by liberal japonicus
I'm back and in the process of writing a post about my travels, but this guest post on LGM by Robert Widdell caught my eye as I was catching up. It discusses the 50th anniversary of the 16th St. Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham and specifically, it was this passage:
In this context, then, the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church is less the story of an event that would further galvanize white support for the national movement and more a cruel reminder that, on the local level, Jim Crow was alive and well. In fact, Birmingham’s well-deserved reputation as a particularly violent defender of white supremacy – garnering the city the name “Bombingham” – meant that from a local perspective the bombing was in many ways business as usual.
Widdell is correct that we often think of the bombing as just a threat that hung over the black community in the whole of the deep south, but it was actually a tactic. This is from a transcript of an Amy Goodman interview of Angela Davis
But I’ve often pointed out that some of my very earliest childhood memories, are the sounds of dynamite exploding. Homes across the street from where I grew up were bombed when they were purchased by black people who were moving into a neighborhood that had been zoned for whites. So many bombings took place in the neighborhood where I grew up. And we know now that Chambliss was probably responsible. That the neighborhood came to be called “Dynamite Hill”. And of course as you know, the city of Birmingham was known as “Bombingham”. In fact on September 4, 1963, less than two weeks before the 16th Street church bombing, the home of the leading civil rights attorney in Birmingham, Arthur Shores was bombed. And that house was right down the street from our house.
This reminded me of the Kathy Ainsworth and Thomas Tarrents case. I learned about the Ainsworth case (which is notable because she was a kindergarten school teacher by day and a bomber by night) from a professor's book (Outside the Southern Myth) about his reminiscences of growing up in my hometown, but when I looked for a link to the story, the only one was to the Metapedia, a right wing nationalist version of the Wikipedia.
However, it seems like bombing was a tactic. Elsewhere in the book, my professor notes Hattiesburg, which makes an appearance in Walker Percy's The Moviegoer, there was 'plenty of racial turmoil in the 60's=some murders, at least one racial rape, some bombings'. More digging reveals it was tactic rather than threat.
In this age of data crunching, rather than treat the Church bombing as an isolated incident, a better memorial might be to go thru the records and create a map showing the locations of all the bombings, not just in Birmingham, but across the south.
not bombs, but a map of lynchings from 1900-1931.
following obama’s election, the folks at Floating Sheep mapped the origin points of racist anti-Obama tweets.
the past is never dead. it’s not even the past.
not bombs, but a map of lynchings from 1900-1931.
following obama’s election, the folks at Floating Sheep mapped the origin points of racist anti-Obama tweets.
the past is never dead. it’s not even the past.
“racist tweet” somehow clangs against my ear like, say, “killing spree”.
The completely predicable similarities between the overlays of the two maps is depressing until you realize that in one terrible respect we have made considerable progress in racial equality, given the largely white National Rifle Association’s and the Texas State Government’s (reportedly gave the Navy Yard shooter a concealed gun permit despite plenty of evidence of crazy) colorblind enthusiasm for arming mass murderers regardless of race, creed, or color.
That they always shoot the wrong people seems to be a feature not a bug. I guess the taxpayer-supplied security surrounding the anti-Obamacare desperadoes in the House of Reprehensibles must be a little too impermeable to assault.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_09/how_many_more_times_probably_m046920.php
In Colorado, we’ve had two State Senators recalled, included Senate President John Morse, a centrist Democrat and former Sheriff who in that capacity literally had been covered in blood tending to gunshot wounds and was shot at a few times, for supporting rather mild gun restrictions.
Universal background checks and limiting clip capacity to 15 rounds is too much for the murderous, subhuman, anti-American vermin in the radical end of the gun “community”.
Governor John Hickenlooper, another centrist Democrat, who signed the legislation, should he run for re-election, should run campaign ads in which he unloads a single shot pistol into the rifle-range silhouettes of the various leaders of the enemy opposition and then turn to the camera, wink, and declare, “See, folks, one bullet at a time is all we need to remove murderous elements from civil society.”
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24066168/colorado-senate-president-john-morse-recalled-angela-giron
“racist tweet” somehow clangs against my ear like, say, “killing spree”.
The completely predicable similarities between the overlays of the two maps is depressing until you realize that in one terrible respect we have made considerable progress in racial equality, given the largely white National Rifle Association’s and the Texas State Government’s (reportedly gave the Navy Yard shooter a concealed gun permit despite plenty of evidence of crazy) colorblind enthusiasm for arming mass murderers regardless of race, creed, or color.
That they always shoot the wrong people seems to be a feature not a bug. I guess the taxpayer-supplied security surrounding the anti-Obamacare desperadoes in the House of Reprehensibles must be a little too impermeable to assault.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_09/how_many_more_times_probably_m046920.php
In Colorado, we’ve had two State Senators recalled, included Senate President John Morse, a centrist Democrat and former Sheriff who in that capacity literally had been covered in blood tending to gunshot wounds and was shot at a few times, for supporting rather mild gun restrictions.
Universal background checks and limiting clip capacity to 15 rounds is too much for the murderous, subhuman, anti-American vermin in the radical end of the gun “community”.
Governor John Hickenlooper, another centrist Democrat, who signed the legislation, should he run for re-election, should run campaign ads in which he unloads a single shot pistol into the rifle-range silhouettes of the various leaders of the enemy opposition and then turn to the camera, wink, and declare, “See, folks, one bullet at a time is all we need to remove murderous elements from civil society.”
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24066168/colorado-senate-president-john-morse-recalled-angela-giron
Some lynching stats: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html
Going out on a limb here: I don’t think the tweet chart is even remotely comparable to the lynching map or the underlying statistics, unless the point is that attitudes have changed markedly, starting sometime around the mid 30’s, and for the better.
Some lynching stats: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html
Going out on a limb here: I don’t think the tweet chart is even remotely comparable to the lynching map or the underlying statistics, unless the point is that attitudes have changed markedly, starting sometime around the mid 30’s, and for the better.
The density of tweets is less than the density of lynchings, so that’s good news.
On the other hand, it looks like some of the lynchers moved to the West Coast and up into the Great Lakes States, loosely tracing Republican inroads into swing states.
Too, there are some tweet locations that look like they were recorded under the same lynching trees used 75 years ago, which may signal a geographic stagnation but also technological innovation.
East Texas, for example. 😉
The great news is that its difficult to tweet with your thumbs and throw a noose over a tree limb at the same time, which unfortunately might mean the need for larger mobs to accomplish the multitasking planned for 2014 and beyond.
The density of tweets is less than the density of lynchings, so that’s good news.
On the other hand, it looks like some of the lynchers moved to the West Coast and up into the Great Lakes States, loosely tracing Republican inroads into swing states.
Too, there are some tweet locations that look like they were recorded under the same lynching trees used 75 years ago, which may signal a geographic stagnation but also technological innovation.
East Texas, for example. 😉
The great news is that its difficult to tweet with your thumbs and throw a noose over a tree limb at the same time, which unfortunately might mean the need for larger mobs to accomplish the multitasking planned for 2014 and beyond.
I don’t think the tweet chart is even remotely comparable to the lynching map
Nasty tweets != lynching. If that’s your point, agreed.
I don’t think the tweet chart is even remotely comparable to the lynching map
Nasty tweets != lynching. If that’s your point, agreed.
I think we can safely say, for obvious reasons, that there were no wanna-be tweeters among the lynch mobs in the Jim Crow era.
However, when it comes to Obama, I don’t think we can be sure there are absolutely no wanna-be lynchers among the present-day tweeters highlighted on the second map.
I think we can safely say, for obvious reasons, that there were no wanna-be tweeters among the lynch mobs in the Jim Crow era.
However, when it comes to Obama, I don’t think we can be sure there are absolutely no wanna-be lynchers among the present-day tweeters highlighted on the second map.
There are numerous cases of participants in lynchings taking photos for the family album. Not simple observer photos but arranged ones with the smoked dark meat in centre place and everyone smiling into the camera as if it were a friendly family reunion. Those were not things to be hidden like kiddie prawn but proudly presented. Had there been an internet in those days, many of those photos would have been instantly uploaded and shared.
To be cynical, I think far too many people have still the same mindset but are just too squeamish to do the deed these days and are not sure enough anymore that their neighbours would of course join in as in the old days.
There are numerous cases of participants in lynchings taking photos for the family album. Not simple observer photos but arranged ones with the smoked dark meat in centre place and everyone smiling into the camera as if it were a friendly family reunion. Those were not things to be hidden like kiddie prawn but proudly presented. Had there been an internet in those days, many of those photos would have been instantly uploaded and shared.
To be cynical, I think far too many people have still the same mindset but are just too squeamish to do the deed these days and are not sure enough anymore that their neighbours would of course join in as in the old days.
“I don’t think the tweet chart is even remotely comparable to the lynching map…”
Yes. Apples, oranges, golf balls.
“I don’t think the tweet chart is even remotely comparable to the lynching map…”
Yes. Apples, oranges, golf balls.
Here are some of the top tweeting twats of twitterstan.
I’m in favor of loosening all gun legislation for real Americans only in this country in his country to prepare for the moment when all of these vermin and their families will need to be killed.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservative-attorney-calls-for-coup-against-obama?ref=fpb
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/09/boehner-gop-leaders-obamacare-shutdown.php
Here are some of the top tweeting twats of twitterstan.
I’m in favor of loosening all gun legislation for real Americans only in this country in his country to prepare for the moment when all of these vermin and their families will need to be killed.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/conservative-attorney-calls-for-coup-against-obama?ref=fpb
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/09/boehner-gop-leaders-obamacare-shutdown.php
2nd Amendment claims 12 more victims.
Who needs lynchings any more? The unreconstructed Confederates among us sure don’t.
Am I equating “responsible gun owners” with lynchers? No. I’m equating them with the spectators at lynchings. If they feel offended by that, tough sh1t.
–TP
2nd Amendment claims 12 more victims.
Who needs lynchings any more? The unreconstructed Confederates among us sure don’t.
Am I equating “responsible gun owners” with lynchers? No. I’m equating them with the spectators at lynchings. If they feel offended by that, tough sh1t.
–TP
just to be clear, and reiterate my response to McK, I don’t equate nasty angry tweets and lynching.
i’m sure, if twitter was around when Bush 43 was elected, that there were lots of nasty angry tweets about that.
LJ’s post made me think of looking to see if there was, in fact, a map documenting where the anti-black bombings of the mid-20th C had occurred. I didn’t find it, I found other stuff, hence my reply.
The legacy of deliberate singling out of black people for adverse treatment – ranging from subjection to chattel slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to lynching, to bombing, to de jure and de facto apartheid, to redlining, to the kind of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t way that any attempt at remedial public efforts are viewed, to differential prosecution of coca derivatives highly correlated to skin color, to differences in incarceration rates, to whatever example you like, not to exclude explicitly racist language in angry nasty tweets following Obama’s election, tells me that a lot of people still carry around in their heads the idea that somebody’s skin color can tell you something important about who they are.
Explicit white supremacy is not such a socially acceptable notion nowadays (although it does have it’s fans, and retains a cachet as some kind of badge of ‘edgy’ politically-incorrect contrarianism), but that doesn’t mean racism doesn’t persist.
Even when we mean well.
There are still a lot of people alive who remember lynchings, and bombings, and beatings, and official public segregation, and all of the other crap that went on. It will take additional generations, starting now, to work out the legacies of the crap that goes on now.
Racism is bred in the American bone. It’s in our history, it’s bound up in our success as a young nation (read: free labor), it’s institutionalized in the freaking Constitution (read: 3/5 of a human).
The fact that black people no longer have to live in fear of being literally dragged out of their homes and killed for the crime of being black is, straight up, a good thing. But we’re not past the “race thing”.
It’s still with us. That’s all I’m saying.
just to be clear, and reiterate my response to McK, I don’t equate nasty angry tweets and lynching.
i’m sure, if twitter was around when Bush 43 was elected, that there were lots of nasty angry tweets about that.
LJ’s post made me think of looking to see if there was, in fact, a map documenting where the anti-black bombings of the mid-20th C had occurred. I didn’t find it, I found other stuff, hence my reply.
The legacy of deliberate singling out of black people for adverse treatment – ranging from subjection to chattel slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to lynching, to bombing, to de jure and de facto apartheid, to redlining, to the kind of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t way that any attempt at remedial public efforts are viewed, to differential prosecution of coca derivatives highly correlated to skin color, to differences in incarceration rates, to whatever example you like, not to exclude explicitly racist language in angry nasty tweets following Obama’s election, tells me that a lot of people still carry around in their heads the idea that somebody’s skin color can tell you something important about who they are.
Explicit white supremacy is not such a socially acceptable notion nowadays (although it does have it’s fans, and retains a cachet as some kind of badge of ‘edgy’ politically-incorrect contrarianism), but that doesn’t mean racism doesn’t persist.
Even when we mean well.
There are still a lot of people alive who remember lynchings, and bombings, and beatings, and official public segregation, and all of the other crap that went on. It will take additional generations, starting now, to work out the legacies of the crap that goes on now.
Racism is bred in the American bone. It’s in our history, it’s bound up in our success as a young nation (read: free labor), it’s institutionalized in the freaking Constitution (read: 3/5 of a human).
The fact that black people no longer have to live in fear of being literally dragged out of their homes and killed for the crime of being black is, straight up, a good thing. But we’re not past the “race thing”.
It’s still with us. That’s all I’m saying.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was worked out between pro-slave and anti-slave fractions. The pro-slave fraction wanted it to be one. The anti-slave fraction wanted it to be zero.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was worked out between pro-slave and anti-slave fractions. The pro-slave fraction wanted it to be one. The anti-slave fraction wanted it to be zero.
To be clear as well, what I write is not an implication of what Russell means.
He’s perfectly capable of meaning what he says, and saying it with its intended and completely transparent meaning.
I’m just doing my thing.
Come to think of it, seeing Dick Cheney hang for his crimes would be justice, and if I was a Twitter user, I would tweet it to him.
Then we could have a perfect equation of tweeting and lynching.
Maybe the NSA is reading this, and they can let him know that I hate his guts, along with his fellow travelers who when they aren’t stealing elections, refuse to except the ones they lose and then stop all governance.
As for the pro-slave fraction and the anti-slave fraction, it might be interesting to shift the reparations argument in favor of giving each black individual in this country two votes in all elections for a certain amount of time to repair the damage, instead of monetary awards.
Maybe three votes each, as a further bonus for having the patience for roughly 185 years not to kill all of us along the way, which, when you think about it, is a singular mysterious fact, a dog that that didn’t bark in the night, especially when you consider the loose talk about armed insurrection from all of the usual suspects every time a Democrat wins office, doubled down of the candidate is black.
Of course, you’ll never see a tweet thanking the American black population for their forbearance.
Should such a reparations scheme be put into place, I’d expect the racist tweeting map to be thick with talk of lynching, with its already established geographic distribution.
To be clear as well, what I write is not an implication of what Russell means.
He’s perfectly capable of meaning what he says, and saying it with its intended and completely transparent meaning.
I’m just doing my thing.
Come to think of it, seeing Dick Cheney hang for his crimes would be justice, and if I was a Twitter user, I would tweet it to him.
Then we could have a perfect equation of tweeting and lynching.
Maybe the NSA is reading this, and they can let him know that I hate his guts, along with his fellow travelers who when they aren’t stealing elections, refuse to except the ones they lose and then stop all governance.
As for the pro-slave fraction and the anti-slave fraction, it might be interesting to shift the reparations argument in favor of giving each black individual in this country two votes in all elections for a certain amount of time to repair the damage, instead of monetary awards.
Maybe three votes each, as a further bonus for having the patience for roughly 185 years not to kill all of us along the way, which, when you think about it, is a singular mysterious fact, a dog that that didn’t bark in the night, especially when you consider the loose talk about armed insurrection from all of the usual suspects every time a Democrat wins office, doubled down of the candidate is black.
Of course, you’ll never see a tweet thanking the American black population for their forbearance.
Should such a reparations scheme be put into place, I’d expect the racist tweeting map to be thick with talk of lynching, with its already established geographic distribution.
I’m equating them with the spectators at lynchings. If they feel offended by that, tough sh1t.
I am not offended, just as I doubt you would be offended if I or someone else called you a communist or a Nazi.
I’m equating them with the spectators at lynchings. If they feel offended by that, tough sh1t.
I am not offended, just as I doubt you would be offended if I or someone else called you a communist or a Nazi.
“The legacy of deliberate singling out of black people for adverse treatment – ranging from subjection to chattel slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to lynching, to bombing, to de jure and de facto apartheid, to redlining, to the kind of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t way that any attempt at remedial public efforts are viewed, to differential prosecution of coca derivatives highly correlated to skin color, to differences in incarceration rates, to whatever example you like, not to exclude explicitly racist language in angry nasty tweets following Obama’s election, tells me that a lot of people still carry around in their heads the idea that somebody’s skin color can tell you something important about who they are.”
Also voter suppression laws. And several Republican politicians, including one from Texas, have been quite honest about the purpose of such efforts.
“The legacy of deliberate singling out of black people for adverse treatment – ranging from subjection to chattel slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to lynching, to bombing, to de jure and de facto apartheid, to redlining, to the kind of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t way that any attempt at remedial public efforts are viewed, to differential prosecution of coca derivatives highly correlated to skin color, to differences in incarceration rates, to whatever example you like, not to exclude explicitly racist language in angry nasty tweets following Obama’s election, tells me that a lot of people still carry around in their heads the idea that somebody’s skin color can tell you something important about who they are.”
Also voter suppression laws. And several Republican politicians, including one from Texas, have been quite honest about the purpose of such efforts.
BTW, I did not intend, by pointing out the purpose of voter suppression laws, to imply that all Republicans, or even most, are racist. I think that Republican politicians are interested in winning elections, and since their goal as politicians is to serve the 2% at the expense of everyone else, and their main tactic for getting elected is to appeal to the worst in the voters, then appeals to racism, like appeals to selfishness or fear or hating gays or fear that government tax money might be spent on a non-red state or fear that other people might not be living according to a rightwing interpretation of Christianity or whatever negativity they can dream up, is just one more means to an end.
BTW, I did not intend, by pointing out the purpose of voter suppression laws, to imply that all Republicans, or even most, are racist. I think that Republican politicians are interested in winning elections, and since their goal as politicians is to serve the 2% at the expense of everyone else, and their main tactic for getting elected is to appeal to the worst in the voters, then appeals to racism, like appeals to selfishness or fear or hating gays or fear that government tax money might be spent on a non-red state or fear that other people might not be living according to a rightwing interpretation of Christianity or whatever negativity they can dream up, is just one more means to an end.
One great thing about Barack Obama, despite his faults, is that he has been called a Communist, a Nazi, and a Muslim terrorist simultaneously, usually in the same sentence on the airwaves and on Twitter, Twaddle, and Twistit.
One great thing about Barack Obama, despite his faults, is that he has been called a Communist, a Nazi, and a Muslim terrorist simultaneously, usually in the same sentence on the airwaves and on Twitter, Twaddle, and Twistit.
Dick Cheney confines himself to the Nazi label, a specialization which oddly enough has stood him in good stead among the usual suspects.
It’s Obama’s forays outside Nazism and into the other categories that pisses off the same suspects.
Dick Cheney confines himself to the Nazi label, a specialization which oddly enough has stood him in good stead among the usual suspects.
It’s Obama’s forays outside Nazism and into the other categories that pisses off the same suspects.
One great thing about Barack Obama, despite his faults, is that he has been called a Communist, a Nazi, and a Muslim terrorist simultaneously
a true American, he contains multitudes.
One great thing about Barack Obama, despite his faults, is that he has been called a Communist, a Nazi, and a Muslim terrorist simultaneously
a true American, he contains multitudes.
the other (or an other) thing I feel obliged to say is that my referencing the maps was not specifically intended to damn the south.
explicit, de jure racism was more prevalent in the south – meaning the former confederate states – for lots of reasons, but widespread acceptance and equal treatment of blacks and other minorities was not (and definitely is not) a given elsewhere in the country.
when I was a kid, my family lived briefly in Yaphank, NY, out in then-rural Suffolk County on Long Island. among other things, Yaphank is notable for having been the home of Camp Siegfried, a Nazi summer camp. which operated through the 30’s, until we declared war on Germany.
many of my wife’s people were klan members in the 30’s through the early 50’s, in western PA and northeast OH. they were part of the “good klan”, though, they explained, and we didn’t care to ask for clarification.
Indiana has, historically, been home to lots of white supremacist activity, including klan membership and lynchings.
i live in new england now, and outside of cities there is just not a lot of brown skin in evidence, anywhere. some south asians in the leafy burbs in places where there’s a strong tech sector, but definitely not much african heritage.
must be because it’s so cold up here.
it’s not something that is confined to the south.
the other (or an other) thing I feel obliged to say is that my referencing the maps was not specifically intended to damn the south.
explicit, de jure racism was more prevalent in the south – meaning the former confederate states – for lots of reasons, but widespread acceptance and equal treatment of blacks and other minorities was not (and definitely is not) a given elsewhere in the country.
when I was a kid, my family lived briefly in Yaphank, NY, out in then-rural Suffolk County on Long Island. among other things, Yaphank is notable for having been the home of Camp Siegfried, a Nazi summer camp. which operated through the 30’s, until we declared war on Germany.
many of my wife’s people were klan members in the 30’s through the early 50’s, in western PA and northeast OH. they were part of the “good klan”, though, they explained, and we didn’t care to ask for clarification.
Indiana has, historically, been home to lots of white supremacist activity, including klan membership and lynchings.
i live in new england now, and outside of cities there is just not a lot of brown skin in evidence, anywhere. some south asians in the leafy burbs in places where there’s a strong tech sector, but definitely not much african heritage.
must be because it’s so cold up here.
it’s not something that is confined to the south.
That gets a bit awkward when you consider that a respectable number of responsible gun owners are black and/or completely disinterested in attacking and killing other human beings. Depending on which way you want to bend the comparison.
Your equation fails to equate, in other words. Less politely: it’s a fncking ridiculous statement, and were I you I would be wishing for an edit feature in comments so that I could go back and erase it.
That gets a bit awkward when you consider that a respectable number of responsible gun owners are black and/or completely disinterested in attacking and killing other human beings. Depending on which way you want to bend the comparison.
Your equation fails to equate, in other words. Less politely: it’s a fncking ridiculous statement, and were I you I would be wishing for an edit feature in comments so that I could go back and erase it.
it’s not something that is confined to the south.
*It* isn’t even something that is confined to the US. The tribalism that drove the genocide in Rwanda is indistinguishable from racism. We tend to focus on domestic majority-to-minority oppression as if it was pervasive, unwavering and unique to the American experience. It’s a kind of perverse American Exceptionalism in which the white majority are, and always have been, exceptionally racist, greedy, oppressive, etc, etc. The middle 19th century was a period of historical enlightenment, compared to pretty much all that had preceded it, yet by today’s standards, even many radical northerners would fail to pass current values muster. But even still, some hundreds of thousands of northerners died in a war that, but for slavery and opposition to it, would never have been fought. And since then, not at light speed but with observable, ongoing progress, we have self-corrected to a considerable degree.
I don’t know what other folks are seeing around the country. I live in Houston in a reasonably affluent but transitional neighborhood. At both the upper and lower end, there is visible diversity. We went to dinner last night at a mid-range, fairly nice restaurant. The clientele were visibly diverse. The law firm I go to work at everyday is visibly diverse. Both the Federal and state courthouses are visibly diverse. I spent the day Monday with a new client whose senior management is visibly diverse. So, while I’m sure, if one cares to look for it, one can find or assemble evidence that in a country of 300 million plus, there are still plenty of stupid bigots around. What I don’t see is much in the way of noticing what I’ve laid out above. Since I’m not the only person in my part of town, I am pretty sure I am not alone in what I am seeing. Or, maybe some parts of Texas aren’t the hellhole some from out of state seem to think it is.
it’s not something that is confined to the south.
*It* isn’t even something that is confined to the US. The tribalism that drove the genocide in Rwanda is indistinguishable from racism. We tend to focus on domestic majority-to-minority oppression as if it was pervasive, unwavering and unique to the American experience. It’s a kind of perverse American Exceptionalism in which the white majority are, and always have been, exceptionally racist, greedy, oppressive, etc, etc. The middle 19th century was a period of historical enlightenment, compared to pretty much all that had preceded it, yet by today’s standards, even many radical northerners would fail to pass current values muster. But even still, some hundreds of thousands of northerners died in a war that, but for slavery and opposition to it, would never have been fought. And since then, not at light speed but with observable, ongoing progress, we have self-corrected to a considerable degree.
I don’t know what other folks are seeing around the country. I live in Houston in a reasonably affluent but transitional neighborhood. At both the upper and lower end, there is visible diversity. We went to dinner last night at a mid-range, fairly nice restaurant. The clientele were visibly diverse. The law firm I go to work at everyday is visibly diverse. Both the Federal and state courthouses are visibly diverse. I spent the day Monday with a new client whose senior management is visibly diverse. So, while I’m sure, if one cares to look for it, one can find or assemble evidence that in a country of 300 million plus, there are still plenty of stupid bigots around. What I don’t see is much in the way of noticing what I’ve laid out above. Since I’m not the only person in my part of town, I am pretty sure I am not alone in what I am seeing. Or, maybe some parts of Texas aren’t the hellhole some from out of state seem to think it is.
a map of lynchings
know what sucks? learning that there were two in my county-of-residence (as opposed to 0 in the whole state of NY, where i was born and raised).
i’m curious to know the details, but afraid of finding out that they happened at a place i can’t avoid.
heckofa job, racists. you’ve permanently poisoned the area.
a map of lynchings
know what sucks? learning that there were two in my county-of-residence (as opposed to 0 in the whole state of NY, where i was born and raised).
i’m curious to know the details, but afraid of finding out that they happened at a place i can’t avoid.
heckofa job, racists. you’ve permanently poisoned the area.
Coincidentally, a friend and I were discussing this very thing on the drive home last night. I think our micro-consensus was that the 3/5 compromise was an abomination and a perversion of the abstract ideals expressed in the Constitution, but it was one necessary to form a coalition of states capable of (barely) achieving independence from the mother country.
Whether it was all worth it in the long run is not something I’d care to comment on. I think I’ve previously expressed thoughts to the effect that we’d be in better shape now (in many ways) if we had simply knuckled under. But we don’t really have any kind of alternate history available so that we could look to see for sure.
Coincidentally, a friend and I were discussing this very thing on the drive home last night. I think our micro-consensus was that the 3/5 compromise was an abomination and a perversion of the abstract ideals expressed in the Constitution, but it was one necessary to form a coalition of states capable of (barely) achieving independence from the mother country.
Whether it was all worth it in the long run is not something I’d care to comment on. I think I’ve previously expressed thoughts to the effect that we’d be in better shape now (in many ways) if we had simply knuckled under. But we don’t really have any kind of alternate history available so that we could look to see for sure.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/laporte/michigan-city/official–year-old-boy-killed-during-gun-related-game/article_0191550e-2ad6-56b3-98b9-a12b11c8ab4f.html
This kind of crap happens every day, but I don’t blame responsible gun owners solely, I blame all of us for not having the guts to stand up to the Second Amendment fetishists by shouting down the NRA and other gun absolutists on their turf while being armed, and then closing the armaments factories, and executing all black market gun dealers.
Course, somewhere a tweet is being twittered at this moment pointing out that if the 3-year-old had been armed with a gun as well, instead of just his fingers, this wouldn’t have happened.
Glad to see Starbucks decided to disallow carrying guns in their stores.
Commence the tweeting now from the radical gun enthusiasts predicting/hoping for a shoot-em-up with numerous unarmed serves em right latte drinking victims while of course, simultaneously lobbing tweets to their representatives that any further moves in the direction of universal background checks, etc, will be met with threats of electoral catastrophe as a prelude to armed resistance.
I’m thinking now in this hepped-up atmosphere of we’d better be armed to head off these pointless mass killings and playtime with the children includes real gunplay killings happening every month, some on military bases which, if I’m not mistaken, are bristling with armaments, what I should do in a Starbucks if I’m carrying (I’m quite certain numerous (not all) individuals who carry are going to start patronizing Starbucks just to smirk on Twitter that they and the Founders have big dicks; of course they won’t be on hand to actually prevent any gun violence by the other hopeless romantics who we are told by the former will now target Starbucks for violence because …. sitting ducks) and notice that another whackjob like me is carrying too.
Should I assume, in a preventative posture, given the ever constant threat of incipient violence against my person and the white-knuckled vigilance I’m counseled to maintain by the gun lobby, that this other guy with the telltale bulge means harm and wait until he draws his weapon and THEN shoot him in the solar plexus, or should I make eye contact and pat my bulge (and I don’t mean my Michael Jackson bulge) to let him know any false moves will be met with incoming fire, or should I just shoot the f&cker in the head and ask questions later.
I tought I taw a pussycat!
We’re all suspects now.
As Jonathan Schell said of failed nuclear deterrence, in what Martin Amis termed a “noble syllogism”: “He, thinking I was about to kill him in self-defense, was about to kill me in self-defense. So I killed him in self-defense.”
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/laporte/michigan-city/official–year-old-boy-killed-during-gun-related-game/article_0191550e-2ad6-56b3-98b9-a12b11c8ab4f.html
This kind of crap happens every day, but I don’t blame responsible gun owners solely, I blame all of us for not having the guts to stand up to the Second Amendment fetishists by shouting down the NRA and other gun absolutists on their turf while being armed, and then closing the armaments factories, and executing all black market gun dealers.
Course, somewhere a tweet is being twittered at this moment pointing out that if the 3-year-old had been armed with a gun as well, instead of just his fingers, this wouldn’t have happened.
Glad to see Starbucks decided to disallow carrying guns in their stores.
Commence the tweeting now from the radical gun enthusiasts predicting/hoping for a shoot-em-up with numerous unarmed serves em right latte drinking victims while of course, simultaneously lobbing tweets to their representatives that any further moves in the direction of universal background checks, etc, will be met with threats of electoral catastrophe as a prelude to armed resistance.
I’m thinking now in this hepped-up atmosphere of we’d better be armed to head off these pointless mass killings and playtime with the children includes real gunplay killings happening every month, some on military bases which, if I’m not mistaken, are bristling with armaments, what I should do in a Starbucks if I’m carrying (I’m quite certain numerous (not all) individuals who carry are going to start patronizing Starbucks just to smirk on Twitter that they and the Founders have big dicks; of course they won’t be on hand to actually prevent any gun violence by the other hopeless romantics who we are told by the former will now target Starbucks for violence because …. sitting ducks) and notice that another whackjob like me is carrying too.
Should I assume, in a preventative posture, given the ever constant threat of incipient violence against my person and the white-knuckled vigilance I’m counseled to maintain by the gun lobby, that this other guy with the telltale bulge means harm and wait until he draws his weapon and THEN shoot him in the solar plexus, or should I make eye contact and pat my bulge (and I don’t mean my Michael Jackson bulge) to let him know any false moves will be met with incoming fire, or should I just shoot the f&cker in the head and ask questions later.
I tought I taw a pussycat!
We’re all suspects now.
As Jonathan Schell said of failed nuclear deterrence, in what Martin Amis termed a “noble syllogism”: “He, thinking I was about to kill him in self-defense, was about to kill me in self-defense. So I killed him in self-defense.”
More generally: gun owner intersects broadly with a number of demographics, including Democrat. I am personally acquainted with Democrats who would take very, very personal offense at your statement.
Which is not to say that it won’t find any agreement anywhere, naturally.
I would propose that we just take a quick shortcut to the inevitable end state of: responsible gun owners are just like Hitler.
More generally: gun owner intersects broadly with a number of demographics, including Democrat. I am personally acquainted with Democrats who would take very, very personal offense at your statement.
Which is not to say that it won’t find any agreement anywhere, naturally.
I would propose that we just take a quick shortcut to the inevitable end state of: responsible gun owners are just like Hitler.
This kind of crap happens every day, but I don’t blame responsible gun owners solely, I blame all of us for not having the guts to stand up to the Second Amendment fetishists by shouting down the NRA and other gun absolutists on their turf while being armed, and then closing the armaments factories, and executing all black market gun dealers.
What I seriously don’t get is that stupidity with a gun is treated as a class completely apart from every other form of stupidity that produces injury or death. Can you explain that to me? I have hunting rifles that my son and I share (4), shotguns (3), a couple of .22’s and two pistols. I shoot a shotgun or a rifle maybe two days a year, out in the boondocks, and I haven’t fired either pistol in 10 years if not longer. I also have a car that I drive everyday, and I annually drive more than 20,000 miles (and have done so for the last three decades). Which instrumentality poses the more likely harm to myself or others?
This kind of crap happens every day, but I don’t blame responsible gun owners solely, I blame all of us for not having the guts to stand up to the Second Amendment fetishists by shouting down the NRA and other gun absolutists on their turf while being armed, and then closing the armaments factories, and executing all black market gun dealers.
What I seriously don’t get is that stupidity with a gun is treated as a class completely apart from every other form of stupidity that produces injury or death. Can you explain that to me? I have hunting rifles that my son and I share (4), shotguns (3), a couple of .22’s and two pistols. I shoot a shotgun or a rifle maybe two days a year, out in the boondocks, and I haven’t fired either pistol in 10 years if not longer. I also have a car that I drive everyday, and I annually drive more than 20,000 miles (and have done so for the last three decades). Which instrumentality poses the more likely harm to myself or others?
I’m always unclear on what ‘responsible gun owner’ means. I thought it meant that unless you’re actively taking your gun hunting or to the range, you leave it in a locked cabinet with ammunition in another room. But that doesn’t seem to be what it means since that definition precludes being able to quickly respond to an intruder. So there’s another meaning where you leave loaded guns easily accessible in your house, perfect for small children or mentally unstable people to discover and shoot someone with.
Can all the gun owners here clarify which version of responsible gun owner they are?
I’m always unclear on what ‘responsible gun owner’ means. I thought it meant that unless you’re actively taking your gun hunting or to the range, you leave it in a locked cabinet with ammunition in another room. But that doesn’t seem to be what it means since that definition precludes being able to quickly respond to an intruder. So there’s another meaning where you leave loaded guns easily accessible in your house, perfect for small children or mentally unstable people to discover and shoot someone with.
Can all the gun owners here clarify which version of responsible gun owner they are?
Which instrumentality poses the more likely harm to myself or others?
one instrument was intentionally designed to kill and one was designed to transport.
one has a secondary function as a means of entertainment. this secondary function is referred to as “practice”: practicing the skills and techniques for killing in deliberately difficult situations – when what you want to kill might run away if it sees you. whereas killing an unsuspecting person involves walking up to them, lifting the item and moving your index finger. and one is designed to get a family to grandma’s house and contains a host of features, mandated by scores of laws and regulations, to reduce the likelihood of injury to users and bystanders.
one requires a license to operate legally, can be taken away if abused and is a vital part of most people’s lives. the other can be purchased at Wal*Mart, no questions asked and can never be taken away because FREEDOM.
Which instrumentality poses the more likely harm to myself or others?
one instrument was intentionally designed to kill and one was designed to transport.
one has a secondary function as a means of entertainment. this secondary function is referred to as “practice”: practicing the skills and techniques for killing in deliberately difficult situations – when what you want to kill might run away if it sees you. whereas killing an unsuspecting person involves walking up to them, lifting the item and moving your index finger. and one is designed to get a family to grandma’s house and contains a host of features, mandated by scores of laws and regulations, to reduce the likelihood of injury to users and bystanders.
one requires a license to operate legally, can be taken away if abused and is a vital part of most people’s lives. the other can be purchased at Wal*Mart, no questions asked and can never be taken away because FREEDOM.
Me: rifle and all spare ammunition in the spindial-locked gun safe; pistol kept loaded and ready in a smaller cipher-lock case. Right now we don’t have any reserve ammunition in the pistol safe, but that may change. Pistol is loaded with Glaser Safety Slugs, or similar.
The kids have been repeatedly lectured on how dangerous guns are. We’re extremely careful with them. We stress repeatedly that guns are things you have to treat with a great deal of respect, similar to how you have to behave around e.g. a large woodcutting saw. The younger one will learn firearms safety from an instructor very soon; the older one may never fire a weapon.
Me: rifle and all spare ammunition in the spindial-locked gun safe; pistol kept loaded and ready in a smaller cipher-lock case. Right now we don’t have any reserve ammunition in the pistol safe, but that may change. Pistol is loaded with Glaser Safety Slugs, or similar.
