all got it good.
Again, you are applying historical standards...not EQUAL standards. That's a classic white guilt argument. I believe in equality, there is a difference.
And please, don't say "we've all got it good", that is simply inaccurate. There are poor whites, poor blacks, poor Asians, poor Hispanics, rich whites, rich Asians, rich Hispanics, rich Blacks....some have it good, some don't. Part of the problem is you are using blanket statements to justify your guilt. To each their own.
For me, I'll go with equality.
-
Says one conservative supporting another conservative's point of view..l AM SHOCKED. LOL
Do you run around all day with your fingers in your ears?
Do you run around all day with your hands over your eyes?
-
The inability to laugh.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/26/missouri_rodeo_clown_a_lot_of_people_have_lost_their_ability_to_laugh.html
-
Definitely an appeal to emotion, but also to logic. I'm trying to see if a member of the Tuskegee Airmen was murdered as an 88 year old while on his way to the pool hall by two white teens, how would the media play it? How would Rev Al, Rev Jesse, MSNBC, etc?
I simply apply logic and ask why they aren't treated the same, why the double standard. Sure there is emotion, but there is the logic, common sense question that no one wants to answers. You guys can deny and say they would be treated the same by the media, etc...if you truly believe that, I honestly don't know what planet you live on based on the endless examples we see.
Except it isn't logic. It is pure emotion and assumptions. If the reverse happened by two poor white teens that robbed (motive for the attacks that don't involve race) and beat a black airmen, it would not have been considered a hate crime and provided they were charged with the appropriate crimes, Al, Jesse and others wouldn't have treated it any different than this case. I provided a case in Mississippi where the appropriate punishments/arrests were made that did not get this fanfare you claim would occur. But you ignore that instead of indicating your were wrong.
You also, do not admit your were wrong about who the shooter was, or the race of the people involved in the crime.
Also, for someone so concerned about media treatment of the events, you seem to have no problem with the media presenting all three as black (including a photo of some other random guy in place of the white individual). Why, because it fit your agenda.
For someone so concerned about equality, you seem to have no issue with the two black (one being mixed race) individuals being charged with murder as adults, while the only white defendant is being charged differently as a juvenile defender.
Rather you have twisted and contorted this case to fit some racial story line that doesn't exist...incidentally completely in step with the right wing media.
The strange thing is, there are areas near your concerns which I do think merit discussion. Namely unequal treatment due to some policies. However, your treatment of this case is so outlandish that it actually hurts your cause in any areas that you may actually have a point.
-
I am looking at the big picture, as long as you have racial hustlers, racial baiters, and unequal policies and application of laws, you will continue to be a racially divided nation. That should drive outrage. It's impossible to get there until you approach from an equality standpoint. Going about it with more divide, more racial policies, is only going to continue to poison the well for many Americans. You want racial divide to end, start treating people based on the content of their character. Start using meritocracy. Until then, things will continue.
When you have African Americans called Uncle Tom's for having differing view, that will move us forward how? When you have people labeled as racist because they don't like policies (nothing to do with race) of our POTUS, that moves us forward how? And on and on. It doesn't...it only plants new seeds of resentment. When you see the media editing 911 calls and doing everything in their power to make someone appear racist when they aren't, how does this help? When you see the media apply one standard to one group and a different standard to other groups (unprotected classes), how does this help move the process forward?
This isn't hard.
You're missing the key element that a lot of people DON'T think everybody is equal. The rules and policies were put in place to force those people to make systemic changes. I'm not saying everything needs to be a law for the next 200 years. But, we are only 50 years removed from the civil rights movement. Equality is a process that is going to take a couple of generations. I've said this several times. Same for women in the workplace. It's a process. It's not going to be perfect. It's going to take time.
-
The drive is indeed 100% white, the sheriff even had to come out and confirm it because of mis-reporting in the media. The initial stories reported that they were all black, and included a picture (for the driver) of a completely unrelated black individual to maintain the story lines.
I understand there was a picture of someone else attributed to the driver initially, but as for the 'true' driver... he still doesn't look white. I would question why you'd claim that he's "indeed 100% white".
I'd bet money against that in fact. Unless you're wanting to see him as white or just afraid to say honestly what you see, I don't understand how you'd think he looks 100% white.
3 alleged attackers, zero of them white. One victim, white.
-
Let me ask a rather simple question.
If you have it drummed into your head for years by certain people, by the media, etc, of the "systemic white racism" that exists and "you don't have a chance" without us (be it gov't, whatever), what do you think that does to that person's psyche? What do you think that does to a young man who has that drummed into them every day...do you think that bodes well for race relations? How do you think that person views other races if he is taught this from day one? If that explanation is used all the time, do you think it could ultimately become an excuse for not even trying, just hating on everything?
I'm asking and I'm happy to tell the story of how one of my African American friends handles this with his son and daughter and why he is so against that kind of thinking, that kind of preaching from the media and "his leaders" (his words). He feels that this daily mantra does nothing but further fracture race relations and gives people an excuse to blame all their problems. Again, his words, not mine (though I agree entirely). As he likes to describe it, they are poisoning the well and profiting from it in dollars and power.
I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on that.
-
Let me ask a rather simple question.
If you have it drummed into your head for years by certain people, by the media, etc, of the "systemic white racism" that exists and "you don't have a chance" without us (be it gov't, whatever), what do you think that does to that person's psyche? What do you think that does to a young man who has that drummed into them every day...do you think that bodes well for race relations? How do you think that person views other races if he is taught this from day one? If that explanation is used all the time, do you think it could ultimately become an excuse for not even trying, just hating on everything?
I'm asking and I'm happy to tell the story of how one of my African American friends handles this with his son and daughter and why he is so against that kind of thinking, that kind of preaching from the media and "his leaders" (his words). He feels that this daily mantra does nothing but further fracture race relations and gives people an excuse to blame all their problems. Again, his words, not mine (though I agree entirely). As he likes to describe it, they are poisoning the well and profiting from it in dollars and power.
I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on that.
It's an absolutely valid point.
Your friend is African-American, so he has a different perspective (from you or me). You seem to keep harping on this from an angle that it's somehow "unfair" to whites... and I'll tell you as a white guy, I haven't experienced anything unfair about it (which is my unique perspective).
Now, do we want to discuss the psychological impacts of these types of rules, regulations and programs? Yea, I think there is something there. If we wave a magic wand tomorrow and just declare everybody equal, I bet it would help with some of the stuff you mentioned. It sends a more consistent message to everybody. Work hard, get an education, provide for yourself and your family. You can be anything you want. etc. etc. I get it. Totally.
However, the downside is there is still a lot of subtle racism in this country, and without some rules and regulations, the cultural divide might be even bigger. That's my primary concern.
