http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fiery-obama-scolds-black-caucus-stop-complaining-stop-grumbling-stop-crying/

Seems part of the President's campaign strategy is to tell the Black Caucus to stop its b*tching and moaning, and to, I suppose, be thankful for whatever crumbs he has tossed to them.

“If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House,” the caucus chairman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, recently told McClatchy Newspapers.

I wonder what they would have done if Clinton had told "y'all" to stop complaining and crying?   ???

I suppose if I were a member of that caucus I'd be asking O'bama why he can't throw me a bone like he's been doing to Wall Street and the Unions...

The injustices perpetuated against African-Americans are palpable and real.  Maxine Waters didn't just make 'em up out of thin air. 

Obama is a cipher.  He's a placeholder for the financial industry...make that the fascist bankers who run the economy.  He's bitter because he knows, as a Black man, he's on the spot, and he's powerless to do anything to mitigate the oppression plaguing African-Americans.

Reeee-member, we live in a country where you can vote Democratic or you can vote Republican, but you can't vote against the interests of Goldman-Sachs!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif

The injustices perpetuated against African-Americans are palpable and real.  Maxine Waters didn't just make 'em up out of thin air. 

Obama is a cipher.  He's a placeholder for the financial industry...make that the fascist bankers who run the economy.  He's bitter because he knows, as a Black man, he's on the spot, and he's powerless to do anything to mitigate the oppression plaguing African-Americans.

Reeee-member, we live in a country where you can vote Democratic or you can vote Republican, but you can't vote against the interests of Goldman-Sachs!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif


Voters shoulda thought twice about electing a guy who taught at the University of Chicago...

Black Caucus member Rep. Maxine Waters just came on TV and opined that "The president has not told the Hispanics, Jews, Gays, or Lesbians to stop complaining".  And she then enumerated a number of bones that O'bama has thrown to the Hispanic community, including illegal immigration stuff and an Hispanic Affairs office (or something like that, I forget the exact title) at the White House.

What I get from this is that (a) she feels that the President has shortchanged blacks and (b) Gays and Lesbians are two separate groups.  :P

Black Caucus member Rep. Maxine Waters just came on TV and opined that "The president has not told the Hispanics, Jews, Gays, or Lesbians to stop complaining".  And she then enumerated a number of bones that O'bama has thrown to the Hispanic community, including illegal immigration stuff and an Hispanic Affairs office (or something like that, I forget the exact title) at the White House.

What I get from this is that (a) she feels that the President has shortchanged blacks and (b) Gays and Lesbians are two separate groups.   :P


Whatever Waters is carping about, Obama needs to tell the rich azzholes to quit complaining. 

And, yes, gays and lesbians are two separate groups.  In fact, lesbians are divided even further.  If you spent enough time in a PC town you'd know that lesbians range from guy-friendly to psycho militant dykes for mandatory castration!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/headbang.gif

Whatever Waters is carping about, Obama needs to tell the rich azzholes to quit complaining. 

And, yes, gays and lesbians are two separate groups.  In fact, lesbians are divided even further.   If you spent enough time in a PC town you'd know that lesbians range from guy-friendly to psycho militant dykes for mandatory castration!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/headbang.gif


Well you have your lipstick lesbians and your flannel-shirt types, for sure.

But then the menbians have their pitchers and catchers too, or the femmes versus the leather types.

Okay, maybe it's just me, but what I got from that is that he's basically saying it's time to stop whining about it and time to start doing something about it. It's kind of like someone who sits and complains about being overweight, but is sitting there eating ice cream straight out of the tub while they're doing it...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fiery-obama-scolds-black-caucus-stop-complaining-stop-grumbling-stop-crying/

Seems part of the President's campaign strategy is to tell the Black Caucus to stop its b*tching and moaning, and to, I suppose, be thankful for whatever crumbs he has tossed to them.

“If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House,” the caucus chairman, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, recently told McClatchy Newspapers.

I wonder what they would have done if Clinton had told "y'all" to stop complaining and crying?   ???

I suppose if I were a member of that caucus I'd be asking O'bama why he can't throw me a bone like he's been doing to Wall Street and the Unions...


Lawrence O'D played a  large segment of the speech.  It was "fiery", but it was far from scolding.  Rather, it was a call to arms.  Just like the media to distort whatever the man says

I hope this link works. It wasn't up on YouTube YET!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/


Click on the third segment down.




Cat

Lawrence O'D played a  large segment of the speech.  It was "fiery", but it was far from scolding.  Rather, it was a call to arms.  Just like the media to distort whatever the man says


Seems that caucus member Maxine Waters, who was there, saw it more or less the same way the media did.  'Cause a day or so later she was on the CBS morning news being critical of the statements.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance but why is there still a big divide between Afro-Americans and other races in the USA? I have read here that Afro-Americans live in ghettos and often seek criminal behaviour to make ends meet. However, is this really a race issue or is there something else going on behind the scenes here that I can't comprehend?


Reeee-member, we live in a country where you can vote Democratic or you can vote Republican, but you can't vote against the interests of Goldman-Sachs!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif


I agree and I'm sure the Rothschilds have the same type of influence in Europe as Goldman-Sachs in America. I have never voted for this reason, for all of democracy's moral high-ground when it preaches to other countries about how to run their governments, democracy is only as good as your candidates. If you have the choice to vote between 3 crooks you will still get a crook running the country.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance but why is there still a big divide between Afro-Americans and other races in the USA? I have read here that Afro-Americans live in ghettos and often seek criminal behaviour to make ends meet. However, is this really a race issue or is there something else going on behind the scenes here that I can't comprehend?

