by Ugh
It seems Scott Walker is an incredibly bad candidate and all foam/no beer to boot. We have Trump running circles around him and the rest of the, uh, distinguished gentlemen (and Ms. Fiorina) with nothing more than his hair and "BLARGH! I STRONG!" as a campaign. Jeebus.
So, despite my earlier thought that Walker would win the GOP nomination, it seems we'll have the Donald,* who I predict will pick Cruz as his running mate as a kind of "let's piss off the liberals" selection.
Anyway, talk about this, or the MTV VMAs (who are all those people?), or US Open Tennis, or the coming football season (professional or college), Mount Denali, the new school year, or whatever.
*But it's still only August 2015 you say – too bad, bring me The Donald!
Since Trump is running on “I am not a politician,” he wouldn’t want to detract from that by choosing a politician as a running mate. So figure him to go with Fiorina.
Think about it. Trump has ended up in bankruptcy; Fiorina didn’t quite manage to drive HP into bankruptcy (which is why, I suppose, she ends up with the second slot), but she definitely gave it a go. Trump has no experience in campaigning; Fiorina has campaign experience (against Senator Boxer) but is demostrably terrible at it. Trump is all bluster about “business experience is enough; who needs policies?” Fiorina ran on her business experience as well.
In short, it’s a match made in heaven. Unless you care about a) winning elections, or b) the country.
Since Trump is running on “I am not a politician,” he wouldn’t want to detract from that by choosing a politician as a running mate. So figure him to go with Fiorina.
Think about it. Trump has ended up in bankruptcy; Fiorina didn’t quite manage to drive HP into bankruptcy (which is why, I suppose, she ends up with the second slot), but she definitely gave it a go. Trump has no experience in campaigning; Fiorina has campaign experience (against Senator Boxer) but is demostrably terrible at it. Trump is all bluster about “business experience is enough; who needs policies?” Fiorina ran on her business experience as well.
In short, it’s a match made in heaven. Unless you care about a) winning elections, or b) the country.
Since Trump is running on “I am not a politician,” he wouldn’t want to detract from that by choosing a politician as a running mate. So figure him to go with Fiorina.
Think about it. Trump has ended up in bankruptcy; Fiorina didn’t quite manage to drive HP into bankruptcy (which is why, I suppose, she ends up with the second slot), but she definitely gave it a go. Trump has no experience in campaigning; Fiorina has campaign experience (against Senator Boxer) but is demostrably terrible at it. Trump is all bluster about “business experience is enough; who needs policies?” Fiorina ran on her business experience as well.
In short, it’s a match made in heaven. Unless you care about a) winning elections, or b) the country.
Deport all them ‘Mexicans, you say? Why not take a little look at the policies that drove them here:
http://www.weareoneamerica.org/root-causes-immigration-nafta
Thank you so much, Bill, Hillary, and, of course, a special h/t to our economic elite.
Deport all them ‘Mexicans, you say? Why not take a little look at the policies that drove them here:
http://www.weareoneamerica.org/root-causes-immigration-nafta
Thank you so much, Bill, Hillary, and, of course, a special h/t to our economic elite.
Deport all them ‘Mexicans, you say? Why not take a little look at the policies that drove them here:
http://www.weareoneamerica.org/root-causes-immigration-nafta
Thank you so much, Bill, Hillary, and, of course, a special h/t to our economic elite.
Whenever somebody opines that government should be “run like a business” (entities which, for the most part are run like petty dictatorships, but I digress), I reach for my wallet.
Whenever somebody opines that government should be “run like a business” (entities which, for the most part are run like petty dictatorships, but I digress), I reach for my wallet.
Whenever somebody opines that government should be “run like a business” (entities which, for the most part are run like petty dictatorships, but I digress), I reach for my wallet.
Now, the burning issue of the day is this. Will a Trump/whomever administration reverse Obama’s unconstitutional overreach and overturn his renaming of Mt McKinnley to Denali?
Obviously no mind should be paid to the fact that Alaska’s legislature (majority REpublican), both of its Senators (also Republicans), and its Congressmen all have been pushing for years to have the name changed. So what if this was the Federal government doing what a state wanted? Who cares about states rights in a case like this? If Obama did it, it simply must have been an evil, anti-American action.
Now, the burning issue of the day is this. Will a Trump/whomever administration reverse Obama’s unconstitutional overreach and overturn his renaming of Mt McKinnley to Denali?
Obviously no mind should be paid to the fact that Alaska’s legislature (majority REpublican), both of its Senators (also Republicans), and its Congressmen all have been pushing for years to have the name changed. So what if this was the Federal government doing what a state wanted? Who cares about states rights in a case like this? If Obama did it, it simply must have been an evil, anti-American action.
Now, the burning issue of the day is this. Will a Trump/whomever administration reverse Obama’s unconstitutional overreach and overturn his renaming of Mt McKinnley to Denali?
Obviously no mind should be paid to the fact that Alaska’s legislature (majority REpublican), both of its Senators (also Republicans), and its Congressmen all have been pushing for years to have the name changed. So what if this was the Federal government doing what a state wanted? Who cares about states rights in a case like this? If Obama did it, it simply must have been an evil, anti-American action.
Trump is a populist. Should he come to the choosing of a running mate, choosing a general with war command experience would make a perfect populist combination. For einstance, General McChrystal would be a great example: A billionaire to save the economy, a war-hero dismissed by Obama to care for foreign policy. You could not get any more Caesarist than that.
Though McChrystal seems to be a Democrat, in fact.
Trump is a populist. Should he come to the choosing of a running mate, choosing a general with war command experience would make a perfect populist combination. For einstance, General McChrystal would be a great example: A billionaire to save the economy, a war-hero dismissed by Obama to care for foreign policy. You could not get any more Caesarist than that.
Though McChrystal seems to be a Democrat, in fact.
Trump is a populist. Should he come to the choosing of a running mate, choosing a general with war command experience would make a perfect populist combination. For einstance, General McChrystal would be a great example: A billionaire to save the economy, a war-hero dismissed by Obama to care for foreign policy. You could not get any more Caesarist than that.
Though McChrystal seems to be a Democrat, in fact.
I understand that the first option for renaming McKinnley was Mt Bucket…
I understand that the first option for renaming McKinnley was Mt Bucket…
I understand that the first option for renaming McKinnley was Mt Bucket…
So what if this was the Federal government doing what a state wanted? Who cares about states rights in a case like this?
Hey, it’s the sacred state’s right of Ohio to push the state of Alaska around!
So what if this was the Federal government doing what a state wanted? Who cares about states rights in a case like this?
Hey, it’s the sacred state’s right of Ohio to push the state of Alaska around!
So what if this was the Federal government doing what a state wanted? Who cares about states rights in a case like this?
Hey, it’s the sacred state’s right of Ohio to push the state of Alaska around!
why, it’s almost as if the GOP is dedicated to sustaining a state of hyperventilating mindless outrage among the faithful, and will use any event as pretext to keep the rubes riled.
why, it’s almost as if the GOP is dedicated to sustaining a state of hyperventilating mindless outrage among the faithful, and will use any event as pretext to keep the rubes riled.
why, it’s almost as if the GOP is dedicated to sustaining a state of hyperventilating mindless outrage among the faithful, and will use any event as pretext to keep the rubes riled.
I bid one No Trump.
I bid one No Trump.
I bid one No Trump.
why, it’s almost as if the GOP is dedicated to sustaining a state of hyperventilating mindless outrage among the faithful, and will use any event as pretext to keep the rubes riled.
23 Katrinas
why, it’s almost as if the GOP is dedicated to sustaining a state of hyperventilating mindless outrage among the faithful, and will use any event as pretext to keep the rubes riled.
23 Katrinas
why, it’s almost as if the GOP is dedicated to sustaining a state of hyperventilating mindless outrage among the faithful, and will use any event as pretext to keep the rubes riled.
23 Katrinas
Trump/Cruz v Sanders/MoldyCheeseSandwich is a contest i’d love to see.
Trump/Cruz v Sanders/MoldyCheeseSandwich is a contest i’d love to see.
Trump/Cruz v Sanders/MoldyCheeseSandwich is a contest i’d love to see.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/252393-poll-majority-of-republicans-thinks-obama-is-a-muslim
If he really wanted to make the Earth shake with the strength of a hundred million murderous Republican jerking knees, Obama could have renamed McKinley “rawasiya for mountains, and tameeda for tumble/shake/quake/convulse/sway etc.”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains
He’s really too politically correct when it comes to his mortal domestic enemies.
Speaking of politically correct outrage mongers from Ohio, the word “ohio” in the language of the Iroquois, who lived in Ohio when it was home to a more sensible, civilized people, means “great river”.
And I think the word is a greeting in Japanese. That’s multicultural beyond the call of duty.
And what’s with Cincinnati (near where I was born) and Columbus? Those are politically correct furriner Italian names. Not an American among em.
Next up, if he wants to appeal to the excruciatingly sensitive politically correct standards of right-wingers in “Ohio”, if you’ll pardon my French, Obama should unilaterally rename the state “North Crackerland” or “Land of the Setting Sh*theads”.
I have great fondness for Ohio. Too bad right-wing vermin have ruined yet another state.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/252393-poll-majority-of-republicans-thinks-obama-is-a-muslim
If he really wanted to make the Earth shake with the strength of a hundred million murderous Republican jerking knees, Obama could have renamed McKinley “rawasiya for mountains, and tameeda for tumble/shake/quake/convulse/sway etc.”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains
He’s really too politically correct when it comes to his mortal domestic enemies.
Speaking of politically correct outrage mongers from Ohio, the word “ohio” in the language of the Iroquois, who lived in Ohio when it was home to a more sensible, civilized people, means “great river”.
And I think the word is a greeting in Japanese. That’s multicultural beyond the call of duty.
And what’s with Cincinnati (near where I was born) and Columbus? Those are politically correct furriner Italian names. Not an American among em.
Next up, if he wants to appeal to the excruciatingly sensitive politically correct standards of right-wingers in “Ohio”, if you’ll pardon my French, Obama should unilaterally rename the state “North Crackerland” or “Land of the Setting Sh*theads”.
I have great fondness for Ohio. Too bad right-wing vermin have ruined yet another state.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/252393-poll-majority-of-republicans-thinks-obama-is-a-muslim
If he really wanted to make the Earth shake with the strength of a hundred million murderous Republican jerking knees, Obama could have renamed McKinley “rawasiya for mountains, and tameeda for tumble/shake/quake/convulse/sway etc.”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Quran_and_Mountains
He’s really too politically correct when it comes to his mortal domestic enemies.
Speaking of politically correct outrage mongers from Ohio, the word “ohio” in the language of the Iroquois, who lived in Ohio when it was home to a more sensible, civilized people, means “great river”.
And I think the word is a greeting in Japanese. That’s multicultural beyond the call of duty.
And what’s with Cincinnati (near where I was born) and Columbus? Those are politically correct furriner Italian names. Not an American among em.
Next up, if he wants to appeal to the excruciatingly sensitive politically correct standards of right-wingers in “Ohio”, if you’ll pardon my French, Obama should unilaterally rename the state “North Crackerland” or “Land of the Setting Sh*theads”.
I have great fondness for Ohio. Too bad right-wing vermin have ruined yet another state.
Well, Alaska is not REALLY USian.
1) it’s not connected to the bulk of the US (neither is Hawaii, a place that many do not believe to be a US state)
2) it was bought, not properly conquered or stolen.
3) it was once Russian and is thus irredeemably tainted (see what a permanent commie hellhole California became after a much shorter period of Russian settlement)
4) there are still people around that were born in that part of the world before it became a US state, bringing extra complexity to the ‘natural born’ conundrum.
5) there is still an independence party there but not one with ties to the only proper entity of its kind, the old Confederacy, so they cannot be true patriots.
Ohio on the other hand has none of those handicaps.
Well, Alaska is not REALLY USian.
1) it’s not connected to the bulk of the US (neither is Hawaii, a place that many do not believe to be a US state)
2) it was bought, not properly conquered or stolen.
3) it was once Russian and is thus irredeemably tainted (see what a permanent commie hellhole California became after a much shorter period of Russian settlement)
4) there are still people around that were born in that part of the world before it became a US state, bringing extra complexity to the ‘natural born’ conundrum.
5) there is still an independence party there but not one with ties to the only proper entity of its kind, the old Confederacy, so they cannot be true patriots.
Ohio on the other hand has none of those handicaps.
Well, Alaska is not REALLY USian.
1) it’s not connected to the bulk of the US (neither is Hawaii, a place that many do not believe to be a US state)
2) it was bought, not properly conquered or stolen.
3) it was once Russian and is thus irredeemably tainted (see what a permanent commie hellhole California became after a much shorter period of Russian settlement)
4) there are still people around that were born in that part of the world before it became a US state, bringing extra complexity to the ‘natural born’ conundrum.
5) there is still an independence party there but not one with ties to the only proper entity of its kind, the old Confederacy, so they cannot be true patriots.
Ohio on the other hand has none of those handicaps.
There’s a simple solution to Ohio’s complaint–rename Campbell Hill as Mt McKinley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Hill_(Ohio)
Solves the political problem and Bellfontaine Ohio probably gets some tourist traffic and maybe a few confused mountain climbers.
There’s a simple solution to Ohio’s complaint–rename Campbell Hill as Mt McKinley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Hill_(Ohio)
Solves the political problem and Bellfontaine Ohio probably gets some tourist traffic and maybe a few confused mountain climbers.
There’s a simple solution to Ohio’s complaint–rename Campbell Hill as Mt McKinley.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Hill_(Ohio)
Solves the political problem and Bellfontaine Ohio probably gets some tourist traffic and maybe a few confused mountain climbers.
If people in State A get to name things in State B, then I have a bunch of names I’d like to slap all over Texas. I’m sure they’d come to love them in time, but it might take a century or two.
Alaska might want to propose a new name for Columbus OH. How about “Blubber” ?
If people in State A get to name things in State B, then I have a bunch of names I’d like to slap all over Texas. I’m sure they’d come to love them in time, but it might take a century or two.
Alaska might want to propose a new name for Columbus OH. How about “Blubber” ?
If people in State A get to name things in State B, then I have a bunch of names I’d like to slap all over Texas. I’m sure they’d come to love them in time, but it might take a century or two.
Alaska might want to propose a new name for Columbus OH. How about “Blubber” ?
As far as the State A vs B thing, I would look to see whose province is the naming of geography in national parks.
If it’s Congress, then yes, everyone has a legitimate say. In general, everyone has a say in some sense because it’s our collective government.
But I don’t think there are enough people who really don’t want it to be Denali to hold sway in any case, so it all comes down to some people kvetching and other people kvetching about the kvetching.
And a smaller, third group of people who just don’t care all that much, other than to briefly thumb their noses at the other two in blog comments.
As far as the State A vs B thing, I would look to see whose province is the naming of geography in national parks.
If it’s Congress, then yes, everyone has a legitimate say. In general, everyone has a say in some sense because it’s our collective government.
But I don’t think there are enough people who really don’t want it to be Denali to hold sway in any case, so it all comes down to some people kvetching and other people kvetching about the kvetching.
And a smaller, third group of people who just don’t care all that much, other than to briefly thumb their noses at the other two in blog comments.
As far as the State A vs B thing, I would look to see whose province is the naming of geography in national parks.
If it’s Congress, then yes, everyone has a legitimate say. In general, everyone has a say in some sense because it’s our collective government.
But I don’t think there are enough people who really don’t want it to be Denali to hold sway in any case, so it all comes down to some people kvetching and other people kvetching about the kvetching.
And a smaller, third group of people who just don’t care all that much, other than to briefly thumb their noses at the other two in blog comments.
I would look to see whose province is the naming of geography in national parks.
apparently, it’s the Dept o’ Interior and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. either can do it.
Congress doesn’t, officially, get a say.
I would look to see whose province is the naming of geography in national parks.
apparently, it’s the Dept o’ Interior and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. either can do it.
Congress doesn’t, officially, get a say.
I would look to see whose province is the naming of geography in national parks.
apparently, it’s the Dept o’ Interior and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. either can do it.
Congress doesn’t, officially, get a say.
The memo removing any sense of the dreaded “collective” in government, or just about anything else, went out some time ago.
The memo removing any sense of the dreaded “collective” in government, or just about anything else, went out some time ago.
The memo removing any sense of the dreaded “collective” in government, or just about anything else, went out some time ago.
A modest proposal for the renaming of Washington, in the (unlikely) event of the Donald outbidding Slart’s one No Trump…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpton
A modest proposal for the renaming of Washington, in the (unlikely) event of the Donald outbidding Slart’s one No Trump…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpton
A modest proposal for the renaming of Washington, in the (unlikely) event of the Donald outbidding Slart’s one No Trump…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpton
If you attended Ohio State, every mountain is Peak Woody Hayes.
Actually, I thought Obama should take up Breitbart hack Ben Shapiro’s suggestion that McKinley be renamed Mt. Trayvon.
To be fair and balanced, which I strive to be, the cyst on Rush Limbaugh’s alternative piehole should be renamed Mount Zimmerman, from its present moniker “Ronny”.
If you attended Ohio State, every mountain is Peak Woody Hayes.
Actually, I thought Obama should take up Breitbart hack Ben Shapiro’s suggestion that McKinley be renamed Mt. Trayvon.
To be fair and balanced, which I strive to be, the cyst on Rush Limbaugh’s alternative piehole should be renamed Mount Zimmerman, from its present moniker “Ronny”.
If you attended Ohio State, every mountain is Peak Woody Hayes.
Actually, I thought Obama should take up Breitbart hack Ben Shapiro’s suggestion that McKinley be renamed Mt. Trayvon.
To be fair and balanced, which I strive to be, the cyst on Rush Limbaugh’s alternative piehole should be renamed Mount Zimmerman, from its present moniker “Ronny”.
Get em while they’re hot:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flamethrower-sales-boom-on-potential-consumer-ban–weird-business-news-182735902.html#
In Texas, you can open carry a flamethrower into Chili’s and cook your fajitas table side, not to mention singe the eyebrows any threatening unarmed liberals who object.
Get em while they’re hot:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flamethrower-sales-boom-on-potential-consumer-ban–weird-business-news-182735902.html#
In Texas, you can open carry a flamethrower into Chili’s and cook your fajitas table side, not to mention singe the eyebrows any threatening unarmed liberals who object.
Get em while they’re hot:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flamethrower-sales-boom-on-potential-consumer-ban–weird-business-news-182735902.html#
In Texas, you can open carry a flamethrower into Chili’s and cook your fajitas table side, not to mention singe the eyebrows any threatening unarmed liberals who object.
such a big country. so many big dumb men so worried about their little tiny penises.
such a big country. so many big dumb men so worried about their little tiny penises.
such a big country. so many big dumb men so worried about their little tiny penises.
Flamethrowers are exactly what is needed for the ‘open carry’ finales of the GOP nominating debates.
It’s just too bad that the candidates and FOX are too wussified to allow it.
Flamethrowers are exactly what is needed for the ‘open carry’ finales of the GOP nominating debates.
It’s just too bad that the candidates and FOX are too wussified to allow it.
Flamethrowers are exactly what is needed for the ‘open carry’ finales of the GOP nominating debates.
It’s just too bad that the candidates and FOX are too wussified to allow it.
Slartibartfast,
Getting a feature entirely inside your state renamed simply requires some paperwork and a few hoops, then the US Board of Geographic Names will then recognize the new name as official and recognize the name on new maps.
Alaska completed the required steps in 1975.
However, there is one caveat — the US Board of Geographic Names cannot rename a feature if there is a bill in Congress that session dealing with the name of said feature. (Under the theory, yes, the US Board is subordinate and if Congress is about to rename it all bets are off and all paperwork and hoops will have to be redone from the start).
So since 1975, a Ohio Rep has yearly introduced a bill about the name of Mt. McKinley and then tabled it. It’s never brought up to a vote, or even to a committee. It’s just a bill name.
Which neatly prevents the US Board from processing Alaska’s request.
Slartibartfast,
Getting a feature entirely inside your state renamed simply requires some paperwork and a few hoops, then the US Board of Geographic Names will then recognize the new name as official and recognize the name on new maps.
Alaska completed the required steps in 1975.
However, there is one caveat — the US Board of Geographic Names cannot rename a feature if there is a bill in Congress that session dealing with the name of said feature. (Under the theory, yes, the US Board is subordinate and if Congress is about to rename it all bets are off and all paperwork and hoops will have to be redone from the start).
So since 1975, a Ohio Rep has yearly introduced a bill about the name of Mt. McKinley and then tabled it. It’s never brought up to a vote, or even to a committee. It’s just a bill name.
Which neatly prevents the US Board from processing Alaska’s request.
Slartibartfast,
Getting a feature entirely inside your state renamed simply requires some paperwork and a few hoops, then the US Board of Geographic Names will then recognize the new name as official and recognize the name on new maps.
Alaska completed the required steps in 1975.
However, there is one caveat — the US Board of Geographic Names cannot rename a feature if there is a bill in Congress that session dealing with the name of said feature. (Under the theory, yes, the US Board is subordinate and if Congress is about to rename it all bets are off and all paperwork and hoops will have to be redone from the start).
So since 1975, a Ohio Rep has yearly introduced a bill about the name of Mt. McKinley and then tabled it. It’s never brought up to a vote, or even to a committee. It’s just a bill name.
Which neatly prevents the US Board from processing Alaska’s request.
I’m aware of the history, Morat20, although not of the Ohio blocking maneuver.
Ohio. More full of twits than I previously knew.
My submission would be “Peak Oil”, but probably not many would be amused.
I’m aware of the history, Morat20, although not of the Ohio blocking maneuver.
Ohio. More full of twits than I previously knew.
My submission would be “Peak Oil”, but probably not many would be amused.
I’m aware of the history, Morat20, although not of the Ohio blocking maneuver.
Ohio. More full of twits than I previously knew.
My submission would be “Peak Oil”, but probably not many would be amused.
Cool. 🙂 I was aware of the basic history (Alaska wanting to change it, Ohio blocking) but had not previously known that naming it McKinley was a ‘rename’ itself, and that it was a PR move in the political feud of the day.
Which I suppose means politics remains politics, no matter the era.
Cool. 🙂 I was aware of the basic history (Alaska wanting to change it, Ohio blocking) but had not previously known that naming it McKinley was a ‘rename’ itself, and that it was a PR move in the political feud of the day.
Which I suppose means politics remains politics, no matter the era.
Cool. 🙂 I was aware of the basic history (Alaska wanting to change it, Ohio blocking) but had not previously known that naming it McKinley was a ‘rename’ itself, and that it was a PR move in the political feud of the day.
Which I suppose means politics remains politics, no matter the era.
Laura Ingraham continues to invoke Manifest Stupidity to spread American stupidity, which, among the run-of-the-mill stupidities is the most exceptional stupidity of all:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lifezette-laura-ingraham-mckinley-assasinated
The republican operative cited in ingraham’s turd of a post cites McKinley’s use of high tariffs as a good thing in comparison to Obama’s attempts to push through “free”-trade agreements.
Now, honest folks can argue all day about free trade and tariffs, but I’m increasingly having trouble distinguishing between who the free marketeers are and who the conservatives aren’t, or something.
Interestingly, McKinley’s assassin lost his job in the Panic of 1893 right in the shank of the Gilded Age and restructured himself as an anti-government anarchist. He (John Wilkes Booth no longer available to take out the RINOs) used a concealed weapon to off the President, who died somewhat later when the wound went gangrenous.
Leaving aside the fact that Larry Kudlow and a host of current right-wing ideologues would have used a flame thrower on McKinley for his sins against conservative orthodoxy, would it be too politically correct to have some empathy for gangrene?
At any rate, the whole debacle, the assassination with the guns and the concealed guns and the anti-government sentiment, etc. sounds like it could have been carried under orders from Laura Ingraham herself.
McKinley’s assassin’s rhetoric and gunlove sported all of the hallmarks of your average tea party ka-numbskull.
If he had run for office as a republican in Ted Cruz’s district, he’d have won. Trump would be floating his name as Vice Presidential material.
Elect Trump/Czolgosz in 2016
I hereby rechristen the harridan Ingraham, Mount St. Bullsh*t.
Laura Ingraham continues to invoke Manifest Stupidity to spread American stupidity, which, among the run-of-the-mill stupidities is the most exceptional stupidity of all:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lifezette-laura-ingraham-mckinley-assasinated
The republican operative cited in ingraham’s turd of a post cites McKinley’s use of high tariffs as a good thing in comparison to Obama’s attempts to push through “free”-trade agreements.
Now, honest folks can argue all day about free trade and tariffs, but I’m increasingly having trouble distinguishing between who the free marketeers are and who the conservatives aren’t, or something.
Interestingly, McKinley’s assassin lost his job in the Panic of 1893 right in the shank of the Gilded Age and restructured himself as an anti-government anarchist. He (John Wilkes Booth no longer available to take out the RINOs) used a concealed weapon to off the President, who died somewhat later when the wound went gangrenous.
Leaving aside the fact that Larry Kudlow and a host of current right-wing ideologues would have used a flame thrower on McKinley for his sins against conservative orthodoxy, would it be too politically correct to have some empathy for gangrene?
At any rate, the whole debacle, the assassination with the guns and the concealed guns and the anti-government sentiment, etc. sounds like it could have been carried under orders from Laura Ingraham herself.
McKinley’s assassin’s rhetoric and gunlove sported all of the hallmarks of your average tea party ka-numbskull.
If he had run for office as a republican in Ted Cruz’s district, he’d have won. Trump would be floating his name as Vice Presidential material.
Elect Trump/Czolgosz in 2016
I hereby rechristen the harridan Ingraham, Mount St. Bullsh*t.
Laura Ingraham continues to invoke Manifest Stupidity to spread American stupidity, which, among the run-of-the-mill stupidities is the most exceptional stupidity of all:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lifezette-laura-ingraham-mckinley-assasinated
The republican operative cited in ingraham’s turd of a post cites McKinley’s use of high tariffs as a good thing in comparison to Obama’s attempts to push through “free”-trade agreements.
Now, honest folks can argue all day about free trade and tariffs, but I’m increasingly having trouble distinguishing between who the free marketeers are and who the conservatives aren’t, or something.
Interestingly, McKinley’s assassin lost his job in the Panic of 1893 right in the shank of the Gilded Age and restructured himself as an anti-government anarchist. He (John Wilkes Booth no longer available to take out the RINOs) used a concealed weapon to off the President, who died somewhat later when the wound went gangrenous.
Leaving aside the fact that Larry Kudlow and a host of current right-wing ideologues would have used a flame thrower on McKinley for his sins against conservative orthodoxy, would it be too politically correct to have some empathy for gangrene?
At any rate, the whole debacle, the assassination with the guns and the concealed guns and the anti-government sentiment, etc. sounds like it could have been carried under orders from Laura Ingraham herself.
McKinley’s assassin’s rhetoric and gunlove sported all of the hallmarks of your average tea party ka-numbskull.
If he had run for office as a republican in Ted Cruz’s district, he’d have won. Trump would be floating his name as Vice Presidential material.
Elect Trump/Czolgosz in 2016
I hereby rechristen the harridan Ingraham, Mount St. Bullsh*t.
So since 1975, a Ohio Rep has yearly introduced a bill about the name of Mt. McKinley and then tabled it. It’s never brought up to a vote, or even to a committee.
What would happen if Alaska’s Rep was to file a discharge petition? If the bill could be force to a vote, would that leave the blocking maneuver void?
So since 1975, a Ohio Rep has yearly introduced a bill about the name of Mt. McKinley and then tabled it. It’s never brought up to a vote, or even to a committee.
What would happen if Alaska’s Rep was to file a discharge petition? If the bill could be force to a vote, would that leave the blocking maneuver void?
So since 1975, a Ohio Rep has yearly introduced a bill about the name of Mt. McKinley and then tabled it. It’s never brought up to a vote, or even to a committee.
What would happen if Alaska’s Rep was to file a discharge petition? If the bill could be force to a vote, would that leave the blocking maneuver void?
I have an objection to the heavily edited media coverage of James O’Keefe, of Unplanned (his parents) Parenthood fame and other college-boy amateur hour perfidities:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/james-okeefe-hillary-video
Every one of the media exposes on O’Keefe edits out descriptive facts like “a*shole”, “anti-American pigf*cker”, “conservative bug filth”, j*goff jingoistic journalistic jerkoff”, and so on, which would provide some semblance of balance.
We don’t get the whole picture. It’s just not fair to O’Keefe’s intended image and reputation, nor is it objective journalism.
How are we to make informed decisions as a polity, or as a reality show studio audience, if these heavy edits are tolerated.
Does anyone know if O’Keefe and his people carry weapons on them?
I like to know these things before I introduce myself.
I have an objection to the heavily edited media coverage of James O’Keefe, of Unplanned (his parents) Parenthood fame and other college-boy amateur hour perfidities:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/james-okeefe-hillary-video
Every one of the media exposes on O’Keefe edits out descriptive facts like “a*shole”, “anti-American pigf*cker”, “conservative bug filth”, j*goff jingoistic journalistic jerkoff”, and so on, which would provide some semblance of balance.
We don’t get the whole picture. It’s just not fair to O’Keefe’s intended image and reputation, nor is it objective journalism.
How are we to make informed decisions as a polity, or as a reality show studio audience, if these heavy edits are tolerated.
Does anyone know if O’Keefe and his people carry weapons on them?
I like to know these things before I introduce myself.
