Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt1999 – The first cases of an encephalitis outbreak are reported in New York City on this day in 1999. Seven people died from what turns out to be the first cases of West Nile Virus in the United States.
A cluster of eight cases of St. Louis encephalitis was diagnosed among patients in the borough of Queens in New York City in August 1999. The sudden cases of critical brain swelling were found exclusively among the elderly. At about the same time, people noticed an inordinate number of dead crows throughout the city. Other birds, including exotic varieties housed at the Bronx Zoo, were also found dead.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) was called in to investigate. They found that the West Nile virus, previously found only in Uganda and the Middle East, had been contracted by birds throughout the area, including robins, ducks and eagles. In addition to birds and humans, horses have also been known to be susceptible to the virus, which is spread by mosquitoes.
1989 – As punishment for betting on baseball, Cincinnati Reds manager Pete Rose accepts a settlement that includes a lifetime ban from the game. A heated debate continues to rage as to whether Rose, a former player who remains the game’s all-time hits leader, should be given a second chance.
It was known in baseball circles since the 1970s that Pete Rose had a gambling problem. Although at first he bet only on horse races and football games, allegations surfaced in early 1989 that Rose was not only betting on baseball, but on his own team. Major League Baseball Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti began an inquiry, and hired Washington lawyer John Dowd to head the investigation. Dowd compiled hundreds of hours of testimony from numerous sources that detailed Rose’s history of gambling on baseball while serving as the manager of the Cincinnati Reds, including betting on his own team.
Although Rose continued to proclaim his innocence, he was eventually persuaded to accept a settlement that included a lifetime ban from the game. At a subsequent press conference, Giamatti characterized Rose’s acceptance of the ban as a no-contest plea to the charges against him.
Rose eventually confessed in his book, My Prison Without Bars, but claimed he always bet on the Reds to win.
1979 – In the midst of an international tour and following a performance in NYC, Russian ballet star Aleksandr Godunov defects from the Soviet Unions and seeks asylum in the United States.
He studied locally and at the Bolshoi Ballet School in Moscow, graduating into the company in 1966. He quickly became a soloist and created the role of Karenin in Plisetskaya’s Anna Karenina (1972) and the leading role in Boccadora’s Love for Love (1976). He won the Gold Medal at the Moscow competition in 1973. In 1979, while the Bolshoi was on tour in America, he defected in New York, an act which led to a political confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union. He joined American Ballet Theatre, where he stayed until 1982.
On May 18, 1995 his friends became concerned when he had been uncharacteristically quiet with his phone calls. A nurse who had not heard from him since May 8 went to his home in the Shoreham Towers, W. Hollywood, CA, where Godunov was found dead of alcohol abuse with complications from hepatitis He was 45 years old.
1963 – The Beatles release “She Loves You” in the UK.
http://youtu.be/vd1R8tIL6tM?t=1s
1877 – Texas Ranger John Armstrong arrests John Wesley Hardin in a Florida rail car, returning the outlaw to Texas to stand trial for murder. Armstrong, acting on a tip, spotted Hardin in the smoking car of a train stopped at the Pensacola station. Armstrong stationed local deputies at both ends of the car, and the men burst in with guns drawn. Caught by surprise, Hardin nonetheless reacted quickly and reached for the gun holstered under his jacket. The pistol caught in Hardin’s fancy suspenders, giving the lawmen the crucial few seconds they needed and probably saving Hardin’s life–instead of shooting him, Armstrong clubbed Hardin with his long-barreled .45 pistol.
Technically, the Texas Rangers had no authority in Florida, so they spirited Hardin back to Texas on the next train. Tried in Austin, a jury found Hardin guilty of killing Sheriff Webb and sentenced him to life in the Texas state prison at Huntsville. He served 15 years before the governor pardoned him. Released in 1894, an El Paso policeman killed him the following year.
1784 – Four counties in what will eventually become Tennessee declare their independence from the newly formed United States and form the state of Franklin. The four counties had previously been a part of land ceded by North Carolina to the United States Congress, but when their petition for statehood fails to garner the approval of a two-thirds majority of other states, they declare their independence from the US entirely, and go on to survive as an independent nation for 4 years. Suffering from a weak economy and in fear of Indian attacks, Franklin eventually re-joins North Carolina territory.
***************************************************************************************************************
Don’t blame it all on Scott, LMS contributed to this post.
Filed under: This Day in History | Tagged: Baseball, The Beatles, West Nile Virus |
All Things in Moderation 
Pete Rose had (still has?) a restaurant in South Florida filled with all his memorabilia. He is easily the best player not in the Hall of Fame. But I agree that betting on your own team merits the death penalty.
LikeLike
True or just more rightwing hyperbole.
http://m.nationalreview.com/article/356527/subtlest-racism-charles-c-w-cooke
Again, the Oberlin hoax, the self-flagellation and the Oberlin’s Admin’s knowledge of the hoax (prior to the firestorm) absolutely fascinate me.
LikeLike
McWing:
True or just more rightwing hyperbole.
True.
LikeLike
I haven’t read anything about the Oberlin story until just now. Sounds like someone’s suffering from something similar to Munchhausen’s by Proxy.
Do you guys think these kinds of stories are indicative of liberals in general or something?
Regarding the Beatles, when I was about 14 I went to the movies to see the long anticipated movie “A Hard Day’s Night”. My folks wouldn’t let me buy me the album so I snuck my little tape recorder in with me and taped the songs….what a dork and a really bad recording.
LikeLike
Do you guys thing these kinds of stories are indicative or liberals or something?
It’s meant to discredit claims of actual racial hate crimes. It’s much like anecdotal stories of women who file false rape charges being used to dismiss real victims of sexual assault. As long as one person somewhere cries ‘Wolf!’ that means there are no actual wolves.
LikeLike
yello:
It’s meant to discredit claims of actual racial hate crimes.
Yes, I am sure that was exactly MCwing’s intent on presenting the issue here. I’ve always pegged McWing as secret sympathizer of actual racist hate crimes.
