Bill Cosby caused a controversy at an NAACP event by stating that lower middle-class African Americans aren't holding their end of the bargain, a statement I reluctantly agree with. I don't think he is a racist by saying this, but he is sure to receive a lot of criticism from the black liberal front.What do you think?

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#2

He did it a hell of a lot more tactfully than Chris Rock did, that's for sure.  Hehehe.

If Cosby's intentions were to instill responsibility into African-Americans, he is sure to fail.  If his intentions were to assuage the consciences of rich whites, he's right on the money.

Bill Cosby is right.  He spoke some hard truths Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have avoided.  The problem is the manner of the message.  He is one of the country's richest black men castigating underprivileged blacks from his golden pulpit.  The people he is trying to reach will find his remarks invidious.  They will resent him and turn their backs.  Too many people think SHAME works.  It doesn't.  If you shame people, they hate themselves, they hate you, and they don't change for the better.  I wish Cosby understood this.
Cosby, in his arrogance, seems to think he's saying something that local civic leaders in poor African-American communities don't say every day.  Preachers and principals alike discourage the allure of gangs and the lust for luxuries.  They strive to instill the values of hard work, academic achievement, good manners, and proper diction.  I don't know if Cosby understands how many parents--including single mothers--do the same.
Never underestimate the psychology of despair.  That's what I call the unbearable weight under which so many poor people, not just blacks, fail.  Conservatives try to tell me I'm making excuses for the so-called "poor."  I tell them I'm stating reasons.  Black children know they're being cheated.  They know the the economic deck is rigged against them.  A child who lives with envy and violence, becomes rageful and vengeful.  Every day they are politicized by the corporate culture.  They want the shiny cars and diamond rings they see on billboards, they want the life of prideful luxury and sex MTV sells.
The messages blacks get from the political establishment is that they are a problem.  They are not as good as whites and Asians.  They commit the crimes, they wreck society.  They're expected to flunk out of school, to end up in gangs, in prison, in unwed motherhood. 
Bill Cosby sees this and it makes him frustrated, but in his frustration, he employs the self-defeating tactic of shame.  I wish he had done it differently.

In general, liberals like to blame society, and conservatives like to blame the individual.  If those concerned want to make progress on the issues of which Cosby speaks, they have to synthesize BOTH societal responsibility AND individual responsibility, and take BLAME and SHAME out of the equasion.

Bill Cosby didn't say anything that wasn't already known by many people and has been written and talked about by people like this for years...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031226660X/qid=1085289822/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-5341421-2940108?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688151310/qid=1085290019/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5341421-2940108?v=glance&s=books

(and yes, like someone mentioned before, Chris Rock in his own special way ::))

I think it was where he said it (and maybe who said it) that just surprised most people.

It's too easy to label people racist for even trying to identify what or where the problems are coming from. Too many black children are being raised without a father in the house and for the male children that's going to have even more of a negative effect. 

I agree ZCRITO.  I don't think what Cosby said was racist, but race conscious.  Millions of white kids suffer the same disadvantages, as some critics have pointed out.  However, Cosby also spoke of the great hardships African-Americans endured in the fight for civil rights.  Today African-Americans have no legal discrimination imposed on them.  In this light, Cosby was portraying today's blacks as self-destructive.  One could argue Cosby is full of baloney, but I don't think you could plausibly argue that his remarks are racist.

First off Cosby's comments from what I saw there that wasa bout 500 dollars woth of shoes is yes I agree its riduculous. Who needs a pair of 500 dollar sneakers anyway? I think white people have their own problems too like Columbine(which was done by white people and only white people.) Since I live in the New Jersey/New York are I listen to Kiss 98.7 every once in a while(Michael Basedan) and I hear some of the problems that black people face(I am white) but I like to be part of other cultures as well. Like Maxwell said in post 3 about the shiny cars I will respond to that: thats a fantasy life. About blacks having the deck stacked against them  I  will disagree with that. Your life is what you make of it. About blacks committing crimes they are white and spanish people who commit crimes as well. I think some black familes that are living in low income neighborhoods and their children and before its too late they get into that ghetto life and have nowhere to turn other than the streets. I think we should start cleaning up the streets(getting rid of the drugs and the gangs.) Once they start cleaning out the drugs and the gangs start building up the area's up by putting up housing complexes and parks up(cleaning up the ghetto's in NYC.) Going back to the sneakers I wouldn't think about buying shoes that are over like 60 dollars. I think another factor is again I'll mention the word "ghetto". Black people are being too much labeled on that kind of front too much. You see it on Televsion(UPN. ) There are almost no African American shows on majpr networks. On the 80's and 90's there were. All you see is white, and more white shows. Its like where is the next "Fresh Prince" or "Cosby's" the shows that can crossover too white people so blacks and whites can both relate with one another? I have listened to another black radio show a few years ago on 107.5 WBLS  and the host was saying we will never be accepted like white people are in this country. I feel as a white person thats very untrue. What happened in the past like slavery needs to be put aside. This is 2004 already. Come on already. If anybody thinks I'm racist by any of these comments thats your opinion. I listen to "Back And Forth" by Aaliyah just as the same as I listen to my "Interstate Love Song" by Stone Temple Pilots. As a white person we should go the extra mile and listen to what these black radio shows are saying so we can get familar with their world a little and see how they feel about certain issue's(the black community) I feel. I feel like I;m different from other people. I care whats going on our streets wether its happening to hispanics, blacks, or whites. I live in the suburbs but I have to live 50 more years in this world. My Mom grow up in Newark, New Jersey so she didn't grow up in no middle-class neighborhood black in the 60's and 70's. She didn't have that many pairs of clothes to wear like say I do.