The kids have been repeatedly lectured on how dangerous guns are. We’re extremely careful with them. We stress repeatedly that guns are things you have to treat with a great deal of respect, similar to how you have to behave around e.g. a large woodcutting saw. The younger one will learn firearms safety from an instructor very soon; the older one may never fire a weapon.
Good question, McTx.
Which I would counter with a question:
Which instrumentality is manufactured expressly to harm myself and others, stupidly or not, and is used expressly for that purpose many times over, as opposed to being used to drive to the grocery store and accidentally, in almost all cases, causing harm to myself and others.
I haven’t noticed a telescopic sight on my car, but I don’t read owner’s manuals, nor do I know of any driving ranges that put up silhouettes of human beings to run over in self defense or for any other reason.
I’m not against hunting, though I don’t hunt, but I don’t recall the advertising for my model of car including huzzahs about its effectiveness in roadkill incidents, not are there national organizations hyping the instrumentality of my car in roadkill incidents.
I don’t remember the last time a gun fetishist, as opposed to a responsible gun owner, counseled owning a car just in case we might have to overthrow the government.
A car is a vehicle that has accidents on the way to the grocery store. A tank is a vehicle with a gun on top of it for one purpose only.
Guns do one thing. Do you know what it is?
Of course you do. They are paperweights awaiting their use for that one thing, stupidly or not.
“Can all the gun owners here clarify which version of responsible gun owner they are?”
I am the version that doesn’t buy a gun, though the Republican Party is convincing me that I’m wrong that I’m wrong about that because too many of them are threatening my country.
Good question, McTx.
Which I would counter with a question:
Which instrumentality is manufactured expressly to harm myself and others, stupidly or not, and is used expressly for that purpose many times over, as opposed to being used to drive to the grocery store and accidentally, in almost all cases, causing harm to myself and others.
I haven’t noticed a telescopic sight on my car, but I don’t read owner’s manuals, nor do I know of any driving ranges that put up silhouettes of human beings to run over in self defense or for any other reason.
I’m not against hunting, though I don’t hunt, but I don’t recall the advertising for my model of car including huzzahs about its effectiveness in roadkill incidents, not are there national organizations hyping the instrumentality of my car in roadkill incidents.
I don’t remember the last time a gun fetishist, as opposed to a responsible gun owner, counseled owning a car just in case we might have to overthrow the government.
A car is a vehicle that has accidents on the way to the grocery store. A tank is a vehicle with a gun on top of it for one purpose only.
Guns do one thing. Do you know what it is?
Of course you do. They are paperweights awaiting their use for that one thing, stupidly or not.
“Can all the gun owners here clarify which version of responsible gun owner they are?”
I am the version that doesn’t buy a gun, though the Republican Party is convincing me that I’m wrong that I’m wrong about that because too many of them are threatening my country.
*It* isn’t even something that is confined to the US.
Yes, that’s correct. And, many of the places where widespread, systematic, institutionalized racism was part of the culture, share many of the same lingering issues that we experience.
There are some unique aspects of the American legacy of white supremacy, for instance chattel slavery as an essential component of the economy of a large part of the country.
So, more than just tribalism – tribalism based on a doctrine of race and racial superiority, and enshrined in law and every public and social institution.
I don’t discount that tremendous progress has been made. However I also don’t therefore claim that we’re past it all.
Glad your experience in Houston is one of general color-blindness. Your city may well be ahead of mine on that count.
*It* isn’t even something that is confined to the US.
Yes, that’s correct. And, many of the places where widespread, systematic, institutionalized racism was part of the culture, share many of the same lingering issues that we experience.
There are some unique aspects of the American legacy of white supremacy, for instance chattel slavery as an essential component of the economy of a large part of the country.
So, more than just tribalism – tribalism based on a doctrine of race and racial superiority, and enshrined in law and every public and social institution.
I don’t discount that tremendous progress has been made. However I also don’t therefore claim that we’re past it all.
Glad your experience in Houston is one of general color-blindness. Your city may well be ahead of mine on that count.
I don’t necessarily endorse Tony P.’s statement equating “responsible gun owners” with lynching spectators, but I would guess that he wasn’t equating them in the sense that they are equally racist. I think he means that they are complicit in preventable gun deaths because they support (an) organization(s) that actively oppose(s) sensible restrictions on firearms ownership and use, the same way that spectators of lynchings are complicit in the deaths of lynched blacks (or whoever else might be lynched).
That some number of “responsible gun owners” might be black isn’t particularly relevant, if I’m right about what he’s saying.
I don’t necessarily endorse Tony P.’s statement equating “responsible gun owners” with lynching spectators, but I would guess that he wasn’t equating them in the sense that they are equally racist. I think he means that they are complicit in preventable gun deaths because they support (an) organization(s) that actively oppose(s) sensible restrictions on firearms ownership and use, the same way that spectators of lynchings are complicit in the deaths of lynched blacks (or whoever else might be lynched).
That some number of “responsible gun owners” might be black isn’t particularly relevant, if I’m right about what he’s saying.
This is nonsense, of course. Lynching is murder. Spectators at a lynching are there because they want to see some killing done. Firearms ownership and support thereof is not murder, and doesn’t constitute any kind of approval, tacit or otherwise, of murder.
But Hitler would approve of the mass condemnation of a group of people. Why, they’re hardly even human.
This is nonsense, of course. Lynching is murder. Spectators at a lynching are there because they want to see some killing done. Firearms ownership and support thereof is not murder, and doesn’t constitute any kind of approval, tacit or otherwise, of murder.
But Hitler would approve of the mass condemnation of a group of people. Why, they’re hardly even human.
WRT McK’s personal (non)-experience of racism, my life is much the same in this regard, but I don’t see this as having much evidentiary value.
To wit: I see racially diverse (if not balanced) groups at church, in shopping, at the hospital, etc. around town (Durham, NC), and I haven’t encountered overt racism directed at myself or anyone else. OTOH, I read the local newspapers, and I observe what’s obvious in terms of where people live (spelled out more explicitly on the recent ethnic/racial map of the USA linked here not long ago), and I know that there’s in fact a lot of racism around – more in the area outside the “Research Triangle” than within it, but plenty within it as well, if one’s antennae are up.
I’m white (and male, and heterosexually married, and moderately affluent) so I don’t have to encounter racism on a regular basis, which is nice. On the other hand, I’m not so blinded by this privilege as to assume that my sheltered experience is indicative of much.
YMMV.
WRT McK’s personal (non)-experience of racism, my life is much the same in this regard, but I don’t see this as having much evidentiary value.
To wit: I see racially diverse (if not balanced) groups at church, in shopping, at the hospital, etc. around town (Durham, NC), and I haven’t encountered overt racism directed at myself or anyone else. OTOH, I read the local newspapers, and I observe what’s obvious in terms of where people live (spelled out more explicitly on the recent ethnic/racial map of the USA linked here not long ago), and I know that there’s in fact a lot of racism around – more in the area outside the “Research Triangle” than within it, but plenty within it as well, if one’s antennae are up.
I’m white (and male, and heterosexually married, and moderately affluent) so I don’t have to encounter racism on a regular basis, which is nice. On the other hand, I’m not so blinded by this privilege as to assume that my sheltered experience is indicative of much.
YMMV.
Which instrumentality is manufactured expressly to harm myself and others, stupidly or not, and is used expressly for that purpose many times over, as opposed to being used to drive to the grocery store and accidentally, in almost all cases, causing harm to myself and others
None of my guns are expressly manufactured to harm anyone although they have that capacity depending on who is holding which kind of gun, so I supposed I disagree with the premise of your question.
But, you are not alone in noting that guns are weapons, primarily, and cars are not. Ok, granted.
If that is the demarcation point for policy conversations, then what is the correct policy for guns: confiscation, severe licensing and whatnot requirements, what? Because the farther you go down this road, the more you prove the points Brett and his friends make and the more you undercut your own and others here comments that you have no beef with a gun for home protection or for hunting or what have you.
And, no one has answered my question, which I will rephrase: there is no end to the mischief humans do to themselves and others with a broad range of devices, or even bare hands, so why are guns the only instrument that the left fixates on? Cars and alcohol produce at least as many fatalities and if the left gets their way, pot will be legal, which will add to the numbers. In that context, we blame the drunk–why not the same for the shooter?
Which instrumentality is manufactured expressly to harm myself and others, stupidly or not, and is used expressly for that purpose many times over, as opposed to being used to drive to the grocery store and accidentally, in almost all cases, causing harm to myself and others
None of my guns are expressly manufactured to harm anyone although they have that capacity depending on who is holding which kind of gun, so I supposed I disagree with the premise of your question.
But, you are not alone in noting that guns are weapons, primarily, and cars are not. Ok, granted.
If that is the demarcation point for policy conversations, then what is the correct policy for guns: confiscation, severe licensing and whatnot requirements, what? Because the farther you go down this road, the more you prove the points Brett and his friends make and the more you undercut your own and others here comments that you have no beef with a gun for home protection or for hunting or what have you.
And, no one has answered my question, which I will rephrase: there is no end to the mischief humans do to themselves and others with a broad range of devices, or even bare hands, so why are guns the only instrument that the left fixates on? Cars and alcohol produce at least as many fatalities and if the left gets their way, pot will be legal, which will add to the numbers. In that context, we blame the drunk–why not the same for the shooter?
I know that there’s in fact a lot of racism around – more in the area outside the “Research Triangle” than within it, but plenty within it as well, if one’s antennae are up.
How does one *know* this? It’s a statement I would have agreed with 20 or 30 years ago, but today, no, I’m not seeing it. We now have, in the US, 50% plus supporting/approving of gay marriage/civil union. Younger people are crowding out the older folks. More than ever before, attitudes are changing almost in real time. Advocates of integration, de facto and de jure, have won the war, there is no going back, but there will always be a fringe of bitter enders. Many here like to talk about Republican wedge issues. I’m tired of those on the left who find racists under every bed and waive that bloody shirt endlessly and ad nauseum.
I know that there’s in fact a lot of racism around – more in the area outside the “Research Triangle” than within it, but plenty within it as well, if one’s antennae are up.
How does one *know* this? It’s a statement I would have agreed with 20 or 30 years ago, but today, no, I’m not seeing it. We now have, in the US, 50% plus supporting/approving of gay marriage/civil union. Younger people are crowding out the older folks. More than ever before, attitudes are changing almost in real time. Advocates of integration, de facto and de jure, have won the war, there is no going back, but there will always be a fringe of bitter enders. Many here like to talk about Republican wedge issues. I’m tired of those on the left who find racists under every bed and waive that bloody shirt endlessly and ad nauseum.
…so why are guns the only instrument that the left fixates on?
Seems you’ve buried your conclusion into your premise there.
Firearms ownership and support thereof is not murder, and doesn’t constitute any kind of approval, tacit or otherwise, of murder.
I don’t think anyone is talking simply about firearms ownership or the support thereof. I mean, I support firearms ownership within limits, thus the scare quotes around “responsible gun owners.”
Some people, myself included, truly think there are reasonable policies that could reduce gun deaths without diminishing liberty in a meaningful way. (I’d go so far as to say that being shot diminshes liberty a hell of a lot more than firearms restrictions.) You, of course, may disagree.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the NRA lobbied very hard for a policy of completely unfettered gun ownership, completely free of restrictions – be they based on criminal records, mental health, age, types of guns, and whatever, as well as having no criminal penalties or specific crimes based on the use of a firearm. Robbery is robbery, murder is murder, assault is assult, gun or no gun – doesn’t matter. Let’s also assume they were successful at getting that policy on the books as law, across the country, and that gun deaths skyrocketed as a result thereafter.
Would you then say that people who supported the NRA were complicit in some number of the additional deaths by firearm, even though they didn’t pull the trigger in any of them? Would you then disagree that they were in some sense like lynching spectators who allowed and, through social support, enable lynchings to go on as much as they did?
I know that’s not what’s going on, of course. I’m just trying to make the situation such that you would end up on the other side of the debate that is the premise for what Tony P. is saying.
…so why are guns the only instrument that the left fixates on?
Seems you’ve buried your conclusion into your premise there.
Firearms ownership and support thereof is not murder, and doesn’t constitute any kind of approval, tacit or otherwise, of murder.
I don’t think anyone is talking simply about firearms ownership or the support thereof. I mean, I support firearms ownership within limits, thus the scare quotes around “responsible gun owners.”
Some people, myself included, truly think there are reasonable policies that could reduce gun deaths without diminishing liberty in a meaningful way. (I’d go so far as to say that being shot diminshes liberty a hell of a lot more than firearms restrictions.) You, of course, may disagree.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the NRA lobbied very hard for a policy of completely unfettered gun ownership, completely free of restrictions – be they based on criminal records, mental health, age, types of guns, and whatever, as well as having no criminal penalties or specific crimes based on the use of a firearm. Robbery is robbery, murder is murder, assault is assult, gun or no gun – doesn’t matter. Let’s also assume they were successful at getting that policy on the books as law, across the country, and that gun deaths skyrocketed as a result thereafter.
Would you then say that people who supported the NRA were complicit in some number of the additional deaths by firearm, even though they didn’t pull the trigger in any of them? Would you then disagree that they were in some sense like lynching spectators who allowed and, through social support, enable lynchings to go on as much as they did?
I know that’s not what’s going on, of course. I’m just trying to make the situation such that you would end up on the other side of the debate that is the premise for what Tony P. is saying.
Seems you’ve buried your conclusion into your premise there.
Which is not an answer to the question. We blame drunks for drunk driving, not the car, not the booze–why not the same for guns?
let’s assume the NRA lobbied very hard for a policy of completely unfettered gun ownership, completely free of restrictions – be they based on criminal records, mental health, age, types of guns, and whatever, as well as having no criminal penalties or specific crimes based on the use of a firearm.
I am not aware of the NRA’s specific policy views, but I am pretty sure that none of these are on the table. No one is supporting unfettered gun possession by the mentally ill or criminally-minded–just the opposite, in fact, if you are paying attention to the discussions in conservative circles.
TP’s rather incendiary comment is based on the real world, here and now; your construct does not exist, and never will exist.
Seems you’ve buried your conclusion into your premise there.
Which is not an answer to the question. We blame drunks for drunk driving, not the car, not the booze–why not the same for guns?
let’s assume the NRA lobbied very hard for a policy of completely unfettered gun ownership, completely free of restrictions – be they based on criminal records, mental health, age, types of guns, and whatever, as well as having no criminal penalties or specific crimes based on the use of a firearm.
I am not aware of the NRA’s specific policy views, but I am pretty sure that none of these are on the table. No one is supporting unfettered gun possession by the mentally ill or criminally-minded–just the opposite, in fact, if you are paying attention to the discussions in conservative circles.
TP’s rather incendiary comment is based on the real world, here and now; your construct does not exist, and never will exist.
why are guns the only instrument that the left fixates on?
Over the last couple of decades, folks (left, right, and otherwise) have ‘fixated’ on:
So, guns are not so unique.
Cars and alcohol produce at least as many fatalities
And cars and alcohol are heavily regulated.
In any case, my point of view on guns, as oft-repeated here, is that if you’re not a criminal, insane, or a demonstrable knucklehead, and you want a gun, feel free.
I’m also fine with limits on magazine capacity. I’m absolutely fine with the existing proscription of fully automatic weapons in private hands. And I’m fine with mandatory background checks before sale, including private sales. I think it’s great that, in my personal jurisdiction, the bar for carrying in public is higher than for simple ownership for hunting or home defense.
Because all of those things reduce the risk to folks who have to live near the people who feel like they want or need a gun.
Those folks have an interest in the issue as well. And none of those limitations amount to a “disarming” of the civilian population.
But if you’re not nuts, a criminal, or a demonstrable ass, and you want a gun, feel free.
Live it up.
if the left gets their way, pot will be legal, which will add to the numbers.
Not a hill I’m prepared to either die on or even go to any great lengths to defend, but I don’t see pot legalization as leading to increased fatalities.
It doesn’t make people reckless or aggressive.
why are guns the only instrument that the left fixates on?
Over the last couple of decades, folks (left, right, and otherwise) have ‘fixated’ on:
So, guns are not so unique.
Cars and alcohol produce at least as many fatalities
And cars and alcohol are heavily regulated.
In any case, my point of view on guns, as oft-repeated here, is that if you’re not a criminal, insane, or a demonstrable knucklehead, and you want a gun, feel free.
I’m also fine with limits on magazine capacity. I’m absolutely fine with the existing proscription of fully automatic weapons in private hands. And I’m fine with mandatory background checks before sale, including private sales. I think it’s great that, in my personal jurisdiction, the bar for carrying in public is higher than for simple ownership for hunting or home defense.
Because all of those things reduce the risk to folks who have to live near the people who feel like they want or need a gun.
Those folks have an interest in the issue as well. And none of those limitations amount to a “disarming” of the civilian population.
But if you’re not nuts, a criminal, or a demonstrable ass, and you want a gun, feel free.
Live it up.
if the left gets their way, pot will be legal, which will add to the numbers.
Not a hill I’m prepared to either die on or even go to any great lengths to defend, but I don’t see pot legalization as leading to increased fatalities.
It doesn’t make people reckless or aggressive.
…your construct does not exist, and never will exist.
I know that. I acknowledged that. My point was that Tony P. and Slart are coming from two different perspectives on sensible restrictions on firearms. I’m trying to paint an admittedly unrealistic picture, but one that would turn Slart into Tony P. with regards to the premises under which they are arguing.
We already know we disagree on where the line should be on firearms, but I don’t think we disagree that there should be a line somewhere. That makes me want to explore what it would take to move someone to the other side of the debate, even if I have to move the debate, while the person stays right where he is.
Is it the logic, itself, or the premises that lead people to different conclusions?
I’d also add for clarity that not all deaths are murders, so we don’t necessarily have to be talking about murder when someone is somehow complicit in another’s death.
…your construct does not exist, and never will exist.
I know that. I acknowledged that. My point was that Tony P. and Slart are coming from two different perspectives on sensible restrictions on firearms. I’m trying to paint an admittedly unrealistic picture, but one that would turn Slart into Tony P. with regards to the premises under which they are arguing.
We already know we disagree on where the line should be on firearms, but I don’t think we disagree that there should be a line somewhere. That makes me want to explore what it would take to move someone to the other side of the debate, even if I have to move the debate, while the person stays right where he is.
Is it the logic, itself, or the premises that lead people to different conclusions?
I’d also add for clarity that not all deaths are murders, so we don’t necessarily have to be talking about murder when someone is somehow complicit in another’s death.
How does one *know* this?
By exactly the means I indicated in the original sentence: reading the local newspapers (and watching local news) and observing patterns of residence, etc. I’m not about to guide you through all of the stories indicative of racism in North Carolina today, but to ignore them is ridiculous.
I’m tired of those on the left who find racists under every bed and waive that bloody shirt endlessly and ad nauseum.
I’m not waving the bloody shirt, but I’m not in denial, either, as you seem to be. You admit that racism still exists, but insist that since it is in retreat, there’s nothing to see here, move right along. I would have been more sympathetic to that position if it it had not been for recent right-wing successes here in North Carolina, some of them hellbent on rolling the clock back on almost every conceivable issue (education, voting rights, health care, unemployment benefits, government transparency, environmental safeguards, etc.) None of them – none of those in power, AFAIK – is openly advocating segregation again, but since the bottom line in a majority of their positions would make life worse for African-Americans, one has to wonder.
You may shut your eyes to this in Texas. God knows what they do in Texas; it’s one of the few states (along with Florida) that makes ours look relatively sane. But to say it’s not an issue because it doesn’t affect you personally is an affront.
How does one *know* this?
By exactly the means I indicated in the original sentence: reading the local newspapers (and watching local news) and observing patterns of residence, etc. I’m not about to guide you through all of the stories indicative of racism in North Carolina today, but to ignore them is ridiculous.
I’m tired of those on the left who find racists under every bed and waive that bloody shirt endlessly and ad nauseum.
I’m not waving the bloody shirt, but I’m not in denial, either, as you seem to be. You admit that racism still exists, but insist that since it is in retreat, there’s nothing to see here, move right along. I would have been more sympathetic to that position if it it had not been for recent right-wing successes here in North Carolina, some of them hellbent on rolling the clock back on almost every conceivable issue (education, voting rights, health care, unemployment benefits, government transparency, environmental safeguards, etc.) None of them – none of those in power, AFAIK – is openly advocating segregation again, but since the bottom line in a majority of their positions would make life worse for African-Americans, one has to wonder.
You may shut your eyes to this in Texas. God knows what they do in Texas; it’s one of the few states (along with Florida) that makes ours look relatively sane. But to say it’s not an issue because it doesn’t affect you personally is an affront.
We blame drunks for drunk driving, not the car, not the booze–why not the same for guns?
who has ever blamed a gun for killing anyone ? links please.
who here blames Adam Lanza’s guns for the dead children in Newtown ?
nobody ?
guns are efficient, portable, concealable, effective tools for killing. that is their primary intended purpose and that is the purpose most people use them for. and far too many people use them for killing other people. and in a debate over people killing people, that puts guns in a completely different class of objects than cars.
apples : hand grenades.
We blame drunks for drunk driving, not the car, not the booze–why not the same for guns?
who has ever blamed a gun for killing anyone ? links please.
who here blames Adam Lanza’s guns for the dead children in Newtown ?
nobody ?
guns are efficient, portable, concealable, effective tools for killing. that is their primary intended purpose and that is the purpose most people use them for. and far too many people use them for killing other people. and in a debate over people killing people, that puts guns in a completely different class of objects than cars.
apples : hand grenades.
TP’s rather incendiary comment…
BTW, I agree that it was incendiary, which is one reason I mentioned that I don’t necessarily endorse it. I’d also say that Tony probably agrees as well, which is why “tough sh1t” is in there.
But I can still see what point he’s trying to make, or I think I do, at least. And I find it reasonably interesting.
TP’s rather incendiary comment…
BTW, I agree that it was incendiary, which is one reason I mentioned that I don’t necessarily endorse it. I’d also say that Tony probably agrees as well, which is why “tough sh1t” is in there.
But I can still see what point he’s trying to make, or I think I do, at least. And I find it reasonably interesting.
I’m tired of those on the left who find racists under every bed and waive that bloody shirt endlessly and ad nauseum.
Then it would behoove those ‘on the right’ to stop opposing all efforts to ameliorate the legacy of this discrimination which you so blandly claim has pretty much ceased, and also stop vehemently advocating public policies that either have been demonstrably proved to be abysmal failures or actually have a disparate impact.
And I’d challenge you personally, McKinney to ready any of this guy’s pieces and effectively rebut them without resorting to anecdotal evidence or sweeping generalizations.
Thanks.
I’m tired of those on the left who find racists under every bed and waive that bloody shirt endlessly and ad nauseum.
Then it would behoove those ‘on the right’ to stop opposing all efforts to ameliorate the legacy of this discrimination which you so blandly claim has pretty much ceased, and also stop vehemently advocating public policies that either have been demonstrably proved to be abysmal failures or actually have a disparate impact.
And I’d challenge you personally, McKinney to ready any of this guy’s pieces and effectively rebut them without resorting to anecdotal evidence or sweeping generalizations.
Thanks.
And, no one has answered my question….
cleek, among others, did so. And your response is?
And, no one has answered my question….
cleek, among others, did so. And your response is?
So, guns are not so unique.
Fair point on tobacco. I missed that. I am not sure where cars or booze are meaningfully–as in reducing accidents–regulated.
It doesn’t make people reckless or aggressive.
Back in the day, I got high from time to time. It absolutely does impair your driving.
My point was that Tony P. and Slart are coming from two different perspectives on sensible restrictions on firearms.
Tony is not suggesting anything remotely approving of sensible restrictions on firearms. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a sensible restriction that would play any causal role in reducing mass shootings–the most difficult crime there is to prevent is a premeditated event by someone who is impervious to deterrence. Look at the crazy guy in Norway. Tony is telling every gun owner that they endorse mass murder. Slarti’s comments were dead on. Dead on.
who has ever blamed a gun for killing anyone ? links please.
Jesus. Just about every person I’ve ever seen or heard call for limits on gun ownership blames the ready availability of guns on crime and murder. Your comment pretty much does that.
So, guns are not so unique.
Fair point on tobacco. I missed that. I am not sure where cars or booze are meaningfully–as in reducing accidents–regulated.
It doesn’t make people reckless or aggressive.
Back in the day, I got high from time to time. It absolutely does impair your driving.
My point was that Tony P. and Slart are coming from two different perspectives on sensible restrictions on firearms.
Tony is not suggesting anything remotely approving of sensible restrictions on firearms. To my knowledge, no one has suggested a sensible restriction that would play any causal role in reducing mass shootings–the most difficult crime there is to prevent is a premeditated event by someone who is impervious to deterrence. Look at the crazy guy in Norway. Tony is telling every gun owner that they endorse mass murder. Slarti’s comments were dead on. Dead on.
who has ever blamed a gun for killing anyone ? links please.
Jesus. Just about every person I’ve ever seen or heard call for limits on gun ownership blames the ready availability of guns on crime and murder. Your comment pretty much does that.
McTx: None of my guns are expressly manufactured to harm anyone
Well then they’re not “arms” and not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
McTx: None of my guns are expressly manufactured to harm anyone
Well then they’re not “arms” and not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
I’m not waving the bloody shirt, but I’m not in denial, either, as you seem to be. You admit that racism still exists, but insist that since it is in retreat, there’s nothing to see here, move right along.
No actually, I view racism as the exception and not the rule. Further, I think the left’s obsession with racism produces show trials like the Zimmerman case. I don’t view voter ID as racist EVEN IF the intent is to discourage, at the periphery, those who lack sufficient motivation to get an ID card and even if the majority of that minority at the periphery are Hispanic or black (and, I’m reasonably confident that the lazy, unmotivated periphery has plenty of whites, so I’m just not that moved). Why? Because that law applies the same to everyone. Getting an ID is no big deal. Sorry, it isn’t.
Also, here in Texas, we do have a lot of folks from south of the border who are not authorized to be here. Most are fine folks who stay below the radar. Some are not, and some parts of S Texas rival E Texas for corruption. So, there is more than mere paranoia involved in wanting verification of citizenship for voting. It’s a legitimate concern. Can I prove that undocumented residents are voting? No, but I am confident that goes on, based on the corruption that I have witnessed and which is widely known to take place in some places.
What else is going on in NC, or in Texas, that is racist? I’m curious.
I’m not waving the bloody shirt, but I’m not in denial, either, as you seem to be. You admit that racism still exists, but insist that since it is in retreat, there’s nothing to see here, move right along.
No actually, I view racism as the exception and not the rule. Further, I think the left’s obsession with racism produces show trials like the Zimmerman case. I don’t view voter ID as racist EVEN IF the intent is to discourage, at the periphery, those who lack sufficient motivation to get an ID card and even if the majority of that minority at the periphery are Hispanic or black (and, I’m reasonably confident that the lazy, unmotivated periphery has plenty of whites, so I’m just not that moved). Why? Because that law applies the same to everyone. Getting an ID is no big deal. Sorry, it isn’t.
Also, here in Texas, we do have a lot of folks from south of the border who are not authorized to be here. Most are fine folks who stay below the radar. Some are not, and some parts of S Texas rival E Texas for corruption. So, there is more than mere paranoia involved in wanting verification of citizenship for voting. It’s a legitimate concern. Can I prove that undocumented residents are voting? No, but I am confident that goes on, based on the corruption that I have witnessed and which is widely known to take place in some places.
What else is going on in NC, or in Texas, that is racist? I’m curious.
McTx: Why? Because that law applies the same to everyone.
Much like a poll tax. Or literacy tests. Or grandfather clauses.
McTx: Why? Because that law applies the same to everyone.
Much like a poll tax. Or literacy tests. Or grandfather clauses.
cleek, among others, did so. And your response is?
Fair point in the sense that an ‘answer’, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think Cleek himself blames guns and not the shooter in a very different way than he blames every other tangible item that is used or misused with death or injury as a result.
But that’s just me and my take on Cleek. Its’ also a lot of this debate–we are talking past each other, speaking two different languages almost.
Well then they’re not “arms” and not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Huh? I’m totally missing your point.
cleek, among others, did so. And your response is?
Fair point in the sense that an ‘answer’, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think Cleek himself blames guns and not the shooter in a very different way than he blames every other tangible item that is used or misused with death or injury as a result.
But that’s just me and my take on Cleek. Its’ also a lot of this debate–we are talking past each other, speaking two different languages almost.
Well then they’re not “arms” and not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Huh? I’m totally missing your point.
To my knowledge, no one has suggested a sensible restriction that would play any causal role in reducing mass shootings
Um, what? When did this become about mass shootings?
Tony is telling every gun owner that they endorse mass murder.
Is he? I seriously don’t get it.
To my knowledge, no one has suggested a sensible restriction that would play any causal role in reducing mass shootings
Um, what? When did this become about mass shootings?
Tony is telling every gun owner that they endorse mass murder.
Is he? I seriously don’t get it.
It absolutely does impair your driving.
Ever stop at at green light?
It absolutely does impair your driving.
Ever stop at at green light?
Much like a poll tax. Or literacy tests. Or grandfather clauses
Or not, since the cost is free, literacy is not required, nor anything else. Proving you are who you say you are is not an onerous burden and it is not racist.
Much like a poll tax. Or literacy tests. Or grandfather clauses
Or not, since the cost is free, literacy is not required, nor anything else. Proving you are who you say you are is not an onerous burden and it is not racist.
Um, what? When did this become about mass shootings?
Please reread TP’s comment about the 2nd Amendment killing 12 people. I am pretty sure it’s about mass killings and I am pretty sure TP said that responsible gun owners are willing bystanders/spectators of mass killings. That is, giving the English language its usual and customary meaning.
Um, what? When did this become about mass shootings?
Please reread TP’s comment about the 2nd Amendment killing 12 people. I am pretty sure it’s about mass killings and I am pretty sure TP said that responsible gun owners are willing bystanders/spectators of mass killings. That is, giving the English language its usual and customary meaning.
Yes, I forgot about the 12 victims part after all the back-and-forth. My bad.
But I still disagree about responsible gun owners, because his quotation marks didn’t get there by accident. It’s a phrase that used often by the gun lobby and its supporters, thus the scare quotes.
If you owned, say, a hunting rifle, but didn’t support the NRA or its agenda, and favored bans on high-capacity magazines, implementation of universal background checks, etc. I doubt Tony P. would be talking about you.
Yes, I forgot about the 12 victims part after all the back-and-forth. My bad.
But I still disagree about responsible gun owners, because his quotation marks didn’t get there by accident. It’s a phrase that used often by the gun lobby and its supporters, thus the scare quotes.
If you owned, say, a hunting rifle, but didn’t support the NRA or its agenda, and favored bans on high-capacity magazines, implementation of universal background checks, etc. I doubt Tony P. would be talking about you.
Proving you are who you say you are is not an onerous burden…
Yes, it is. The cost is not “free” as you claim.
The proof of identity is provided when one initially registers to vote as per prevailing state law. Beyond that, it is an undue burden for some parts of the population to secure additional ID, as has been well documented, demonstrated, and yes, there are even anecdotes! ……which is proof beyond all reasonable doubt using the reasoning you employed re racism.
Proving you are who you say you are is not an onerous burden…
Yes, it is. The cost is not “free” as you claim.
The proof of identity is provided when one initially registers to vote as per prevailing state law. Beyond that, it is an undue burden for some parts of the population to secure additional ID, as has been well documented, demonstrated, and yes, there are even anecdotes! ……which is proof beyond all reasonable doubt using the reasoning you employed re racism.
Ever stop at at green light?
What light?
Ever stop at at green light?
What light?
A gun is a force multiplicator and a gun with a large magazine and a quick repeating mechanism is a very large force multiplicator. The gun user is responsible for the act of killing, the gun for the size of the carnage.
As for cars, there is technology available and its mandatory use advocated for in different countries that works against drunk or drugged driving*. Also under development are devices that check the driver’s state of consciousness. So, if the driver loses consciousness or is on the way there, the car starts countermeasures to either bring the car to a safe halt (not ready for the arket yet, I think) or to wake the driver up. Iirc at least one country preemptively passed a law that makes it illegal to circumvent those measures. I assume sooner or later a system will get developed that makes a car refuse running over people.
It will take some time though to create intelligent blades that refuse to be used in murder, I give you that. But if it was possible, I’d advocate for it. It would be nice, if the police could also interview any weapon about the acts committed by it. With dasboard cameras we are close to that with cars (the widespread use in Russia is a means to defend against corrupt traffic cops and to use in court to exonerate oneself in cases of traffic accidents).
*most simple version: a breathalyzer connected to the ignition. The car will not start, if the driver does not do the test or tests positively.
A gun is a force multiplicator and a gun with a large magazine and a quick repeating mechanism is a very large force multiplicator. The gun user is responsible for the act of killing, the gun for the size of the carnage.
As for cars, there is technology available and its mandatory use advocated for in different countries that works against drunk or drugged driving*. Also under development are devices that check the driver’s state of consciousness. So, if the driver loses consciousness or is on the way there, the car starts countermeasures to either bring the car to a safe halt (not ready for the arket yet, I think) or to wake the driver up. Iirc at least one country preemptively passed a law that makes it illegal to circumvent those measures. I assume sooner or later a system will get developed that makes a car refuse running over people.
It will take some time though to create intelligent blades that refuse to be used in murder, I give you that. But if it was possible, I’d advocate for it. It would be nice, if the police could also interview any weapon about the acts committed by it. With dasboard cameras we are close to that with cars (the widespread use in Russia is a means to defend against corrupt traffic cops and to use in court to exonerate oneself in cases of traffic accidents).
*most simple version: a breathalyzer connected to the ignition. The car will not start, if the driver does not do the test or tests positively.
no one has suggested a sensible restriction that would play any causal role in reducing mass shootings
If you have a history of reckless use of firearms and you go to the VA for medical help because you are hearing voices in your head, you don’t get to buy more firearms.
That seems like a good place to start.
no one has suggested a sensible restriction that would play any causal role in reducing mass shootings
If you have a history of reckless use of firearms and you go to the VA for medical help because you are hearing voices in your head, you don’t get to buy more firearms.
That seems like a good place to start.
Consider the axe as something that could be used to hurt people, but has uses that don’t involve hurting anyone.
Consider the axe as something that could be used to hurt people, but has uses that don’t involve hurting anyone.
If you have a history of reckless use of firearms and you go to the VA for medical help because you are hearing voices in your head, you don’t get to buy more firearms.
I’m fine with this, provided it’s not limited to people who go to the VA. Someone is on record opposing preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms? I’d like to see the detail. I have a vague recollection of something that was somewhat controversial and that blowhards on both sides of the issue were bellowing about. FWIW, I pay very little attention to NRA type activists and so I am not steeped in their views.
The gun user is responsible for the act of killing, the gun for the size of the carnage.
If you are saying that a gun makes killing more people easier than, say, a bow and arrow, yes, that is a fact. It is the shooter, however, who keeps on shooting. To date, the largest domestic act of mass murder was achieved with fertilizer. Explosives are made to blow things up, i.e. their sole purpose is to destroy something. Sure, they can be used responsibly and for legitimate, even necessary acts of destruction, but they are also force multipliers. Explosives, moreover, are simply applied chemistry. Gasoline, soap, fertilizer, etc are ubiquitous.
The point here is that human agency at the undeterrable extreme cannot be managed or pre-empted. When we last had this discussion, the left’s focus was on assault-style weapons. I pointed out then that anyone with an ordinary shotgun could do the same or worse. That point has now been made in spades.
If you have a history of reckless use of firearms and you go to the VA for medical help because you are hearing voices in your head, you don’t get to buy more firearms.
I’m fine with this, provided it’s not limited to people who go to the VA. Someone is on record opposing preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms? I’d like to see the detail. I have a vague recollection of something that was somewhat controversial and that blowhards on both sides of the issue were bellowing about. FWIW, I pay very little attention to NRA type activists and so I am not steeped in their views.
The gun user is responsible for the act of killing, the gun for the size of the carnage.
If you are saying that a gun makes killing more people easier than, say, a bow and arrow, yes, that is a fact. It is the shooter, however, who keeps on shooting. To date, the largest domestic act of mass murder was achieved with fertilizer. Explosives are made to blow things up, i.e. their sole purpose is to destroy something. Sure, they can be used responsibly and for legitimate, even necessary acts of destruction, but they are also force multipliers. Explosives, moreover, are simply applied chemistry. Gasoline, soap, fertilizer, etc are ubiquitous.