LikeLike
I’ve always pegged McWing as secret sympathizer of actual racist hate crimes.
Now you tell me. All this time I’ve been giving him the benefit of the doubt as someone who just likes to counter the established narrative.
LikeLike
lms:
Do you guys thing these kinds of stories are indicative of liberals in general or something?
I don’t. But there are certainly those who have made finding and opposing racism so much a part of their identity that they cannot bring themselves to see or admit that the fight has largely been won.
LikeLike
lms:
BTW, I should add that I do think that the Dems as a party do rely on perpetuating fear/outrage over racism. And so to the extent that they inject/hype racial elements of any circumstance – the Zimmerman/Martin instance being a good example – in order to perpetuate the notion that racism remains a fundamental and significant characteristic of American life, they are enabling and encouraging the like of the Oberlin hoaxsters.
LikeLike
Nominees for Libertarian Of The Year:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sovereign-citizen-vegas-plot-20130822,0,3281384.story
LikeLike
Hello, do Libertarians reject all government authority?
LikeLike
Hello, do Libertarians reject all government authority?
Those do.
LikeLike
I guess I don’t get it. What’s the point of stories like that here? No one here is going to defend these kids, the same way no one here was ever going to defend Filner or other similar idiots. These kinds of stories are everywhere out there and it just doesn’t tell me anything other than some people have an agenda and will do anything, even lie, to accomplish their goals. Is that unique in some way to Obama followers or liberals? Or is it just supposed to be interesting…………………sorry.
What kind of response are you looking for McWing? I’m curious.
LikeLike
I think that there are those that are convinced the country is no better today then, say, 1853, and when the evidence they need to convince others of that doesn’t present itself as readily as they think, they make it up. After all, it’s not a lie if they believe it.
Is there racism? Yes. Do I believe in collective guilt or structural racism? Of course not, no rational person does.
There are people who are raised to believe that the US is the worst county on earth and will lie to prove it. That’s fascinating to me. Along with why those that know of the hoax’s the the administration at Oberlin allow the self flagellation to occur even though they know there is no justification for it. Why? Isn’t that curious? It only makes sense if they agree with the world view of the Hoaxers.
LikeLike
Apparently the legacy of hundreds of years of racism in the United States is to entrench “Asian Privilege”.
If you really don’t understand the false equivalence underlying that, there is no hope in explaining it. I’m not sure what in the Asian-American experience quite mimics the Triangle Trade, plantation system, and about a century of Jim Crow but feel free to explain it to me, particularly since large scale Asian immigration is mostly a phenomenon of the last half-century.
If there is a comparison to be made it would be between 19th century Chinese and Irish laborers. And if the drunken micks had worked harder they would have done better.
LikeLike
That’s fascinating to me.
You should have gotten your Master’s in Psychology like me then. Talk about a waste of time. Our world is a curious place, I’ll agree with you there.
LikeLike
Dems as a party do rely on perpetuating fear/outrage over racism.
It’s a good thing there are no more racists around to get outraged over.
LikeLike
yello:
It’s a good thing there are no more racists around to get outraged over.
Actually I think it is lucky for the Dems that racism is such that it will always exist somewhere, and so there will always be anecdotes to aid
youthem in their efforts to discredit claims of actual racial progress.LikeLike
Lms , what does your psych training say about the Administration of Oberlin college?
Yello, with racism so ” in your face” and prevelant, why the hoaxes? Why didn’t they wait and merely open the morning paper or talk to an average American ?
LikeLike
” in your face”
Who are you quoting? I’m the person who overhears dogwhistles.
why the hoaxes?
The Oberlin guy and Tawana Brawley and…
It takes three to establish a trend. Preferably three from the same century. I think you are seeing a pattern that isn’t there.
LikeLike
yello:
The Oberlin guy and Tawana Brawley and…
It takes three to establish a trend. Preferably three from the same century. I think you are seeing a pattern that isn’t there.
Well, there was Azela Cooley from 1992. And then there was Cornelius Weaver in 1998. Then there was Alicia Hardin in 2005. And then Langston Carraway in 2007 (see how it turned out). And there was the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of gang raping a black hooker, which was a two-fer in raising both misogyny and racism as issues.
There are actually several websites that track fake hate crimes. They are hardly the rarity you’d like us to think, and in fact I wouldn’t be at all surprised if fake hate crimes actually outnumbered real hate crimes.
LikeLike
I think that there are those that are convinced the country is no better today then, say, 1853,
There are people who are raised to believe that the US is the worst county on earth and will lie to prove it.
I appreciate your vigilance in rooting out these America-hating strawmen.
So do I think America is the worst country in the world if I think racism is still a problem in this country?
LikeLike
yello:
So do I think America is the worst country in the world if I think racism is still a problem in this country?
In what way is it “still” a problem in this country? Historically racism was a problem in the US primarily in that various governments put in place racist policies that discriminated against blacks. Is that “still” a problem in this country?
LikeLike
This Economist (is it lefty or not?, I get confused) says that while things are a lot better, there is still a lot to do.
LikeLike
I don’t know, do you?
What percentage of Americans are racist and what percentage of racists act on their racism?
LikeLike
What percentage of Americans are racist and what percentage of racists act on their racism?
What percentage would be low enough to be acceptable and to say that the war on racism is over and nothing further ever needs to be done?
LikeLike
From the link:
“An Obama volunteer and self-professed “atheist, pacifist, environmentalist, libertarian socialist, consequentialist,” ”
“libertarian socialist” is self contradictory.
LikeLike
jnc:
“libertarian socialist” is self contradictory.
Hah. I noted the same thing when I read it.
LikeLike
Well, I’d say its over and nothing further needs to be done.
Lemme ask it this way, what would the country have to look like for you to say its over?
LikeLike
Scott
I wonder what you think the Republicans as a party perpetuate?
I agree the powers that be in both parties propagandize certain events, attitudes, statements, or whatever, to maximize their leverage and paint the opposition as downright anti-American, neo-marxist-socialist-foreigners, racist, welfare queens, or whatever the current meme is that will convince people to vote for their guy/gal or against the other.