If Cosby wasn't using the $500.00 sneakers comment as hyperbole, then there are sneakers more expensive than I ever imagined.  No matter.
TV, the best way to get the drugs out of the streets is to knock out their profitability.  The fastest way is through legalization.  Legalizing "hard" drugs is far from ideal, but it would hurt far fewer people than are getting hurt by drugs now.  Treat drug addiction as a medical condition, not a crime.  Drug legalization would not only wipe out a lot of terror on our city streets, but it would drastically reduce the terror in countries such as Colombia. 
I hear what you're saying about "cleaning up the ghettos" and providing housing developments for the poor.  We do need a social overhaul in the inner cities, however, the housing developments were one of the 20th centuries greatest failures in social engineering. 
Chicago has the most infamous examples.  Huge high-rise projects such as the Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini-Green are now razed.  I don't know of any Newark projects by name, but I'll bet they're either demolished or slated for it.
Chicago and other cities where these massive public works met dynamite and wrecking ball are now trying to develop integrated, mixed income housing areas.  They concluded rightly that segregating the urban poor in giant ghettos was disasterous.  Unfortunately, they are embarking on another social engineering scheme doomed to fail.
Poverty is the real problem, poverty itself.  The only way to deal with "the poor" is to provide them with real tools and real opportunities to make themselves NOT poor. 
Welfare redistribution schemes don't provide recipients with the hope and dignity of financial security, of property ownership.  Americans don't want hand-outs, they don't want gifts.  They want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, which is exactly what American industry decided IT didn't want to pay.
We have it half right.  We know communism doesn't work.  However, we watch dumbly as corporate blowhards extol the virtues of the "global free market" and the rights of corporations to maximize profits at any cost.  We buy into the canard that government is always bad, and businessmen are always right.  In this way, we shoot ourselves in the foot.
If there aren't real jobs with strong wages and organized workforces in cities such as Newark, Gary, and Flint, poverty will erode the social fabric and destroy the morale of the impoverished.  No amount of chiding from rich a Bill Cosby, a J.C. Watts, or an Alan Keyes will change that.

Americans don't want hand-outs, they don't want gifts.  They want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, which is exactly what American industry decided IT didn't want to pay.
We have it half right.  We know communism doesn't work.  However, we watch dumbly as corporate blowhards extol the virtues of the "global free market" and the rights of corporations to maximize profits at any cost.  We buy into the canard that government is always bad, and businessmen are always right.  In this way, we shoot ourselves in the foot.
If there aren't real jobs with strong wages and organized workforces in cities such as Newark, Gary, and Flint, poverty will erode the social fabric and destroy the morale of the impoverished.  No amount of chiding from rich a Bill Cosby, a J.C. Watts, or an Alan Keyes will change that.

Whether or not Americans want hand-outs depends on what you mean by "Americans".  There are lots of people who want hand-outs, or they wouldn't take them.  There are others who don't.  Like it or not, we're a nation of individuals who make individual choices for ourselves, which is why--as you pointed out--communism doesn't work.  And government trying to solve the problems of individual people--whether directly, through hand-outs, or indirectly, by forcing businesses to pay them more than they're worth--won't work either. 

What does work is economic freedom (also known as capitalism), where individuals, the ones making up the work force and the ones of the "corporate blowhard" variety, are free to act voluntarily and in their own interests, without the government coming in and trying to "help".  The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual.  Period.

Cosby has consistently, for several DECADES, preached that education is the key to rising from poverty and despair.  And I have to credit Cosby with never appearing to pander to ANYBODY's position, whether they may be conservative OR liberal.  Bill is his own man.  Calls it as he sees it.

Took guts for him to say what he said the other day.  Call it racism, call it discrimination, call it what you may, but the average person who does the hiring in the USA today does not want some jive-talking black or trash-talking white for an employee.  They want someone who at least puts on an impression of intelligence and productivity.  I'm one of those hiring people.  I've hired some excellent black candidates and passed on some whites who could not find their butts with both hands.  Lack of education and responsibility is ALOT more visible than the colour of one's skin when it comes to the workplace.

He is not some sort of "high and mighty" guy who does not know what he is talking about.  He was a high-school dropout who went into the Navy.  He quickly straigntened out and got a GED then went to college.  He preaches RESPONSIBILITY and EDUCATION because he knows that without either, he likely would never have been a success.

Lots of people will ignore him and resume whiling their time away wasting their lives.  But SOME PEOPLE (white and black) will listen to his words and become happy and successful.  That's all for which Bill can hope.

I agree with what he said.  It's about time someone stood up and placed the blame where it belongs:  with the individuals.  I'm so sick and tired of hearing Sharpton and Jackson blame the "white man" for EVERY problem in black society.  As was stated before, Bill Cosby didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth.  He's a prime example of what someone CAN achieve if they put their mind to it.
I completly agree with you. It's just so unfortunate that people like Chris Rock have to  keep messing everything up with thier old tirade >:( Rock represents the term "Reverse Predjiduce" very admirably.

I am agreeing with Lyricboy and 80s cheerleader. Bill Cosby may be speaking from his 'golden pulpit' but it was probably his own advice that got him there in the first place - and good luck to him. Regardless of his status, he said a lot of common-sense things there and it takes a lot of courage to speak against people you have connections with if you feel there is a misunderstanding somewhere down the line.

I agree with what he said.  It's about time someone stood up and placed the blame where it belongs:  with the individuals.  I'm so sick and tired of hearing Sharpton and Jackson blame the "white man" for EVERY problem in black society.  As was stated before, Bill Cosby didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth.  He's a prime example of what someone CAN achieve if they put their mind to it.


Exactly right.

These days, it seems like a taboo subject when anyone says what Cosby says, therefore its hardly ever done out of fear of backlash, and as in this case being called a "racist".

What he said was the truth, it needed to be said.  And the fact that is was said by a black man gave it even more leverage.  Its just sad that some blacks are seeing him as a traitor now because he had the guts to speak what most people are already thinking, but are afraid to say it.

Whether or not Americans want hand-outs depends on what you mean by "Americans".  There are lots of people who want hand-outs, or they wouldn't take them.  There are others who don't.  Like it or not, we're a nation of individuals who make individual choices for ourselves, which is why--as you pointed out--communism doesn't work.  And government trying to solve the problems of individual people--whether directly, through hand-outs, or indirectly, by forcing businesses to pay them more than they're worth--won't work either. 

What does work is economic freedom (also known as capitalism), where individuals, the ones making up the work force and the ones of the "corporate blowhard" variety, are free to act voluntarily and in their own interests, without the government coming in and trying to "help".  The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual.  Period.