The point here is that human agency at the undeterrable extreme cannot be managed or pre-empted. When we last had this discussion, the left’s focus was on assault-style weapons. I pointed out then that anyone with an ordinary shotgun could do the same or worse. That point has now been made in spades.
Someone is on record opposing preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms?
Not that I’m aware of.
Blind people, yes. The mentally ill, no.
I was simply pointing out that, contrary to your assertion, folks have proposed simple regulations that would reduce the number of mass killings.
Or, not-mass killings. Just ordinary killings.
If you are mentally ill, you don’t get a gun.
If you have a history of doing stuff like shooting out other people’s tires if they “diss you”, you don’t get a gun.
If you purchase a firearm through private sales, you still have to go through a background check.
These are not novelties that I’m presenting here. They’re proposals of long standing, and they’r proposals that meet with significant resistance from advocates of gun ownership.
Someone is on record opposing preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms?
Not that I’m aware of.
Blind people, yes. The mentally ill, no.
I was simply pointing out that, contrary to your assertion, folks have proposed simple regulations that would reduce the number of mass killings.
Or, not-mass killings. Just ordinary killings.
If you are mentally ill, you don’t get a gun.
If you have a history of doing stuff like shooting out other people’s tires if they “diss you”, you don’t get a gun.
If you purchase a firearm through private sales, you still have to go through a background check.
These are not novelties that I’m presenting here. They’re proposals of long standing, and they’r proposals that meet with significant resistance from advocates of gun ownership.
These are not novelties that I’m presenting here. They’re proposals of long standing, and they’r proposals that meet with significant resistance from advocates of gun ownership.
I am aware of the background check thing and have no objection–it could be done in a way that is minimally imposing and I am aware this is opposed by the NRA and others, but not the mentally ill or criminally inclined. I haven’t seen that anywhere.
These are not novelties that I’m presenting here. They’re proposals of long standing, and they’r proposals that meet with significant resistance from advocates of gun ownership.
I am aware of the background check thing and have no objection–it could be done in a way that is minimally imposing and I am aware this is opposed by the NRA and others, but not the mentally ill or criminally inclined. I haven’t seen that anywhere.
Well, around here one CANNOT simply buy large amounts of ammonium nitrate unless one can show a licence and/or legitimate reason (e.g. owning a farm or being a licenced trader). And a lot of other potential explosives can only be sold with phlegmatizer included. And for a number of compounds the seller has to inform the authorities even about legal sales.
—
In about any discussion on gun control someone comes up with the slippery slope argument that denying the mentally ill the ownership/purchase of firearms is just the first step in the inevitable ban of all guns to everyone (except the lackeys of the commie-fascist liberal regime of course). There is a grain of truth there of course since it is a favorite tool of authoritarian regimes to declare its opponents mentally ill. Small d democrats ended up in insane asylums in the 19th century and so did people during WW1 in Austria and Germany that claimed that there were supply shortages. What the users of said argument ignore is that a real authoritarian regime would not usually waste time with niceties anyway. And not all authoritarian regimes are opposed to an armed population either (the Soviet Union was, Nazi Germany decidedly was not despite the zombie claims to the contrary from the usual suspects).
Btw, why did we drift into a gun discussion again when the topic was racially motivated arson?
Well, around here one CANNOT simply buy large amounts of ammonium nitrate unless one can show a licence and/or legitimate reason (e.g. owning a farm or being a licenced trader). And a lot of other potential explosives can only be sold with phlegmatizer included. And for a number of compounds the seller has to inform the authorities even about legal sales.
—
In about any discussion on gun control someone comes up with the slippery slope argument that denying the mentally ill the ownership/purchase of firearms is just the first step in the inevitable ban of all guns to everyone (except the lackeys of the commie-fascist liberal regime of course). There is a grain of truth there of course since it is a favorite tool of authoritarian regimes to declare its opponents mentally ill. Small d democrats ended up in insane asylums in the 19th century and so did people during WW1 in Austria and Germany that claimed that there were supply shortages. What the users of said argument ignore is that a real authoritarian regime would not usually waste time with niceties anyway. And not all authoritarian regimes are opposed to an armed population either (the Soviet Union was, Nazi Germany decidedly was not despite the zombie claims to the contrary from the usual suspects).
Btw, why did we drift into a gun discussion again when the topic was racially motivated arson?
Explosives, moreover, are simply applied chemistry. Gasoline, soap, fertilizer, etc are ubiquitous.
And becoming increasingly more regulated. You repeatedly posit a determined miscreant and declare we all, like you, should just throw our arms up in the air in despair and do nothing. Terrorists and drug dealers are violent and determined human beings with–you guessed it–agency.
Therefore it follows that you believe we should do nothing to prevent terrorism or deter violet drug criminals or that the only reason we engage in these pointless activities is because we are under the mass delusion that making these acts illegal will “do something”.
When it comes to guns, once we get beyond the superficially stupid defense about the placement of commas and ‘absolute rights’ assertions re the 2nd Amendment, the switch is made to the ‘thing’ not the ‘act’. Thus the talking past each other since the “gun rights” folks refuse to accept the evidence that controlling and/or restricting access to guns (those things) reduces gun injuries and death (those acts).
So I won’t prevaricate. I opine that access to, and possession of, guns should be strictly regulated. I sincerely hope this clarifies “the Left’s” thinking on this matter for you.
Thanks.
Explosives, moreover, are simply applied chemistry. Gasoline, soap, fertilizer, etc are ubiquitous.
And becoming increasingly more regulated. You repeatedly posit a determined miscreant and declare we all, like you, should just throw our arms up in the air in despair and do nothing. Terrorists and drug dealers are violent and determined human beings with–you guessed it–agency.
Therefore it follows that you believe we should do nothing to prevent terrorism or deter violet drug criminals or that the only reason we engage in these pointless activities is because we are under the mass delusion that making these acts illegal will “do something”.
When it comes to guns, once we get beyond the superficially stupid defense about the placement of commas and ‘absolute rights’ assertions re the 2nd Amendment, the switch is made to the ‘thing’ not the ‘act’. Thus the talking past each other since the “gun rights” folks refuse to accept the evidence that controlling and/or restricting access to guns (those things) reduces gun injuries and death (those acts).
So I won’t prevaricate. I opine that access to, and possession of, guns should be strictly regulated. I sincerely hope this clarifies “the Left’s” thinking on this matter for you.
Thanks.
I haven’t seen that anywhere.
No McK, obviously nobody is advocating that firearms be sold to criminals and the mentally ill.
But the practical result of weakening background checks, either by limiting the infrastructure to support them or by insisting on exemptions like private sales, is that criminals and the mentally ill have fairly ready access to firearms.
I haven’t seen that anywhere.
No McK, obviously nobody is advocating that firearms be sold to criminals and the mentally ill.
But the practical result of weakening background checks, either by limiting the infrastructure to support them or by insisting on exemptions like private sales, is that criminals and the mentally ill have fairly ready access to firearms.
Not addressed to anyone here, but I’d like to point out that Governor Rick Perry demands universal background checks for Obamacare facilitators in his State (probably not a bad idea in the hands of the non-clownish actually interested in governing), but decries the need for universal background checks to purchase and own a weapon.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rick-perry-makes-new-move-to-obstruct-obamacare-in-texas
We’re infested with sick f*cks in this country, and then we spread the infestation via elections.
Stockpile fertilizer, large clip weapons, anything that goes boom.
Separately, McKT: I can’t tell, is your last paragraph a call to throw up our hands and NOT limit the size and clip capacity of assault-style weapons, or a bid to head off calls to outlaw shotguns?
Or do we need more of both types of weapons out walking the streets?
I’d have preferred that the Navy Yard shooter — stayed home that day — but also that he would have tried Brett’s suggestion of using an SUV, an atlatl, or rat poison to commit mass murder. As it is, I take some actual small comfort, given what is available out there, that he chose the shotgun, which maybe limited the damage given loading and firing times.
But maybe we should outlaw (at the manufacturing level) everything but single-shot derringers and see how mass murderers cope.
Hartmut asked:
“Btw, why did we drift into a gun discussion again when the topic was racially motivated arson?”
An unfortunate segue/threadjack by me in the middle of the week betwixt and between open threads. I’m sorry. Arson, racism, down that road somehow gun madness lurks.
We could ban threadjacks. I favor concealed-carry threadjacks in case trouble starts and besides, the Constitution prohibits banning rudeness of all sizes and caliber.
Not addressed to anyone here, but I’d like to point out that Governor Rick Perry demands universal background checks for Obamacare facilitators in his State (probably not a bad idea in the hands of the non-clownish actually interested in governing), but decries the need for universal background checks to purchase and own a weapon.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rick-perry-makes-new-move-to-obstruct-obamacare-in-texas
We’re infested with sick f*cks in this country, and then we spread the infestation via elections.
Stockpile fertilizer, large clip weapons, anything that goes boom.
Separately, McKT: I can’t tell, is your last paragraph a call to throw up our hands and NOT limit the size and clip capacity of assault-style weapons, or a bid to head off calls to outlaw shotguns?
Or do we need more of both types of weapons out walking the streets?
I’d have preferred that the Navy Yard shooter — stayed home that day — but also that he would have tried Brett’s suggestion of using an SUV, an atlatl, or rat poison to commit mass murder. As it is, I take some actual small comfort, given what is available out there, that he chose the shotgun, which maybe limited the damage given loading and firing times.
But maybe we should outlaw (at the manufacturing level) everything but single-shot derringers and see how mass murderers cope.
Hartmut asked:
“Btw, why did we drift into a gun discussion again when the topic was racially motivated arson?”
An unfortunate segue/threadjack by me in the middle of the week betwixt and between open threads. I’m sorry. Arson, racism, down that road somehow gun madness lurks.
We could ban threadjacks. I favor concealed-carry threadjacks in case trouble starts and besides, the Constitution prohibits banning rudeness of all sizes and caliber.
Consider the axe as something that could be used to hurt people, but has uses that don’t involve hurting anyone.
When we get to the point where drive by axings, suicide by ax, and mass murder by ax* become commonplace, I might just consider that. Who knows?
*And please, don’t bring up Rwanda as a counter-example.
Consider the axe as something that could be used to hurt people, but has uses that don’t involve hurting anyone.
When we get to the point where drive by axings, suicide by ax, and mass murder by ax* become commonplace, I might just consider that. Who knows?
*And please, don’t bring up Rwanda as a counter-example.
No McK, obviously nobody is advocating that firearms be sold to criminals and the mentally ill.
Careful there.There is a fine difference between advocating sales to those people and opposing regulations banning those sales. Many absolutists will tell you that the insane should of course better be without firearms but that they oppose making it illegal for them. Analogy: alcoholism is bad, prohibition is worse. But it’s like the ‘self-regulation’ of dangerous industries. Nice idea, doesn’t work in reality. The deadbeat argument to follow is: Who decides who is unfit? Since it is the government, there is obvious bias against liberty.
No McK, obviously nobody is advocating that firearms be sold to criminals and the mentally ill.
Careful there.There is a fine difference between advocating sales to those people and opposing regulations banning those sales. Many absolutists will tell you that the insane should of course better be without firearms but that they oppose making it illegal for them. Analogy: alcoholism is bad, prohibition is worse. But it’s like the ‘self-regulation’ of dangerous industries. Nice idea, doesn’t work in reality. The deadbeat argument to follow is: Who decides who is unfit? Since it is the government, there is obvious bias against liberty.
So I won’t prevaricate. I opine that access to, and possession of, guns should be strictly regulated. I sincerely hope this clarifies “the Left’s” thinking on this matter for you.
Fair enough and honest. Much appreciated.
But the practical result of weakening background checks, either by limiting the infrastructure to support them or by insisting on exemptions like private sales, is that criminals and the mentally ill have fairly ready access to firearms.
Background checks prevent sales on a regular basis to people who should not have guns, according to local gun dealers I and others have talked with. Some percentage of suicides and other bad things may have been prevented as a result. There will always be an illegal gun market, so those who want guns will get them. I don’t oppose background checks because they don’t limit the rights of an otherwise lawful gun owner.
Separately, McKT: I can’t tell, is your last paragraph a call to throw up our hands and NOT limit the size and clip capacity of assault-style weapons, or a bid to head off calls to outlaw shotguns?
I think magazine limits are feel-good remedies that people who know little about firearms advocate. It is a rare magazine that can’t be machined to pretty much any size a bad person wants. Bad people will get what they want and won’t worry about the law. Bad people who practice their reloading will not be slowed by even seconds in their endeavors. It’s a non-solution born of ignorance.
The point about shotguns is that pretty much any rifle or shotgun can cause untold mayhem given a sufficiently motivated and tactically-savvy actor, as in Norway (where bombs were also part of the program, so much for regulating chemistry).
So I won’t prevaricate. I opine that access to, and possession of, guns should be strictly regulated. I sincerely hope this clarifies “the Left’s” thinking on this matter for you.
Fair enough and honest. Much appreciated.
But the practical result of weakening background checks, either by limiting the infrastructure to support them or by insisting on exemptions like private sales, is that criminals and the mentally ill have fairly ready access to firearms.
Background checks prevent sales on a regular basis to people who should not have guns, according to local gun dealers I and others have talked with. Some percentage of suicides and other bad things may have been prevented as a result. There will always be an illegal gun market, so those who want guns will get them. I don’t oppose background checks because they don’t limit the rights of an otherwise lawful gun owner.
Separately, McKT: I can’t tell, is your last paragraph a call to throw up our hands and NOT limit the size and clip capacity of assault-style weapons, or a bid to head off calls to outlaw shotguns?
I think magazine limits are feel-good remedies that people who know little about firearms advocate. It is a rare magazine that can’t be machined to pretty much any size a bad person wants. Bad people will get what they want and won’t worry about the law. Bad people who practice their reloading will not be slowed by even seconds in their endeavors. It’s a non-solution born of ignorance.
The point about shotguns is that pretty much any rifle or shotgun can cause untold mayhem given a sufficiently motivated and tactically-savvy actor, as in Norway (where bombs were also part of the program, so much for regulating chemistry).
Again, this is not about the elimination of all tragedies. A determined mass killer COULD first obtain the perfect weapon and then train to change magazines without delay and train to evade potential disarmers during reloading. But in reality few do. They normally go to war with the weapons (and the skills) they have not the ones they want to. There are people that can fire 40 aimed shots per minute from a bolt action rifle (with a magazine loaded with 5er clips) but that’s not your average rampager. It’s about keeping the hurdles high enough to limit the number of events and the casualties of each. 6 shootings with 6 victims each per year is less bad than 12 with 12 each.
But a regular claim is that any restriction will lead to MORE shootings with MORE victims and at that point any discussion becomes futile anyway (and neither side could be swayed by evidence either).
Again, this is not about the elimination of all tragedies. A determined mass killer COULD first obtain the perfect weapon and then train to change magazines without delay and train to evade potential disarmers during reloading. But in reality few do. They normally go to war with the weapons (and the skills) they have not the ones they want to. There are people that can fire 40 aimed shots per minute from a bolt action rifle (with a magazine loaded with 5er clips) but that’s not your average rampager. It’s about keeping the hurdles high enough to limit the number of events and the casualties of each. 6 shootings with 6 victims each per year is less bad than 12 with 12 each.
But a regular claim is that any restriction will lead to MORE shootings with MORE victims and at that point any discussion becomes futile anyway (and neither side could be swayed by evidence either).
I might add that I am inclined towards violent phantasies* and would therefore consider it irresponsible to provide me with easy means to execute them. This does not mean I would go immediately go on a rampage, even if I got a get-out-of-jail-free card. But it would increase the probability. As a kid I had significant anger issues with the added danger that they came without warning to the persons becoming the target (of either sudden shouting or slaps in the face). With the pressure released it was usually over within seconds. Now imagine the same kid with a lethal weapon that could be brought to action within that interval.
*I really like axes
I might add that I am inclined towards violent phantasies* and would therefore consider it irresponsible to provide me with easy means to execute them. This does not mean I would go immediately go on a rampage, even if I got a get-out-of-jail-free card. But it would increase the probability. As a kid I had significant anger issues with the added danger that they came without warning to the persons becoming the target (of either sudden shouting or slaps in the face). With the pressure released it was usually over within seconds. Now imagine the same kid with a lethal weapon that could be brought to action within that interval.
*I really like axes
Beneli M-4 shotgun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dibSfoBtGU
Pump-action shotgun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZGBiz8QrPk
Bushmaster AR-15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI
Bushmaster Fully Automatic AR-15
McKT is right about “untold mayhem” from both shotguns and automatics like the AR-15, so I stand corrected.
America has clearly outgunned itself.
We could throw up our hands and opt for mutually assured destruction.
Ban em all. Prosecute anyone who manufactures, imports, or sells these weapons. Ban all government entities from wielding such weapons as well.
I think I’ve been swayed in the opposite of the intended direction.
Further, people who conceal carry around me, in stores, in restaurants, on public transportation, on the street, etc, unless they are law enforcement had better clear it with me first.
Ask my permission to be in my vicinity, in my space, defined by me, NOT you, while carrying or make sure it is so concealed that I won’t know. Otherwise be prepared to have an unarmed guy in your face calling you a f*cking c*cksucker.
You may carry this, single-shot only, not automatic. Don’t put out an eye:
http://www.vat19.com/dvds/marshmallow-double-shooter-shotgun.cfm?catad&utm_expid=333207-1.9ISE7dJdRIeSXM2PzjXMoQ.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CD0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.vat19.com%252Fdvds%252Fmarshmallow-double-shooter-shotgun.cfm%26ei%3Dckc6UrSAMI3lyAH7nIG4CQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFtXC4WAGwsU64bzjhQw2tPkHvsOw%26sig2%3D66kAP5EQxS8E_jQRgJJG3g%26bvm%3Dbv.52288139%2Cd.aWc
Beneli M-4 shotgun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dibSfoBtGU
Pump-action shotgun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZGBiz8QrPk
Bushmaster AR-15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI
Bushmaster Fully Automatic AR-15
McKT is right about “untold mayhem” from both shotguns and automatics like the AR-15, so I stand corrected.
America has clearly outgunned itself.
We could throw up our hands and opt for mutually assured destruction.
Ban em all. Prosecute anyone who manufactures, imports, or sells these weapons. Ban all government entities from wielding such weapons as well.
I think I’ve been swayed in the opposite of the intended direction.
Further, people who conceal carry around me, in stores, in restaurants, on public transportation, on the street, etc, unless they are law enforcement had better clear it with me first.
Ask my permission to be in my vicinity, in my space, defined by me, NOT you, while carrying or make sure it is so concealed that I won’t know. Otherwise be prepared to have an unarmed guy in your face calling you a f*cking c*cksucker.
You may carry this, single-shot only, not automatic. Don’t put out an eye:
http://www.vat19.com/dvds/marshmallow-double-shooter-shotgun.cfm?catad&utm_expid=333207-1.9ISE7dJdRIeSXM2PzjXMoQ.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CD0QFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.vat19.com%252Fdvds%252Fmarshmallow-double-shooter-shotgun.cfm%26ei%3Dckc6UrSAMI3lyAH7nIG4CQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFtXC4WAGwsU64bzjhQw2tPkHvsOw%26sig2%3D66kAP5EQxS8E_jQRgJJG3g%26bvm%3Dbv.52288139%2Cd.aWc
I omitted the link for the Bushmaster automatic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCZkhc5kX-I
Lovely.
I hope I’m not causing some to mastursalivate.
I omitted the link for the Bushmaster automatic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCZkhc5kX-I
Lovely.
I hope I’m not causing some to mastursalivate.
I’m open to a technological workaround as Hartmut suggests.
Convene a national task force of the brightest technological minds, including those from the armaments industry, and design weapons for civilian use that will not fire at human flesh.
Unfortunately, Steve Jobs is dead so the weapons may not be as cool and aesthetically pleasing for the fashion conscious.
Just to see Ted Nugent go off his kazip on cable, add in squirrel flesh as a jamming signal.
What to do about military weapons falling into civilian hands? I don’t know.
What about the installed base?
Confiscate, under pain of bigger pain, but with tax breaks, or just buy the dumb things. Build a new, gigantic wing on the Smithsonian and put them all behind glass and Americans could visit their old guns from time to time to reminisce and tell their grandkids that 99% of the time only mass murderers put the things to good use, while the rest of them looked good in gun case or in the closet.
Let’s see that old can-do American spirit, not the no-can-do defeatism of the NRA and company.
If Wayne LaPierre desired to preserve his freedom of choice in the suicide end of things with his own gun, give him a week’s grace to do the deed and a cheering section.
I’d be happy to serve as his second.
I’m open to a technological workaround as Hartmut suggests.
Convene a national task force of the brightest technological minds, including those from the armaments industry, and design weapons for civilian use that will not fire at human flesh.
Unfortunately, Steve Jobs is dead so the weapons may not be as cool and aesthetically pleasing for the fashion conscious.
Just to see Ted Nugent go off his kazip on cable, add in squirrel flesh as a jamming signal.
What to do about military weapons falling into civilian hands? I don’t know.
What about the installed base?
Confiscate, under pain of bigger pain, but with tax breaks, or just buy the dumb things. Build a new, gigantic wing on the Smithsonian and put them all behind glass and Americans could visit their old guns from time to time to reminisce and tell their grandkids that 99% of the time only mass murderers put the things to good use, while the rest of them looked good in gun case or in the closet.
Let’s see that old can-do American spirit, not the no-can-do defeatism of the NRA and company.
If Wayne LaPierre desired to preserve his freedom of choice in the suicide end of things with his own gun, give him a week’s grace to do the deed and a cheering section.
I’d be happy to serve as his second.
Please reread TP’s comment about the 2nd Amendment killing 12 people. I am pretty sure it’s about mass killings and I am pretty sure TP said that responsible gun owners are willing bystanders/spectators of mass killings. That is, giving the English language its usual and customary meaning.
As hairshirt pointed out, my original comment was about “responsible gun owners” — a term of art beloved of the NRA and the gun makers they front for. The NRA’s “responsible gun owner” is anybody with the cash or credit to buy a gun. Eyesight not required, in Iowa.
Slarti with his Hitler fetish and McTx with his astute recognition that 12 dead people figure into the equation somewhere, may feel that the “responsible gun owner” shoe fits them, but that ain’t my fault.
Literally responsible gun owners — people who own guns and actually feel that owning guns involves responsibility — should stop pretending that there’s no connection between their hobby and the appalling number of gun deaths in the US; no connection between the 2nd Amendment and a steady rate of gun massacres in this country.
Racism resulted in lynchings. Widespread gun ownership results in gun deaths. We recognize, now, that people who supported Jim Crow, white supremacy, and all that claptrap, ENABLED the actual lynchers, even if they didn’t mean to. Someday, we will acknowledge that people who supported widespread gun ownership ENABLED the mass shooters, even if they didn’t mean to.
I want gun ownership to become as embarrassing as racism. It’s not statutes that make things embarrassing. It’s social attitudes. Social attitudes are made up of individual reactions to things like racist comments and idiotic assertions about axes. My own reaction to gun owners, responsible or not, is an ever-growing contempt. It keeps growing with every massacre, so it’s likely to keep growing for a while.
–TP
Please reread TP’s comment about the 2nd Amendment killing 12 people. I am pretty sure it’s about mass killings and I am pretty sure TP said that responsible gun owners are willing bystanders/spectators of mass killings. That is, giving the English language its usual and customary meaning.
As hairshirt pointed out, my original comment was about “responsible gun owners” — a term of art beloved of the NRA and the gun makers they front for. The NRA’s “responsible gun owner” is anybody with the cash or credit to buy a gun. Eyesight not required, in Iowa.
Slarti with his Hitler fetish and McTx with his astute recognition that 12 dead people figure into the equation somewhere, may feel that the “responsible gun owner” shoe fits them, but that ain’t my fault.
Literally responsible gun owners — people who own guns and actually feel that owning guns involves responsibility — should stop pretending that there’s no connection between their hobby and the appalling number of gun deaths in the US; no connection between the 2nd Amendment and a steady rate of gun massacres in this country.
Racism resulted in lynchings. Widespread gun ownership results in gun deaths. We recognize, now, that people who supported Jim Crow, white supremacy, and all that claptrap, ENABLED the actual lynchers, even if they didn’t mean to. Someday, we will acknowledge that people who supported widespread gun ownership ENABLED the mass shooters, even if they didn’t mean to.
I want gun ownership to become as embarrassing as racism. It’s not statutes that make things embarrassing. It’s social attitudes. Social attitudes are made up of individual reactions to things like racist comments and idiotic assertions about axes. My own reaction to gun owners, responsible or not, is an ever-growing contempt. It keeps growing with every massacre, so it’s likely to keep growing for a while.
–TP
McTx: None of my guns are expressly manufactured to harm anyone
Me: Well then they’re not “arms” and not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
McTx: Huh? I’m totally missing your point.
Further me: If they’re not manufactured to harm anyone then what good are they as “arms”? They must be toys or recreational tools, or something other than “arms” and thus not protected under the second amendment and therefore bannable. Suppose Texas banned BB guns, infringement of the 2nd Amendment?
Slarti: Consider the axe as something that could be used to hurt people, but has uses that don’t involve hurting anyone.
Google tells me that every state in the union bans the carrying of knives longer than pocketknife length. 2nd amendment violation?
McTx: None of my guns are expressly manufactured to harm anyone
Me: Well then they’re not “arms” and not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
McTx: Huh? I’m totally missing your point.
Further me: If they’re not manufactured to harm anyone then what good are they as “arms”? They must be toys or recreational tools, or something other than “arms” and thus not protected under the second amendment and therefore bannable. Suppose Texas banned BB guns, infringement of the 2nd Amendment?
Slarti: Consider the axe as something that could be used to hurt people, but has uses that don’t involve hurting anyone.
Google tells me that every state in the union bans the carrying of knives longer than pocketknife length. 2nd amendment violation?
Sorry, dude, but I am not taking responsibility for the actions of people who aren’t me. Responsibility for the actions of other people stays with them.
Likewise, I will take no responsibility for your bad thinking, demagoguery, and the like. That’s all yours.
Sorry, dude, but I am not taking responsibility for the actions of people who aren’t me. Responsibility for the actions of other people stays with them.
Likewise, I will take no responsibility for your bad thinking, demagoguery, and the like. That’s all yours.
That doesn’t surprise me. Try wishing upon a star.
That doesn’t surprise me. Try wishing upon a star.
I ask all you
racistsout there….I ask all you
racistsout there….Hold on…Mea culpa….I ask all you pollyannas out there to chime in and give me your view here. How do you explain the vast statistically validated discrepancies as between blacks and whites in this country with respect to: wealth, income, educational attainment, incarceration rates, and housing patterns? The numbers are an effing embarrassment. They are bleak. They are chilling. They are shameful.
How do YOU explain this in this supposed age of racial enlightenment? Is it because:
1. Single mothers?
2. Rap music?
3. The Bell curve?
4. Young black bucks wear their pants wrong?
I mean really….what the f*ck do you tell yourself to sleep comfortably at night to justify these anomalies?
Or is it that you simply rationalize, “Well, hells bells, I haven’t lynched anybody today. Why is it my problem?”
Has the fact, yes fact, that YOU are the direct beneficiary of hundreds of years of exploitative capital accumulation not occurred to you?
Are you truly that blind? Don’t be shy. Shout it out.
Thanks.
Hold on…Mea culpa….I ask all you pollyannas out there to chime in and give me your view here. How do you explain the vast statistically validated discrepancies as between blacks and whites in this country with respect to: wealth, income, educational attainment, incarceration rates, and housing patterns? The numbers are an effing embarrassment. They are bleak. They are chilling. They are shameful.
How do YOU explain this in this supposed age of racial enlightenment? Is it because:
1. Single mothers?
2. Rap music?
3. The Bell curve?
4. Young black bucks wear their pants wrong?
I mean really….what the f*ck do you tell yourself to sleep comfortably at night to justify these anomalies?
Or is it that you simply rationalize, “Well, hells bells, I haven’t lynched anybody today. Why is it my problem?”
Has the fact, yes fact, that YOU are the direct beneficiary of hundreds of years of exploitative capital accumulation not occurred to you?
Are you truly that blind? Don’t be shy. Shout it out.
Thanks.
Sorry, dude, but I am not taking responsibility for the actions of people who aren’t me. Responsibility for the actions of other people stays with them.
Irresponsible people routinely get hold of guns, because guns are widely available, because any measures that would make guns NOT widely available would inconvenience YOU. God forbid a responsible gun owner like you should be inconvenienced.
–TP
Sorry, dude, but I am not taking responsibility for the actions of people who aren’t me. Responsibility for the actions of other people stays with them.
Irresponsible people routinely get hold of guns, because guns are widely available, because any measures that would make guns NOT widely available would inconvenience YOU. God forbid a responsible gun owner like you should be inconvenienced.
–TP
Perhaps because the rest of the country is sending its crazies here. Texas and Florida have a net inflow from the other states.
Perhaps because the rest of the country is sending its crazies here. Texas and Florida have a net inflow from the other states.
to return to the original post, i offer this.
this isn’t something i think about, or talk about, a whole lot, but there was someone in my family who kept a black man’s knucklebones in his dresser. they were a trophy.
don’t know if i’ve discussed this here or not before, my apologies if all of this is old and unwelcome news. i found out at my mother’s funeral, back in ’03. my uncle thought that an appropriate time to share this with me.
the person in possession of the knuckles is gone now, he probably came by them in the early 20th C. say, sometime in the 20s, or 30s, or 40s.
i personally have never harmed, let alone killed, a black person, let alone mutilated their corpse, let alone rendered some part of their body into a keepsake, let alone found a treasured spot in my sock drawer for such a thing to abide.
yet i find that i am closely related to someone who did.
and what that makes me think is that somewhere out there is some other person, who finds him or herself closely related to the original owner of the knuckles.
that person may or may not know that their close relation’s knuckles wound up as a keepsake in some sorry bastard’s dresser drawer. that person may not even know what happened to their close relation. said close relation may have simply disappeared, never to be seen again. or, may have been found some time later, missing some bits, on the side of a road, or out behind a barn, or wherever.
maybe some other close relation had the sick sad experience of watching it all happen.
it would be quite easy for me to say, this has nothing to do with me. because it basically doesn’t. i didn’t do it. it all undoubted happened before i was even born.
but i find that i’m unable to say that. for some weird reason i feel some obligation to the folks whose close relation was murdered and mutilated, and whose body parts were kept as trophies by people closely related to me.
i feel obliged to recognize and name what was done to their people. i feel obliged to recognize and respect the pain they have to carry around as a result. and i feel obliged to recognize that the consequences of that kind of violence persist, for years and generations.
i’m not sure exactly where that sense of obligation comes from, it’s an interesting question and i think it deserves some pondering. i can tell you that i’m not prone to taking on unwanted or undeserved neurotic guilt, so i doubt that’s it. i think it has more to do with a sense that we’re not quite as separate from each other as we might like to think.
in any case that kind of thing was, by far, not unusual. you can multiply it by thousands or tens of thousands.
counting over many generations, by the millions.
that shit adds up. it doesn’t just go away because we’re no longer in the habit of stringing up black folks anymore.
and that is pretty much all i have to say on the topic.
to return to the original post, i offer this.
this isn’t something i think about, or talk about, a whole lot, but there was someone in my family who kept a black man’s knucklebones in his dresser. they were a trophy.
don’t know if i’ve discussed this here or not before, my apologies if all of this is old and unwelcome news. i found out at my mother’s funeral, back in ’03. my uncle thought that an appropriate time to share this with me.
the person in possession of the knuckles is gone now, he probably came by them in the early 20th C. say, sometime in the 20s, or 30s, or 40s.
i personally have never harmed, let alone killed, a black person, let alone mutilated their corpse, let alone rendered some part of their body into a keepsake, let alone found a treasured spot in my sock drawer for such a thing to abide.
yet i find that i am closely related to someone who did.
and what that makes me think is that somewhere out there is some other person, who finds him or herself closely related to the original owner of the knuckles.
that person may or may not know that their close relation’s knuckles wound up as a keepsake in some sorry bastard’s dresser drawer. that person may not even know what happened to their close relation. said close relation may have simply disappeared, never to be seen again. or, may have been found some time later, missing some bits, on the side of a road, or out behind a barn, or wherever.
maybe some other close relation had the sick sad experience of watching it all happen.
it would be quite easy for me to say, this has nothing to do with me. because it basically doesn’t. i didn’t do it. it all undoubted happened before i was even born.
but i find that i’m unable to say that. for some weird reason i feel some obligation to the folks whose close relation was murdered and mutilated, and whose body parts were kept as trophies by people closely related to me.
i feel obliged to recognize and name what was done to their people. i feel obliged to recognize and respect the pain they have to carry around as a result. and i feel obliged to recognize that the consequences of that kind of violence persist, for years and generations.
i’m not sure exactly where that sense of obligation comes from, it’s an interesting question and i think it deserves some pondering. i can tell you that i’m not prone to taking on unwanted or undeserved neurotic guilt, so i doubt that’s it. i think it has more to do with a sense that we’re not quite as separate from each other as we might like to think.
in any case that kind of thing was, by far, not unusual. you can multiply it by thousands or tens of thousands.
counting over many generations, by the millions.
that shit adds up. it doesn’t just go away because we’re no longer in the habit of stringing up black folks anymore.
and that is pretty much all i have to say on the topic.
Damn, russell. Just…damn.
Well said. And agreed.
Damn, russell. Just…damn.
Well said. And agreed.
Irresponsible peoplecriminals routinely get hold of guns,because guns are widely availablebecause laws prohibiting legal firearms ownerships only serve to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.See also: gun-free zones. Those laws aren’t really effective at preventing people who have little regard for the law from carrying firearms, acquired legally or otherwise, into them.
Your comparison still doesn’t hold any water for a number of reasons. First, spectators at a lynching are there because they approve of the murders. Neither I nor any other responsible firearm owner that I am aware of approve of spree killings. Second, if an unintended consequence makes one’s approval of the outcome irrelevant, what culpability do you bear, personally, for the increased murder rates in areas where firearms ownership is more highly restricted? What culpability would you bear, personally, if your preferred levels of firearms control kept black people from protecting themselves against lynch mobs?
Spectators at a lynching approve of the forceful (even fatal) deprivation of freedoms. One of us supports the deprivation of freedoms, and it’s not me. Doesn’t that make you even more like a spectator to a lynching than it does me?
But russell is correct: this whole conversation about gun control only serves to diminish the history of actual (as opposed to metaphorical) lynchings. Which is why I brought up Hitler, really: your attempt to slut-shame me is really kicking dirt over real things that happened to real people. Once you get that, you’ll be wishing for that Edit feature I mentioned upthread.
Irresponsible peoplecriminals routinely get hold of guns,because guns are widely availablebecause laws prohibiting legal firearms ownerships only serve to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.See also: gun-free zones. Those laws aren’t really effective at preventing people who have little regard for the law from carrying firearms, acquired legally or otherwise, into them.
Your comparison still doesn’t hold any water for a number of reasons. First, spectators at a lynching are there because they approve of the murders. Neither I nor any other responsible firearm owner that I am aware of approve of spree killings. Second, if an unintended consequence makes one’s approval of the outcome irrelevant, what culpability do you bear, personally, for the increased murder rates in areas where firearms ownership is more highly restricted? What culpability would you bear, personally, if your preferred levels of firearms control kept black people from protecting themselves against lynch mobs?
Spectators at a lynching approve of the forceful (even fatal) deprivation of freedoms. One of us supports the deprivation of freedoms, and it’s not me. Doesn’t that make you even more like a spectator to a lynching than it does me?
But russell is correct: this whole conversation about gun control only serves to diminish the history of actual (as opposed to metaphorical) lynchings. Which is why I brought up Hitler, really: your attempt to slut-shame me is really kicking dirt over real things that happened to real people. Once you get that, you’ll be wishing for that Edit feature I mentioned upthread.
Speaking of unintended consequences, you decide who to blame, here. It’s outcomes that matter, no?
Speaking of unintended consequences, you decide who to blame, here. It’s outcomes that matter, no?
One of us supports the deprivation of freedoms, and it’s not me.
I’m reading your reply to Tony and seriously trying to understand. And I’d agree that some measures that have been tried may not be effective. I get that.
But this.
It is rhetorical road kill.
Your freedoms? Your freedoms? And we who are now burdened with cleaning up the resultant carnage or living in fear….that’s some freedom, no?
Australia has adopted some rather strict gun laws. They seem to have worked. But I’m on to something different here. I’d appreciate it if you’d imagine yourself having to comply with similar regulations and effectively convey to me the deep loss of freedom you would experience as a result.