I have an objection to the heavily edited media coverage of James O’Keefe, of Unplanned (his parents) Parenthood fame and other college-boy amateur hour perfidities:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/james-okeefe-hillary-video
Every one of the media exposes on O’Keefe edits out descriptive facts like “a*shole”, “anti-American pigf*cker”, “conservative bug filth”, j*goff jingoistic journalistic jerkoff”, and so on, which would provide some semblance of balance.
We don’t get the whole picture. It’s just not fair to O’Keefe’s intended image and reputation, nor is it objective journalism.
How are we to make informed decisions as a polity, or as a reality show studio audience, if these heavy edits are tolerated.
Does anyone know if O’Keefe and his people carry weapons on them?
I like to know these things before I introduce myself.
I personally would like to have a cessation of speculation as to other man’s penis length, sight unseen.
Or verification thereof, sight seen. Just not interested, however great the fascination of others.
I personally would like to have a cessation of speculation as to other man’s penis length, sight unseen.
Or verification thereof, sight seen. Just not interested, however great the fascination of others.
I personally would like to have a cessation of speculation as to other man’s penis length, sight unseen.
Or verification thereof, sight seen. Just not interested, however great the fascination of others.
We’re moving to a fully open-carry country, so I’m afraid the …umm .. cat, is already out of the bag for all to view.
That’s why they sang “Look Away, Dixieland” because the whole exposing of the gun/weapon dichotomy was so immodest and embarrassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDyF9n5pOqw
We’re moving to a fully open-carry country, so I’m afraid the …umm .. cat, is already out of the bag for all to view.
That’s why they sang “Look Away, Dixieland” because the whole exposing of the gun/weapon dichotomy was so immodest and embarrassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDyF9n5pOqw
We’re moving to a fully open-carry country, so I’m afraid the …umm .. cat, is already out of the bag for all to view.
That’s why they sang “Look Away, Dixieland” because the whole exposing of the gun/weapon dichotomy was so immodest and embarrassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDyF9n5pOqw
i’d like men to stop wielding huge external death schlongs in order to compensate for that with which they weren’t born.
and a pony.
i’d like men to stop wielding huge external death schlongs in order to compensate for that with which they weren’t born.
and a pony.
i’d like men to stop wielding huge external death schlongs in order to compensate for that with which they weren’t born.
and a pony.
Sometimes a flamethrower is just a flamethrower, cleek.
Maybe the problem lies behind your eyeballs.
Sometimes a flamethrower is just a flamethrower, cleek.
Maybe the problem lies behind your eyeballs.
Sometimes a flamethrower is just a flamethrower, cleek.
Maybe the problem lies behind your eyeballs.
“Just” a flamethrower?!!? Next you’ll tell me this is “just” a blaster.
“Just” a flamethrower?!!? Next you’ll tell me this is “just” a blaster.
“Just” a flamethrower?!!? Next you’ll tell me this is “just” a blaster.
you do your amateur armchair remote psychology and i’ll do mine.
you do your amateur armchair remote psychology and i’ll do mine.
you do your amateur armchair remote psychology and i’ll do mine.
From the Count’s link:
On their website, Ion Productions Team lists possible uses for the flamethrowers. These include:
clearing snow/ice
eliminating weeds between pavement cracks
controlled burns/ground-clearing of foliage/agricultural
insect control
pyrotechnic event displays
bonfire starting
a fun device to enjoy with friends
See, awesomeness!
From the Count’s link:
On their website, Ion Productions Team lists possible uses for the flamethrowers. These include:
clearing snow/ice
eliminating weeds between pavement cracks
controlled burns/ground-clearing of foliage/agricultural
insect control
pyrotechnic event displays
bonfire starting
a fun device to enjoy with friends
See, awesomeness!
From the Count’s link:
On their website, Ion Productions Team lists possible uses for the flamethrowers. These include:
clearing snow/ice
eliminating weeds between pavement cracks
controlled burns/ground-clearing of foliage/agricultural
insect control
pyrotechnic event displays
bonfire starting
a fun device to enjoy with friends
See, awesomeness!
It’s nice to see years of invective summarized this way, at last.
It’s nice to see years of invective summarized this way, at last.
It’s nice to see years of invective summarized this way, at last.
What would happen if Alaska’s Rep was to file a discharge petition? If the bill could be force to a vote, would that leave the blocking maneuver void?
Nothing. Pretty sure the US Board can’t consider it for any year that Congress has taken up a bill. Just by introducing it, even if immediately withdrawn, stops the US Board.
Alaska DID try to get the loophole removed via legislation, but was effectively told “No one cares, Alaska. No one cares”.
What would happen if Alaska’s Rep was to file a discharge petition? If the bill could be force to a vote, would that leave the blocking maneuver void?
Nothing. Pretty sure the US Board can’t consider it for any year that Congress has taken up a bill. Just by introducing it, even if immediately withdrawn, stops the US Board.
Alaska DID try to get the loophole removed via legislation, but was effectively told “No one cares, Alaska. No one cares”.
What would happen if Alaska’s Rep was to file a discharge petition? If the bill could be force to a vote, would that leave the blocking maneuver void?
Nothing. Pretty sure the US Board can’t consider it for any year that Congress has taken up a bill. Just by introducing it, even if immediately withdrawn, stops the US Board.
Alaska DID try to get the loophole removed via legislation, but was effectively told “No one cares, Alaska. No one cares”.
someone fetch the smelling salts!
someone fetch the smelling salts!
someone fetch the smelling salts!
Slart, I (and about a billion other observers) are pretty much with Cleek on this. It’s not that the guns thing is ONLY a penile substitute, but there’s such an unmistakeable miasma of macho posturing, small-man-syndrome strutting, “pry it from my cold, dead hands”(!) rhetoric that, on some level, threatened masculinity is an unavoidable conclusion.
Slart, I (and about a billion other observers) are pretty much with Cleek on this. It’s not that the guns thing is ONLY a penile substitute, but there’s such an unmistakeable miasma of macho posturing, small-man-syndrome strutting, “pry it from my cold, dead hands”(!) rhetoric that, on some level, threatened masculinity is an unavoidable conclusion.
Slart, I (and about a billion other observers) are pretty much with Cleek on this. It’s not that the guns thing is ONLY a penile substitute, but there’s such an unmistakeable miasma of macho posturing, small-man-syndrome strutting, “pry it from my cold, dead hands”(!) rhetoric that, on some level, threatened masculinity is an unavoidable conclusion.
I’m not really interested in guns, but a flamethrower sounds like nothing but fun. Really dangerous fun, and fun that, as a practical matter, I will almost certainly never indulge in.
But fun, nonetheless. Like firecrackers, bottle rockets, and M-80’s are fun.
In my case, it’s probably less an issue of penis size, and more an issue of channeling my inner 12-year-old.
Some folks might call it a case of arrested development, and I would be hard pressed to argue the point.
I wouldn’t bring it to a Chili’s, though.
I’m not really interested in guns, but a flamethrower sounds like nothing but fun. Really dangerous fun, and fun that, as a practical matter, I will almost certainly never indulge in.
But fun, nonetheless. Like firecrackers, bottle rockets, and M-80’s are fun.
In my case, it’s probably less an issue of penis size, and more an issue of channeling my inner 12-year-old.
Some folks might call it a case of arrested development, and I would be hard pressed to argue the point.
I wouldn’t bring it to a Chili’s, though.
I’m not really interested in guns, but a flamethrower sounds like nothing but fun. Really dangerous fun, and fun that, as a practical matter, I will almost certainly never indulge in.
But fun, nonetheless. Like firecrackers, bottle rockets, and M-80’s are fun.
In my case, it’s probably less an issue of penis size, and more an issue of channeling my inner 12-year-old.
Some folks might call it a case of arrested development, and I would be hard pressed to argue the point.
I wouldn’t bring it to a Chili’s, though.
I’d also say that I would have no problem with any level of government imposing fairly strict regulations on the sale, ownership, and use of flamethrowers.
Because, flames.
Which, I guess, let’s me be both a case of arrested development, and a lefty. 🙂
I’d also say that I would have no problem with any level of government imposing fairly strict regulations on the sale, ownership, and use of flamethrowers.
Because, flames.
Which, I guess, let’s me be both a case of arrested development, and a lefty. 🙂
I’d also say that I would have no problem with any level of government imposing fairly strict regulations on the sale, ownership, and use of flamethrowers.
Because, flames.
Which, I guess, let’s me be both a case of arrested development, and a lefty. 🙂
I always get my holster and my codpiece mixed up.
I have to admit, at a certain age I might have been willing to trying lighting a cigar that was just a cigar with a flamethrower that was just a flamethrower, from, say, ten paces away.
I always get my holster and my codpiece mixed up.
I have to admit, at a certain age I might have been willing to trying lighting a cigar that was just a cigar with a flamethrower that was just a flamethrower, from, say, ten paces away.
I always get my holster and my codpiece mixed up.
I have to admit, at a certain age I might have been willing to trying lighting a cigar that was just a cigar with a flamethrower that was just a flamethrower, from, say, ten paces away.
If you really were interested in a gun-wielder/penis size correlation, data would do the trick.
Take data. Science! Reality-based politics!
If you really were interested in a gun-wielder/penis size correlation, data would do the trick.
Take data. Science! Reality-based politics!
If you really were interested in a gun-wielder/penis size correlation, data would do the trick.
Take data. Science! Reality-based politics!
But slarti, the individuals who would prove the hypothesiswuld also be the least likely to allow measurement. Being embarrassed about themselves.
Which means that your data are going to be from a non-representative sample. Invalidates any conclusion that there is no correlation. (Although, I suppose, that if we see a strong correlation, he skew in the sample would make the correltaion even stronger….)
But slarti, the individuals who would prove the hypothesiswuld also be the least likely to allow measurement. Being embarrassed about themselves.
Which means that your data are going to be from a non-representative sample. Invalidates any conclusion that there is no correlation. (Although, I suppose, that if we see a strong correlation, he skew in the sample would make the correltaion even stronger….)
But slarti, the individuals who would prove the hypothesiswuld also be the least likely to allow measurement. Being embarrassed about themselves.
Which means that your data are going to be from a non-representative sample. Invalidates any conclusion that there is no correlation. (Although, I suppose, that if we see a strong correlation, he skew in the sample would make the correltaion even stronger….)
The Census Bureau could go door to door in 2020 and collect the data to answer both revealing questions but I’m afraid they’d only get Erick Erickson’s wife up in arms again.
What is she hiding?
The Census Bureau could go door to door in 2020 and collect the data to answer both revealing questions but I’m afraid they’d only get Erick Erickson’s wife up in arms again.
What is she hiding?
The Census Bureau could go door to door in 2020 and collect the data to answer both revealing questions but I’m afraid they’d only get Erick Erickson’s wife up in arms again.
What is she hiding?
So, better to:
a) Make shit up
ii) Assume it’s true
γ) Use the new “fact” as some sort of…argument?
4) Profit!
So, better to:
a) Make shit up
ii) Assume it’s true
γ) Use the new “fact” as some sort of…argument?
4) Profit!
So, better to:
a) Make shit up
ii) Assume it’s true
γ) Use the new “fact” as some sort of…argument?
4) Profit!
scientists have recently discovered that the internet is not actually a series of logical proofs.
scientists have recently discovered that the internet is not actually a series of logical proofs.
scientists have recently discovered that the internet is not actually a series of logical proofs.
ה) Evade when questioned on point.
ה) Evade when questioned on point.
ה) Evade when questioned on point.
I had no idea I was carrying on a discussion with the Internet.
I would have expected more, really.
I had no idea I was carrying on a discussion with the Internet.
I would have expected more, really.
I had no idea I was carrying on a discussion with the Internet.
I would have expected more, really.
So then I says, “100100110100101110011010110101111100.”
So then I says, “100100110100101110011010110101111100.”
So then I says, “100100110100101110011010110101111100.”
The NPA (Motto: You’ll never hear us say “A Little To The Left”), which is the NRA’s sister, umm, or rather, brother organization is going to fight tooth and nail and flamethrower against any effort to force the revelation of size, caliber, and clip capacity by those in possession of an automatic schwantz.
However, this may not stop busybodies from forcing schwantz-owners from attending schwantz safety classes at a Schwantz School near you:
http://www.schwantzschool.com/schwantzschool/school-overview
The funny Mt Favorite Martian uniform is required attire and keep it zipped.
As we have been repeatedly warned around here, the unfortunately named Tench Coxe, who lurked among our foreskin fathers, mandated from the get go that any size and caliber schwantz General Washington and the military he commanded wielded must be made freely available to the public at large (and small) to preserve our God-given freedoms and to run water through daily.
A little known historical tidbit was that Mr Coxe, as he preferred to be addressed, kept an armory of rolled-up socks on hand to fluff his schwantz profile, as it were (hey, as you were, men!) to fool some of the people most of the time.
Don’t try that at the Battle of the Bulge, because you might come up short. (Insert a quick Pee Wee Herman chortle here)
A little known linguistic oddity which may surprise you: A collection of bedraggledly-dressed patriots in tri-corner haberdashery meeting down at the corner bar to muster for Schwantz target practice is ALSO, by fortuitous coincidence, called a MILITIA, except for Dick Johnson, who has missed the last three musters because he had to go in for a appendickdectomy because his schwantz was chronically jammmed and fired nothing but kidney stones, and the pipecleaners just wouldn’t do the job any longer.
Should anyone require a list of synonyms, the George Carlin Thesaurus has a few.
Look under “G”. Enjoy.
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/01/george-carlins-dirty-words-list-penis.html
The NPA (Motto: You’ll never hear us say “A Little To The Left”), which is the NRA’s sister, umm, or rather, brother organization is going to fight tooth and nail and flamethrower against any effort to force the revelation of size, caliber, and clip capacity by those in possession of an automatic schwantz.
However, this may not stop busybodies from forcing schwantz-owners from attending schwantz safety classes at a Schwantz School near you:
http://www.schwantzschool.com/schwantzschool/school-overview
The funny Mt Favorite Martian uniform is required attire and keep it zipped.
As we have been repeatedly warned around here, the unfortunately named Tench Coxe, who lurked among our foreskin fathers, mandated from the get go that any size and caliber schwantz General Washington and the military he commanded wielded must be made freely available to the public at large (and small) to preserve our God-given freedoms and to run water through daily.
A little known historical tidbit was that Mr Coxe, as he preferred to be addressed, kept an armory of rolled-up socks on hand to fluff his schwantz profile, as it were (hey, as you were, men!) to fool some of the people most of the time.
Don’t try that at the Battle of the Bulge, because you might come up short. (Insert a quick Pee Wee Herman chortle here)
A little known linguistic oddity which may surprise you: A collection of bedraggledly-dressed patriots in tri-corner haberdashery meeting down at the corner bar to muster for Schwantz target practice is ALSO, by fortuitous coincidence, called a MILITIA, except for Dick Johnson, who has missed the last three musters because he had to go in for a appendickdectomy because his schwantz was chronically jammmed and fired nothing but kidney stones, and the pipecleaners just wouldn’t do the job any longer.
Should anyone require a list of synonyms, the George Carlin Thesaurus has a few.
Look under “G”. Enjoy.
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/01/george-carlins-dirty-words-list-penis.html
The NPA (Motto: You’ll never hear us say “A Little To The Left”), which is the NRA’s sister, umm, or rather, brother organization is going to fight tooth and nail and flamethrower against any effort to force the revelation of size, caliber, and clip capacity by those in possession of an automatic schwantz.
However, this may not stop busybodies from forcing schwantz-owners from attending schwantz safety classes at a Schwantz School near you:
http://www.schwantzschool.com/schwantzschool/school-overview
The funny Mt Favorite Martian uniform is required attire and keep it zipped.
As we have been repeatedly warned around here, the unfortunately named Tench Coxe, who lurked among our foreskin fathers, mandated from the get go that any size and caliber schwantz General Washington and the military he commanded wielded must be made freely available to the public at large (and small) to preserve our God-given freedoms and to run water through daily.
A little known historical tidbit was that Mr Coxe, as he preferred to be addressed, kept an armory of rolled-up socks on hand to fluff his schwantz profile, as it were (hey, as you were, men!) to fool some of the people most of the time.
Don’t try that at the Battle of the Bulge, because you might come up short. (Insert a quick Pee Wee Herman chortle here)
A little known linguistic oddity which may surprise you: A collection of bedraggledly-dressed patriots in tri-corner haberdashery meeting down at the corner bar to muster for Schwantz target practice is ALSO, by fortuitous coincidence, called a MILITIA, except for Dick Johnson, who has missed the last three musters because he had to go in for a appendickdectomy because his schwantz was chronically jammmed and fired nothing but kidney stones, and the pipecleaners just wouldn’t do the job any longer.
Should anyone require a list of synonyms, the George Carlin Thesaurus has a few.
Look under “G”. Enjoy.
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/01/george-carlins-dirty-words-list-penis.html
wj sez: “But slarti, the individuals who would prove the hypothesis would also be the least likely to allow measurement. Being embarrassed about themselves.”
You just have to pry it from their cold, dead hands.
wj sez: “But slarti, the individuals who would prove the hypothesis would also be the least likely to allow measurement. Being embarrassed about themselves.”
You just have to pry it from their cold, dead hands.
wj sez: “But slarti, the individuals who would prove the hypothesis would also be the least likely to allow measurement. Being embarrassed about themselves.”
You just have to pry it from their cold, dead hands.
It’s the cold hands that distort the data in favor of cleek’s hypothesis.
It’s the cold hands that distort the data in favor of cleek’s hypothesis.
It’s the cold hands that distort the data in favor of cleek’s hypothesis.
harrrumpf…small is beautiful.
As they say, get a grip.
harrrumpf…small is beautiful.
As they say, get a grip.
harrrumpf…small is beautiful.
As they say, get a grip.
It is remarkable the damage that can be done with a single-shot derringer wielded by a man … or woman .. of character.
What are we talking about again?
It is remarkable the damage that can be done with a single-shot derringer wielded by a man … or woman .. of character.
What are we talking about again?
It is remarkable the damage that can be done with a single-shot derringer wielded by a man … or woman .. of character.
What are we talking about again?
Can you imagine historians perusing the collected speeches of a Trump/Palin Administration?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/i-have-no-headline-worthy-donald-trumps-latest
Just shoot me now.
Those mushroom clouds are huge, I tell you, just bee-autiful ta lookat. They can do some damage up close, so don’t make us go there. But assidents happen, you hear what I’m saying.
Can you imagine historians perusing the collected speeches of a Trump/Palin Administration?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/i-have-no-headline-worthy-donald-trumps-latest
Just shoot me now.
Those mushroom clouds are huge, I tell you, just bee-autiful ta lookat. They can do some damage up close, so don’t make us go there. But assidents happen, you hear what I’m saying.
Can you imagine historians perusing the collected speeches of a Trump/Palin Administration?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/i-have-no-headline-worthy-donald-trumps-latest
Just shoot me now.
Those mushroom clouds are huge, I tell you, just bee-autiful ta lookat. They can do some damage up close, so don’t make us go there. But assidents happen, you hear what I’m saying.
A modest proposal for the renaming of Washington, in the (unlikely) event of the Donald outbidding Slart’s one No Trump…
Speech of the speaker of the senate on the day of Trump’s inauguration:
And He will answer: You have my permission, loser.
A modest proposal for the renaming of Washington, in the (unlikely) event of the Donald outbidding Slart’s one No Trump…
Speech of the speaker of the senate on the day of Trump’s inauguration:
And He will answer: You have my permission, loser.
A modest proposal for the renaming of Washington, in the (unlikely) event of the Donald outbidding Slart’s one No Trump…
Speech of the speaker of the senate on the day of Trump’s inauguration:
And He will answer: You have my permission, loser.
Somehow I just can’t see Trump as someone to achieve the Peace of Dives.
Somehow I just can’t see Trump as someone to achieve the Peace of Dives.
Somehow I just can’t see Trump as someone to achieve the Peace of Dives.
Slarti, I like data and proof as much as the next person, but are you saying it’s invalid to observe phenomena and draw, sometimes tentative, conclusions from them?
I’m not a psychologist, and you may not be either, but would you say for example that it’s invalid to deduce from his public utterances and behaviour that the Donald is a fairly extreme narcissist? He seems to exhibit pretty much every one of the identifying behaviours. As I understand it, narcissism involves a (sometimes unconscious) emptiness/inadequacy within, and the narcissistic behaviours are a continuous attempt to shore up the fragile internal self. Why is it not analogous to postulate that an obsession with the possession of powerful killing machines, which moreover kill by projecting a deadly missile at a target, most likely is an attempt to defend at all costs, in the most “masculine” way possible, the inadequate, weak inner self. In this theory, penis size is just a symbol for masculinity, but just because none of this can be proved, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a useful way of looking at it.
Slarti, I like data and proof as much as the next person, but are you saying it’s invalid to observe phenomena and draw, sometimes tentative, conclusions from them?
I’m not a psychologist, and you may not be either, but would you say for example that it’s invalid to deduce from his public utterances and behaviour that the Donald is a fairly extreme narcissist? He seems to exhibit pretty much every one of the identifying behaviours. As I understand it, narcissism involves a (sometimes unconscious) emptiness/inadequacy within, and the narcissistic behaviours are a continuous attempt to shore up the fragile internal self. Why is it not analogous to postulate that an obsession with the possession of powerful killing machines, which moreover kill by projecting a deadly missile at a target, most likely is an attempt to defend at all costs, in the most “masculine” way possible, the inadequate, weak inner self. In this theory, penis size is just a symbol for masculinity, but just because none of this can be proved, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a useful way of looking at it.
Slarti, I like data and proof as much as the next person, but are you saying it’s invalid to observe phenomena and draw, sometimes tentative, conclusions from them?
I’m not a psychologist, and you may not be either, but would you say for example that it’s invalid to deduce from his public utterances and behaviour that the Donald is a fairly extreme narcissist? He seems to exhibit pretty much every one of the identifying behaviours. As I understand it, narcissism involves a (sometimes unconscious) emptiness/inadequacy within, and the narcissistic behaviours are a continuous attempt to shore up the fragile internal self. Why is it not analogous to postulate that an obsession with the possession of powerful killing machines, which moreover kill by projecting a deadly missile at a target, most likely is an attempt to defend at all costs, in the most “masculine” way possible, the inadequate, weak inner self. In this theory, penis size is just a symbol for masculinity, but just because none of this can be proved, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a useful way of looking at it.
If everything statement required the level of proof considered adequate for drawing scientific conclusions or criminal court convictions, we wouldn’t have much to talk (or write back and forth on blogs) about. We are, after all, just talking (or blah, blah, blah).
That also means you can disagree, even dismissively, if you like. How compelling any of it is will be up to a given reader.
Sometimes people raise the bar of proof to levels required in science or court proceedings, even when don’t really disagree in their heart of hearts. They may have the same intuitive sense of things as whoever they’re arguing with, but it’s more fun (or whatever) to argue anyway.
At least it looks that way to me; I can’t prove it.
If everything statement required the level of proof considered adequate for drawing scientific conclusions or criminal court convictions, we wouldn’t have much to talk (or write back and forth on blogs) about. We are, after all, just talking (or blah, blah, blah).
That also means you can disagree, even dismissively, if you like. How compelling any of it is will be up to a given reader.
Sometimes people raise the bar of proof to levels required in science or court proceedings, even when don’t really disagree in their heart of hearts. They may have the same intuitive sense of things as whoever they’re arguing with, but it’s more fun (or whatever) to argue anyway.
At least it looks that way to me; I can’t prove it.
If everything statement required the level of proof considered adequate for drawing scientific conclusions or criminal court convictions, we wouldn’t have much to talk (or write back and forth on blogs) about. We are, after all, just talking (or blah, blah, blah).
That also means you can disagree, even dismissively, if you like. How compelling any of it is will be up to a given reader.
Sometimes people raise the bar of proof to levels required in science or court proceedings, even when don’t really disagree in their heart of hearts. They may have the same intuitive sense of things as whoever they’re arguing with, but it’s more fun (or whatever) to argue anyway.
At least it looks that way to me; I can’t prove it.
every statement, not everything statement
every statement, not everything statement
every statement, not everything statement
Yes, its true. This man has no dick. Boy that used to crack me up.
Yes, its true. This man has no dick. Boy that used to crack me up.
Yes, its true. This man has no dick. Boy that used to crack me up.
Got me tittering, even.
Got me tittering, even.
Got me tittering, even.
Cats and Dogs, living together, mass hysteria!
Cats and Dogs, living together, mass hysteria!
Cats and Dogs, living together, mass hysteria!
Golf is yet another game of inches and Alice Cooper sez the Donald was short a few there too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-cheats-golf
Any hope of Cooper’s nomination as Ambassador to the UN just went by the wayside, I’m afraid, though I’m sure Gene Simmons is still in the running, once he exposes his credentials to Cabinet Nominating Committee head under President Trump, Vice President Sorry Death Palin.
Glenn Beck at State, Ben Carson as Head of Surgical Border Strikes at Homeland Immaturity and INS, though he will be shunted into a closet when the Donald visits, Ted Nugent at the CIA, Murderer Rick Scott at the newly rechristened Department of Wealth and Inhumane Services, and a passel of Kardashians taking up posts at the few remaining agencies.
Cruz goes directly to the Supreme Court, which will be pared down to three Justices, Cruz, Alito, and Thomas — Scalia having been ousted for kvetching about serving under a President that is a bigger, raving a*shole than he is.
Let the killing begin.
Golf is yet another game of inches and Alice Cooper sez the Donald was short a few there too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-cheats-golf
Any hope of Cooper’s nomination as Ambassador to the UN just went by the wayside, I’m afraid, though I’m sure Gene Simmons is still in the running, once he exposes his credentials to Cabinet Nominating Committee head under President Trump, Vice President Sorry Death Palin.
Glenn Beck at State, Ben Carson as Head of Surgical Border Strikes at Homeland Immaturity and INS, though he will be shunted into a closet when the Donald visits, Ted Nugent at the CIA, Murderer Rick Scott at the newly rechristened Department of Wealth and Inhumane Services, and a passel of Kardashians taking up posts at the few remaining agencies.
Cruz goes directly to the Supreme Court, which will be pared down to three Justices, Cruz, Alito, and Thomas — Scalia having been ousted for kvetching about serving under a President that is a bigger, raving a*shole than he is.
Let the killing begin.
Golf is yet another game of inches and Alice Cooper sez the Donald was short a few there too:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-cheats-golf
Any hope of Cooper’s nomination as Ambassador to the UN just went by the wayside, I’m afraid, though I’m sure Gene Simmons is still in the running, once he exposes his credentials to Cabinet Nominating Committee head under President Trump, Vice President Sorry Death Palin.
Glenn Beck at State, Ben Carson as Head of Surgical Border Strikes at Homeland Immaturity and INS, though he will be shunted into a closet when the Donald visits, Ted Nugent at the CIA, Murderer Rick Scott at the newly rechristened Department of Wealth and Inhumane Services, and a passel of Kardashians taking up posts at the few remaining agencies.
Cruz goes directly to the Supreme Court, which will be pared down to three Justices, Cruz, Alito, and Thomas — Scalia having been ousted for kvetching about serving under a President that is a bigger, raving a*shole than he is.
Let the killing begin.
Denali undergoes mountain reduction and circumcision surgery at the tyrannical hands of the federal government to lop ten feet off its bragging rights:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312#.VedL0JfIfcu
hat tip TNR
Ohio Republicans cry Ouch!, grip their crotches with both hands, and have to lie down in fetal positions to let the pain pass, claiming McKinley’s porn career may be over.
Benjamin Netanyahu, at the urging of republican operatives working behind the scenes and in front of the scenery, protests vehemently this insult to Israel by Obama’s refusal to use a mohel to cut an American mountain’s manhood down to size, somehow confusing himself yet again with U.S. sovereignty.
John Boehner weeps the tears of a man who bought a codpiece that was three cups too big.
Ted Nugent interrupts one of his racist, misogynist (he loves women as long as they drop to their knees before they knock on the band’s dressing room revolving door) vermin rants with accompanying automatic gunfire to observe that now Denali is EVEN ten feet littler than both his gun and his weapon laid end to end, not that he thanked the schwartza in the White House for the penile enhancement via Presidential decree.
Obama, for his part, shrugs and explains: “Hey, news flash, it’s cold in Alaska. We have to account for shrinkage. Look, it doesn’t matter. Now, if any of my friends in the Ohio delegation want to take me on in hoops and see if you measure up, just let my secretary know and I’ll reserve a court so I can kick your asses.”
Denali undergoes mountain reduction and circumcision surgery at the tyrannical hands of the federal government to lop ten feet off its bragging rights:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312#.VedL0JfIfcu
hat tip TNR
Ohio Republicans cry Ouch!, grip their crotches with both hands, and have to lie down in fetal positions to let the pain pass, claiming McKinley’s porn career may be over.
Benjamin Netanyahu, at the urging of republican operatives working behind the scenes and in front of the scenery, protests vehemently this insult to Israel by Obama’s refusal to use a mohel to cut an American mountain’s manhood down to size, somehow confusing himself yet again with U.S. sovereignty.
John Boehner weeps the tears of a man who bought a codpiece that was three cups too big.
Ted Nugent interrupts one of his racist, misogynist (he loves women as long as they drop to their knees before they knock on the band’s dressing room revolving door) vermin rants with accompanying automatic gunfire to observe that now Denali is EVEN ten feet littler than both his gun and his weapon laid end to end, not that he thanked the schwartza in the White House for the penile enhancement via Presidential decree.
Obama, for his part, shrugs and explains: “Hey, news flash, it’s cold in Alaska. We have to account for shrinkage. Look, it doesn’t matter. Now, if any of my friends in the Ohio delegation want to take me on in hoops and see if you measure up, just let my secretary know and I’ll reserve a court so I can kick your asses.”