If said political parties would stick to policies, goals, and how to serve their fellow Americans it would be a better, smarter country. Unfortunately, that’s not the way we evolved.
If Congress and the politicians who represent us are a reflection of the American people, then I think we’re in trouble.
I wish, personally, I could figure out a way to make this place less like that and more of a place to discuss our own ideas and not all the assholes making the headlines.
Sorry, guess I’m grumpy today.
LikeLike
lms:
I wonder what you think the Republicans as a party perpetuate?
As an electoral strategy? I’m not sure, but I am open to suggestions.
LikeLike
McWing, I haven’t really followed the Oberlin story and only read part of your link. It’s all about power structure and agendas though in my opinion. Sometimes I think the further up the corporate/academic/political ladder people climb the less honest they become.
LikeLike
The latest iteration of this is all the blather in the blogosphere about “White Privilege”.
However Shrink posted something interesting at PL:
http://www.marctomarket.com/2013/08/great-graphic-earnings-by-raceethnicity.html
From the piece:
“What some will find most surprising is that the median income of Asian is the highest. The median income is nearly 75% high than for Hispanics. The median income for Asian women is nearly the same as the median income of white men.”
Apparently the legacy of hundreds of years of racism in the United States is to entrench “Asian Privilege”.
LikeLike
And here’s the second camp from your article:
LikeLike
Lemme ask it this way, what would the country have to look like for you to say its over?
Here’s a good benchmark:
Fifty years later, we’re still working on at least one of these.
LikeLike
Well, I am in the camp that says racism is at a tolerably low level in most of America and is getting to be ever less of a problem. It does exist. It does reach intolerable levels in some places, most notably in Appalachia and Ozarkia, and if you don’t believe me, so what?
I also think the knee jerk reaction that any criticism of any non white is racially based is a hallmark of hypersensitive and neurotic liberals, whom I think are a small minority of liberals over all. Also of victim mentality black preachers like Al from NY. But Scott is right to use Z-TM as a litmus test of the hypersensitivity. Its sort of mirrored by some conservatives’ harping on “black” street crime in Chicago.
If I had to guess, @6% of Americans of any race are racist in that they would never vote outside their race or hire outside their race; would disown son or daughter who married outside. If I had to guess, 20% might consider race a working factor, a rebuttable presumption, so to speak. When my cousin’s daughter married a black man my Uncle, her then 87 YO grandfather, said if he had his druthers she would have chosen a white man; but first, we don’t get our druthers, and second she married a really great guy. My Uncle was a 20%er.
Here I am also reminded of my black business client, Albert B., when the D.A.’s slot came open in Travis County. The first Asst DA, a then 57 YO white woman, and the chief trial counsel, a then 43 YO black male, squared off. I announced my support for the woman. He challenged me and listed his candidate’s credentials. I agreed with him. “Why are you supporting her?” I said she was honorable and a proven administrator who had kept the office together in some tough times and that she had assured me that Mr. Cobb would remain her chief trial counsel, if he would stay. And that is how it worked out and my client quickly realized there were other factors besides race involved. He was a 20%er, too.
I have seen race be a factor in employment and have had to deal with it from the employer’s side. But I do not think it is systemic. I also think about 4 of 5 claims of race as a factor are either mistaken or bogus, but the legit claims have to be settled quickly – at least that was always my advice.
There was a UT Law Professor, Lino Graglia, whose writings you can look up. A conservative if ever there was one. He persisted in believing that every black law student was an affirmative action entrant, which of course was not so. A former law clerk of mine, a Rice graduate, Lamont Jefferson, challenged Graglia on his assumptions 35 years ago and won Graglia’s personal grudging respect, but Lino continued to make the same assumptions, generally, his entire career. In fact, he believed Lamont’s partially white ancestry explained Lamont’s intelligence. Incorrigible, but still subject to persuasion. A 6%er or a 20%er?
I do think that the success of the civil rights movement was amazing. In Austin, and in many cities, more or less, 3/5ths of the black population moved out of the “black” neighborhood and entered the middle class within 15 years. 2/5ths remained mired in a ghetto and poor – their leadership, save for the ministers, gone, and their local schools pretty much ruined. An unintended consequence of rapid social change, I think.
A mixed bag, I think, but one with incredibly more gold then shit in it.
LikeLike
Yello, I don’t understand your benchmarks, they’re from a speech and are, by now, tropes.
What would the country look like for you to say the war is over?
LikeLike
What would the country look like for you to say the war is over?
What would your benchmark be, or have we passed it already? Are you ready to say racial discrimination is absent in America and all the residual effects of past discrimination are either gone or irrelevant?
LikeLike
yello:
Are you ready to say racial discrimination is absent in America and all the residual effects of past discrimination are either gone or irrelevant?
I will say that racial discrimination will never be absent in America, or from anywhere. As I said earlier, anecdotes of racial discrimination will forever and always exist.
I will also say that as the generation born in the 1940s and 1950s increasingly dies off, the residual effects of past discrimination will increasingly be gone, and that even now the current effects of discrimination from that previous era are largely irrelevant, especially relative to the much more significant effects of other cultural/societal developments since then.
LikeLike
What would your benchmark be, or have we passed it already?
We have passed it already. For example, electing and then re-electing an African American to the highest office in the land by a true majority of the electorate is a good benchmark.
Are you ready to say racial discrimination is absent in America and all the residual effects of past discrimination are either gone or irrelevant?
No, but that’s an impossible goal for any number of reasons. We are a country of 300 million people. Name a vice that is eschewed by the entire population? I think that the death penalty is an adequate punishment but I also accept the fact that murder will still occur. I also do not think that all the residual effects of past discrimination are gone or irrelevant, what rational person does? What I am unwilling to do is take from one group to try and make it up to another. To accomplish that we would have to increase racial discrimination. How does one prove one’s been disadvantaged, how black or asian or Native American do you have to be? There are laws and Federal, State, County and City agencies whose sole task is to look for and punish racial discrimination. What else, in your opinion is required?