And I seriously mean that, because I just don’t get it.
One of us supports the deprivation of freedoms, and it’s not me.
I’m reading your reply to Tony and seriously trying to understand. And I’d agree that some measures that have been tried may not be effective. I get that.
But this.
It is rhetorical road kill.
Your freedoms? Your freedoms? And we who are now burdened with cleaning up the resultant carnage or living in fear….that’s some freedom, no?
Australia has adopted some rather strict gun laws. They seem to have worked. But I’m on to something different here. I’d appreciate it if you’d imagine yourself having to comply with similar regulations and effectively convey to me the deep loss of freedom you would experience as a result.
And I seriously mean that, because I just don’t get it.
Tony P.’s words were these: “I want gun ownership to become as embarrassing as racism.”
In other words, Tony wants gun ownership to go away. Doesn’t everyone want racism to go away?
Is Australia making gun ownership go away?
So far, we haven’t even scratched the surface of what regulations Tony might want. Some more? A complete prohibition on guns? He doesn’t say.
I think I’ve previously stated that this beef I have with Tony has nothing to do with any proposed regulatory changes, because he hasn’t proposed any. Nor have I. My objection, which I have previously stated, is that this particular comparison is not only a bad one, but does a disservice to actual victims (and their families) of actual lynchings.
That is all.
Tony P.’s words were these: “I want gun ownership to become as embarrassing as racism.”
In other words, Tony wants gun ownership to go away. Doesn’t everyone want racism to go away?
Is Australia making gun ownership go away?
So far, we haven’t even scratched the surface of what regulations Tony might want. Some more? A complete prohibition on guns? He doesn’t say.
I think I’ve previously stated that this beef I have with Tony has nothing to do with any proposed regulatory changes, because he hasn’t proposed any. Nor have I. My objection, which I have previously stated, is that this particular comparison is not only a bad one, but does a disservice to actual victims (and their families) of actual lynchings.
That is all.
i asked:
gun. the gun control argument is that guns are killing tool and that limiting access to such tools will make their use less frequent.
who has ever blamed a gun for killing anyone ? links please.
and you replied:
Jesus. Just about every person I’ve ever seen or heard call for limits on gun ownership blames the ready availability of guns on crime and murder.
?
Jesus, indeed.
i ask for examples of people blaming a gun and you reply with a whine about restrictions on ownership and availability ? do you honestly not know the difference between an object and ownership/access to said object? (good thing you’re not a programmer!)
so who blames the gun, when someone shoots someone else?
i asked:
gun. the gun control argument is that guns are killing tool and that limiting access to such tools will make their use less frequent.
who has ever blamed a gun for killing anyone ? links please.
and you replied:
Jesus. Just about every person I’ve ever seen or heard call for limits on gun ownership blames the ready availability of guns on crime and murder.
?
Jesus, indeed.
i ask for examples of people blaming a gun and you reply with a whine about restrictions on ownership and availability ? do you honestly not know the difference between an object and ownership/access to said object? (good thing you’re not a programmer!)
so who blames the gun, when someone shoots someone else?
. I think Cleek himself blames guns and not the shooter
this is absolutely ridiculous. you think i blame an inanimate object for killing people? do you suppose i sit in my garage and shout angrily at my socket set when it fails to animate itself and fix the wheelbarrow ?
. I think Cleek himself blames guns and not the shooter
this is absolutely ridiculous. you think i blame an inanimate object for killing people? do you suppose i sit in my garage and shout angrily at my socket set when it fails to animate itself and fix the wheelbarrow ?
Gun-free zones surrounded by gun-full zones don’t work. They aren’t big enough. And I think you have the causation between stricter gun laws and murder rates reversed. Oh, and CHICAGO!
Let’s separate the 2nd Amendment arguments from the practical but still theoretical arguments, because, as bobbyp points out, there are real-world examples of countries that manage to minimize gun violence quite well, without jackboots on necks even.
Gun-free zones surrounded by gun-full zones don’t work. They aren’t big enough. And I think you have the causation between stricter gun laws and murder rates reversed. Oh, and CHICAGO!
Let’s separate the 2nd Amendment arguments from the practical but still theoretical arguments, because, as bobbyp points out, there are real-world examples of countries that manage to minimize gun violence quite well, without jackboots on necks even.
Even with Obama doing nothing or even expanding gun rights (National Parks anyone?), the gun lobbyists, successfully it seems, raise the spectre that a Dem in the WH means universal confiscation at best. There were even claims on record that Obamas lack of gun grabbing in the 1st term was the proof of his evil gun grabbing intentions (‘lull ’em in, then strike the unexpectant in the 2nd term’).
Sales go up when Dems win independent of any actual action. And, if memory does not deceive me, the manufacturers preemptively ran up production and stockpiling to be able to serve the increased demand created by the cries of ‘Buy now before it becomes illegal after a Dem win’.
Facts do not matter.
Same holds true for the claim that gun free zones act as magnets for shooters.
{sarcasm]Could somebody please show me the overcrowded sections of cemeteries where all the mums lie that got killed in their homes because ten shots in the magazine were not enough and they could not reload quickly enough.[/sarcasm]. No joke, the claim has been made that this is a major problem. I have heard it from at least one congresscritter, at least one lobbyist and of course from blog commenters (not here iirc).
Even with Obama doing nothing or even expanding gun rights (National Parks anyone?), the gun lobbyists, successfully it seems, raise the spectre that a Dem in the WH means universal confiscation at best. There were even claims on record that Obamas lack of gun grabbing in the 1st term was the proof of his evil gun grabbing intentions (‘lull ’em in, then strike the unexpectant in the 2nd term’).
Sales go up when Dems win independent of any actual action. And, if memory does not deceive me, the manufacturers preemptively ran up production and stockpiling to be able to serve the increased demand created by the cries of ‘Buy now before it becomes illegal after a Dem win’.
Facts do not matter.
Same holds true for the claim that gun free zones act as magnets for shooters.
{sarcasm]Could somebody please show me the overcrowded sections of cemeteries where all the mums lie that got killed in their homes because ten shots in the magazine were not enough and they could not reload quickly enough.[/sarcasm]. No joke, the claim has been made that this is a major problem. I have heard it from at least one congresscritter, at least one lobbyist and of course from blog commenters (not here iirc).
Oh. Things are more complicated than my simplistic depiction?
Shit. I hate it when that happens.
Oh. Things are more complicated than my simplistic depiction?
Shit. I hate it when that happens.
Doesn’t everyone want racism to go away?
The short answer to that is obvious. It is, “No”. That it is not plainly obvious is, to put it charitably, distressing.
Doesn’t everyone want racism to go away?
The short answer to that is obvious. It is, “No”. That it is not plainly obvious is, to put it charitably, distressing.
do you suppose i sit in my garage and shout angrily at my socket set when it fails to animate itself and fix the wheelbarrow ?
You have a wheelbarrow? Why are we just now finding out about this?
do you suppose i sit in my garage and shout angrily at my socket set when it fails to animate itself and fix the wheelbarrow ?
You have a wheelbarrow? Why are we just now finding out about this?
Rhetorical question is, to put it charitably, rhetorical.
Rhetorical question is, to put it charitably, rhetorical.
don’t tell anyone, it’s unregistered! and everyone knows i could walk over to my neighbor and whack him in the head with it because a wheelbarrow is every bit of a killing tool as a gun is.
don’t tell anyone, it’s unregistered! and everyone knows i could walk over to my neighbor and whack him in the head with it because a wheelbarrow is every bit of a killing tool as a gun is.
I would be fine if BP’s comment were made into a Guest Post for discussion. I am slammed for the rest of the week absent some kind of minor miracle, but let me take a stab at elevating BP’s blood pressure:
I’ve read the stats, but don’t have them handy. The expanding single mother phenomenon started in the 60’s, IIRC. It has gotten progressively more pronounced. This is true across demographic lines. What is also fairly constant across demographic lines is that children of single mothers (who usually have not finished high school and whowere marginal participants in the educational process to begin with) are doomed far more often than not, regardless of race. The fact that the single motherhood rate is higher in the black population, therefore, explains much of what we see today.
I disagree with progressives like BP who, if I am understanding correctly, see the cause of economic and social disparity as a single, constant entity: racism. Times and circumstances have changed. No college rejects people based on color. Companies aggressively pursue diversity. Jim Crow has been dead for longer than most of us have been alive. Brown v Board of Education came down 59 years ago. Neighborhoods are open. An African American is president of the country. Etc, etc. Really, it is different today. Things have changed.
In addition to the single mother issue, there is–and this is one area where GWB and I are on all fours–the soft bigotry of low expectations. Too many people accept less when they should be pushing for more. School is supposed to be hard. Homework is supposed to challenge the brain. Not everyone will do well in physics. Not everyone is college material. Some will do better getting vocational training.
There is no widespread ‘reality therapy’ going on anywhere, but it is especially absent in the black community. Telling young black people that Black Studies is a viable course of study in college is a damn lie. It’s a ridiculously useless course of study that does nothing but under-prepare students to compete with their peers for good jobs.
In line with the soft bigotry thing, I know many, many lefties who will agree with my statements about single motherhood and Black Studies privately, but will never, ever dare to question their propriety or efficacy in public debate–for fear of being called racist.
BP–I sleep fine at night for the most part. If I do lie awake worrying about the black community–and I do, from time to time–I worry if anyone is ever going to repeatedly and forcefully get across the notion that having a child at age 17 almost certainly dooms that child, and the mother, to a life of grinding poverty.
Because I am confident that will never happen, because the black leadership in this country perpetuates itself on the cult of victim-hood, nothing is going to change. I could write a check for half of my income for the rest of my life and we could do direct transfer payments to unemployed, young, uneducated black males and not a damn thing will change in their lives.
Last thing–I recently defended, unsuccessfully, a company that was sued by a mid-30’s black man who lost his leg in an accident. He started college on a football scholarship, learned his girlfriend was pregnant, quit school, married her and got a job. Both he and his wife were children of single mothers. In their cases, responsible, focused, and unusually mature single mothers. Both were very clear about the sense of loss they felt in not having a father in their lives, and how important it was to them that their children have a father and a close, warm, loving relationship.
Young boys learn how to be men–good husbands, good fathers–from watching their own dad or someone who stands in for a father. A dad is best. One of the fundamental lessons a present and committed father imparts is that he is there for his wife and children. The subtext is that you don’t make a baby and walk away.
I would be fine if BP’s comment were made into a Guest Post for discussion. I am slammed for the rest of the week absent some kind of minor miracle, but let me take a stab at elevating BP’s blood pressure:
I’ve read the stats, but don’t have them handy. The expanding single mother phenomenon started in the 60’s, IIRC. It has gotten progressively more pronounced. This is true across demographic lines. What is also fairly constant across demographic lines is that children of single mothers (who usually have not finished high school and whowere marginal participants in the educational process to begin with) are doomed far more often than not, regardless of race. The fact that the single motherhood rate is higher in the black population, therefore, explains much of what we see today.
I disagree with progressives like BP who, if I am understanding correctly, see the cause of economic and social disparity as a single, constant entity: racism. Times and circumstances have changed. No college rejects people based on color. Companies aggressively pursue diversity. Jim Crow has been dead for longer than most of us have been alive. Brown v Board of Education came down 59 years ago. Neighborhoods are open. An African American is president of the country. Etc, etc. Really, it is different today. Things have changed.
In addition to the single mother issue, there is–and this is one area where GWB and I are on all fours–the soft bigotry of low expectations. Too many people accept less when they should be pushing for more. School is supposed to be hard. Homework is supposed to challenge the brain. Not everyone will do well in physics. Not everyone is college material. Some will do better getting vocational training.
There is no widespread ‘reality therapy’ going on anywhere, but it is especially absent in the black community. Telling young black people that Black Studies is a viable course of study in college is a damn lie. It’s a ridiculously useless course of study that does nothing but under-prepare students to compete with their peers for good jobs.
In line with the soft bigotry thing, I know many, many lefties who will agree with my statements about single motherhood and Black Studies privately, but will never, ever dare to question their propriety or efficacy in public debate–for fear of being called racist.
BP–I sleep fine at night for the most part. If I do lie awake worrying about the black community–and I do, from time to time–I worry if anyone is ever going to repeatedly and forcefully get across the notion that having a child at age 17 almost certainly dooms that child, and the mother, to a life of grinding poverty.
Because I am confident that will never happen, because the black leadership in this country perpetuates itself on the cult of victim-hood, nothing is going to change. I could write a check for half of my income for the rest of my life and we could do direct transfer payments to unemployed, young, uneducated black males and not a damn thing will change in their lives.
Last thing–I recently defended, unsuccessfully, a company that was sued by a mid-30’s black man who lost his leg in an accident. He started college on a football scholarship, learned his girlfriend was pregnant, quit school, married her and got a job. Both he and his wife were children of single mothers. In their cases, responsible, focused, and unusually mature single mothers. Both were very clear about the sense of loss they felt in not having a father in their lives, and how important it was to them that their children have a father and a close, warm, loving relationship.
Young boys learn how to be men–good husbands, good fathers–from watching their own dad or someone who stands in for a father. A dad is best. One of the fundamental lessons a present and committed father imparts is that he is there for his wife and children. The subtext is that you don’t make a baby and walk away.
Just want to add, in addition to Hartmut’s comment slipped in as a write this, regarding Slart’s cite about gun sales soaring as an unintended consequence of post-Newtown massacre efforts to tighten gun control measures, that I didn’t take part in that particular national psychosis, and I assume Slart didn’t either, having been sufficiently and responsibly armed beforehand, though I get the point about complications.
The article quotes someone or other declaring that Obama is the best gun salesman going. Well, I suppose in that world of cracked glibness, then a sane policy from the White House would be for a President to declare that the White House grounds are a gun-full zone (tax deductions for gun purchases would be forthcoming) and to hand out weapons and free ammo at the White House Easter Egg Hunt as a canny way of indulging the psychosis and perhaps reverse mesmerizing the populace into trancing zombie-like to the nearest Armory and relinquishing their arms.
It might have been refreshingly …. something … if just one gun manufacturer had announced that gosh, we’re going to declare at least a moratorium on sales of certain weaponry — or all — because maybe the country is full-up with armaments — but they didn’t and damned if I can’t think why.
It occurs to me that a similar psychosis may have come over the parents of the Newtown elementary school victims as they rushed into bed in the weeks after the murders to become pregnant and increase the national birthrate, which some glib observers have condemned as inadequate for the needs of industry and the economy.
This fertile sex romp following mass murders may hold the key to yet another national policy, should we wish to indulge the perversity of human nature.
Instead of spiking the birthrate during blackouts because of inadequate, but canny, funding for the national power infrastructure, we could send shooters into elementary schools and let the lemming love begin.
This policy of course would be adopted at the local level only to enable experimentation and keep overhead low.
I will admit that after the Oklahoma City bombings and despite the fact that a friend lost a husband (federal employee, so really the nation lost 3/5ths of a person) that I unaccountably ran out and requisitioned a couple of freight cars of fertilizer for secret storage and I’ve been releasing it bit by bit from the bottom of my pantleg onto my lawn.
Too, after Mayor Bloomberg banned the 64 ouncers, something came over me and warehoused on ice a few thousand 64 ounce-soft drink servings and I’ve been chugging them since. I’ve gained 78 pounds and triggered a raging case of diabetes, but I feel good about the whole thing, as I believe many of the more full-figured Founders of our Nation would too.
I recall in health insurance debates being assured that health insurance, but especially government-supplied health insurance, engenders a mysterious over-consumption of healthcare, which I laughed off, but sure enough, after securing my own insurance after some months of terror at my age of doing without, over the past year, I’ve had seven tonsillectomies, not quite a dozen colonoscopies, and more melanoma scans than Woody Allen because, well, I can’t explain, but the upshot is that I’m now banned from every medical clinic and office in the tri-state area, like THAT is going to stop me from buying another gun.
I now see that if I lose or can’t afford my health insurance, and if Obamacare is eradicated as the pestilence it is said to be, my carefree consumption of healthcare will drop to virtually zero and the economy and freedom will rocket ahead into never-seen stratospheric heights, although what that has to do with preventing me from rushing out and purchasing some big honking military-style weaponry escapes me, but maybe you can all think of a reason for that happening.
And, incidentally, apparently one provision of Obamacare is that one’s personal physician MUST ask about their patients’ gun habits. Some are outraged over this and are proposing bans on the practice at the State level, but I caution, given the complicated psychology which I believe I share with, well, all of you, that were I a doctor, such a ban would merely cause me to unaccountably blurt out questions about my patients’ gun joneses repeatedly during their exams, maybe as a way of heading off their repeated demands for painful, invasive procedures because they read in the small print of their insurance policies that they were covered for such, and dammit, they are paying for it, so go for it.
Had I been a lyncher of black folks back in the day, and busybodies had even so much as frowned in my direction over these practices, I expect I would have started breeding hanging trees on plantations for just that purpose and started a chain of hemp/rope outlets …. I’d call them Noose Caboose, or maybe Gag and Go … because if there is one thing that gets my dander up it’s when someone else tells I can’t do or have something.
Watch me.
Let me clue yall in on how to get me to cease and desist some type of disapproved behavior: tell me to continue doing it.
That’ll stoke my suspicion and paranoia and off I’ll run in the opposite, but intended direction, salivating all the way.
YMMV, although apparently YMdoesn’tV, given the human psychology we share.
Just some further longwinded thoughts from here at Pavlov’s little corner of the world.
Just want to add, in addition to Hartmut’s comment slipped in as a write this, regarding Slart’s cite about gun sales soaring as an unintended consequence of post-Newtown massacre efforts to tighten gun control measures, that I didn’t take part in that particular national psychosis, and I assume Slart didn’t either, having been sufficiently and responsibly armed beforehand, though I get the point about complications.
The article quotes someone or other declaring that Obama is the best gun salesman going. Well, I suppose in that world of cracked glibness, then a sane policy from the White House would be for a President to declare that the White House grounds are a gun-full zone (tax deductions for gun purchases would be forthcoming) and to hand out weapons and free ammo at the White House Easter Egg Hunt as a canny way of indulging the psychosis and perhaps reverse mesmerizing the populace into trancing zombie-like to the nearest Armory and relinquishing their arms.
It might have been refreshingly …. something … if just one gun manufacturer had announced that gosh, we’re going to declare at least a moratorium on sales of certain weaponry — or all — because maybe the country is full-up with armaments — but they didn’t and damned if I can’t think why.
It occurs to me that a similar psychosis may have come over the parents of the Newtown elementary school victims as they rushed into bed in the weeks after the murders to become pregnant and increase the national birthrate, which some glib observers have condemned as inadequate for the needs of industry and the economy.
This fertile sex romp following mass murders may hold the key to yet another national policy, should we wish to indulge the perversity of human nature.
Instead of spiking the birthrate during blackouts because of inadequate, but canny, funding for the national power infrastructure, we could send shooters into elementary schools and let the lemming love begin.
This policy of course would be adopted at the local level only to enable experimentation and keep overhead low.
I will admit that after the Oklahoma City bombings and despite the fact that a friend lost a husband (federal employee, so really the nation lost 3/5ths of a person) that I unaccountably ran out and requisitioned a couple of freight cars of fertilizer for secret storage and I’ve been releasing it bit by bit from the bottom of my pantleg onto my lawn.
Too, after Mayor Bloomberg banned the 64 ouncers, something came over me and warehoused on ice a few thousand 64 ounce-soft drink servings and I’ve been chugging them since. I’ve gained 78 pounds and triggered a raging case of diabetes, but I feel good about the whole thing, as I believe many of the more full-figured Founders of our Nation would too.
I recall in health insurance debates being assured that health insurance, but especially government-supplied health insurance, engenders a mysterious over-consumption of healthcare, which I laughed off, but sure enough, after securing my own insurance after some months of terror at my age of doing without, over the past year, I’ve had seven tonsillectomies, not quite a dozen colonoscopies, and more melanoma scans than Woody Allen because, well, I can’t explain, but the upshot is that I’m now banned from every medical clinic and office in the tri-state area, like THAT is going to stop me from buying another gun.
I now see that if I lose or can’t afford my health insurance, and if Obamacare is eradicated as the pestilence it is said to be, my carefree consumption of healthcare will drop to virtually zero and the economy and freedom will rocket ahead into never-seen stratospheric heights, although what that has to do with preventing me from rushing out and purchasing some big honking military-style weaponry escapes me, but maybe you can all think of a reason for that happening.
And, incidentally, apparently one provision of Obamacare is that one’s personal physician MUST ask about their patients’ gun habits. Some are outraged over this and are proposing bans on the practice at the State level, but I caution, given the complicated psychology which I believe I share with, well, all of you, that were I a doctor, such a ban would merely cause me to unaccountably blurt out questions about my patients’ gun joneses repeatedly during their exams, maybe as a way of heading off their repeated demands for painful, invasive procedures because they read in the small print of their insurance policies that they were covered for such, and dammit, they are paying for it, so go for it.
Had I been a lyncher of black folks back in the day, and busybodies had even so much as frowned in my direction over these practices, I expect I would have started breeding hanging trees on plantations for just that purpose and started a chain of hemp/rope outlets …. I’d call them Noose Caboose, or maybe Gag and Go … because if there is one thing that gets my dander up it’s when someone else tells I can’t do or have something.
Watch me.
Let me clue yall in on how to get me to cease and desist some type of disapproved behavior: tell me to continue doing it.
That’ll stoke my suspicion and paranoia and off I’ll run in the opposite, but intended direction, salivating all the way.
YMMV, although apparently YMdoesn’tV, given the human psychology we share.
Just some further longwinded thoughts from here at Pavlov’s little corner of the world.
No college rejects people based on color.
Rarely openly anymore because the courts will not allow it. Some still get away with a lot by presenting it as something else than race. And it is iirc less than a decade ago that one of the infamous Kristian(TM) academies (Liberty or Oral Roberts iirc) got into trouble about their ‘no interracial dating’ policy. And just a few days ago there was that college sorority that wanted to let in its first black member but got overruled by the alumni. It’s very laudable though that it was the active members that made that public because they were so disgusted about it.
No college rejects people based on color.
Rarely openly anymore because the courts will not allow it. Some still get away with a lot by presenting it as something else than race. And it is iirc less than a decade ago that one of the infamous Kristian(TM) academies (Liberty or Oral Roberts iirc) got into trouble about their ‘no interracial dating’ policy. And just a few days ago there was that college sorority that wanted to let in its first black member but got overruled by the alumni. It’s very laudable though that it was the active members that made that public because they were so disgusted about it.
“do you suppose i sit in my garage and shout angrily at my socket set when it fails to animate itself and fix the wheelbarrow ?”
Elvis would have shot both the socket set and the wheelbarrow.
“do you suppose i sit in my garage and shout angrily at my socket set when it fails to animate itself and fix the wheelbarrow ?”
Elvis would have shot both the socket set and the wheelbarrow.
Well, if bobbyp or some other fine soul would like to go for it, send it to libjpn at my gmail digs and I’ll put it up. I’ll pass on it myself, cause I think that the poster (if it were me) would have an obligation to respond and where I live basically makes it as if a tentacled Martian were to come and give advice on your golf swing.
I’m not sure why, but McT’s discussion of single mothers had me remember this Atlantic article about the Craigslist killers, who preyed upon unemployed white working class men.
I was initially drawn to the story of the Beasley murders because I thought it would illuminate the isolation and vulnerability of so many working-class men, who have been pushed by the faltering economy from one way of life—a nine-to-five job, a wife, children—into another, far more precarious one: unemployed or underemployed, single or divorced, crashing on relatives’ spare beds or in the backseats of cars. At what other moment in history would it have been plausible for a serial killer to identify middle-aged white men as his most vulnerable targets?
But what I discovered in the course of my reporting was something quite different. As traditional family structures are falling apart for working-class men, many of them are forging new kinds of relationships: two old high-school friends who chat so many times a day that they need to buy themselves walkie-talkies; a father who texts his almost-grown sons as he goes to bed at night and as he wakes up in the morning.
Christians often talk about a “God-shaped hole,” a need inside us that can be filled only by faith. But perhaps we share a “family-shaped hole.” When the old structures recede for men, they find ways to replace them with alternative attachments, bonds with one or two people that offer the warmth and intimacy typically provided by a wife or significant other. If anything, these improvised families can prove more intense because they are formed under duress and, lacking a conventional domestic routine or a recognized status, they must be constantly tended and reinforced.
I realize that the story is about unemployed white men, but I quote that, I think, because I’m not sure how McT can be so certain what life is like for single mothers or for black men. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I just don’t understand the assuredness that one makes claims about how people feel about their children and how one raises them.
At any rate, I understand that you are busy and might not be able to respond, but I don’t see racism as a ‘single’ entity, but something that has a number of facets and manifestations. To claim that it is a single entity that concerns people on the ‘Left’ (wherever that may be) may make for good flambé, but I don’t think does much for discussion.
Well, if bobbyp or some other fine soul would like to go for it, send it to libjpn at my gmail digs and I’ll put it up. I’ll pass on it myself, cause I think that the poster (if it were me) would have an obligation to respond and where I live basically makes it as if a tentacled Martian were to come and give advice on your golf swing.
I’m not sure why, but McT’s discussion of single mothers had me remember this Atlantic article about the Craigslist killers, who preyed upon unemployed white working class men.
I was initially drawn to the story of the Beasley murders because I thought it would illuminate the isolation and vulnerability of so many working-class men, who have been pushed by the faltering economy from one way of life—a nine-to-five job, a wife, children—into another, far more precarious one: unemployed or underemployed, single or divorced, crashing on relatives’ spare beds or in the backseats of cars. At what other moment in history would it have been plausible for a serial killer to identify middle-aged white men as his most vulnerable targets?
But what I discovered in the course of my reporting was something quite different. As traditional family structures are falling apart for working-class men, many of them are forging new kinds of relationships: two old high-school friends who chat so many times a day that they need to buy themselves walkie-talkies; a father who texts his almost-grown sons as he goes to bed at night and as he wakes up in the morning.
Christians often talk about a “God-shaped hole,” a need inside us that can be filled only by faith. But perhaps we share a “family-shaped hole.” When the old structures recede for men, they find ways to replace them with alternative attachments, bonds with one or two people that offer the warmth and intimacy typically provided by a wife or significant other. If anything, these improvised families can prove more intense because they are formed under duress and, lacking a conventional domestic routine or a recognized status, they must be constantly tended and reinforced.
I realize that the story is about unemployed white men, but I quote that, I think, because I’m not sure how McT can be so certain what life is like for single mothers or for black men. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I just don’t understand the assuredness that one makes claims about how people feel about their children and how one raises them.
At any rate, I understand that you are busy and might not be able to respond, but I don’t see racism as a ‘single’ entity, but something that has a number of facets and manifestations. To claim that it is a single entity that concerns people on the ‘Left’ (wherever that may be) may make for good flambé, but I don’t think does much for discussion.
McTx: I don’t view voter ID as racist EVEN IF the intent is to discourage, at the periphery, those who lack sufficient motivation to get an ID card and even if the majority of that minority at the periphery are Hispanic or black (and, I’m reasonably confident that the lazy, unmotivated periphery has plenty of whites, so I’m just not that moved). Why? Because that law applies the same to everyone. Getting an ID is no big deal.
IF getting an ID was made relatively simple, and places where one could get one were a) readily available to everyone (including those who don’t have a car), b) were open outside normal business hours, abnd c) provided reasonably fast service — then yes, it would be no big deal. But in an awful lot of the places which have instituted those requirements, that simply isn’t the case.
I think you could successfully make a case that the intent is to disadvantage the poor, regardless of race, rather than racism. I think you would be flat wrong in the vast majority of cases, but it would certainly be possible.
But to argue that the law has any basis in a reality of illegal voters is nonsense. Has anyone actually found, even in Texas and other places with large numbers of illegal aliens, that lots of them actually are trying to (or succeeding in) voting illegally? Is there any actual data?
McTx: I don’t view voter ID as racist EVEN IF the intent is to discourage, at the periphery, those who lack sufficient motivation to get an ID card and even if the majority of that minority at the periphery are Hispanic or black (and, I’m reasonably confident that the lazy, unmotivated periphery has plenty of whites, so I’m just not that moved). Why? Because that law applies the same to everyone. Getting an ID is no big deal.
IF getting an ID was made relatively simple, and places where one could get one were a) readily available to everyone (including those who don’t have a car), b) were open outside normal business hours, abnd c) provided reasonably fast service — then yes, it would be no big deal. But in an awful lot of the places which have instituted those requirements, that simply isn’t the case.
I think you could successfully make a case that the intent is to disadvantage the poor, regardless of race, rather than racism. I think you would be flat wrong in the vast majority of cases, but it would certainly be possible.
But to argue that the law has any basis in a reality of illegal voters is nonsense. Has anyone actually found, even in Texas and other places with large numbers of illegal aliens, that lots of them actually are trying to (or succeeding in) voting illegally? Is there any actual data?
who here will be surprised if challenging a voter’s ID turns out to be something that happens to minorities more than it does to whites ?
who here will be surprised if challenging a voter’s ID turns out to be something that happens to minorities more than it does to whites ?
Short of a systemic, monied, top-down effort to sway an election, there’s no reason to think voter fraud is a significant problem with the registration requirements already in place. What’s the incentive? And given a systemic, monied, top-down effort, would ID requirements be that hard to overcome?
With that, racism may or may not be a motivation for some number of the people pushing for voter IDs. But it’s not an all-or-nothing question, since we’re talking about a number of people not sharing one mind. There’s also a difference between what you might call systemic racism and personal racism.
The system – be it the election system, the court system, the eductional system or what have you – can be racist in its results without everyone or even a significant number of the people involved being racist, themselves. The problem I see, regardless of whether or not people are personally racist, is when it becomes apparent that there are racist outcomes in some system or institution, but that there is, none the less, resistance to doing anything about it.
The denial of racism can be an impersonal form of racism, be it manifest in resistance to change or even, simply, passivity in the face of an apparent wrong.
Short of a systemic, monied, top-down effort to sway an election, there’s no reason to think voter fraud is a significant problem with the registration requirements already in place. What’s the incentive? And given a systemic, monied, top-down effort, would ID requirements be that hard to overcome?
With that, racism may or may not be a motivation for some number of the people pushing for voter IDs. But it’s not an all-or-nothing question, since we’re talking about a number of people not sharing one mind. There’s also a difference between what you might call systemic racism and personal racism.
The system – be it the election system, the court system, the eductional system or what have you – can be racist in its results without everyone or even a significant number of the people involved being racist, themselves. The problem I see, regardless of whether or not people are personally racist, is when it becomes apparent that there are racist outcomes in some system or institution, but that there is, none the less, resistance to doing anything about it.
The denial of racism can be an impersonal form of racism, be it manifest in resistance to change or even, simply, passivity in the face of an apparent wrong.
Some other aspects of the single black mother thing.
Personally, I thought that (for example) Bill Cosby’s famous pound cake speech made more than a few good points.
Also personally, I don’t think I, as an American white man, have any standing to make a similar speech.
There is an almost endless parade of reasons why American blacks are in dire straights, financially socially and otherwise. Most of those are rooted in the unique history of blacks in the US. And it’s a history that didn’t magically end with the passage of civil rights legislation in the 60’s.
My strong conviction is that black Americans need to take their own communities and their own lives in their own hands, and make things happen for themselves.
One reason I feel that way is because the enormity of what black Americans lived with for centuries is so great that there basically isn’t anything the rest of us can do to make it right. It’s too big.
Another reason is that the rest of us are not a reliable source of good will toward the black community. We are largely either not that interested in helping out, or are interested for our own reasons.
Plus, whatever hand up black folks get is generally accompanied by an equal portion of resentment and anger that they haven’t quit complaining and gotten their sh*t together yet.
So, if black folks put themselves in the position of waiting for the rest of us to improve their lot, they are unlikely to find any kind of satisfaction. The bulk of the official legal impediments to their progress and well-being have been removed (as of now, anyway), that’s probably as good as it is going to get.
Any further justice is not going to be forthcoming. The best possible way forward, IMO, is to accept that and move on.
But that doesn’t mean that no justice is deserved. The least the rest of us can do is recognize that.
As far as racism today being exceptional, or something that’s all in the past, I note that I recently had to ask some family members to stop sending me long missives about how the blacks should be grateful for slavery because it let them all hear about Jesus.
The past isn’t even the past. It continues to inform and affect the present, and will continue to do so, probably as long as this nation exists.
You can’t go back and change it, but the most basic sense of fairness demands that we recognize it for what it was, and for how it still affects us now.
Some other aspects of the single black mother thing.
Personally, I thought that (for example) Bill Cosby’s famous pound cake speech made more than a few good points.
Also personally, I don’t think I, as an American white man, have any standing to make a similar speech.
There is an almost endless parade of reasons why American blacks are in dire straights, financially socially and otherwise. Most of those are rooted in the unique history of blacks in the US. And it’s a history that didn’t magically end with the passage of civil rights legislation in the 60’s.
My strong conviction is that black Americans need to take their own communities and their own lives in their own hands, and make things happen for themselves.
One reason I feel that way is because the enormity of what black Americans lived with for centuries is so great that there basically isn’t anything the rest of us can do to make it right. It’s too big.
Another reason is that the rest of us are not a reliable source of good will toward the black community. We are largely either not that interested in helping out, or are interested for our own reasons.
Plus, whatever hand up black folks get is generally accompanied by an equal portion of resentment and anger that they haven’t quit complaining and gotten their sh*t together yet.
So, if black folks put themselves in the position of waiting for the rest of us to improve their lot, they are unlikely to find any kind of satisfaction. The bulk of the official legal impediments to their progress and well-being have been removed (as of now, anyway), that’s probably as good as it is going to get.
Any further justice is not going to be forthcoming. The best possible way forward, IMO, is to accept that and move on.
But that doesn’t mean that no justice is deserved. The least the rest of us can do is recognize that.
As far as racism today being exceptional, or something that’s all in the past, I note that I recently had to ask some family members to stop sending me long missives about how the blacks should be grateful for slavery because it let them all hear about Jesus.
The past isn’t even the past. It continues to inform and affect the present, and will continue to do so, probably as long as this nation exists.
You can’t go back and change it, but the most basic sense of fairness demands that we recognize it for what it was, and for how it still affects us now.
Russell,
Your Coates link is one I especially wanted McKinney to read and comment on. The data shows that higher rates of black single parent (aka female head of household) family structure is the historical norm, and that the ‘explosion’ of this terrible thing since the 60’s is prevalent across racial categories. Where is the condemnation of absent white fathers? Is Bill O’Reilly going to do a cheesecake speech?
There is, as Coates clearly avers, something bigger going on here.
In the same article Coates writes, “My expectation is that racism and white supremacy will win–and take this country down with it.” Kinda’ discouraging, what?
My “wild eyed lefty” response to this is to urge us to do something, and give my political backing to public policies that I believe will work to address such issues. It’s an essential part of what makes (some) libruls tick. But I might try going out and purchasing a gun (I’m thinking a single shot 20ga like I used to own) and try yelling at it. What could it hurt?
Otherwise, well put as usual.
Russell,
Your Coates link is one I especially wanted McKinney to read and comment on. The data shows that higher rates of black single parent (aka female head of household) family structure is the historical norm, and that the ‘explosion’ of this terrible thing since the 60’s is prevalent across racial categories. Where is the condemnation of absent white fathers? Is Bill O’Reilly going to do a cheesecake speech?
There is, as Coates clearly avers, something bigger going on here.
In the same article Coates writes, “My expectation is that racism and white supremacy will win–and take this country down with it.” Kinda’ discouraging, what?
My “wild eyed lefty” response to this is to urge us to do something, and give my political backing to public policies that I believe will work to address such issues. It’s an essential part of what makes (some) libruls tick. But I might try going out and purchasing a gun (I’m thinking a single shot 20ga like I used to own) and try yelling at it. What could it hurt?
Otherwise, well put as usual.
I don’t view voter ID as racist EVEN IF the intent is to discourage, at the periphery, those who lack sufficient motivation to get an ID card
IMO the intent is to discourage folks who don’t vote (R).
If Latvian bagel-makers named Stan reliably voted (D) and were a large enough demographic to make a difference electorally, they’d find a way to make it hard for Latvian bagel-makers named Stan to vote.
There probably are some folks for whom making it hard for blacks, students, and poor people to vote is an unalloyed good on its own terms, but that’s just lagniappe.