A Personal Example: I have an extended relative whom I'm embarrassed to admit is a racist (although he doesn't even know it). He's a nice guy. He loves watching football. He loves watching basketball. But, he ain't letting his daughter date a non-white guy. He also owns a small business, and I he'd prefer that his staff continue to be all-white. He's made passive racist comments that other people just write off as "old school', but deep down he's racist and he doesn't even know it.
My point? There is still a lot of subtle and institutionalized racism out there. Some of it's not even "on purpose". It's just been handed down from one guy to the next.
So, while I personally understand that there some possible side effects to "protected class" rules/laws/regs (that I cannot understand completely because I'm a white Catholic guy), I'm also concerned by some of the actions I've seen by my fellow white dudes. And for the record, this ain't "white guilt". This is stuff I have personally seen and heard.
Eventually, race is going to matter less and less in this country. Same with sexual orientation.
-
First things first - actually first 2 things first and AMMO correctly posted on each.
1. Liberal media. Every time I hear this, I think of exactly what AMMO said. Remember, the people claiming 'liberal media' are the same people demanding we need laws against Sharia law. Plain old stupidity.
2. Whites are discriminated against. I am 62 years old, and like AMMO, have NEVER faced discrimination over being white even one time in my life. It must really be rough on the people with the power and money. And there is never an effort to prevent whites from voting as there has been in the last several months towards blacks.
I've never had a problem with Republicans tho' I am definitely liberal. We need ideas from both sides and compromise, but with the emergence of the tea Party, that has ended. The Dems couldn't ever ask for more than Ted Cruz, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, etc. to make the Dems look good, but while it helps the Dems, it is not good for the country.
-
Except it isn't logic. It is pure emotion and assumptions. If the reverse happened by two poor white teens that robbed (motive for the attacks that don't involve race) and beat a black airmen, it would not have been considered a hate crime and provided they were charged with the appropriate crimes, Al, Jesse and others wouldn't have treated it any different than this case. I provided a case in Mississippi where the appropriate punishments/arrests were made that did not get this fanfare you claim would occur. But you ignore that instead of indicating your were wrong.
Again, I don't know what world you live in....I really don't. If that happened (your example), it absolutely would be considered a hate crime by those people (law enforcement maybe or maybe not) and they would pound the racist drum into submission with certain media helping them at every turn. I can give you case after case after case where they have done this, all the way back to the Tawana Brawley nonsense. There are people that live to make every case like this a "race case" regardless of the circumstances. It is what they do. I just can't believe you actually believe they would just say "oh, just a random shooting" and not apply a racial element to it to get folks fired up. They absolutely would, their history is your guide. There is no way they wouldn't.
In terms of who the shooter was....sure, happy to admit I made a mistake. Early reports said it was Edwards who pulled the trigger. Happy? Edwards was also charged with murder, so was Luna. If it makes you feel better that one murder charge is somehow different than the other one, whatever. It's Oklahoma, and I'm hoping both of them are going on the fast track to the death chamber, regardless of who pulled the trigger as they are both charged with the same crime. If you want to identify them in a matter that is all of a sudden different than how the media and this country has identified the President, both are considered black...than that's fine, too, though interesting to say the least. It reminds me of "white became white Hispanic", but whatever.
I'm not aware of any photo presenting them all black...sounds like an innocent mistake in the fog of reporting in the early hours. I find that VASTLY different than editing a 911 call so perversely as to change the entire meaning of the call to make someone look racist. So over the top there is a lawsuit now that GZ is going to win against said news outlets.
-
You're missing the key element that a lot of people DON'T think everybody is equal. The rules and policies were put in place to force those people to make systemic changes. I'm not saying everything needs to be a law for the next 200 years. But, we are only 50 years removed from the civil rights movement. Equality is a process that is going to take a couple of generations. I've said this several times. Same for women in the workplace. It's a process. It's not going to be perfect. It's going to take time.
How much time? Who decides? Oh, and all the while we keep teaching one race of the evils of the other at every turn, that's sure to make things rosy in the future.
-
However, the downside is there is still a lot of subtle racism in this country, and without some rules and regulations, the cultural divide might be even bigger. That's my primary concern.
Yup, by all groups of people, yet there are some people that believe that is impossible. Just as you mentioned, there are some that don't believe everyone is equal. No one will disagree with you on that. There are also racists among all groups of people, but there are actually people out there that are unable to process this reality.
-
I understand there was a picture of someone else attributed to the driver initially, but as for the 'true' driver... he still doesn't look white. I would question why you'd claim that he's "indeed 100% white".
I'd bet money against that in fact. Unless you're wanting to see him as white or just afraid to say honestly what you see, I don't understand how you'd think he looks 100% white.
3 alleged attackers, zero of them white. One victim, white.
I'm not wanting to see him as white, or think he looks 100% white. I am reporting what the police and his friends (in articles) have said, that he is white (police report indicating 100% whatever that means). His friends specified that he is white, Luna has a white mother (thereby separating mixed from black) and Edwards has a white girlfriend.
I'll go from reports of people that know him instead of a picture on the internet "looking" different.
Here is an article with comments from a friend.
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/08/24/murder-suspects-friend-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-chris-being-white/
"One of Edwards’ friends, Serenity Jackson, told The Associated Press she didn’t believe race was a factor in the shooting. She noted that Luna’s mother, Edwards’ girlfriend and Jones are white."
I don't care if they are white, black, hispanic or native american. I only pointed out that Chico's statements about the accused were factually incorrect according to reports.
-
Again, I don't know what world you live in....I really don't. If that happened (your example), it absolutely would be considered a hate crime by those people (law enforcement maybe or maybe not) and they would pound the racist drum into submission with certain media helping them at every turn. I can give you case after case after case where they have done this, all the way back to the Tawana Brawley nonsense. There are people that live to make every case like this a "race case" regardless of the circumstances. It is what they do. I just can't believe you actually believe they would just say "oh, just a random shooting" and not apply a racial element to it to get folks fired up. They absolutely would, their history is your guide. There is no way they wouldn't.
In terms of who the shooter was....sure, happy to admit I made a mistake. Early reports said it was Edwards who pulled the trigger. Happy? Edwards was also charged with murder, so was Luna. If it makes you feel better that one murder charge is somehow different than the other one, whatever. It's Oklahoma, and I'm hoping both of them are going on the fast track to the death chamber, regardless of who pulled the trigger as they are both charged with the same crime. If you want to identify them in a matter that is all of a sudden different than how the media and this country has identified the President, both are considered black...than that's fine, too, though interesting to say the least. It reminds me of "white became white Hispanic", but whatever.