LikeLike
Just to be clear, is your benchmark the absence of all racial bias from all persons in this country and the absence of all residual effects of past discrimination?
If so, what does that look like? If not, what is an adequate benchmark?
LikeLike
What I am unwilling to do is take from one group to try and make it up to another. To accomplish that we would have to increase racial discrimination.
This noble stand fortunately allows you to do nothing. I’d hate to see you victimized. Perhaps denied employment or housing or education.
There are laws and Federal, State, County and City agencies whose sole task is to look for and punish racial discrimination.
And I’m sure you support their efforts wholeheartedly.
If not, what is an adequate benchmark?
It’s a goal, not a benchmark. It’s not like you get to close the patent office because everything has been invented.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 23, 2013 at 2:37 pm said:
What would the country look like for you to say the war is over?
What would your benchmark be, or have we passed it already? Are you ready to say racial discrimination is absent in America and all the residual effects of past discrimination are either gone or irrelevant?”
I’ll go with either gone or not determinative. De jure discrimination is gone. That pretty much wraps up the government’s role.
LikeLike
De jure discrimination is gone. That pretty much wraps up the government’s role.
Another vote for “Declare victory and go home.”
I understand that position. But I’d hate to see all those dedicated Federal, State, County and City agencies whose sole task is to look for and punish racial discrimination end up out of work. It’s a good thing there are plenty of people inventing injustices out of whole cloth to keep them busy.
LikeLike
This noble stand fortunately allows you to do nothing. I’d hate to see you victimized. Perhaps denied employment or housing or education.
Please point out where I advocated the repeal of existing discrimination laws?
And I’m sure you support their efforts wholeheartedly.
Why do you write this? Please point out where I have addressed you disrespectfully or impugned your motives.
It’s a goal, not a benchmark. It’s not like you get to close the patent office because everything has been invented.
Again, what does the country look like, what benchmarks, er, goals have to be achieved for you to say the war is over?
I’m not asking you when you would advocate the rollback of existing law, just when you think increased (from what is being done now) government involvement would no longer be necessary?
LikeLike
just when you think increased (from what is being done now) government involvement would no longer be necessary?
When it is no longer necessary.
LikeLike
George, I am not YJ. But I can point out an area where I think there is a continuing gummint role (as opposed to individual cases under existing law). In TX, the immediate attempt to reinstate the redistricting that had been invalidated just months ago when that case was vacated under the Supremes’ VRA decision was an overreach, considering the previous fact finding that the plan was intended to water down chicano votes. The reinstitution of the case under Section 3 of the VRA seems to me to have been the automatic correct response.
LikeLike
Well, I am in the camp that says racism is at a tolerably low level in most of America and is getting to be ever less of a problem.
It is pretty amazing how far we’ve gotten in fifty years, living memory for many people. My mother tells a story of nearly causing an incident when she accidentally drank out of the colored water fountain at her first job at a school in Alabama (she was born and raised in New England and followed my dad to flight school).
I’ve done projects at Johns Hopkins Hospital where the original architectural plans clearly denote the colored and white restrooms and waiting rooms. We should be proud of what has been accomplished. We are nowhere near 1853.
LikeLike
Why the word games (insults) and evasion? I’ve answered your questions, and I understand life isn’t a transactionsactional experience, but it’s becoming apparant that you are being intentionally evasive. If I am correct, why? If not, can you ease be more specific in what the goals would be for you to declare that, ok, I’ll word it this way, existing laws and enforcement levels are adequate.
LikeLike
Why do you write this?
I was extrapolating upon your known opinions on government in general. I didn’t mean to impugn a motive.
LikeLike
but it’s becoming apparany that you are being intentionally evasive. If I am correct, why?
You always accuse me of that when I don’t precisely follow the framing of your question, usually because I dispute the underlying premise.
If not, can you ease be more specific in what the goals would be for you to declare that, ok, I’ll word it this way, existing laws and enforcement levels are adequate.
I’m not sure new laws are required. I actually have misgivings about policies that rely on disparate effect and other tough to measure metrics. However, people who do still practice discrimination have gotten much subtler about it and eliminating it requires more sophisticated enforcement techniques.
I’m more concerned about social inequality regardless of the root causes which tend to disproportionately affect minorities. But I suspect we differ on the role of government in ameliorating these differences.
LikeLike
Yello:
…usually because I dispute the underlying premise.
What premise is it that you dispute?
LikeLike
yello:
However, people who do still practice discrimination have gotten much subtler about it and eliminating it requires more sophisticated enforcement techniques.
Do you really think racial discrimination can be eliminated, and that it can be eliminated by law enforcement?
I for one shudder at the thought of a government powerful enoughh to stop any and all discrimination.
LikeLike
Thanks.
However, people who do still practice discrimination have gotten much subtler about it and eliminating it requires more sophisticated enforcement techniques.
Can you provide some examples of how this manifests itself?
LikeLike
Can you provide some examples of how this manifests itself?
I really never know when you are being disingenuous or just naive. Fortunately there are dedicated government agencies that can explain how it is done in housing and employment for you.
LikeLike
What premise is it that you dispute?
It always comes down to core principles, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
yello:
It always comes down to core principles, doesn’t it?
Perhaps, but I am still none the wiser in terms of what premise it is that you dispute. I doubt there is one.
I shudder at the thought that there are tolerable levels of discrimination beyond which there is no sense in bothering to right an injustice.
Of course there are tolerable levels of discrimination beyond which I think government power ought not be brought to bear. Actually quite high levels. This is why libertarians and small government conservatives are so wary of big government leftists like yourself. There is apparently no limit to the power you would grant government to pursue whatever ends you find just. What we understand is that not everyone agrees on what is or is not “just”, and the same power that can be used to pursue my sense of justice can also be used to pursue someone else’s that I would find totally alien, and at my expense. Better that government be given extremely limited power to pursue those areas of justice about which there is very little if any disagreement amongst those subject to the power.