The correct term is African-American.  The term "Afro" American is seen as offensive by some.

i don't think "afro-american" is offensive so much as a little dated.

i don't think "afro-american" is offensive so much as a little dated.


I remember when that Cramer dude from Seinfeld went on his N-word rant, and then later apologized, saying the "many of my best friends are Afro American".  At the time there was all sorts of snickering and carping over his use of the term Afro-American.  :-\\

The correct term is African-American.  The term "Afro" American is seen as offensive by some.


Is that right? Well, my apologies. Interestingly, I was trying to be politically-correct to some degree. Maybe I should have trusted my instincts and call them black people.

Anyhow, back to my original question. Why is there still a big divide between black people and other races in the USA?

Is that right? Well, my apologies. Interestingly, I was trying to be politically-correct to some degree. Maybe I should have trusted my instincts and call them black people.

Anyhow, back to my original question. Why is there still a big divide between black people and other races in the USA?


The short answer is RACISM, and it is alive and well over here.  And especially pronounced now that we have a black potus

The short answer is RACISM, and it is alive and well over here.  And especially pronounced now that we have a black potus


When you say racism do you mean the governments are actively racist against the black people in the USA? Are black people forced to live in ghetto surroundings?

I knew certain parts of the USA are racist/prejudiced but it would be weird to let that kind of thinking infect politics, especially for so long.

Our UK government aren't like that, they welcome illegal immigrants (criminal or otherwise) all too freely, usually due to their own incompetence. Of course, people think I'm being racist because I believe illegal immigrants should be removed from the country.

Is that right? Well, my apologies. Interestingly, I was trying to be politically-correct to some degree. Maybe I should have trusted my instincts and call them black people.

Anyhow, back to my original question. Why is there still a big divide between black people and other races in the USA?


The divide is getting even deeper, because in some sort of misguided PC trend, people are "celebrating diversity" and promoting the idea that there is no need for an "American" culture and identity.  So as a result is is nearly impossible to find a white kid named Tarkweshia or Deontae, or a black kid named Muffy or Leslie.  As long as the country goes down this path of "everybody needs to promote their own culture" thing then we'll see BIGGER divides and not smaller one.

America was never about "promoting diversity".  It was about being a melting pot where people could pursue equal opportunity and an American identity which was the result of the melting pot.  I am not saying that this was always achieved, for certain it was not (and is not).

I see the Brazilian society of the 2000's as much closer to what the American culture was back in the day.  Again, not perfect by any means, but Brazil is building a BRAZILIAN identity, not a Japanese-Brazilian or Polish-Brazilian or Italian-Brazilian one.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance but why is there still a big divide between Afro-Americans and other races in the USA? I have read here that Afro-Americans live in ghettos and often seek criminal behaviour to make ends meet. However, is this really a race issue or is there something else going on behind the scenes here that I can't comprehend?




You have asked the 100 million dollar question.


When you say racism do you mean the governments are actively racist against the black people in the USA? Are black people forced to live in ghetto surroundings?

I knew certain parts of the USA are racist/prejudiced but it would be weird to let that kind of thinking infect politics, especially for so long.

Our UK government aren't like that, they welcome illegal immigrants (criminal or otherwise) all too freely, usually due to their own incompetence. Of course, people think I'm being racist because I believe illegal immigrants should be removed from the country.


The Equal Rights Act was passed by Congress in 1965 which was basically the end of the Jim Crow laws being institutionalize. However, old attitudes die hard. Even though discrimination can't be overt, it can be very subtle. "We can't hire you because of your education" instead of "...because of the color of your skin." "We can't sell you this house because you don't make enough money" instead of "...because of the color of the skin."

In terms of politics, there are some (namely the Republican Party) who believe it is better to keep people divided. "They are not like us because of the color of their skin" or "...because of their religion" or "...because of their language", or "...because of whatever." As long as people think that another group is the enemy, these politicians can play on people's fears. You saw it when they there trying to open a mosque in NYC. Of course they are trying to do that with Obama. "He was not born in the U.S." "He is a Muslim." etc. In other words, "He is NOT like us so therefore, we must fear him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHKzn8aHyXg&feature=related



Cat   

When you say racism do you mean the governments are actively racist against the black people in the USA? Are black people forced to live in ghetto surroundings?

I knew certain parts of the USA are racist/prejudiced but it would be weird to let that kind of thinking infect politics, especially for so long.

Our UK government aren't like that, they welcome illegal immigrants (criminal or otherwise) all too freely, usually due to their own incompetence. Of course, people think I'm being racist because I believe illegal immigrants should be removed from the country.


Everybody is going to have a problem with this post, but here goes --

African-Americans still suffer from the long-term damage of slavery and Jim Crow (the legally sanctioned racial separation and institutionalized racism predating the Civil Rights Act of 1965).    When Whites could no longer exclude Blacks from the wealth of society by law, they continued to do so by  concealed customs and a myriad of white-to-white shibboleths.

The breakdown of marriage and family, the loss of the blue collar economy, and the diminished influence of church and spirituality have all done great harm to African-Americans.  I say the same of White Americans, but the dominant White power structure had marginalized Blacks so they were far more vulnerable to the pitfalls of social chaos.