I don’t view voter ID as racist EVEN IF the intent is to discourage, at the periphery, those who lack sufficient motivation to get an ID card
IMO the intent is to discourage folks who don’t vote (R).
If Latvian bagel-makers named Stan reliably voted (D) and were a large enough demographic to make a difference electorally, they’d find a way to make it hard for Latvian bagel-makers named Stan to vote.
There probably are some folks for whom making it hard for blacks, students, and poor people to vote is an unalloyed good on its own terms, but that’s just lagniappe.
The T-NC link is excellent. Thanks.
The T-NC link is excellent. Thanks.
The voter suppression laws are invented to keep likely Democrats from voting. Targeting African Americans is a means to that end. Some of the Republican politicians pushing the voter suppression laws might be motivated by racism, but the primary goal is to undermine the democratic process in swing states and districts to the advantage of the party that can’t depend on winning on its own merits due to a lack of merits.
Did anyone notice what the sociopaths in the House did today?
The voter suppression laws are invented to keep likely Democrats from voting. Targeting African Americans is a means to that end. Some of the Republican politicians pushing the voter suppression laws might be motivated by racism, but the primary goal is to undermine the democratic process in swing states and districts to the advantage of the party that can’t depend on winning on its own merits due to a lack of merits.
Did anyone notice what the sociopaths in the House did today?
What culpability would you bear, personally, if your preferred levels of firearms control kept black people from protecting themselves against lynch mobs?
Slarti, correct me if I’m wrong: back when lynching was a popular American pastime, American gun laws were more to YOUR liking than to mine. Are you suggesting here that some significant number of black people “stood their ground”, with guns, against racist yahoo would-be lynchers?
While we’re asking questions: how many responsible WHITE gun owners used their 2nd-Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect their black fellow-citizens from racist yahoo would-be lynchers?
Are you really suggesting that I should wish Treyvon Martin had been packing heat? Are you seriously suggesting I should wish black people had fought for their basic civil rights with fncking guns? Are you insane, or what?
–TP
What culpability would you bear, personally, if your preferred levels of firearms control kept black people from protecting themselves against lynch mobs?
Slarti, correct me if I’m wrong: back when lynching was a popular American pastime, American gun laws were more to YOUR liking than to mine. Are you suggesting here that some significant number of black people “stood their ground”, with guns, against racist yahoo would-be lynchers?
While we’re asking questions: how many responsible WHITE gun owners used their 2nd-Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect their black fellow-citizens from racist yahoo would-be lynchers?
Are you really suggesting that I should wish Treyvon Martin had been packing heat? Are you seriously suggesting I should wish black people had fought for their basic civil rights with fncking guns? Are you insane, or what?
–TP
“Also personally, I don’t think I, as an American white man, have any standing to make a similar speech.”
This is why racism will continue, if Coates worst fear is realized. The idea that an “American white man” has no standing to engage in this discussion, on any point, is pretty insulting to American white men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.
I would suggest that change comes from an open two way dialogue, which there is little of today.
“Also personally, I don’t think I, as an American white man, have any standing to make a similar speech.”
This is why racism will continue, if Coates worst fear is realized. The idea that an “American white man” has no standing to engage in this discussion, on any point, is pretty insulting to American white men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.
I would suggest that change comes from an open two way dialogue, which there is little of today.
I don’t think he meant that white men have no standing to make any points about racism. I think he meant that white men lacked standing to make those particular remarks.
I’m not sure I agree with him about that, but I think that is what he meant.
I don’t think he meant that white men have no standing to make any points about racism. I think he meant that white men lacked standing to make those particular remarks.
I’m not sure I agree with him about that, but I think that is what he meant.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Neither Slart nor MckT are responsible for this either, but quick, ban and confiscate all firearms because we, all of us, are in the middle of a hurricane of crazy, motherf*cking sh*t.
America has outgunned itself.
Once again, these guys shot the wrong people, each other. If they’d have hunted down Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, among others, and put bullets in their f*cking anti-American brainpans, the country would be two dead f*cks further on the road to sanity.
Anyone want to surmise that these were Democrats?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Neither Slart nor MckT are responsible for this either, but quick, ban and confiscate all firearms because we, all of us, are in the middle of a hurricane of crazy, motherf*cking sh*t.
America has outgunned itself.
Once again, these guys shot the wrong people, each other. If they’d have hunted down Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, among others, and put bullets in their f*cking anti-American brainpans, the country would be two dead f*cks further on the road to sanity.
Anyone want to surmise that these were Democrats?
I’d say there’s a fair bit of space between *making a similar speech* and *engaging in the discussion, on any point*. It appears russell is engaging in the discussion on this very thread, despite not making a speech similar to Bill Cosby’s.
I don’t think russell’s reluctance, as a white man, to speak as openly and authoritatively on issues specific to black Americans as would a black American is what’s preventing the end of racism.
I’d say there’s a fair bit of space between *making a similar speech* and *engaging in the discussion, on any point*. It appears russell is engaging in the discussion on this very thread, despite not making a speech similar to Bill Cosby’s.
I don’t think russell’s reluctance, as a white man, to speak as openly and authoritatively on issues specific to black Americans as would a black American is what’s preventing the end of racism.
I suggest that you go investigate the history of gun control, and who early proponents of it were, rather than…whatever it is that you’re attempting to do, here.
I’m the one advocating for more sanity. For more coherent, sensible arguments.
I suggest that you go investigate the history of gun control, and who early proponents of it were, rather than…whatever it is that you’re attempting to do, here.
I’m the one advocating for more sanity. For more coherent, sensible arguments.
American white men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.
Yep. The Bell Curve was actually written by a black guy, and Andrew Sullivan really doesn’t have a public forum in a major American media outlet.
The well of white male self pity is bottomless, and they’ll be the first to tell you so.
If you don’t believe racism is a big problem, read this“>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/05/unemployment_scandal/>this and get back to me. Thanks.
American white men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.
Yep. The Bell Curve was actually written by a black guy, and Andrew Sullivan really doesn’t have a public forum in a major American media outlet.
The well of white male self pity is bottomless, and they’ll be the first to tell you so.
If you don’t believe racism is a big problem, read this“>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/05/unemployment_scandal/>this and get back to me. Thanks.
The idea that an “American white man” has no standing to engage in this discussion, on any point, is pretty insulting to American white men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.
My experience engaging in discussion of social and political issues on public and private fora over the last ten-plus years has driven home to me the reality that everybody on god’s green earth is fair game for any and all criticism.
Nothing special about American white men.
I don’t think he meant that white men have no standing to make any points about racism. I think he meant that white men lacked standing to make those particular remarks.
That is fairly close to what I meant.
To make it perhaps more specific and perhaps clearer, I meant that *I*, as an American white man, don’t feel that *I*, as an American white man, have any such standing.
And oddly enough, that’s exactly what I said.
In general, I do my best to not speak for others. If you, Marty, want to engage in Cosby-esque critiques of the black community, I will not stand in your way, nor in fact could I do so were I so inclined.
Which I am not.
Live it up.
I don’t think russell’s reluctance, as a white man, to speak as openly and authoritatively on issues specific to black Americans as would a black American is what’s preventing the end of racism.
Yes, I also somehow doubt that my reluctance to pile on to Cosby’s observations about the black community is perpetuating racism.
My feeling is that I, as am American white man, have my hands full dealing with my own sh*t. I’m not seeing that black Americans need my help in dealing with theirs.
I seriously doubt they need me to bring their issues to their attention. They live with them.
The idea that an “American white man” has no standing to engage in this discussion, on any point, is pretty insulting to American white men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.
My experience engaging in discussion of social and political issues on public and private fora over the last ten-plus years has driven home to me the reality that everybody on god’s green earth is fair game for any and all criticism.
Nothing special about American white men.
I don’t think he meant that white men have no standing to make any points about racism. I think he meant that white men lacked standing to make those particular remarks.
That is fairly close to what I meant.
To make it perhaps more specific and perhaps clearer, I meant that *I*, as an American white man, don’t feel that *I*, as an American white man, have any such standing.
And oddly enough, that’s exactly what I said.
In general, I do my best to not speak for others. If you, Marty, want to engage in Cosby-esque critiques of the black community, I will not stand in your way, nor in fact could I do so were I so inclined.
Which I am not.
Live it up.
I don’t think russell’s reluctance, as a white man, to speak as openly and authoritatively on issues specific to black Americans as would a black American is what’s preventing the end of racism.
Yes, I also somehow doubt that my reluctance to pile on to Cosby’s observations about the black community is perpetuating racism.
My feeling is that I, as am American white man, have my hands full dealing with my own sh*t. I’m not seeing that black Americans need my help in dealing with theirs.
I seriously doubt they need me to bring their issues to their attention. They live with them.
My experience engaging in discussion of social and political issues on public and private fora over the last ten-plus years has driven home to me the reality that everybody on god’s green earth is fair game for any and all criticism.
Actually, I think I need to retract this.
Latvian bagel-makers named Stan have not, to my knowledge, been subject to criticism in public and private fora.
So, some folks do appear to be exempt.
My experience engaging in discussion of social and political issues on public and private fora over the last ten-plus years has driven home to me the reality that everybody on god’s green earth is fair game for any and all criticism.
Actually, I think I need to retract this.
Latvian bagel-makers named Stan have not, to my knowledge, been subject to criticism in public and private fora.
So, some folks do appear to be exempt.
I would just like to express my general agreement with russell on this point, as well as general support and admiration for what he has had to say on this topic in this thread.
Also, an overall appreciation for the myriad thoughtful points he has made in my eyeshot, here and elsewhere, on most topics he has chosen to address. Even when we disagree on a point, I still can appreciate where he’s coming from in making it. I can’t make this not sound obsequious or fawning, so I am just going to leave it there.
But back to this point: my take on this is that it is in some ways similar the plight of other people elsewhere in the world. You can help people out, give them a hand, but what you absolutely cannot do is solve their problems for them, unless you’re asked specifically to. People’s problems, individually and in groups, just don’t lend themselves to formulaic solutions. It’s not that they’re unsolvable; some problems you can look at and see what’s needed right away. But part of what’s needed (a very large part, I say) is change on the part of the person or people whose problem it is. And that change, I say, has to come from within.
Thus: you can’t hand equality to American black people. You can’t change their culture and get rid of the things that don’t work. Pointing out what doesn’t work doesn’t really even help all that much, particularly if the person doing the pointing doesn’t belong to the group that owns the problems. You can’t inflict change on another culture. There are things you can do to not aggravate the problems, but there’s a limit to what you can do to help solve them.
It’s a hypothesis, sure, but it’s a hypothesis that we’ve gathered all too much evidence to support. Doesn’t stop us from trying again, though. What Iraq/Egypt/Syria really needs is more democracy; let’s give it to them.
I don’t claim this as some kind of profound TRVTH; it’s just something that looks right to me. I also don’t claim it’s any sort of original observation, but it is (swiping a line from Monty Python) my own.
I think this is all just another way of saying what russell said, but I felt an irresistable urge to restate what he said less elegantly.
I’m an oddball, for sure.
I would just like to express my general agreement with russell on this point, as well as general support and admiration for what he has had to say on this topic in this thread.
Also, an overall appreciation for the myriad thoughtful points he has made in my eyeshot, here and elsewhere, on most topics he has chosen to address. Even when we disagree on a point, I still can appreciate where he’s coming from in making it. I can’t make this not sound obsequious or fawning, so I am just going to leave it there.
But back to this point: my take on this is that it is in some ways similar the plight of other people elsewhere in the world. You can help people out, give them a hand, but what you absolutely cannot do is solve their problems for them, unless you’re asked specifically to. People’s problems, individually and in groups, just don’t lend themselves to formulaic solutions. It’s not that they’re unsolvable; some problems you can look at and see what’s needed right away. But part of what’s needed (a very large part, I say) is change on the part of the person or people whose problem it is. And that change, I say, has to come from within.
Thus: you can’t hand equality to American black people. You can’t change their culture and get rid of the things that don’t work. Pointing out what doesn’t work doesn’t really even help all that much, particularly if the person doing the pointing doesn’t belong to the group that owns the problems. You can’t inflict change on another culture. There are things you can do to not aggravate the problems, but there’s a limit to what you can do to help solve them.
It’s a hypothesis, sure, but it’s a hypothesis that we’ve gathered all too much evidence to support. Doesn’t stop us from trying again, though. What Iraq/Egypt/Syria really needs is more democracy; let’s give it to them.
I don’t claim this as some kind of profound TRVTH; it’s just something that looks right to me. I also don’t claim it’s any sort of original observation, but it is (swiping a line from Monty Python) my own.
I think this is all just another way of saying what russell said, but I felt an irresistable urge to restate what he said less elegantly.
I’m an oddball, for sure.
I would suggest that change comes from an open two way dialogue
Less snottily (from me, i.e., on my part):
I think what Marty has said here is correct.
It is, however, my experience that when people like me – white American middle class people, with college educations and good white collar jobs, and who live in nice safe quiet suburban neighborhoods – when people like me make comments like Cosby’s, it’s rarely in the spirit of an open two-way dialogue.
“Two-way” is a funny thing, you can’t just point your finger at the other party and tell them to get their act together. You have to also be open hearing and receiving what is said in return.
Even if that makes you fair game for any and all criticism in private and public fora.
Criticisms often have merit, even if not expressed in ways that are congenial to us.
Your point was a good one. Apologies for the tone of my initial reply.
I would suggest that change comes from an open two way dialogue
Less snottily (from me, i.e., on my part):
I think what Marty has said here is correct.
It is, however, my experience that when people like me – white American middle class people, with college educations and good white collar jobs, and who live in nice safe quiet suburban neighborhoods – when people like me make comments like Cosby’s, it’s rarely in the spirit of an open two-way dialogue.
“Two-way” is a funny thing, you can’t just point your finger at the other party and tell them to get their act together. You have to also be open hearing and receiving what is said in return.
Even if that makes you fair game for any and all criticism in private and public fora.
Criticisms often have merit, even if not expressed in ways that are congenial to us.
Your point was a good one. Apologies for the tone of my initial reply.
What Slart said about what Russell said.
That Slart enables Russell more than makes up for Slart enabling all of the gun violence across this great country of ours. 😉
Thank God for oddballs, though that is getting dangerously close to my turf.
I don’t know how it is that Latvian bagel-makers named Stan have escaped our critical attention all these years at OBWI, but then that’s what we get for banning DaveC, who I believe has been harboring bannable observations about the Stans for some time.
What Slart said about what Russell said.
That Slart enables Russell more than makes up for Slart enabling all of the gun violence across this great country of ours. 😉
Thank God for oddballs, though that is getting dangerously close to my turf.
I don’t know how it is that Latvian bagel-makers named Stan have escaped our critical attention all these years at OBWI, but then that’s what we get for banning DaveC, who I believe has been harboring bannable observations about the Stans for some time.
Thus: you can’t hand equality to American black people. You can’t change their culture and get rid of the things that don’t work. Pointing out what doesn’t work doesn’t really even help all that much, particularly if the person doing the pointing doesn’t belong to the group that owns the problems. You can’t inflict change on another culture. There are things you can do to not aggravate the problems, but there’s a limit to what you can do to help solve them.
I don’t agree for several reasons. First, we–the country, meaning non-blacks–are invited from time to time by black leaders to have “an honest conversation” on race. We can debate what the subtext of ‘honest conversation’ is when the question is posed in that manner, but the invitation is made and made not infrequently. There is nothing wrong with accepting an invitation and being honest, remembering that honest answers are not the same as correct answers.
Second, the traditional black leadership explicitly makes their agenda a part of the national debate. Fine, let’s debate. Part of equality is being called out, as an equal, when you are wrong.
Third, whatever it is we are doing, and have been doing for the black community, does not seem to be working all that well. Or even at all, for those who remain uneducated and/or unemployed/underemployed. When I say “whatever we are doing”, I am speaking of local, state and national efforts to address poverty, etc. I’m perfectly fine addressing poverty. I am even more fine with focusing on specific communities.
But, when the problem has been as persistent and intractable as this seemingly is, particularly when our society/economy is becoming more complex, more knowledge based, it is time, is it not, to not just be *honest* but to ask hard questions and, when the emperor has no clothes, to say so.
The emperor in this case is the received, conventional, politically correct wisdom on addressing poverty and racial issues.
It is not working. We see that everyday. More money for better pay for teachers isn’t going to fix that. Compare DC spending per student to South Dakota and then compare outcomes.
Here are some simple rules in life that will promote a decent shot at life: stay in school and apply yourself; do not have children until you can care for and afford them; obey the law; live within your means.
Why aren’t these values being hammered home every freaking day, in every freaking way, to children starting at age 7?
I have family members who have failed to follow one or more of the above rules. They are white. Their lives have not been particularly happy. It isn’t my fault or BP’s or anyone else’s that these people didn’t make more for themselves because, unlike much of those born into single parent (almost invariably single mother) homes, they had the guidance and examples needed to figure things out.
The great disservice the traditional black and other demographically selected leaders are doing is failing to address the true root causes of poverty: instability, ignorance, education.
The great disservice the rest of us do is our silence, or worse, endorsement of the current, prevailing but failing wisdom.
Now, back to work. Sorry.
Thus: you can’t hand equality to American black people. You can’t change their culture and get rid of the things that don’t work. Pointing out what doesn’t work doesn’t really even help all that much, particularly if the person doing the pointing doesn’t belong to the group that owns the problems. You can’t inflict change on another culture. There are things you can do to not aggravate the problems, but there’s a limit to what you can do to help solve them.
I don’t agree for several reasons. First, we–the country, meaning non-blacks–are invited from time to time by black leaders to have “an honest conversation” on race. We can debate what the subtext of ‘honest conversation’ is when the question is posed in that manner, but the invitation is made and made not infrequently. There is nothing wrong with accepting an invitation and being honest, remembering that honest answers are not the same as correct answers.
Second, the traditional black leadership explicitly makes their agenda a part of the national debate. Fine, let’s debate. Part of equality is being called out, as an equal, when you are wrong.
Third, whatever it is we are doing, and have been doing for the black community, does not seem to be working all that well. Or even at all, for those who remain uneducated and/or unemployed/underemployed. When I say “whatever we are doing”, I am speaking of local, state and national efforts to address poverty, etc. I’m perfectly fine addressing poverty. I am even more fine with focusing on specific communities.
But, when the problem has been as persistent and intractable as this seemingly is, particularly when our society/economy is becoming more complex, more knowledge based, it is time, is it not, to not just be *honest* but to ask hard questions and, when the emperor has no clothes, to say so.
The emperor in this case is the received, conventional, politically correct wisdom on addressing poverty and racial issues.
It is not working. We see that everyday. More money for better pay for teachers isn’t going to fix that. Compare DC spending per student to South Dakota and then compare outcomes.
Here are some simple rules in life that will promote a decent shot at life: stay in school and apply yourself; do not have children until you can care for and afford them; obey the law; live within your means.
Why aren’t these values being hammered home every freaking day, in every freaking way, to children starting at age 7?
I have family members who have failed to follow one or more of the above rules. They are white. Their lives have not been particularly happy. It isn’t my fault or BP’s or anyone else’s that these people didn’t make more for themselves because, unlike much of those born into single parent (almost invariably single mother) homes, they had the guidance and examples needed to figure things out.
The great disservice the traditional black and other demographically selected leaders are doing is failing to address the true root causes of poverty: instability, ignorance, education.
The great disservice the rest of us do is our silence, or worse, endorsement of the current, prevailing but failing wisdom.
Now, back to work. Sorry.
I’d like to comment about CharlesWT’s accurate observation way upthread about the mass migration of Americans from the upper 48 to Texas and Florida.
In the first case, folks are attracted to Texas’ regime of frequent dispatch of death row inmates and the opportunity to work for minimum wage and without health insurance.
In the second, few people know about the Federal Government’s pilot project in Florida to demonstrate the remarkable efficiency with which the latter can send tens of millions of Social Security and Medicare payments all the way down there annually while maintaining a high kvetch-to-payment ratio and thus a taxpayer-subsidized marketing strategy for the fat man in Palm Beach and the cold-callers in Boca Raton.
These are the reasons why both states have panhandles.
I’d like to comment about CharlesWT’s accurate observation way upthread about the mass migration of Americans from the upper 48 to Texas and Florida.
In the first case, folks are attracted to Texas’ regime of frequent dispatch of death row inmates and the opportunity to work for minimum wage and without health insurance.
In the second, few people know about the Federal Government’s pilot project in Florida to demonstrate the remarkable efficiency with which the latter can send tens of millions of Social Security and Medicare payments all the way down there annually while maintaining a high kvetch-to-payment ratio and thus a taxpayer-subsidized marketing strategy for the fat man in Palm Beach and the cold-callers in Boca Raton.
These are the reasons why both states have panhandles.
Honestly, I always internally interpret that to mean: “it’s time for you Republicans to admit that you’re racist”.
But taking it at face value, a debate on race doesn’t overtly invite whites to instruct blacks on solving their problems. I look at it, instead, as an opportunity to discuss ways in which everyone can stop doing things that actively disempower black people. Discrimination, I mean.
To the extent that this conversation devolves into “black people are poor and our solution to that is just to give them money”, I tend to lose interest. I tend to want to achieve equality of opportunity.
So: I disagree that this invitation to discuss issues relating to race constitutes a request for help, or even a request for a lecture about what black people are doing wrong. It is, instead, a request to discuss how white and black people treat each other.
I could be way off base, here, and probably am.
Honestly, I always internally interpret that to mean: “it’s time for you Republicans to admit that you’re racist”.
But taking it at face value, a debate on race doesn’t overtly invite whites to instruct blacks on solving their problems. I look at it, instead, as an opportunity to discuss ways in which everyone can stop doing things that actively disempower black people. Discrimination, I mean.
To the extent that this conversation devolves into “black people are poor and our solution to that is just to give them money”, I tend to lose interest. I tend to want to achieve equality of opportunity.
So: I disagree that this invitation to discuss issues relating to race constitutes a request for help, or even a request for a lecture about what black people are doing wrong. It is, instead, a request to discuss how white and black people treat each other.
I could be way off base, here, and probably am.
Some targeted exercise can help get rid of those pesky panhandles.
Some targeted exercise can help get rid of those pesky panhandles.
“Here are some simple rules in life that will promote a decent shot at life: stay in school and apply yourself; do not have children until you can care for and afford them; obey the law; live within your means.”
These rules have worked less and less well for anyone over the last three decades.
Individuals can cause their own failure. Widespread failure doesn’t indicate that lots of individuals are individually failing; it indicates something seriously wrong with the larger systems and processes.
One of the root causes of poverty in America now is the fantasy that tax cuts for the wealthy combined with cuts in government spending will have miraculous benefits for anyone except the wealthy person who doesn’t perceive a personal need for the government spending. That myth inflicts poverty on people who are doing the right thing.
“Here are some simple rules in life that will promote a decent shot at life: stay in school and apply yourself; do not have children until you can care for and afford them; obey the law; live within your means.”
These rules have worked less and less well for anyone over the last three decades.
Individuals can cause their own failure. Widespread failure doesn’t indicate that lots of individuals are individually failing; it indicates something seriously wrong with the larger systems and processes.
One of the root causes of poverty in America now is the fantasy that tax cuts for the wealthy combined with cuts in government spending will have miraculous benefits for anyone except the wealthy person who doesn’t perceive a personal need for the government spending. That myth inflicts poverty on people who are doing the right thing.
The emperor in this case is the received, conventional, politically correct wisdom on addressing poverty and racial issues.
What conventional wisdom is that? Could you state it for me? The problem I see here is this quickly devolves into a discussion about how the plight of black americans is really all their fault, and if they would just ‘suck it up’ and tie their ties properly all would be well. To my way of thinking, that is the prevailing so-called “wisdom”. I dare say it is way more commonplace than whatever unstated ‘wisdom’ you believe is out there.
To the extent that this conversation devolves into “black people are poor and our solution to that is just to give them money” I tend to lose interest.
I find this odd. Can you cite an example of what this mythical other party advocates that you find is just “giving black people money”? Do you also tune out when policies are discussed that just give somebody, anybody money?
The emperor in this case is the received, conventional, politically correct wisdom on addressing poverty and racial issues.
What conventional wisdom is that? Could you state it for me? The problem I see here is this quickly devolves into a discussion about how the plight of black americans is really all their fault, and if they would just ‘suck it up’ and tie their ties properly all would be well. To my way of thinking, that is the prevailing so-called “wisdom”. I dare say it is way more commonplace than whatever unstated ‘wisdom’ you believe is out there.
To the extent that this conversation devolves into “black people are poor and our solution to that is just to give them money” I tend to lose interest.
I find this odd. Can you cite an example of what this mythical other party advocates that you find is just “giving black people money”? Do you also tune out when policies are discussed that just give somebody, anybody money?
Why aren’t these values being hammered home every freaking day, in every freaking way, to children starting at age 7?
There is a certain circularity to this, since today’s 7-year-olds not receiving the suggested hammering may not be inclined to hammer those values home to their future 7-year-olds.
That said, if you don’t think there are people in the black community doing their damndest to hammer those values home each and every day to anyone who will listen, you’re mistaken.
But it’s not an easy thing we’re talking about here, if I can point out the obvious.
I think suburbanization in the 50’s did a lot to set back black Americans, relative to a better potential course that may have been followed, due to a number of policies that reshaped the roadway and housing infrastructures. These policies were not intended to retard black-equality gains AFAICT, but they still did, IMO.
Why aren’t these values being hammered home every freaking day, in every freaking way, to children starting at age 7?
There is a certain circularity to this, since today’s 7-year-olds not receiving the suggested hammering may not be inclined to hammer those values home to their future 7-year-olds.
That said, if you don’t think there are people in the black community doing their damndest to hammer those values home each and every day to anyone who will listen, you’re mistaken.
But it’s not an easy thing we’re talking about here, if I can point out the obvious.
I think suburbanization in the 50’s did a lot to set back black Americans, relative to a better potential course that may have been followed, due to a number of policies that reshaped the roadway and housing infrastructures. These policies were not intended to retard black-equality gains AFAICT, but they still did, IMO.
I’ve heard the “throwing money at it solves nothing” argument many times. Of course starving money out of a situation invariably makes it worse. And many of those who do not wish to throw money at a problem which isn’t directly theirs do wish to have money thrown at problems which are theirs.
So that’s an argument that I see as essentially a sophistry. On the other hand, I do think consideration should be given to exactly HOW money is spent on a situation, some programs being more effective than others.
But I don’t feel inclined to micro-manage how Food Stamp funds are allocated when the very politicians who vote to cut the funds are demanding tax dollars for themselves and the special interests in their districts and don’t want accountability for that money.
I don’t see this as necessarily racist, although a racist would support the vote to gut Food Stamps while subsidizing white politicians and red states.
Racism has always been handy for the racist. As racism became less socially acceptable some other rationalization was needed to justify the same misuse of power.
I’ve heard the “throwing money at it solves nothing” argument many times. Of course starving money out of a situation invariably makes it worse. And many of those who do not wish to throw money at a problem which isn’t directly theirs do wish to have money thrown at problems which are theirs.
So that’s an argument that I see as essentially a sophistry. On the other hand, I do think consideration should be given to exactly HOW money is spent on a situation, some programs being more effective than others.
But I don’t feel inclined to micro-manage how Food Stamp funds are allocated when the very politicians who vote to cut the funds are demanding tax dollars for themselves and the special interests in their districts and don’t want accountability for that money.
I don’t see this as necessarily racist, although a racist would support the vote to gut Food Stamps while subsidizing white politicians and red states.
Racism has always been handy for the racist. As racism became less socially acceptable some other rationalization was needed to justify the same misuse of power.
“i think it has more to do with a sense that we’re not quite as separate from each other as we might like to think.”
It’s called empathy. Conservatives hate it and make fun of it because they don’t have functioning souls.
“i think it has more to do with a sense that we’re not quite as separate from each other as we might like to think.”
It’s called empathy. Conservatives hate it and make fun of it because they don’t have functioning souls.
I can’t tell if that’s a direct swipe at conservatives or a swipe at liberals by way of parody.
I can’t tell if that’s a direct swipe at conservatives or a swipe at liberals by way of parody.
For what it’s worth, that’s not what I said. But let me rephrase: throwing money at poverty treats the symptoms. It’s like treating cancer with pain meds. The pain meds are important, but they don’t cure the disease.
Just to refresh, this is what I said:
Caricaturing the above statement as Slart thinks that we shouldn’t give poor people any money, if anyone is doing that, is an error.
That’s about all I have to say on this topic. It’s not really a crucial component of any of my previous comments, but I think some clarification was needed.
For what it’s worth, that’s not what I said. But let me rephrase: throwing money at poverty treats the symptoms. It’s like treating cancer with pain meds. The pain meds are important, but they don’t cure the disease.
Just to refresh, this is what I said:
Caricaturing the above statement as Slart thinks that we shouldn’t give poor people any money, if anyone is doing that, is an error.
That’s about all I have to say on this topic. It’s not really a crucial component of any of my previous comments, but I think some clarification was needed.
Compare DC spending per student to South Dakota and then compare outcomes.
Not to overly belabor this, because a really useful discussion of the issues here is probably not something that is going to happen on a blog.
But, briefly:
I don’t disagree that simply throwing money at problems is not a good way to solve them.
But there are lots of ways that life is different in South Dakota and Washington DC.
Comparing the two may not actually be that useful.
Compare DC spending per student to South Dakota and then compare outcomes.
Not to overly belabor this, because a really useful discussion of the issues here is probably not something that is going to happen on a blog.
But, briefly:
I don’t disagree that simply throwing money at problems is not a good way to solve them.
But there are lots of ways that life is different in South Dakota and Washington DC.
Comparing the two may not actually be that useful.
People who construct buildings in DC must be far less efficient than those who do so in SD, following the same logic, if one compares the respective costs of housing or office space in those places.
(I guess I could throw the thread back off course by suggesting a look at rates of gun ownership versus violent crime in those two places, which I’m sure proves we should all be packing. But I kid, I kid… because I love.)
People who construct buildings in DC must be far less efficient than those who do so in SD, following the same logic, if one compares the respective costs of housing or office space in those places.
(I guess I could throw the thread back off course by suggesting a look at rates of gun ownership versus violent crime in those two places, which I’m sure proves we should all be packing. But I kid, I kid… because I love.)
For what it’s worth, that’s not what I said. But let me rephrase: throwing money at poverty treats the symptoms.
And I shall ask you again..what public policies, real or proposed are you talking about? Who, specifically, advocates “just giving black people money”?
Does “throwing money” at other problems, just “treat the symptoms”? Is there something about poverty, black or otherwise, that makes this problem unique as opposed to all the other problems we throw money at?
Thanks.
For what it’s worth, that’s not what I said. But let me rephrase: throwing money at poverty treats the symptoms.
And I shall ask you again..what public policies, real or proposed are you talking about? Who, specifically, advocates “just giving black people money”?
Does “throwing money” at other problems, just “treat the symptoms”? Is there something about poverty, black or otherwise, that makes this problem unique as opposed to all the other problems we throw money at?
Thanks.
Comparing the two may not actually be that useful.
Says the master of understatement.
Comparing the two may not actually be that useful.
Says the master of understatement.
Since proposals to cut food stamp expenditures were brought up, here is a link with some facts and an example of how right-wing media distorts the facts, via anecdote:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/18/hannity-omits-the-food-stamp-facts-most-recipie/189991
By the way, perhaps you’ve heard of the surfer dude on food stamps purchasing lobster for lunch.
FOXNews, as an outreach for their “We Report/You Decide” credo have sent video of surfer dude reporting his lifestyle to Congressional Reps, Senators, and their staff members.
Objective media.
I’d like to place a finer focus as well on the deliberate “structural” (politeese for choosing who gets to lose) changes made at the highest levels of government (bipartisan, to my shame), “think tanks” (named such because they sit around asking each other “do you think anyone will want to kill us for advocating across the board wage and benefit cuts) and in corporate board rooms over the past few decades to “meet the challenges of global competitiveness” and whatever other boilerplate issues forth from these institutions.
Thus layoffs, downsizing, corporate benefit cuts, you know the drill.
One very intended (but claimed as unintended) result we see recently are demands to increase the minimum wage, specifically among the fast food service industry. I noted recently an economist explaining that these demands are being fueled by the fact that more minimum wage workers are college educated and can’t find better-paying work despite the fact that they majored in more industry-friendly topics while passing up the black studies major.
And since FOX, much to Chuck Todd’s displeasure (not really, his displeasure is stoked only by liberal demands on his profession) and via charming anecdote about a single surfer diddling Gidgit down at the local welfare office has “positioned” itself as a player in influencing and determining what I believe are ultimately murderous policies, let me do my little part via anecdote to relate a little story.
My mother has Alzheimer’s and is recovering from cancer. Eight weeks ago she fell and broke her hip. She is now at the stage of her disease wherein she requires another person in the bathroom with her to accomplish with a great gnashing of her remaining teeth what is required in that room.
My brother handles this despite lacking the temperament for such care (long story and history, best passed over here), but I’ve been traveling home often (six out of the past 8 weeks) to help as much as possible.
Because of the constant attention my mother requires, she, via my sister the power of attorney, can thankfully and additionally afford for now as much round-the-clock in home care as is required. You can imagine the expense, but we know she wants to remain in her house and if you want to see a screaming, kicking, biting 3-year-old lunatic (this alternates with a dignified, kind personality, but so goes the disease) do her thing, then someone else can remove her to a nursing facility, not me, and not my brothers and sisters.
Anywho, one of the very fine, non-complaining, patient caregivers, who makes roughly $9.50-$10.50 an hour and is nearing but not at retirement age, has a father who also suffers from Alzheimer’s and she has had to hire the same in-home care agency SHE works for to care for her father (cost: roughly $22 an hour.)
I asked her why she doesn’t accept the paying job of caring for her Dad, and she replied that she takes care of him the rest of the time and the mental stability of a caregiver can only stretch so far.
She additionally divulged that she has been on public assistance, including food stamps, from time to time.
She doesn’t surf.
And Eric Cantor and all of the little Cantors should be supplied additional videos by FOX News of these facts, but they aren’t, so they may all go f*ck themselves in the mouth at gunpoint.
Now, it’s true that no one is “forced” to work at low wage jobs.
And that’s the beauty of it. Deliberate structural changes have been made in the economy to lower the wage and benefit structure in this country by folks who wish to remain anonymous, even though all of their names can be found on the brass name-plates on hand-carved doors of our most powerful institutions.
Since proposals to cut food stamp expenditures were brought up, here is a link with some facts and an example of how right-wing media distorts the facts, via anecdote:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/18/hannity-omits-the-food-stamp-facts-most-recipie/189991
By the way, perhaps you’ve heard of the surfer dude on food stamps purchasing lobster for lunch.
FOXNews, as an outreach for their “We Report/You Decide” credo have sent video of surfer dude reporting his lifestyle to Congressional Reps, Senators, and their staff members.
Objective media.
I’d like to place a finer focus as well on the deliberate “structural” (politeese for choosing who gets to lose) changes made at the highest levels of government (bipartisan, to my shame), “think tanks” (named such because they sit around asking each other “do you think anyone will want to kill us for advocating across the board wage and benefit cuts) and in corporate board rooms over the past few decades to “meet the challenges of global competitiveness” and whatever other boilerplate issues forth from these institutions.
Thus layoffs, downsizing, corporate benefit cuts, you know the drill.
One very intended (but claimed as unintended) result we see recently are demands to increase the minimum wage, specifically among the fast food service industry. I noted recently an economist explaining that these demands are being fueled by the fact that more minimum wage workers are college educated and can’t find better-paying work despite the fact that they majored in more industry-friendly topics while passing up the black studies major.
And since FOX, much to Chuck Todd’s displeasure (not really, his displeasure is stoked only by liberal demands on his profession) and via charming anecdote about a single surfer diddling Gidgit down at the local welfare office has “positioned” itself as a player in influencing and determining what I believe are ultimately murderous policies, let me do my little part via anecdote to relate a little story.
My mother has Alzheimer’s and is recovering from cancer. Eight weeks ago she fell and broke her hip. She is now at the stage of her disease wherein she requires another person in the bathroom with her to accomplish with a great gnashing of her remaining teeth what is required in that room.
My brother handles this despite lacking the temperament for such care (long story and history, best passed over here), but I’ve been traveling home often (six out of the past 8 weeks) to help as much as possible.
Because of the constant attention my mother requires, she, via my sister the power of attorney, can thankfully and additionally afford for now as much round-the-clock in home care as is required. You can imagine the expense, but we know she wants to remain in her house and if you want to see a screaming, kicking, biting 3-year-old lunatic (this alternates with a dignified, kind personality, but so goes the disease) do her thing, then someone else can remove her to a nursing facility, not me, and not my brothers and sisters.