Denali undergoes mountain reduction and circumcision surgery at the tyrannical hands of the federal government to lop ten feet off its bragging rights:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4312#.VedL0JfIfcu
hat tip TNR
Ohio Republicans cry Ouch!, grip their crotches with both hands, and have to lie down in fetal positions to let the pain pass, claiming McKinley’s porn career may be over.
Benjamin Netanyahu, at the urging of republican operatives working behind the scenes and in front of the scenery, protests vehemently this insult to Israel by Obama’s refusal to use a mohel to cut an American mountain’s manhood down to size, somehow confusing himself yet again with U.S. sovereignty.
John Boehner weeps the tears of a man who bought a codpiece that was three cups too big.
Ted Nugent interrupts one of his racist, misogynist (he loves women as long as they drop to their knees before they knock on the band’s dressing room revolving door) vermin rants with accompanying automatic gunfire to observe that now Denali is EVEN ten feet littler than both his gun and his weapon laid end to end, not that he thanked the schwartza in the White House for the penile enhancement via Presidential decree.
Obama, for his part, shrugs and explains: “Hey, news flash, it’s cold in Alaska. We have to account for shrinkage. Look, it doesn’t matter. Now, if any of my friends in the Ohio delegation want to take me on in hoops and see if you measure up, just let my secretary know and I’ll reserve a court so I can kick your asses.”
ISIS are … gold bugs !
bwahahahah!
ISIS are … gold bugs !
bwahahahah!
ISIS are … gold bugs !
bwahahahah!
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RuPaul, Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Peter Schiff, Pat Robertson, and any number of right-wing conservative talk radio kanuckle-heads are close advisors to ISIS.
Conservative filth the world over strive together to destroy the New Deal and American prosperity.
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RuPaul, Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Peter Schiff, Pat Robertson, and any number of right-wing conservative talk radio kanuckle-heads are close advisors to ISIS.
Conservative filth the world over strive together to destroy the New Deal and American prosperity.
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RuPaul, Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Peter Schiff, Pat Robertson, and any number of right-wing conservative talk radio kanuckle-heads are close advisors to ISIS.
Conservative filth the world over strive together to destroy the New Deal and American prosperity.
a flamethrower sounds like nothing but fun. Really dangerous fun, and fun that, as a practical matter, I will almost certainly never indulge in.
russell, you (or anyone in the northeast really) should come to Wildfire! You can take classes on fire spinning or fire breathing or fleshing (lighting bits of flesh on fire), etc. Check out the schedule for september here.
a flamethrower sounds like nothing but fun. Really dangerous fun, and fun that, as a practical matter, I will almost certainly never indulge in.
russell, you (or anyone in the northeast really) should come to Wildfire! You can take classes on fire spinning or fire breathing or fleshing (lighting bits of flesh on fire), etc. Check out the schedule for september here.
a flamethrower sounds like nothing but fun. Really dangerous fun, and fun that, as a practical matter, I will almost certainly never indulge in.
russell, you (or anyone in the northeast really) should come to Wildfire! You can take classes on fire spinning or fire breathing or fleshing (lighting bits of flesh on fire), etc. Check out the schedule for september here.
Conclusions that you made up, for the purposes of ridicule?
Whatever could I find objectionable about that?
There were a lot of people who said that about Obama as well. You’re saying they are making a valid point?
I’d prefer to just raise this to a level of something that folks didn’t invent out of nothing.
Because, hey, is there even a scrap of evidence to support the notion?
I know. What am I saying? This is blog comments; this is politics. It’s crap all the way down.
Conclusions that you made up, for the purposes of ridicule?
Whatever could I find objectionable about that?
There were a lot of people who said that about Obama as well. You’re saying they are making a valid point?
I’d prefer to just raise this to a level of something that folks didn’t invent out of nothing.
Because, hey, is there even a scrap of evidence to support the notion?
I know. What am I saying? This is blog comments; this is politics. It’s crap all the way down.
Conclusions that you made up, for the purposes of ridicule?
Whatever could I find objectionable about that?
There were a lot of people who said that about Obama as well. You’re saying they are making a valid point?
I’d prefer to just raise this to a level of something that folks didn’t invent out of nothing.
Because, hey, is there even a scrap of evidence to support the notion?
I know. What am I saying? This is blog comments; this is politics. It’s crap all the way down.
Also: Obama is a sekrit Muslim!
Also: Obama is a sekrit Muslim!
Also: Obama is a sekrit Muslim!
Slarti,
If the shoe don’t fit, you don’t have to wear it.
–TP
Slarti,
If the shoe don’t fit, you don’t have to wear it.
–TP
Slarti,
If the shoe don’t fit, you don’t have to wear it.
–TP
Likewise, if you are not a woman, you have no business being concerned about issues that affect women.
Likewise, if you are not a woman, you have no business being concerned about issues that affect women.
Likewise, if you are not a woman, you have no business being concerned about issues that affect women.
Oh. Maybe you meant the illogic shoe.
Oh. Maybe you meant the illogic shoe.
Oh. Maybe you meant the illogic shoe.
I actually think the penis size comparisons are problematic. My guess is that most gun owners like collecting guns because collecting things is fun and blowing stuff up is fun and simple accessible machines that make things blow up are fun.
My issue with these people is that they’ve got this hobbey but it is embedded in a culture that makes them stupid. There is nothing wrong with having a dangerous hobby: I’ve got dangerous hobbies. So do pilots. Or mountain climbers. Or fire spinners. But those groups have built communities that focus on managing risk intelligently.
They talk, a lot, about failures so they can do better in the future. They limit what new members of the community can do until they demonstrate safety and proficiency. They act like grownups who are doing something dangerous but trying to be safe. They push manufacturers to get them safer equipment (talking to gun owners about how one cannot rely on gun safeties to function correctly is an eye-opening experience).
The gun culture in the US at large doesn’t do that. Pick up any NRA magazine and you won’t find articles exploring gun safety failures; you’ll find crazy stuff encouraging people to be paranoid. This is the power of culture: it can make you smarter, or dumber. If you believe the biggest danger surrounding guns is that Obama’s about to confiscate them or ban them, then you’re stupid, and got stupid because you participate in a culture of stupidity. And based on gun sales numbers, this country has many many many stupid people.
I actually think the penis size comparisons are problematic. My guess is that most gun owners like collecting guns because collecting things is fun and blowing stuff up is fun and simple accessible machines that make things blow up are fun.
My issue with these people is that they’ve got this hobbey but it is embedded in a culture that makes them stupid. There is nothing wrong with having a dangerous hobby: I’ve got dangerous hobbies. So do pilots. Or mountain climbers. Or fire spinners. But those groups have built communities that focus on managing risk intelligently.
They talk, a lot, about failures so they can do better in the future. They limit what new members of the community can do until they demonstrate safety and proficiency. They act like grownups who are doing something dangerous but trying to be safe. They push manufacturers to get them safer equipment (talking to gun owners about how one cannot rely on gun safeties to function correctly is an eye-opening experience).
The gun culture in the US at large doesn’t do that. Pick up any NRA magazine and you won’t find articles exploring gun safety failures; you’ll find crazy stuff encouraging people to be paranoid. This is the power of culture: it can make you smarter, or dumber. If you believe the biggest danger surrounding guns is that Obama’s about to confiscate them or ban them, then you’re stupid, and got stupid because you participate in a culture of stupidity. And based on gun sales numbers, this country has many many many stupid people.
I actually think the penis size comparisons are problematic. My guess is that most gun owners like collecting guns because collecting things is fun and blowing stuff up is fun and simple accessible machines that make things blow up are fun.
My issue with these people is that they’ve got this hobbey but it is embedded in a culture that makes them stupid. There is nothing wrong with having a dangerous hobby: I’ve got dangerous hobbies. So do pilots. Or mountain climbers. Or fire spinners. But those groups have built communities that focus on managing risk intelligently.
They talk, a lot, about failures so they can do better in the future. They limit what new members of the community can do until they demonstrate safety and proficiency. They act like grownups who are doing something dangerous but trying to be safe. They push manufacturers to get them safer equipment (talking to gun owners about how one cannot rely on gun safeties to function correctly is an eye-opening experience).
The gun culture in the US at large doesn’t do that. Pick up any NRA magazine and you won’t find articles exploring gun safety failures; you’ll find crazy stuff encouraging people to be paranoid. This is the power of culture: it can make you smarter, or dumber. If you believe the biggest danger surrounding guns is that Obama’s about to confiscate them or ban them, then you’re stupid, and got stupid because you participate in a culture of stupidity. And based on gun sales numbers, this country has many many many stupid people.
I know lots of gun enthusiasts.
None of them are stupid.
Could be selection bias. I honestly have not asked any of them to show me their junk, because it’s a) rude and b) never occurred to me that it was remotely important or relevant.
I know lots of gun enthusiasts.
None of them are stupid.
Could be selection bias. I honestly have not asked any of them to show me their junk, because it’s a) rude and b) never occurred to me that it was remotely important or relevant.
I know lots of gun enthusiasts.
None of them are stupid.
Could be selection bias. I honestly have not asked any of them to show me their junk, because it’s a) rude and b) never occurred to me that it was remotely important or relevant.
If they were a hate group …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conservatives-black-lives-matter-hate-group
…. they’d be showing up inside the FOXNews business offices going from cubicle to cubicle dressed up like these murderers and dispensing justice:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JybEYedV8AUAXMInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=Phtots+of+Bundy+Standoff+Woth+Weapons&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
But they aren’t. Lucky duckies we are. Especially the blondes.
And THIS one:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times
She, the short-term Christian, has been overusing the taxpayer’s good offices. But, I will say, she’s been married to Jesus longer than she has been to the regula blokes, so there is that. She’s a regula Virgin Larry.
Can someone parse this paragraph from the cite for me:
“she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk’s office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.”
Was she the Sam Drucker (girl of the north country, Sam Drucker was the general store proprietor, postmaster, etc in the 1960s TV sitcom, “Petticoat Junction”) of County Clerks … applying for multiple licenses in funny hats and then jumping over the counter, donning his Clerk hat, and granting them.
Her children could use two gay daddies or two lesbian mommies or two straight folks with an ounce of common sense, or a single parent whose eyes weren’t crossed, or even a couple of wolves in the woods, who marry for life.
“It’s crap all the way down.”
At this point in time in America, that applies to a lot more than blog comments. Presidential debates for one example. Most journalism. Stock market headlines and commentary.
I might use that sentence on my headstone as an epitaph, but it would be a Socratic statement.
If they were a hate group …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conservatives-black-lives-matter-hate-group
…. they’d be showing up inside the FOXNews business offices going from cubicle to cubicle dressed up like these murderers and dispensing justice:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JybEYedV8AUAXMInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=Phtots+of+Bundy+Standoff+Woth+Weapons&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
But they aren’t. Lucky duckies we are. Especially the blondes.
And THIS one:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times
She, the short-term Christian, has been overusing the taxpayer’s good offices. But, I will say, she’s been married to Jesus longer than she has been to the regula blokes, so there is that. She’s a regula Virgin Larry.
Can someone parse this paragraph from the cite for me:
“she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk’s office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.”
Was she the Sam Drucker (girl of the north country, Sam Drucker was the general store proprietor, postmaster, etc in the 1960s TV sitcom, “Petticoat Junction”) of County Clerks … applying for multiple licenses in funny hats and then jumping over the counter, donning his Clerk hat, and granting them.
Her children could use two gay daddies or two lesbian mommies or two straight folks with an ounce of common sense, or a single parent whose eyes weren’t crossed, or even a couple of wolves in the woods, who marry for life.
“It’s crap all the way down.”
At this point in time in America, that applies to a lot more than blog comments. Presidential debates for one example. Most journalism. Stock market headlines and commentary.
I might use that sentence on my headstone as an epitaph, but it would be a Socratic statement.
If they were a hate group …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conservatives-black-lives-matter-hate-group
…. they’d be showing up inside the FOXNews business offices going from cubicle to cubicle dressed up like these murderers and dispensing justice:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JybEYedV8AUAXMInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=Phtots+of+Bundy+Standoff+Woth+Weapons&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
But they aren’t. Lucky duckies we are. Especially the blondes.
And THIS one:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times
She, the short-term Christian, has been overusing the taxpayer’s good offices. But, I will say, she’s been married to Jesus longer than she has been to the regula blokes, so there is that. She’s a regula Virgin Larry.
Can someone parse this paragraph from the cite for me:
“she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk’s office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.”
Was she the Sam Drucker (girl of the north country, Sam Drucker was the general store proprietor, postmaster, etc in the 1960s TV sitcom, “Petticoat Junction”) of County Clerks … applying for multiple licenses in funny hats and then jumping over the counter, donning his Clerk hat, and granting them.
Her children could use two gay daddies or two lesbian mommies or two straight folks with an ounce of common sense, or a single parent whose eyes weren’t crossed, or even a couple of wolves in the woods, who marry for life.
“It’s crap all the way down.”
At this point in time in America, that applies to a lot more than blog comments. Presidential debates for one example. Most journalism. Stock market headlines and commentary.
I might use that sentence on my headstone as an epitaph, but it would be a Socratic statement.
How many gun owners do you know that store loaded weapons in the open in their home, while they have children about? I know at least one, and this guy is a pretty smart person, but he’s acting stupid.
Do you think this mother was stupid? Again, she seems like a very smart person who acted really stupidly.
How many gun owners do you know that store loaded weapons in the open in their home, while they have children about? I know at least one, and this guy is a pretty smart person, but he’s acting stupid.
Do you think this mother was stupid? Again, she seems like a very smart person who acted really stupidly.
How many gun owners do you know that store loaded weapons in the open in their home, while they have children about? I know at least one, and this guy is a pretty smart person, but he’s acting stupid.
Do you think this mother was stupid? Again, she seems like a very smart person who acted really stupidly.
You know some stupid gun owners; I know some smart ones.
How many do you know that have a small penis?
You know some stupid gun owners; I know some smart ones.
How many do you know that have a small penis?
You know some stupid gun owners; I know some smart ones.
How many do you know that have a small penis?
The two folks I mentioned aren’t stupid. But when it comes to guns they do stupid things. Seems odd, and also the sort of thing we could use data to understand.
I don’t really care about anyone’s penis size.
The two folks I mentioned aren’t stupid. But when it comes to guns they do stupid things. Seems odd, and also the sort of thing we could use data to understand.
I don’t really care about anyone’s penis size.
The two folks I mentioned aren’t stupid. But when it comes to guns they do stupid things. Seems odd, and also the sort of thing we could use data to understand.
I don’t really care about anyone’s penis size.
“Likewise, if you are not a woman, you have no business being concerned about issues that affect women.”
Well, Slarti, I can agree with you there. People of good faith have every business being concerned about issues that affect other people, because, to quote Donne, they are involved in mankind.
I don’t understand why you think that any of the conclusions I have referred to are made up for the purpose of ridicule. It is impossible, outside the United States, not to speculate on the underlying reasons for many Americans’ obsession with keeping their guns, and although we hear constantly about the historic context of the 2nd Amendment, given the havoc and carnage continually being caused by firearms it’s worth considering what else could be at the heart of this.
Regarding the possible narcissism of Obama, I’ve never heard of any boasting, general self-aggrandisement or insulting of anyone who dares to criticise or even disagree with him, but if there are (or were) such examples, let alone any comparable to the oeuvre of the Donald, I’d be seriously interested in hearing them. I hold no particular brief for Obama; if I see examples of such behaviour I might well conclude that he’s a narcissist. What’s the bar you set for yourself when making a judgement? Are you saying you don’t see, at the least, narcissistic elements in Trump?
“Likewise, if you are not a woman, you have no business being concerned about issues that affect women.”
Well, Slarti, I can agree with you there. People of good faith have every business being concerned about issues that affect other people, because, to quote Donne, they are involved in mankind.
I don’t understand why you think that any of the conclusions I have referred to are made up for the purpose of ridicule. It is impossible, outside the United States, not to speculate on the underlying reasons for many Americans’ obsession with keeping their guns, and although we hear constantly about the historic context of the 2nd Amendment, given the havoc and carnage continually being caused by firearms it’s worth considering what else could be at the heart of this.
Regarding the possible narcissism of Obama, I’ve never heard of any boasting, general self-aggrandisement or insulting of anyone who dares to criticise or even disagree with him, but if there are (or were) such examples, let alone any comparable to the oeuvre of the Donald, I’d be seriously interested in hearing them. I hold no particular brief for Obama; if I see examples of such behaviour I might well conclude that he’s a narcissist. What’s the bar you set for yourself when making a judgement? Are you saying you don’t see, at the least, narcissistic elements in Trump?
“Likewise, if you are not a woman, you have no business being concerned about issues that affect women.”
Well, Slarti, I can agree with you there. People of good faith have every business being concerned about issues that affect other people, because, to quote Donne, they are involved in mankind.
I don’t understand why you think that any of the conclusions I have referred to are made up for the purpose of ridicule. It is impossible, outside the United States, not to speculate on the underlying reasons for many Americans’ obsession with keeping their guns, and although we hear constantly about the historic context of the 2nd Amendment, given the havoc and carnage continually being caused by firearms it’s worth considering what else could be at the heart of this.
Regarding the possible narcissism of Obama, I’ve never heard of any boasting, general self-aggrandisement or insulting of anyone who dares to criticise or even disagree with him, but if there are (or were) such examples, let alone any comparable to the oeuvre of the Donald, I’d be seriously interested in hearing them. I hold no particular brief for Obama; if I see examples of such behaviour I might well conclude that he’s a narcissist. What’s the bar you set for yourself when making a judgement? Are you saying you don’t see, at the least, narcissistic elements in Trump?
Just wanted to say that I’m on board with everything Turbulence says in his 5:20 and following.
There really aren’t that many people who have an issue with people who own and use firearms in a responsible manner.
It would advance the agendas both of firearms owners, and everyone else who lives in this country, if the basic issues Turb raises here were addressed candidly.
And I’m not really interested in anybody’s penis size, either.
And not for nothing, but isn’t there another clerk in whatever county it is in Kentucky? This one person is the only person in the whole county who can issue a marriage license?
Just wanted to say that I’m on board with everything Turbulence says in his 5:20 and following.
There really aren’t that many people who have an issue with people who own and use firearms in a responsible manner.
It would advance the agendas both of firearms owners, and everyone else who lives in this country, if the basic issues Turb raises here were addressed candidly.
And I’m not really interested in anybody’s penis size, either.
And not for nothing, but isn’t there another clerk in whatever county it is in Kentucky? This one person is the only person in the whole county who can issue a marriage license?
Just wanted to say that I’m on board with everything Turbulence says in his 5:20 and following.
There really aren’t that many people who have an issue with people who own and use firearms in a responsible manner.
It would advance the agendas both of firearms owners, and everyone else who lives in this country, if the basic issues Turb raises here were addressed candidly.
And I’m not really interested in anybody’s penis size, either.
And not for nothing, but isn’t there another clerk in whatever county it is in Kentucky? This one person is the only person in the whole county who can issue a marriage license?
Both stupid and intelligent people make fatal mistakes with guns, which could be ameliorated by confiscating guns.
(Take a moment and recite “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” if it makes any dead MFs come back to life and makes those still living feel better)
Confiscation won’t happen, and I’m not proposing it, though further draconian limitations are essential, and those won’t happen either in the current absurdity.
Can we dispense with penis size and say that both the unarmed Michael Brown and the almost exclusively male police officers who blow away unarmed citizens have a testoterone problem?
And the guns on their hips are a testosterone-extendor likely to go off as the testosterone receptors fire in the dumbass male brain.
There are plenty of reasonable conservative (and some liberals) who possess and collect weapons who I would trust to run the armories where stupid people’s guns should be stored.
One of my grandfathers, for example.
Slart and McKinney Texas for two more off the top of my head.
I’d mandate that the Oath Keepers and Ted Nugent’s and Rick Perry’s weapons be kept under lock and key at Slart and McTX’s regulated armories.
If it makes anyone feel more secure that assholes don’t get their weapons (Rick Perry: ‘Yeah I’m going to do a photo-shoot with Hannity in a backwards baseball cap in a helicopter aiming my thingy at Mexican kids”) on occasion, dick-pics can be exchanged as one of a list of requirements.
I’m quite sure Slart and MckT would win that hands down, if we include character as a variable in junk size. Maybe hands up. I can’t decide.
Keep your hands to yourselves.
Second of all, the rhetoric that guns solve any of the problems the fascists in the NRA and the Republican Party et al say they do stops, now, and that goes for women who keep guns too, especially around children and unstable family members.
I’ll be asking for my gun at the Armory to make it so.
Both stupid and intelligent people make fatal mistakes with guns, which could be ameliorated by confiscating guns.
(Take a moment and recite “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” if it makes any dead MFs come back to life and makes those still living feel better)
Confiscation won’t happen, and I’m not proposing it, though further draconian limitations are essential, and those won’t happen either in the current absurdity.
Can we dispense with penis size and say that both the unarmed Michael Brown and the almost exclusively male police officers who blow away unarmed citizens have a testoterone problem?
And the guns on their hips are a testosterone-extendor likely to go off as the testosterone receptors fire in the dumbass male brain.
There are plenty of reasonable conservative (and some liberals) who possess and collect weapons who I would trust to run the armories where stupid people’s guns should be stored.
One of my grandfathers, for example.
Slart and McKinney Texas for two more off the top of my head.
I’d mandate that the Oath Keepers and Ted Nugent’s and Rick Perry’s weapons be kept under lock and key at Slart and McTX’s regulated armories.
If it makes anyone feel more secure that assholes don’t get their weapons (Rick Perry: ‘Yeah I’m going to do a photo-shoot with Hannity in a backwards baseball cap in a helicopter aiming my thingy at Mexican kids”) on occasion, dick-pics can be exchanged as one of a list of requirements.
I’m quite sure Slart and MckT would win that hands down, if we include character as a variable in junk size. Maybe hands up. I can’t decide.
Keep your hands to yourselves.
Second of all, the rhetoric that guns solve any of the problems the fascists in the NRA and the Republican Party et al say they do stops, now, and that goes for women who keep guns too, especially around children and unstable family members.
I’ll be asking for my gun at the Armory to make it so.
Both stupid and intelligent people make fatal mistakes with guns, which could be ameliorated by confiscating guns.
(Take a moment and recite “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” if it makes any dead MFs come back to life and makes those still living feel better)
Confiscation won’t happen, and I’m not proposing it, though further draconian limitations are essential, and those won’t happen either in the current absurdity.
Can we dispense with penis size and say that both the unarmed Michael Brown and the almost exclusively male police officers who blow away unarmed citizens have a testoterone problem?
And the guns on their hips are a testosterone-extendor likely to go off as the testosterone receptors fire in the dumbass male brain.
There are plenty of reasonable conservative (and some liberals) who possess and collect weapons who I would trust to run the armories where stupid people’s guns should be stored.
One of my grandfathers, for example.
Slart and McKinney Texas for two more off the top of my head.
I’d mandate that the Oath Keepers and Ted Nugent’s and Rick Perry’s weapons be kept under lock and key at Slart and McTX’s regulated armories.
If it makes anyone feel more secure that assholes don’t get their weapons (Rick Perry: ‘Yeah I’m going to do a photo-shoot with Hannity in a backwards baseball cap in a helicopter aiming my thingy at Mexican kids”) on occasion, dick-pics can be exchanged as one of a list of requirements.
I’m quite sure Slart and MckT would win that hands down, if we include character as a variable in junk size. Maybe hands up. I can’t decide.
Keep your hands to yourselves.
Second of all, the rhetoric that guns solve any of the problems the fascists in the NRA and the Republican Party et al say they do stops, now, and that goes for women who keep guns too, especially around children and unstable family members.
I’ll be asking for my gun at the Armory to make it so.
Slarti,
You seem to take this penis-size thing seriously, so let me just say that I, for one, accept the proposition that gun owners, gun lovers, and gun nuts (as individual sub-groups and as an aggregate)
exhibitare endowed with the same distribution of cock length, girth, and weight, from little prick to big swinging dick, as the general population. I hope that makes you feel better.–TP
Slarti,
You seem to take this penis-size thing seriously, so let me just say that I, for one, accept the proposition that gun owners, gun lovers, and gun nuts (as individual sub-groups and as an aggregate)
exhibitare endowed with the same distribution of cock length, girth, and weight, from little prick to big swinging dick, as the general population. I hope that makes you feel better.–TP
Slarti,
You seem to take this penis-size thing seriously, so let me just say that I, for one, accept the proposition that gun owners, gun lovers, and gun nuts (as individual sub-groups and as an aggregate)
exhibitare endowed with the same distribution of cock length, girth, and weight, from little prick to big swinging dick, as the general population. I hope that makes you feel better.–TP
It might be possible to have a reasonable discussion of firearms here. On the off chance that that is so, here are the things that, in my opinion, would be reasonable to do in order to help reduce the number of deaths by firearm in this country.
No private sale loophole for background checks on firearm sales.
No high-capacity magazines for firearms, where “high capacity” is more than ten rounds. If I called it the wrong thing, my bad, sue me.
If you handle or use your firearm in any way that does not comply with basic and well known safety standards, and somebody is harmed, you lose the privilege of firearm ownership. If that is just a bridge too damn far, make it time-limited, and you have to take a firearms safety course before the privilege is restored to you.
It’s also my understanding, which may be incorrect, that a disproportionately large number of illegal firearm sales can be traced to a disproportionately small number of dealers. Let’s shut those guys down.
If my understanding on that point is incorrect, I withdraw the suggestion.
And yes, I know it’s a civil right. None of the above seems, to me, to be in conflict with the rights guaranteed in the 2nd A.
If anyone finds any of the above to be wrong or overly problematic, I am curious to know why. The above seem, not just reasonable, but blindingly obvious, to me.
As always, other folks’ MMV.
It might be possible to have a reasonable discussion of firearms here. On the off chance that that is so, here are the things that, in my opinion, would be reasonable to do in order to help reduce the number of deaths by firearm in this country.
No private sale loophole for background checks on firearm sales.
No high-capacity magazines for firearms, where “high capacity” is more than ten rounds. If I called it the wrong thing, my bad, sue me.
If you handle or use your firearm in any way that does not comply with basic and well known safety standards, and somebody is harmed, you lose the privilege of firearm ownership. If that is just a bridge too damn far, make it time-limited, and you have to take a firearms safety course before the privilege is restored to you.
It’s also my understanding, which may be incorrect, that a disproportionately large number of illegal firearm sales can be traced to a disproportionately small number of dealers. Let’s shut those guys down.
If my understanding on that point is incorrect, I withdraw the suggestion.
And yes, I know it’s a civil right. None of the above seems, to me, to be in conflict with the rights guaranteed in the 2nd A.
If anyone finds any of the above to be wrong or overly problematic, I am curious to know why. The above seem, not just reasonable, but blindingly obvious, to me.
As always, other folks’ MMV.
It might be possible to have a reasonable discussion of firearms here. On the off chance that that is so, here are the things that, in my opinion, would be reasonable to do in order to help reduce the number of deaths by firearm in this country.
No private sale loophole for background checks on firearm sales.
No high-capacity magazines for firearms, where “high capacity” is more than ten rounds. If I called it the wrong thing, my bad, sue me.
If you handle or use your firearm in any way that does not comply with basic and well known safety standards, and somebody is harmed, you lose the privilege of firearm ownership. If that is just a bridge too damn far, make it time-limited, and you have to take a firearms safety course before the privilege is restored to you.
It’s also my understanding, which may be incorrect, that a disproportionately large number of illegal firearm sales can be traced to a disproportionately small number of dealers. Let’s shut those guys down.
If my understanding on that point is incorrect, I withdraw the suggestion.
And yes, I know it’s a civil right. None of the above seems, to me, to be in conflict with the rights guaranteed in the 2nd A.
If anyone finds any of the above to be wrong or overly problematic, I am curious to know why. The above seem, not just reasonable, but blindingly obvious, to me.
As always, other folks’ MMV.
Zimmerman seems to step on his at regular intervals.
The man is huge. He’s up for head of the ATF under Trump and six others.
Zimmerman seems to step on his at regular intervals.
The man is huge. He’s up for head of the ATF under Trump and six others.
Zimmerman seems to step on his at regular intervals.
The man is huge. He’s up for head of the ATF under Trump and six others.
Russell violates all of the norms of the interblugs with his confounded reasonable statements.
Russell violates all of the norms of the interblugs with his confounded reasonable statements.
Russell violates all of the norms of the interblugs with his confounded reasonable statements.
Is it too late for a trigger warning?
Is it too late for a trigger warning?
Is it too late for a trigger warning?
My issue with these people is that they’ve got this hobbey but it is embedded in a culture that makes them stupid. There is nothing wrong with having a dangerous hobby: I’ve got dangerous hobbies. So do pilots. Or mountain climbers. Or fire spinners. But those groups have built communities that focus on managing risk intelligently.
…
The gun culture in the US at large doesn’t do that.
I think it’s important to noticer that it wasn’t always thus. Up through the 1950s, the NRA did exactly that: focus on managing the risks of gun ownership intelligently. Dealing intelligently with risk was at the center of US gun culture.
And then something changed. If we are ever going to change the pathologies of our current gun culture, we probably need to understand how it changed to get there.
My issue with these people is that they’ve got this hobbey but it is embedded in a culture that makes them stupid. There is nothing wrong with having a dangerous hobby: I’ve got dangerous hobbies. So do pilots. Or mountain climbers. Or fire spinners. But those groups have built communities that focus on managing risk intelligently.