Capitalism is not the same thing as economic freedom.  It depends on how it is managed.  If capital is allowed to accumulate in ever fewer and ever wealthier hands, you get economic tyranny.
The capitalism of the Republican party is not "free market" at all.  It is a nanny state for big corporations.  The idea that Ronald Reagan didn't like government meddling with business is false.  The notion that any "individual" is just as free to succeed as any other "individual" in our economy is a fantasy.  Nothing more.
Your average crack dealer has exactly the same values as your average Republican businessman.  He maximizes his profits by responding to the principles of supply and demand.  Since industries divested from the American job market in favor of cheap, unregulated labor abroad, it has become ever less likely one can make a living without a college degree.  Even with a college degree, it has become a harrowing challenge.
The dynamics of the "ghetto," that is impoverished urban neighborhoods, are sociologically complex.  I could write ten thousand words on the subject and not cover it all.  Unfortunately, one who believes in simplistic notions of "individualism" wouldn't read or understand such a treatise.
If we put aside your misconceptions about capitalism and individualism, we can logically conclude that if American industry does not invest in American workers, poverty will continue unabated.  So, do you want to see less crime and more prosperity in America, or not?

Again, I also agree with Cosby.

Funny story about Bill Cosby.  I met him once, way back in 1978.

I was working a summer job doing groundskeeping at a local college.  Bill was coming to visit the campus as part of his "promoting education" gig.  After the speeches, he was then set up to play a doubles tennis match with a couple of faculty members.

The campus facility manager was a complete metal case over this.  A CELEBRITY WAS VISITING and everything had to be absolutely perfect!  My crew was assigned to make sure that the locker rooms were clean.  So we spent like two days cleaning up that room.

About 2 hours before Cosby was to come to campus, the Manager held inspection in the locker room and HE DARN NEAR DIED because there was this little spot of talcum powder on the floor.  I mean he just had this complete tirade.  So we cleaned it up.

Well, Bill came to campus and made his speech.  The Q&A session went way longer than anticipated, and when it was time to play tennis, he said that he had to go because he had another appointment in another town.  I thought that Facility Manager was going to soil himself right then and there.  We all had a big chuckle over it!

From that day on, one of us would always manage to dust a little talcum powder in this guy's office, just to jack him around.  ;D

Everything the government did with billions of dollars the last 40 years to erase poverty was nullified in families where the father had long since abandoned and with no child support - nothing.

Personal responsibility. Yes it's very important and I agree 100% that we take responsibility for ourselves - through education and hard work, yet I know every good thing that has happened to me in my life was the result of kindness from others.

I too am tired of every problem in society being blamed on some form of racism, profiling, or now the evil de jour "white male privilege" (idiots!), but let's don't demand personal responsibility from people then turn our backs on them when they've accomplished what we required.

We don't live in just a "trickle down" economy, it works best when there's a "trickle up" too.

evil de jour

"De jure" ;)  Although unfortunately it does happen every day :(

"De jure" ;)  Although unfortunately it does happen every day :(


Thanks. ::)

"de jour"? My mistake, "du jour" (of the day), but...
"de jure"? (of or some of the juror?)

:(
???

Thanks. ::)

"de jour"? My mistake, "du jour" (of the day), but...
"de jure"? (of or some of the juror?)

:(
???


"De jure" means "by law" in Latin or something.  I think you actually meant "de facto", which paraphrases to "fact of life".

Your average crack dealer has exactly the same values as your average Republican businessman.  He maximizes his profits by responding to the principles of supply and demand. 

Ah yes, those evil Republican businessmen/crack dealers. ::)

Yes, you hate Republicans.  We get it already.  Not necessary to attempt to make a "Republican=bad" connection in every post. ;)



And for the record, making a connection between crack dealers and Republican businessmen is ludricous.  All businessmen must maximize profits based on supply and demand.  Failing to do so would result in the business clsoing its doors. 

Thats what we call...business.

It doesn't take a Republican to understand the basic principle of the "bottom line", and what is needed to meet it.

"De jure" means "by law" in Latin or something.  I think you actually meant "de facto", which paraphrases to "fact of life".


Huh?
No. I was being sarcastic - soup du jour, joke du jour, evil du jour. Some people see discrimination in everything. Do you?

;) ;D

I do. Unfortunately I'm probably guilty of it too. I see it based on my religion and my political affiliation.

Religion does that to you, Vapor Trails. I used to be very prejudice about a lot of things - and still am sometimes (esp, guns, vices, politics and stuff) but I am practising to be a better person. I'm not always successful but it's the effort that counts. :)

Exactly Bobby. Must keep trying for we are only human!  :)

Exactly Bobby. Must keep trying for we are only human!  :)


;)

Capitalism is not the same thing as economic freedom.  It depends on how it is managed.  If capital is allowed to accumulate in ever fewer and ever wealthier hands, you get economic tyranny.


So it's better if control is in the hands of the few, the powerful, the...government?  Are you joking?  Didn't you say somewhere that communism didn't work?


The capitalism of the Republican party is not "free market" at all.  It is a nanny state for big corporations.  The idea that Ronald Reagan didn't like government meddling with business is false.  The notion that any "individual" is just as free to succeed as any other "individual" in our economy is a fantasy.  Nothing more.


No argument here on the first count.  Them elephants are as bad as them donkeys.  On the second count, it looks like you're confusing freedom with opportunity. 


Your average crack dealer has exactly the same values as your average Republican businessman.  He maximizes his profits by responding to the principles of supply and demand. 


Yep.  And the problem here is...?


Since industries divested from the American job market in favor of cheap, unregulated labor abroad, it has become ever less likely one can make a living without a college degree.  Even with a college degree, it has become a harrowing challenge.


But think of those lucky foreign markets and the opportunities provided them, opportunities nobody is forcing them to take.  And since I managed to survive most of my adult life in the food service industry, you don't have to tell me it would be great if some nice person would force some hapless employer to pay me a lot more than I'm worth.  That's why I joined the postal service.


The dynamics of the "ghetto," that is impoverished urban neighborhoods, are sociologically complex.  I could write ten thousand words on the subject and not cover it all.  Unfortunately, one who believes in simplistic notions of "individualism" wouldn't read or understand such a treatise.


I could write quite a few words on the principles of liberty but I'll return the favor and keep it short:  Freedom good.


If we put aside your misconceptions about capitalism and individualism, we can logically conclude that if American industry does not invest in American workers, poverty will continue unabated.  So, do you want to see less crime and more prosperity in America, or not?