I'm not aware of any photo presenting them all black...sounds like an innocent mistake in the fog of reporting in the early hours. I find that VASTLY different than editing a 911 call so perversely as to change the entire meaning of the call to make someone look racist. So over the top there is a lawsuit now that GZ is going to win against said news outlets.
If your whole argument is that there are some nutjobs out there who will turn everything in to a race crime, than I wholeheartedly agree. If the legal system and the media and every person with a ounce of reason sees things the correct way, then frankly I don't care what some nutjobs think.
If I got upset every time a fringe lunatic said something that bothered me, I'd be a stressed out angry old man.
This is the only link I can find that still has the original photos of the accused.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-and-friends-daily-caller-falsely-report-3-black-teens-arrested-in-chris-lane-murder/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-and-friends-daily-caller-falsely-report-3-black-teens-arrested-in-chris-lane-murder/)
-
I don't care if they are white, black, hispanic or native american. I only pointed out that Chico's statements about the accused were factually incorrect according to reports.
And I'm pointing out that reports you rely on appear to be factually incorrect.
-
First things first - actually first 2 things first and AMMO correctly posted on each.
1. Liberal media. Every time I hear this, I think of exactly what AMMO said. Remember, the people claiming 'liberal media' are the same people demanding we need laws against Sharia law. Plain old stupidity.
2. Whites are discriminated against. I am 62 years old, and like AMMO, have NEVER faced discrimination over being white even one time in my life. It must really be rough on the people with the power and money. And there is never an effort to prevent whites from voting as there has been in the last several months towards blacks.
I've never had a problem with Republicans tho' I am definitely liberal. We need ideas from both sides and compromise, but with the emergence of the tea Party, that has ended. The Dems couldn't ever ask for more than Ted Cruz, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, etc. to make the Dems look good, but while it helps the Dems, it is not good for the country.
Notice the only people saying there isn't a liberal media are liberals.
"Of course the media are liberal"
-Walter Cronkite
I'm glad as a 62 year old white person you have never been discriminated against, some have. College entrance admissions is an example, jobs (look at the lawsuits for police and fire, etc), being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed for having the wrong skin color (that applies to blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians), etc, etc. Just because you have not been discriminated against doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just as one of my good African American friends will tell you he is lucky to be African American in his job because he has benefited from it. My brother-in-law, 1/4 Choctaw Indian...he has benefited from it and so have all three of my nieces and nephews on their college admissions by being able to "CHECK A BOX". He laughs about it, he knows almost nothing of his Native American ancestry but he uses it where he can because the gov't says he can. Why not, he's a fool not to.
So like everything in life, it all depends. Would he want to be living on a poor reservation....nope. Do those people suffer? Yup. Does Toney (my bro-in-law) benefit from his race...yup. Different circumstances for everyone.
-
If your whole argument is that there are some nutjobs out there who will turn everything in to a race crime, than I wholeheartedly agree. If the legal system and the media and every person with a ounce of reason sees things the correct way, then frankly I don't care what some nutjobs think.
If I got upset every time a fringe lunatic said something that bothered me, I'd be a stressed out angry old man.
This is the only link I can find that still has the original photos of the accused.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-and-friends-daily-caller-falsely-report-3-black-teens-arrested-in-chris-lane-murder/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-and-friends-daily-caller-falsely-report-3-black-teens-arrested-in-chris-lane-murder/)
The "some nutjobs" in these cases are often leaders of some of these communities and given a voice by the media that legitimizes these claims. These are not just "some nutjobs" that are ignored. These are "some nutjobs given a microphone, hours of coverage, columns of inches" etc. You aren't comparing apples to apples. We're talking the evening news, the daily paper, not some talk show...we're talking MAINSTREAM media. Huge difference.
-
Notice the only people saying there isn't a liberal media are liberals. LOL.
Study after study, poll after poll...you can ignore it as you wish.
"Of course the media are liberal"
-Walter Cronkite
I'm glad as a 62 year old white person you have never been discriminated against, some have. College entrance admissions is an example, jobs (look at the lawsuits for police and fire, etc), being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed for having the wrong skin color (that applies to blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians), etc, etc. Just because you have not been discriminated against doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just as one of my good African American friends will tell you he is lucky to be African American in his job because he has benefited from it. My brother-in-law, 1/4 Choctaw Indian...he has benefited from it and so have all three of my nieces and nephews on their college admissions by being able to "CHECK A BOX". He laughs about it, he knows almost nothing of his Native American ancestry but he uses it where he can because the gov't says he can. Why not, he's a fool not to.
So like everything in life, it all depends. Would he want to be living on a poor reservation....nope. Do those people suffer? Yup. Does Toney (my bro-in-law) benefit from his race...yup. Different circumstances for everyone.
I've noticed that Police/Fire Dept. are always mentioned when talking discrimination. But I am amazed how it is used to show how whites are discriminated against. I guess we need to forget the 200 years blacks were discriminated against when it came to Police and Fire (cuz only the last 30 years matter).
Are the current hiring practices discriminatory? Probably - but also necessary to make up for the past.
As far as liberal media - we will continue to disagree. Even on "liberal" networks like NBC, CBS, etc., all you need to do is look at the guest breakdown on their weekend news programs. I'm amazed how these "liberals are constantly putting more Republicans than Democrats on their shows. And a quote from over 50 years ago is hardly relevant.
But as I said, it is never the whites who have their voting rights threatened.
-
The "some nutjobs" in these cases are often leaders of some of these communities and given a voice by the media that legitimizes these claims. These are not just "some nutjobs" that are ignored. These are "some nutjobs given a microphone, hours of coverage, columns of inches" etc. You aren't comparing apples to apples. We're talking the evening news, the daily paper, not some talk show...we're talking MAINSTREAM media. Huge difference.
Maybe you can help your argument out, by pointing out cases where the mainstream media and MLK III/Sharpton called for hate crimes in situations where there were not hate crimes.
Don't use GZ as an example, it is a bad example and a very unique case. If you can point out some cases that actually are legitimate (as opposed to the present cases), maybe we can understand your case better.
-
How much time? Who decides? Oh, and all the while we keep teaching one race of the evils of the other at every turn, that's sure to make things rosy in the future.
Yea, but flip it around. What day did we magically achieve perfect racial equality. Emancipation Proclamation? The day MLK was shot? Jackie Robinson's first game? The day Obama was elected?
We didn't. It's a process. The systems in place are designed to motivate/force people into that process. A few generations will go by, and there won't be any need for the regs anymore.
-
Maybe you can help your argument out, by pointing out cases where the mainstream media and MLK III/Sharpton called for hate crimes in situations where there were not hate crimes.
Don't use GZ as an example, it is a bad example and a very unique case. If you can point out some cases that actually are legitimate (as opposed to the present cases), maybe we can understand your case better.