No, Blacks are not "forced" to live in the "ghetto."  However, a lack of family and community cohesion combined with pervasive White fear and hatred of Blacks make upward mobility far more difficult.

The sick truth is poverty among Whites in America is just as severe as it is for Blacks.  We are culturally habituated to point the finger at the Blacks and their special problems.  However, there are areas of America in which 80% of the housing is Mobile homes, unemployment is a steady 30%, and the vast majority of families require food stamps and fuel assistance.  In these areas street crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy, dropping out of school are just as severe as any Black "ghetto."  Let's not kid ourselves

The divide is getting even deeper, because in some sort of misguided PC trend, people are "celebrating diversity" and promoting the idea that there is no need for an "American" culture and identity.  So as a result is is nearly impossible to find a white kid named Tarkweshia or Deontae, or a black kid named Muffy or Leslie.  As long as the country goes down this path of "everybody needs to promote their own culture" thing then we'll see BIGGER divides and not smaller one.

America was never about "promoting diversity".  It was about being a melting pot where people could pursue equal opportunity and an American identity which was the result of the melting pot.  I am not saying that this was always achieved, for certain it was not (and is not).

I see the Brazilian society of the 2000's as much closer to what the American culture was back in the day.  Again, not perfect by any means, but Brazil is building a BRAZILIAN identity, not a Japanese-Brazilian or Polish-Brazilian or Italian-Brazilian one.


Hogwash.  In 1900 New York City had newspapers printed in twenty languages.  Millions of immigrants never learned to speak English.  Communities retained their ethnic identities through religion, tongue, tales, music, and cuisine.  The Jew and Brooklyn and the German in Wisconsin didn't do these things in the name of "diversity," they did them because that was their culture.  This creepy right wing notion that Giuseppe Moretti stepped off the boat intending to be Ward Cleaver is a pile of tommy rot.  

America is simply too big not to be diverse.  I'm from a liberal Massachusetts background.  I find there is a greater difference in values and temperament between me and conservative Texans than me and your average Finn.  

I have had my issues with collegiate notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism."  I've found those sentiments to be more anti-White than pro anything.  However, the vast majority of this country is white and Christian, and whether its through the Ku Klux Klan or the Tea Party, they make it known the others are not welcome.
::)

Hogwash.  In 1900 New York City had newspapers printed in twenty languages.  Millions of immigrants never learned to speak English.  Communities retained their ethnic identities through religion, tongue, tales, music, and cuisine.  The Jew and Brooklyn and the German in Wisconsin didn't do these things in the name of "diversity," they did them because that was their culture.  This creepy right wing notion that Giuseppe Moretti stepped off the boat intending to be Ward Cleaver is a pile of tommy rot.  

America is simply too big not to be diverse.  I'm from a liberal Massachusetts background.  I find there is a greater difference in values and temperament between me and conservative Texans than me and your average Finn.  

I have had my issues with collegiate notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism."  I've found those sentiments to be more anti-White than pro anything.  However, the vast majority of this country is white and Christian, and whether its through the Ku Klux Klan or the Tea Party, they make it known the others are not welcome.
::)


In my hometown, which was a huge melting pot, the "first generation" immigrants certainly self-segregated.  But their children and most definitely the generation after that assimilated into the general American culture.  Yes, Mrs. Dechellis only spoke Italian and knew very little english, and she kept with her other first-generation Italian friends.  But the kids hung out with us Irish, germans, etc... and played baseball, not bocce ball.  Of course at the annual San Rocco festa, everybody claimed to be a little bit italian, just like on Saint Paddy's Day everybody claimed to be a little irish.  The kids were named John and not Giovanni or Johannes, Patrick not Padraig, and they did not run around pinching the girl's butts even though (as I have heard) this is acceptable behavior in Italian society.  Nope... they conformed to what developed into an American identity, which indeed was built from the contributions of all sorts of nationalities.

But we NEVER would have thought to say "Gee, we got 3 Dagos here and 5 Micks.  We better get a couple of Krauts and six Slo-Cro's to make sure we are DIVERSE!"  That form of forced/calculated "diversity" is nonsense.

In my hometown, which was a huge melting pot, the "first generation" immigrants certainly self-segregated.  But their children and most definitely the generation after that assimilated into the general American culture.  Yes, Mrs. Dechellis only spoke Italian and knew very little english, and she kept with her other first-generation Italian friends.  But the kids hung out with us Irish, germans, etc... and played baseball, not bocce ball.  Of course at the annual San Rocco festa, everybody claimed to be a little bit italian, just like on Saint Paddy's Day everybody claimed to be a little irish.  The kids were named John and not Giovanni or Johannes, Patrick not Padraig, and they did not run around pinching the girl's butts even though (as I have heard) this is acceptable behavior in Italian society.  Nope... they conformed to what developed into an American identity, which indeed was built from the contributions of all sorts of nationalities.

But we NEVER would have thought to say "Gee, we got 3 Dagos here and 5 Micks.  We better get a couple of Krauts and six Slo-Cro's to make sure we are DIVERSE!"  That form of forced/calculated "diversity" is nonsense.


That's what I was referring to as bogus -- the diversity by quota the universities practice.  The difference with language is the United States colonized Puerto Rico and annexed over a third of Mexico.  Neither Germany nor Italy was adjacent to the United States.  There was no going back and forth, at least not in appreciable numbers. 