…
The gun culture in the US at large doesn’t do that.
I think it’s important to noticer that it wasn’t always thus. Up through the 1950s, the NRA did exactly that: focus on managing the risks of gun ownership intelligently. Dealing intelligently with risk was at the center of US gun culture.
And then something changed. If we are ever going to change the pathologies of our current gun culture, we probably need to understand how it changed to get there.
My issue with these people is that they’ve got this hobbey but it is embedded in a culture that makes them stupid. There is nothing wrong with having a dangerous hobby: I’ve got dangerous hobbies. So do pilots. Or mountain climbers. Or fire spinners. But those groups have built communities that focus on managing risk intelligently.
…
The gun culture in the US at large doesn’t do that.
I think it’s important to noticer that it wasn’t always thus. Up through the 1950s, the NRA did exactly that: focus on managing the risks of gun ownership intelligently. Dealing intelligently with risk was at the center of US gun culture.
And then something changed. If we are ever going to change the pathologies of our current gun culture, we probably need to understand how it changed to get there.
russell: … isn’t there another clerk in whatever county it is in Kentucky? This one person is the only person in the whole county who can issue a marriage license?
I suspect that the problem is that, however many clerical staff the county may have, one of them is “the” county clerk. And just as, for example, incorporation papers are signed by the state’s Secretary of State, even though he my never have laid eyes on them, likewise marriage licenses in that county are the County Clerk’s name (and probably facsimile signature) on them.
Which is why, if one individual refuses to let something happen in that office, it isn’t possible (short of a formal court order) for anyone else to do it.
The good news is, the case getting all the press is one of only two in Kentucky (plus a handful in Alabama, and possible one or two elsewhere) where county clerks are refusing to follow the law. Considering all the hystrical declarations beofre the Supreme Court ruling, it’s actually amazing how few places are still doing the George-Wallace-in-the-school-house-door thing.
russell: … isn’t there another clerk in whatever county it is in Kentucky? This one person is the only person in the whole county who can issue a marriage license?
I suspect that the problem is that, however many clerical staff the county may have, one of them is “the” county clerk. And just as, for example, incorporation papers are signed by the state’s Secretary of State, even though he my never have laid eyes on them, likewise marriage licenses in that county are the County Clerk’s name (and probably facsimile signature) on them.
Which is why, if one individual refuses to let something happen in that office, it isn’t possible (short of a formal court order) for anyone else to do it.
The good news is, the case getting all the press is one of only two in Kentucky (plus a handful in Alabama, and possible one or two elsewhere) where county clerks are refusing to follow the law. Considering all the hystrical declarations beofre the Supreme Court ruling, it’s actually amazing how few places are still doing the George-Wallace-in-the-school-house-door thing.
russell: … isn’t there another clerk in whatever county it is in Kentucky? This one person is the only person in the whole county who can issue a marriage license?
I suspect that the problem is that, however many clerical staff the county may have, one of them is “the” county clerk. And just as, for example, incorporation papers are signed by the state’s Secretary of State, even though he my never have laid eyes on them, likewise marriage licenses in that county are the County Clerk’s name (and probably facsimile signature) on them.
Which is why, if one individual refuses to let something happen in that office, it isn’t possible (short of a formal court order) for anyone else to do it.
The good news is, the case getting all the press is one of only two in Kentucky (plus a handful in Alabama, and possible one or two elsewhere) where county clerks are refusing to follow the law. Considering all the hystrical declarations beofre the Supreme Court ruling, it’s actually amazing how few places are still doing the George-Wallace-in-the-school-house-door thing.
I find it odd that one’s genitals can be referred to as “Junk”, but gun Junk has it’s own Constitutional Amendment.
I find it odd that one’s genitals can be referred to as “Junk”, but gun Junk has it’s own Constitutional Amendment.
I find it odd that one’s genitals can be referred to as “Junk”, but gun Junk has it’s own Constitutional Amendment.
As for that clerk in Kentucky, she’s apparently been married four times. (And not widowed.) I wonder how she’d feel if a Catholic county clerk had refused to grant her a marriage license because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce. (Or didn’t last I knew.)
Of course, logic never had anything to do with it….
As for that clerk in Kentucky, she’s apparently been married four times. (And not widowed.) I wonder how she’d feel if a Catholic county clerk had refused to grant her a marriage license because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce. (Or didn’t last I knew.)
Of course, logic never had anything to do with it….
As for that clerk in Kentucky, she’s apparently been married four times. (And not widowed.) I wonder how she’d feel if a Catholic county clerk had refused to grant her a marriage license because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce. (Or didn’t last I knew.)
Of course, logic never had anything to do with it….
Or never mind the Catholic Church, for that matter. What if a county clerk had insisted that God wasn’t in favor of divorce, and therefore she wasn’t going to issue licenses to people who had living ex-spouses? This woman isn’t even appealing to an institution, it’s just her and her buddy God.
If I were God, the first people I’d send down below would be the people who presumed to speak in my name.
Or never mind the Catholic Church, for that matter. What if a county clerk had insisted that God wasn’t in favor of divorce, and therefore she wasn’t going to issue licenses to people who had living ex-spouses? This woman isn’t even appealing to an institution, it’s just her and her buddy God.
If I were God, the first people I’d send down below would be the people who presumed to speak in my name.
Or never mind the Catholic Church, for that matter. What if a county clerk had insisted that God wasn’t in favor of divorce, and therefore she wasn’t going to issue licenses to people who had living ex-spouses? This woman isn’t even appealing to an institution, it’s just her and her buddy God.
If I were God, the first people I’d send down below would be the people who presumed to speak in my name.
If you were God, Janie, I’d become a believer, unbelievable as it sounds.
I’d convert to Janeism. I stop into a church, I passed along the way, well, I’d get down on my knees, and I’d begin to pray.
If you were God, Janie, I’d become a believer, unbelievable as it sounds.
I’d convert to Janeism. I stop into a church, I passed along the way, well, I’d get down on my knees, and I’d begin to pray.
If you were God, Janie, I’d become a believer, unbelievable as it sounds.
I’d convert to Janeism. I stop into a church, I passed along the way, well, I’d get down on my knees, and I’d begin to pray.
The Politburo issues yet more pledges:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rnc-loyalty-pledge
The Politburo issues yet more pledges:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rnc-loyalty-pledge
The Politburo issues yet more pledges:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rnc-loyalty-pledge
Count, is that a typo for Jainism? (Which somehow doesn’t seem like the real you. Especially the parts about harmlessness and renunciation….;-)
Count, is that a typo for Jainism? (Which somehow doesn’t seem like the real you. Especially the parts about harmlessness and renunciation….;-)
Count, is that a typo for Jainism? (Which somehow doesn’t seem like the real you. Especially the parts about harmlessness and renunciation….;-)
Four inches is about all he’s got, not that it matters among decent human beings:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-has-lost-between-1-and-6-billion-over-his-business-career
Did I mention he cheats at golf?
Plus, after firing the dumsh8t MBA airheads who appeared on the “The Apprentice”, he would have his people break into their hotel rooms and rifle through their stuff and steal their cuff links, handcuffs, cheat sheets, and condoms.
When the “contestants” dragged their pathetic luggage on little wheels down the elevators and out to the sidewalk to the waiting limo, which THEY had to pay for, (plus it took them to the bus station) after their peremptory dismissals for not putting enough green pepper on their entrepreneurial pizzas and charging too little to boot, he’d stand on the 20th floor balcony over them, swig and gargle a slug of Champagne and spit it on their heads as they boarded the limo.
Typical pig vermin Republican, except for the seven who are not.
Four inches is about all he’s got, not that it matters among decent human beings:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-has-lost-between-1-and-6-billion-over-his-business-career
Did I mention he cheats at golf?
Plus, after firing the dumsh8t MBA airheads who appeared on the “The Apprentice”, he would have his people break into their hotel rooms and rifle through their stuff and steal their cuff links, handcuffs, cheat sheets, and condoms.
When the “contestants” dragged their pathetic luggage on little wheels down the elevators and out to the sidewalk to the waiting limo, which THEY had to pay for, (plus it took them to the bus station) after their peremptory dismissals for not putting enough green pepper on their entrepreneurial pizzas and charging too little to boot, he’d stand on the 20th floor balcony over them, swig and gargle a slug of Champagne and spit it on their heads as they boarded the limo.
Typical pig vermin Republican, except for the seven who are not.
Four inches is about all he’s got, not that it matters among decent human beings:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/donald-trump-has-lost-between-1-and-6-billion-over-his-business-career
Did I mention he cheats at golf?
Plus, after firing the dumsh8t MBA airheads who appeared on the “The Apprentice”, he would have his people break into their hotel rooms and rifle through their stuff and steal their cuff links, handcuffs, cheat sheets, and condoms.
When the “contestants” dragged their pathetic luggage on little wheels down the elevators and out to the sidewalk to the waiting limo, which THEY had to pay for, (plus it took them to the bus station) after their peremptory dismissals for not putting enough green pepper on their entrepreneurial pizzas and charging too little to boot, he’d stand on the 20th floor balcony over them, swig and gargle a slug of Champagne and spit it on their heads as they boarded the limo.
Typical pig vermin Republican, except for the seven who are not.
I’m a Janie, not a Jain.
Buddha, not Bubba.
No thick and ordinary for me.
I’m a Janie, not a Jain.
Buddha, not Bubba.
No thick and ordinary for me.
I’m a Janie, not a Jain.
Buddha, not Bubba.
No thick and ordinary for me.
I wonder how she’d feel if a Catholic county clerk had refused to grant her a marriage license because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce.
JanieM!! Hey Janie!!
If we’re going to allow religious exemptions, they need to be available for everyone, and every point of view, without preference.
When we do that and behold the freaking mess we’ve made, we may wish to reconsider the whole religious exemption thing.
Or, not. Either way is OK with me. But selective exemptions are an establishment of religion, full stop.
I wonder how she’d feel if a Catholic county clerk had refused to grant her a marriage license because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce.
JanieM!! Hey Janie!!
If we’re going to allow religious exemptions, they need to be available for everyone, and every point of view, without preference.
When we do that and behold the freaking mess we’ve made, we may wish to reconsider the whole religious exemption thing.
Or, not. Either way is OK with me. But selective exemptions are an establishment of religion, full stop.
I wonder how she’d feel if a Catholic county clerk had refused to grant her a marriage license because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce.
JanieM!! Hey Janie!!
If we’re going to allow religious exemptions, they need to be available for everyone, and every point of view, without preference.
When we do that and behold the freaking mess we’ve made, we may wish to reconsider the whole religious exemption thing.
Or, not. Either way is OK with me. But selective exemptions are an establishment of religion, full stop.
I briefly awake from my dogmatic slumber to give a wave to Janie. Hey! Whatup?
I briefly awake from my dogmatic slumber to give a wave to Janie. Hey! Whatup?
I briefly awake from my dogmatic slumber to give a wave to Janie. Hey! Whatup?
Hey Russell and lj, hi back atcha. Nothing much is up, I’m leading a quiet life. A little too quiet sometimes: you Boston guys want to get together this fall? I’m in Cambridge next week as well as (roughly) the first week of Oct. and the first week of Nov.
What’s up with you-all?
Hey Russell and lj, hi back atcha. Nothing much is up, I’m leading a quiet life. A little too quiet sometimes: you Boston guys want to get together this fall? I’m in Cambridge next week as well as (roughly) the first week of Oct. and the first week of Nov.
What’s up with you-all?
Hey Russell and lj, hi back atcha. Nothing much is up, I’m leading a quiet life. A little too quiet sometimes: you Boston guys want to get together this fall? I’m in Cambridge next week as well as (roughly) the first week of Oct. and the first week of Nov.
What’s up with you-all?
P.S. What is a dogmatic slumber? 🙂
P.S. What is a dogmatic slumber? 🙂
P.S. What is a dogmatic slumber? 🙂
I guess dogmatic slumber has something to do with robotic canines.
I guess dogmatic slumber has something to do with robotic canines.
I guess dogmatic slumber has something to do with robotic canines.
I think it has to do with geormetrically-cut pieces of wood that cut themselves strictly for the benfit of dyslexic dieties.
I think it has to do with geormetrically-cut pieces of wood that cut themselves strictly for the benfit of dyslexic dieties.
I think it has to do with geormetrically-cut pieces of wood that cut themselves strictly for the benfit of dyslexic dieties.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/RSP1061-1967380323?journalCode=mrsp20
I just like the sound of ‘dogmatic slumber’, it sounds very deep and restful, and I hope it conveys a notion that I don’t want to get within 100 miles of a debate about the merits of Republican candidates OR gun control. Though Hartmut and hairshirt’s alternates are a lot better and certainly less pretentious. But you have been missed.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/RSP1061-1967380323?journalCode=mrsp20
I just like the sound of ‘dogmatic slumber’, it sounds very deep and restful, and I hope it conveys a notion that I don’t want to get within 100 miles of a debate about the merits of Republican candidates OR gun control. Though Hartmut and hairshirt’s alternates are a lot better and certainly less pretentious. But you have been missed.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/RSP1061-1967380323?journalCode=mrsp20
I just like the sound of ‘dogmatic slumber’, it sounds very deep and restful, and I hope it conveys a notion that I don’t want to get within 100 miles of a debate about the merits of Republican candidates OR gun control. Though Hartmut and hairshirt’s alternates are a lot better and certainly less pretentious. But you have been missed.
A friend’s father wrote this on Trump’s repeat of ugly history.
A friend’s father wrote this on Trump’s repeat of ugly history.
A friend’s father wrote this on Trump’s repeat of ugly history.
Hey, an old friend surfaces at Balloon Juice:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/09/03/i-need-help-adopting-dogs/
Hey, an old friend surfaces at Balloon Juice:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/09/03/i-need-help-adopting-dogs/
Hey, an old friend surfaces at Balloon Juice:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/09/03/i-need-help-adopting-dogs/
So I’m thinking, if the Fairness Doctrine (destroyed by Ronald Reagan and replaced with the Act to Insure Politically Correct Tolerance on the Airwaves to Conservative Bigots and Filth) was still operative in the U.S.of A., what would be a fair commentary counterpoint in the media to this guy’s Trumpmouth-style eructations. I mean, besides massive, savage violence aimed his way, since politically correct tut-tutting just won’t suffice:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/03/1417699/-Cheers-and-Jeers-Thursday
I don’t know why, but Fischer’s vile Holocaust defense of the Kentucky Clerk and her “conscience” regarding gay marriage, preceded by his bacon comments, brought to mind the scene from Woody Allen’s “Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex and Were Afraid To Ask” in which a rabbi appears as the mystery guest on the old “What’s My Line” show and his secret for the panel to ferret out is that he likes to be beaten by a shiksa as his kneeling wife looks on while eating pork.
In fact, to extend Fischer’s little Holocaust allegory, while I believe the shiksa clerk in Kentucky may NOT sign the piece of paper guaranteeing the heterosexual Jews’ entry into Auschwitz, she WOULD have them disembark from the train to kneel and humiliatingly consume Fischer’s bacon and then let them be on their way.
The gay and lesbian Jews on Fischer’s train, on the other hand, would be segregated out, shunted to a boxcar on a railway siding, and transported — papers in order and signed — to the gas chambers.
But I don’t think my response fulfills the full mission of restoring fairness contra Fischer.
I know what would.
By the way, in preparing this comment, I ran across this article on the Talmudic Tradition in Woody Allen’s films:
http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/ABBOTTM/Archive/Research%20materials/SCS%20Paper.html
So I’m thinking, if the Fairness Doctrine (destroyed by Ronald Reagan and replaced with the Act to Insure Politically Correct Tolerance on the Airwaves to Conservative Bigots and Filth) was still operative in the U.S.of A., what would be a fair commentary counterpoint in the media to this guy’s Trumpmouth-style eructations. I mean, besides massive, savage violence aimed his way, since politically correct tut-tutting just won’t suffice:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/03/1417699/-Cheers-and-Jeers-Thursday
I don’t know why, but Fischer’s vile Holocaust defense of the Kentucky Clerk and her “conscience” regarding gay marriage, preceded by his bacon comments, brought to mind the scene from Woody Allen’s “Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex and Were Afraid To Ask” in which a rabbi appears as the mystery guest on the old “What’s My Line” show and his secret for the panel to ferret out is that he likes to be beaten by a shiksa as his kneeling wife looks on while eating pork.
In fact, to extend Fischer’s little Holocaust allegory, while I believe the shiksa clerk in Kentucky may NOT sign the piece of paper guaranteeing the heterosexual Jews’ entry into Auschwitz, she WOULD have them disembark from the train to kneel and humiliatingly consume Fischer’s bacon and then let them be on their way.
The gay and lesbian Jews on Fischer’s train, on the other hand, would be segregated out, shunted to a boxcar on a railway siding, and transported — papers in order and signed — to the gas chambers.
But I don’t think my response fulfills the full mission of restoring fairness contra Fischer.
I know what would.
By the way, in preparing this comment, I ran across this article on the Talmudic Tradition in Woody Allen’s films:
http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/ABBOTTM/Archive/Research%20materials/SCS%20Paper.html
So I’m thinking, if the Fairness Doctrine (destroyed by Ronald Reagan and replaced with the Act to Insure Politically Correct Tolerance on the Airwaves to Conservative Bigots and Filth) was still operative in the U.S.of A., what would be a fair commentary counterpoint in the media to this guy’s Trumpmouth-style eructations. I mean, besides massive, savage violence aimed his way, since politically correct tut-tutting just won’t suffice:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/03/1417699/-Cheers-and-Jeers-Thursday
I don’t know why, but Fischer’s vile Holocaust defense of the Kentucky Clerk and her “conscience” regarding gay marriage, preceded by his bacon comments, brought to mind the scene from Woody Allen’s “Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex and Were Afraid To Ask” in which a rabbi appears as the mystery guest on the old “What’s My Line” show and his secret for the panel to ferret out is that he likes to be beaten by a shiksa as his kneeling wife looks on while eating pork.
In fact, to extend Fischer’s little Holocaust allegory, while I believe the shiksa clerk in Kentucky may NOT sign the piece of paper guaranteeing the heterosexual Jews’ entry into Auschwitz, she WOULD have them disembark from the train to kneel and humiliatingly consume Fischer’s bacon and then let them be on their way.
The gay and lesbian Jews on Fischer’s train, on the other hand, would be segregated out, shunted to a boxcar on a railway siding, and transported — papers in order and signed — to the gas chambers.
But I don’t think my response fulfills the full mission of restoring fairness contra Fischer.
I know what would.
By the way, in preparing this comment, I ran across this article on the Talmudic Tradition in Woody Allen’s films:
http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/ABBOTTM/Archive/Research%20materials/SCS%20Paper.html
It sounds as if we have nothing to talk about, then.
It’s not about me feeling better. It’s about, probably overly ambitiously, establishing this connection between firearms and penis size as either a) legitimate or b) wishful thinking, or some other exercise in stupidity.
I’ve never been one to measure dicks, really. Nor am I possessed of a particularly large…firearms collection. As for people who are careless with their weapons, I would wish that they would do so in a way that only harms themselves.
I think this topic has been beaten near to death, now.
It sounds as if we have nothing to talk about, then.
It’s not about me feeling better. It’s about, probably overly ambitiously, establishing this connection between firearms and penis size as either a) legitimate or b) wishful thinking, or some other exercise in stupidity.
I’ve never been one to measure dicks, really. Nor am I possessed of a particularly large…firearms collection. As for people who are careless with their weapons, I would wish that they would do so in a way that only harms themselves.
I think this topic has been beaten near to death, now.
It sounds as if we have nothing to talk about, then.
It’s not about me feeling better. It’s about, probably overly ambitiously, establishing this connection between firearms and penis size as either a) legitimate or b) wishful thinking, or some other exercise in stupidity.
I’ve never been one to measure dicks, really. Nor am I possessed of a particularly large…firearms collection. As for people who are careless with their weapons, I would wish that they would do so in a way that only harms themselves.
I think this topic has been beaten near to death, now.
Never overbeat your topic. Blindness can result.
Never overbeat your topic. Blindness can result.
Never overbeat your topic. Blindness can result.
my mom always said one should beat to stiff peaks, then fold gently into the next topic.
my mom always said one should beat to stiff peaks, then fold gently into the next topic.
my mom always said one should beat to stiff peaks, then fold gently into the next topic.
Always the straight man; never the comedian.
Always the straight man; never the comedian.
Always the straight man; never the comedian.
Always the straight man; never the comedian.
They also serve who only stand and wait.
Always the straight man; never the comedian.
They also serve who only stand and wait.
Always the straight man; never the comedian.
They also serve who only stand and wait.
Since Slart has decreed the end of the topic, I will merely content myself with remarking that, when trying to puzzle out the causes of a very complicated and problematic situation, there are generally more alternatives than a) what can be proved to be “legitimate”, or b) wishful thinking or some other exercise in stupidity (by whomsoever judged)
Since Slart has decreed the end of the topic, I will merely content myself with remarking that, when trying to puzzle out the causes of a very complicated and problematic situation, there are generally more alternatives than a) what can be proved to be “legitimate”, or b) wishful thinking or some other exercise in stupidity (by whomsoever judged)
Since Slart has decreed the end of the topic, I will merely content myself with remarking that, when trying to puzzle out the causes of a very complicated and problematic situation, there are generally more alternatives than a) what can be proved to be “legitimate”, or b) wishful thinking or some other exercise in stupidity (by whomsoever judged)
russell,
I am a rabid states rights advocate.
That said, handguns should be licensed by the federal government, or the states per a national criteria. Background checks for any gun.
Concealed carry should be illegal, everywhere. There is no second amendment reference to licensing/background checks or access to any weapon more deadly than a single shot barrel loaded musket.
Objecting to licensing or national background checks is a stupid right wing slippery slope argument. And no one needs an AK with 300 round capacity.
There are stupid left wing arguments, this isn’t one.
russell,
I am a rabid states rights advocate.
That said, handguns should be licensed by the federal government, or the states per a national criteria. Background checks for any gun.
Concealed carry should be illegal, everywhere. There is no second amendment reference to licensing/background checks or access to any weapon more deadly than a single shot barrel loaded musket.
Objecting to licensing or national background checks is a stupid right wing slippery slope argument. And no one needs an AK with 300 round capacity.
There are stupid left wing arguments, this isn’t one.
russell,
I am a rabid states rights advocate.
That said, handguns should be licensed by the federal government, or the states per a national criteria. Background checks for any gun.
Concealed carry should be illegal, everywhere. There is no second amendment reference to licensing/background checks or access to any weapon more deadly than a single shot barrel loaded musket.
Objecting to licensing or national background checks is a stupid right wing slippery slope argument. And no one needs an AK with 300 round capacity.
There are stupid left wing arguments, this isn’t one.
Of course the clerk has to either issue licenses or resign. Like beauty, principle is in the eye of the beholder. Men refusing to register for the draft or soldiers refusing to serve in war often find favor in certain quarters.
Getting worked up over something like this seems silly to me. Seems to me the recent spate of attacks on police officers, in the aftermath of the #blacklivesmatter movement merits some critical thinking, as does the interesting juxtaposition noted by Ms. Peggy Hubbard, whose YouTube is worth googling and considering.
Or, Ms. Clinton’s current troubles.
Or, the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses.
But, yeah, I guess one wack doodle in Kentucky who won’t issue a marriage license is a big deal.
Back to work.
Of course the clerk has to either issue licenses or resign. Like beauty, principle is in the eye of the beholder. Men refusing to register for the draft or soldiers refusing to serve in war often find favor in certain quarters.
Getting worked up over something like this seems silly to me. Seems to me the recent spate of attacks on police officers, in the aftermath of the #blacklivesmatter movement merits some critical thinking, as does the interesting juxtaposition noted by Ms. Peggy Hubbard, whose YouTube is worth googling and considering.
Or, Ms. Clinton’s current troubles.
Or, the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses.
But, yeah, I guess one wack doodle in Kentucky who won’t issue a marriage license is a big deal.
Back to work.
Of course the clerk has to either issue licenses or resign. Like beauty, principle is in the eye of the beholder. Men refusing to register for the draft or soldiers refusing to serve in war often find favor in certain quarters.
Getting worked up over something like this seems silly to me. Seems to me the recent spate of attacks on police officers, in the aftermath of the #blacklivesmatter movement merits some critical thinking, as does the interesting juxtaposition noted by Ms. Peggy Hubbard, whose YouTube is worth googling and considering.
Or, Ms. Clinton’s current troubles.
Or, the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses.
But, yeah, I guess one wack doodle in Kentucky who won’t issue a marriage license is a big deal.
Back to work.
As always, most human beings work better with symbolic cases rather than massive and messy sets of real data. Which is why the lady in Kentucky is significant. Her individual case isn’t important. The importance lies in the situation and what is done about it.
And, in my mind, the actual importance is in just how exceptional the case is. I, for one, expected rather more defiance of the law. But maybe that’s because I remember the late 50s and early 60s, when legally mandated segregation was being smashed. (Not that work-arounds didn’t happen in a lot of places. But overt, legally mandated, segregation stopped — albeit under serious duress.)
As always, most human beings work better with symbolic cases rather than massive and messy sets of real data. Which is why the lady in Kentucky is significant. Her individual case isn’t important. The importance lies in the situation and what is done about it.
And, in my mind, the actual importance is in just how exceptional the case is. I, for one, expected rather more defiance of the law. But maybe that’s because I remember the late 50s and early 60s, when legally mandated segregation was being smashed. (Not that work-arounds didn’t happen in a lot of places. But overt, legally mandated, segregation stopped — albeit under serious duress.)
As always, most human beings work better with symbolic cases rather than massive and messy sets of real data. Which is why the lady in Kentucky is significant. Her individual case isn’t important. The importance lies in the situation and what is done about it.
And, in my mind, the actual importance is in just how exceptional the case is. I, for one, expected rather more defiance of the law. But maybe that’s because I remember the late 50s and early 60s, when legally mandated segregation was being smashed. (Not that work-arounds didn’t happen in a lot of places. But overt, legally mandated, segregation stopped — albeit under serious duress.)
Seems to me the recent spate of attacks on police officers, in the aftermath of the #blacklivesmatter movement merits some critical thinking
nope. it doesn’t. it really doesn’t.
no matter what Fox News tells its viewers, #blm is not a hate group. and, if those who are now claiming it is had a shred of honesty about this kind of thing, they’d be furious at the decades of mistreatment that spawned #blm.
Seems to me the recent spate of attacks on police officers, in the aftermath of the #blacklivesmatter movement merits some critical thinking
nope. it doesn’t. it really doesn’t.
no matter what Fox News tells its viewers, #blm is not a hate group. and, if those who are now claiming it is had a shred of honesty about this kind of thing, they’d be furious at the decades of mistreatment that spawned #blm.
Seems to me the recent spate of attacks on police officers, in the aftermath of the #blacklivesmatter movement merits some critical thinking
nope. it doesn’t. it really doesn’t.
no matter what Fox News tells its viewers, #blm is not a hate group. and, if those who are now claiming it is had a shred of honesty about this kind of thing, they’d be furious at the decades of mistreatment that spawned #blm.
McTx: Men refusing to register for the draft or soldiers refusing to serve in war often find favor in certain quarters.
And are reviled in other quarters.
The main difference is that “men refusing to register” are not public officials and “soldiers refusing to serve in war” (who may reasonably be considered armed public servants) are generally thrown in the brig or worse.
As for “the recent spate of attacks on police officers”, you can insinuate if you like that “the #blacklivesmatter movement” has something to do with them. But you might also indulge in “some critical thinking” about the relationship between the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the weapons used in those attacks.
Ms. Peggy Hubbard may have something worthwhile to say, but before “googling and considering” I’d be curious to know what you are talking about.
“Ms. Clinton’s current troubles” are nothing new: the Right Wing Noise Machine always has something on the Clintons.
And “the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses” is a phrase that says more about your reasonable conservative persona than anything I might offer.
–TP
McTx: Men refusing to register for the draft or soldiers refusing to serve in war often find favor in certain quarters.
And are reviled in other quarters.
The main difference is that “men refusing to register” are not public officials and “soldiers refusing to serve in war” (who may reasonably be considered armed public servants) are generally thrown in the brig or worse.
As for “the recent spate of attacks on police officers”, you can insinuate if you like that “the #blacklivesmatter movement” has something to do with them. But you might also indulge in “some critical thinking” about the relationship between the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the weapons used in those attacks.
Ms. Peggy Hubbard may have something worthwhile to say, but before “googling and considering” I’d be curious to know what you are talking about.
“Ms. Clinton’s current troubles” are nothing new: the Right Wing Noise Machine always has something on the Clintons.
And “the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses” is a phrase that says more about your reasonable conservative persona than anything I might offer.
–TP
McTx: Men refusing to register for the draft or soldiers refusing to serve in war often find favor in certain quarters.
And are reviled in other quarters.
The main difference is that “men refusing to register” are not public officials and “soldiers refusing to serve in war” (who may reasonably be considered armed public servants) are generally thrown in the brig or worse.
As for “the recent spate of attacks on police officers”, you can insinuate if you like that “the #blacklivesmatter movement” has something to do with them. But you might also indulge in “some critical thinking” about the relationship between the guns-for-all interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the weapons used in those attacks.
Ms. Peggy Hubbard may have something worthwhile to say, but before “googling and considering” I’d be curious to know what you are talking about.
“Ms. Clinton’s current troubles” are nothing new: the Right Wing Noise Machine always has something on the Clintons.