Al Sharpton I has a long history as a radical race hustler/hate monger with blood on his hands. He still has yet to apologize in the Tawana Bradley Hoax, where the patently false accusations he and his "client" (her actual lawyers were disbarred) peddled resulted in a cop's death and a prosecutor (who later won a civil suit against Al) disgraced. Then there were the Crown Heights riots, fomented by Sharpton's virulent anti-Semitic remarks following an accident. Lots, lots more on Reverand Al, a true merchant of hate. Why has NBC devoted so much to rehabilitating a reputation so despicable? That's a very good question. Read up on Al and get back to us with your thoughts.
-
Yup, by all groups of people, yet there are some people that believe that is impossible. Just as you mentioned, there are some that don't believe everyone is equal. No one will disagree with you on that. There are also racists among all groups of people, but there are actually people out there that are unable to process this reality.
Yep... but here is the key difference:
While I'm certain there are people out there who hate me because I'm white, my race has never been used to systematically keep me and my family, and my fellow whites from prospering.
Several minority groups in the US have been identified and systematically (and legally) persecuted because of the color of their skin or their nation of origin.
The system had to be changed to ensure that it couldn't happen again... even in a subtle manner. (ie I run a small business, and I just don't want to hire any African Americans)
AND, I'll say again that the current system isn't perfect. But, as a white guy, I don't really feel like I'm being persecuted against.
-
Yea, but flip it around. What day did we magically achieve perfect racial equality. Emancipation Proclamation? The day MLK was shot? Jackie Robinson's first game? The day Obama was elected?
We didn't. It's a process. The systems in place are designed to motivate/force people into that process. A few generations will go by, and there won't be any need for the regs anymore.
You make a very good point, Guns. Many who benefitted from the discriminations against blacks will say let's make everything perfectly equal from here on out - even though the playing field hasn't been truly leveled yet. On the other side, I'm sure there will be people asking for preferences long after they're no longer needed. How will we know when? Hard to judge, but I think most would agree it's a ways off.
-
You make a very good point, Guns. Many who benefitted from the discriminations against blacks will say let's make everything perfectly equal from here on out - even though the playing field hasn't been truly leveled yet. On the other side, I'm sure there will be people asking for preferences long after they're no longer needed. How will we know when? Hard to judge, but I think most would agree it's a ways off.
Bingo.
It ain't perfect. There are going to be bumps in the road. But, if we (as a nation) want equality, we are all going to have to be patient with the process.
It won't happen overnight, and certainly there are white and black dudes taking advantage of the system. But, don't let those few spoil how far we have come, and the positive steps that have been made.
-
Yea, but flip it around. What day did we magically achieve perfect racial equality. Emancipation Proclamation? The day MLK was shot? Jackie Robinson's first game? The day Obama was elected?
We didn't. It's a process. The systems in place are designed to motivate/force people into that process. A few generations will go by, and there won't be any need for the regs anymore.
I'll believe it when I see it and I certainly you are right, but there are too many people very interested financially and for accumulating votes that want those regs very much in place.
-
I've noticed that Police/Fire Dept. are always mentioned when talking discrimination. But I am amazed how it is used to show how whites are discriminated against. I guess we need to forget the 200 years blacks were discriminated against when it came to Police and Fire (cuz only the last 30 years matter).
Are the current hiring practices discriminatory? Probably - but also necessary to make up for the past.
As far as liberal media - we will continue to disagree. Even on "liberal" networks like NBC, CBS, etc., all you need to do is look at the guest breakdown on their weekend news programs. I'm amazed how these "liberals are constantly putting more Republicans than Democrats on their shows. And a quote from over 50 years ago is hardly relevant.
But as I said, it is never the whites who have their voting rights threatened.
Again, you bring up history....thus you support a racist solution for racist problem that happened long ago. A make good, as it were. So for those today that are discriminated against that had nothing to do with what their great grandfathers did or their grandfathers, they pay the price. You can imagine, that doesn't sit well with a lot of people and only stokes more racial divide.
Your liberal media comment was funny....are you there counting the guests? LOL. It's about WHAT they report, HOW they report, what SPIN they report it on. Number of guests...wow. Uhm, ok.
-
Al Sharpton I has a long history as a radical race hustler/hate monger with blood on his hands. He still has yet to apologize in the Tawana Bradley Hoax, where the patently false accusations he and his "client" (her actual lawyers were disbarred) peddled resulted in a cop's death and a prosecutor (who later won a civil suit against Al) disgraced. Then there were the Crown Heights riots, fomented by Sharpton's virulent anti-Semitic remarks following an accident. Lots, lots more on Reverand Al, a true merchant of hate. Why has NBC devoted so much to rehabilitating a reputation so despicable? That's a very good question. Read up on Al and get back to us with your thoughts.
Much obliged
-
Yep... but here is the key difference:
While I'm certain there are people out there who hate me because I'm white, my race has never been used to systematically keep me and my family, and my fellow whites from prospering.
Several minority groups in the US have been identified and systematically (and legally) persecuted because of the color of their skin or their nation of origin.
The system had to be changed to ensure that it couldn't happen again... even in a subtle manner. (ie I run a small business, and I just don't want to hire any African Americans)
AND, I'll say again that the current system isn't perfect. But, as a white guy, I don't really feel like I'm being persecuted against.
I'm glad in your area that is the case. It's different everywhere. When I worked for the Angels there was a edict that came from MLB that we needed to get "more diverse". I've always asked what that means...diversity of thought, race, gender? What is true diversity? But I digress. So our next hire was going to be a minority, no matter what. Now, it turned out the guy we hired was a great guy (who has since passed away of cancer). We were fortunate. Were there potential better hires that were not minority that we could have gone after...of course. Same goes for the flip side. To me, I want it based on meritocracy and not have a preset judge of criteria to start the show.
Right now we are going through merit reviews of our people, and each person has a scorecard about abilities, leadership qualities, functional knowledge, etc, etc....also included is whether they are a minority with check box. I always find that interesting. I've asked HR why does that matter (is it merely for demographic information or something else). I like to keep it simple...can they do the job or not. Are they executive material or not? Do they have room to grow through promotions or are the tapped out? What gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, I could give a rat's ass.
-
Al Sharpton I has a long history as a radical race hustler/hate monger with blood on his hands. He still has yet to apologize in the Tawana Bradley Hoax, where the patently false accusations he and his "client" (her actual lawyers were disbarred) peddled resulted in a cop's death and a prosecutor (who later won a civil suit against Al) disgraced. Then there were the Crown Heights riots, fomented by Sharpton's virulent anti-Semitic remarks following an accident. Lots, lots more on Reverand Al, a true merchant of hate. Why has NBC devoted so much to rehabilitating a reputation so despicable? That's a very good question. Read up on Al and get back to us with your thoughts.