When you punish productivity and reward attitudes of entitlement, all you get is more entitlement.  I'd love to see less crime and more prosperity; I just strongly disagree that government forcing businesses to give stuff away will accomplish that.


Again, I also agree with Cosby.


Me too.  I love the Jell-o Pudding.

When you punish productivity and reward attitudes of entitlement, all you get is more entitlement.  I'd love to see less crime and more prosperity; I just strongly disagree that government forcing businesses to give stuff away will accomplish that.

"Government forcing businesses to give stuff away," I never said anything of the sort.  I think a lot of people have been propagandized.  In the same way children in Maoist China were brought up to believe in the infallibility of the Communist Party, I am seeing the same phenomenon here.  Americans are raised to believe in the infallibility of the "free market."  The sad thing is, many people who were adults when Ronald Reagan was elected seem like they've read nothing but Talking Points from the American Enterprise Institute.
How else can I explain conclusions such as "government forcing businesses to give stuff away," other than a result of programming.  I suggest rational controls on the market for the strength of our nation, and I am assailed with a Pavlovian response accusing me of being a communist.

As for me "hating" Republicans, the Republicans are the ones who are doing the hating.  There's just no way I could ever summon the hatefulness of a Newt Gingrich or a Tom DeLay.  If I did my brain would melt!
"Do not associate my name with anything you do.  You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have"
Know who said that?  Barry Goldwater.  He died in 1997, but he lived long enough to see the Newt Deal, and that, ladies and gentleman, was his review.  Bear in mind, the late Arizona senator was famous for saying, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."  Goldwater could not foresee in 1964 how "extreme" his fellow Republicans would get within 30 years.  Let it be known, the extremism of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, and all that lot, is not in defense of liberty.
A generation ago, Goldwater was seen as an extreme right-winger and a loose cannon.  His comment on the the Gingrich GOP is tantamount to Jeffrey Dahmer saying, "Whoa! Dude, sick!"

I don't expect you to capitulate.  There's too much pride inculcated in this sort of debate.  I just wish you would reconsider, if you can, the political affiliations you choose.

First off Cosby's comments from what I saw there that wasa bout 500 dollars woth of shoes is yes I agree its riduculous. Who needs a pair of 500 dollar sneakers anyway? I think white people have their own problems too like Columbine(which was done by white people and only white people.) Since I live in the New Jersey/New York are I listen to Kiss 98.7 every once in a while(Michael Basedan) and I hear some of the problems that black people face(I am white) but I like to be part of other cultures as well. Like Maxwell said in post 3 about the shiny cars I will respond to that: thats a fantasy life. About blacks having the deck stacked against them  I  will disagree with that. Your life is what you make of it. About blacks committing crimes they are white and spanish people who commit crimes as well. I think some black familes that are living in low income neighborhoods and their children and before its too late they get into that ghetto life and have nowhere to turn other than the streets. I think we should start cleaning up the streets(getting rid of the drugs and the gangs.) Once they start cleaning out the drugs and the gangs start building up the area's up by putting up housing complexes and parks up(cleaning up the ghetto's in NYC.) Going back to the sneakers I wouldn't think about buying shoes that are over like 60 dollars. I think another factor is again I'll mention the word "ghetto". Black people are being too much labeled on that kind of front too much. You see it on Televsion(UPN. ) There are almost no African American shows on majpr networks. On the 80's and 90's there were. All you see is white, and more white shows. Its like where is the next "Fresh Prince" or "Cosby's" the shows that can crossover too white people so blacks and whites can both relate with one another? I have listened to another black radio show a few years ago on 107.5 WBLS  and the host was saying we will never be accepted like white people are in this country. I feel as a white person thats very untrue. What happened in the past like slavery needs to be put aside. This is 2004 already. Come on already. If anybody thinks I'm racist by any of these comments thats your opinion. I listen to "Back And Forth" by Aaliyah just as the same as I listen to my "Interstate Love Song" by Stone Temple Pilots. As a white person we should go the extra mile and listen to what these black radio shows are saying so we can get familar with their world a little and see how they feel about certain issue's(the black community) I feel. I feel like I;m different from other people. I care whats going on our streets wether its happening to hispanics, blacks, or whites. I live in the suburbs but I have to live 50 more years in this world. My Mom grow up in Newark, New Jersey so she didn't grow up in no middle-class neighborhood black in the 60's and 70's. She didn't have that many pairs of clothes to wear like say I do.


I live near Newark area too.  I agree with not wanting to pay over $60 bucks for some "kicks" (aka sneakers).  I'm glad to hear that you "care" about the community surrounding you.  I wish more people cared.  I didn't hear or read Bill Cosby's comments.  I could only imagine...  Therefore, I cannot comment on something that I don't have the facts to back up what I say. 

As a black female, I grew up in low income housing (aka projects).  It wasn't by choice.  I was born into that environment.  I want to make it perfectly clear that NOT everyone who resides in subsidized housing wants to be there.  I was surrounded by crime, poverty, and hopelessness.  When I became an adult, I work hard and got out of the projects.  I was fortunate in many ways.  It also helped that I didn't have children of my own.  So I think "personal responsibility" comes into play.  I knew that the environment wasn't fit for me...and it wasn't fit to raise a child in. 

I feel that the black community (in general) is lacking the unity it needs to be a thriving force in this country.  For christ sakes, we helped build this country and now we are NOT doing more to educate our youth and get rid of drugs and crimes within our communities.  Some people "settle" for what is given to them and view life as being hopeless. 

There are many things to address on this particular topic. 

I feel that the black community (in general) is lacking the unity it needs to be a thriving force in this country.  For christ sakes, we helped build this country and now we are NOT doing more to educate our youth and get rid of drugs and crimes within our communities.  Some people "settle" for what is given to them and view life as being hopeless. 

There are many things to address on this particular topic. 


I'm a white guy but I think I have to agree with you on the unity thing.  Possibly the biggest (or at least one of the biggest) problems facing minority communities in 2004 is the extremely high level of minority-on-minority violence.

I as a white man am statistically more afraid of being killed by a white guy than a black guy.  And based on the black crime stats, the odds of a black man being killed by a fellow black man are HUGE in comparison.  The murders are usually committed by someone the victim knew, too.