And “the ethics of selling off parts of aborted fetuses” is a phrase that says more about your reasonable conservative persona than anything I might offer.
–TP
Feel free to suggest a middle I may have excluded. I assure you that it wasn’t excluded deliberately.
As far as the BLM movement goes: when people get all exercised because they think it means that black lives matter more, I suggest that they mentally insert “, too” at the end. It works for me.
Feel free to suggest a middle I may have excluded. I assure you that it wasn’t excluded deliberately.
As far as the BLM movement goes: when people get all exercised because they think it means that black lives matter more, I suggest that they mentally insert “, too” at the end. It works for me.
Feel free to suggest a middle I may have excluded. I assure you that it wasn’t excluded deliberately.
As far as the BLM movement goes: when people get all exercised because they think it means that black lives matter more, I suggest that they mentally insert “, too” at the end. It works for me.
As far as the BLM movement goes: when people get all exercised because they think it means that black lives matter more, I suggest that they mentally insert “, too” at the end. It works for me.
I initially misread this to mean that the BLM activists needed to insert the “too.” Upon realizing what you really meant, I thought, “Exactly!” I always took the “too” to be implied, anyway. In fact, the implied “too” is really the point of it, no?
Wanting to be included is not the same as wanting to exclude. It’s really not that hard.
As far as the BLM movement goes: when people get all exercised because they think it means that black lives matter more, I suggest that they mentally insert “, too” at the end. It works for me.
I initially misread this to mean that the BLM activists needed to insert the “too.” Upon realizing what you really meant, I thought, “Exactly!” I always took the “too” to be implied, anyway. In fact, the implied “too” is really the point of it, no?
Wanting to be included is not the same as wanting to exclude. It’s really not that hard.
As far as the BLM movement goes: when people get all exercised because they think it means that black lives matter more, I suggest that they mentally insert “, too” at the end. It works for me.
I initially misread this to mean that the BLM activists needed to insert the “too.” Upon realizing what you really meant, I thought, “Exactly!” I always took the “too” to be implied, anyway. In fact, the implied “too” is really the point of it, no?
Wanting to be included is not the same as wanting to exclude. It’s really not that hard.
As for “the recent spate of attacks on police officers”, you can insinuate if you like that “the #blacklivesmatter movement” has something to do with them.
Further, you might also want to consider that looking at a few days might not give you a good idea of overall picture, statistically. This year is on pace to have the fewest killings of police officers in quite a few years.
My father, a retired cop, keeps posting things on facebook about the War on Police that is now underway. I don’t bother to challenge him on it, because it’s just too touchy of a subject. It is, none the less, mostly BS.
As for “the recent spate of attacks on police officers”, you can insinuate if you like that “the #blacklivesmatter movement” has something to do with them.
Further, you might also want to consider that looking at a few days might not give you a good idea of overall picture, statistically. This year is on pace to have the fewest killings of police officers in quite a few years.
My father, a retired cop, keeps posting things on facebook about the War on Police that is now underway. I don’t bother to challenge him on it, because it’s just too touchy of a subject. It is, none the less, mostly BS.
As for “the recent spate of attacks on police officers”, you can insinuate if you like that “the #blacklivesmatter movement” has something to do with them.
Further, you might also want to consider that looking at a few days might not give you a good idea of overall picture, statistically. This year is on pace to have the fewest killings of police officers in quite a few years.
My father, a retired cop, keeps posting things on facebook about the War on Police that is now underway. I don’t bother to challenge him on it, because it’s just too touchy of a subject. It is, none the less, mostly BS.
Thanks for the heads up to Peggy Hubbard.
I’m glad to see a strong, married black woman, a parent, and there are many others like her, take it on. It sure beats the negative stereotype of the drug-addicted black welfare queen who 1) has too many kids with too many fathers she can’t take care of and/or 2) the black welfare queen who aborts all of her children that we are inundated with from too many quarters, political and media.
I’ve no problem with criminal elements who use deadly force being taken out by the police.
However, the cops shouldn’t be shooting down unarmed citizens and kids, nor should they be constantly harassing black residents and driving them to distraction with the corrupt practice of over-ticketing, fines, fines upon fines, and jail if they can’t afford to pay and support the governments the cops and officers of the Court work for.
If society wants to enforce rules to protect itself, then society can tax all of it members the required amount to do so.
Is it legal to videotape a rant on the streets of Ferguson? Whether it is or not, I’ll lay odds that Peggy Hubbard is much more likely to be harassed for doing so than the Oath Keepers are likely to be harassed for sporting military weaponry in public.
Because they are f*cking white. Like me. I can get away with sh*t in public that an innocent black unarmed kid, or an innocent unarmed black female (or male driver can in just about every municipality in this country.
Both behaviors are “legal” I expect. Geez, there’s a problem right there.
And, yes, I now want guns confiscated and I mean house-to-house searches for weapons. And then I want the cops disarmed too.
All a pipe dream, but there it is.
People with guns make guns go boom. People without guns don’t make guns go boom.
Maybe Google can invent the shooterless gun and the road to murder will become more efficient.
Everybody may carry knives and we’ll see if murder and police brutality drop significantly. I say they will.
You can’t throw a knife through the wall of a house and kill a child sleeping on her bed.
BLM does not encourage violence against law enforcement.
They aren’t the f*cking Oath Keepers, nor are they Stormfront, which just endorsed the Donald for President.
There is no equivalency between organized violent threats on the right and left. It happens on both sides, sure, but at this moment in time the Right goddamned wins in this category because the Left gave up on the Symbionese Liberation Army 40 years ago.
I don’t hear Democratic Presidential candidates or media encouraging the kidnapping of Patty Hearst to help the SLA knock over government agencies with its paramilitary weaponry.
As to Clinton and the ethics of selling off parts of fetuses (ask Ben Carson, unless he thinks it might be a politically correct question), more later maybe.
Hey, it’s an open forum. Somebody wants to take on Clinton and abortion and other bigger deals, have at it.
I can’t bring up every subject under the sun all by myself.
Thanks for the heads up to Peggy Hubbard.
I’m glad to see a strong, married black woman, a parent, and there are many others like her, take it on. It sure beats the negative stereotype of the drug-addicted black welfare queen who 1) has too many kids with too many fathers she can’t take care of and/or 2) the black welfare queen who aborts all of her children that we are inundated with from too many quarters, political and media.
I’ve no problem with criminal elements who use deadly force being taken out by the police.
However, the cops shouldn’t be shooting down unarmed citizens and kids, nor should they be constantly harassing black residents and driving them to distraction with the corrupt practice of over-ticketing, fines, fines upon fines, and jail if they can’t afford to pay and support the governments the cops and officers of the Court work for.
If society wants to enforce rules to protect itself, then society can tax all of it members the required amount to do so.
Is it legal to videotape a rant on the streets of Ferguson? Whether it is or not, I’ll lay odds that Peggy Hubbard is much more likely to be harassed for doing so than the Oath Keepers are likely to be harassed for sporting military weaponry in public.
Because they are f*cking white. Like me. I can get away with sh*t in public that an innocent black unarmed kid, or an innocent unarmed black female (or male driver can in just about every municipality in this country.
Both behaviors are “legal” I expect. Geez, there’s a problem right there.
And, yes, I now want guns confiscated and I mean house-to-house searches for weapons. And then I want the cops disarmed too.
All a pipe dream, but there it is.
People with guns make guns go boom. People without guns don’t make guns go boom.
Maybe Google can invent the shooterless gun and the road to murder will become more efficient.
Everybody may carry knives and we’ll see if murder and police brutality drop significantly. I say they will.
You can’t throw a knife through the wall of a house and kill a child sleeping on her bed.
BLM does not encourage violence against law enforcement.
They aren’t the f*cking Oath Keepers, nor are they Stormfront, which just endorsed the Donald for President.
There is no equivalency between organized violent threats on the right and left. It happens on both sides, sure, but at this moment in time the Right goddamned wins in this category because the Left gave up on the Symbionese Liberation Army 40 years ago.
I don’t hear Democratic Presidential candidates or media encouraging the kidnapping of Patty Hearst to help the SLA knock over government agencies with its paramilitary weaponry.
As to Clinton and the ethics of selling off parts of fetuses (ask Ben Carson, unless he thinks it might be a politically correct question), more later maybe.
Hey, it’s an open forum. Somebody wants to take on Clinton and abortion and other bigger deals, have at it.
I can’t bring up every subject under the sun all by myself.
Thanks for the heads up to Peggy Hubbard.
I’m glad to see a strong, married black woman, a parent, and there are many others like her, take it on. It sure beats the negative stereotype of the drug-addicted black welfare queen who 1) has too many kids with too many fathers she can’t take care of and/or 2) the black welfare queen who aborts all of her children that we are inundated with from too many quarters, political and media.
I’ve no problem with criminal elements who use deadly force being taken out by the police.
However, the cops shouldn’t be shooting down unarmed citizens and kids, nor should they be constantly harassing black residents and driving them to distraction with the corrupt practice of over-ticketing, fines, fines upon fines, and jail if they can’t afford to pay and support the governments the cops and officers of the Court work for.
If society wants to enforce rules to protect itself, then society can tax all of it members the required amount to do so.
Is it legal to videotape a rant on the streets of Ferguson? Whether it is or not, I’ll lay odds that Peggy Hubbard is much more likely to be harassed for doing so than the Oath Keepers are likely to be harassed for sporting military weaponry in public.
Because they are f*cking white. Like me. I can get away with sh*t in public that an innocent black unarmed kid, or an innocent unarmed black female (or male driver can in just about every municipality in this country.
Both behaviors are “legal” I expect. Geez, there’s a problem right there.
And, yes, I now want guns confiscated and I mean house-to-house searches for weapons. And then I want the cops disarmed too.
All a pipe dream, but there it is.
People with guns make guns go boom. People without guns don’t make guns go boom.
Maybe Google can invent the shooterless gun and the road to murder will become more efficient.
Everybody may carry knives and we’ll see if murder and police brutality drop significantly. I say they will.
You can’t throw a knife through the wall of a house and kill a child sleeping on her bed.
BLM does not encourage violence against law enforcement.
They aren’t the f*cking Oath Keepers, nor are they Stormfront, which just endorsed the Donald for President.
There is no equivalency between organized violent threats on the right and left. It happens on both sides, sure, but at this moment in time the Right goddamned wins in this category because the Left gave up on the Symbionese Liberation Army 40 years ago.
I don’t hear Democratic Presidential candidates or media encouraging the kidnapping of Patty Hearst to help the SLA knock over government agencies with its paramilitary weaponry.
As to Clinton and the ethics of selling off parts of fetuses (ask Ben Carson, unless he thinks it might be a politically correct question), more later maybe.
Hey, it’s an open forum. Somebody wants to take on Clinton and abortion and other bigger deals, have at it.
I can’t bring up every subject under the sun all by myself.
Wanting to be included is not the same as wanting to exclude.
Not really that obvious in the rhetoric, or actions. I think if you insert that “too” you are being charitable. As with most black protest groups, their willingness to, or insistence on, self segregation mostly defeats their purpose.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement, the evidence of which is reflected in the criticisms leveled by Peggy Hubbard.
Wanting to be included is not the same as wanting to exclude.
Not really that obvious in the rhetoric, or actions. I think if you insert that “too” you are being charitable. As with most black protest groups, their willingness to, or insistence on, self segregation mostly defeats their purpose.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement, the evidence of which is reflected in the criticisms leveled by Peggy Hubbard.
Wanting to be included is not the same as wanting to exclude.
Not really that obvious in the rhetoric, or actions. I think if you insert that “too” you are being charitable. As with most black protest groups, their willingness to, or insistence on, self segregation mostly defeats their purpose.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement, the evidence of which is reflected in the criticisms leveled by Peggy Hubbard.
damn
damn
damn
BLM is an anti-white cop movement
I guess that explains the anti-white-cop indictments in Baltimore, right?
“don’t shoot us” != “we want to shoot you”
But assuming that those two statements are equivalent is deeply embedded in conservative minds, it seems.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement
I guess that explains the anti-white-cop indictments in Baltimore, right?
“don’t shoot us” != “we want to shoot you”
But assuming that those two statements are equivalent is deeply embedded in conservative minds, it seems.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement
I guess that explains the anti-white-cop indictments in Baltimore, right?
“don’t shoot us” != “we want to shoot you”
But assuming that those two statements are equivalent is deeply embedded in conservative minds, it seems.
“BLM is an anti-white cop movement,”
If so, must be because they’ve concluded law enforcement and political and media forces in the country are an anti-black movement.
Maybe they’ve just decided to forego political correctness in calling a spade a spade.
Are there more vocal hostile anti-white movement members in Congress and in governments and segments of the media across the country or are there more hostile anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic (nice that the types who hate these categories are no longer vocally anti-Semitic; get em in private and off the record (Ron Paul is on the record) and you’ll learn differently) movement members in Congress and in governments and segments of the media across the country.
Is there a black Democratic candidate for President going after whitey (that’d be me) at the moment who matches at least several of the Republican candidates for President who explicitly go after nearly everyone who is not white for one bohunk reason or another, and filth love it.
Has BLM put up a Presidential candidate yet.
I must have missed it.
“BLM is an anti-white cop movement,”
If so, must be because they’ve concluded law enforcement and political and media forces in the country are an anti-black movement.
Maybe they’ve just decided to forego political correctness in calling a spade a spade.
Are there more vocal hostile anti-white movement members in Congress and in governments and segments of the media across the country or are there more hostile anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic (nice that the types who hate these categories are no longer vocally anti-Semitic; get em in private and off the record (Ron Paul is on the record) and you’ll learn differently) movement members in Congress and in governments and segments of the media across the country.
Is there a black Democratic candidate for President going after whitey (that’d be me) at the moment who matches at least several of the Republican candidates for President who explicitly go after nearly everyone who is not white for one bohunk reason or another, and filth love it.
Has BLM put up a Presidential candidate yet.
I must have missed it.
“BLM is an anti-white cop movement,”
If so, must be because they’ve concluded law enforcement and political and media forces in the country are an anti-black movement.
Maybe they’ve just decided to forego political correctness in calling a spade a spade.
Are there more vocal hostile anti-white movement members in Congress and in governments and segments of the media across the country or are there more hostile anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic (nice that the types who hate these categories are no longer vocally anti-Semitic; get em in private and off the record (Ron Paul is on the record) and you’ll learn differently) movement members in Congress and in governments and segments of the media across the country.
Is there a black Democratic candidate for President going after whitey (that’d be me) at the moment who matches at least several of the Republican candidates for President who explicitly go after nearly everyone who is not white for one bohunk reason or another, and filth love it.
Has BLM put up a Presidential candidate yet.
I must have missed it.
Has BLM put up a Presidential candidate yet.
I must have missed it.
Count, you take insufficient note of the devious way in which these anti-Americans have contrived to put up a Presidential candidate before the BLM movement became visible. Incredible how successfully devious such by-definition-dumb people can be.
Has BLM put up a Presidential candidate yet.
I must have missed it.
Count, you take insufficient note of the devious way in which these anti-Americans have contrived to put up a Presidential candidate before the BLM movement became visible. Incredible how successfully devious such by-definition-dumb people can be.
Has BLM put up a Presidential candidate yet.
I must have missed it.
Count, you take insufficient note of the devious way in which these anti-Americans have contrived to put up a Presidential candidate before the BLM movement became visible. Incredible how successfully devious such by-definition-dumb people can be.
Well Slarti, another alternative way to think about this could be “considering, in good faith, what elements could be at play in the, seemingly over-the-top, insistence on the right to carry weapons which are capable of killing large numbers of people very quickly. Such elements might include, as well as an attachment to the 2nd Amendment, e.g. a sense of threatened masculinity (forget penises FFS), or despair that the exceptionalism of the country they have always considered god-given Top Nation might be under threat, or growing powerlessness in the face of economic or technological forces over which they have no control etc etc.” It’s not til one starts to examine hypotheses that one can begin to devise ways to test them out, and even before that, in polite company, discuss whether they make sense or not.
Well Slarti, another alternative way to think about this could be “considering, in good faith, what elements could be at play in the, seemingly over-the-top, insistence on the right to carry weapons which are capable of killing large numbers of people very quickly. Such elements might include, as well as an attachment to the 2nd Amendment, e.g. a sense of threatened masculinity (forget penises FFS), or despair that the exceptionalism of the country they have always considered god-given Top Nation might be under threat, or growing powerlessness in the face of economic or technological forces over which they have no control etc etc.” It’s not til one starts to examine hypotheses that one can begin to devise ways to test them out, and even before that, in polite company, discuss whether they make sense or not.
Well Slarti, another alternative way to think about this could be “considering, in good faith, what elements could be at play in the, seemingly over-the-top, insistence on the right to carry weapons which are capable of killing large numbers of people very quickly. Such elements might include, as well as an attachment to the 2nd Amendment, e.g. a sense of threatened masculinity (forget penises FFS), or despair that the exceptionalism of the country they have always considered god-given Top Nation might be under threat, or growing powerlessness in the face of economic or technological forces over which they have no control etc etc.” It’s not til one starts to examine hypotheses that one can begin to devise ways to test them out, and even before that, in polite company, discuss whether they make sense or not.
All that is well and good, TGFTNC.
I am all about hypothesis-testing. You might say I am testing yours.
Also, the small-penis thing isn’t frequently, in my experience, floated as a hypothesis. It’s asserted, outright.
I have no problem whatever with the pointing-out of various flavors of assholery (ewwww?) in the gun-owning community. Generalizing the shortcomings of a few and applying that generalization to the many, though, kind of drives me up a tree.
Not that this last revelation is likely to come as a shock to people who have been conversing with me for the last several years.
All that is well and good, TGFTNC.
I am all about hypothesis-testing. You might say I am testing yours.
Also, the small-penis thing isn’t frequently, in my experience, floated as a hypothesis. It’s asserted, outright.
I have no problem whatever with the pointing-out of various flavors of assholery (ewwww?) in the gun-owning community. Generalizing the shortcomings of a few and applying that generalization to the many, though, kind of drives me up a tree.
Not that this last revelation is likely to come as a shock to people who have been conversing with me for the last several years.
All that is well and good, TGFTNC.
I am all about hypothesis-testing. You might say I am testing yours.
Also, the small-penis thing isn’t frequently, in my experience, floated as a hypothesis. It’s asserted, outright.
I have no problem whatever with the pointing-out of various flavors of assholery (ewwww?) in the gun-owning community. Generalizing the shortcomings of a few and applying that generalization to the many, though, kind of drives me up a tree.
Not that this last revelation is likely to come as a shock to people who have been conversing with me for the last several years.
I think you and I are in effectively complete agreement, there.
Speaking of generalizing the sins of a few out to the many, or to the all: Marty, you are way off base here.
I think you and I are in effectively complete agreement, there.
Speaking of generalizing the sins of a few out to the many, or to the all: Marty, you are way off base here.
I think you and I are in effectively complete agreement, there.
Speaking of generalizing the sins of a few out to the many, or to the all: Marty, you are way off base here.
You know, I hate arguing so vehemently on single issues with decent well-intentioned conservative friends who through no fault of their own and for one reason or another and merely because of their open-mindedness and moderation on one issue or another, have been disqualified as conservatives and Republicans by their willingness to compromise and their unwillingness to toe the no-exceptions, generalizing from the sins of a few, RINO-excluding, ultra radical and dangerous orthodoxy of this monstrosity called the “Republican Party” at this moment in history.
However, I still think I’m easier to talk to than say Donald, Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ann Coulter are, to name but a very few, who made the Republican Party such an inhospitable sanctuary for normal people like yourselves.
Them, I’d like to strangle with my bare hands. I’ll need more hands.
Here’s a virtual handkerchief to wipe my spital from your brow.
Forgive me.
Decent, reasonable, conservative lives matter too.
You know, I hate arguing so vehemently on single issues with decent well-intentioned conservative friends who through no fault of their own and for one reason or another and merely because of their open-mindedness and moderation on one issue or another, have been disqualified as conservatives and Republicans by their willingness to compromise and their unwillingness to toe the no-exceptions, generalizing from the sins of a few, RINO-excluding, ultra radical and dangerous orthodoxy of this monstrosity called the “Republican Party” at this moment in history.
However, I still think I’m easier to talk to than say Donald, Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ann Coulter are, to name but a very few, who made the Republican Party such an inhospitable sanctuary for normal people like yourselves.
Them, I’d like to strangle with my bare hands. I’ll need more hands.
Here’s a virtual handkerchief to wipe my spital from your brow.
Forgive me.
Decent, reasonable, conservative lives matter too.
You know, I hate arguing so vehemently on single issues with decent well-intentioned conservative friends who through no fault of their own and for one reason or another and merely because of their open-mindedness and moderation on one issue or another, have been disqualified as conservatives and Republicans by their willingness to compromise and their unwillingness to toe the no-exceptions, generalizing from the sins of a few, RINO-excluding, ultra radical and dangerous orthodoxy of this monstrosity called the “Republican Party” at this moment in history.
However, I still think I’m easier to talk to than say Donald, Trump, Ted Cruz, and Ann Coulter are, to name but a very few, who made the Republican Party such an inhospitable sanctuary for normal people like yourselves.
Them, I’d like to strangle with my bare hands. I’ll need more hands.
Here’s a virtual handkerchief to wipe my spital from your brow.
Forgive me.
Decent, reasonable, conservative lives matter too.
BLM is making sense, particularly the list of actions they wish to see taken. So is Peggy Hubbard, and, for that matter, are Slarti and TGFTNC, now that the whole pecker thing has been dropped.
BLM is making sense, particularly the list of actions they wish to see taken. So is Peggy Hubbard, and, for that matter, are Slarti and TGFTNC, now that the whole pecker thing has been dropped.
BLM is making sense, particularly the list of actions they wish to see taken. So is Peggy Hubbard, and, for that matter, are Slarti and TGFTNC, now that the whole pecker thing has been dropped.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement
That’s an interesting thesis for two reasons.
First, I think you could make a far better case (not, by any means, a good one; just far better) for this being a straight anti-cop movement. Race of the cop being beside the point.
Second, I think you would find yourself getting far more agreement (with less justification) for it being a straight anti-white movement.
Kind of says something about where discourse on the subject has gotten to.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement
That’s an interesting thesis for two reasons.
First, I think you could make a far better case (not, by any means, a good one; just far better) for this being a straight anti-cop movement. Race of the cop being beside the point.
Second, I think you would find yourself getting far more agreement (with less justification) for it being a straight anti-white movement.
Kind of says something about where discourse on the subject has gotten to.
BLM is an anti-white cop movement
That’s an interesting thesis for two reasons.
First, I think you could make a far better case (not, by any means, a good one; just far better) for this being a straight anti-cop movement. Race of the cop being beside the point.
Second, I think you would find yourself getting far more agreement (with less justification) for it being a straight anti-white movement.
Kind of says something about where discourse on the subject has gotten to.
Also, the small-penis thing isn’t frequently, in my experience, floated as a hypothesis. It’s asserted, outright.
look, i wasn’t asserting anything. it was a joke. i was using “penis size” as a catch-all for a whole bunch of things that look like insecure hyper-masculine overcompensation on the part of the gun wielders. it’s an old joke, probably one of the oldest around. you hear it about guns, cars, trucks, swords: all kinds of things that some men do to presumably look impressive, but really look silly. but again: a joke.
Also, the small-penis thing isn’t frequently, in my experience, floated as a hypothesis. It’s asserted, outright.
look, i wasn’t asserting anything. it was a joke. i was using “penis size” as a catch-all for a whole bunch of things that look like insecure hyper-masculine overcompensation on the part of the gun wielders. it’s an old joke, probably one of the oldest around. you hear it about guns, cars, trucks, swords: all kinds of things that some men do to presumably look impressive, but really look silly. but again: a joke.
Also, the small-penis thing isn’t frequently, in my experience, floated as a hypothesis. It’s asserted, outright.
look, i wasn’t asserting anything. it was a joke. i was using “penis size” as a catch-all for a whole bunch of things that look like insecure hyper-masculine overcompensation on the part of the gun wielders. it’s an old joke, probably one of the oldest around. you hear it about guns, cars, trucks, swords: all kinds of things that some men do to presumably look impressive, but really look silly. but again: a joke.
“you are way off base here”
? am not.
Demands:
We will seek justice for Brown’s family by petitioning for the immediate arrest of officer Darren Wilson and the dismissal of county prosecutor Robert McCullough. Groups that are part of the local Hands Up Don’t Shoot Coalition have already called for Wilson’s swift arrest, and some BLM riders also canvassed McCullough’s neighborhood as a way of raising the public’s awareness of the case.
We will help develop a network of organizations and advocates to form a national policy specifically aimed at redressing the systemic pattern of anti-black law enforcement violence in the US. The Justice Department’s new investigation into St Louis-area police departments is a good start, but it’s not enough. Our ride was endorsed by a few dozen local, regional and national organizations across the country – like the National Organization for Women (Now) and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation – who, while maintaining different missions, have demonstrated unprecedented solidarity in response to anti-black police violence. We hope to encourage more organizations to endorse and participate in a network with a renewed purpose of conceptualizing policy recommendations.
We will also demand, through the network, that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weaponry and equipment to local law enforcement. And though Congress seems to finally be considering measures in this regard, it remains essential to monitor the demilitarization processes and the corporate sectors that financially benefit from the sale of military tools to police.
We will call on the office of US attorney general Eric Holder to release the names of all officers involved in killing black people within the last five years, both while on patrol and in custody, so they can be brought to justice – if they haven’t already.
And we will advocate for a decrease in law-enforcement spending at the local, state and federal levels and a reinvestment of that budgeted money into the black communities most devastated by poverty in order to create jobs, housing and schools. This money should be redirected to those federal departments charged with providing employment, housing and educational services.
“you are way off base here”
? am not.
Demands:
We will seek justice for Brown’s family by petitioning for the immediate arrest of officer Darren Wilson and the dismissal of county prosecutor Robert McCullough. Groups that are part of the local Hands Up Don’t Shoot Coalition have already called for Wilson’s swift arrest, and some BLM riders also canvassed McCullough’s neighborhood as a way of raising the public’s awareness of the case.
We will help develop a network of organizations and advocates to form a national policy specifically aimed at redressing the systemic pattern of anti-black law enforcement violence in the US. The Justice Department’s new investigation into St Louis-area police departments is a good start, but it’s not enough. Our ride was endorsed by a few dozen local, regional and national organizations across the country – like the National Organization for Women (Now) and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation – who, while maintaining different missions, have demonstrated unprecedented solidarity in response to anti-black police violence. We hope to encourage more organizations to endorse and participate in a network with a renewed purpose of conceptualizing policy recommendations.
We will also demand, through the network, that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weaponry and equipment to local law enforcement. And though Congress seems to finally be considering measures in this regard, it remains essential to monitor the demilitarization processes and the corporate sectors that financially benefit from the sale of military tools to police.
We will call on the office of US attorney general Eric Holder to release the names of all officers involved in killing black people within the last five years, both while on patrol and in custody, so they can be brought to justice – if they haven’t already.
And we will advocate for a decrease in law-enforcement spending at the local, state and federal levels and a reinvestment of that budgeted money into the black communities most devastated by poverty in order to create jobs, housing and schools. This money should be redirected to those federal departments charged with providing employment, housing and educational services.
“you are way off base here”
? am not.
Demands:
We will seek justice for Brown’s family by petitioning for the immediate arrest of officer Darren Wilson and the dismissal of county prosecutor Robert McCullough. Groups that are part of the local Hands Up Don’t Shoot Coalition have already called for Wilson’s swift arrest, and some BLM riders also canvassed McCullough’s neighborhood as a way of raising the public’s awareness of the case.
We will help develop a network of organizations and advocates to form a national policy specifically aimed at redressing the systemic pattern of anti-black law enforcement violence in the US. The Justice Department’s new investigation into St Louis-area police departments is a good start, but it’s not enough. Our ride was endorsed by a few dozen local, regional and national organizations across the country – like the National Organization for Women (Now) and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation – who, while maintaining different missions, have demonstrated unprecedented solidarity in response to anti-black police violence. We hope to encourage more organizations to endorse and participate in a network with a renewed purpose of conceptualizing policy recommendations.
We will also demand, through the network, that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weaponry and equipment to local law enforcement. And though Congress seems to finally be considering measures in this regard, it remains essential to monitor the demilitarization processes and the corporate sectors that financially benefit from the sale of military tools to police.
We will call on the office of US attorney general Eric Holder to release the names of all officers involved in killing black people within the last five years, both while on patrol and in custody, so they can be brought to justice – if they haven’t already.
And we will advocate for a decrease in law-enforcement spending at the local, state and federal levels and a reinvestment of that budgeted money into the black communities most devastated by poverty in order to create jobs, housing and schools. This money should be redirected to those federal departments charged with providing employment, housing and educational services.
nothing in that is even the slightest bit anti-white cop. and the fact that there are people out there who read that and think it is is profoundly saddening.
you can’t even accept that black people want to be sure justice was properly served in cases where black people were killed by police (police of any color!) without making it an attack on white cops.
you’re so off base you’re not even in the park.
nothing in that is even the slightest bit anti-white cop. and the fact that there are people out there who read that and think it is is profoundly saddening.
you can’t even accept that black people want to be sure justice was properly served in cases where black people were killed by police (police of any color!) without making it an attack on white cops.
you’re so off base you’re not even in the park.
nothing in that is even the slightest bit anti-white cop. and the fact that there are people out there who read that and think it is is profoundly saddening.
you can’t even accept that black people want to be sure justice was properly served in cases where black people were killed by police (police of any color!) without making it an attack on white cops.
you’re so off base you’re not even in the park.