I remember when that Cramer dude from Seinfeld went on his N-word rant, and then later apologized, saying the "many of my best friends are Afro American".  At the time there was all sorts of snickering and carping over his use of the term Afro-American.  :-\\
well, that's hardly a fair example, is it?

Everybody is going to have a problem with this post, but here goes --

African-Americans still suffer from the long-term damage of slavery and Jim Crow (the legally sanctioned racial separation and institutionalized racism predating the Civil Rights Act of 1965).    When Whites could no longer exclude Blacks from the wealth of society by law, they continued to do so by  concealed customs and a myriad of white-to-white shibboleths.

The breakdown of marriage and family, the loss of the blue collar economy, and the diminished influence of church and spirituality have all done great harm to African-Americans.  I say the same of White Americans, but the dominant White power structure had marginalized Blacks so they were far more vulnerable to the pitfalls of social chaos.

No, Blacks are not "forced" to live in the "ghetto."  However, a lack of family and community cohesion combined with pervasive White fear and hatred of Blacks make upward mobility far more difficult.

The sick truth is poverty among Whites in America is just as severe as it is for Blacks.  We are culturally habituated to point the finger at the Blacks and their special problems.  However, there are areas of America in which 80% of the housing is Mobile homes, unemployment is a steady 30%, and the vast majority of families require food stamps and fuel assistance.  In these areas street crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy, dropping out of school are just as severe as any Black "ghetto."   Let's not kid ourselves


http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/eek2.gif Better watch out Max, you'll have the PC Police at your door! ;) What you say is true, though, it's just that nobody has the cojones to actually SAY it because it's not "PC"...

The divide is getting even deeper, because in some sort of misguided PC trend, people are "celebrating diversity" and promoting the idea that there is no need for an "American" culture and identity.  So as a result is is nearly impossible to find a white kid named Tarkweshia or Deontae, or a black kid named Muffy or Leslie.  As long as the country goes down this path of "everybody needs to promote their own culture" thing then we'll see BIGGER divides and not smaller one.


Slightly (okay, WAAAYYYY) OT, but when my MIL was working as a Pharmacy Tech, there was a prescription for a child named RaTroy, but it printed out in all caps as RATROY.  She, in her infinite ignorance, called out "Prescription is ready for Rat-Roy *Whatever*"...needless to say, the mother was NOT amused ::)

Hogwash.  In 1900 New York City had newspapers printed in twenty languages.  Millions of immigrants never learned to speak English.  Communities retained their ethnic identities through religion, tongue, tales, music, and cuisine.  The Jew and Brooklyn and the German in Wisconsin didn't do these things in the name of "diversity," they did them because that was their culture.  This creepy right wing notion that Giuseppe Moretti stepped off the boat intending to be Ward Cleaver is a pile of tommy rot.  

America is simply too big not to be diverse.  I'm from a liberal Massachusetts background.  I find there is a greater difference in values and temperament between me and conservative Texans than me and your average Finn.  

I have had my issues with collegiate notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism."  I've found those sentiments to be more anti-White than pro anything.  However, the vast majority of this country is white and Christian, and whether its through the Ku Klux Klan or the Tea Party, they make it known the others are not welcome.
::)


\You're absolutely on track here.  The notion of the melting pot was always a myth.  Someone proposed the salad bowl as a better metaphor.  The bolded part is especially true. 

Your comments on white poverty are also right on.  I think it was Martin who said that the civil rights movement did more for white people than it ever did for blacks.

As  to poverty and drug abuse, Stats from Florida, where all welfare applicants must be tested, show that only 2% show positive and another 2 %  decline, so say that comes to 4% (although some may decline because of the invasion of privacy).  The estimated drug use rate for the country is over 6%. As reported last night by Rachel M.  She interview a Florida journalist who has offered to pay for drug testing  if the entire Florida legislature agrees.  So far only a hand full have accepted the challenge.

\You're absolutely on track here.  The notion of the melting pot was always a myth.  Someone proposed the salad bowl as a better metaphor.   The bolded part is especially true. 

Your comments on white poverty are also right on.  I think it was Martin who said that the civil rights movement did more for white people than it ever did for blacks.

As  to poverty and drug abuse, Stats from Florida, where all welfare applicants must be tested, show that only 2% show positive and another 2 %  decline, so say that comes to 4% (although some may decline because of the invasion of privacy).  The estimated drug use rate for the country is over 6%. As reported last night by Rachel M.  She interview a Florida journalist who has offered to pay for drug testing  if the entire Florida legislature agrees.  So far only a hand full have accepted the challenge.



They really need to test Rick Scott because he must be on drugs to do some of the things he has done-and have you seen his eyes? He has that crazed look which could be drug induced. 



Cat

They really need to test Rick Scott because he must be on drugs to do some of the things he has done-and have you seen his eyes? He has that crazed look which could be drug induced. 



Cat


The sadistic governor wants to humiliate poor people by making the pee in a jar.  It has nothing to do with drugs.

No wonder conservatives don't trust government.  Look what they do with it when they get their hands on it!

I find libertarians to be authoritarian personalities who don't see shades of gray.  Black and white.  All or nothing.  Top down rigid hierarchy.  Either the government rules with an iron fist or not at all.  Libertarians fear government because they cannot comprehend a judicious and measured political state.  It's not in their consciousness. 
::)

Libertarians fear government because they cannot comprehend a judicious and measured political state.  It's not in their consciousness. 
::)


That's because examples are also pretty hard to find in history books.