Now to the issue of UNITY.  The Civil Rights Movement finally got up steam after the black community achieved UNITY and said "Enough!" and stopped being completely scared of the white man's retribution.  It was not easy and it did not happen overnight, but many brave men and women made it happen thriugh a united effort.

But TODAY we have this epidemic of black-on-black violence, yet people keep quiet and do not talk to the police because they are AFRAID of retribution... not by the police, but by the perpetrators themselves!  We need a new Civil Rights Movement... this one being the Right to live in a safe Neighborhood, where by UNITY we identify and eliminate the drug dealers and the killers (usually the same guys anyway).  Where the drug dealer and the killer are the people who are afraid, rather than their victims.  When a black man (or any race for that matter) can not walk safely in a community that is predominantly of his own race, how can he expect anything else to change?

I'm a white guy but I think I have to agree with you on the unity thing.  Possibly the biggest (or at least one of the biggest) problems facing minority communities in 2004 is the extremely high level of minority-on-minority violence.

I as a white man am statistically more afraid of being killed by a white guy than a black guy.  And based on the black crime stats, the odds of a black man being killed by a fellow black man are HUGE in comparison.  The murders are usually committed by someone the victim knew, too.

Now to the issue of UNITY.  The Civil Rights Movement finally got up steam after the black community achieved UNITY and said "Enough!" and stopped being completely scared of the white man's retribution.  It was not easy and it did not happen overnight, but many brave men and women made it happen thriugh a united effort.

But TODAY we have this epidemic of black-on-black violence, yet people keep quiet and do not talk to the police because they are AFRAID of retribution... not by the police, but by the perpetrators themselves!  We need a new Civil Rights Movement... this one being the Right to live in a safe Neighborhood, where by UNITY we identify and eliminate the drug dealers and the killers (usually the same guys anyway).  Where the drug dealer and the killer are the people who are afraid, rather than their victims.  When a black man (or any race for that matter) can not walk safely in a community that is predominantly of his own race, how can he expect anything else to change?


Yes, LyricBoy, I agree.  We need a new CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.  Will we ever see a new one formed?  Good question.  I wish I had the answers to everything.  Even if I did...I couldn't act alone.  Unity is the key word.   A word that has been lost and possibly forgotten somehow...

"Government forcing businesses to give stuff away," I never said anything of the sort.  I think a lot of people have been propagandized.  In the same way children in Maoist China were brought up to believe in the infallibility of the Communist Party, I am seeing the same phenomenon here.  Americans are raised to believe in the infallibility of the "free market."  The sad thing is, many people who were adults when Ronald Reagan was elected seem like they've read nothing but Talking Points from the American Enterprise Institute.
How else can I explain conclusions such as "government forcing businesses to give stuff away," other than a result of programming.  I suggest rational controls on the market for the strength of our nation, and I am assailed with a Pavlovian response accusing me of being a communist.

As for me "hating" Republicans, the Republicans are the ones who are doing the hating.  There's just no way I could ever summon the hatefulness of a Newt Gingrich or a Tom DeLay.  If I did my brain would melt!
"Do not associate my name with anything you do.  You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have"
Know who said that?  Barry Goldwater.  He died in 1997, but he lived long enough to see the Newt Deal, and that, ladies and gentleman, was his review.  Bear in mind, the late Arizona senator was famous for saying, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."  Goldwater could not foresee in 1964 how "extreme" his fellow Republicans would get within 30 years.  Let it be known, the extremism of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, and all that lot, is not in defense of liberty.
A generation ago, Goldwater was seen as an extreme right-winger and a loose cannon.  His comment on the the Gingrich GOP is tantamount to Jeffrey Dahmer saying, "Whoa! Dude, sick!"

I can only assume you were addressing me, although I'm not the one who called you a Republican hater.  I do suspect you dislike the rich, but that's your business.  Anyway, as I actually did say, you won't catch me defending the Republican party.  My focus is individual rights and the free market, something most Republicans have no more respect for than your average Democrat.  So do not associate my name with anything they do.

Anyway, my calling you a communist was a little bit of exaggeration, but in principle that is what you are.  You're not dumb enough to go around calling yourself one since everyone knows it doesn't work, but when you advocate government regulation of business, you are in fact limiting the freedom of people to voluntarily associate in the way that they would choose otherwise.  It's the essence of communism, and the difference is a matter of degree.  It doesn't matter what you're calling it now.  I don't expect you to capitulate.  There's too much pride inculcated in this sort of debate.  I just wish you would reconsider, if you can, the political affiliations you choose.

but when you advocate government regulation of business, you are in fact limiting the freedom of people to voluntarily associate in the way that they would choose otherwise.  It's the essence of communism, and the difference is a matter of degree. 
Government regulation of business has nothing to do with communism.  Without government regulation, business collapses under its own excesses. Competition can only stay healthy if business is prevented from consilidating into massive monopolies. 
In the old days, industry used to be allowed to dump whatever they wanted into the environment.  By the 1960s, we figured out what a terrible idea this was.  While we have more toxic waste sites than we can ever hope to clean up, our air and water is much cleaner than it was 40 years ago.  This is a result of government regulation.
A hundred years ago, your employer could force you to work 100 hours a week  for starvation wages.  Organized labor and government forced restrictions upon business, and now everyone, except a few extremists, sees this as a betterment of the human condition.
Corporations grown too powerful can and have restricted the freedom of individuals far more than the United States government has.  There is a an tryannical side to corporations in U.S. history that is under emphasized.
The Libertarian flapdoodle is that if you don't like your job, you can quit.  A cursory look a corporate and labor history in the U.S. exposes the Libertarian argument as fantasy.
There at two things business and government have in common: people and power.  Both institutions are vulnerable to oppression, corruption, and abuse.

I agree.  However, as long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are so "influential" (for lack of a better term) I don't foresee it happening in our lifetime.  Sure, they may preach "unity", but they, IMO, are part of the problem.  ...  it seems that Al & Jesse are causing a bigger divide in society by blaming whites for every wrong that occurs in the black community.  I even heard Jesse Jackson say once that whites are to blame for the high incidence of black-on-black violence.


cheerleader, I think that you are right.  The "new" Civil Rights Movement needs LEADERS who are credible and who do not grandstand.  But at the moment, guys like Jackson and Sharpton are looked up to by their constituency much like the "class clown" was when we were in school.  People choose to listen to them because there is not a stronger voice speaking out and DEMANDING change from ALL sides of the issue.