Where’s the word “white” in all of that?
I presume they want military weaponry and equipment supplied by the federal government halted to ALL police forces and officers, not just the white ones.
Ya mean, BLM would be OK having only black officers operate half-tracks, tanks, and anti-personnel weaponry against the citizenry while the white cops cool their heels at their desks?
I would agree that using Darren Wilson case as the linchpin of their demands is a bit dicey because the case was problematical evidence-wise.
Not that Michael Brown should have been gunned down, but the case against shooting him, according to witnesses, was not nearly as clear cut as many others recently in the news.
Where’s the word “white” in all of that?
I presume they want military weaponry and equipment supplied by the federal government halted to ALL police forces and officers, not just the white ones.
Ya mean, BLM would be OK having only black officers operate half-tracks, tanks, and anti-personnel weaponry against the citizenry while the white cops cool their heels at their desks?
I would agree that using Darren Wilson case as the linchpin of their demands is a bit dicey because the case was problematical evidence-wise.
Not that Michael Brown should have been gunned down, but the case against shooting him, according to witnesses, was not nearly as clear cut as many others recently in the news.
Where’s the word “white” in all of that?
I presume they want military weaponry and equipment supplied by the federal government halted to ALL police forces and officers, not just the white ones.
Ya mean, BLM would be OK having only black officers operate half-tracks, tanks, and anti-personnel weaponry against the citizenry while the white cops cool their heels at their desks?
I would agree that using Darren Wilson case as the linchpin of their demands is a bit dicey because the case was problematical evidence-wise.
Not that Michael Brown should have been gunned down, but the case against shooting him, according to witnesses, was not nearly as clear cut as many others recently in the news.
Good point on the word white. You have to go to the latest demands to find the demand to hire more black policemen. On my phone now so not finding the website right now.
Good point on the word white. You have to go to the latest demands to find the demand to hire more black policemen. On my phone now so not finding the website right now.
Good point on the word white. You have to go to the latest demands to find the demand to hire more black policemen. On my phone now so not finding the website right now.
I recall the BLM folks getting testy when someone proposed that All Lives Matter. BLM’s position on Darren Wilson is counter factual (to say the least), counter presumption of innocence, counter rule of law and very poorly reasoned.
It is hard not to infer a white cop = racist cop, black suspect = innocent suspect subtext to BLM’s position statement.
It is hard not to infer a general, black = presumptively innocent regardless of the facts, white = presumptively racist regardless of the facts subtext given the color-centric choice of language.
I recall the BLM folks getting testy when someone proposed that All Lives Matter. BLM’s position on Darren Wilson is counter factual (to say the least), counter presumption of innocence, counter rule of law and very poorly reasoned.
It is hard not to infer a white cop = racist cop, black suspect = innocent suspect subtext to BLM’s position statement.
It is hard not to infer a general, black = presumptively innocent regardless of the facts, white = presumptively racist regardless of the facts subtext given the color-centric choice of language.
I recall the BLM folks getting testy when someone proposed that All Lives Matter. BLM’s position on Darren Wilson is counter factual (to say the least), counter presumption of innocence, counter rule of law and very poorly reasoned.
It is hard not to infer a white cop = racist cop, black suspect = innocent suspect subtext to BLM’s position statement.
It is hard not to infer a general, black = presumptively innocent regardless of the facts, white = presumptively racist regardless of the facts subtext given the color-centric choice of language.
White lives matter, too.
White lives matter, too.
White lives matter, too.
Countme-In: Where’s the word “white” in all of that?
Cosmologists talk about alternate universes, based on high-fallutin’ theories of quantum mechanics and such. They look for evidence in the far reaches of the cosmos, using elaborate and expensive instruments. Somebody should let them know that they could save money and effort by simply monitoring blog comments.
–TP
Countme-In: Where’s the word “white” in all of that?
Cosmologists talk about alternate universes, based on high-fallutin’ theories of quantum mechanics and such. They look for evidence in the far reaches of the cosmos, using elaborate and expensive instruments. Somebody should let them know that they could save money and effort by simply monitoring blog comments.
–TP
Countme-In: Where’s the word “white” in all of that?
Cosmologists talk about alternate universes, based on high-fallutin’ theories of quantum mechanics and such. They look for evidence in the far reaches of the cosmos, using elaborate and expensive instruments. Somebody should let them know that they could save money and effort by simply monitoring blog comments.
–TP
If there was a movement that aspired to rein in the actions of police and reduce the occasional displays of excessive force, I could get behind that movement.
I tend to think the BLM thing is just the latest installment in rising public awareness of this kind of thing.
See also: everything Radley Balko ever wrote.
If there was a movement that aspired to rein in the actions of police and reduce the occasional displays of excessive force, I could get behind that movement.
I tend to think the BLM thing is just the latest installment in rising public awareness of this kind of thing.
See also: everything Radley Balko ever wrote.
If there was a movement that aspired to rein in the actions of police and reduce the occasional displays of excessive force, I could get behind that movement.
I tend to think the BLM thing is just the latest installment in rising public awareness of this kind of thing.
See also: everything Radley Balko ever wrote.
Well here it is Slart:
http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision
Well here it is Slart:
http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision
Well here it is Slart:
http://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision
I don’t really have a hypothesis for you to test Slarti. I’m exploring possibilities. My first comment, in support of Cleek, was
“It’s not that the guns thing is ONLY a penile substitute, but there’s such an unmistakeable miasma of macho posturing, small-man-syndrome strutting, “pry it from my cold, dead hands”(!) rhetoric that, on some level, threatened masculinity is an unavoidable conclusion”.
OK, “conclusion” does suggest a done deal of a hypothesis, but actually “not ONLY a penile substitute” and “on some level, threatened masculinity” seem totally in tune with my last post at 1.44. But the reason I’ve kept going on this is that we should be able to discuss this stuff without having to watch our backs or be accused of stupidity or making things up for the purpose of ridicule. Not to mention: the freedom to make jokes.
I don’t really have a hypothesis for you to test Slarti. I’m exploring possibilities. My first comment, in support of Cleek, was
“It’s not that the guns thing is ONLY a penile substitute, but there’s such an unmistakeable miasma of macho posturing, small-man-syndrome strutting, “pry it from my cold, dead hands”(!) rhetoric that, on some level, threatened masculinity is an unavoidable conclusion”.
OK, “conclusion” does suggest a done deal of a hypothesis, but actually “not ONLY a penile substitute” and “on some level, threatened masculinity” seem totally in tune with my last post at 1.44. But the reason I’ve kept going on this is that we should be able to discuss this stuff without having to watch our backs or be accused of stupidity or making things up for the purpose of ridicule. Not to mention: the freedom to make jokes.
I don’t really have a hypothesis for you to test Slarti. I’m exploring possibilities. My first comment, in support of Cleek, was
“It’s not that the guns thing is ONLY a penile substitute, but there’s such an unmistakeable miasma of macho posturing, small-man-syndrome strutting, “pry it from my cold, dead hands”(!) rhetoric that, on some level, threatened masculinity is an unavoidable conclusion”.
OK, “conclusion” does suggest a done deal of a hypothesis, but actually “not ONLY a penile substitute” and “on some level, threatened masculinity” seem totally in tune with my last post at 1.44. But the reason I’ve kept going on this is that we should be able to discuss this stuff without having to watch our backs or be accused of stupidity or making things up for the purpose of ridicule. Not to mention: the freedom to make jokes.
BP, any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans. Sure, if you use raw numbers, whites out-crime black, in most categories. Blacks, on raw numbers, out crime whites in ‘robbery’. On homicides, it’s a virtual tie every year, except that whites outnumber blacks by a huge factor. In 2013, Blacks led whites in arrests for murder. When Blacks lead on raw numbers, they dominate statistically because of the overall population disparity. Anyone who contends that, percentage-wise or on any other comparative basis, white people commit more crime than blacks is either ignorant or dishonest.
Similarly, while most crime is white on white, Black on Black or Hispanic on Hispanic, Blacks lead in cross-over crime both on whites and on Hispanics.
Table 43, FBI Crime Stats covers most of this. DOJ 2012, 2013 Victimization study covers the last sentence.
BP, any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans. Sure, if you use raw numbers, whites out-crime black, in most categories. Blacks, on raw numbers, out crime whites in ‘robbery’. On homicides, it’s a virtual tie every year, except that whites outnumber blacks by a huge factor. In 2013, Blacks led whites in arrests for murder. When Blacks lead on raw numbers, they dominate statistically because of the overall population disparity. Anyone who contends that, percentage-wise or on any other comparative basis, white people commit more crime than blacks is either ignorant or dishonest.
Similarly, while most crime is white on white, Black on Black or Hispanic on Hispanic, Blacks lead in cross-over crime both on whites and on Hispanics.
Table 43, FBI Crime Stats covers most of this. DOJ 2012, 2013 Victimization study covers the last sentence.
BP, any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans. Sure, if you use raw numbers, whites out-crime black, in most categories. Blacks, on raw numbers, out crime whites in ‘robbery’. On homicides, it’s a virtual tie every year, except that whites outnumber blacks by a huge factor. In 2013, Blacks led whites in arrests for murder. When Blacks lead on raw numbers, they dominate statistically because of the overall population disparity. Anyone who contends that, percentage-wise or on any other comparative basis, white people commit more crime than blacks is either ignorant or dishonest.
Similarly, while most crime is white on white, Black on Black or Hispanic on Hispanic, Blacks lead in cross-over crime both on whites and on Hispanics.
Table 43, FBI Crime Stats covers most of this. DOJ 2012, 2013 Victimization study covers the last sentence.
I recall the BLM folks getting testy when someone proposed that All Lives Matter.
Maybe because it’s dismissive of legitimate concerns about black lives seeming to matter less than other lives, at least on a societal level. See Slart’s and my discussion of the implied “too” at the end of BLM.
BLM’s position on Darren Wilson is counter factual (to say the least), counter presumption of innocence, counter rule of law and very poorly reasoned.
As time has passed, I tend to think Darren Wilson was the victim of timing. I don’t think he was particularly good at being a cop, but I don’t think he was clearly unjustified in shooting Michael Brown once things went south. Wilson probably got worse than he deserved.
It is hard not to infer a white cop = racist cop, black suspect = innocent suspect subtext to BLM’s position statement.
It’s very easy for me not to infer it. Maybe what you mean is that it’s not terribly difficult to infer it (if you’re so inclined), rather than hard not to infer it.
It is hard not to infer a general, black = presumptively innocent regardless of the facts, white = presumptively racist regardless of the facts subtext given the color-centric choice of language.
See above. And the color-centric choice of language might, maybe, possibly be because they’re talking about the poorer treatment black people receive. I’m sure they’d rather it didn’t exist and not talk about it at all.
Maybe you don’t think there’s a problem with how law enforcement and the justice system differentially treats blacks in this country. But, if you do think there’s a problem, how do you talk about black people being mistreated without talking about black people?
I recall the BLM folks getting testy when someone proposed that All Lives Matter.
Maybe because it’s dismissive of legitimate concerns about black lives seeming to matter less than other lives, at least on a societal level. See Slart’s and my discussion of the implied “too” at the end of BLM.
BLM’s position on Darren Wilson is counter factual (to say the least), counter presumption of innocence, counter rule of law and very poorly reasoned.
As time has passed, I tend to think Darren Wilson was the victim of timing. I don’t think he was particularly good at being a cop, but I don’t think he was clearly unjustified in shooting Michael Brown once things went south. Wilson probably got worse than he deserved.
It is hard not to infer a white cop = racist cop, black suspect = innocent suspect subtext to BLM’s position statement.
It’s very easy for me not to infer it. Maybe what you mean is that it’s not terribly difficult to infer it (if you’re so inclined), rather than hard not to infer it.
It is hard not to infer a general, black = presumptively innocent regardless of the facts, white = presumptively racist regardless of the facts subtext given the color-centric choice of language.
See above. And the color-centric choice of language might, maybe, possibly be because they’re talking about the poorer treatment black people receive. I’m sure they’d rather it didn’t exist and not talk about it at all.
Maybe you don’t think there’s a problem with how law enforcement and the justice system differentially treats blacks in this country. But, if you do think there’s a problem, how do you talk about black people being mistreated without talking about black people?
I recall the BLM folks getting testy when someone proposed that All Lives Matter.
Maybe because it’s dismissive of legitimate concerns about black lives seeming to matter less than other lives, at least on a societal level. See Slart’s and my discussion of the implied “too” at the end of BLM.
BLM’s position on Darren Wilson is counter factual (to say the least), counter presumption of innocence, counter rule of law and very poorly reasoned.
As time has passed, I tend to think Darren Wilson was the victim of timing. I don’t think he was particularly good at being a cop, but I don’t think he was clearly unjustified in shooting Michael Brown once things went south. Wilson probably got worse than he deserved.
It is hard not to infer a white cop = racist cop, black suspect = innocent suspect subtext to BLM’s position statement.
It’s very easy for me not to infer it. Maybe what you mean is that it’s not terribly difficult to infer it (if you’re so inclined), rather than hard not to infer it.
It is hard not to infer a general, black = presumptively innocent regardless of the facts, white = presumptively racist regardless of the facts subtext given the color-centric choice of language.
See above. And the color-centric choice of language might, maybe, possibly be because they’re talking about the poorer treatment black people receive. I’m sure they’d rather it didn’t exist and not talk about it at all.
Maybe you don’t think there’s a problem with how law enforcement and the justice system differentially treats blacks in this country. But, if you do think there’s a problem, how do you talk about black people being mistreated without talking about black people?
It is hard not to infer
Why infer? Why not just assume that what is said is actually what is meant?
At least as an opening position.
BP, any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans.
Almost everything seems to be a net loser for African Americans.
That’s why they’re upset, would be my guess.
It is hard not to infer
Why infer? Why not just assume that what is said is actually what is meant?
At least as an opening position.
BP, any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans.
Almost everything seems to be a net loser for African Americans.
That’s why they’re upset, would be my guess.
It is hard not to infer
Why infer? Why not just assume that what is said is actually what is meant?
At least as an opening position.
BP, any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans.
Almost everything seems to be a net loser for African Americans.
That’s why they’re upset, would be my guess.
You know, McKinney, it would probably increase the usefulness of these statistics if they split out the relative racial numbers by economic/financial standing. That is, compare racial numbers (and percentages) for poor blacks vs poor whites vs poor Hispanics (and, for that matter, rich blacks vs rich whites vs rich Hispanics**) — break the numbers out in, for example, $25K per year segments. And preferably further by rural/suburban/urban.
Then we might at least have a chance of deciding how much of the disparity is actually racial, and how much is correlated with other factors. As it is, it is far too easy to interpret the limited data any way one wants.
** I would be amazed if, in the rich category, whites don’t massively dominate the numbers, simply because there are so many more. But I might be surprised.
You know, McKinney, it would probably increase the usefulness of these statistics if they split out the relative racial numbers by economic/financial standing. That is, compare racial numbers (and percentages) for poor blacks vs poor whites vs poor Hispanics (and, for that matter, rich blacks vs rich whites vs rich Hispanics**) — break the numbers out in, for example, $25K per year segments. And preferably further by rural/suburban/urban.
Then we might at least have a chance of deciding how much of the disparity is actually racial, and how much is correlated with other factors. As it is, it is far too easy to interpret the limited data any way one wants.
** I would be amazed if, in the rich category, whites don’t massively dominate the numbers, simply because there are so many more. But I might be surprised.
You know, McKinney, it would probably increase the usefulness of these statistics if they split out the relative racial numbers by economic/financial standing. That is, compare racial numbers (and percentages) for poor blacks vs poor whites vs poor Hispanics (and, for that matter, rich blacks vs rich whites vs rich Hispanics**) — break the numbers out in, for example, $25K per year segments. And preferably further by rural/suburban/urban.
Then we might at least have a chance of deciding how much of the disparity is actually racial, and how much is correlated with other factors. As it is, it is far too easy to interpret the limited data any way one wants.
** I would be amazed if, in the rich category, whites don’t massively dominate the numbers, simply because there are so many more. But I might be surprised.
Sure, if you use raw numbers, whites out-crime black, in most categories. Blacks, on raw numbers, out crime whites in ‘robbery’. On homicides, it’s a virtual tie every year, except that whites outnumber blacks by a huge factor. In 2013, Blacks led whites in arrests for murder.
BLM isn’t about criminals being arrested convicted. it’s about innocent black people being stopped, arrested, jailed, tried, sentenced, incarcerated and especially outright killed in cold blood for no good goddamned reason, at a higher rate than whites.
i know we’ve been over this a couple of times now so i know you’ve seen the studies that demonstrate all of this. and i know you dismiss them all out of hand. but, the BLM movement sees things differently – probably because they’re on the receiving end of things.
Sure, if you use raw numbers, whites out-crime black, in most categories. Blacks, on raw numbers, out crime whites in ‘robbery’. On homicides, it’s a virtual tie every year, except that whites outnumber blacks by a huge factor. In 2013, Blacks led whites in arrests for murder.
BLM isn’t about criminals being arrested convicted. it’s about innocent black people being stopped, arrested, jailed, tried, sentenced, incarcerated and especially outright killed in cold blood for no good goddamned reason, at a higher rate than whites.
i know we’ve been over this a couple of times now so i know you’ve seen the studies that demonstrate all of this. and i know you dismiss them all out of hand. but, the BLM movement sees things differently – probably because they’re on the receiving end of things.
Sure, if you use raw numbers, whites out-crime black, in most categories. Blacks, on raw numbers, out crime whites in ‘robbery’. On homicides, it’s a virtual tie every year, except that whites outnumber blacks by a huge factor. In 2013, Blacks led whites in arrests for murder.
BLM isn’t about criminals being arrested convicted. it’s about innocent black people being stopped, arrested, jailed, tried, sentenced, incarcerated and especially outright killed in cold blood for no good goddamned reason, at a higher rate than whites.
i know we’ve been over this a couple of times now so i know you’ve seen the studies that demonstrate all of this. and i know you dismiss them all out of hand. but, the BLM movement sees things differently – probably because they’re on the receiving end of things.
i know we’ve been over this a couple of times now so i know you’ve seen the studies that demonstrate all of this. and i know you dismiss them all out of hand.
There is quite a bit of room between dismissing complaints of racial bias in law enforcement out of hand *and* agreeing with the BLM folks and their agenda.
I am in favor of (1) honestly recognizing hard facts, such as the Darren Wilson fixation, and (2) withholding judgment until there has been an investigation when there has been a shooting.
Michael Brown was inside the squad car, where he was shot, and he again advanced on the squad car. What exactly should Officer Wilson have done other than shoot again? Brown was twice his size.
I can have a discussion, but not if the beginning point is pure fantasy.
A final point, then back to work: we need to ask whether, today, racism is the primary underlying reason for racial bias in law enforcement.
Racial crime statistics make people uncomfortable. If you are in the police business, you live these statistics everyday. At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
i know we’ve been over this a couple of times now so i know you’ve seen the studies that demonstrate all of this. and i know you dismiss them all out of hand.
There is quite a bit of room between dismissing complaints of racial bias in law enforcement out of hand *and* agreeing with the BLM folks and their agenda.
I am in favor of (1) honestly recognizing hard facts, such as the Darren Wilson fixation, and (2) withholding judgment until there has been an investigation when there has been a shooting.
Michael Brown was inside the squad car, where he was shot, and he again advanced on the squad car. What exactly should Officer Wilson have done other than shoot again? Brown was twice his size.
I can have a discussion, but not if the beginning point is pure fantasy.
A final point, then back to work: we need to ask whether, today, racism is the primary underlying reason for racial bias in law enforcement.
Racial crime statistics make people uncomfortable. If you are in the police business, you live these statistics everyday. At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
i know we’ve been over this a couple of times now so i know you’ve seen the studies that demonstrate all of this. and i know you dismiss them all out of hand.
There is quite a bit of room between dismissing complaints of racial bias in law enforcement out of hand *and* agreeing with the BLM folks and their agenda.
I am in favor of (1) honestly recognizing hard facts, such as the Darren Wilson fixation, and (2) withholding judgment until there has been an investigation when there has been a shooting.
Michael Brown was inside the squad car, where he was shot, and he again advanced on the squad car. What exactly should Officer Wilson have done other than shoot again? Brown was twice his size.
I can have a discussion, but not if the beginning point is pure fantasy.
A final point, then back to work: we need to ask whether, today, racism is the primary underlying reason for racial bias in law enforcement.
Racial crime statistics make people uncomfortable. If you are in the police business, you live these statistics everyday. At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
…any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans
McKinney,
That depends on the yardstick and the variables. See this report.
Your approach to this matter is one-dimensional in the extreme.
I will be happy to discuss “black on black crime” when blacks have as much wealth per capita as whites do. Looking forward to it, in fact.
…any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans
McKinney,
That depends on the yardstick and the variables. See this report.
Your approach to this matter is one-dimensional in the extreme.
I will be happy to discuss “black on black crime” when blacks have as much wealth per capita as whites do. Looking forward to it, in fact.
…any discussion of race and crime is a major net loser for African Americans
McKinney,
That depends on the yardstick and the variables. See this report.
Your approach to this matter is one-dimensional in the extreme.
I will be happy to discuss “black on black crime” when blacks have as much wealth per capita as whites do. Looking forward to it, in fact.
it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
Manifestly so.
And, that is, by definition, racism.
It doesn’t require malice, it doesn’t require ill intent, it doesn’t require anything except drawing conclusions about a given person based on the color their skin, in the absence of other information.
That is what racism is. It is not anything other than that, it is precisely and exactly that. By definition.
it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
Manifestly so.
And, that is, by definition, racism.
It doesn’t require malice, it doesn’t require ill intent, it doesn’t require anything except drawing conclusions about a given person based on the color their skin, in the absence of other information.
That is what racism is. It is not anything other than that, it is precisely and exactly that. By definition.
it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
Manifestly so.
And, that is, by definition, racism.
It doesn’t require malice, it doesn’t require ill intent, it doesn’t require anything except drawing conclusions about a given person based on the color their skin, in the absence of other information.
That is what racism is. It is not anything other than that, it is precisely and exactly that. By definition.
I am in favor of (1) honestly recognizing hard facts, such as the Darren Wilson fixation,
and everything else they have to say?
I am in favor of (1) honestly recognizing hard facts, such as the Darren Wilson fixation,
and everything else they have to say?
I am in favor of (1) honestly recognizing hard facts, such as the Darren Wilson fixation,
and everything else they have to say?
Then Tanesi Coates is a racist?
Then Tanesi Coates is a racist?
Then Tanesi Coates is a racist?
“Brown was twice his size”
Wilson was over 6 feet tall. Was Brown more that 12 feet tall? Why was he not in the Guinness Book of World Records?
Or perhaps you meant weight. Wilson looks like a fairly sturdy adult, I’d guess around 180-200 lbs, minimum.
Was Brown more than 360 lbs? Yeah, I’d be scared that he was gonna waddle over and sit on me too.
That “over twice his size” was stupid, or dishonest. Which was it?
“Brown was twice his size”
Wilson was over 6 feet tall. Was Brown more that 12 feet tall? Why was he not in the Guinness Book of World Records?
Or perhaps you meant weight. Wilson looks like a fairly sturdy adult, I’d guess around 180-200 lbs, minimum.
Was Brown more than 360 lbs? Yeah, I’d be scared that he was gonna waddle over and sit on me too.
That “over twice his size” was stupid, or dishonest. Which was it?
“Brown was twice his size”
Wilson was over 6 feet tall. Was Brown more that 12 feet tall? Why was he not in the Guinness Book of World Records?
Or perhaps you meant weight. Wilson looks like a fairly sturdy adult, I’d guess around 180-200 lbs, minimum.
Was Brown more than 360 lbs? Yeah, I’d be scared that he was gonna waddle over and sit on me too.
That “over twice his size” was stupid, or dishonest. Which was it?
A figure of speech?
A figure of speech?
A figure of speech?
Then Tanesi Coates is a racist?
To the degree that TNC makes assumptions about what people do or think based purely on the color of their skin, yes, he is a racist.
That is what racism is.
Note that making observations about historical facts is not racism.
However, assuming that particular white people are going to discriminate against you, because their skin happens to be white, is racism.
When TNC says that white people systematically discriminated against black people in specific historical cases, that is not racism. It’s an observation about historical facts.
If he walks up to you and claims that you, personally, are inclined to discriminate against him, and he knows this because your skin is white, that is racism.
And, equating black skin with criminal behavior, in the absence of evidence of actual criminal behavior, *is racism*.
It is the definition of racism.
Then Tanesi Coates is a racist?
To the degree that TNC makes assumptions about what people do or think based purely on the color of their skin, yes, he is a racist.
That is what racism is.
Note that making observations about historical facts is not racism.
However, assuming that particular white people are going to discriminate against you, because their skin happens to be white, is racism.
When TNC says that white people systematically discriminated against black people in specific historical cases, that is not racism. It’s an observation about historical facts.
If he walks up to you and claims that you, personally, are inclined to discriminate against him, and he knows this because your skin is white, that is racism.
And, equating black skin with criminal behavior, in the absence of evidence of actual criminal behavior, *is racism*.
It is the definition of racism.
Then Tanesi Coates is a racist?
To the degree that TNC makes assumptions about what people do or think based purely on the color of their skin, yes, he is a racist.
That is what racism is.
Note that making observations about historical facts is not racism.
However, assuming that particular white people are going to discriminate against you, because their skin happens to be white, is racism.
When TNC says that white people systematically discriminated against black people in specific historical cases, that is not racism. It’s an observation about historical facts.
If he walks up to you and claims that you, personally, are inclined to discriminate against him, and he knows this because your skin is white, that is racism.
And, equating black skin with criminal behavior, in the absence of evidence of actual criminal behavior, *is racism*.
It is the definition of racism.
When ole Brett used to cite the kinds of statistics that McKinney is citing here, I kept asking him these questions:
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
McKinney is free to answer in Brett’s stead, if he feels like it.
–TP
When ole Brett used to cite the kinds of statistics that McKinney is citing here, I kept asking him these questions:
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
McKinney is free to answer in Brett’s stead, if he feels like it.
–TP
When ole Brett used to cite the kinds of statistics that McKinney is citing here, I kept asking him these questions:
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
McKinney is free to answer in Brett’s stead, if he feels like it.
–TP
Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, has discovered, some 20 years later, and to his great dismay, that blue collar and otherwise not-wealthy white people, at the end of 50 years of economic stagnation, exhibit the very same symptoms of social dysfunction that used to, somehow, be attributed to black skin.
Imagine his freaking surprise.
The racism that equates black skin with criminal behavior is not commensurate with the “racism” that looks at decades and centuries of systematic legal, civic, and social abuse of black people and concludes, a la TNC, that white folks appear to be inclined to ill-treat black folks.
People who are marginalized tend to not comply with the prevailing social norms, regardless of their skin color.
I’m hard pressed to find an equivalent explanation for the treatment of blacks by whites.
Black people in the USA are treated differently than people who aren’t black, because their skin is black. I can’t think of a more consistent, pervasive, and ubiquitous ground truth in American life than that. Historically, and now, today.
And that is, by definition, racism.
I straight up do not understand people who find this hard to recognize or accept.
Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, has discovered, some 20 years later, and to his great dismay, that blue collar and otherwise not-wealthy white people, at the end of 50 years of economic stagnation, exhibit the very same symptoms of social dysfunction that used to, somehow, be attributed to black skin.
Imagine his freaking surprise.
The racism that equates black skin with criminal behavior is not commensurate with the “racism” that looks at decades and centuries of systematic legal, civic, and social abuse of black people and concludes, a la TNC, that white folks appear to be inclined to ill-treat black folks.
People who are marginalized tend to not comply with the prevailing social norms, regardless of their skin color.
I’m hard pressed to find an equivalent explanation for the treatment of blacks by whites.
Black people in the USA are treated differently than people who aren’t black, because their skin is black. I can’t think of a more consistent, pervasive, and ubiquitous ground truth in American life than that. Historically, and now, today.
And that is, by definition, racism.
I straight up do not understand people who find this hard to recognize or accept.
Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, has discovered, some 20 years later, and to his great dismay, that blue collar and otherwise not-wealthy white people, at the end of 50 years of economic stagnation, exhibit the very same symptoms of social dysfunction that used to, somehow, be attributed to black skin.
Imagine his freaking surprise.
The racism that equates black skin with criminal behavior is not commensurate with the “racism” that looks at decades and centuries of systematic legal, civic, and social abuse of black people and concludes, a la TNC, that white folks appear to be inclined to ill-treat black folks.
People who are marginalized tend to not comply with the prevailing social norms, regardless of their skin color.
I’m hard pressed to find an equivalent explanation for the treatment of blacks by whites.
Black people in the USA are treated differently than people who aren’t black, because their skin is black. I can’t think of a more consistent, pervasive, and ubiquitous ground truth in American life than that. Historically, and now, today.
And that is, by definition, racism.
I straight up do not understand people who find this hard to recognize or accept.
is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that US Conservatism™ has fully dedicated itself to discrediting, disputing, deflecting or otherwise distracting people from anything a black person has to say when it comes to how ?
blacks get screwed in every aspect of the US CJS and the US Conservative™ response is to defend authority: predictably, doggedly, reflexively.
“small government” means “small on my side, big on yours”, right?
is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that US Conservatism™ has fully dedicated itself to discrediting, disputing, deflecting or otherwise distracting people from anything a black person has to say when it comes to how ?
blacks get screwed in every aspect of the US CJS and the US Conservative™ response is to defend authority: predictably, doggedly, reflexively.