That's because examples are also pretty hard to find in history books.


That's exactly what my Marxist-Leninist friends used to say about the total communist state.  I used to tell them it's not in the history books because it's contrary to human nature.  I say the same about Atlas Shrugged.  There is a logical loop in both cases.  Should we strive for Utopia or admit man can only conceive of such a state but is too wicked to achieve it?  It seems to me it's a cop-out not to strive.  On the other hand, I don't trust any mortal who says he has the way.

I hear Ron Paul talk about freedom.  He's not a stupid man.  I think he just might be sincere.  However, his rhetoric binds him.  He makes a Satan out of the federal government; it cannot produce any good.  His answer is always to retreat to one more "local level" after another.  Let's experiment!  We shall compare and contrast systems of government and apply the best ones!  It's a seductive argument on the surface, but dig a little deeper and it turns to silly to countenance.  How shall we begin?  I think we'd have to begin by abolishing what American libertarians love the best...money and private property.  Otherwise, the Koch Brothers' town is going to buy out your town and mine...and if we don't cooperate, the Koch Brothers' private army will burn us to the ground!  So, no money and property.  Says who?  We find ourselves in a cat's cradle of contradictions.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

The North American Indian had cultures relatively close to the libertarian ideals...except he didn't have any capitalism.  He didn't demand to live to be a hundred years old.  He didn't take more from the Earth than he could replace.  I'm not being sentimental.  The Indians were neither noble nor savage.  They just were who they were in their consciousness.  I don't think those of Judeo-Christian consciousness can ever re-create what the Indians had -- and I say so as a Christian. 

I once heard an old hobo say: The Indians had no government and no war, and the women did all the work...and the White man thought he could improve on their state of affairs."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif

America was never about "promoting diversity".  It was about being a melting pot where people could pursue equal opportunity and an American identity which was the result of the melting pot.  I am not saying that this was always achieved, for certain it was not (and is not).



Oh stop it now.  "where people could pursue equal opportunity" ? There were, and are still, some severe restrictions on the definition of people.  Take it from someone whose family on both sides go back as far, and sometimes farther, than the Mayflower, with dark and light faces, and names that never got more exotic than Sylvester, Adeline, or Vera. 

America was never about "promoting diversity".
 


You're right there.  America was actually more containing diversity through segregation.  That is where the "black codes",  and exclusionary deed covenants, came in.

That's exactly what my Marxist-Leninist friends used to say about the total communist state.  I used to tell them it's not in the history books because it's contrary to human nature.  I say the same about Atlas Shrugged.  There is a logical loop in both cases.  Should we strive for Utopia or admit man can only conceive of such a state but is too wicked to achieve it?  It seems to me it's a cop-out not to strive.  On the other hand, I don't trust any mortal who says he has the way.

I hear Ron Paul talk about freedom.  He's not a stupid man.  I think he just might be sincere.


Damn you for making sense again.  Yeah, that's basically my take - I believe he's sincere about everything he says.  I believe he's incorrect about some of his positions, and correct about others. 

However, his rhetoric binds him.  He makes a Satan out of the federal government; it cannot produce any good.  His answer is always to retreat to one more "local level" after another.  Let's experiment!

That makes sense on some levels - but as you say, he's stuck in a rhetorical trap.  There's a good argument to be made for experimentation.  If I want to buy beer and wine at the grocery store, I can move to California.  If I want to have no idea how to buy beer, and whine, I can move to Utah or Pennsylvania.  But economies of scale are real -- we have federal laws about "murder" because we neither need nor want 50 definitions (or thousands, if you're crazy enough to go down to the county level!) as to the distinction between accidents, manslaughter, and culplable homicide.


The North American Indian had cultures relatively close to the libertarian ideals...except he didn't have any capitalism.  He didn't demand to live to be a hundred years old.  He didn't take more from the Earth than he could replace.  I'm not being sentimental.  The Indians were neither noble nor savage.  They just were who they were in their consciousness.  I don't think those of Judeo-Christian consciousness can ever re-create what the Indians had -- and I say so as a Christian.


No argument there either.  They had their wars and barbarisms, just as we did.  To play the Rand card, native cultures would legitimately question the wisdom of "Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think," (there's a reason that cultures that evolved to value "progress" figured out how to turn fireworks into firearms first, with predictable results to everyone else...), but I think they'd be OK with the notion that - whatever they used for an indicator of status/power/weath - "is MADE—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."  (Emphasis added.)

Hell, even the Greens might even be OK with that last sentence.

You have asked the 100 million dollar question.

The Equal Rights Act was passed by Congress in 1965 which was basically the end of the Jim Crow laws being institutionalize. However, old attitudes die hard. Even though discrimination can't be overt, it can be very subtle. "We can't hire you because of your education" instead of "...because of the color of your skin." "We can't sell you this house because you don't make enough money" instead of "...because of the color of the skin."

In terms of politics, there are some (namely the Republican Party) who believe it is better to keep people divided. "They are not like us because of the color of their skin" or "...because of their religion" or "...because of their language", or "...because of whatever." As long as people think that another group is the enemy, these politicians can play on people's fears. You saw it when they there trying to open a mosque in NYC. Of course they are trying to do that with Obama. "He was not born in the U.S." "He is a Muslim." etc. In other words, "He is NOT like us so therefore, we must fear him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHKzn8aHyXg&feature=related


Ah, I did a little research on Jim Crow laws though I didn't realise that America (or USA) had racist conditions almost comparable to the Apartheid in South Africa as late as the mid 1960s. I find it very sad that a government needs to use race as a means to divide a country rather than unite it.