Anywho, one of the very fine, non-complaining, patient caregivers, who makes roughly $9.50-$10.50 an hour and is nearing but not at retirement age, has a father who also suffers from Alzheimer’s and she has had to hire the same in-home care agency SHE works for to care for her father (cost: roughly $22 an hour.)
I asked her why she doesn’t accept the paying job of caring for her Dad, and she replied that she takes care of him the rest of the time and the mental stability of a caregiver can only stretch so far.
She additionally divulged that she has been on public assistance, including food stamps, from time to time.
She doesn’t surf.
And Eric Cantor and all of the little Cantors should be supplied additional videos by FOX News of these facts, but they aren’t, so they may all go f*ck themselves in the mouth at gunpoint.
Now, it’s true that no one is “forced” to work at low wage jobs.
And that’s the beauty of it. Deliberate structural changes have been made in the economy to lower the wage and benefit structure in this country by folks who wish to remain anonymous, even though all of their names can be found on the brass name-plates on hand-carved doors of our most powerful institutions.
Oh, and lobster dude …. once you’ve accepted those cash kickbacks for your FOX and Republican celebrity, make sure you report them to the IRS and social services.
Oh, and lobster dude …. once you’ve accepted those cash kickbacks for your FOX and Republican celebrity, make sure you report them to the IRS and social services.
Before I get too exercised at “throwing money at problems” (even though I agree that it is not, in itself, a solution), I have something else I would like to deal with. Throwing money at things which are not problems.
Agriculture subsidies come to mind, although they are notthe only example. Granted, there may have been a problem there half a century or more ago (i.e. further back than my memory runs). But there certainly hasn’t been a problem recently. Especialy for the farms that get most of the subsidies.
Before I get too exercised at “throwing money at problems” (even though I agree that it is not, in itself, a solution), I have something else I would like to deal with. Throwing money at things which are not problems.
Agriculture subsidies come to mind, although they are notthe only example. Granted, there may have been a problem there half a century or more ago (i.e. further back than my memory runs). But there certainly hasn’t been a problem recently. Especialy for the farms that get most of the subsidies.
i too, would like to see answers to bobbyp’s 11:15 .
until someone answers them, nobody should use the phrase “throwing money” here. define your terms, people!
i too, would like to see answers to bobbyp’s 11:15 .
until someone answers them, nobody should use the phrase “throwing money” here. define your terms, people!
When folks complain about throwing money, I think what they really mean is “throwing other people’s money.”
Yes, other people’s money is wasted, depending on your point of view, but I know folks, nice people, who throw money all the time at problems, for example:
Problem: how do get from point A to Point B five miles away.
Solution: The new $100,000 Porsche, Series V-Rathole
Or, Problem: It’s hot out. How do I stay refreshed without troubling myself with the crowds at the CLUB, despite my $20,000 annual membership fee:
Solution: The in-ground whopping swimming pool in the backyard.
I’ve no problem with that, barring simultaneous complaints from the same folks about the efficacy of cutting food stamps from the $4.72 daily allowance to $4.11, but it only look likes the money was gently and scrupulous handed over between gentleman.
There was big windup and the money was hurled at major league velocity.
When folks complain about throwing money, I think what they really mean is “throwing other people’s money.”
Yes, other people’s money is wasted, depending on your point of view, but I know folks, nice people, who throw money all the time at problems, for example:
Problem: how do get from point A to Point B five miles away.
Solution: The new $100,000 Porsche, Series V-Rathole
Or, Problem: It’s hot out. How do I stay refreshed without troubling myself with the crowds at the CLUB, despite my $20,000 annual membership fee:
Solution: The in-ground whopping swimming pool in the backyard.
I’ve no problem with that, barring simultaneous complaints from the same folks about the efficacy of cutting food stamps from the $4.72 daily allowance to $4.11, but it only look likes the money was gently and scrupulous handed over between gentleman.
There was big windup and the money was hurled at major league velocity.
….a really useful discussion of the issues here is probably not something that is going to happen on a blog.
Well, damn the bad luck! 🙂
….a really useful discussion of the issues here is probably not something that is going to happen on a blog.
Well, damn the bad luck! 🙂
Well, damn the bad luck! 🙂
LOL
I guess my point there was more that they were more or less too complex, and required a deeper level of analysis, than would readily fit into the relatively short and informal style of blog posts.
What my point definitely was NOT was that the issues should not be discussed, here or elsewhere.
Well, damn the bad luck! 🙂
LOL
I guess my point there was more that they were more or less too complex, and required a deeper level of analysis, than would readily fit into the relatively short and informal style of blog posts.
What my point definitely was NOT was that the issues should not be discussed, here or elsewhere.
In the vein of collegial white/black conversations, House Republicans dig up Rosa Parks to mansplain to all of us why she should be denied medical insurance for her pre-existing conditions.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-obamacare-defunders-are-following-example-of-rosa-parks-mlk
One of the planks (as in things the rest of us will be forced to walk) in the Republican counter-non-proposal to replace Obamacare is that those with non-continuous health insurance will NOT be guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, among other ludricous and sadistic bullet points.
Well, Rosa Parks’ corpse is available to all of us for ventriloquistic demagoguery in the service of murder, so I hereby put my hand up the back of her shirt, bestill my lips, and have her declare that gunshot wounds to vermin Republican flesh are included under pre-existing conditions under their plan.
White/black conversation now completed.
In the vein of collegial white/black conversations, House Republicans dig up Rosa Parks to mansplain to all of us why she should be denied medical insurance for her pre-existing conditions.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-obamacare-defunders-are-following-example-of-rosa-parks-mlk
One of the planks (as in things the rest of us will be forced to walk) in the Republican counter-non-proposal to replace Obamacare is that those with non-continuous health insurance will NOT be guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, among other ludricous and sadistic bullet points.
Well, Rosa Parks’ corpse is available to all of us for ventriloquistic demagoguery in the service of murder, so I hereby put my hand up the back of her shirt, bestill my lips, and have her declare that gunshot wounds to vermin Republican flesh are included under pre-existing conditions under their plan.
White/black conversation now completed.
Very few here, if any, (I can’t remember, are Brett and/or Charles WT Ron Paul fans, in addition to sharing his libertarian bent?) are Ron Paul aficionados, but sometimes the pleading against stricter gun control laws reminds of Paul intellectually pretzeling himself into stating that “heroin and prostitution” are exercises in liberty and should be legalized, as a vain attempt to be intellectually and absolutely consistent, as some of the small minds like Paul’s and Ayn Rand’s will.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/quote-of-the-gop-debate-rep-ron-paul-defends-heroin-as-an-exercise-of-liberty/
If I wanted to, I could claim that mass murder from the barrel of a gun is likewise an exercise in liberty, but I don’t want to.
More likely, heroin use and prostitution should be legalized, while keeping place and enlarging programs to remediate such behavior, because the societal costs of not doing so are larger that those of doing so.
Perhaps, gun control is a similarly useless and way-to-expensive endeavor as well, but after two guys with concealed gun permits gun each other down over a traffic argument, I don’t think my view can f*ck up things any more than they already have been by the loosening of gun restrictions in many locales.
Very few here, if any, (I can’t remember, are Brett and/or Charles WT Ron Paul fans, in addition to sharing his libertarian bent?) are Ron Paul aficionados, but sometimes the pleading against stricter gun control laws reminds of Paul intellectually pretzeling himself into stating that “heroin and prostitution” are exercises in liberty and should be legalized, as a vain attempt to be intellectually and absolutely consistent, as some of the small minds like Paul’s and Ayn Rand’s will.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/quote-of-the-gop-debate-rep-ron-paul-defends-heroin-as-an-exercise-of-liberty/
If I wanted to, I could claim that mass murder from the barrel of a gun is likewise an exercise in liberty, but I don’t want to.
More likely, heroin use and prostitution should be legalized, while keeping place and enlarging programs to remediate such behavior, because the societal costs of not doing so are larger that those of doing so.
Perhaps, gun control is a similarly useless and way-to-expensive endeavor as well, but after two guys with concealed gun permits gun each other down over a traffic argument, I don’t think my view can f*ck up things any more than they already have been by the loosening of gun restrictions in many locales.
Are rich people really sociopaths? Is being rich a moral failing of unmitigated proportions? What is this obsession of rich folk for sun tans and playing golf? Is there no end to the public policies we continue to adopt that throw money at the problem of being rich? Are we not just treating a symptom and not the underlying disease?
Are rich people really sociopaths? Is being rich a moral failing of unmitigated proportions? What is this obsession of rich folk for sun tans and playing golf? Is there no end to the public policies we continue to adopt that throw money at the problem of being rich? Are we not just treating a symptom and not the underlying disease?
In that vein, bp, or rather in a less sociopathic capillary, here’s a successful guy who gets it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/15/panera-bread-ceo-to-live-off-food-stamps-for-one-week-and-hes-live-blogging-it/
The problem is not that the very rich are born sociopaths, and I speak generally, but that the very rich, and I include rich liberals (believe me, Barbara Streisand will NOT like my plan for taxes), have so segregated themselves physically from the rest of America and by dint of the mind-boggling degree of wealth they have accumulated because of deliberate policy decisions over the past 35 years.
However, this ….”Is there no end to the public policies we continue to adopt that throw money at the problem of being rich?” is a brilliant piece, tasty piece of bait, in fact I think its lobster and should be sold in restaurants for a roughly 800% markup.
Another problem is that an entire Ponzi scheme subculture of worshiping wealth, with in-place madrassas of Ayn Rand (she’d have had Adam Smith executed for his theory of Moral Sentiments) instructional gospel and ideology have infested our politics. I used to have to read Forbes Magazine to admire how the other (half? you kid) 1% live and invest, and now most of the folks elected to Congress, mostly but not completely of one persuasion, suck at this rich vein and on behalf of this incredible wealth imbalance.
Paul Ryan. The man has not started a business, has not invented anything useful or remunerative, has not soiled his hands at productive labor, but by the time he retires from Congress and his political career, he will have accumulated the enormous wealth of a Boca Raton late night TV money infomercial evangelist.
Killer blue eyes. Killer Smile.
Killer.
In that vein, bp, or rather in a less sociopathic capillary, here’s a successful guy who gets it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/15/panera-bread-ceo-to-live-off-food-stamps-for-one-week-and-hes-live-blogging-it/
The problem is not that the very rich are born sociopaths, and I speak generally, but that the very rich, and I include rich liberals (believe me, Barbara Streisand will NOT like my plan for taxes), have so segregated themselves physically from the rest of America and by dint of the mind-boggling degree of wealth they have accumulated because of deliberate policy decisions over the past 35 years.
However, this ….”Is there no end to the public policies we continue to adopt that throw money at the problem of being rich?” is a brilliant piece, tasty piece of bait, in fact I think its lobster and should be sold in restaurants for a roughly 800% markup.
Another problem is that an entire Ponzi scheme subculture of worshiping wealth, with in-place madrassas of Ayn Rand (she’d have had Adam Smith executed for his theory of Moral Sentiments) instructional gospel and ideology have infested our politics. I used to have to read Forbes Magazine to admire how the other (half? you kid) 1% live and invest, and now most of the folks elected to Congress, mostly but not completely of one persuasion, suck at this rich vein and on behalf of this incredible wealth imbalance.
Paul Ryan. The man has not started a business, has not invented anything useful or remunerative, has not soiled his hands at productive labor, but by the time he retires from Congress and his political career, he will have accumulated the enormous wealth of a Boca Raton late night TV money infomercial evangelist.
Killer blue eyes. Killer Smile.
Killer.
To add to bobbyp brilliantly-phrased question, and in the vein of Marty’s seeking a dialogue, and I refer to the very right radical wing now infesting the House of Representatives, not the conservatives here:
“This is why the wealth disparity will continue, if Coates worst fear is realized. The idea that an “American poor man” has no standing to engage in this discussion, on any point, is pretty insulting to American poor men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.”
Too many Americans are fired and laid off from their jobs, and on the way home from that dreadful experience, have to run through the radio dial to listen to a radio shouter mansplain that it is their fault and get off your ass, freshly kicked from productive labor, and get a job, you parasite.
Then Paul Ryan and company, like some sort of reptilian Lucy from inside their roadside advice booth, tells you you’re living a little high on the hog, there, buster, and we’re moving you down the hog to where the sun don’t shine because they read it in a dime-store, five-pound, bodice ripping novel by an insane, but horny (she had her good points, too) Russian woman.
It’s these kinds of situations, societal self-defense, for which at least one of the commas in the Second Amendment, was made.
To add to bobbyp brilliantly-phrased question, and in the vein of Marty’s seeking a dialogue, and I refer to the very right radical wing now infesting the House of Representatives, not the conservatives here:
“This is why the wealth disparity will continue, if Coates worst fear is realized. The idea that an “American poor man” has no standing to engage in this discussion, on any point, is pretty insulting to American poor men; who are fair game for any and all criticism in all public and private forums.”
Too many Americans are fired and laid off from their jobs, and on the way home from that dreadful experience, have to run through the radio dial to listen to a radio shouter mansplain that it is their fault and get off your ass, freshly kicked from productive labor, and get a job, you parasite.
Then Paul Ryan and company, like some sort of reptilian Lucy from inside their roadside advice booth, tells you you’re living a little high on the hog, there, buster, and we’re moving you down the hog to where the sun don’t shine because they read it in a dime-store, five-pound, bodice ripping novel by an insane, but horny (she had her good points, too) Russian woman.
It’s these kinds of situations, societal self-defense, for which at least one of the commas in the Second Amendment, was made.
Fine, let’s debate. Part of equality is being called out, as an equal, when you are wrong.
Very true.
To sort of follow on bobbyp and the count’s last few comments, I guess what I notice is that pretty much all of us belong to some demographic category or other that could use some calling out.
Anybody here think they’re exempt?
Anybody here think that folks who more or less speak for them, or articulate their point of view, aren’t making their agenda part of the national debate?
Anybody here think that they aren’t, in one way or another, beholden to the rest of us for some kind of help and support?
I actually do think that the experience of people of African descent in this country is unique, and uniquely harrowing, as compared to that of pretty much anyone else.
The possible exception would be American Indians.
Other than them, I really can’t think of anyone whose history here compares with that of people whose origins are in Africa.
But all of that said, one point on which black Americans are absolutely not unique is in seeking to have their interests championed in the public arena.
Another would be in objecting to being subject to characterization, positively or negatively, as a monolithic entity.
Fine, let’s debate. Part of equality is being called out, as an equal, when you are wrong.
Very true.
To sort of follow on bobbyp and the count’s last few comments, I guess what I notice is that pretty much all of us belong to some demographic category or other that could use some calling out.
Anybody here think they’re exempt?
Anybody here think that folks who more or less speak for them, or articulate their point of view, aren’t making their agenda part of the national debate?
Anybody here think that they aren’t, in one way or another, beholden to the rest of us for some kind of help and support?
I actually do think that the experience of people of African descent in this country is unique, and uniquely harrowing, as compared to that of pretty much anyone else.
The possible exception would be American Indians.
Other than them, I really can’t think of anyone whose history here compares with that of people whose origins are in Africa.
But all of that said, one point on which black Americans are absolutely not unique is in seeking to have their interests championed in the public arena.
Another would be in objecting to being subject to characterization, positively or negatively, as a monolithic entity.
A bit of synchronicity is this article.
A bit of synchronicity is this article.
Interesting article, lj.
It reminds me of the opposite behavior of Jewish immigrant vaudeville comedians changing their names to achieve acceptance.
Or, the assignment of Presidential names …. Washington, Jefferson, Monroe …. to entire black families.
I wouldn’t hire Reince Priebus, but not because of his funny name, which sounds like a guy who majored in white studies.
Because this, an article at the bottom of lj’s link:
http://theallegiant.com/recent-polls-suggest-calling-someone-a-republican-is-an-insult/
There needs to be some new branding among these folks, and Tea Party victim ain’t in the right direction.
New Coke has already been tried.
Maybe … The Rosa Parks Southern Strategic Clown Posse.
Nah.
It’s very simple, as Newt Gingrich prefaces every utterance projectile vomited out of his mouth …..
Newt?
Hire that guy so I can make fun of his name in board meetings.
What say you … Newt? What’s your next bright idea … Newton?
Interesting article, lj.
It reminds me of the opposite behavior of Jewish immigrant vaudeville comedians changing their names to achieve acceptance.
Or, the assignment of Presidential names …. Washington, Jefferson, Monroe …. to entire black families.
I wouldn’t hire Reince Priebus, but not because of his funny name, which sounds like a guy who majored in white studies.
Because this, an article at the bottom of lj’s link:
http://theallegiant.com/recent-polls-suggest-calling-someone-a-republican-is-an-insult/
There needs to be some new branding among these folks, and Tea Party victim ain’t in the right direction.
New Coke has already been tried.
Maybe … The Rosa Parks Southern Strategic Clown Posse.
Nah.
It’s very simple, as Newt Gingrich prefaces every utterance projectile vomited out of his mouth …..
Newt?
Hire that guy so I can make fun of his name in board meetings.
What say you … Newt? What’s your next bright idea … Newton?
The possible exception would be American Indians.
That reminds me of one of my coworkers in our small company in the 48th soviet of Washington. This guy is virtually unlettered, hard working, a carpenter in a merit shop who still keeps his union card. He is an avid outdoorsman, hunting bears with bow and arrow, fishing on Puget Sound for salmon and halibut. He has a very heightened sense of right and wrong, and he does not hesitate to verbalize his feelings in this regard, the setting be damned. I have never discussed politics with him, and at times he comes across as a UAW shop foreman when it comes to worker-employer relations. As his manager, I have come to appreciate and respect both his sense of fair play and his work ethic.
But he has a real problem with Native Americans and their treaty fishing rights. He repeatedly expresses his anger and deep resentment (sometimes in rather awkward settings) about the injustice of their allotment of the salmon harvest, and the constraining regulations to which he, a sportsman, has to adhere to (but those damned Indians don’t). He rails against their use of gill nets and his anecdotal observations of Native American apparent careless disregard for the fact that the number of salmon are decreasing. He is pissed that sportsmen can’t get what he feels are their “fair share”.
Finally, in a private moment, I pointed out to him (gently I might add) that we whites had taken virtually everything from them, their land, their culture, their ability to make a living, their self respect. Everything. He was pretty much unfazed. To him, it’s all about fairness going forward. The weight of past injustice and its effects meant nothing. The centuries of accumulated and compound advantages of being a white American are beyond his comprehension.
it’s as if history had never happened.
But that’s how we got here.
The possible exception would be American Indians.
That reminds me of one of my coworkers in our small company in the 48th soviet of Washington. This guy is virtually unlettered, hard working, a carpenter in a merit shop who still keeps his union card. He is an avid outdoorsman, hunting bears with bow and arrow, fishing on Puget Sound for salmon and halibut. He has a very heightened sense of right and wrong, and he does not hesitate to verbalize his feelings in this regard, the setting be damned. I have never discussed politics with him, and at times he comes across as a UAW shop foreman when it comes to worker-employer relations. As his manager, I have come to appreciate and respect both his sense of fair play and his work ethic.
But he has a real problem with Native Americans and their treaty fishing rights. He repeatedly expresses his anger and deep resentment (sometimes in rather awkward settings) about the injustice of their allotment of the salmon harvest, and the constraining regulations to which he, a sportsman, has to adhere to (but those damned Indians don’t). He rails against their use of gill nets and his anecdotal observations of Native American apparent careless disregard for the fact that the number of salmon are decreasing. He is pissed that sportsmen can’t get what he feels are their “fair share”.
Finally, in a private moment, I pointed out to him (gently I might add) that we whites had taken virtually everything from them, their land, their culture, their ability to make a living, their self respect. Everything. He was pretty much unfazed. To him, it’s all about fairness going forward. The weight of past injustice and its effects meant nothing. The centuries of accumulated and compound advantages of being a white American are beyond his comprehension.
it’s as if history had never happened.
But that’s how we got here.
A bit of synchronicity is this article.
In my town, I know a Fraffie, a Ducky, and a Perky. Pitch, Esso, and I’m sure there’s a Biff around somewhere.
Mostly nicknames, but these people do business using these monikers.
Seriously, what’s wrong with “Eddie” or “Sue” or “Sam”?
Nobody has weirder names than old-school WASPs.
it’s as if history had never happened.
“I didn’t lynch anybody / kill any Indians / own any slaves / etc. Why is it my responsibility to deal with the consequences?”
It’s not an unreasonable question.
I guess my reply, FWIW, is that you live in a world where those consequences exist.
You can say, hey, it’s not my fault, I didn’t create the situation, but then it just falls to somebody else to deal with it.
Or, more likely, nobody deals with it, because there’s likely no specific individual who “created the situation”. Or, there is, but that guy’s dead and gone. Or, there is, but there is no way in hell that that individual(s) is going to step up.
You find a mess, you try to clean it up.
Sometimes you can’t, but sometimes you can. At least a part of it.
A bit of synchronicity is this article.
In my town, I know a Fraffie, a Ducky, and a Perky. Pitch, Esso, and I’m sure there’s a Biff around somewhere.
Mostly nicknames, but these people do business using these monikers.
Seriously, what’s wrong with “Eddie” or “Sue” or “Sam”?
Nobody has weirder names than old-school WASPs.
it’s as if history had never happened.
“I didn’t lynch anybody / kill any Indians / own any slaves / etc. Why is it my responsibility to deal with the consequences?”
It’s not an unreasonable question.
I guess my reply, FWIW, is that you live in a world where those consequences exist.
You can say, hey, it’s not my fault, I didn’t create the situation, but then it just falls to somebody else to deal with it.
Or, more likely, nobody deals with it, because there’s likely no specific individual who “created the situation”. Or, there is, but that guy’s dead and gone. Or, there is, but there is no way in hell that that individual(s) is going to step up.
You find a mess, you try to clean it up.
Sometimes you can’t, but sometimes you can. At least a part of it.
My daily comment, then back at it.
To sort of follow on bobbyp and the count’s last few comments, I guess what I notice is that pretty much all of us belong to some demographic category or other that could use some calling out.
Anybody here think they’re exempt?
He was pretty much unfazed. To him, it’s all about fairness going forward. The weight of past injustice and its effects meant nothing. The centuries of accumulated and compound advantages of being a white American are beyond his comprehension.
I picked these two because they are representative of the underpinning of so much of liberal/progressive thinking. First, we are all part of one group or another, usually based on some kind of outward marker, rather than our personal views, beliefs, etc. Second, each group has certain rights, obligations, etc to other groups based on various historical, social, economic or other factors.
To answer Russell’s question, and perhaps to inferentially touch on BP’s issues with the uber wealthy, the only demographic I identify with is that of the beleaguered taxpayer, which I am pretty sure is otherwise color blind, indifferent to political or social views and open to GBLT’s as well as heterosexuals.
I am on board with BP’s carpenter. He doesn’t get why Group A, regardless of the past, gets a special deal *by law* at the expense of Group B (which is typically defined as ‘everyone else not in Group A’). BP respects his friend’s moral compass, and his friends view’s on labor/management (BP is in “management”!!!! I knew it!!!!!) and, inferentially, his work ethic. But, to BP, the past is a debt the future carries, and if that means dividing our country into social creditors and debtors, that is what must be done.
I don’t agree with BP on any of this. We have essentially two philosophical camps: equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The former determines who gets what with minimal regard of individual inputs, the latter envisions a theoretical (yes, I am getting to the *reality of it* part) roughly level playing field in which individual effort determines outcomes, but in which the law and social custom work to ensure that no one is held back by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That’s the ‘equality of opportunity’ theory.
The playing isn’t level. The African-American child of a 16 year old, single high school drop out does not have the same shot at life as our two kids did. I know that. Arbitrarily admitting that child into Harvard isn’t a fix either–we are just setting her/him up for failure.
It’s also a fact that a kid who grew up in the home I did does not have nearly the same advantage as my children.
Group rights morph rapidly into group entitlements–entitlements at others’ expense. Leaving aside that it cuts aginst the core of the American “equality under the law” premise that the vast majority of us sign on to, group rights/entitlements produce real, lasting resentment. They are widely perceived as unfair. Damn few people people feel like some other group of people are owed a debt because of what happened 50 or 150 or 400 years ago. And they especially don’t like it when debts are imposed because of skin pigmentation or reproductive plumbing.
For these reasons, even though the playing field is far from level, establishing permanent classes with varying rights and obligations is worse than working over time to address the playing field issue. I get the temptation to jump start a more level playing field by establishing preferences, but like every other damn gov’t thing, once they are in place, they are hell to remove. But for the 14th Amendment, preferences would be the law of the land.
Now, changing over to the uber rich: they aren’t any different from a lot of other people. It’s a hard fact: money makes a lot of people stupid. I don’t know why this is, but having or getting a bunch of money addles the mind. Not for everyone, but for quite a few people.
In my current iteration, I pay people and businesses, but mostly people, lump sums of cash, usually in the hundreds of thousands, but in the millions fairly often. I’ve been doing that for 33 years. Up until a year ago, I also represented people for whom I was trying to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. My experience in observing people who get a lot of money is not anecdotal; it is universal: 90% or more of the people who get a big pile of money burn through it in 2 years or less.
The uber, usually “new rich”, have enough money to where it takes them longer to spend it all or they can’t spend it all, because there is so much of it. They spend publicly because they love the attention. It’s an illness perhaps. I can’t imagine they find any real satisfaction in life. I damn sure don’t envy them.
The one thing about them, though, that really pisses me off is the resentment they engender in others which turns into a general justification for taxing the crap out of those of us who, finally, after decades of ass-busting are making a pretty damn good living.
My daily comment, then back at it.
To sort of follow on bobbyp and the count’s last few comments, I guess what I notice is that pretty much all of us belong to some demographic category or other that could use some calling out.
Anybody here think they’re exempt?
He was pretty much unfazed. To him, it’s all about fairness going forward. The weight of past injustice and its effects meant nothing. The centuries of accumulated and compound advantages of being a white American are beyond his comprehension.
I picked these two because they are representative of the underpinning of so much of liberal/progressive thinking. First, we are all part of one group or another, usually based on some kind of outward marker, rather than our personal views, beliefs, etc. Second, each group has certain rights, obligations, etc to other groups based on various historical, social, economic or other factors.
To answer Russell’s question, and perhaps to inferentially touch on BP’s issues with the uber wealthy, the only demographic I identify with is that of the beleaguered taxpayer, which I am pretty sure is otherwise color blind, indifferent to political or social views and open to GBLT’s as well as heterosexuals.
I am on board with BP’s carpenter. He doesn’t get why Group A, regardless of the past, gets a special deal *by law* at the expense of Group B (which is typically defined as ‘everyone else not in Group A’). BP respects his friend’s moral compass, and his friends view’s on labor/management (BP is in “management”!!!! I knew it!!!!!) and, inferentially, his work ethic. But, to BP, the past is a debt the future carries, and if that means dividing our country into social creditors and debtors, that is what must be done.
I don’t agree with BP on any of this. We have essentially two philosophical camps: equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The former determines who gets what with minimal regard of individual inputs, the latter envisions a theoretical (yes, I am getting to the *reality of it* part) roughly level playing field in which individual effort determines outcomes, but in which the law and social custom work to ensure that no one is held back by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. That’s the ‘equality of opportunity’ theory.
The playing isn’t level. The African-American child of a 16 year old, single high school drop out does not have the same shot at life as our two kids did. I know that. Arbitrarily admitting that child into Harvard isn’t a fix either–we are just setting her/him up for failure.
It’s also a fact that a kid who grew up in the home I did does not have nearly the same advantage as my children.
Group rights morph rapidly into group entitlements–entitlements at others’ expense. Leaving aside that it cuts aginst the core of the American “equality under the law” premise that the vast majority of us sign on to, group rights/entitlements produce real, lasting resentment. They are widely perceived as unfair. Damn few people people feel like some other group of people are owed a debt because of what happened 50 or 150 or 400 years ago. And they especially don’t like it when debts are imposed because of skin pigmentation or reproductive plumbing.
For these reasons, even though the playing field is far from level, establishing permanent classes with varying rights and obligations is worse than working over time to address the playing field issue. I get the temptation to jump start a more level playing field by establishing preferences, but like every other damn gov’t thing, once they are in place, they are hell to remove. But for the 14th Amendment, preferences would be the law of the land.
Now, changing over to the uber rich: they aren’t any different from a lot of other people. It’s a hard fact: money makes a lot of people stupid. I don’t know why this is, but having or getting a bunch of money addles the mind. Not for everyone, but for quite a few people.
In my current iteration, I pay people and businesses, but mostly people, lump sums of cash, usually in the hundreds of thousands, but in the millions fairly often. I’ve been doing that for 33 years. Up until a year ago, I also represented people for whom I was trying to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. My experience in observing people who get a lot of money is not anecdotal; it is universal: 90% or more of the people who get a big pile of money burn through it in 2 years or less.
The uber, usually “new rich”, have enough money to where it takes them longer to spend it all or they can’t spend it all, because there is so much of it. They spend publicly because they love the attention. It’s an illness perhaps. I can’t imagine they find any real satisfaction in life. I damn sure don’t envy them.
The one thing about them, though, that really pisses me off is the resentment they engender in others which turns into a general justification for taxing the crap out of those of us who, finally, after decades of ass-busting are making a pretty damn good living.
We have essentially two philosophical camps: equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.
What I would suggest is that this characterization of what separates the “two camps” doesn’t really capture the difference.
I don’t think I know a single person, of any persuasion whatsoever, whether political, social, religious, or what have you, whose goal is “equality of outcome”.
Mine isn’t.
I’m also not particularly interested in “making up for” wrongs done in the past. As mentioned upthread, I see that as an exercise in folly. You can’t change the past, and the enormity of what you’d be trying to “make up for” is too large.
I’m interested in, minimally, recognizing that “the past” persists, in about a million different ways, and less minimally I’m interested in addressing the ways in which “the past” affects us here and now, today.
If we can. Sometimes we can’t.
I put “the past” in scare quotes because a lot of the crap that is placed in “the past” is still around.
And I put “the past” in quotes because, even when actually gone by, “the past” is often not that long ago. It’s recent enough that real, live people lived through it and remember it, not as a history lesson, but as part of their own lives.
I appreciate that you pay a lot of taxes, and I appreciate that that sucks. But, to speak purely personally, state-mandated transfers from one group to another group has almost nothing to do with what I’m on about when the issue of race, or poverty, or pretty much any kind of differential treatment of people comes up.
If these issues could be solved by handing money out, we’d have been done with them long, long, long ago.
We have essentially two philosophical camps: equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.
What I would suggest is that this characterization of what separates the “two camps” doesn’t really capture the difference.
I don’t think I know a single person, of any persuasion whatsoever, whether political, social, religious, or what have you, whose goal is “equality of outcome”.
Mine isn’t.
I’m also not particularly interested in “making up for” wrongs done in the past. As mentioned upthread, I see that as an exercise in folly. You can’t change the past, and the enormity of what you’d be trying to “make up for” is too large.
I’m interested in, minimally, recognizing that “the past” persists, in about a million different ways, and less minimally I’m interested in addressing the ways in which “the past” affects us here and now, today.
If we can. Sometimes we can’t.
I put “the past” in scare quotes because a lot of the crap that is placed in “the past” is still around.
And I put “the past” in quotes because, even when actually gone by, “the past” is often not that long ago. It’s recent enough that real, live people lived through it and remember it, not as a history lesson, but as part of their own lives.
I appreciate that you pay a lot of taxes, and I appreciate that that sucks. But, to speak purely personally, state-mandated transfers from one group to another group has almost nothing to do with what I’m on about when the issue of race, or poverty, or pretty much any kind of differential treatment of people comes up.
If these issues could be solved by handing money out, we’d have been done with them long, long, long ago.
McK has written a lengthy and thoughtful comment, with most of which I’m not sufficiently awake (or caffeinated) to engage, except to thank him for his effort in explicating his views. I would like to pick up on one phrase, however:
the only demographic I identify with is that of the beleaguered taxpayer,
That may well be so, but I would imagine that the rest of the world sees him – as it sees me – as white, male, educated, and relatively affluent. Which gives him/me an advantage in dealing with the rest of the world: a modicum of respect, a reduced likelihood of people simply ignoring us or trampling overtly on our rights, a greater chance that we’ll be listened to (if not agreed with) in public fora, etc. That’s our “privilege,” and we can disclaim it all we like – “I never asked for that, I don’t identify with that” – but it doesn’t go away, except by extreme measures: giving away all our worldly possessions (a la Francis of Assissi), dyeing our skin black (a la John Howard Griffin, Black Like Me). Griffin is in fact a good touchpoint, and was very influential to me half a century ago; by “becoming” a Negro in the South (temporarily) he rapidly discovered how differently the world looked to him – and upon him.
So while I appreciate the fact that McK makes no effort to assert his (white, male, educated, affluent) superiority, I hope he understands – as I try to – that it is still evident to others, and affects how the world treats him/us, and others who do not share his/our privilege.
McK has written a lengthy and thoughtful comment, with most of which I’m not sufficiently awake (or caffeinated) to engage, except to thank him for his effort in explicating his views. I would like to pick up on one phrase, however:
the only demographic I identify with is that of the beleaguered taxpayer,
That may well be so, but I would imagine that the rest of the world sees him – as it sees me – as white, male, educated, and relatively affluent. Which gives him/me an advantage in dealing with the rest of the world: a modicum of respect, a reduced likelihood of people simply ignoring us or trampling overtly on our rights, a greater chance that we’ll be listened to (if not agreed with) in public fora, etc. That’s our “privilege,” and we can disclaim it all we like – “I never asked for that, I don’t identify with that” – but it doesn’t go away, except by extreme measures: giving away all our worldly possessions (a la Francis of Assissi), dyeing our skin black (a la John Howard Griffin, Black Like Me). Griffin is in fact a good touchpoint, and was very influential to me half a century ago; by “becoming” a Negro in the South (temporarily) he rapidly discovered how differently the world looked to him – and upon him.
So while I appreciate the fact that McK makes no effort to assert his (white, male, educated, affluent) superiority, I hope he understands – as I try to – that it is still evident to others, and affects how the world treats him/us, and others who do not share his/our privilege.
live in the Soviet of Washington, and I’ve had that conversation, too.
But sometimes it is convenient to ignore context.
Nobody wants to be blamed now for crimes committed by an earlier generation. Discussing the past can feel like that. On the other hand, dismissing the past as if it had no current relevance can be more than just ignorance or defensiveness; it’s a handy way to rationalize current continuations of past behavior.
Imaginary conversation:
Bill: Don’t blame me for slavery and Jim Crow! I wasn’t even alive then! You need to get your act together now!
Joe: But we are not all in the same boat now. It isn’t blaming you to discuss current deck-stacking unless you are involved in the current deck-stacking.
Bill: If you work hard and go to school and don’t do anything stupid, you will thrive.
Joe: You probably will not thrive, regardless of your choices, unless you get a head start by being born into a well-off family. Nowadays hard work and good choices will leave you working two jobs for the minimum wage while the Food Stamps you need for survival get cut. You will lose your access to low cost birth control to attacks on Planned Parenthood, be unable to get affordable loans for college, and find out on election day that you can’t vote because you can’t afford a car and don’t have a driver’s license. Plus, you will have untreated health conditions because you can’t afford insurance. So don’t lecture me on how “you people” should behave.
Bill: Don’t call me a racist! I have an ideology that prevents me from supporting anything that would provide you with access to the middle class, so it’s all your fault if you aren’t as well off as I am. I worked my way up and you can, too!
Joe: You would be in a better position to lecture me on self-help if you weren’t aligned with the party that deliberately seeks to dismantle all of the rungs in the ladder. Of course that dismantling makes it harder to anyone, regardless of ethnicity. to climb, so the motive for the dismantling isn’t necessarily race. However it affects AA’s more than whites because, due to historical racism, more of them are starting out lower.
Bill: You are blaming me again for what I did not so. Why should my taxes go to support services I don’t need and create opportunities I don’t need? You are an American just like me and you shouldn’t be making race an issue. You should just be like me and stop whining about the past.
And so on.
There’s another factor here that affects everyone at the bottom of the ladder regardless of ethnicity: hope or the lack thereof. The more the deck is stacked against people, the fewer of them who will make good choices in the hope of a better future. Why should they make good choices when those choices probably will not in reality lead to anything but drudgery and poverty?