Jackson, in particular, I have problems with because much of what he is about is his own self-enrichment, and then there is of course his serial infidelity towards his wife and the bastard children that he denied until it was publically forced on him.  If his wife can not trust him, how can his "constituency"?  He is the "black Bill Clinton" in that respect.  And if your white-owned business makes contributions to his causes, you seem to "get a pass" from criticism.  People who live in Chicago are quite familiar with the "business" that the "reverend" Jackson is running.

I wish that Colin Powell would be more forthcoming.  He has intellect and credibility, but I am afraid that he has blown alot of that by letting himself get run over by Cheney and Rumsfeld.  Quite frankly I see Condoleeza Rice as an opportunist who will mouth whatever words her boss asks her to, so she's out.

Dick Gregory I think has/had credibility.  I am not sure why he did not emerge to more prominence in Civil Rights as he certainly had the connections to key black and white figures.

Bill Cosby would have been good but now he is probably too old.

Another thing, I think, that has to change is this thing that whenever ANY black figure or politician comes out to support a "conservative" or "republican" issue, they are almost always vilified by the "mainstram" black politicians as "sellouts".  As long as ANY political entity treats people with differing opinions like this it is doomed to fail.  (I can say similar things about mainstream Democrats and Republicans too, but a "conservative black" is subjected to unwarranted vilification IMHO)

Government regulation of business has nothing to do with communism.  Without government regulation, business collapses under its own excesses. Competition can only stay healthy if business is prevented from consilidating into massive monopolies. 
In the old days, industry used to be allowed to dump whatever they wanted into the environment.  By the 1960s, we figured out what a terrible idea this was.  While we have more toxic waste sites than we can ever hope to clean up, our air and water is much cleaner than it was 40 years ago.  This is a result of government regulation.
A hundred years ago, your employer could force you to work 100 hours a week  for starvation wages.  Organized labor and government forced restrictions upon business, and now everyone, except a few extremists, sees this as a betterment of the human condition.
Corporations grown too powerful can and have restricted the freedom of individuals far more than the United States government has.  There is a an tryannical side to corporations in U.S. history that is under emphasized.
The Libertarian flapdoodle is that if you don't like your job, you can quit.  A cursory look a corporate and labor history in the U.S. exposes the Libertarian argument as fantasy.
There at two things business and government have in common: people and power.  Both institutions are vulnerable to oppression, corruption, and abuse.


The notion that government exists to secure individual rights is the principle central to the US Constitution and the prosperity that's followed is a direct result of this unprecedented freedom from government interference.  The problem with government "regulation" as we now know it is that it's no longer limited by the principle of noninterference.  Without that limiting principle we get all kinds of wacky laws like you have to get a license to be a hairstylist and crap like that.  Total nonsense designed to perpetuate bureaucracy and stifle competition to pay off lobbies.  No matter how good the intentions or intelligent the lawmakers, even government employees are human beings and as such prone to the same selfish human behavior as the rest of us.  This is why the real purpose of any bureaucracy, despite its stated purpose, is to perpetuate itself and grow.  At least a private bureaucracy is subject to the penalties of the market when it fails to adequately serve its customers.  A government bureaucracy (aka a true monopoly) can arrogantly continue screwing things up with no fear of losing its income to competitors.  Look at the DEA.  Look at the FDA.  Look at the USPS, for that matter.  The abuses I've seen in four short years by "hard-working" Union guys are unbelievable.

The free market may not provide everyone with all the same opportunities, but it has given this country so much prosperity that even the "poor" Americans are far better off than most of their foreign counterparts.  When government requires business to provide income and benefits to workers that it would not otherwise, it really is the equivalent of forcing them to "give stuff away", whether you see it that way or not.  All right, gotta go back to work now; I'm one of the "good ones".

The abuses I've seen in four short years by "hard-working" Union guys are unbelievable.

The free market may not provide everyone with all the same opportunities, but it has given this country so much prosperity that even the "poor" Americans are far better off than most of their foreign counterparts.  When government requires business to provide income and benefits to workers that it would not otherwise, it really is the equivalent of forcing them to "give stuff away", whether you see it that way or not.  All right, gotta go back to work now; I'm one of the "good ones".

Which workforce would you rather belong to, 1894 or 2004? 
Whatever do you mean by "I'm one of the 'good ones'"?
Union guys suck, so what do you plan to do this weekend ?

I shall be most interested to hear your answers!

Which workforce would you rather belong to, 1894 or 2004?
Whatever do you mean by "I'm one of the 'good ones'"?
Union guys suck, so what do you plan to do this weekend ?

I shall be most interested to hear your answers!


I would rather belong to the workforce of 2004.  The unparelleled prosperity of the last 100 years, despite government's best efforts to sabotage it, has created opportunities that couldn't have been imagined in 1894.  So even though I'm uneducated, unskilled, and lack ambition, I live like a king compared to the way I'd have lived back then.  All thanks to the blessings of economic freedom.

By "one of the good ones", I mean that I work harder than I really have to in order to keep my job.  I actually work at a small office now, but before my transfer last year I worked at a larger office with a much stronger union presence.  I found out quickly just how much one could take advantage of the protection the union offers, if one chose to (many do).  For example, as a sub, it was my job to cover the routes of regulars on vacation.  Each route is supposed to take 8 hours on an average volume day.  Out of fifty or so routes at that station, there were at least thirty that I would easily finish in 6-7 hours on a given day.  Each regular on that route is paid to do eight hours of work.  Because of the union, they don't have to.  That's a lot of wasted man hours.  And you can't really blame 'em; they're just taking advantage of the rules, which have the effect of rewarding low productivity and punishing high productivity, since those who are willing to work hard have to pick up the slack for those who aren't.  Not a recipe for a healthy economy.