I was not implying that Al Sharpton is a good guy. I am well aware of his history and activities in race baiting. In fact, frankly I despise the guy. I was mainly looking for instances where they called for Hate Crime charges in instances where crimes were committed (like all the cases we are looking at) but were not hate crimes. Was just trying to get a feel for where he is coming from as the current cases do not fit.
-
And I'm pointing out that reports you rely on appear to be factually incorrect.
Would you care to provide some documented evidence to the contrary, or are you going to stick with he doesn't look white to me. Just curious as I haven't seen any reason to doubt his friends and the police.
-
I'm glad in your area that is the case. It's different everywhere. When I worked for the Angels there was a edict that came from MLB that we needed to get "more diverse". I've always asked what that means...diversity of thought, race, gender? What is true diversity? But I digress. So our next hire was going to be a minority, no matter what. Now, it turned out the guy we hired was a great guy (who has since passed away of cancer). We were fortunate. Were there potential better hires that were not minority that we could have gone after...of course. Same goes for the flip side. To me, I want it based on meritocracy and not have a preset judge of criteria to start the show.
Right now we are going through merit reviews of our people, and each person has a scorecard about abilities, leadership qualities, functional knowledge, etc, etc....also included is whether they are a minority with check box. I always find that interesting. I've asked HR why does that matter (is it merely for demographic information or something else). I like to keep it simple...can they do the job or not. Are they executive material or not? Do they have room to grow through promotions or are the tapped out? What gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, I could give a rat's ass.
If you want to discuss how attempting to reach equality has led to inequalities, that is different than your previous argument (the cases you chose to use are horrible examples). I would agree with you that this is the case. In fact I (a white, christian male) have been told that I missed out on major career advancing opportunities largely because I in fact am a white, christian male. It sucks, but I'm largely ok with it, as I have also benefitted greatly at other points in my life.
It is also well documented that changes in school curriculum to better relate to the manner in which women learn has had negative consequences on male youth. This is a problem, but can be addressed. Again, something had to be done, they initially overcorrect and we can adjust from there.
The fact of the matter is, that right now opportunities for minorities are still not equal and likely will not be for several decades. This manifests in many ways. One major one, is continued high poverty rates in minority populations.
An outcome of this (as I linked in the OSU article) is an apparent increase in crime rates. Consequently, that leads to a misperception that minorities are inherently more violent, leading whites to be fearful of them and making them subconsciously less likely to hire them...cycle persists.
Can we do a better job of trying to approach equality, absolutely, but assigning your anger to these cases is misplaced and inappropriate. Sometimes that leads us to go to far in the opposite direction and start looking to find these 'inequalities' in everything (aka the present cases). Honestly, that is the problem in politics today. We assign anger and hate, instead of looking for solutions.
-
How much time? Who decides? Oh, and all the while we keep teaching one race of the evils of the other at every turn, that's sure to make things rosy in the future.
Your entire argument makes me think you are implying that American society has reached the point of racial harmony and balance and that special treatment based on what you call a "historical" problem is no longer warranted. Rather, this continued special treatment for "historically" persecuted groups is now only moving us further away from this racial harmony that you seem to think exists.
Is this what you are implying?
-
I'll believe it when I see it and I certainly you are right, but there are too many people very interested financially and for accumulating votes that want those regs very much in place.
And this is fundamentally where you and I differ.
You equate all of the rules and regulations with the people who are somehow taking advantage of it.
For me, it's not political. It's a process. It started with Lincoln, and it continues today. It's not linear. It's not perfect. It's painful. It takes time.
-
I'm glad in your area that is the case. It's different everywhere. When I worked for the Angels there was a edict that came from MLB that we needed to get "more diverse". I've always asked what that means...diversity of thought, race, gender? What is true diversity? But I digress. So our next hire was going to be a minority, no matter what. Now, it turned out the guy we hired was a great guy (who has since passed away of cancer). We were fortunate. Were there potential better hires that were not minority that we could have gone after...of course. Same goes for the flip side. To me, I want it based on meritocracy and not have a preset judge of criteria to start the show.
Right now we are going through merit reviews of our people, and each person has a scorecard about abilities, leadership qualities, functional knowledge, etc, etc....also included is whether they are a minority with check box. I always find that interesting. I've asked HR why does that matter (is it merely for demographic information or something else). I like to keep it simple...can they do the job or not. Are they executive material or not? Do they have room to grow through promotions or are the tapped out? What gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, I could give a rat's ass.
You're right. It's technically not fair.
But, as I have said at least 10 other times... it's a process. It's going to take time. Sometimes change has to be force fed. After a while*, we can loosen and remove some of the regulations.
*When we get to that point, I don't know. But, I know we aren't there yet. Maybe another generation or 2.
-
Again, you bring up history....thus you support a racist solution for racist problem that happened long ago. A make good, as it were. So for those today that are discriminated against that had nothing to do with what their great grandfathers did or their grandfathers, they pay the price. You can imagine, that doesn't sit well with a lot of people and only stokes more racial divide.
Chico's, are you suggesting that racial discrimination is a merely a piece of history, a "problem that happened long ago" and it no longer occurs and no longer affects the living?
Are you also suggesting that the true victims of racial discrimination today are white men oppressed by "racist solutions" like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action and similar measures?
That's how the above reads, but I'm offering you a chance to explain further if you wish.
-
I was not implying that Al Sharpton is a good guy. I am well aware of his history and activities in race baiting. In fact, frankly I despise the guy. I was mainly looking for instances where they called for Hate Crime charges in instances where crimes were committed (like all the cases we are looking at) but were not hate crimes. Was just trying to get a feel for where he is coming from as the current cases do not fit.
You want to get a feel for where Al Sharpton is coming from regarding hate crimes? Really? A guy who is unapologetic about the deaths he's caused trumpeting hate crimes that never happened or were obvious accidents? His BUSINESS is black victim, white perp and in his twisted mind every real or made up instance is by definition a hate crime.
-
Chico's, are you suggesting that racial discrimination is a merely a piece of history, a "problem that happened long ago" and it no longer occurs and no longer affects the living?
Are you also suggesting that the true victims of racial discrimination today are white men oppressed by "racist solutions" like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action and similar measures?
That's how the above reads, but I'm offering you a chance to explain further if you wish.
You don't put people in chains, literally and figuratively, for hundreds of years without bearing some responsibility for and having a major stake in their rehabilitation. I'm not convinced that many of the programs designed to that end haven't been counter productive, but that's another debate entirely. The responsibility is still there, and anyone who thinks the work is done isn't looking at the same landscape I see.