I see this all over the county where I live. The children of lower middle class whites graduate from high school, start out with the intention of making something of themselves and gradually drift into drugs, the black market economy, and a hand to mouth existence. Why? Because that’s what’s available. The alternative–go to school, get a good paying job, get married, have a house, have kids–mostly isn’t.
And the situation for the offspring of Spanish and Nahuatl-speaking immigrants is worse.
In a way race is a digression since the Randian/Social Darwinist/I’ve got mine philosophy screws nearly everybody.
On the other hand racism is still a current factor in the lives of the target ethnicities: veiled appeals to racism are a handy way to get people competing with each other for scraps so they don’t notice who is hogging the cake. And denying the current affects of racism is a way of denying it’s usefulness as a divide and conquer technique.
live in the Soviet of Washington, and I’ve had that conversation, too.
But sometimes it is convenient to ignore context.
Nobody wants to be blamed now for crimes committed by an earlier generation. Discussing the past can feel like that. On the other hand, dismissing the past as if it had no current relevance can be more than just ignorance or defensiveness; it’s a handy way to rationalize current continuations of past behavior.
Imaginary conversation:
Bill: Don’t blame me for slavery and Jim Crow! I wasn’t even alive then! You need to get your act together now!
Joe: But we are not all in the same boat now. It isn’t blaming you to discuss current deck-stacking unless you are involved in the current deck-stacking.
Bill: If you work hard and go to school and don’t do anything stupid, you will thrive.
Joe: You probably will not thrive, regardless of your choices, unless you get a head start by being born into a well-off family. Nowadays hard work and good choices will leave you working two jobs for the minimum wage while the Food Stamps you need for survival get cut. You will lose your access to low cost birth control to attacks on Planned Parenthood, be unable to get affordable loans for college, and find out on election day that you can’t vote because you can’t afford a car and don’t have a driver’s license. Plus, you will have untreated health conditions because you can’t afford insurance. So don’t lecture me on how “you people” should behave.
Bill: Don’t call me a racist! I have an ideology that prevents me from supporting anything that would provide you with access to the middle class, so it’s all your fault if you aren’t as well off as I am. I worked my way up and you can, too!
Joe: You would be in a better position to lecture me on self-help if you weren’t aligned with the party that deliberately seeks to dismantle all of the rungs in the ladder. Of course that dismantling makes it harder to anyone, regardless of ethnicity. to climb, so the motive for the dismantling isn’t necessarily race. However it affects AA’s more than whites because, due to historical racism, more of them are starting out lower.
Bill: You are blaming me again for what I did not so. Why should my taxes go to support services I don’t need and create opportunities I don’t need? You are an American just like me and you shouldn’t be making race an issue. You should just be like me and stop whining about the past.
And so on.
There’s another factor here that affects everyone at the bottom of the ladder regardless of ethnicity: hope or the lack thereof. The more the deck is stacked against people, the fewer of them who will make good choices in the hope of a better future. Why should they make good choices when those choices probably will not in reality lead to anything but drudgery and poverty?
I see this all over the county where I live. The children of lower middle class whites graduate from high school, start out with the intention of making something of themselves and gradually drift into drugs, the black market economy, and a hand to mouth existence. Why? Because that’s what’s available. The alternative–go to school, get a good paying job, get married, have a house, have kids–mostly isn’t.
And the situation for the offspring of Spanish and Nahuatl-speaking immigrants is worse.
In a way race is a digression since the Randian/Social Darwinist/I’ve got mine philosophy screws nearly everybody.
On the other hand racism is still a current factor in the lives of the target ethnicities: veiled appeals to racism are a handy way to get people competing with each other for scraps so they don’t notice who is hogging the cake. And denying the current affects of racism is a way of denying it’s usefulness as a divide and conquer technique.
I should mention, perhaps, that I also have another point of privilege which McK may well lack. I am of above-average size (6’0″ tall, 205 lbs or so), which both from personal experience and from a few studies I have read about (*) means I am even more likely not to be ignored or slighted than those of average size or below. Add to this a naturally big voice (even when I’m not shouting, I tend to be loud, as my wife of 43 [almost 44] years reminds me) and Attention Must Be Paid. When trying to right a grievance or get someone’s attention, this all helps, whether I’m consciously using it or not. Not everyone has this edge; they need other tactics to get some of what comes to me automatically.
(*) The studies, long forgotten in detail, indicated that taller people [men?] are generally more likely to be believed, and considered suitable leaders, than shorter. As a tiny data point, for about a century (? – at least through the 1960s) the taller presidential candidate always beat the shorter one!
I should mention, perhaps, that I also have another point of privilege which McK may well lack. I am of above-average size (6’0″ tall, 205 lbs or so), which both from personal experience and from a few studies I have read about (*) means I am even more likely not to be ignored or slighted than those of average size or below. Add to this a naturally big voice (even when I’m not shouting, I tend to be loud, as my wife of 43 [almost 44] years reminds me) and Attention Must Be Paid. When trying to right a grievance or get someone’s attention, this all helps, whether I’m consciously using it or not. Not everyone has this edge; they need other tactics to get some of what comes to me automatically.
(*) The studies, long forgotten in detail, indicated that taller people [men?] are generally more likely to be believed, and considered suitable leaders, than shorter. As a tiny data point, for about a century (? – at least through the 1960s) the taller presidential candidate always beat the shorter one!
This article on housing segregation is germane to the discussion:
http://www.propublica.org/article/living-apart-how-the-government-betrayed-a-landmark-civil-rights-law
This article on housing segregation is germane to the discussion:
http://www.propublica.org/article/living-apart-how-the-government-betrayed-a-landmark-civil-rights-law
That may well be so, but I would imagine that the rest of the world sees him – as it sees me – as white, male, educated, and relatively affluent. Which gives him/me an advantage in dealing with the rest of the world: a modicum of respect, a reduced likelihood of people simply ignoring us or trampling overtly on our rights, a greater chance that we’ll be listened to (if not agreed with) in public fora, etc. That’s our “privilege,” and we can disclaim it all we like – “I never asked for that, I don’t identify with that”
Damn it, Doc, I have work to do.
I am white, so yes, that is how I would be seen by anyone. A person would have to know that I am an attorney to infer my education level. A person would have to see our home to infer any level of affluence (and our place isn’t that big of a deal, a nice townhouse, nothing fancy)–and it is highly unlikely that any person who doesn’t know me professionally or socially would be able to draw any inferences in that regard.
I’ve never won an argument or gotten a better seat in a restaurant because I’m white or because I drive a nice car (Is a nine year old, formerly nice SUV that’s hauled a lot of trailers, has its share of dings and has been off road quite a bit a “nice car”?). On those occasions where I am speaking publicly, there is someone just like me taking the opposite side. If the jury agrees with me, it’s because the law and the evidence favored my client’s side of the case.
I disagree that I have those privileges to any meaningful or even noticeable degree. If they exist at all, they exist only at certain times and in certain places and are of minimal influence.
Skin color is germane, negatively, in that young men of color are more likely to draw police attention than young white men, but I also think it is a matter of degree and not kind. It is wrong. It is a part of the playing field that requires a lot of work.
I do have a bit of earned privilege, as a result of 30 plus years practicing law in Houston. Judges know me and I’m fairly well known among other trial lawyers. That does matter a lot, personally and professionally. But it is not something that came just because I’m white and went to law school.
That may well be so, but I would imagine that the rest of the world sees him – as it sees me – as white, male, educated, and relatively affluent. Which gives him/me an advantage in dealing with the rest of the world: a modicum of respect, a reduced likelihood of people simply ignoring us or trampling overtly on our rights, a greater chance that we’ll be listened to (if not agreed with) in public fora, etc. That’s our “privilege,” and we can disclaim it all we like – “I never asked for that, I don’t identify with that”
Damn it, Doc, I have work to do.
I am white, so yes, that is how I would be seen by anyone. A person would have to know that I am an attorney to infer my education level. A person would have to see our home to infer any level of affluence (and our place isn’t that big of a deal, a nice townhouse, nothing fancy)–and it is highly unlikely that any person who doesn’t know me professionally or socially would be able to draw any inferences in that regard.
I’ve never won an argument or gotten a better seat in a restaurant because I’m white or because I drive a nice car (Is a nine year old, formerly nice SUV that’s hauled a lot of trailers, has its share of dings and has been off road quite a bit a “nice car”?). On those occasions where I am speaking publicly, there is someone just like me taking the opposite side. If the jury agrees with me, it’s because the law and the evidence favored my client’s side of the case.
I disagree that I have those privileges to any meaningful or even noticeable degree. If they exist at all, they exist only at certain times and in certain places and are of minimal influence.
Skin color is germane, negatively, in that young men of color are more likely to draw police attention than young white men, but I also think it is a matter of degree and not kind. It is wrong. It is a part of the playing field that requires a lot of work.
I do have a bit of earned privilege, as a result of 30 plus years practicing law in Houston. Judges know me and I’m fairly well known among other trial lawyers. That does matter a lot, personally and professionally. But it is not something that came just because I’m white and went to law school.
I would also recommend this*:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/a-rising-tide-lifts-all-yachts/276880/
*on a blog where you do indeed find really useful discussions happening, sometimes.
I would also recommend this*:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/a-rising-tide-lifts-all-yachts/276880/
*on a blog where you do indeed find really useful discussions happening, sometimes.
I disagree that I have those privileges to any meaningful or even noticeable degree. If they exist at all, they exist only at certain times and in certain places and are of minimal influence…
From the last link I just posted…
“..Among children born from 1955 through 1970, only 4 percent of whites were raised in neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty, compared to 62 percent of blacks. Three out of four white children were raised in neighborhoods with less than 10 percent poverty, compared to just 9 percent of blacks. Even more astonishingly, essentially no white children were raised in neighborhoods with at least 30 percent poverty, but three in ten blacks were…”
Anecdote may say the playing field is level, but the statistics (and history) don’t support the assertion.
I disagree that I have those privileges to any meaningful or even noticeable degree. If they exist at all, they exist only at certain times and in certain places and are of minimal influence…
From the last link I just posted…
“..Among children born from 1955 through 1970, only 4 percent of whites were raised in neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty, compared to 62 percent of blacks. Three out of four white children were raised in neighborhoods with less than 10 percent poverty, compared to just 9 percent of blacks. Even more astonishingly, essentially no white children were raised in neighborhoods with at least 30 percent poverty, but three in ten blacks were…”
Anecdote may say the playing field is level, but the statistics (and history) don’t support the assertion.
Approximately once annually, I trot out links to historical income tax bracket tables for the U.S. and other countries with similar economies in a pointless attempt to understand how the beleaguered taxpayer seems to remain steadfastly and ABSOLUTELY beleaguered regardless of the relative marginal tax rates as they fluctuate.
In other words, the kvetch side of the ratio remains steady at 100% full-throttle noise, while the other side of the equation, Federal tax rates, have fluctuated between a few percent in the early days to over 90% for years during the height of our country’s growth vibrancy and everywhere in between.
It must be that time of year.
McKT stated:
“To answer Russell’s question, and perhaps to inferentially touch on BP’s issues with the uber wealthy, the only demographic I identify with is that of the beleaguered taxpayer”
First off, thank you MCTX, for your hard work in an important endeavor, and thank you for paying your taxes at whatever rate minus deductions has occurred.
You are a better man than I in all these respects, despite my ability to consume more duck liver pate than you.
Also, thank you for not following in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps and quitting your movie career (he said this, or he read it off a scrap of paper he found in an old pair of pants, or he made it up (lied) based on a movie he had seen) because of onerous taxes.
Bonzo’s grandkids appreciate you. 😉
First, this link on the history of tax bracket rates:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Another similar cite:
http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-marginal-tax-rates.htm
Some on U.S. tax rates compared to other countries:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-rates-u-highest-world-183946787.html
I guess my question is as always: What is the state of your beleagueredness now, ….. I realize you will have to use your imagination because you are at peak earnings level, I expect, compared to other times … compared to when high marginal rates were 70%, or 91% in the 1950s, or where ever they were during World War II, or during the 1920s under the Mellon regime, which isn’t that much below where they are now?
Given the real world of taxes, and given tax rates in other countries, which are higher in many cases, what am I to make of this steady state beleagueredness?
I ask these questions in the context of having been …. puzzled …. only once by Hilzoy, when she wrote in a post regarding taxes, that she too HATED paying taxes, and in the context of my hatred for paying for food, which I am forced to do by the way, barring some preternatural off-the-grid self-sufficiency, and food cost brackets do NOTHING but rise over time, and in the context that I hate death much more than taxes, but I rarely hear complaints from anyone about the eternal marginal death of 100% for all of us.
In closing let me add that I hope MckT doesn’t mind that I divulge that we found ourselves together in a restaurant one time and we were the only two middle-aged black women in the joint.
Since most of us don’t really know who all of us really are, I like to keep folks guessing.
Approximately once annually, I trot out links to historical income tax bracket tables for the U.S. and other countries with similar economies in a pointless attempt to understand how the beleaguered taxpayer seems to remain steadfastly and ABSOLUTELY beleaguered regardless of the relative marginal tax rates as they fluctuate.
In other words, the kvetch side of the ratio remains steady at 100% full-throttle noise, while the other side of the equation, Federal tax rates, have fluctuated between a few percent in the early days to over 90% for years during the height of our country’s growth vibrancy and everywhere in between.
It must be that time of year.
McKT stated:
“To answer Russell’s question, and perhaps to inferentially touch on BP’s issues with the uber wealthy, the only demographic I identify with is that of the beleaguered taxpayer”
First off, thank you MCTX, for your hard work in an important endeavor, and thank you for paying your taxes at whatever rate minus deductions has occurred.
You are a better man than I in all these respects, despite my ability to consume more duck liver pate than you.
Also, thank you for not following in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps and quitting your movie career (he said this, or he read it off a scrap of paper he found in an old pair of pants, or he made it up (lied) based on a movie he had seen) because of onerous taxes.
Bonzo’s grandkids appreciate you. 😉
First, this link on the history of tax bracket rates:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
Another similar cite:
http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-marginal-tax-rates.htm
Some on U.S. tax rates compared to other countries:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-rates-u-highest-world-183946787.html
I guess my question is as always: What is the state of your beleagueredness now, ….. I realize you will have to use your imagination because you are at peak earnings level, I expect, compared to other times … compared to when high marginal rates were 70%, or 91% in the 1950s, or where ever they were during World War II, or during the 1920s under the Mellon regime, which isn’t that much below where they are now?
Given the real world of taxes, and given tax rates in other countries, which are higher in many cases, what am I to make of this steady state beleagueredness?
I ask these questions in the context of having been …. puzzled …. only once by Hilzoy, when she wrote in a post regarding taxes, that she too HATED paying taxes, and in the context of my hatred for paying for food, which I am forced to do by the way, barring some preternatural off-the-grid self-sufficiency, and food cost brackets do NOTHING but rise over time, and in the context that I hate death much more than taxes, but I rarely hear complaints from anyone about the eternal marginal death of 100% for all of us.
In closing let me add that I hope MckT doesn’t mind that I divulge that we found ourselves together in a restaurant one time and we were the only two middle-aged black women in the joint.
Since most of us don’t really know who all of us really are, I like to keep folks guessing.
I am on board with BP’s carpenter. He doesn’t get why Group A, regardless of the past, gets a special deal *by law* at the expense of Group B (which is typically defined as ‘everyone else not in Group A’).
Then I would ask in reply, “Why do you in fact support the very things you so say you are so forcefully against?”
Why is Micky Mouse not now in the public domain?
Why is the fee income of hedge fund managers taxed at capital gains rates?
Why do we have agriculture subsidies for relatively well off farmers?
Why have we not reformed our patent system especially with respect to medical drugs?
Why do we pay twice as much for health care in this country as opposed to other OECD countries?
Why does the FIRE sector grab a huge percentage of our national income?
Why do we continue to provide rich Wall Street bankers the public subsidy of virtually free money so they can engage in interest rate arbitrage or gamble on the stock and commodity markets?
Why have taxes for the wealthy constantly trended downward since the Kennedy administration?
Why are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and news pundits not exposed to international competition the same way that welders or auto plant workers are?
Why is our tax law chock full of special favors to well connected interests?
Why, despite ongoing gains in productivity, are real wages flat or declining?
Why is there not a job for every adult who wants one?
why has wealth and income been relentlessly shifted upward since the 80’s?
The answers to all of these questions are intimately related to the public policies we have chosen, policies that in fact work to favor certain groups at the expense of others.
So when somebody tells me they support equality of opportunity yet support public policies that promote the outcomes set forth above, I can only wonder, who are they trying to fool?
As for the beleaguered taxpayer: Has it not struck you that if real wages had kept pace with productivity these last 30+ years that we taxpayers could indeed afford to pay for a lot more good public stuff? Ask not why taxes are so high, ask instead, “Why are incomes so low?”
I am on board with BP’s carpenter. He doesn’t get why Group A, regardless of the past, gets a special deal *by law* at the expense of Group B (which is typically defined as ‘everyone else not in Group A’).
Then I would ask in reply, “Why do you in fact support the very things you so say you are so forcefully against?”
Why is Micky Mouse not now in the public domain?
Why is the fee income of hedge fund managers taxed at capital gains rates?
Why do we have agriculture subsidies for relatively well off farmers?
Why have we not reformed our patent system especially with respect to medical drugs?
Why do we pay twice as much for health care in this country as opposed to other OECD countries?
Why does the FIRE sector grab a huge percentage of our national income?
Why do we continue to provide rich Wall Street bankers the public subsidy of virtually free money so they can engage in interest rate arbitrage or gamble on the stock and commodity markets?
Why have taxes for the wealthy constantly trended downward since the Kennedy administration?
Why are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and news pundits not exposed to international competition the same way that welders or auto plant workers are?
Why is our tax law chock full of special favors to well connected interests?
Why, despite ongoing gains in productivity, are real wages flat or declining?
Why is there not a job for every adult who wants one?
why has wealth and income been relentlessly shifted upward since the 80’s?
The answers to all of these questions are intimately related to the public policies we have chosen, policies that in fact work to favor certain groups at the expense of others.
So when somebody tells me they support equality of opportunity yet support public policies that promote the outcomes set forth above, I can only wonder, who are they trying to fool?
As for the beleaguered taxpayer: Has it not struck you that if real wages had kept pace with productivity these last 30+ years that we taxpayers could indeed afford to pay for a lot more good public stuff? Ask not why taxes are so high, ask instead, “Why are incomes so low?”
Thanks for the excellent link, Nigel. I would urge McKinney to take a few moments to read it and comment.
Thanks for the excellent link, Nigel. I would urge McKinney to take a few moments to read it and comment.
“May your income tax bill be twice as big next year!”
That probably sounds like a curse to some people, like the hard-working McKinney. Interpreted correctly, of course, it is practically a blessing: may your income roughly double next year.
McKinney might well point out that The Government has it in its power to double his tax bill whether or not The Market awards him twice the income. He will probably ignore the fact that The Market has it in ITS power to CUT his income in HALF next year, in which case The Government will obligingly HALVE his income tax bill.
Since I cannot speak for McKinney, let me talk about myself: I am a price-taker in The Market. I cannot make my own price for my time, effort, or skill. So I live at the whim of The Market. My income can fluctuate, and HAS fluctuated, year to year, without my abilities, work ethic, or even skin color changing at all. There have been years when my income tax bill was extremely small, others when it was extremely large. You can guess in which years I have felt economically content. You can guess in which years I wished I had a bigger tax bill. You can guess that about me. I would not dare guess whether McKinney would feel the same way.
–TP
“May your income tax bill be twice as big next year!”
That probably sounds like a curse to some people, like the hard-working McKinney. Interpreted correctly, of course, it is practically a blessing: may your income roughly double next year.
McKinney might well point out that The Government has it in its power to double his tax bill whether or not The Market awards him twice the income. He will probably ignore the fact that The Market has it in ITS power to CUT his income in HALF next year, in which case The Government will obligingly HALVE his income tax bill.
Since I cannot speak for McKinney, let me talk about myself: I am a price-taker in The Market. I cannot make my own price for my time, effort, or skill. So I live at the whim of The Market. My income can fluctuate, and HAS fluctuated, year to year, without my abilities, work ethic, or even skin color changing at all. There have been years when my income tax bill was extremely small, others when it was extremely large. You can guess in which years I have felt economically content. You can guess in which years I wished I had a bigger tax bill. You can guess that about me. I would not dare guess whether McKinney would feel the same way.
–TP
McK: By now we’re down to quibbles and details, which you may safely ignore without fear of internet retribution (E.g., “Aha! The fact that you didn’t answer my question gives me victory! VICTORY!!”)
You suggest no one would guess your education without knowing you were a lawyer or your affluence without seeing your house. At one level – among middle-class (or above) white American males – this may be true of you, as of me.
But I was attempting to envisage wider judgments, not just observing our standing among our “peers.” By comparison with many in society, I surmise, your education (broadly speaking) could readily be guessed at by your speech, even among those who don’t know you’re a lawyer. You probably don’t sound like you’re from the “‘hood,” the barrio, the trailer park, or the rural boondocks, in terms of accent, vocabulary, or sentence construction, so you’re not likely to be perceived as “uneducated.”
Similarly, you can, and at times probably do, dress in ways that suggest that you’re not poor (I’m guessing you wear a nice suit in the courtroom, although I assume that you, like me, at other times “dress down” in jeans or shorts or sweats). And the fact that you own a working vehicle – even one nine years old (same age as mine!) – implies that you’re not homeless or destitute. “Affluence” in this sense is relative, and I was using it in its lowest sense: Not Visibly Poor.
None of this gets you to the front of the line, and I never meant to suggest that you (or I) get better seats in restaurants or win arguments because of this “privilege.” But it probably keeps you from being shunted to the back of the line, or ignored entirely, as happens to some Americans who are NOT white, educated, and of at least moderate wealth. (Let’s not get into the question of “male privilege” for the moment.)
You disagree that you “have those privileges to any meaningful or even noticeable degree.” The fact that you don’t notice anything may itself be a sign of privilege. I suspect that from the bottom of the social pyramid things look rather different.
I appreciate that you – particularly as a lawyer, perhaps? – are apprehensive about the use of laws to correct whatever injustices may accrue from such privilege, or the lack thereof. I’m not arguing (here) for such laws. What I am saying is that there’s a problem, and the first step to solving it, whether through specific laws or by some other means, is acknowledging it.
McK: By now we’re down to quibbles and details, which you may safely ignore without fear of internet retribution (E.g., “Aha! The fact that you didn’t answer my question gives me victory! VICTORY!!”)
You suggest no one would guess your education without knowing you were a lawyer or your affluence without seeing your house. At one level – among middle-class (or above) white American males – this may be true of you, as of me.
But I was attempting to envisage wider judgments, not just observing our standing among our “peers.” By comparison with many in society, I surmise, your education (broadly speaking) could readily be guessed at by your speech, even among those who don’t know you’re a lawyer. You probably don’t sound like you’re from the “‘hood,” the barrio, the trailer park, or the rural boondocks, in terms of accent, vocabulary, or sentence construction, so you’re not likely to be perceived as “uneducated.”
Similarly, you can, and at times probably do, dress in ways that suggest that you’re not poor (I’m guessing you wear a nice suit in the courtroom, although I assume that you, like me, at other times “dress down” in jeans or shorts or sweats). And the fact that you own a working vehicle – even one nine years old (same age as mine!) – implies that you’re not homeless or destitute. “Affluence” in this sense is relative, and I was using it in its lowest sense: Not Visibly Poor.
None of this gets you to the front of the line, and I never meant to suggest that you (or I) get better seats in restaurants or win arguments because of this “privilege.” But it probably keeps you from being shunted to the back of the line, or ignored entirely, as happens to some Americans who are NOT white, educated, and of at least moderate wealth. (Let’s not get into the question of “male privilege” for the moment.)
You disagree that you “have those privileges to any meaningful or even noticeable degree.” The fact that you don’t notice anything may itself be a sign of privilege. I suspect that from the bottom of the social pyramid things look rather different.
I appreciate that you – particularly as a lawyer, perhaps? – are apprehensive about the use of laws to correct whatever injustices may accrue from such privilege, or the lack thereof. I’m not arguing (here) for such laws. What I am saying is that there’s a problem, and the first step to solving it, whether through specific laws or by some other means, is acknowledging it.
“I didn’t lynch anybody / kill any Indians / own any slaves / etc. Why is it my responsibility to deal with the consequences?”
It’s not an unreasonable question.
Response: Well, OK, but I’m not so sure. If you did not in fact benefit from those consequences, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But you did, and you do. You are like the great grandchild of a bank robber who was never caught, and whose descendants have invested the loot wisely.
“But I never robbed banks”, you declaim.
“That’s not exactly the point,” I reply.
“I didn’t lynch anybody / kill any Indians / own any slaves / etc. Why is it my responsibility to deal with the consequences?”
It’s not an unreasonable question.
Response: Well, OK, but I’m not so sure. If you did not in fact benefit from those consequences, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But you did, and you do. You are like the great grandchild of a bank robber who was never caught, and whose descendants have invested the loot wisely.
“But I never robbed banks”, you declaim.
“That’s not exactly the point,” I reply.
Response: Well, OK, but I’m not so sure. If you did not in fact benefit from those consequences, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But you did, and you do. You are like the great grandchild of a bank robber who was never caught, and whose descendants have invested the loot wisely.
A lot of people, including some of the victims’ descendants, have arguably “benefitted” from horrors of the past. I honestly don’t think that our duty to make the current world better is based on a debt that some of us owe to others based on the fact that our forebears were Visigoths or Mongols or Spanish conquistadors or American homesteaders or Southern plantation owners. It’s important to know all of those things, but not because we can draw direct lines of benefit and detriment.
Our duty to make the world better is because we live here and now, and this is our opportunity to do it with whatever power, influence and skills we happen to have.
Response: Well, OK, but I’m not so sure. If you did not in fact benefit from those consequences, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But you did, and you do. You are like the great grandchild of a bank robber who was never caught, and whose descendants have invested the loot wisely.
A lot of people, including some of the victims’ descendants, have arguably “benefitted” from horrors of the past. I honestly don’t think that our duty to make the current world better is based on a debt that some of us owe to others based on the fact that our forebears were Visigoths or Mongols or Spanish conquistadors or American homesteaders or Southern plantation owners. It’s important to know all of those things, but not because we can draw direct lines of benefit and detriment.
Our duty to make the world better is because we live here and now, and this is our opportunity to do it with whatever power, influence and skills we happen to have.
I think Sapient has made the most significant point. The reason to support the use of power (and money is power)to make opportunity available to ordinary people and to keep the safety net intact is because it’s the right thing to do, not because of guilt over what one’s ancestors did, or because one is benefitting now by what one’s ancestors did.
Also if that argument is made–that it’s the right thing to do–then the people who don’t want to do the right thing have to come right out and say so, instead of digressing into a discussion about whether or not they are benefitting from history.
I think Sapient has made the most significant point. The reason to support the use of power (and money is power)to make opportunity available to ordinary people and to keep the safety net intact is because it’s the right thing to do, not because of guilt over what one’s ancestors did, or because one is benefitting now by what one’s ancestors did.
Also if that argument is made–that it’s the right thing to do–then the people who don’t want to do the right thing have to come right out and say so, instead of digressing into a discussion about whether or not they are benefitting from history.
Also if that argument is made–that it’s the right thing to do–then the people who don’t want to do the right thing have to come right out and say so…
Well, they in fact do. Declaiming “the beatings have stopped” is indeed necessary, but it is, as you point out, no sufficient. They will always throw their resentment in your face because you propose to take something from them and give it to THEM.
And there you are.
Also if that argument is made–that it’s the right thing to do–then the people who don’t want to do the right thing have to come right out and say so…
Well, they in fact do. Declaiming “the beatings have stopped” is indeed necessary, but it is, as you point out, no sufficient. They will always throw their resentment in your face because you propose to take something from them and give it to THEM.
And there you are.
I’m not so much into guilt any longer, except on a personal level, and I try to do the right thing, again on a personal level and in a very small circle.
But, related to the tax tables presented above, and given the iron rules of tax-originated incentive and disincentive hammered into the national discourse over the past umpteen years, one would expect from a progressive tax system (which is much less so these-a-days) a much more churned distribution of wealth (as the ocean circulates warm and cold water from bottom to top and vice versa) as those at the top respond to the grievous and onerous marginal tax rates of 40-plus rates with an ah-the-hell-with-it stay in bed Galtian withholding of productivity and those at the bottom, Romney’s 51% that pay NO taxes, respond by getting up early for unshackled innovation and unlimited wealth accumulation, but the opposite seems to be happening as wealth disparities go off the historical charts.
The more those at the top (I don’t count anyone here at the topppermost of the poppermost, unless its the mysterious dr. ngo in his island silo vault with the 12 reading/bath rooms) have, not that there is anything wrong with that, the more they work and accumulate, even when a few of them do so through useless, non-productive activity, like high-frequency trading, which someone might point out is or could be a behavior altered by tax legislation.
Quit? Heck, no. Instead, up the frequency!
I observe NO disincentives at the top, nor incentives the rest of the way down, from the tax regime.
Everyone I know, top folks and bottom folks, work their butts off, and if they don’t, it’s because of family responsibilities, at which they work their butts off for nuttin monetary.
I fully expect now a deluge of examples of exactly the behavior I deny observing — both from those of you who are former millionaires, now dissolute, unshaven and hitting the bottle (wine doesn’t count, MckT), because of last year’s modest rise in taxes during the budget deal, and from those of you firmly ensconced at the bottom after having glanced at the higher marginal taxes and scuttled all economic/work dreams on account of what’s the use, they’ll just take it from me to hand it to someone else.
I’m not so much into guilt any longer, except on a personal level, and I try to do the right thing, again on a personal level and in a very small circle.
But, related to the tax tables presented above, and given the iron rules of tax-originated incentive and disincentive hammered into the national discourse over the past umpteen years, one would expect from a progressive tax system (which is much less so these-a-days) a much more churned distribution of wealth (as the ocean circulates warm and cold water from bottom to top and vice versa) as those at the top respond to the grievous and onerous marginal tax rates of 40-plus rates with an ah-the-hell-with-it stay in bed Galtian withholding of productivity and those at the bottom, Romney’s 51% that pay NO taxes, respond by getting up early for unshackled innovation and unlimited wealth accumulation, but the opposite seems to be happening as wealth disparities go off the historical charts.
The more those at the top (I don’t count anyone here at the topppermost of the poppermost, unless its the mysterious dr. ngo in his island silo vault with the 12 reading/bath rooms) have, not that there is anything wrong with that, the more they work and accumulate, even when a few of them do so through useless, non-productive activity, like high-frequency trading, which someone might point out is or could be a behavior altered by tax legislation.
Quit? Heck, no. Instead, up the frequency!
I observe NO disincentives at the top, nor incentives the rest of the way down, from the tax regime.
Everyone I know, top folks and bottom folks, work their butts off, and if they don’t, it’s because of family responsibilities, at which they work their butts off for nuttin monetary.
I fully expect now a deluge of examples of exactly the behavior I deny observing — both from those of you who are former millionaires, now dissolute, unshaven and hitting the bottle (wine doesn’t count, MckT), because of last year’s modest rise in taxes during the budget deal, and from those of you firmly ensconced at the bottom after having glanced at the higher marginal taxes and scuttled all economic/work dreams on account of what’s the use, they’ll just take it from me to hand it to someone else.
Might be time to move on, but I’d just note that every major religion has some notion of required giving to help others and that giving is not necessarily limited to believers, Christian tithing, Islam has it as one of the 5 pillars, Hinduism calls their 10 percent dashama bhaga vrata (the Sanskrit is almost readable as English ‘ten part vow’) and Buddhists have a general notion of donating as a way to reduce personal posessions and therefore personal greed.
Maybe it is just a ploy to bring in the non-believers, but given that all these are woven into the fabric of our system of beliefs, it makes sense that the government take these over when you have multiple systems of belief. Seems like the conservative thing to do.
Might be time to move on, but I’d just note that every major religion has some notion of required giving to help others and that giving is not necessarily limited to believers, Christian tithing, Islam has it as one of the 5 pillars, Hinduism calls their 10 percent dashama bhaga vrata (the Sanskrit is almost readable as English ‘ten part vow’) and Buddhists have a general notion of donating as a way to reduce personal posessions and therefore personal greed.
Maybe it is just a ploy to bring in the non-believers, but given that all these are woven into the fabric of our system of beliefs, it makes sense that the government take these over when you have multiple systems of belief. Seems like the conservative thing to do.
And then there’s the NFL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/
And then there’s the NFL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/
Our duty to make the world better is because we live here and now, and this is our opportunity to do it with whatever power, influence and skills we happen to have.
What sapient said.
My sense, possibly wrong, is that differences in point of view on this stuff has less to do with thoughts about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and more to do with the degree to which the word “duty” in sapient’s comment here resonates with you or not.
Our duty to make the world better is because we live here and now, and this is our opportunity to do it with whatever power, influence and skills we happen to have.
What sapient said.
My sense, possibly wrong, is that differences in point of view on this stuff has less to do with thoughts about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and more to do with the degree to which the word “duty” in sapient’s comment here resonates with you or not.
If I have my facts right, Dr. Moynihan, the two big eras where the economic disparity between black and white Americans was substantially reduced was during periods of (1.) tight labor markets (WWII) or (2.) political/institutional reform, aka the tune in, drop out, and turn on 1960’s.
For those of you squeamish about the echos of our history and the facts on the ground regarding racial discrimination, please work to promote door no. 1.
Door no. 2 is open in many important respects, but remains closed in others. Opening those doors is important.
It’s your future. Proceed.
If I have my facts right, Dr. Moynihan, the two big eras where the economic disparity between black and white Americans was substantially reduced was during periods of (1.) tight labor markets (WWII) or (2.) political/institutional reform, aka the tune in, drop out, and turn on 1960’s.
For those of you squeamish about the echos of our history and the facts on the ground regarding racial discrimination, please work to promote door no. 1.
Door no. 2 is open in many important respects, but remains closed in others. Opening those doors is important.
It’s your future. Proceed.
Nigel, I acknowledged that the playing field is not level. I read the Salon article. Can someone tell me what ” neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty” means? I like to know what we are or are not talking about when someone is making a statistical point.
He will probably ignore the fact that The Market has it in ITS power to CUT his income in HALF next year, in which case The Government will obligingly HALVE his income tax bill.
I would say the *economy* in general has the power to impact my income, the market not so much. TP is in the securities market by choice. He’s probably good at it. If the choice is paying at a marginal rate of 40% vs 15% because of income level–and the labor, risk etc inputs are the same–of course, you’d rather make 400K than 60K. My marginal rate is 45% all up–I don’t like it. I’m saving for retirement. Every penny the feds get is one less we have to live on.
The answers to all of these questions are intimately related to the public policies we have chosen, policies that in fact work to favor certain groups at the expense of others.
I am not a fan of deck-stacking in pretty much any context. We can argue about which particular policy is unfairly preferential (how would you reform patent law and still promote research and development of new drugs, for example?). I don’t love pharma, but I like the muscle relaxer I took this morning because my back was killing me. I think capital gains treatment for capital assets makes sense. For securities, I would change the holding period to 3 years, but I still think preferential treatment makes sense–everyone who buys a security gets the same preference.
Our duty to make the world better is because we live here and now,
I am sensing many devils in these details.
Ask not why taxes are so high, ask instead, “Why are incomes so low?”
I am told by people who understand big picture finance/corporate operations that this will persist as long as we are in recession, or if not recession, stagnation, the reason being that there is no real competition for labor these days, except in very specialized areas or in areas where there is a lot of energy exploration.
In closing let me add that I hope MckT doesn’t mind that I divulge that we found ourselves together in a restaurant one time and we were the only two middle-aged black women in the joint.
I don’t mind the disclosure, but I had everyone going here that I am an old white male.
but given that all these are woven into the fabric of our system of beliefs, it makes sense that the government take these over when you have multiple systems of belief. Seems like the conservative thing to do.
My guess is that progressives don’t like being told how to be progressive by conservatives. It is true that religions call for modest donations to the church/temple/whatever. They still do. Giving is voluntary, no one shows up with a writ of execution and levies on your assets if you fail to fork over. In the US, if you don’t like the way your church or whatever spends its money, you can quit giving, quit attending or both. I could unpack this one foreever, but I’ll just close out by saying, we really don’t want gov’t taking over the business of organized religion. It really doesn’t make sense.