“small government” means “small on my side, big on yours”, right?
is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that US Conservatism™ has fully dedicated itself to discrediting, disputing, deflecting or otherwise distracting people from anything a black person has to say when it comes to how ?
blacks get screwed in every aspect of the US CJS and the US Conservative™ response is to defend authority: predictably, doggedly, reflexively.
“small government” means “small on my side, big on yours”, right?
errrmmm…
when it comes to how … the deck is stacked against them when it comes to the police and the courts ?
errrmmm…
when it comes to how … the deck is stacked against them when it comes to the police and the courts ?
errrmmm…
when it comes to how … the deck is stacked against them when it comes to the police and the courts ?
I straight up do not understand people who find this hard to recognize or accept.
It’s not that hard. They reject the premise. What little racism they are willing to admit exists is, by their definition, of no import…because they see it as an “outlier”, a sideshow. It’s always, and has always been, about THEM.
The answer is to gather enough folks together and tell these people they are, in no uncertain terms, terribly terribly wrong, and adopt public polices to, over their vociferous objection (cf slavery and segregation), make things right.
To do otherwise is to mock our ideals.
I straight up do not understand people who find this hard to recognize or accept.
It’s not that hard. They reject the premise. What little racism they are willing to admit exists is, by their definition, of no import…because they see it as an “outlier”, a sideshow. It’s always, and has always been, about THEM.
The answer is to gather enough folks together and tell these people they are, in no uncertain terms, terribly terribly wrong, and adopt public polices to, over their vociferous objection (cf slavery and segregation), make things right.
To do otherwise is to mock our ideals.
I straight up do not understand people who find this hard to recognize or accept.
It’s not that hard. They reject the premise. What little racism they are willing to admit exists is, by their definition, of no import…because they see it as an “outlier”, a sideshow. It’s always, and has always been, about THEM.
The answer is to gather enough folks together and tell these people they are, in no uncertain terms, terribly terribly wrong, and adopt public polices to, over their vociferous objection (cf slavery and segregation), make things right.
To do otherwise is to mock our ideals.
I doubt Tahesi Coates believes Obama is a Muslim just by looking at him.
54% of Republicans, who’ve never met the President, think he is, and a plurality of the remaining filth “aren’t sure”, but he MIGHT be.
I suspect the taxi driver in Tahesi Coates would pick up the President, even if he was white, if the latter was standing on a dark street corner at night in a big city, but the 54% cited above would just as soon shoot him.
These filth identify themselves as racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic bigoted vermin.
They have at least half a dozen Republican candidates for President aligning with them and stoking the hate far beyond that.
We know who the bigoted vermin in this country are who generalize from the particular because they tell us about it everyday.
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
There is going to be political violence in this country unlike anyone has ever seen.
Oh look, it’s already started:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/protester-attacks-trump-guards-fist-his-head-trump-press-charges
Indeed, this is why BLM et al needs to be heavily armed when they attend Republican gigs to protest, unlike they needed when protesting Bernie Sanders, because Republican goons will be there to hurt them.
They should act as Republicans would and defend themselves with deadly force.
You know, like the armed Republicans who showed up at Dem and RINO rallies in 2010 intending to murder if anyone happened to get a health insurance policy.
F8ck this Republican sh*t.
The League of the South, which envisions an independent Southern republic with “Anglo-Celtic” leadership, loves the Donald Trump schtick. Their leader, Michael Hill, condemns immigration and interracial marriage and warns of the influence of Jewry (an old conservative tidbit still seething under the surface; it will reemerge) He said this regarding the Confederate flag as he warned “They” will come for us: “This is cultural genocide. Often, as history as shown, cultural genocide is merely a prelude to physical genocide.”
Yeah, but, but … Tanesi Coates.
I doubt Tahesi Coates believes Obama is a Muslim just by looking at him.
54% of Republicans, who’ve never met the President, think he is, and a plurality of the remaining filth “aren’t sure”, but he MIGHT be.
I suspect the taxi driver in Tahesi Coates would pick up the President, even if he was white, if the latter was standing on a dark street corner at night in a big city, but the 54% cited above would just as soon shoot him.
These filth identify themselves as racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic bigoted vermin.
They have at least half a dozen Republican candidates for President aligning with them and stoking the hate far beyond that.
We know who the bigoted vermin in this country are who generalize from the particular because they tell us about it everyday.
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
There is going to be political violence in this country unlike anyone has ever seen.
Oh look, it’s already started:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/protester-attacks-trump-guards-fist-his-head-trump-press-charges
Indeed, this is why BLM et al needs to be heavily armed when they attend Republican gigs to protest, unlike they needed when protesting Bernie Sanders, because Republican goons will be there to hurt them.
They should act as Republicans would and defend themselves with deadly force.
You know, like the armed Republicans who showed up at Dem and RINO rallies in 2010 intending to murder if anyone happened to get a health insurance policy.
F8ck this Republican sh*t.
The League of the South, which envisions an independent Southern republic with “Anglo-Celtic” leadership, loves the Donald Trump schtick. Their leader, Michael Hill, condemns immigration and interracial marriage and warns of the influence of Jewry (an old conservative tidbit still seething under the surface; it will reemerge) He said this regarding the Confederate flag as he warned “They” will come for us: “This is cultural genocide. Often, as history as shown, cultural genocide is merely a prelude to physical genocide.”
Yeah, but, but … Tanesi Coates.
I doubt Tahesi Coates believes Obama is a Muslim just by looking at him.
54% of Republicans, who’ve never met the President, think he is, and a plurality of the remaining filth “aren’t sure”, but he MIGHT be.
I suspect the taxi driver in Tahesi Coates would pick up the President, even if he was white, if the latter was standing on a dark street corner at night in a big city, but the 54% cited above would just as soon shoot him.
These filth identify themselves as racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic bigoted vermin.
They have at least half a dozen Republican candidates for President aligning with them and stoking the hate far beyond that.
We know who the bigoted vermin in this country are who generalize from the particular because they tell us about it everyday.
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
There is going to be political violence in this country unlike anyone has ever seen.
Oh look, it’s already started:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/protester-attacks-trump-guards-fist-his-head-trump-press-charges
Indeed, this is why BLM et al needs to be heavily armed when they attend Republican gigs to protest, unlike they needed when protesting Bernie Sanders, because Republican goons will be there to hurt them.
They should act as Republicans would and defend themselves with deadly force.
You know, like the armed Republicans who showed up at Dem and RINO rallies in 2010 intending to murder if anyone happened to get a health insurance policy.
F8ck this Republican sh*t.
The League of the South, which envisions an independent Southern republic with “Anglo-Celtic” leadership, loves the Donald Trump schtick. Their leader, Michael Hill, condemns immigration and interracial marriage and warns of the influence of Jewry (an old conservative tidbit still seething under the surface; it will reemerge) He said this regarding the Confederate flag as he warned “They” will come for us: “This is cultural genocide. Often, as history as shown, cultural genocide is merely a prelude to physical genocide.”
Yeah, but, but … Tanesi Coates.
This, too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/rhetoric-vs-reality-police-safety-edition
But the usual demagogic vermin running for freaking Presidnet of the freaking country lie about it and the Republican crowds go ape-sh*t.
This, too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/rhetoric-vs-reality-police-safety-edition
But the usual demagogic vermin running for freaking Presidnet of the freaking country lie about it and the Republican crowds go ape-sh*t.
This, too.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/rhetoric-vs-reality-police-safety-edition
But the usual demagogic vermin running for freaking Presidnet of the freaking country lie about it and the Republican crowds go ape-sh*t.
Now, to fall back on pristine neutrality, I’m going to inspect HRC’s emails and see if can find one that shows her ordering her lesbian diplomatic aides to purchase butt plugs and dildos for the State Department Xmas creche.
Tanesi Coates had something to do with it, I’m sure.
Now, to fall back on pristine neutrality, I’m going to inspect HRC’s emails and see if can find one that shows her ordering her lesbian diplomatic aides to purchase butt plugs and dildos for the State Department Xmas creche.
Tanesi Coates had something to do with it, I’m sure.
Now, to fall back on pristine neutrality, I’m going to inspect HRC’s emails and see if can find one that shows her ordering her lesbian diplomatic aides to purchase butt plugs and dildos for the State Department Xmas creche.
Tanesi Coates had something to do with it, I’m sure.
This, too.
I’d show that to my father, but it would make me anti-cop, somehow or other. The logic of that eludes me.
This, too.
I’d show that to my father, but it would make me anti-cop, somehow or other. The logic of that eludes me.
This, too.
I’d show that to my father, but it would make me anti-cop, somehow or other. The logic of that eludes me.
Maybe this.
Maybe this.
Maybe this.
I guess Arby’s is leading the frontal assault in the War on Police. If this story is getting this level of attention, it must be really important. I tap my foot while awaiting President Obama’s long-overdue press conference on the Arby’s incident.
I guess Arby’s is leading the frontal assault in the War on Police. If this story is getting this level of attention, it must be really important. I tap my foot while awaiting President Obama’s long-overdue press conference on the Arby’s incident.
I guess Arby’s is leading the frontal assault in the War on Police. If this story is getting this level of attention, it must be really important. I tap my foot while awaiting President Obama’s long-overdue press conference on the Arby’s incident.
If Jon Stewart was still on the air, he’d invite the officer on the Daily Show to receive the “Arby’s — A Good Place To Be Denied Service” Award for valor in the line of avoiding glop.
If Jon Stewart was still on the air, he’d invite the officer on the Daily Show to receive the “Arby’s — A Good Place To Be Denied Service” Award for valor in the line of avoiding glop.
If Jon Stewart was still on the air, he’d invite the officer on the Daily Show to receive the “Arby’s — A Good Place To Be Denied Service” Award for valor in the line of avoiding glop.
The individual who murdered the officer should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law, with the exception of the death penalty.
By the way, it’s pretty well accepted that killing a police officer mobilizes and motivates a police force unlike any other routine murder to apprehend and prosecute suspects.
The sentences handed out are probably (generalizing from the particular here) more draconian than in citizen-on-citizen violence.
So, despite all the hurt feelings, the police are accorded special treatment.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Seriously. They put themselves in harm’s way, sometimes ill-advisedly, but still.
The individual who murdered the officer should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law, with the exception of the death penalty.
By the way, it’s pretty well accepted that killing a police officer mobilizes and motivates a police force unlike any other routine murder to apprehend and prosecute suspects.
The sentences handed out are probably (generalizing from the particular here) more draconian than in citizen-on-citizen violence.
So, despite all the hurt feelings, the police are accorded special treatment.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Seriously. They put themselves in harm’s way, sometimes ill-advisedly, but still.
The individual who murdered the officer should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law, with the exception of the death penalty.
By the way, it’s pretty well accepted that killing a police officer mobilizes and motivates a police force unlike any other routine murder to apprehend and prosecute suspects.
The sentences handed out are probably (generalizing from the particular here) more draconian than in citizen-on-citizen violence.
So, despite all the hurt feelings, the police are accorded special treatment.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Seriously. They put themselves in harm’s way, sometimes ill-advisedly, but still.
I do, a little better, having not so long ago been one of those people myself. And, to a lesser extent, still am.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”. For me, after a while, it’s shifted to something more like “this is a problem that we need to solve as a culture, together, because who else?”.
I may still be in a perplexing place to e.g. bobbyp or others, but I think I have come a fair distance on race issues since I started commenting here on OW, lo these many years ago.
Just to avoid any appearance of puffery, though: this whole notion of white privilege still rubs me the wrong way.
My point, though, is that giving up on talking to people is going to lose you an opportunity to induce change. I would, for my own sake as well as for the sake of others, advice a certain amount of patience. A change in cultural attitudes hardly ever occurs in the timespan that you’d want it to.
I do, a little better, having not so long ago been one of those people myself. And, to a lesser extent, still am.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”. For me, after a while, it’s shifted to something more like “this is a problem that we need to solve as a culture, together, because who else?”.
I may still be in a perplexing place to e.g. bobbyp or others, but I think I have come a fair distance on race issues since I started commenting here on OW, lo these many years ago.
Just to avoid any appearance of puffery, though: this whole notion of white privilege still rubs me the wrong way.
My point, though, is that giving up on talking to people is going to lose you an opportunity to induce change. I would, for my own sake as well as for the sake of others, advice a certain amount of patience. A change in cultural attitudes hardly ever occurs in the timespan that you’d want it to.
I do, a little better, having not so long ago been one of those people myself. And, to a lesser extent, still am.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”. For me, after a while, it’s shifted to something more like “this is a problem that we need to solve as a culture, together, because who else?”.
I may still be in a perplexing place to e.g. bobbyp or others, but I think I have come a fair distance on race issues since I started commenting here on OW, lo these many years ago.
Just to avoid any appearance of puffery, though: this whole notion of white privilege still rubs me the wrong way.
My point, though, is that giving up on talking to people is going to lose you an opportunity to induce change. I would, for my own sake as well as for the sake of others, advice a certain amount of patience. A change in cultural attitudes hardly ever occurs in the timespan that you’d want it to.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”.
That’s actually how I’ve always interpreted the mindset of people who aren’t purposely, happily, overtly, vehemently racist, but who don’t seem receptive to well-supported assertions of structural racism. There’s usually a palpable undercurrent of defensiveness about.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”.
That’s actually how I’ve always interpreted the mindset of people who aren’t purposely, happily, overtly, vehemently racist, but who don’t seem receptive to well-supported assertions of structural racism. There’s usually a palpable undercurrent of defensiveness about.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”.
That’s actually how I’ve always interpreted the mindset of people who aren’t purposely, happily, overtly, vehemently racist, but who don’t seem receptive to well-supported assertions of structural racism. There’s usually a palpable undercurrent of defensiveness about.
about IT. …it.
On white privilege, I’d say it’s a relativistic term. You could say non-white disadvantage. I think centering it on whiteness is a way pointing out that whiteness is just as much a racial identity as any other, rather than the default or the norm, from which all others deviate.
about IT. …it.
On white privilege, I’d say it’s a relativistic term. You could say non-white disadvantage. I think centering it on whiteness is a way pointing out that whiteness is just as much a racial identity as any other, rather than the default or the norm, from which all others deviate.
about IT. …it.
On white privilege, I’d say it’s a relativistic term. You could say non-white disadvantage. I think centering it on whiteness is a way pointing out that whiteness is just as much a racial identity as any other, rather than the default or the norm, from which all others deviate.
“I have come a far distance ..”
This has not gone unnoticed, though I don’t recall you being anything but reasonable by comparison from the get go back in the Tacitus days.
As far as patience goes, for me the single most overlooked phenomenon in American history has been the mind-boggling patience of the black citizens in this country in the face of insult after insult, degradation after degradation, exclusion after exclusion, foot dragging after foot dragging, and political campaign after political campaign by EVERY political Party generalizing from the particular about them and demagoguing their search for justice and a level playing field.
We and they have come a long way, yes.
That it has involved only one massively deadly cataclysm in 250 years is a miracle few civilizations have experienced.
Donald Trump et al need to get down on their knees and pray they themselves don’t cause another one with the loose talk.
“I have come a far distance ..”
This has not gone unnoticed, though I don’t recall you being anything but reasonable by comparison from the get go back in the Tacitus days.
As far as patience goes, for me the single most overlooked phenomenon in American history has been the mind-boggling patience of the black citizens in this country in the face of insult after insult, degradation after degradation, exclusion after exclusion, foot dragging after foot dragging, and political campaign after political campaign by EVERY political Party generalizing from the particular about them and demagoguing their search for justice and a level playing field.
We and they have come a long way, yes.
That it has involved only one massively deadly cataclysm in 250 years is a miracle few civilizations have experienced.
Donald Trump et al need to get down on their knees and pray they themselves don’t cause another one with the loose talk.
“I have come a far distance ..”
This has not gone unnoticed, though I don’t recall you being anything but reasonable by comparison from the get go back in the Tacitus days.
As far as patience goes, for me the single most overlooked phenomenon in American history has been the mind-boggling patience of the black citizens in this country in the face of insult after insult, degradation after degradation, exclusion after exclusion, foot dragging after foot dragging, and political campaign after political campaign by EVERY political Party generalizing from the particular about them and demagoguing their search for justice and a level playing field.
We and they have come a long way, yes.
That it has involved only one massively deadly cataclysm in 250 years is a miracle few civilizations have experienced.
Donald Trump et al need to get down on their knees and pray they themselves don’t cause another one with the loose talk.
Considering the source of this information, perhaps, without comment, I could present it in a social media-based public forum without being accused of …well, anything.
this
and
this.
Is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund anti-police? ‘Cause that would be weird.
Considering the source of this information, perhaps, without comment, I could present it in a social media-based public forum without being accused of …well, anything.
this
and
this.
Is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund anti-police? ‘Cause that would be weird.
Considering the source of this information, perhaps, without comment, I could present it in a social media-based public forum without being accused of …well, anything.
this
and
this.
Is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund anti-police? ‘Cause that would be weird.
You’d be defensive, too, if people were accusing you of racism, or (more generally) a perpetrator of racial oppression.
That’s how it looks. I know: go figure.
But this perceived accusation breeds obstinacy and obstructionism, which breeds a suspicion that the obstinate actually are racist, which leads to accusations of racism, which leads to more defensiveness.
Not saying it’s like that for everyone. Just that it was like that for me. And if it’s like that for me, it might be like that for others.
None of which is to attempt to make a case for that there aren’t any racists on the right. Because that would be provably untrue.
For a minute, I thought perhaps this is a problem brought on by aging. But then the words “by comparison” leapt out at me, and…
Still, I thank you. I may not have been the worst, but I was certainly making a go of it. Communication is not, in my personal experience, aided much by turning up the intensity.
I am not going to disagree with that at all, Count. I just don’t have any tidy solution. And if I did, I’d still have to convince over half the voting population.
You’d be defensive, too, if people were accusing you of racism, or (more generally) a perpetrator of racial oppression.
That’s how it looks. I know: go figure.
But this perceived accusation breeds obstinacy and obstructionism, which breeds a suspicion that the obstinate actually are racist, which leads to accusations of racism, which leads to more defensiveness.
Not saying it’s like that for everyone. Just that it was like that for me. And if it’s like that for me, it might be like that for others.
None of which is to attempt to make a case for that there aren’t any racists on the right. Because that would be provably untrue.
For a minute, I thought perhaps this is a problem brought on by aging. But then the words “by comparison” leapt out at me, and…
Still, I thank you. I may not have been the worst, but I was certainly making a go of it. Communication is not, in my personal experience, aided much by turning up the intensity.
I am not going to disagree with that at all, Count. I just don’t have any tidy solution. And if I did, I’d still have to convince over half the voting population.
You’d be defensive, too, if people were accusing you of racism, or (more generally) a perpetrator of racial oppression.
That’s how it looks. I know: go figure.
But this perceived accusation breeds obstinacy and obstructionism, which breeds a suspicion that the obstinate actually are racist, which leads to accusations of racism, which leads to more defensiveness.
Not saying it’s like that for everyone. Just that it was like that for me. And if it’s like that for me, it might be like that for others.
None of which is to attempt to make a case for that there aren’t any racists on the right. Because that would be provably untrue.
For a minute, I thought perhaps this is a problem brought on by aging. But then the words “by comparison” leapt out at me, and…
Still, I thank you. I may not have been the worst, but I was certainly making a go of it. Communication is not, in my personal experience, aided much by turning up the intensity.
I am not going to disagree with that at all, Count. I just don’t have any tidy solution. And if I did, I’d still have to convince over half the voting population.
Based on that data, I would conjecture:
a) Things are not so bad now, for police officers, relative to times past
b) (This might be a stretch) Ending the War on Some Drugs might offer some improvements, but it will probably take a few years for those improvements to be fully realized.
Based on that data, I would conjecture:
a) Things are not so bad now, for police officers, relative to times past
b) (This might be a stretch) Ending the War on Some Drugs might offer some improvements, but it will probably take a few years for those improvements to be fully realized.
Based on that data, I would conjecture:
a) Things are not so bad now, for police officers, relative to times past
b) (This might be a stretch) Ending the War on Some Drugs might offer some improvements, but it will probably take a few years for those improvements to be fully realized.
b) (This might be a stretch) Ending the War on Some Drugs might offer some improvements, but it will probably take a few years for those improvements to be fully realized.
I believe this would offer some improvements with regard to deaths on both side, officer and civilian.
b) (This might be a stretch) Ending the War on Some Drugs might offer some improvements, but it will probably take a few years for those improvements to be fully realized.
I believe this would offer some improvements with regard to deaths on both side, officer and civilian.
b) (This might be a stretch) Ending the War on Some Drugs might offer some improvements, but it will probably take a few years for those improvements to be fully realized.
I believe this would offer some improvements with regard to deaths on both side, officer and civilian.
Not to mention that it would likely reduce the racial disparities in those killed by police and incarceration rates.
Not to mention that it would likely reduce the racial disparities in those killed by police and incarceration rates.
Not to mention that it would likely reduce the racial disparities in those killed by police and incarceration rates.
It’s a win-win-win, in other words.
It’s a win-win-win, in other words.
It’s a win-win-win, in other words.
“I just don’t have any tidy solution.”
I don’t expect one in real life.
But, to belabor (I belong to a Belabor Union) the larger point, and on the other hand, I’m dumbfounded by members of the “conservative movement”, some in very high positions in government, who say to those concerned with the slow progress of Civil Rights over the years and who may not trust the progress that HAS been made, “Hey, we’ve (WE, kemosabe?) given YOU people Civil Rights, and Voting Rights, and welfare and food stamps (more whites on that, I think), and affirmative action, and school busing and the Republican (sic) Lincoln ended slavery, so what else do you want? Get over it!”, while of course working overtime in the dead of legislative and think tank nights to undermine Civil Rights legislation and every other ameliorating measure taken the past 50 years going on 150.
It reminds of when Edith Bunker was going through the “Change” and by the end of the show (21 minutes) Archie was so confounded by her moods, that he blew up, waved his arms around, and said “OK, look, Edith, you wanna change, you’ve got five minutes to change. Now change!”
Generally speaking, the black citizenry (and add in all the other Others now being targeted) have maintained a much longer fuse than those who resent the imposition of change.
I would never ask you to convince over half of the voting population.
The Republican Party and its cadres, however, needs to stop trying to convince over 50% of the population every two years, by despicable rhetoric, that their self-pitying politically correct grievances should be fully realized by going back in time … or they just might have to start killing people and destroy government.
They need to stop .. right … now, Edith.
“I just don’t have any tidy solution.”
I don’t expect one in real life.
But, to belabor (I belong to a Belabor Union) the larger point, and on the other hand, I’m dumbfounded by members of the “conservative movement”, some in very high positions in government, who say to those concerned with the slow progress of Civil Rights over the years and who may not trust the progress that HAS been made, “Hey, we’ve (WE, kemosabe?) given YOU people Civil Rights, and Voting Rights, and welfare and food stamps (more whites on that, I think), and affirmative action, and school busing and the Republican (sic) Lincoln ended slavery, so what else do you want? Get over it!”, while of course working overtime in the dead of legislative and think tank nights to undermine Civil Rights legislation and every other ameliorating measure taken the past 50 years going on 150.
It reminds of when Edith Bunker was going through the “Change” and by the end of the show (21 minutes) Archie was so confounded by her moods, that he blew up, waved his arms around, and said “OK, look, Edith, you wanna change, you’ve got five minutes to change. Now change!”
Generally speaking, the black citizenry (and add in all the other Others now being targeted) have maintained a much longer fuse than those who resent the imposition of change.
I would never ask you to convince over half of the voting population.
The Republican Party and its cadres, however, needs to stop trying to convince over 50% of the population every two years, by despicable rhetoric, that their self-pitying politically correct grievances should be fully realized by going back in time … or they just might have to start killing people and destroy government.
They need to stop .. right … now, Edith.
“I just don’t have any tidy solution.”
I don’t expect one in real life.
But, to belabor (I belong to a Belabor Union) the larger point, and on the other hand, I’m dumbfounded by members of the “conservative movement”, some in very high positions in government, who say to those concerned with the slow progress of Civil Rights over the years and who may not trust the progress that HAS been made, “Hey, we’ve (WE, kemosabe?) given YOU people Civil Rights, and Voting Rights, and welfare and food stamps (more whites on that, I think), and affirmative action, and school busing and the Republican (sic) Lincoln ended slavery, so what else do you want? Get over it!”, while of course working overtime in the dead of legislative and think tank nights to undermine Civil Rights legislation and every other ameliorating measure taken the past 50 years going on 150.
It reminds of when Edith Bunker was going through the “Change” and by the end of the show (21 minutes) Archie was so confounded by her moods, that he blew up, waved his arms around, and said “OK, look, Edith, you wanna change, you’ve got five minutes to change. Now change!”
Generally speaking, the black citizenry (and add in all the other Others now being targeted) have maintained a much longer fuse than those who resent the imposition of change.
I would never ask you to convince over half of the voting population.
The Republican Party and its cadres, however, needs to stop trying to convince over 50% of the population every two years, by despicable rhetoric, that their self-pitying politically correct grievances should be fully realized by going back in time … or they just might have to start killing people and destroy government.
They need to stop .. right … now, Edith.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”. For me, after a while, it’s shifted to something more like “this is a problem that we need to solve as a culture, together, because who else?”.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments here, slarti.
To perhaps clarify my own point of view, I’m not really interested in blaming people, let alone individual people, for racism in the US. To borrow your eloquent statement, IMO it is a problem – or a collection of problems – that we need to solve as a culture, together.
Because, who else?
Racism – making assumptions about other people’s motives or inclinations or behavior, based on the color of their skin – is profoundly baked into US history and culture. It doesn’t go away overnight, or in one generation, or in 100 years.
I understand why white people are defensive about accusations of racism, just as I understand why black people are defensive about accusations of laziness or criminality or any of the other 1,000 things they are regularly accused of.
It’s not primarily a question of personal malice or ill-will. It is in fact a question of culture. IMVHO.
American culture has been, historically, and remains, riddled with racism.
It’s not just race, we’re also riddled with gender prejudices, and regional prejudices, and class prejudices. IMO racism has likely been more pernicious in the harms it has caused, but the other -isms are real, also.
I will admit that, in a discussion of race in the US, I find myself frustrated that equating black skin with criminality isn’t recognized as racism on its face.
How can you address things that you refuse to call by their proper name?
I do, however, appreciate, and am happy to receive, your admonition toward patience.
Eyes on the prize.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”. For me, after a while, it’s shifted to something more like “this is a problem that we need to solve as a culture, together, because who else?”.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments here, slarti.
To perhaps clarify my own point of view, I’m not really interested in blaming people, let alone individual people, for racism in the US. To borrow your eloquent statement, IMO it is a problem – or a collection of problems – that we need to solve as a culture, together.
Because, who else?
Racism – making assumptions about other people’s motives or inclinations or behavior, based on the color of their skin – is profoundly baked into US history and culture. It doesn’t go away overnight, or in one generation, or in 100 years.
I understand why white people are defensive about accusations of racism, just as I understand why black people are defensive about accusations of laziness or criminality or any of the other 1,000 things they are regularly accused of.
It’s not primarily a question of personal malice or ill-will. It is in fact a question of culture. IMVHO.
American culture has been, historically, and remains, riddled with racism.
It’s not just race, we’re also riddled with gender prejudices, and regional prejudices, and class prejudices. IMO racism has likely been more pernicious in the harms it has caused, but the other -isms are real, also.
I will admit that, in a discussion of race in the US, I find myself frustrated that equating black skin with criminality isn’t recognized as racism on its face.
How can you address things that you refuse to call by their proper name?
I do, however, appreciate, and am happy to receive, your admonition toward patience.
Eyes on the prize.
I would say that in the beginning, a lot of this looks something like “the blame for this lies on you, because you’re one of those white people doing the oppressing”. For me, after a while, it’s shifted to something more like “this is a problem that we need to solve as a culture, together, because who else?”.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments here, slarti.
To perhaps clarify my own point of view, I’m not really interested in blaming people, let alone individual people, for racism in the US. To borrow your eloquent statement, IMO it is a problem – or a collection of problems – that we need to solve as a culture, together.
Because, who else?
Racism – making assumptions about other people’s motives or inclinations or behavior, based on the color of their skin – is profoundly baked into US history and culture. It doesn’t go away overnight, or in one generation, or in 100 years.
I understand why white people are defensive about accusations of racism, just as I understand why black people are defensive about accusations of laziness or criminality or any of the other 1,000 things they are regularly accused of.
It’s not primarily a question of personal malice or ill-will. It is in fact a question of culture. IMVHO.
American culture has been, historically, and remains, riddled with racism.
It’s not just race, we’re also riddled with gender prejudices, and regional prejudices, and class prejudices. IMO racism has likely been more pernicious in the harms it has caused, but the other -isms are real, also.
I will admit that, in a discussion of race in the US, I find myself frustrated that equating black skin with criminality isn’t recognized as racism on its face.
How can you address things that you refuse to call by their proper name?
I do, however, appreciate, and am happy to receive, your admonition toward patience.
Eyes on the prize.
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
The subtext here is that only a racist would raise these facts. I reject that.
These statistics exist in vacuums of varying degrees. Other studies level out the racial disparity when controls for other factors are included, primarily marital and education status of the home in which the individual was raised. The crime statistics cut against the BLM premise that police are prone to kill black men.