-
You're right. It's technically not fair.
But, as I have said at least 10 other times... it's a process. It's going to take time. Sometimes change has to be force fed. After a while*, we can loosen and remove some of the regulations.
*When we get to that point, I don't know. But, I know we aren't there yet. Maybe another generation or 2.
Pretty much agree with all you've said. But I think you * point is the best yet.
Check out young people in pretty much any city and you'll see a huge difference from just a generation or two ago. Color or sexual orientation just don't seem to matter to most anymore. This is a huge change. I always played sports against black kids when young, but it really wasn't acceptable to mix in social context 50 years ago. Today it is accepted and that is a huge change. My grandkids have many latino, black, mixed friends that they bring over to the house. As the current and next generation come of age and ascend into power, I think we will actually see the changes we need.
-
All I can say is that Americans each and every year believe that about the media. Whether it is the Gallup poll on the subject, the Pew poll, etc. Plenty of studies out there (which no doubt people who don't like the results will rip).
In 2013, 46% of Americans felt the media liberal, 26% said conservative per Pew. GOP and independents mostly felt it was liberal, but even Dems came out in high numbers (36% said liberal, 37% said Conservative).
In 2011, Gallup had similar results. Most see liberal bias and their tracking study has shown that year in and year out going back to 2002. When you have that kind of consistent number year in and year out, even consistent breakdowns in the internals, it's hard to argue it. The only ones that do argue it are those that don't want to believe it, even if in their own ranks they are split down the middle.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/u2riqvdbh0iczgxq6ucmdw.gif)
-
All I can say is that Americans each and every year believe that about the media. Whether it is the Gallup poll on the subject, the Pew poll, etc. Plenty of studies out there (which no doubt people who don't like the results will rip).
In 2013, 46% of Americans felt the media liberal, 26% said conservative per Pew. GOP and independents mostly felt it was liberal, but even Dems came out in high numbers (36% said liberal, 37% said Conservative).
In 2011, Gallup had similar results. Most see liberal bias and their tracking study has shown that year in and year out going back to 2002. When you have that kind of consistent number year in and year out, even consistent breakdowns in the internals, it's hard to argue it. The only ones that do argue it are those that don't want to believe it, even if in their own ranks they are split down the middle.
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/u2riqvdbh0iczgxq6ucmdw.gif)
29% of Republicans in Louisiana also believe Obama to blame for the Katrina response. So yeah an opinion that a bias exists doesn't mean it does.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/polls_show_louisianians_disapp.html
PS: And yes of course, mainstream media tilts left. But less and less people are reading newspapers and watching national news. So if the lamestream media continues to lose influence, what will the next rallying cry be?
-
They'll fall back on the old standard - the Christians are being persecuted and discriminated against.
As far as Katrina - these are the teabaggers that skew the percentage. There is NO intelligent life there. I disagree with mainstream Republicans on most things, but I would never stereotype them as ignorant or racist.
It's very easy to stereotypes the tea partiers.
-
HMMM. Wanting lower taxes and smaller government is the standard of low intelligence? Quite the opposite.
I'm not a member BUT That's ALL they espouse.
-
Pretty much agree with all you've said. But I think you * point is the best yet.
Check out young people in pretty much any city and you'll see a huge difference from just a generation or two ago. Color or sexual orientation just don't seem to matter to most anymore. This is a huge change. I always played sports against black kids when young, but it really wasn't acceptable to mix in social context 50 years ago. Today it is accepted and that is a huge change. My grandkids have many latino, black, mixed friends that they bring over to the house. As the current and next generation come of age and ascend into power, I think we will actually see the changes we need.
If we can get the race hustlers \ race baiters out of the equation, we might have a chance. If not, then it will take that much longer. Too many people profit from division, real or manufactured. We also need to have people start to look inward and address their own issues and not constantly blame everyone else. With the divorce rate, out of wedlock kids, etc in some of these communities, that's going to be even harder. All hail Bill Cosby and others for daring to speak about it.
-
29% of Republicans in Louisiana also believe Obama to blame for the Katrina response. So yeah an opinion that a bias exists doesn't mean it does.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/polls_show_louisianians_disapp.html
PS: And yes of course, mainstream media tilts left. But less and less people are reading newspapers and watching national news. So if the lamestream media continues to lose influence, what will the next rallying cry be?
Over 50% of Democrats believed 9/11 was an inside job caused by Bush. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.html
You're posting one poll about one event (by a Democrat pollster), just like I just did with my above example. There are some really funny ones out there on college campuses with video behind them that will make your head spin. This one is great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOieS9GA2r8&feature=c4-overview&list=UU9nEh4nFE0ff0rYRtY360xg My favorite was the "4th trimester" one recently done... Holy #$#@. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/video-college-students-sign-petition-to-legalize-39fourth-trimester-abortio/
The Gallup Poll I linked show you what year in, year out what people believe on the Gallup poll. Not an isolated incident.
The media bias is not a rallying cry. You can also go to studies by UCLA, Harvard, etc where they track some of the biases. To each their own, but that perception is out there and it's not surprising. When you see things like the literally 50+ former media members now working in the current administration, supposed "straight down the middle" media types, it only adds to that perception.
-
HMMM. Wanting lower taxes and smaller government is the standard of low intelligence? Quite the opposite.
I'm not a member BUT That's ALL they espouse.
When a higher percentage of the party thinks Obama is more responsible than Bush for the Katrina debacle - yes that is the standard for low intelligence.
As far as lower taxes - they are the same people who supported unprecedented spending under GBII.
-
If we can get the race hustlers \ race baiters out of the equation, we might have a chance. If not, then it will take that much longer. Too many people profit from division, real or manufactured. We also need to have people start to look inward and address their own issues and not constantly blame everyone else. With the divorce rate, out of wedlock kids, etc in some of these communities, that's going to be even harder. All hail Bill Cosby and others for daring to speak about it.
Yet another post laying the blame for the current state of race relations in the US entirely on the African American community. Unbelievable in its arrogance and lack of any real perspective except that provided on Fox News.
-
If we can get the race hustlers \ race baiters out of the equation, we might have a chance. If not, then it will take that much longer. Too many people profit from division, real or manufactured. We also need to have people start to look inward and address their own issues and not constantly blame everyone else. With the divorce rate, out of wedlock kids, etc in some of these communities, that's going to be even harder. All hail Bill Cosby and others for daring to speak about it.
Maybe worry about the hate groups and hate crimes first? Then we can move on to Al Sharpton.
-
You want to get a feel for where Al Sharpton is coming from regarding hate crimes? Really? A guy who is unapologetic about the deaths he's caused trumpeting hate crimes that never happened or were obvious accidents? His BUSINESS is black victim, white perp and in his twisted mind every real or made up instance is by definition a hate crime.