Nigel, I acknowledged that the playing field is not level. I read the Salon article. Can someone tell me what ” neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty” means? I like to know what we are or are not talking about when someone is making a statistical point.
He will probably ignore the fact that The Market has it in ITS power to CUT his income in HALF next year, in which case The Government will obligingly HALVE his income tax bill.
I would say the *economy* in general has the power to impact my income, the market not so much. TP is in the securities market by choice. He’s probably good at it. If the choice is paying at a marginal rate of 40% vs 15% because of income level–and the labor, risk etc inputs are the same–of course, you’d rather make 400K than 60K. My marginal rate is 45% all up–I don’t like it. I’m saving for retirement. Every penny the feds get is one less we have to live on.
The answers to all of these questions are intimately related to the public policies we have chosen, policies that in fact work to favor certain groups at the expense of others.
I am not a fan of deck-stacking in pretty much any context. We can argue about which particular policy is unfairly preferential (how would you reform patent law and still promote research and development of new drugs, for example?). I don’t love pharma, but I like the muscle relaxer I took this morning because my back was killing me. I think capital gains treatment for capital assets makes sense. For securities, I would change the holding period to 3 years, but I still think preferential treatment makes sense–everyone who buys a security gets the same preference.
Our duty to make the world better is because we live here and now,
I am sensing many devils in these details.
Ask not why taxes are so high, ask instead, “Why are incomes so low?”
I am told by people who understand big picture finance/corporate operations that this will persist as long as we are in recession, or if not recession, stagnation, the reason being that there is no real competition for labor these days, except in very specialized areas or in areas where there is a lot of energy exploration.
In closing let me add that I hope MckT doesn’t mind that I divulge that we found ourselves together in a restaurant one time and we were the only two middle-aged black women in the joint.
I don’t mind the disclosure, but I had everyone going here that I am an old white male.
but given that all these are woven into the fabric of our system of beliefs, it makes sense that the government take these over when you have multiple systems of belief. Seems like the conservative thing to do.
My guess is that progressives don’t like being told how to be progressive by conservatives. It is true that religions call for modest donations to the church/temple/whatever. They still do. Giving is voluntary, no one shows up with a writ of execution and levies on your assets if you fail to fork over. In the US, if you don’t like the way your church or whatever spends its money, you can quit giving, quit attending or both. I could unpack this one foreever, but I’ll just close out by saying, we really don’t want gov’t taking over the business of organized religion. It really doesn’t make sense.
My marginal rate is 45% all up
Are you talking on your last dollar, or on your whole income?
Your point is valid either way, I’m just curious.
I am told by people who understand big picture finance/corporate operations that this will persist as long as we are in recession
McK, check out the inflation adjusted real income numbers here.
The time range shown here is not quite fifty years. Boom years, recession years, stagflation years, what have you. All found in that time period.
Top quintile is up about 50%. Next quintile is up 20%. Everybody else is flat or slightly negative.
US GDP in constant dollars is almost four times what it was in 1967.
“The recession” does not explain this.
we really don’t want gov’t taking over the business of organized religion.
And all the people said “amen”.
My marginal rate is 45% all up
Are you talking on your last dollar, or on your whole income?
Your point is valid either way, I’m just curious.
I am told by people who understand big picture finance/corporate operations that this will persist as long as we are in recession
McK, check out the inflation adjusted real income numbers here.
The time range shown here is not quite fifty years. Boom years, recession years, stagflation years, what have you. All found in that time period.
Top quintile is up about 50%. Next quintile is up 20%. Everybody else is flat or slightly negative.
US GDP in constant dollars is almost four times what it was in 1967.
“The recession” does not explain this.
we really don’t want gov’t taking over the business of organized religion.
And all the people said “amen”.
we really don’t want gov’t taking over the business of organized religion. It really doesn’t make sense.
I didn’t mean to say it should. I wanted to suggest that the impulse to provide for those less well off than the average is built into human religion, which may be seen as a blueprint for how humans should try and relate to each other. While there are people, like say Richard Dawkins, who feel that any belief in God is problematic, I have yet to see them railing against the Golden Rule. You seem to be against any effort to distribute wealth in any way. You seem to want to suggest that it is progressive’s fault that there is an urge to redistribute, bmy point is that in that conservative touchstone, religion, it certainly exists without the work of patchouli smelling Birkenstock clad hippies.
we really don’t want gov’t taking over the business of organized religion. It really doesn’t make sense.
I didn’t mean to say it should. I wanted to suggest that the impulse to provide for those less well off than the average is built into human religion, which may be seen as a blueprint for how humans should try and relate to each other. While there are people, like say Richard Dawkins, who feel that any belief in God is problematic, I have yet to see them railing against the Golden Rule. You seem to be against any effort to distribute wealth in any way. You seem to want to suggest that it is progressive’s fault that there is an urge to redistribute, bmy point is that in that conservative touchstone, religion, it certainly exists without the work of patchouli smelling Birkenstock clad hippies.
This paragraph from russell on another thread somehow seems to me to belong here, too.
If you believe that your tax dollars actually pay for stuff the government does, you probably should be pissed that you’re paying as much as you are, since we don’t seem to be doing as many particularly useful things these days.
Seeing things as I do, I don’t see taxes that way, but I still wish for more productive spending, on things that would benefit everyone – the sorts of things we used to do a lot more of. The sorts of things that used to allow far more people to get into those higher income brackets, where they would have more money, even if they had to pay more in taxes.
This paragraph from russell on another thread somehow seems to me to belong here, too.
If you believe that your tax dollars actually pay for stuff the government does, you probably should be pissed that you’re paying as much as you are, since we don’t seem to be doing as many particularly useful things these days.
Seeing things as I do, I don’t see taxes that way, but I still wish for more productive spending, on things that would benefit everyone – the sorts of things we used to do a lot more of. The sorts of things that used to allow far more people to get into those higher income brackets, where they would have more money, even if they had to pay more in taxes.
I’d like to put this from the count in juxtaposition with the above quote from russell.
Wouldn’t it be nice, Brian Wilson, if we could implement an above-board governmentally administered tax to eliminate the sneaky taxes high-frequency traders suck out of all of us invisibly (handedly)?
Imagine, John Lennon, the taxes on high-frequency trades being used to pay for infrastructure or education or preventive health care (if that’s how you think taxes work)?
I’d like to put this from the count in juxtaposition with the above quote from russell.
Wouldn’t it be nice, Brian Wilson, if we could implement an above-board governmentally administered tax to eliminate the sneaky taxes high-frequency traders suck out of all of us invisibly (handedly)?
Imagine, John Lennon, the taxes on high-frequency trades being used to pay for infrastructure or education or preventive health care (if that’s how you think taxes work)?
You seem to be against any effort to distribute wealth in any way. You seem to want to suggest that it is progressive’s fault that there is an urge to redistribute, bmy point is that in that conservative touchstone, religion, it certainly exists without the work of patchouli smelling Birkenstock clad hippies.
I am not a big fan taking from one person and giving to another without a really good reason. My general definition of a “really good reason” is that a particular person is unable to provide for him or herself. I don’t see spending on education or highways as redistributive. I view that as part of the goal of having a level playing field someday. SSN, in theory is not redistributive, Medicare and Medicaid are. Food stamps are. I accept the need for long term assistance for those who cannot provide for themselves and short term assistance for those who have lost their job and are actively seeking employment. I realize this is far too narrow for progressives.
Russell’s lament, which resonates with me, speaks to a time where we did less for individuals and more for everyone: parks, libraries, etc. In those happy days of yore–and the left then found plenty to complain about–defense spending was over half the budget. Like Russell, I attended college and law school for peanuts. I do not understand where things went off in a ditch.
I do try to live the Golden Rule. In addition to paying a lot in taxes, I’m fairly confident my wife and I do our share, at least, in terms of trying to make a difference in others’ lives.
Are you talking on your last dollar, or on your whole income?
Last. Our cut runs 32-35% of total–high enough.
Top quintile is up about 50%. Next quintile is up 20%. Everybody else is flat or slightly negative.
US GDP in constant dollars is almost four times what it was in 1967.
“The recession” does not explain this.
I think, post 2008 ,a lot of folks in the top 2 quintiles are treading water. Ok, cry me a river, they are still in the top two quintiles. If the economy ever heats up, incomes in those quintiles will go up because there will be competition among employers for the higher skilled, specialized employee.
The bottom three quintiles, and particularly the bottom two, could see long term recession, not just stagnation. Lack of skills and education will penalize these populations permanently.
If you want a long term problem to keep you awake at night, that is it: half or more of the country can’t function in the modern economy and is relegated to service and support tasks. Pretty damn tragic. If there is a long term solution that doesn’t kill off the upper quintiles, I’d like to hear it.
You seem to be against any effort to distribute wealth in any way. You seem to want to suggest that it is progressive’s fault that there is an urge to redistribute, bmy point is that in that conservative touchstone, religion, it certainly exists without the work of patchouli smelling Birkenstock clad hippies.
I am not a big fan taking from one person and giving to another without a really good reason. My general definition of a “really good reason” is that a particular person is unable to provide for him or herself. I don’t see spending on education or highways as redistributive. I view that as part of the goal of having a level playing field someday. SSN, in theory is not redistributive, Medicare and Medicaid are. Food stamps are. I accept the need for long term assistance for those who cannot provide for themselves and short term assistance for those who have lost their job and are actively seeking employment. I realize this is far too narrow for progressives.
Russell’s lament, which resonates with me, speaks to a time where we did less for individuals and more for everyone: parks, libraries, etc. In those happy days of yore–and the left then found plenty to complain about–defense spending was over half the budget. Like Russell, I attended college and law school for peanuts. I do not understand where things went off in a ditch.
I do try to live the Golden Rule. In addition to paying a lot in taxes, I’m fairly confident my wife and I do our share, at least, in terms of trying to make a difference in others’ lives.
Are you talking on your last dollar, or on your whole income?
Last. Our cut runs 32-35% of total–high enough.
Top quintile is up about 50%. Next quintile is up 20%. Everybody else is flat or slightly negative.
US GDP in constant dollars is almost four times what it was in 1967.
“The recession” does not explain this.
I think, post 2008 ,a lot of folks in the top 2 quintiles are treading water. Ok, cry me a river, they are still in the top two quintiles. If the economy ever heats up, incomes in those quintiles will go up because there will be competition among employers for the higher skilled, specialized employee.
The bottom three quintiles, and particularly the bottom two, could see long term recession, not just stagnation. Lack of skills and education will penalize these populations permanently.
If you want a long term problem to keep you awake at night, that is it: half or more of the country can’t function in the modern economy and is relegated to service and support tasks. Pretty damn tragic. If there is a long term solution that doesn’t kill off the upper quintiles, I’d like to hear it.
speaks to a time where we did less for individuals and more for everyone
That’s a very interesting observation. I’m going to take that off and ponder it a while.
Our cut runs 32-35% of total–high enough.
Just want to acknowledge that that’s a pretty hefty tax burden.
half or more of the country can’t function in the modern economy and is relegated to service and support tasks.
I’m in complete agreement that that is the real sticking point in any discussion of political economy in this country.
I am, I suppose, a genuine leftist, or whatever passes for one in this country, but I’m not a particular fan of income redistribution as a good way to address poverty or other social ills.
This is a very, very, very rich country, and not that much of that wealth flows to, let’s say, the bottom 2/3 or 3/4 of the population.
People often say that the federal deficit is “unsustainable”, or the tax burden is “unsustainable”.
Having the great majority of the population in a position somewhere between economic stagnation and free-fall, and dependent on public assistance to meet the basic requirements of life, is not sustainable.
Not because we “can’t afford it”, because we most likely can.
But because it’s a crappy way for all of those people to live.
speaks to a time where we did less for individuals and more for everyone
That’s a very interesting observation. I’m going to take that off and ponder it a while.
Our cut runs 32-35% of total–high enough.
Just want to acknowledge that that’s a pretty hefty tax burden.
half or more of the country can’t function in the modern economy and is relegated to service and support tasks.
I’m in complete agreement that that is the real sticking point in any discussion of political economy in this country.
I am, I suppose, a genuine leftist, or whatever passes for one in this country, but I’m not a particular fan of income redistribution as a good way to address poverty or other social ills.
This is a very, very, very rich country, and not that much of that wealth flows to, let’s say, the bottom 2/3 or 3/4 of the population.
People often say that the federal deficit is “unsustainable”, or the tax burden is “unsustainable”.
Having the great majority of the population in a position somewhere between economic stagnation and free-fall, and dependent on public assistance to meet the basic requirements of life, is not sustainable.
Not because we “can’t afford it”, because we most likely can.
But because it’s a crappy way for all of those people to live.
But because it’s a crappy way for all of those people to live.
And, eventually, it becomes crappy for everyone else, too. You have to have an economy to financialize. The path we’re on can’t continue without killing the host.
But because it’s a crappy way for all of those people to live.
And, eventually, it becomes crappy for everyone else, too. You have to have an economy to financialize. The path we’re on can’t continue without killing the host.
but I’m not a particular fan of income redistribution as a good way to address poverty or other social ills.
If, as I have tried to point out at some length, we have witnessed income redistribution upward that is driven by public policy choices, then we have been subjected to income redistribution to help people who are, by any measure, already well off. Therefore, I shall not experience the slightest twinge of guilt or discomfort while advocating the revoking, revising, or otherwise changing these policies to “redistribute” income downward.
The vast concentration of wealth we witness today did not just “happen”. It was not market ordained. It was not driven by technological change.
It was largely driven by consciously adopted political choices. Poor ones, I might add.
but I’m not a particular fan of income redistribution as a good way to address poverty or other social ills.
If, as I have tried to point out at some length, we have witnessed income redistribution upward that is driven by public policy choices, then we have been subjected to income redistribution to help people who are, by any measure, already well off. Therefore, I shall not experience the slightest twinge of guilt or discomfort while advocating the revoking, revising, or otherwise changing these policies to “redistribute” income downward.
The vast concentration of wealth we witness today did not just “happen”. It was not market ordained. It was not driven by technological change.
It was largely driven by consciously adopted political choices. Poor ones, I might add.
Can black america ‘educate itself’ out of poverty as McKinney suggests? History, logic, and common sense would argue not so much.
A degree helps, but is not an iron clad mass shield against the negative distributive effects of american white racism.
I have a nephew who has taken Haitian kids into his house and raised them from babies in a virtually all white rural community. The eldest was forced to get on the ground and “assume the position” by the high school campus gendarme because he was listening to his Ipod while black. The kid is angry. My brother-in-law says, yeah, the kid “has issues”, but he should just “learn to live with it.”
So black kids should just “deal with it” and whites can just go on about their merry way secure in the moral complacency that it’s “not my fault”.
I say f@ck that.
Can black america ‘educate itself’ out of poverty as McKinney suggests? History, logic, and common sense would argue not so much.
A degree helps, but is not an iron clad mass shield against the negative distributive effects of american white racism.
I have a nephew who has taken Haitian kids into his house and raised them from babies in a virtually all white rural community. The eldest was forced to get on the ground and “assume the position” by the high school campus gendarme because he was listening to his Ipod while black. The kid is angry. My brother-in-law says, yeah, the kid “has issues”, but he should just “learn to live with it.”
So black kids should just “deal with it” and whites can just go on about their merry way secure in the moral complacency that it’s “not my fault”.
I say f@ck that.
If, as I have tried to point out at some length, we have witnessed income redistribution upward that is driven by public policy choices, then we have been subjected to income redistribution to help people who are, by any measure, already well off.
I agree with this completely.
I say I’m not a fan of income redistribution, because I’m not.
What I am a fan of is income DISTRIBUTION, up front, no remedial faux-charitable gestures required.
There are a very wide range of public policies that cause the existing distribution of wealth to be skewed upwards, to a degree that is extraordinary in any but the most kleptocratic nations.
IMO we don’t need welfare. This is a rich, rich, rich country. I’d like to eliminate every redistributionist welfare program this country has.
What we need is for people who work for a living to be be paid well.
Hope that clarifies my position.
If, as I have tried to point out at some length, we have witnessed income redistribution upward that is driven by public policy choices, then we have been subjected to income redistribution to help people who are, by any measure, already well off.
I agree with this completely.
I say I’m not a fan of income redistribution, because I’m not.
What I am a fan of is income DISTRIBUTION, up front, no remedial faux-charitable gestures required.
There are a very wide range of public policies that cause the existing distribution of wealth to be skewed upwards, to a degree that is extraordinary in any but the most kleptocratic nations.
IMO we don’t need welfare. This is a rich, rich, rich country. I’d like to eliminate every redistributionist welfare program this country has.
What we need is for people who work for a living to be be paid well.
Hope that clarifies my position.
I think I’ve mentioned before my wish for a virtual alternate universe, with no actual people experiencing actual suffering, in which to test a $15/hr (or whatever number – $18/hr?) minimum wage. (Even if I had the power to try it in this universe, I’m not sure I’d have the courage, unintended consequences being what they are.)
My guess (including all that follows here) is that, phased in gradually over a number of years, there wouldn’t be much downside. Implented fully on day one, there would be disruption, with some businesses not modeled for that being unable to adjust and going under. But, even in the latter case, in time, the higher wages would kick up demand such that any business worth its salt would be able to afford the new minimum wage. Profit margins would get squeezed some, but not problematically so. Same for increased inflation.
One concern would be outsourcing. We already can’t compete with many other countries because of labor costs, right? Well, some jobs can’t be outsourced. And how many jobs in the range between the current minimum wage and the new minimum wage are there that could be outsourced? How many actually would? At what point would the new minimum wage make enough of a marginal difference in the cost of a given worker for an employer to send that work out of the country? (I don’t claim to know, which is why I’d love to be able to test it, harmlessly.)
In the real world, had I the power, I’d raise the minimum wage something like $0.75/hr each year and see how it goes. I’d keep going until I started seeing the first signs of problems, considering the cases made by various economists on the situation.
If our current congress, and politics in general, weren’t so fncked, legislation to that general effect would probably be feasible. If…
I think I’ve mentioned before my wish for a virtual alternate universe, with no actual people experiencing actual suffering, in which to test a $15/hr (or whatever number – $18/hr?) minimum wage. (Even if I had the power to try it in this universe, I’m not sure I’d have the courage, unintended consequences being what they are.)
My guess (including all that follows here) is that, phased in gradually over a number of years, there wouldn’t be much downside. Implented fully on day one, there would be disruption, with some businesses not modeled for that being unable to adjust and going under. But, even in the latter case, in time, the higher wages would kick up demand such that any business worth its salt would be able to afford the new minimum wage. Profit margins would get squeezed some, but not problematically so. Same for increased inflation.
One concern would be outsourcing. We already can’t compete with many other countries because of labor costs, right? Well, some jobs can’t be outsourced. And how many jobs in the range between the current minimum wage and the new minimum wage are there that could be outsourced? How many actually would? At what point would the new minimum wage make enough of a marginal difference in the cost of a given worker for an employer to send that work out of the country? (I don’t claim to know, which is why I’d love to be able to test it, harmlessly.)
In the real world, had I the power, I’d raise the minimum wage something like $0.75/hr each year and see how it goes. I’d keep going until I started seeing the first signs of problems, considering the cases made by various economists on the situation.
If our current congress, and politics in general, weren’t so fncked, legislation to that general effect would probably be feasible. If…
Russell wrote:
“What I am a fan of is income DISTRIBUTION, up front, no remedial faux-charitable gestures required.”
hairshirthedonist wrote:
“I’d keep going until I started seeing the first signs of problems, considering the cases made by various economists on the situation.”
The first signs of trouble would emanate from these guys (see below), the big institutional investors who would counsel company boards to fire as many employees as possible as the first tranche of six bit minimum wage raises was about to go into effect.
Russell’s would be met with Biblical verses of why this can’t be done, and failing that, wage inflation hawks would be trotted out willy-nilly to point out that full employment at high wages would have a detrimental effect of yacht sales.
Of course, any threat to the bonuses of these guys is tantamount to a train ride to Auschwitz and/or (could be both) a reinstitution of the Confederate slave trade.
Just like defunding Obamacare is something Rosa Parks might do, because the back of the medical care bus can serve as an ambulance too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/wall-street-tycoons-are-very-very-hurt-all-criticism-theyve-gotten
I’m here to report that Brian Wilson and John Lennon have been consulted (the first through repeatedly snapping of fingers to get his attention and the second through seance) and both favor hairshirt’s tax remedy for swerving high frequency trading profits toward societal needs, not that any of that will ever happen, because …. liquidity … don’t you know.
Early on, because of some strange quasi-dyslexia from which I suffer, I used to pronounce to my myself hairshirthedonist as hairshirt the donist, like some sort of martyred orthodonist.
Russell wrote:
“What I am a fan of is income DISTRIBUTION, up front, no remedial faux-charitable gestures required.”
hairshirthedonist wrote:
“I’d keep going until I started seeing the first signs of problems, considering the cases made by various economists on the situation.”
The first signs of trouble would emanate from these guys (see below), the big institutional investors who would counsel company boards to fire as many employees as possible as the first tranche of six bit minimum wage raises was about to go into effect.
Russell’s would be met with Biblical verses of why this can’t be done, and failing that, wage inflation hawks would be trotted out willy-nilly to point out that full employment at high wages would have a detrimental effect of yacht sales.
Of course, any threat to the bonuses of these guys is tantamount to a train ride to Auschwitz and/or (could be both) a reinstitution of the Confederate slave trade.
Just like defunding Obamacare is something Rosa Parks might do, because the back of the medical care bus can serve as an ambulance too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/wall-street-tycoons-are-very-very-hurt-all-criticism-theyve-gotten
I’m here to report that Brian Wilson and John Lennon have been consulted (the first through repeatedly snapping of fingers to get his attention and the second through seance) and both favor hairshirt’s tax remedy for swerving high frequency trading profits toward societal needs, not that any of that will ever happen, because …. liquidity … don’t you know.
Early on, because of some strange quasi-dyslexia from which I suffer, I used to pronounce to my myself hairshirthedonist as hairshirt the donist, like some sort of martyred orthodonist.
Hope that clarifies my position.
It does indeed. Thanks.
Hope that clarifies my position.
It does indeed. Thanks.
The first signs of trouble would emanate from these guys (see below), the big institutional investors
Screw them.
Eileen Fisher, owner and principal of a very popular and successful line of women’s clothing:
At Eileen Fisher (the company) something like 25% of profits go to the employees, each and every year.
If the company does well, everybody does well.
Last year they had a good year, and that worked out to about 11 weeks salary, as a bonus.
They’re not a public company, so Ms. Fisher and her board can do whatever the hell they like with a bunch of Wall St jerks telling them the ROI is not big enough.
They have a great product that people like, the benefits are great for everyone who works there, everybody (including Ms Fisher) is making money.
That’s the way it’s done.
What we need is a change in the culture, and a change in the assumptions about the relationship of employees to the enterprises they work for.
Some people get it, some don’t.
Companies that don’t take on mountains of debt, that fund growth from their own revenue, that have reasonable expectations about how much and how fast they are going to grow, and that keep their focus on actually providing value to their customers, instead of to whatever anonymous crew of greedheads owns their paper, can do stuff like this.
It’s not rocket science.
It’s primarily a matter of what your assumptions are about the relationship of an enterprise to the people who actually do the stuff that your customers pay for.
Not complicated.
Sorry, this is totally off topic for the thread, it just pisses me off that this is seen as some weird mystery.
Gee, why doesn’t anyone have any money? Why is everyone on food stamps?
Because the “investment class” has to extract their vig before anybody else gets paid.
That’s why.
The first signs of trouble would emanate from these guys (see below), the big institutional investors
Screw them.
Eileen Fisher, owner and principal of a very popular and successful line of women’s clothing:
At Eileen Fisher (the company) something like 25% of profits go to the employees, each and every year.
If the company does well, everybody does well.
Last year they had a good year, and that worked out to about 11 weeks salary, as a bonus.
They’re not a public company, so Ms. Fisher and her board can do whatever the hell they like with a bunch of Wall St jerks telling them the ROI is not big enough.
They have a great product that people like, the benefits are great for everyone who works there, everybody (including Ms Fisher) is making money.
That’s the way it’s done.
What we need is a change in the culture, and a change in the assumptions about the relationship of employees to the enterprises they work for.
Some people get it, some don’t.
Companies that don’t take on mountains of debt, that fund growth from their own revenue, that have reasonable expectations about how much and how fast they are going to grow, and that keep their focus on actually providing value to their customers, instead of to whatever anonymous crew of greedheads owns their paper, can do stuff like this.
It’s not rocket science.
It’s primarily a matter of what your assumptions are about the relationship of an enterprise to the people who actually do the stuff that your customers pay for.
Not complicated.
Sorry, this is totally off topic for the thread, it just pisses me off that this is seen as some weird mystery.
Gee, why doesn’t anyone have any money? Why is everyone on food stamps?
Because the “investment class” has to extract their vig before anybody else gets paid.
That’s why.
and, of course:
Ms. Fisher and her board can do whatever the hell they like *WITHOUT* a bunch of Wall St jerks telling them the ROI is not big enough.
Read before posting. Duh.
and, of course:
Ms. Fisher and her board can do whatever the hell they like *WITHOUT* a bunch of Wall St jerks telling them the ROI is not big enough.
Read before posting. Duh.
SSN, in theory is not redistributive, Medicare and Medicaid are. Food stamps are.
In fact SSN benefits are mildly tilted toward those whose working income is in the lower end of the spectrum. Disability payments are also distributed to many with little/no income history.
Medicare/Medicaide are largely financed by taxes on wage income. So, it’s not “all” redistributionist. Anybody on Medicaide essentially has nothing in the way of financial assets, or they would not qualify for the program.
Food Stamps should be viewed as a subsidy for, you know, eating. Why this particular subsidy is worse than the many others we have is a mystery to me. If we starved all our poor, who would clean the toilets? Indeed, concentrating righteous conservative indignation on a $46billion/year program in a $13TRILLION/year economy strikes me as simply callous or laughable. Take your pick.
SSN, in theory is not redistributive, Medicare and Medicaid are. Food stamps are.
In fact SSN benefits are mildly tilted toward those whose working income is in the lower end of the spectrum. Disability payments are also distributed to many with little/no income history.
Medicare/Medicaide are largely financed by taxes on wage income. So, it’s not “all” redistributionist. Anybody on Medicaide essentially has nothing in the way of financial assets, or they would not qualify for the program.
Food Stamps should be viewed as a subsidy for, you know, eating. Why this particular subsidy is worse than the many others we have is a mystery to me. If we starved all our poor, who would clean the toilets? Indeed, concentrating righteous conservative indignation on a $46billion/year program in a $13TRILLION/year economy strikes me as simply callous or laughable. Take your pick.
said it before, i’ll say it again: i grew up in a poor family, on every kind of assistance there was. by whatever chance, i’m a successful programmer and have paid more in taxes than my mother, sisters and i ever got from the government.
what the taxpayers of the late 70’s paid me turned out to be an excellent investment on their part. and i thank them for the startup capital.
and now i want to provide that same opportunity to someone else. and these government programs are a great way to do it.
said it before, i’ll say it again: i grew up in a poor family, on every kind of assistance there was. by whatever chance, i’m a successful programmer and have paid more in taxes than my mother, sisters and i ever got from the government.
what the taxpayers of the late 70’s paid me turned out to be an excellent investment on their part. and i thank them for the startup capital.
and now i want to provide that same opportunity to someone else. and these government programs are a great way to do it.
I could see taking e.g. ag subsidies and having that be purely food-for-the-needy funding. Probably wouldn’t be enough by itself, but it’s not negligible.
Also, end every “energy”-related effort that incentivizes corn production for ethanol. It doesn’t do what was intended, and has the non-salutory effect of driving food prices up not only here by worldwide, from what I have heard.
Just looking for places where bobbyp and I might not be in so violent a disagreement. There’s some locus that fits that description, I think.
I could see taking e.g. ag subsidies and having that be purely food-for-the-needy funding. Probably wouldn’t be enough by itself, but it’s not negligible.
Also, end every “energy”-related effort that incentivizes corn production for ethanol. It doesn’t do what was intended, and has the non-salutory effect of driving food prices up not only here by worldwide, from what I have heard.
Just looking for places where bobbyp and I might not be in so violent a disagreement. There’s some locus that fits that description, I think.
“If we starved all our poor, who would clean the toilets?”
If they don’t clean the toilets, then they should starve, I think someone, yeah, this guy, said the other day:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/21/republican-congressman-tells-constituent-asking-about-food-stamp-cuts-let-him-not-eat/
To paraphrase the congressman “If anyone is not willing to clean toilets, they can eat sh*t, thereby cleaning the toilets while reducing overhead.”
I believe the Congressman hired an American, or an illegal immigrant, to clean his toilet but the cleaner of toilets requested a .25 cent raise and directions to the Obamacare health exchange, so now the Congressman has outsourced the work (God’s work, after all; a little work never hurt anyone, so do more of it until it hurts, at which point we’ll set you free, which I believe was a slogan hung somewhere) so after each bowel movement the Congressman ships the fully loaded toilet (flushing sends the product of his fundament down a pipe which at some point leads to a Federal government sanitation regulation before rejoining the private sector water supply, and we can’t have that …. Atlas Shrugged, Chapter 11, paragraph 3 thru 6026) to the cheapest labor sump at any one time in the world and its shipped back to him within 36 hours to start the Republican pollution all over again.
See, I once marveled at the Republican Party’s uneasy truce between the God-fearing Jesus barkers, the conservative incentive/disincentive school of economics, and the Ayn Rand-fearing libertarian wing.
But I see how they manage it now. They work as a tag team: if you’re not convinced by the Milton Friedman/Wall Street Journal economic reasoning behind starving the poor, off they hand you to the Bible thumper who steps into the ring proffering pithy starve-or-else fundamental Gospel, and if you don’t buy that, in steps the hammer, the gun-wielding libertarian who mansplains those hunger pangs to you in 47 minute monologues lifted directly from John Galt punctuated by some slithery heavy breathing from Dagny Taggart.
Despite all of that, I agree that ethanol subsidies should be redirected though the “purely” in “food for the needy funding” leaves me feeling hungry for more, as in, I don’t believe there should be a work requirement for receiving government medical insurance and care.
If we wanted purity in doling out the free necessities, we’d start with “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not breath” which I believe Ted Cruz was recruited into the Party to offer as sage advice if a fourth tag team member is needed.
“If we starved all our poor, who would clean the toilets?”
If they don’t clean the toilets, then they should starve, I think someone, yeah, this guy, said the other day:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/21/republican-congressman-tells-constituent-asking-about-food-stamp-cuts-let-him-not-eat/
To paraphrase the congressman “If anyone is not willing to clean toilets, they can eat sh*t, thereby cleaning the toilets while reducing overhead.”
I believe the Congressman hired an American, or an illegal immigrant, to clean his toilet but the cleaner of toilets requested a .25 cent raise and directions to the Obamacare health exchange, so now the Congressman has outsourced the work (God’s work, after all; a little work never hurt anyone, so do more of it until it hurts, at which point we’ll set you free, which I believe was a slogan hung somewhere) so after each bowel movement the Congressman ships the fully loaded toilet (flushing sends the product of his fundament down a pipe which at some point leads to a Federal government sanitation regulation before rejoining the private sector water supply, and we can’t have that …. Atlas Shrugged, Chapter 11, paragraph 3 thru 6026) to the cheapest labor sump at any one time in the world and its shipped back to him within 36 hours to start the Republican pollution all over again.
See, I once marveled at the Republican Party’s uneasy truce between the God-fearing Jesus barkers, the conservative incentive/disincentive school of economics, and the Ayn Rand-fearing libertarian wing.
But I see how they manage it now. They work as a tag team: if you’re not convinced by the Milton Friedman/Wall Street Journal economic reasoning behind starving the poor, off they hand you to the Bible thumper who steps into the ring proffering pithy starve-or-else fundamental Gospel, and if you don’t buy that, in steps the hammer, the gun-wielding libertarian who mansplains those hunger pangs to you in 47 minute monologues lifted directly from John Galt punctuated by some slithery heavy breathing from Dagny Taggart.
Despite all of that, I agree that ethanol subsidies should be redirected though the “purely” in “food for the needy funding” leaves me feeling hungry for more, as in, I don’t believe there should be a work requirement for receiving government medical insurance and care.
If we wanted purity in doling out the free necessities, we’d start with “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not breath” which I believe Ted Cruz was recruited into the Party to offer as sage advice if a fourth tag team member is needed.
Early on, because of some strange quasi-dyslexia from which I suffer, I used to pronounce to my myself hairshirthedonist as hairshirt the donist, like some sort of martyred orthodonist.
I wonder if it’s too late to hyphenate (rhyming unintentionally). Eh, why bother? Mild confusion is more fun.
Early on, because of some strange quasi-dyslexia from which I suffer, I used to pronounce to my myself hairshirthedonist as hairshirt the donist, like some sort of martyred orthodonist.
I wonder if it’s too late to hyphenate (rhyming unintentionally). Eh, why bother? Mild confusion is more fun.
See, if you wait for a very short time in today’s fast-moving world, the triple threads of who’s cleaning the toilets, irresponsible gun ownership, and Capitol Hill efforts to starve the toilet cleaners get tied into one very neat news bundle:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/today-in-responsible-gun-ownership-092413
See, if you wait for a very short time in today’s fast-moving world, the triple threads of who’s cleaning the toilets, irresponsible gun ownership, and Capitol Hill efforts to starve the toilet cleaners get tied into one very neat news bundle:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/today-in-responsible-gun-ownership-092413
From the count’s link:
The incident report states that the gun “was fully loaded with one round in the chamber and six rounds in the magazine.” Capitol police returned the gun to Evans after Jones’ secretary Lisa Bondurant called to report that it was misplaced.
My druthers, if you leave a loaded pistol with one in the chamber on top of the toilet in a public loo, you forfeit your concealed carry license.
That’s just the way I roll. Call me crazy.
Since we seem to be injecting every other topic of conversation into this thread, I just thought I’d chime in on that as well.
From the count’s link:
The incident report states that the gun “was fully loaded with one round in the chamber and six rounds in the magazine.” Capitol police returned the gun to Evans after Jones’ secretary Lisa Bondurant called to report that it was misplaced.
My druthers, if you leave a loaded pistol with one in the chamber on top of the toilet in a public loo, you forfeit your concealed carry license.
That’s just the way I roll. Call me crazy.
Since we seem to be injecting every other topic of conversation into this thread, I just thought I’d chime in on that as well.
Just looking for places where bobbyp and I might not be in so violent a disagreement.
Ethanol subsidies appear to have gone off the rails as an effective policy, so sure, that’s an ax I would consider, but you absolutely must let me divide by zero or I get off my game. That or give me strokes.
Just looking for places where bobbyp and I might not be in so violent a disagreement.
Ethanol subsidies appear to have gone off the rails as an effective policy, so sure, that’s an ax I would consider, but you absolutely must let me divide by zero or I get off my game. That or give me strokes.
I’d favor confiscating their right to use the toilet, even in their homes, as well, but I’m afraid the NRA and the National Potty Council would merely outfit their members with concealed colostomy bags and diapers, amid some Sturm and Drang rhetoric declaring that the Second Amendment absolutely secures the right to poop.
Although given the sh*t that comes out of Ted Cruz’s mouth, I think the First Amendment would be a better claim in the Supreme Court, despite the fact that Justice Thomas has only hit the head once during his Court tenure.
I’d favor confiscating their right to use the toilet, even in their homes, as well, but I’m afraid the NRA and the National Potty Council would merely outfit their members with concealed colostomy bags and diapers, amid some Sturm and Drang rhetoric declaring that the Second Amendment absolutely secures the right to poop.
Although given the sh*t that comes out of Ted Cruz’s mouth, I think the First Amendment would be a better claim in the Supreme Court, despite the fact that Justice Thomas has only hit the head once during his Court tenure.
The pharmaceutical companies would have you believe that a cure for Erectile Dysfunction is recent with the discovery of Sidenafil (Viagra). There have been effective natural cures for Erectile Dysfunction for thousands of years. In more recent years with the introduction of modern extraction techniques used when manufacturing today’s capsules and tablets the active ingredients are able to be taken up by the body more easily, making them even more effective.
The pharmaceutical companies would have you believe that a cure for Erectile Dysfunction is recent with the discovery of Sidenafil (Viagra). There have been effective natural cures for Erectile Dysfunction for thousands of years. In more recent years with the introduction of modern extraction techniques used when manufacturing today’s capsules and tablets the active ingredients are able to be taken up by the body more easily, making them even more effective.