What we also understand is that while those who dislike blacks for being black, or gays for being gay, or libertarians for being libertarian, may be wrong and stupid, but freedom means nothing if not the sovereignty to be both wrong and stupid. Freedom is seriously diminished when the government starts punishing people for thought crimes, which is essentially what private discrimination boils down to.
LikeLike
I for one shudder at the thought of a government powerful enoughh to stop any and all discrimination.
I shudder at the thought that there are tolerable levels of discrimination beyond which there is no sense in bothering to right an injustice.
LikeLike
Do you think government can eliminate racism?
LikeLike
Re:HUD. I never take agents word that “this is all that’s a available” and am stunned that others do. RE agents have economic interests that don’t necessarily align with your own. What does race have to do with naïveté?
Why wouldn’t it more efficient to educate buyers that agents do not necessarily represent their interests?
LikeLike
Lms, I think the R party tries to perpetuate the idea that it is for limited government. The elected representatives I the party, for the most part, do not act in that manner.
LikeLike
Lms, I think the R party tries to perpetuate the idea that it is for limited government.
Scott and McWing, no that wasn’t what I was actually leading into. I totally get the small government thing and even agree with it conditionally, especially living in a state like CA. I think the states can actually do a pretty damn good/bad job on their own and if it’s totally against the will of the people, they’ll suffer.
I was mostly referring to the idea that the upper and middle echelon of the Democratic Party push the racist meme according to you. What meme does the R Party promote that would be comparable? It used to be welfare queens, now it’s what? I could tell you what I think but I’m wondering if you’ll be honest and admit that whatever it is, is just as sketchy.
LikeLike
lms:
What meme does the R Party promote that would be comparable?
Again, I don’t know, but I am open to suggestions.
LikeLike
Again, I don’t know, but I am open to suggestions.
Thanks Scott, that is very revealing. While I am willing to admit that the Dem Party, keeping in mind that I am an Independent for a reason but still a progressive/liberal (small p/l), uses their “propaganda machine” to possibly exaggerate “racism”, the “war on women”, “hate on gays”, “get sick and die” memes, you can’t think of a single example of R’s doing similar is exactly what I suspected.
LikeLike
lms:
If you have something in particular in mind, just say so. I may agree with you. But I’m not sure what my inability to make your points for you is supposed to reveal.
LikeLike
I’ll say socialism/communism as the trope pushed out to defame the left. Essentially, totalitarians.
LikeLike
Freedom is seriously diminished when the government starts punishing people for thought crimes, which is essentially what private discrimination boils down to.
So the right to discriminate is an important component of freedom? That’s an important core principle to remember.
LikeLike
Just be honest Scott. Don’t make my points, make R points. You’re one of them right? McWing made an attempt at least. Yikes………..totalitarians, because R’s are never that. Just imagine yourself in my shoes and what would piss you off about the bullshit meme that your party is accusing Dems/liberals of.
Call it role playing if you want……….hah
LikeLike
lms:
I thought of something over night. D’s are soft on defense. That’s not quite the same, but it is a theme R’s often use as an electoral strategy that is not nearly as true as they would have voters believe.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if fake hate crimes actually outnumbered real hate crimes.
That must be a real comfort to James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shepard.
LikeLike
yello:
So the right to discriminate is an important component of freedom?
It is certainly an aspect of freedom. The importance of freedom, however, varies from person to person.
That must be a real comfort to James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shepard.
Solid. When in doubt, change the subject.
LikeLike
When in doubt, change the subject.
You’re the one who brought up real hate crimes. Nothing fake about being dragged to death or being tied to a barbed wire fence.
LikeLike
Lms, I’ll go with gun grabbers.
Yello, what government program and or policy would you advocate to eradicate an individual’s racism? Say, David Duke. What could the government do to eliminate racism fom his mind and how could you trust the result?
Also, what wouldn’t you allow th government to do to an individual to get them to stop being racist?
LikeLike
what wouldn’t you allow th government to do to an individual to get them to stop being racist?
You can’t stop a person from being racist. You can keep people from discriminating. But I’m told that the right to discriminate is an important personal freedom. Is that so?
LikeLike
lms:
Just be honest Scott.
I was being honest. Again, if you have something specific in mind, say so. I may agree. But if you can’t come up with something, I don’t understand why you’d expect me to.
LikeLike
yello:
Nothing fake about being dragged to death or being tied to a barbed wire fence.
No one said it was. Nor did anyone say real hate crimes don’t exist. Again, you are just changing the subject. Understandable, and typical, but worth noting anyway.
LikeLike
Nor did anyone say real hate crimes don’t exist. Again, you are just changing the subject.
No. I’m back on my original subject. Crypto-racist sites like Taki’s Magazine and the Council for Conservative Citizens catalog hate crime hoaxes because they can be used to discredit those who crusade against genuine hate crimes.
LikeLike
So the right to discriminate is an important component of freedom? That’s an important core principle to remember.
Do you differentiate between a thought crime and an actual, overt act of discrimination?
LikeLike
yello:
You can keep people from discriminating.
The more “subtle” the discrimination, the more expansive the power must be to stop it. Which is precisely what is wrong with utopian notions of “eliminating” discrimination with more “sophisticated” police powers.
Imagine the police trying to eliminate instances of white people crossing the street to avoid a grop of black teenagers. Imagine the police trying to eliminate instances of black people refusing to shop at the store owned by a white person. What kind of “sophisticated” law enforcement would be required?
LikeLike
Do you differentiate between a thought crime and an actual, overt act of discrimination?
What sort of duck test would that entail? Someone either discriminated or they didn’t. But why you did something matters. Lots of laws, murder for instance, take intent into account.
I’m a First Amendment absolutist. Say all the racist, sexist, homophobic things you want, but once you treat someone differently because of race, sex or orientation you have infringed upon their freedom to be treated fairly.
LikeLike
Well, your response to this:
Freedom is seriously diminished when the government starts punishing people for thought crimes, which is essentially what private discrimination boils down to.