Lenny, I apologize for any confusions. The internet can be a hard place to get your point across sometime. My reference was vague. I was not implying that I wanted to get a feel for where Al Sharpton is coming from. I agree that is pretty clear.
I was trying to get a feel from where Chicos is coming from. Perhaps, specific examples of crimes that were prosescuted as hate crimes, that indeed shouldn't qualify.
The point was, that the cases he (chicos) is referring to as hate crimes here, do not qualify as hate crimes. It seems like he wants these people to be up in arms calling for hate crimes in situations where they do not fit. It appeared to me as if this was motivated by cases where Sharpton/MLK got hate crime charges to go through (prosecuted) in the reverse cases (white on black crime). If this were the case I was wondering if Chicos could instead bring those examples up, as they would help me understand his (chicos) position better.
-
When a higher percentage of the party thinks Obama is more responsible than Bush for the Katrina debacle - yes that is the standard for low intelligence.
As far as lower taxes - they are the same people who supported unprecedented spending under GBII.
Maybe they were confusing Obama with Mayor Nagin. ;)
274 people took the poll, by the way. Normally a poll that is statistically significant needs a higher number than that depending on the level of confidence and how many people the representation is supposed to be.
-
Maybe worry about the hate groups and hate crimes first? Then we can move on to Al Sharpton.
I put Al Sharpton SQUARELY into the hate groups camp, so fine by me.
-
Yet another post laying the blame for the current state of race relations in the US entirely on the African American community. Unbelievable in its arrogance and lack of any real perspective except that provided on Fox News.
Then I would suggest you read some of my other posts then, because it's pretty clear that I have not done that. What I said is there is some own housecleaning that has to be done (BY BOTH SIDES), but I also said there is definitely some major issues with the African American community...those are direct words from some of my friends who are African Americans. Their words, not mine.....their REAL PERSPECTIVE....I suppose they're just Uncle Toms (trust me, they've been called that before). Otherwise, great post by you...solid as usual.
-
Lenny, I apologize for any confusions. The internet can be a hard place to get your point across sometime. My reference was vague. I was not implying that I wanted to get a feel for where Al Sharpton is coming from. I agree that is pretty clear.
I was trying to get a feel from where Chicos is coming from. Perhaps, specific examples of crimes that were prosescuted as hate crimes, that indeed shouldn't qualify.
The point was, that the cases he (chicos) is referring to as hate crimes here, do not qualify as hate crimes. It seems like he wants these people to be up in arms calling for hate crimes in situations where they do not fit. It appeared to me as if this was motivated by cases where Sharpton/MLK got hate crime charges to go through (prosecuted) in the reverse cases (white on black crime). If this were the case I was wondering if Chicos could instead bring those examples up, as they would help me understand his (chicos) position better.
You continue, again, to miss what I'm saying. What I'm saying is time and time again certain individuals (media, Sharpton, etc) PUSH to make it a hate crime. Whether it is or not is another story. This is why I have used the terms what's good for the Goose... If so many times there is a crime where a minority is killed by a white person and Rev. Al is going to demand a hate crime, then I ask the question why the double standard when it is reversed? I ask why the double standard by the media when it is reversed. Simple questions.
-
If we can get the race hustlers \ race baiters out of the equation, we might have a chance. If not, then it will take that much longer. Too many people profit from division, real or manufactured. We also need to have people start to look inward and address their own issues and not constantly blame everyone else. With the divorce rate, out of wedlock kids, etc in some of these communities, that's going to be even harder. All hail Bill Cosby and others for daring to speak about it.
This is a common type of argument I see from people and it is an example where I think many confuse cause from effect.
The OSU article I linked highlights the fact that black crime is statistically identical to white/hispanic/asian crime if looked at on an economic scale. Rich whites have the same crime rate as rich blacks. Poor whites have the same crime rate as poor blacks. The difference in overall crime statistics is due to a higher incidence of poverty in the black community and a corresponding higher incidence in crime amongst poor individuals of all races.
The same goes here for the issues you have highlighted. They are not associated with the communities (i.e. black community) rather they are a manifestation of the high incidence of poverty. So if we want to address those issues, what we need to do is address the issue of high poverty in the black community.
At that point we need to identify why the black community is economically depressed. This stems from historical disadvantages that persist today and are reinforced by statistics that seem to indicate that they are more violent, higher rates of divorce, low education etc. To remedy the situation we need to increase the opportunities for them.
This is exactly what these laws that you seem to be against were designed to do.
I would agree that the race baiters do not help the situation, hate never brings people together. But historically their extreme approaches were sadly required to bring attention to some issues. They have gone overboard unfortunately and at times that has caused harm to their community. Nonetheless, you have to ask yourself, what went wrong to breed that kind of culture and to breed it as a necessity in some cases.
-
You continue, again, to miss what I'm saying. What I'm saying is time and time again certain individuals (media, Sharpton, etc) PUSH to make it a hate crime. Whether it is or not is another story. This is why I have used the terms what's good for the Goose... If so many times there is a crime where a minority is killed by a white person and Rev. Al is going to demand a hate crime, then I ask the question why the double standard when it is reversed? I ask why the double standard by the media when it is reversed. Simple questions.
Ignore what was here previously. I'm afraid we are going to continue to go in circles in a format (internet) where it is hard to make your point and comments can be misconstrued.
We clearly disagree, but I'm not certain either of us can effectively make our point in this type of forum. Maybe over a beer sometime.
-
PS: And yes of course, mainstream media tilts left. But less and less people are reading newspapers and watching national news. So if the lamestream media continues to lose influence, what will the next rallying cry be?
They are reading less newspapers, but watching more Jon Stewart...who leans far left. Same result. They are still going to the internet to read stories instead of the newspapers. Consuming television or video, still there.
Some more fun tidbits.
In 1981 George Washington University did a study of 240 journalists that covered the Presidency from 1964 to 1976 and asked who they voted for. The LOWEST vote totals in those four years was 81% for the Democrat and as high as 94%. The HIGHEST vote total for the GOP was 19% and the low of 6%. 54% of them identified left of center, 19% right of center.
US News did a similar survey from 1976 to 1992 of 28 tv White House reporters only (no newspaper or radio). Over the course of those 5 elections, the GOP got 7 votes from those reporters. LOL.
In 1980, Cal State LA did a study of newspaper reporters. 51% voted Carter, 25% Reagan.
1985, LA Times did a study of 2,700 reporters around the 1984 election. 58% admitted to voting for Mondale, 26% for Reagan.
In 1989, Rothman Lichter media survey of the 1988 election. 76% for Dukakis. Same study in 1993..91% for Clinton.