I liked your South Pacific reference.

Everybody is going to have a problem with this post, but here goes --

African-Americans still suffer from the long-term damage of slavery and Jim Crow (the legally sanctioned racial separation and institutionalized racism predating the Civil Rights Act of 1965).    When Whites could no longer exclude Blacks from the wealth of society by law, they continued to do so by  concealed customs and a myriad of white-to-white shibboleths.

The breakdown of marriage and family, the loss of the blue collar economy, and the diminished influence of church and spirituality have all done great harm to African-Americans.  I say the same of White Americans, but the dominant White power structure had marginalized Blacks so they were far more vulnerable to the pitfalls of social chaos.

No, Blacks are not "forced" to live in the "ghetto."  However, a lack of family and community cohesion combined with pervasive White fear and hatred of Blacks make upward mobility far more difficult.

The sick truth is poverty among Whites in America is just as severe as it is for Blacks.  We are culturally habituated to point the finger at the Blacks and their special problems.  However, there are areas of America in which 80% of the housing is Mobile homes, unemployment is a steady 30%, and the vast majority of families require food stamps and fuel assistance.  In these areas street crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy, dropping out of school are just as severe as any Black "ghetto."   Let's not kid ourselves


No one should be offended by facts, Maxwell Smart. If it's true that white poverty can be just as severe as black then it is what it is.

However, from what I am reading, it seems that there is a difference in attitudes towards races in America which can determine a person's fate, and it is these problems that need to be addressed. I feel really sorry for the Native American Indians (is that the right term for them?). They get invaded, plundered and then put into reservations! If that isn't straight-forward racism I don't know what is.

Ah, I did a little research on Jim Crow laws though I didn't realise that America (or USA) had racist conditions almost comparable to the Apartheid in South Africa as late as the mid 1960s. I find it very sad that a government needs to use race as a means to divide a country rather than unite it.

I liked your South Pacific reference.


It was apartheid!  De jure in the South and de facto in the North.  There are lots of things about the Jim Crow South they don't teach in school.  For instance, Black motorists were forbidden to overtake White motorists on public roads.  Blacks pedestrians were expected to step off the walkway into the gutter when White pedestrians approached.

Yeah, and people wonder why African-Americans are still p*ssed off.
::)

It was apartheid!  De jure in the South and de facto in the North.  There are lots of things about the Jim Crow South they don't teach in school.  For instance, Black motorists were forbidden to overtake White motorists on public roads.  Blacks pedestrians were expected to step off the walkway into the gutter when White pedestrians approached.

Yeah, and people wonder why African-Americans are still p*ssed off.
::)


I didn't want to say it was apartheid because I didn't know the full extremes of Jim Crow's laws.

No one should be offended by facts, Maxwell Smart. If it's true that white poverty can be just as severe as black then it is what it is.

However, from what I am reading, it seems that there is a difference in attitudes towards races in America which can determine a person's fate, and it is these problems that need to be addressed. I feel really sorry for the Native American Indians (is that the right term for them?). They get invaded, plundered and then put into reservations! If that isn't straight-forward racism I don't know what is.




Yes, the differences are often intangible but very real.  There are encoded cultural messages driven into people's heads.  Black children get the message as soon as they start socializing that they are somehow "less than" Whites.  This happens even in predominantly Black neighborhoods.  It has to do with the profound racism from which America is still trying to recover.  

"Native American" is the politically correct term for indigenous peoples in the United States, however, some "Native American" activists -- including Russell Means -- prefer "Indian."  "First Nations" is pretty much restricted to Canadian indigenous people.  The difficult thing about a name for indigenous peoples of the Americas is they didn't have a universal name they called themselves.  We like to call people what they like to call themselves, but that would mean identifying each individual by his tribe or nation.  Since you can't tell a Lakota from an Algonquin without a degree in anthropology, the task is impossible!
:-\\

I didn't want to say it was apartheid because I didn't know the full extremes of Jim Crow's laws.


The United States didn't call it apartheid.  Jim Crow laws were called segregation, Black Codes, or "N*gg*r dontcha let the sun set on you in this town!"
:o

Yes, the differences are often intangible but very real.  There are encoded cultural messages driven into people's heads.  Black children get the message as soon as they start socializing that they are somehow "less than" Whites.  This happens even in predominantly Black neighborhoods.  It has to do with the profound racism from which America is still trying to recover.  

Is it that social conditioning that sparks off the paranoid black stereotype in some films who say stuff like; "Is it because I'm black?"

"Native American" is the politically correct term for indigenous peoples in the United States, however, some "Native American" activists -- including Russell Means -- prefer "Indian."  "First Nations" is pretty much restricted to Canadian indigenous people.  The difficult thing about a name for indigenous peoples of the Americas is they didn't have a universal name they called themselves.  We like to call people what they like to call themselves, but that would mean identifying each individual by his tribe or nation.  Since you can't tell a Lakota from an Algonquin without a degree in anthropology, the task is impossible!
:-\\

I see where you are coming from. Yes, it would be difficult to identify a Native American in those circumstances.