This weekend.  Well, I always work Saturday, but I'm happy to say that I almost always get Sundays off.  As low man on the totem pole, I usually work a few hours on the Monday holidays but I've been told I won't have to this Memorial Day so I'm happy about that too.  Bottom line is that I'm very happy with all the union benefits I enjoy; they're a big part of the reason I took the job.  Although I technically oppose the fact that these benefits exist, I feel I'd be foolish to let that prevent me from taking advantage of them.  I'm very pleased with how it's worked out so far.

Do you believe that in general, people tend to perform at whatever level is expected of them?

I would rather belong to the workforce of 2004.  The unparelleled prosperity of the last 100 years, despite government's best efforts to sabotage it, has created opportunities that couldn't have been imagined in 1894.  So even though I'm uneducated, unskilled, and lack ambition, I live like a king compared to the way I'd have lived back then.  All thanks to the blessings of economic freedom.

Do you believe that in general, people tend to perform at whatever level is expected of them?


Once again, the interests of business and the interests of government are not diametrically opposed.  The trouble with "capitalism" is left to its own devices, it undermines itself.  Government does not create wealth.  Corporations do not create wealth, either.  These are merely forms of hierarchical management.  PEOPLE with brains, heart, and drive create wealth.   Conservatives would cheer that last sentence.  Conservatives would also applaud the next one.  When government suppresses individual enterprise, society suffers brain drain, stagnation, and decay.  What conservatives never admit is that big business can crush individual initiative just as well as big government. 
If an industry is monopolized by a single company, or an oligolopoly of giant corporations, the entrepeneur cannot compete.  Example, Wal-Mart versus mom & pops.
Furthermore, if most of the nation's wealth is owned and traded by giant corporations, there is a disincentive for investors to take risks on entrepeneurial ventures.  Example, how many succussful American auto manufacturers have started up in the last 30 years?  What percentage of consumer electronics is manufactured in the U.S. by U.S. companies?  What percentage of farms in the heartland are owned by non-corporate, small farmers?
We have seen the government favor giant global corporations to the detriment of the lionized entrepeneur over the past 25 years.  When of the bigges lies the GOP tells is that it's the party of small business and the entrepeneur.
The marketplace grew and diverified throughout the first six decades of the 20th century because government helped business manage the wealth of the nation.  I know that's a simplistic summary, but I'm not about to write a book here.
When Ronald Reagan made government the whipping boy and sold everybody on "supply-side economics," and when he demonized labor unions, we witnessed a great boom in corporate profits and at the same time we watched our nation go from the biggest lender nation to the biggest debtor nation.
The percentage of the private sector workforce is less than 9%, and the average American worker's paycheck is worth less than it was in 1979.

Yes, I agree, if you expect little of people, you will get little in return.  I believe this is part of what Cosby was driving at.  I've heard other black leaders mention this as well.  African American youth are expected to get bad grades, drop out, get pregnant, and commit crimes.  Asian youth are not.  This doesn't explain the whole social pathology, but it's definitely part.

When Ronald Reagan made government the whipping boy and sold everybody on "supply-side economics," and when he demonized labor unions, we witnessed a great boom in corporate profits and at the same time we watched our nation go from the biggest lender nation to the biggest debtor nation.
The percentage of the private sector workforce is less than 9%, and the average American worker's paycheck is worth less than it was in 1979.

When did Ronald Reagan ever "demonize" unions?  Do you not remember that Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, and all through his presidency (of the USA) he stated his pride in having led that labor union?

What Reagan DID do was to punish the Air Traffic Controllers Union for an illegal strike that they called, which would have shut down the entire American air traffic system.  He rightfully fired the workers for violating the law and brought in substitute workers to get the job done.  And they were warned in advance and could have prevented what they brought upon themselves.

He did not go willy-nilly through the American economy and break unions and what not.  Union "leaders" would like for you to think that so that they do not have to explain why a growing number of American workers continue to repudiate Union organization efforts.

The 1980's saw alot of American manufacturing migrate from traditional states that are union strongholds to "right to work" states.  And in those states, the labor force has largely chosen to NOT organize.

When did Ronald Reagan ever "demonize" unions?  Do you not remember that Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, and all through his presidency (of the USA) he stated his pride in having led that labor union?
Yes, "Confidential Informant T-10" was his code name.  He was a rat for the FBI and their underhanded anti-left agenda in the Guild and Hollywood in general.

What Reagan DID do was to punish the Air Traffic Controllers Union for an illegal strike that they called, which would have shut down the entire American air traffic system.  He rightfully fired the workers for violating the law and brought in substitute workers to get the job done.  And they were warned in advance and could have prevented what they brought upon themselves.
Yes, the PATCO strike was illegal. Reagan was within legal bounds.  You dance with the devil, the devil don't change.  The Teamsters and PATCO let themselves get suckered.  They both supported Reagan in '80.  Reagan promised he'd give PATCO "everything they deserved" when he was compaigning.  No doubt, he was telling the truth!  Legal, but immoral, Reagan "fired" those 11,000 ATC's and the industry brought in dangerously underqualified permanent replacements.  Reagan also packed the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union members.  From there, big business went on its spree of '80s union busting.

He did not go willy-nilly through the American economy and break unions and what not.  Union "leaders" would like for you to think that so that they do not have to explain why a growing number of American workers continue to repudiate Union organization efforts.

The 1980's saw alot of American manufacturing migrate from traditional states that are union strongholds to "right to work" states.  And in those states, the labor force has largely chosen to NOT organize.


Most American workers labor under "employment at will" contracts.  They live in fear of management.  Many businesses subcontract with major corporations who refuse to work with unionized shops.  If workers want to organize, management can tell them, "If you do, Corporation X will pull out of our contract, and you'll all be out of work anyway."  Just a couple of examples.  I think it's a dangerous misrepresentation of labor-management relations of late to call the death of unions a "choice." 

Yes, "Confidential Informant T-10" was his code name.  He was a rat for the FBI and their underhanded anti-left agenda in the Guild and Hollywood in general.

Yes, the PATCO strike was illegal. Reagan was within legal bounds.  You dance with the devil, the devil don't change.  The Teamsters and PATCO let themselves get suckered.  They both supported Reagan in '80.  Reagan promised he'd give PATCO "everything they deserved" when he was compaigning.  No doubt, he was telling the truth!  Legal, but immoral, Reagan "fired" those 11,000 ATC's and the industry brought in dangerously underqualified permanent replacements.  Reagan also packed the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union members.  From there, big business went on its spree of '80s union busting.