On and on.
Let's look at donations.
2008, 88% of donations from TV networks, reporters, journalists went to Mr. Obama.
And on and on...same as nearly ever election cycle the last 30 years.
Yes, I'd say it "tilts" left. Just a smidge. ;D
-
This is a common type of argument I see from people and it is an example where I think many confuse cause from effect.
The OSU article I linked highlights the fact that black crime is statistically identical to white/hispanic/asian crime if looked at on an economic scale. Rich whites have the same crime rate as rich blacks. Poor whites have the same crime rate as poor blacks. The difference in overall crime statistics is due to a higher incidence of poverty in the black community and a corresponding higher incidence in crime amongst poor individuals of all races.
The same goes here for the issues you have highlighted. They are not associated with the communities (i.e. black community) rather they are a manifestation of the high incidence of poverty. So if we want to address those issues, what we need to do is address the issue of high poverty in the black community.
At that point we need to identify why the black community is economically depressed. This stems from historical disadvantages that persist today and are reinforced by statistics that seem to indicate that they are more violent, higher rates of divorce, low education etc. To remedy the situation we need to increase the opportunities for them.
This is exactly what these laws that you seem to be against were designed to do.
I would agree that the race baiters do not help the situation, hate never brings people together. But historically their extreme approaches were sadly required to bring attention to some issues. They have gone overboard unfortunately and at times that has caused harm to their community. Nonetheless, you have to ask yourself, what went wrong to breed that kind of culture and to breed it as a necessity in some cases.
Fair points, but I think your last paragraph hits it. You also have to ask yourself, if the blame game continues every single day and that is all that is pumped into some of these youth, what is ever going to change? This is why Cosby and others have said enough!
-
They are reading less newspapers, but watching more Jon Stewart...who leans far left. Same result. They are still going to the internet to read stories instead of the newspapers. Consuming television or video, still there.
Some more fun tidbits.
In 1981 George Washington University did a study of 240 journalists that covered the Presidency from 1964 to 1976 and asked who they voted for. The LOWEST vote totals in those four years was 81% for the Democrat and as high as 94%. The HIGHEST vote total for the GOP was 19% and the low of 6%. 54% of them identified left of center, 19% right of center.
US News did a similar survey from 1976 to 1992 of 28 tv White House reporters only (no newspaper or radio). Over the course of those 5 elections, the GOP got 7 votes from those reporters. LOL.
In 1980, Cal State LA did a study of newspaper reporters. 51% voted Carter, 25% Reagan.
1985, LA Times did a study of 2,700 reporters around the 1984 election. 58% admitted to voting for Mondale, 26% for Reagan.
In 1989, Rothman Lichter media survey of the 1988 election. 76% for Dukakis. Same study in 1993..91% for Clinton.
On and on.
Let's look at donations.
2008, 88% of donations from TV networks, reporters, journalists went to Mr. Obama.
And on and on...same as nearly ever election cycle the last 30 years.
Yes, I'd say it "tilts" left. Just a smidge. ;D
Chicos, Great statistics. Often I think where there is disagreement it is because both parties are correct. Your statistics clearly indicate that the journalists and networks themselves are primarily democrats.
Now at the same time, you have to make money. As others indicated Fox News being number 1, Rush Limbaugh being number 1 talk radio, there is a lot of right-leaning content.
Where the overall bias ends up lying, who knows. I know right-wing people that claim Fox News is liberal-bias, because they lie to the right of fox news (yes it is possible). Frankly, I think it is currently slightly right-leaning. During Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. definitely left leaning.
I think this is common that the media supports the opposition as it brings in more eyeballs (controversy). Where the overall position is, I can't say as I'm sure I'm biased myself. I would say however though that the "typical left-wing media bias type comments" are 'kind of' out of place. Frankly, I'm deeply offended by how much 'opinion' pieces qualify as journalism these days.
It perpetuates a climate of division as opinion pieces look to reinforce existing bias instead of opening healthy discussion.
-
No way I'm reading this whole thread. I just want to say that I read the original post and then skipped to the last page. How da fuq did ya'll get here?
-
No way I'm reading this whole thread. I just want to say that I read the original post and then skipped to the last page. How da fuq did ya'll get here?
To summarize in three concepts.
Brown-bag lunch, hate speech, media bias.
-
Yet another post laying the blame for the current state of race relations in the US entirely on the African American community. Unbelievable in its arrogance and lack of any real perspective except that provided on Fox News.
You know, I'm going to take this a little further since you really didn't have the common courtesy to read anything.
My buddy, Earnest, from Benton Harbor, MI...works as a data analyst for Boeing in El Segundo. At nights, for extra money, he teaches basic level computing skills at Cal State Los Angeles for adult ed...his way of giving back to the community. He cringes, at times, at what he sees. He grew up poor, tough part of Michigan, busted his arse...went to a small college, found his way to California. Married Monica, from Compton, went to Catholic schools in Compton because the public schools were such crap and they don't allow school vouchers. It was her way for her family to get her a decent education, and she took a ton of crap for it because the culture was not to better yourself, not to conform. She did it anyway.
Earnest and Monica got married, wonderful family, two great kids with Marcus and Erika. Marcus is my son's best friend. Their family and my family go on vacations together, Hawaii, Orlando, etc. The boys have been on the same Little League teams over the years. They both go to the same high school. Erika and my daughter at the same elementary school. Erika is a fantastic dancer.
Monica lays down the law...she is one tough cookie. Those kids get anything less than a B...THE HAMMER comes down. She will not let them fail.
I admire this family. They could have used excuses, they didn't. They worked and worked, and they are doing fine. Lovely family, absolutely lovely. They've made a good life for their kids and their kids know the value of education, hard work. They will go far. It is THEIR opinion, ATL, THEIR OPINION that many people that had\have similar backgrounds wasted their opportunities, caved into a culture of "can't" or a culture of "Uncle Sammy will provide". That is THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
I'll tell you what ATL, come out to the games for Thanksgiving. Earnest I have turned into a bit of a Marquette fan and he has gone to several MU NCAA games with me, like the Kentucky game and the Stanford game. He's a midwest guy at heart. You can talk to him yourself about PERSPECTIVE.
Does everyone get that shot? No. Can everyone go to college? No. But you know what, they had it pretty tough and they refused to let that stop them. Just as there are whites, Hispanics, Asians, you name it that have it pretty tough, too, and can either make a go at it or not. I respect the hell out of this family and I enjoy their PERSPECTIVE.
-
To summarize in three concepts.
Brown-bag lunch, hate speech, media bias.
LOL....well done
-
*sigh* We knew this wasn't going to end well either. But at least it took weeks before it went "bad"...