Was to write this:
So the right to discriminate is an important component of freedom? That’s an important core principle to remember
The only reasonable conclusion is a belief that the government can somehow eliminate racist thoughts from the mind.
LikeLike
I’m a First Amendment absolutist. Say all the racist, sexist, homophobic things you want, but once you treat someone differently because of race, sex or orientation you have infringed upon their freedom to be treated fairly.
Can I treat someone rudely based on race?
LikeLike
The only reasonable conclusion is a belief that the government can somehow eliminate racist thoughts from the mind.
Yes. That is the one and only possible logical conclusion. Your superior forensic and logic skills are why I always lose these discussions.
Can I treat someone rudely based on race?
Can you yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater?
My turn: Is a restaurant allowed to pick and choose which patrons it serves based solely on arbitrary criteria?
LikeLike
My turn: Is a restaurant allowed to pick and choose which patrons it serves based solely on arbitrary criteria?
Well, not if that arbitrary criteria is race, gender, disability or age, but yes if it’s clothing (no shirts, no shoes, no service) or the ability to pay.
LikeLike
So, just for clarity’s sake, it should be illegal to be gruff with someone based on race?
LikeLike
So, just for clarity’s sake, it should be illegal to be gruff with someone based on race?
Why is it so important to get my permission for being an asshole to someone on the basis of race? Is that a core principle of freedom? Be my guest and let a court decide if being ‘gruff’ qualifies as fighting words. Heck, burn a cross on someone’s lawn as long as you can convince a court it wasn’t meant to threaten or intimidate.
LikeLike
So, who gets to decide that subject A acted gruffly to subject B based on race. What would satisfy you as punishment.
LikeLike
yello:
No. I’m back on my original subject.
Why did you accuse me of introducing the subject, then?
LikeLike
BTW, yello, what is the difference between “racist” and “crypto-racist”? Also, what indicates to you that Taki’s site is “crypto-racist?
LikeLike
what is the difference between “racist” and “crypto-racist”?
It’s a continuum. Stormfront is overtly white supremicist. Crypto-racists are more genteel in that they don’t overtly peddle race-based theories of genetic inferiority. They prefer to use statistical methods instead of tirades about purity.
Charles Pierce has taken to call to calling National Review tongue-in-cheek a “respectable longtime white-supremacist journal”. It’s funny because it’s true.
what indicates to you that Taki’s site is “crypto-racist?
Two words: John Derbyshire.
LikeLike
yello:
Crypto-racists are more genteel in that they don’t overtly peddle race-based theories of genetic inferiority.
I see. Crypto-racist is just a slur you use when you want to accuse someone who hasn’t actually said or done anything actually racist of being a racist. Interesting.
They prefer to use statistical methods instead of tirades about purity.
So now statistics are racist. Also interesting. And funny that you link to a crypto-marxist website for support.
It’s funny because it’s true.
Of course it isn’t. It’s just a sleazy slur. BTW your link doesn’t work.
Two words: John Derbyshire.
Might you be able/willing to link to something that you think is an example of racism, or “crypto-racism”?
LikeLike
Scott
I thought of something over night
Soft on defense is a good one I think. I was thinking of the “half of Americans don’t pay taxes” meme and all that encompasses. The moochers and takers of society are dems. Romney fell right into that very easily with his 47% comments and it’s something I read all the time in the comment sections of blogs. I think R’s have been very successful in portraying liberals as entitlement hogs. It’s sort of the new “welfare queens” argument.
There are others but I think this one is the most successful as far as propaganda goes.
LikeLike
lms:
I was thinking of the “half of Americans don’t pay taxes” meme and all that encompasses.
I don’t think that is comparable, first because it is a relatively recent talking point, not a perennial one, and also because it is a matter of fact, not judgement or opinion. Whether or not America is a racist nation, or racism is a serious “problem” in America, is a matter of judgement. Whether or not 49% of tax-filers paid nothing in income taxes is not.
I think R’s have been very successful in portraying liberals as entitlement hogs.
Perhaps, but my point was not that liberals portray R’s as racist (although they often do). It was that D’s portray racism as a continuing significant problem from which people, particularly blacks, need government protection, and by doing so, they both enable and encourage the likes of the hoaxsters at Oberlin.
LikeLike
Might you be able to link to something that you think is an example of racism, or “crypto-racism”?
Are you really unfamiliar with this article?
The Talk: Nonblack Version
LikeLike
BTW your link doesn’t work
Fixed
LikeLike
Those were interesting reads, YJ.
I did assume racism on Buckley’s part because of his support of segregation and fear of miscegeny.
I wonder about “Taki”. He might not be a racist, because he seems to be capable of judging an individual on his merits. One of my 20%ers, as opposed to one of my 6%ers. Lino Graglia.
I don’t count mere prejudice as racism, provided that it does not take heroics to overcome in an individual instance. An employer who would tend to pick white over black if that were all he knew but who would still pick the better qualified employee without regard to skin color is merely guilty of rebuttable prejudice. I would like to think I am open to having my prejudices rebutted in individual instances. Perhaps this is related to the point our resident conservatives are making about thought control.
LikeLike
Here is a profile on Taki. He’s fairly unrepentant about his racial views in ways that only a 75-year-old Greek billionaire can be. Here’s one example:
LikeLike
So much for the benefit of the doubt!
LikeLike
yello:
Here’s one example:
That doesn’t seem very “crypto” to me.
LikeLike
yello:
Lew Rockwell? Isn’t that a crypto-anarchist website? I guess what you mean by saying that NR is a white supremacist site is that Bill Buckley was a white supremacist. The latter is questionable, although more defensible than your conclusion, which is absurd.
Are you really unfamiliar with this article?
No (and I agree it is largely indefensible), although I didn’t know it was published by Taki. Are you really unfamiliar with the fact that he got fired from NR over it? Strange behavior for a white supremacist organization.
LikeLike
Are you really unfamiliar with the fact that he got fired from NR over it?
Well aware of it. His views were hardly secret. He had been a writer there for years.He just finally stepped over a line and HAD to be fired. He landed at V-Dare, a blatantly white supremacist site.