Most American workers labor under "employment at will" contracts.  They live in fear of management.  Many businesses subcontract with major corporations who refuse to work with unionized shops.  If workers want to organize, management can tell them, "If you do, Corporation X will pull out of our contract, and you'll all be out of work anyway."  Just a couple of examples.  I think it's a dangerous misrepresentation of labor-management relations of late to call the death of unions a "choice." 


Interesting discussion but it explains nothing.  The "traditional" labor movement was successful in a MUCH less labor-friendly environment, when companies would bring in armed police and burn down organizers' homes.  Yet even in that environment, labor had the SOLIDARITY and the MOTIVATION to organize.  They kicked butt because they were truly oppressed in the workplace.

When workers today are taken advantage of too much, they still organize.  My former employer, for example, set up a plant in Mississippi, and originally the workers OVERWHELMINGLY rejected Union organizing efforts.  Unfortunately, my company took that as a green light to underpay the workers and inflict abusive work rules.  The workers wised up and got organized to get respect and a decent, competitive wage.

AK Steel has recently seen several of its nonunion plants organize under the UAW in the past year or so.  Why?  because  workers got fed up with being treated like crap.  For YEARS they rejected union efforts because they did not need it.  But then a change in management attitude occurred, and when it got bad enough the plants organized.

So even in today's "Bush Economy", unions are organizing at places where enough of the workforce is fed up.  And they are being REJECTED when the workforce is happy with their nonunion status and the behaviour of their management.

Just a few months ago, the Communication Workers of America members at Comcast in Pennsylvania OVERWHELMINGLY voted to reject the union.  There was no threat by "big business" to boycott a unionized Comcast.  No NLRB meddling.  Simply a desire by the workers to get rid of an organization that it, as a 2/3 majority, viewed as destructive to their welfare.

Collective workers make their own decisions about representation and that is why Union membership has continued to drop in the USA.  Unions have ONLY made major inroads in the government-employee ranks, where in many cases local laws almost mandate representation (I exaggerate a bit on that last count).

I thought this thread was about racism? ???


Good point there, cheerleader.

Organized Labor has a great history of blatant discrimination against women and minorities.

As an example, in the steel industry, labor conspired to keep all the "good jobs" for white men, until the Government filed suit and forced upon the Union (and companies) the 1974 Consent Decree which ended the racism and prescribed affirmative remediations.

But that was not enough.  It was not until 1977 that a similar decree was set up to end discrimination against women... again the Unions were the defendant in the action, as were the companies.

We've strayed off topic, indeed.

LyricBoy, you do make some very valid points, but I think you are mistaken in your outright dismissal of what I have said.  I don't have a rosy view of organized labor either.  It has been fraught with racism, sexism, corruption, and violence.  So has corporate management!

Once again, the interests of business and the interests of government are not diametrically opposed.  The trouble with "capitalism" is left to its own devices, it undermines itself.  Government does not create wealth.  Corporations do not create wealth, either.  These are merely forms of hierarchical management.  PEOPLE with brains, heart, and drive create wealth.   Conservatives would cheer that last sentence.  Conservatives would also applaud the next one.  When government suppresses individual enterprise, society suffers brain drain, stagnation, and decay.  What conservatives never admit is that big business can crush individual initiative just as well as big government. 
If an industry is monopolized by a single company, or an oligolopoly of giant corporations, the entrepeneur cannot compete.  Example, Wal-Mart versus mom & pops.
Furthermore, if most of the nation's wealth is owned and traded by giant corporations, there is a disincentive for investors to take risks on entrepeneurial ventures.  Example, how many succussful American auto manufacturers have started up in the last 30 years?  What percentage of consumer electronics is manufactured in the U.S. by U.S. companies?  What percentage of farms in the heartland are owned by non-corporate, small farmers?
We have seen the government favor giant global corporations to the detriment of the lionized entrepeneur over the past 25 years.  When of the bigges lies the GOP tells is that it's the party of small business and the entrepeneur.
The marketplace grew and diverified throughout the first six decades of the 20th century because government helped business manage the wealth of the nation.  I know that's a simplistic summary, but I'm not about to write a book here.
When Ronald Reagan made government the whipping boy and sold everybody on "supply-side economics," and when he demonized labor unions, we witnessed a great boom in corporate profits and at the same time we watched our nation go from the biggest lender nation to the biggest debtor nation.
The percentage of the private sector workforce is less than 9%, and the average American worker's paycheck is worth less than it was in 1979.

Yes, I agree, if you expect little of people, you will get little in return.  I believe this is part of what Cosby was driving at.  I've heard other black leaders mention this as well.  African American youth are expected to get bad grades, drop out, get pregnant, and commit crimes.  Asian youth are not.  This doesn't explain the whole social pathology, but it's definitely part.

If you think we're off-topic NOW....

Let's say I open a lemonade stand and offer someone a dollar an hour to run it, but he says he really needs $1.25 an hour.  Am I oppressing him by insisting a dollar an hour is all it's worth to me?  These are two equal players, each choosing whether or not to associate.  As the prospective employee, he doesn't care that his labor isn't worth $1.25 to me.  He has the labor to offer, $1.25 is his price, and I can take it or leave it.  As the business owner, I'm in the exact same situation.  I have the opportunity to offer, it's worth $1.00 to me, and he can take it or leave it.  If we can voluntarily arrive at a compromise, that's good for both of us--otherwise we wouldn't do it voluntarily.    According to what you've been saying, his needs as worker supercede my property rights as owner, and that government intervention is needed to force me to pay him what he thinks he is worth, whether I like it or not. 

I have no problem with workers organizing themselves, cooperating to strengthen their bargaining position. I think it's a good idea, especially if you're not a very hard worker.  The problem I have is that they have to accept the fact that if the company decides they're not worth it, they do have the right to decline.  After all, it is their lemonade stand.  What I'm hearing from you is that no, it isn't really their lemonade stand; that worker has some right to it somehow.  What I'd love to hear you explain is where, exactly, that right comes from.

I'm not ignoring your points about monopolies and corruption.  I'd just like to establish whether or not you believe in property rights at all.

Time for a new thread, eh? <nods yes>