Is it that social conditioning that sparks off the paranoid black stereotype in some films who say stuff like; "Is it because I'm black?"



Yes.  

However..on a day-to-day basis certain black individuals will use it to excuse irresponsible practices or shoddy conduct.  Even the most mundane social exchanges between Blacks and Whites can get strained because of the racial divide.  

When I was first at the university radio station I told some black students to get out of the studios because they partying and causing a ruckus.  They told the manager I did it because they were Black.  I laughed first, but not for long.  In a nervous politically charged environment, such as a university campus, people get called the "R" word and forced to walk the plank for ludicrous reasons.  I hung on to my position, but that black student organization antagonized me from that day forward, and it became known that "Maxwell has a problem with people of color."  It makes me sick to remember it.  

There were a band of troublemakers in that organization whose raison d'être seemed to be intimidating anybody who challenged them.  My boss's boss, the Dean of Student Affairs, was an African-American with a chip on his shoulder.  He incited black students via political machinations to march with signs and occupy building even for petty gripes.  If my radio station got branded as a "racist" organization, my boss could have been forced to resign to assuage the political pressure.  In a word, they were bullies.  That's why the manager scorned me when I told him I held everybody to the same standards of conduct.  He said I needed to be "more sensitive to the African-American community."  I was like, WTF?  I'm still friends with the guy and to this day he wouldn't admit the truth.  How could he?  The white bureaucrats on campus were browbeaten.  See white guilt.

A couple of years later the administration decided they'd had quite enough of that dean stirring the hornets nest.  They gave him a special reception, a special dinner, and a special award in a special ceremony.  The next day they fired him.  The frivolous marches and sit-ins disappeared as though the dean had packed them in his suitcase.  I felt vindicated but still injured over those guys calling me a racist and peeing in my chili!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/grommit.gif

Yes.  

However..on a day-to-day basis certain black individuals will use it to excuse irresponsible practices or shoddy conduct.  Even the most mundane social exchanges between Blacks and Whites can get strained because of the racial divide.  

When I was first at the university radio station I told some black students to get out of the studios because they partying and causing a ruckus.  They told the manager I did it because they were Black.  I laughed first, but not for long.  In a nervous politically charged environment, such as a university campus, people get called the "R" word and forced to walk the plank for ludicrous reasons.  I hung on to my position, but that black student organization antagonized me from that day forward, and it became known that "Maxwell has a problem with people of color."  It makes me sick to remember it.  

There were a band of troublemakers in that organization whose raison d'être seemed to be intimidating anybody who challenged them.  My boss's boss, the Dean of Student Affairs, was an African-American with a chip on his shoulder.  He incited black students via political machinations to march with signs and occupy building even for petty gripes.  If my radio station got branded as a "racist" organization, my boss could have been forced to resign to assuage the political pressure.  In a word, they were bullies.  That's why the manager scorned me when I told him I held everybody to the same standards of conduct.  He said I needed to be "more sensitive to the African-American community."  I was like, WTF?  I'm still friends with the guy and to this day he wouldn't admit the truth.  How could he?  The white bureaucrats on campus were browbeaten.  See white guilt.

A couple of years later the administration decided they'd had quite enough of that dean stirring the hornets nest.  They gave him a special reception, a special dinner, and a special award in a special ceremony.  The next day they fired him.  The frivolous marches and sit-ins disappeared as though the dean had packed them in his suitcase.  I felt vindicated but still injured over those guys calling me a racist and peeing in my chili!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/grommit.gif


I see. Overcompensation and positive discrimination is just as bad as racism and white guilt is just as bad as black slavery. I am sorry to read you have experienced 'reverse-racism'? I don't know whether I've made that up or there's another term that best describes it. Do you think there will come a time where racism will become less of an issue in the USA? I mean, we get racism here in the UK from individuals/companies but there doesn't appear to be any political context behind it. We just accept some people are idiots and deal with it where applicable.

I see. Overcompensation and positive discrimination is just as bad as racism and white guilt is just as bad as black slavery. I am sorry to read you have experienced 'reverse-racism'? I don't know whether I've made that up or there's another term that best describes it. Do you think there will come a time where racism will become less of an issue in the USA? I mean, we get racism here in the UK from individuals/companies but there doesn't appear to be any political context behind it. We just accept some people are idiots and deal with it where applicable.


Racism is, I think, changing in the US, slowly.  Each generation seems to be more tolerant, and more accepting, but there are also regional disparities.  Northern racism has always be less blatant than southern racism.  It will always be with us to some extent though.

Racism is, I think, changing in the US, slowly.  Each generation seems to be more tolerant, and more accepting, but there are also regional disparities.  Northern racism has always be less blatant than southern racism.  It will always be with us to some extent though.


I am glad to hear that racism is changing to some extent in the USA and, sadly, I agree with you that it will always be with us. Hopefully, it will get to the point where remaining racists will just be considered idiots and something to laugh at rather than be a threat to the equality of everyone.

I am glad to hear that racism is changing to some extent in the USA and, sadly, I agree with you that it will always be with us. Hopefully, it will get to the point where remaining racists will just be considered idiots and something to laugh at rather than be a threat to the equality of everyone.


Agreed, but the issue really isn't the personal hatred (unless it leads to violence) .  Rather, the issue is institutional racism and discrimination

Agreed, but the issue really isn't the personal hatred (unless it leads to violence) .  Rather, the issue is institutional racism and discrimination


It may be because I live in the UK, Carlos, and I really hope you excuse my ignorance but I can't fathom that in the land of freedom and independence such primitive issues of institutional racism and discrimination occurs. From the media, I am fed the idea that the USA is patriotic, diverse, fights for justice and gets things done.