Strange behavior for a white supremacist organization.
Well, as a bonus that illustrates the difference between ‘racist’ and ‘crypto-racist’. If it’s too obviously racist people discount your opinion, hence the need for subtlety.
Michigoose was working a little bit with you on your humor awareness. you need to brush up on the term tongue-in-cheek. As for “It’s funny because it’s true”, that’s just me stealing punchlines from The Simpsons.
LikeLike
yello:
As for “It’s funny because it’s true”, that’s just me stealing punchlines from The Simpsons.
Having lived overseas when it first became popular, I’ve never been a big follower of The Simpsons, so I am unfamiliar with a lot of the references. A good comedian knows his audience. BTW, you should also consider the possibility that any lack of appreciation for your ostensible humor may have more to do with the medium, or even the material, than with your audience.
LikeLike
Yello, any response to my questions? I’m just trying to make a good faith effort at finding the edges of government involvement in ending racism.
LikeLike
McWing:
I’m just trying to make a good faith effort at finding the edges of government involvement in ending racism.
I suspect he does not share your desire to find those edges.
LikeLike
BTW, not too long ago Jonah Goldberg wrote an interesting reflection on NR’s history with regard to race. I’ve been searching for it but can’t find it.
LikeLike
Yello, any response to my questions?
I keep forgetting that you have subpoena power and will badger me until I follow you down all your little rabbit holes to the bitter end. Here we go:
I previously defended your right to be a completely racist asshole in public. I’m not sure why you want or need it, but there it is. You are going to have to give me better parameters on what you hypothetically consider ‘gruff’.
One of my favorite jokes from 70s era National Lampoon (back when large boombox radios were popular) was what they described as The Riskiest Thing To Say On The Subway: “How about turning down the jungle bunny music, Sambo. Those of us who can, are trying to read.” Be my guest to field try it. We’ll let a judge decide if the resulting homicide was justifiable.
If on the other hand, you are a restaurant owner and tell people “We don’t serve your kind here.”, that is definitely over the line. If in the same situation, you habitually sit all the African-American patrons in the worst corner of the restaurant and serve their food cold and late so as to discourage their patronage, that may be actionable in some way. It comes down to either a) are your racist comments a threat of some variety or b) are you infringing upon rights of commerce.
LikeLike
Shorter answer: You can be a racist asshole, but you can’t be a dick about it.
LikeLike
Yello,
It’s your position then that more government resources are required to “root out” racial discrimination? Or, is the current resources adequate to the task?
LikeLike
It’s your position then that more government resources are required to “root out” racial discrimination? Or, is the current resources adequate to the task?
I’m not sure. I don’t have a good handle on how big a problem it is with all this focus on hate crime hoaxes in the news.
As fun as the current round of 20 questions has been, I’m going to invoke the Twain Rule here and opt out of further cross-examination.
LikeLike
I keep forgetting that you have subpoena power and will badger me until I follow you down all your little rabbit holes to the bitter end. Here we go:
Our world views are so different our “shorthand” often gets mistaken for bad motives. Isn’t it, for the sake of understanding, important to get the underlying philosophy and motivations of the individual on the other side of the argument correct, so that we don’t always assume bad faith of our idealogically opponents?
LikeLike
I keep forgetting that you have subpoena power and will badger me until I follow you down all your little rabbit holes to the bitter end.
That’s a bullshit thing to say.
LikeLike
Scott
I don’t think that is comparable, first because it is a relatively recent talking point, not a perennial one, and also because it is a matter of fact, not judgement or opinion
I didn’t realize we were sticking to only “long running” memes. It’s only a fact if you discount the amount of other taxes the bottom 47% of the income ladder pay. It’s interesting that both parties cut their taxes using the EITC and other cuts but then one party blames them for not contributing by implying that they are the moocher/takers in society. It may be a more recent political use of language but it got it’s start in the Reagan/Welfare Queen era.
and by doing so, they both enable and encourage the likes of the hoaxsters at Oberlin.
I’ve refrained from participating in the Oberlin/racism part of the discussion here for the most part. I was trying to bring a different angle to the discussion. Racism is another one of those subjects I like to avoid whenever possible. I was merely attempting to point out that even if D’s use racism as a cudgel to gain political influence, the R’s have their set of cudgels as well. I don’t think all is actually as obvious as it seems and there is always a little truth to each side’s story, that’s what makes propaganda so insidious.
Manufacturing racism is wrong but by the same token there are still racists out there and some of them have rather loud mouths. Also true is that while most of the 47%ers are hard working Americans some know how to work the system and take advantage of every entitlement they can lay their hands on whether they’ve earned, or deserve, it or not.
I believe institutional racism is a thing of the past but that doesn’t mean racism has been or ever will be completely eradicated. Using fear of other, whether by race, religion, income, sexual preference, gender or whatever will always be a great political strategy. It worked for the birthers.
LikeLike
McWing:
Another smear against the D’s is pushing the idea that they’re for socialized medicine.
I actually think most of them are. Certainly the people here who vote D are.
Edit: Corked by lms.
LikeLike
lms:
Also true is that while most of the 47%ers are hard working Americans…
Of that I have no doubt. I don’t blame them for not paying taxes. I blame liberal ideology and those who espouse it.
LikeLike
lms:
It worked for the birthers.
It did? Why, then have we had to suffer through 2 terms of Obama?
LikeLike
And for all the X’ers out there (most of you I think), here’s another Gen X tale of woe.
Never fear though I have a rebuttal from one of your own.
But what about those born after 1955, who turned 18 after the Vietnam War draft had been suspended? For the first time in decades — perhaps for the first time in history — Americans came of age without an existential threat to the nation and without massive social upheaval at home. For us, the waning Cold War was just a theoretical threat, and the vestigial air-raid drills at school a curiosity. When we were prepared to sacrifice for the country after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush told us to go shopping. We grew up soft: unthreatened, unchallenged and uninspired. We lacked a cause greater than self.
The effects on our politics has been profound. Without any concept of actual combat or crisis, a new crop of leaders — Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin — treats governing as a fight to the death, with no possibility of a negotiated peace. Without a transcendent social struggle calling us to seek justice as Americans, they substitute factional causes — Repeal Obamacare! Taxed Enough Already! — or manufactured crises over debt limits and government shutdowns. Though the problem is more pronounced on the right today, the generational drift is nonpartisan. President Obama has extraordinary talents but shows no ability to unify the nation in common purpose or to devote sustained energy to a cause greater than his own.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-generation-x–the-weakest-generation/2013/08/23/d5b8a5a0-0c08-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html?
And here’s one of my personal propagandist favorites answering Milbank. Booman quoted in full.
Dana Milbank, who is about a year and a half older than I am, is morose about our generation. I think he’s off base. Now in our mid-forties, the people of our generation are only beginning to assume positions of power. We didn’t bring America the War on Terror. We certainly didn’t invent the Tea Party, which is primarily made up of old farts who don’t realize that their Medicare is a federal program. Our generation is going to fix this shit and hand off something better to the next generation, which is the one that is going to really transform this country for the better. We’re just suffering from the death throes of a vanishing America, and we’re not going to miss much of it.
LikeLike
It worked for the birthers.
Just ask Ted Cruz and John McCain!
Another smear against the D’s is pushing the idea that they’re for socialized medicine.
LikeLike
Why does the “negotiated peace ” always mean more government? Why can’t it result in a government the size it was in, say, 1998? Also, why is trying to roll back a far to instrusive and over weaning government not some sort of Social Justice? Why is ever desiring increasing government a moral good and desiring a smaller government a moral bad? Why can’t it be two opposing philosophy’s that are both moral?
What both those pieces do is cast heroes and villains in a narrative.
LikeLike
If single payer is socialized medicine then I’m all for socialism……………..Obama isn’t though. I think he’s for corporatized (I know that’s not a word but I like it) medicine.
LikeLike
What both those pieces do is cast heroes and villains in a narrative
That’s what substitutes for politics today. I hope you guys can fix it because I’m getting too old for this shit.
Out for a quick swim, in my own pool this time, for leisure. It’s really hot here. We just had a flash flood warning interrupt the baseball game and I looked and didn’t see a single cloud in the sky………………our tax dollars at work I guess. I better get out there before the lightening strikes.
LikeLike
If in the same situation, you habitually sit all the African-American patrons in the worst corner of the restaurant and serve their food cold and late so as to discourage their patronage, that may be actionable in some way.
I had no idea about this story when I made up that hypothetical.
Unless of course, it’s a hoax.
LikeLike
But you have no idea of th level of racism. It could be breathtakingly little for all you know. What metrics should be used to measure discrimination and what metrics should be achieved to determine when we do not have to increase government resources to combat it?
LikeLike
Scott
It did? Why, then have we had to suffer through 2 terms of Obama?
I think it trickled down to Congressional elections. The only reason Obama won was because you guys had lousy candidates…………….imo.
Which presidential term enacted the first EITC legislation?
Typical Republican rhetoric on the 47% would be,
“Obama is going to tax the wealthiest and give that money to people who do not even pay taxes, and that is socialism.”
A tax strategy originally proposed by Republican Richard Nixon, the Earned Income Tax Credit was signed into law by Republican Gerald Ford in March 1975. It has historically received broad bipartisan support and been expanded several times, under republican and democratic administrations and legislative bodies.
The Earned Income Tax Credit gives a tax refund to all workers in poverty, who earn less than a certain amount annually–regardless of whether they pay taxes. It was designed to reduce reliance on welfare, and it has been successful.
In short, the EITC basically mandates a minimum annual salary for workers; if you make less than that minimum, you get an earned income credit that raises your salary to that minimum.
Ronald Reagan referred to the EITC as “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” He increased it several times, from 10% at the start of his administration to 14%.
Republican President George HW Bush signed a law that substantially expanded the EITC program; poor people were given additional credit for having more than one child and for providing healthcare for their children; benefits were increased substantially.
LikeLike
lms:
I think it trickled down to Congressional elections.
I’m not aware of any congressional candidate whose loss could be said to have been the result of birther success. Who do you have in mind?
The only reason Obama won was because you guys had lousy candidates…………….imo.
So did you guys, so that can’t be it.
Typical Republican rhetoric on the 47% would be,
“Obama is going to tax the wealthiest and give that money to people who do not even pay taxes, and that is socialism.”
Actually I don’t think Romney said anything like that. But perhaps he was atypical. My own take on the 47%, which I think is a real problem, is that a nation is in serious decline when a majority of people begin to vote themselves benefits at the expense of a minority. And Dem’s rhetoric encourages precisely this to occur.
LikeLike
The birthers also forced a sitting President to present his birth certificate to the media. I call that pretty successful.
LikeLike
lms:
The birthers also forced a sitting President to present his birth certificate to the media. I call that pretty successful.
I call it a pretty insignificant result.
LikeLike
Scott
I’m not aware of any congressional candidate whose loss could be said to have been the result of birther success. Who do you have in mind?
Haha, no one in particular, just the general tone surrounding the elections in 2010. I realize most of the election was the result of angst over “Obamacare” but at least two birthers are in the House that I’m aware of, one from OK and one from SC. There are probably others, I’ll research it if you insist.
In addition to that, at the time of the election, 1 in 4 adult Americans doubted Obama’s citizenship. I still maintain that while it wasn’t enough to keep him out of the WH, it’s been enough to agitate the base and affect not only elections but the tone in DC and elsewhere. You don’t have to agree with me though…………lol
Actually I don’t think Romney said anything like that.
I didn’t say that Romney said that, I was just generalizing the kind of language surrounding his 47% comments and the tax debate in general. I think the 47% is a real problem also, it’s too bad that so many Americans have fallen through the cracks of gainful middle class employment to the extent that they fall into the category of not earning enough money to actually pay federal income tax. I think that says a lot about the economic condition of the US.
LikeLike