Saying that, I am idealistic and naive.  :-\\

It may be because I live in the UK, Carlos, and I really hope you excuse my ignorance but I can't fathom that in the land of freedom and independence such primitive issues of institutional racism and discrimination occurs. From the media, I am fed the idea that the USA is patriotic, diverse, fights for justice and gets things done.

Saying that, I am idealistic and naive.  :-\\


And I can't fathom calling the USA a land of freedom and independence anymore.  Can you pop by Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen if she'll have us back?  We had two solid centuries of independence and we've made a right bloody mess of things.  Don't worry.  We don't ask for much and we work cheap!
::) ::) ::)

It may be because I live in the UK, Carlos, and I really hope you excuse my ignorance but I can't fathom that in the land of freedom and independence such primitive issues of institutional racism and discrimination occurs. From the media, I am fed the idea that the USA is patriotic, diverse, fights for justice and gets things done.

Saying that, I am idealistic and naive.  :-\\


I'm here to tell you it isn't true.

Things have gotten better, but still not great.  My father grew up in the south(Louisiana) and left when he was about 18 and never went back.  Didn't talk much about it, but never any good stories.  It was better up here, but still there were, and are a lot of unresolved issues. It was apartheid then, and there are those who would bring it back if they could.  Martin Luther King is probably hated more in the United States than anywhere in the world.  Sad, but true..

I'm here to tell you it isn't true.

Things have gotten better, but still not great.  My father grew up in the south(Louisiana) and left when he was about 18 and never went back.  Didn't talk much about it, but never any good stories.  It was better up here, but still there were, and are a lot of unresolved issues. It was apartheid then, and there are those who would bring it back if they could.  Martin Luther King is probably hated more in the United States than anywhere in the world.  Sad, but true..


Apartheid it was, and South Africa COPIED it from us.

It may be because I live in the UK, Carlos, and I really hope you excuse my ignorance but I can't fathom that in the land of freedom and independence such primitive issues of institutional racism and discrimination occurs. From the media, I am fed the idea that the USA is patriotic, diverse, fights for justice and gets things done.

Saying that, I am idealistic and naive.  :-\\


But it is patriotic in the way that the NF is patriotic about the UK.  The ones doing the shouting about what a great place it is are the whites and they want to keep the country for themselves

It may be because I live in the UK, Carlos, and I really hope you excuse my ignorance but I can't fathom that in the land of freedom and independence such primitive issues of institutional racism and discrimination occurs. From the media, I am fed the idea that the USA is patriotic, diverse, fights for justice and gets things done.

Saying that, I am idealistic and naive.  :-\\



I was fed the same idea. As I got older and left my ideal middle class suburban neighborhood of my childhood and entered the REAL world, I realize that the U.S. is NOT the greatest country on this planet like I was taught. In fact, it is far from it. It COULD be which is why I am doing my little bit to make it so-even though I can't do it alone.


Cat

And I can't fathom calling the USA a land of freedom and independence anymore.  Can you pop by Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen if she'll have us back?  We had two solid centuries of independence and we've made a right bloody mess of things.  Don't worry.  We don't ask for much and we work cheap!
::) ::) ::)


Lol. We're not doing that great over here. The only thing that separates the US and the UK at the moment is our credit-rating and I think we only just got lucky at that. Out of topic but our Bank of England governor Mervyn King is printing out more money (called 'quantitative easing') so we'll probably end up stuffed as well. He's already claiming the financial situation is as bad as the great depression.

I'm here to tell you it isn't true.

Things have gotten better, but still not great.  My father grew up in the south(Louisiana) and left when he was about 18 and never went back.  Didn't talk much about it, but never any good stories.  It was better up here, but still there were, and are a lot of unresolved issues. It was apartheid then, and there are those who would bring it back if they could.  Martin Luther King is probably hated more in the United States than anywhere in the world.  Sad, but true..


The world is a weird place with twisted reasoning so it doesn't really surprise me that a man seeking equality for all men is treated with hatred. It's interesting how the world is quick to end good people's lives.

But it is patriotic in the way that the NF is patriotic about the UK.  The ones doing the shouting about what a great place it is are the whites and they want to keep the country for themselves


Ironically, the whites most likely have the least justification for keeping the country for themselves. I get the impression from the thanksgiving Pilgrim fathers situation that the whites plundered America.

I was fed the same idea. As I got older and left my ideal middle class suburban neighborhood of my childhood and entered the REAL world, I realize that the U.S. is NOT the greatest country on this planet like I was taught. In fact, it is far from it. It COULD be which is why I am doing my little bit to make it so-even though I can't do it alone.


If one person tries to make anything better there is still hope.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (even though some sources suggest he didn't say this)

"After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say 'I want to see the manager.' "

-- William S. Burroughs

"After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say 'I want to see the manager.' "

-- William S. Burroughs


I'm reminded of Eddie Griffin with your quote. He talked about it in one of his stand up routines.

He said something about whenever anyone spots a UFO, it never landed. The reason: Bad news travels fast. We're known throughout the universe as the ****** up planet.

If one person tries to make anything better there is still hope.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (even though some sources suggest he didn't say this)



EXACTLY!!!!



Cat