I’ve read the Mother Jones and Guardian articles. I’d like to see a professional statistician without an agenda address the issue. When advocates of any stripe start messing with numbers, it pays to withhold judgment
As best I can tell, deaths by police while being arrested run 400 and change a year, with whites being killed by police at a greater than 2:1 (roughly) ratio to Blacks. Drum, the Guardian and BLM isolate the number of Blacks killed and then run comparisons by: for every 1mm Blacks, X are killed by police, and the number is much lower for whites. That is true, because whites outnumber blacks. I think this is the wrong comparison.
The relevant numbers are encounters with the police, by race, and from those encounters, is there a pattern of blacks being killed at a statistically significant disparate rate than whites.
We have those numbers and the answer is “no, there is no apparent, statistically significant difference in the number of Blacks vs whites being killed.”
In 2012, per the FBI stats, 6.2mm whites were arrested and 2.5 Blacks were arrested. Slightly less than a 2.5:1 ratio, which is in line with the rough numbers Drum et all throw out in their articles.
Now, what else these stats tell me is that, out of 2.5 million encounters with the police in 2012, less than 200 Blacks were killed, a ratio of greater than 12,500:1. Sorry, but that is not a pattern. That isn’t even close to being a pattern. One in 12,5000 (and the hard numbers are even less favorable to the BLM theme) isn’t even remotely significant statistically, AND it correlates to white shootings as well.
You have to manipulate the crap out of the numbers to get a pattern.
BLM et all reason backward from isolated instances of police murder to patterns that simply are not there. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it the case. We have hard numbers on arrests, and those numbers don’t support a pattern of police disproportionately shooting unarmed Blacks as opposed to unarmed whites. The shootings by race are in line with the number of arrests by race.
Like the Micheal Brown shooting, there is a lot less there than meets the eye. And like Michael Brown, Progressives will believe the worst until hard facts are hammered home.
Are individual cops racist? Sure. I’m pretty sure I gave a specific example sometime back.
Can a town like Ferguson treat Blacks different than whites on traffic tickets. Sure. That can happen. But shootings across the country? The pattern isn’t there.
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
Not going to happen unless I’m banned. I think both are net negatives for African Americans and for the country. But, mostly for African Americans.
Let me focus on BLM. One of their demands is a reduced police presence in African American neighborhoods. White progressives are giving this an uncritical pass. If Black Lives Matter, what about all of those who are being killed and will be killed when the predators in those communities are free of police interference. Already, murder rates are up dramatically in African American communities post Michael Brown.
African American communities are over policed because they are high density crime centers. Hard fact of life. Take away the police and the criminal element has free rein. BLM is mainly histrionics and no real thought.
An unfortunate by-product of increased encounters with police is the risk of a shooting. Making the police the enemy of the community does the community no good whatsoever. Take away the police from any high crime neighborhood and watch crime escalate. Sure, take away arrests and the number of shootings incident to arrest drops to zero. However, the number of shootings elsewhere rises dramatically. This helps who?
In my world, one sign of actual equality among races is being able to criticize someone of a different color on the merits of their position and not be called a racist.
Finally, I agree with Slarti on this notion of white privilege. I don’t know which academic first promulgated this idea. It’s a very handy device for controlling and even shutting down debate. I reject it.
As I thought about my response to TP last night, I was thinking about a mediation I attended on a major lawsuit two days ago. My co-counsel was Hispanic, my clients were African American and female, respectively, and the mediator was Hispanic. This isn’t even remotely out of the ordinary.
As I sit writing this, one door to my immediate right is my African American law partner. If I walk out my office door, I see our African American office manager.
I try cases in from of Black, white, Hispanic, female (all three colors plus Asian) judges, interact with attorneys of all colors. Phyllis Fry, who got a big right up in the NY Times this weekend was a year behind me in law school. I’ve followed her career in Houston.
Where Progressives see a world of enduring white oppression, I see nothing of the sort. There are issues in the African American community. Issues that the current racial grievance leadership will never solve. Racism is a fact of life, but not nearly what BLM, Coates and many here would have it be.
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
The subtext here is that only a racist would raise these facts. I reject that.
These statistics exist in vacuums of varying degrees. Other studies level out the racial disparity when controls for other factors are included, primarily marital and education status of the home in which the individual was raised. The crime statistics cut against the BLM premise that police are prone to kill black men.
I’ve read the Mother Jones and Guardian articles. I’d like to see a professional statistician without an agenda address the issue. When advocates of any stripe start messing with numbers, it pays to withhold judgment
As best I can tell, deaths by police while being arrested run 400 and change a year, with whites being killed by police at a greater than 2:1 (roughly) ratio to Blacks. Drum, the Guardian and BLM isolate the number of Blacks killed and then run comparisons by: for every 1mm Blacks, X are killed by police, and the number is much lower for whites. That is true, because whites outnumber blacks. I think this is the wrong comparison.
The relevant numbers are encounters with the police, by race, and from those encounters, is there a pattern of blacks being killed at a statistically significant disparate rate than whites.
We have those numbers and the answer is “no, there is no apparent, statistically significant difference in the number of Blacks vs whites being killed.”
In 2012, per the FBI stats, 6.2mm whites were arrested and 2.5 Blacks were arrested. Slightly less than a 2.5:1 ratio, which is in line with the rough numbers Drum et all throw out in their articles.
Now, what else these stats tell me is that, out of 2.5 million encounters with the police in 2012, less than 200 Blacks were killed, a ratio of greater than 12,500:1. Sorry, but that is not a pattern. That isn’t even close to being a pattern. One in 12,5000 (and the hard numbers are even less favorable to the BLM theme) isn’t even remotely significant statistically, AND it correlates to white shootings as well.
You have to manipulate the crap out of the numbers to get a pattern.
BLM et all reason backward from isolated instances of police murder to patterns that simply are not there. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it the case. We have hard numbers on arrests, and those numbers don’t support a pattern of police disproportionately shooting unarmed Blacks as opposed to unarmed whites. The shootings by race are in line with the number of arrests by race.
Like the Micheal Brown shooting, there is a lot less there than meets the eye. And like Michael Brown, Progressives will believe the worst until hard facts are hammered home.
Are individual cops racist? Sure. I’m pretty sure I gave a specific example sometime back.
Can a town like Ferguson treat Blacks different than whites on traffic tickets. Sure. That can happen. But shootings across the country? The pattern isn’t there.
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
Not going to happen unless I’m banned. I think both are net negatives for African Americans and for the country. But, mostly for African Americans.
Let me focus on BLM. One of their demands is a reduced police presence in African American neighborhoods. White progressives are giving this an uncritical pass. If Black Lives Matter, what about all of those who are being killed and will be killed when the predators in those communities are free of police interference. Already, murder rates are up dramatically in African American communities post Michael Brown.
African American communities are over policed because they are high density crime centers. Hard fact of life. Take away the police and the criminal element has free rein. BLM is mainly histrionics and no real thought.
An unfortunate by-product of increased encounters with police is the risk of a shooting. Making the police the enemy of the community does the community no good whatsoever. Take away the police from any high crime neighborhood and watch crime escalate. Sure, take away arrests and the number of shootings incident to arrest drops to zero. However, the number of shootings elsewhere rises dramatically. This helps who?
In my world, one sign of actual equality among races is being able to criticize someone of a different color on the merits of their position and not be called a racist.
Finally, I agree with Slarti on this notion of white privilege. I don’t know which academic first promulgated this idea. It’s a very handy device for controlling and even shutting down debate. I reject it.
As I thought about my response to TP last night, I was thinking about a mediation I attended on a major lawsuit two days ago. My co-counsel was Hispanic, my clients were African American and female, respectively, and the mediator was Hispanic. This isn’t even remotely out of the ordinary.
As I sit writing this, one door to my immediate right is my African American law partner. If I walk out my office door, I see our African American office manager.
I try cases in from of Black, white, Hispanic, female (all three colors plus Asian) judges, interact with attorneys of all colors. Phyllis Fry, who got a big right up in the NY Times this weekend was a year behind me in law school. I’ve followed her career in Houston.
Where Progressives see a world of enduring white oppression, I see nothing of the sort. There are issues in the African American community. Issues that the current racial grievance leadership will never solve. Racism is a fact of life, but not nearly what BLM, Coates and many here would have it be.
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
The subtext here is that only a racist would raise these facts. I reject that.
These statistics exist in vacuums of varying degrees. Other studies level out the racial disparity when controls for other factors are included, primarily marital and education status of the home in which the individual was raised. The crime statistics cut against the BLM premise that police are prone to kill black men.
I’ve read the Mother Jones and Guardian articles. I’d like to see a professional statistician without an agenda address the issue. When advocates of any stripe start messing with numbers, it pays to withhold judgment
As best I can tell, deaths by police while being arrested run 400 and change a year, with whites being killed by police at a greater than 2:1 (roughly) ratio to Blacks. Drum, the Guardian and BLM isolate the number of Blacks killed and then run comparisons by: for every 1mm Blacks, X are killed by police, and the number is much lower for whites. That is true, because whites outnumber blacks. I think this is the wrong comparison.
The relevant numbers are encounters with the police, by race, and from those encounters, is there a pattern of blacks being killed at a statistically significant disparate rate than whites.
We have those numbers and the answer is “no, there is no apparent, statistically significant difference in the number of Blacks vs whites being killed.”
In 2012, per the FBI stats, 6.2mm whites were arrested and 2.5 Blacks were arrested. Slightly less than a 2.5:1 ratio, which is in line with the rough numbers Drum et all throw out in their articles.
Now, what else these stats tell me is that, out of 2.5 million encounters with the police in 2012, less than 200 Blacks were killed, a ratio of greater than 12,500:1. Sorry, but that is not a pattern. That isn’t even close to being a pattern. One in 12,5000 (and the hard numbers are even less favorable to the BLM theme) isn’t even remotely significant statistically, AND it correlates to white shootings as well.
You have to manipulate the crap out of the numbers to get a pattern.
BLM et all reason backward from isolated instances of police murder to patterns that simply are not there. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it the case. We have hard numbers on arrests, and those numbers don’t support a pattern of police disproportionately shooting unarmed Blacks as opposed to unarmed whites. The shootings by race are in line with the number of arrests by race.
Like the Micheal Brown shooting, there is a lot less there than meets the eye. And like Michael Brown, Progressives will believe the worst until hard facts are hammered home.
Are individual cops racist? Sure. I’m pretty sure I gave a specific example sometime back.
Can a town like Ferguson treat Blacks different than whites on traffic tickets. Sure. That can happen. But shootings across the country? The pattern isn’t there.
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
Not going to happen unless I’m banned. I think both are net negatives for African Americans and for the country. But, mostly for African Americans.
Let me focus on BLM. One of their demands is a reduced police presence in African American neighborhoods. White progressives are giving this an uncritical pass. If Black Lives Matter, what about all of those who are being killed and will be killed when the predators in those communities are free of police interference. Already, murder rates are up dramatically in African American communities post Michael Brown.
African American communities are over policed because they are high density crime centers. Hard fact of life. Take away the police and the criminal element has free rein. BLM is mainly histrionics and no real thought.
An unfortunate by-product of increased encounters with police is the risk of a shooting. Making the police the enemy of the community does the community no good whatsoever. Take away the police from any high crime neighborhood and watch crime escalate. Sure, take away arrests and the number of shootings incident to arrest drops to zero. However, the number of shootings elsewhere rises dramatically. This helps who?
In my world, one sign of actual equality among races is being able to criticize someone of a different color on the merits of their position and not be called a racist.
Finally, I agree with Slarti on this notion of white privilege. I don’t know which academic first promulgated this idea. It’s a very handy device for controlling and even shutting down debate. I reject it.
As I thought about my response to TP last night, I was thinking about a mediation I attended on a major lawsuit two days ago. My co-counsel was Hispanic, my clients were African American and female, respectively, and the mediator was Hispanic. This isn’t even remotely out of the ordinary.
As I sit writing this, one door to my immediate right is my African American law partner. If I walk out my office door, I see our African American office manager.
I try cases in from of Black, white, Hispanic, female (all three colors plus Asian) judges, interact with attorneys of all colors. Phyllis Fry, who got a big right up in the NY Times this weekend was a year behind me in law school. I’ve followed her career in Houston.
Where Progressives see a world of enduring white oppression, I see nothing of the sort. There are issues in the African American community. Issues that the current racial grievance leadership will never solve. Racism is a fact of life, but not nearly what BLM, Coates and many here would have it be.
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
Crap, failed to italicize.
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
Crap, failed to italicize.
Do those statistics demonstrate an inherent difference between blacks and whites? If not, what else might explain them?
So give it a rest on Coates and BLM.
Crap, failed to italicize.
I would, for my own sake as well as for the sake of others, advice a certain amount of patience. A change in cultural attitudes hardly ever occurs in the timespan that you’d want it to.
It almost always takes something like generations, that or some seriously traumatic event, to get a culture to change. It appears to be a matter of getting one generation to die off, without passing on quite the vigor of their beliefs. And then the next to refrain from passing on their beliefs (without abandoning them themselves). And finally you get a generation which has different beliefs. All that undercut by the fact that only some in each generation make the step.
That is what makes the change in attitudes towards gays so stunning. The change happened in a couple of decades, rather than most of a century. (I suppose it was helped, a lot, by some bigots discovering that they had close relatives who were part of the group they had felt so strongly negative about. Something which doesn’t generally happen with race.) And even then, resistance to the change remains high. Likely will, until the usual generational shift works it way thru.
Is it frustrating how long this takes? Absolutely. And made more frustrating by the discovery that you can finally win a bunch of legal battles on the subject, and half a century later you are still fighting the cultural battle. Progress has definitely been made, and continues to be made. But it’s an extremely slow process, and visible steps forward (e.g. electing a black President) result in renewed hysteria from those who don’t want to change.
I would, for my own sake as well as for the sake of others, advice a certain amount of patience. A change in cultural attitudes hardly ever occurs in the timespan that you’d want it to.
It almost always takes something like generations, that or some seriously traumatic event, to get a culture to change. It appears to be a matter of getting one generation to die off, without passing on quite the vigor of their beliefs. And then the next to refrain from passing on their beliefs (without abandoning them themselves). And finally you get a generation which has different beliefs. All that undercut by the fact that only some in each generation make the step.
That is what makes the change in attitudes towards gays so stunning. The change happened in a couple of decades, rather than most of a century. (I suppose it was helped, a lot, by some bigots discovering that they had close relatives who were part of the group they had felt so strongly negative about. Something which doesn’t generally happen with race.) And even then, resistance to the change remains high. Likely will, until the usual generational shift works it way thru.
Is it frustrating how long this takes? Absolutely. And made more frustrating by the discovery that you can finally win a bunch of legal battles on the subject, and half a century later you are still fighting the cultural battle. Progress has definitely been made, and continues to be made. But it’s an extremely slow process, and visible steps forward (e.g. electing a black President) result in renewed hysteria from those who don’t want to change.
I would, for my own sake as well as for the sake of others, advice a certain amount of patience. A change in cultural attitudes hardly ever occurs in the timespan that you’d want it to.
It almost always takes something like generations, that or some seriously traumatic event, to get a culture to change. It appears to be a matter of getting one generation to die off, without passing on quite the vigor of their beliefs. And then the next to refrain from passing on their beliefs (without abandoning them themselves). And finally you get a generation which has different beliefs. All that undercut by the fact that only some in each generation make the step.
That is what makes the change in attitudes towards gays so stunning. The change happened in a couple of decades, rather than most of a century. (I suppose it was helped, a lot, by some bigots discovering that they had close relatives who were part of the group they had felt so strongly negative about. Something which doesn’t generally happen with race.) And even then, resistance to the change remains high. Likely will, until the usual generational shift works it way thru.
Is it frustrating how long this takes? Absolutely. And made more frustrating by the discovery that you can finally win a bunch of legal battles on the subject, and half a century later you are still fighting the cultural battle. Progress has definitely been made, and continues to be made. But it’s an extremely slow process, and visible steps forward (e.g. electing a black President) result in renewed hysteria from those who don’t want to change.
Just to avoid any appearance of puffery, though: this whole notion of white privilege still rubs me the wrong way.
I can understand that. You are being held to account for something beyond your control, the color of your skin.
As to “turning down the heat”, well, I understand that, too. But history shows, as best as I can determine, that if the heat is not on, change does not happen.
All the best.
Just to avoid any appearance of puffery, though: this whole notion of white privilege still rubs me the wrong way.
I can understand that. You are being held to account for something beyond your control, the color of your skin.
As to “turning down the heat”, well, I understand that, too. But history shows, as best as I can determine, that if the heat is not on, change does not happen.
All the best.
Just to avoid any appearance of puffery, though: this whole notion of white privilege still rubs me the wrong way.
I can understand that. You are being held to account for something beyond your control, the color of your skin.
As to “turning down the heat”, well, I understand that, too. But history shows, as best as I can determine, that if the heat is not on, change does not happen.
All the best.
I am not at all certain that we are in the same place on this, McKTx.
White privilege is something I am still pondering. It pisses me off, a little, because it still sounds a bit like: white people are racist. Or: you white people have it easy. And it’s a generalization, which also pisses me off. And on top of that, it’s an abstraction in a world that desperately needs more of the concrete.
None of which says I am done thinking about it.
So, I wouldn’t be quick to claim solidarity with me, because I don’t even really know what to think about it. Other than there are people who spend practically all of their Facebook time talking about this, cultural appropriation, and various other things that sound like moral outrage against white people. Or they’ll go on and on about some other issues that I think aren’t at all concretely supported in data. If I even touch on any of those, here, an epic threadjack will result. Possibly one already has.
But, you know, it isn’t really any of my business what people do with their free time. Me, I’ve been using most of mine to stack up a whole crapload of maple and locust I’ve got cut up. Plus, I still have a few dozen log sections about 26″ in diameter by 22″ long to move up near the woodpile to be split. That is, I think, going to require the tractor. Which is in need of an oil change.
Yet I still have time, here, to kvetch about the things I think are important.
I am not at all certain that we are in the same place on this, McKTx.
White privilege is something I am still pondering. It pisses me off, a little, because it still sounds a bit like: white people are racist. Or: you white people have it easy. And it’s a generalization, which also pisses me off. And on top of that, it’s an abstraction in a world that desperately needs more of the concrete.
None of which says I am done thinking about it.
So, I wouldn’t be quick to claim solidarity with me, because I don’t even really know what to think about it. Other than there are people who spend practically all of their Facebook time talking about this, cultural appropriation, and various other things that sound like moral outrage against white people. Or they’ll go on and on about some other issues that I think aren’t at all concretely supported in data. If I even touch on any of those, here, an epic threadjack will result. Possibly one already has.
But, you know, it isn’t really any of my business what people do with their free time. Me, I’ve been using most of mine to stack up a whole crapload of maple and locust I’ve got cut up. Plus, I still have a few dozen log sections about 26″ in diameter by 22″ long to move up near the woodpile to be split. That is, I think, going to require the tractor. Which is in need of an oil change.
Yet I still have time, here, to kvetch about the things I think are important.
I am not at all certain that we are in the same place on this, McKTx.
White privilege is something I am still pondering. It pisses me off, a little, because it still sounds a bit like: white people are racist. Or: you white people have it easy. And it’s a generalization, which also pisses me off. And on top of that, it’s an abstraction in a world that desperately needs more of the concrete.
None of which says I am done thinking about it.
So, I wouldn’t be quick to claim solidarity with me, because I don’t even really know what to think about it. Other than there are people who spend practically all of their Facebook time talking about this, cultural appropriation, and various other things that sound like moral outrage against white people. Or they’ll go on and on about some other issues that I think aren’t at all concretely supported in data. If I even touch on any of those, here, an epic threadjack will result. Possibly one already has.
But, you know, it isn’t really any of my business what people do with their free time. Me, I’ve been using most of mine to stack up a whole crapload of maple and locust I’ve got cut up. Plus, I still have a few dozen log sections about 26″ in diameter by 22″ long to move up near the woodpile to be split. That is, I think, going to require the tractor. Which is in need of an oil change.
Yet I still have time, here, to kvetch about the things I think are important.
the single most overlooked phenomenon in American history has been the mind-boggling patience of the black citizens in this country in the face of insult after insult, degradation after degradation, exclusion after exclusion, foot dragging after foot dragging, and political campaign after political campaign by EVERY political Party generalizing from the particular about them and demagoguing their search for justice and a level playing field
This.
the single most overlooked phenomenon in American history has been the mind-boggling patience of the black citizens in this country in the face of insult after insult, degradation after degradation, exclusion after exclusion, foot dragging after foot dragging, and political campaign after political campaign by EVERY political Party generalizing from the particular about them and demagoguing their search for justice and a level playing field
This.
the single most overlooked phenomenon in American history has been the mind-boggling patience of the black citizens in this country in the face of insult after insult, degradation after degradation, exclusion after exclusion, foot dragging after foot dragging, and political campaign after political campaign by EVERY political Party generalizing from the particular about them and demagoguing their search for justice and a level playing field
This.
I am not at all certain that we are in the same place on this, McKTx.
Fair enough. I presumed. My error.
I am not at all certain that we are in the same place on this, McKTx.
Fair enough. I presumed. My error.
I am not at all certain that we are in the same place on this, McKTx.
Fair enough. I presumed. My error.
The subtext here is that only a racist would raise these facts.
My issue with subtexts is that discovering them invariably involves some amount of mind-reading.
Maybe it will be helpful simply address what people actually say.
I have no doubt, whatsoever, that black people are disproportionately represented, and not to their advantage, in whatever statistics we collect about crime, family problems, any kind of economic and social dysfunction you can name.
No doubt at all.
Why might that be so?
You can either locate the cause of that in some weird magical genetic predisposition that is somehow correlated in a meaningful way with black skin.
Or you can consider that perhaps other factors are in play.
And you can do all of that without making any kind of invidious assumptions about anyone’s motives or agenda.
It’s possible that there is a problem, or a collection of problems, in spite of the fact that you, personally, don’t spend your days deliberately oppressing black people.
I’m not pointing any fingers at you. I’m saying that, all other things being equal, black people are treated differently that not-black people are, in this country. Because their skin is black.
Less so, and less obviously and explicitly so, than 50 or 100 or 200 years ago.
So, better than before, in some ways.
But, still.
IMVHO the name for that is racism. Is there another name for it?
If I make it crystal clear that I’m not saying that you, McK, are hostile to blacks, or wish them ill, or do anything specifically to harm them, does that make it less offensive to you if I say that US culture has been, and continues to be, racist?
I’m not saying that’s all there is to say about the US, I’m just saying that a persistent bias against people with black skin exists in American culture, historically, and continuing to today.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t know how to even begin talking about the issue without acknowledging that.
The subtext here is that only a racist would raise these facts.
My issue with subtexts is that discovering them invariably involves some amount of mind-reading.
Maybe it will be helpful simply address what people actually say.
I have no doubt, whatsoever, that black people are disproportionately represented, and not to their advantage, in whatever statistics we collect about crime, family problems, any kind of economic and social dysfunction you can name.
No doubt at all.
Why might that be so?
You can either locate the cause of that in some weird magical genetic predisposition that is somehow correlated in a meaningful way with black skin.
Or you can consider that perhaps other factors are in play.
And you can do all of that without making any kind of invidious assumptions about anyone’s motives or agenda.
It’s possible that there is a problem, or a collection of problems, in spite of the fact that you, personally, don’t spend your days deliberately oppressing black people.
I’m not pointing any fingers at you. I’m saying that, all other things being equal, black people are treated differently that not-black people are, in this country. Because their skin is black.
Less so, and less obviously and explicitly so, than 50 or 100 or 200 years ago.
So, better than before, in some ways.
But, still.
IMVHO the name for that is racism. Is there another name for it?
If I make it crystal clear that I’m not saying that you, McK, are hostile to blacks, or wish them ill, or do anything specifically to harm them, does that make it less offensive to you if I say that US culture has been, and continues to be, racist?
I’m not saying that’s all there is to say about the US, I’m just saying that a persistent bias against people with black skin exists in American culture, historically, and continuing to today.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t know how to even begin talking about the issue without acknowledging that.
The subtext here is that only a racist would raise these facts.
My issue with subtexts is that discovering them invariably involves some amount of mind-reading.
Maybe it will be helpful simply address what people actually say.
I have no doubt, whatsoever, that black people are disproportionately represented, and not to their advantage, in whatever statistics we collect about crime, family problems, any kind of economic and social dysfunction you can name.
No doubt at all.
Why might that be so?
You can either locate the cause of that in some weird magical genetic predisposition that is somehow correlated in a meaningful way with black skin.
Or you can consider that perhaps other factors are in play.
And you can do all of that without making any kind of invidious assumptions about anyone’s motives or agenda.
It’s possible that there is a problem, or a collection of problems, in spite of the fact that you, personally, don’t spend your days deliberately oppressing black people.
I’m not pointing any fingers at you. I’m saying that, all other things being equal, black people are treated differently that not-black people are, in this country. Because their skin is black.
Less so, and less obviously and explicitly so, than 50 or 100 or 200 years ago.
So, better than before, in some ways.
But, still.
IMVHO the name for that is racism. Is there another name for it?
If I make it crystal clear that I’m not saying that you, McK, are hostile to blacks, or wish them ill, or do anything specifically to harm them, does that make it less offensive to you if I say that US culture has been, and continues to be, racist?
I’m not saying that’s all there is to say about the US, I’m just saying that a persistent bias against people with black skin exists in American culture, historically, and continuing to today.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I don’t know how to even begin talking about the issue without acknowledging that.
Kvetch on this.
Verily, there are many myths abroad in this great land of ours!
Kvetch on this.
Verily, there are many myths abroad in this great land of ours!
Kvetch on this.
Verily, there are many myths abroad in this great land of ours!
Not advising that. Just advising patience. Or, more exactly: perserverance.
Although I do understand the inclination to just give up.
Not advising that. Just advising patience. Or, more exactly: perserverance.
Although I do understand the inclination to just give up.
Not advising that. Just advising patience. Or, more exactly: perserverance.
Although I do understand the inclination to just give up.
“White privilege is something I am still pondering. It pisses me off, a little, because it still sounds a bit like: white people are racist. Or: you white people have it easy. And it’s a generalization, which also pisses me off. And on top of that, it’s an abstraction in a world that desperately needs more of the concrete.”
Simple example: male privilege. A woman, professional, intelligent, prosperous take a car into a car repair shop. With almost 100% certainty, you can predict that she will *not* be treated with the the respect that a ‘old white guy’ would (or even ‘old black guy’).
Minor annoyance, but yes, ‘old white guys’ have far less of that type of crap. Don’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted, don’t have to worry much about getting profiled as a criminal and followed around stores as a potential shoplifter, ignored by taxicabs when seeking a ride, harassed by cops. And if one has some bad experiences, it’s not too likely that one will be characterized by national media as an ‘animal’, a ‘brute’, a ‘violent thug’, and ‘twice the size of the cop that shot you’.
It’s not the fault of the person receiving the privilege: it’s from everyone else that gives it. Or rather, withholds it from others. For the recipient (and yes, I am one) gratitude is called for, and humility, and generosity in extending the treatment so that it’s not “privi” lege.
“White privilege is something I am still pondering. It pisses me off, a little, because it still sounds a bit like: white people are racist. Or: you white people have it easy. And it’s a generalization, which also pisses me off. And on top of that, it’s an abstraction in a world that desperately needs more of the concrete.”
Simple example: male privilege. A woman, professional, intelligent, prosperous take a car into a car repair shop. With almost 100% certainty, you can predict that she will *not* be treated with the the respect that a ‘old white guy’ would (or even ‘old black guy’).
Minor annoyance, but yes, ‘old white guys’ have far less of that type of crap. Don’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted, don’t have to worry much about getting profiled as a criminal and followed around stores as a potential shoplifter, ignored by taxicabs when seeking a ride, harassed by cops. And if one has some bad experiences, it’s not too likely that one will be characterized by national media as an ‘animal’, a ‘brute’, a ‘violent thug’, and ‘twice the size of the cop that shot you’.
It’s not the fault of the person receiving the privilege: it’s from everyone else that gives it. Or rather, withholds it from others. For the recipient (and yes, I am one) gratitude is called for, and humility, and generosity in extending the treatment so that it’s not “privi” lege.
“White privilege is something I am still pondering. It pisses me off, a little, because it still sounds a bit like: white people are racist. Or: you white people have it easy. And it’s a generalization, which also pisses me off. And on top of that, it’s an abstraction in a world that desperately needs more of the concrete.”
Simple example: male privilege. A woman, professional, intelligent, prosperous take a car into a car repair shop. With almost 100% certainty, you can predict that she will *not* be treated with the the respect that a ‘old white guy’ would (or even ‘old black guy’).
Minor annoyance, but yes, ‘old white guys’ have far less of that type of crap. Don’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted, don’t have to worry much about getting profiled as a criminal and followed around stores as a potential shoplifter, ignored by taxicabs when seeking a ride, harassed by cops. And if one has some bad experiences, it’s not too likely that one will be characterized by national media as an ‘animal’, a ‘brute’, a ‘violent thug’, and ‘twice the size of the cop that shot you’.
It’s not the fault of the person receiving the privilege: it’s from everyone else that gives it. Or rather, withholds it from others. For the recipient (and yes, I am one) gratitude is called for, and humility, and generosity in extending the treatment so that it’s not “privi” lege.
This kind of point of view pisses me off, and I’d really want to apply some correction if I ever encountered it.
I do wind up arguing with people a lot about why the Civil War was about slavery, and why it still is, and why people think to this day that not everyone has the same rights available to them just means maybe we didn’t fight it hard enough, or long enough, or we failed to fncking close the deal afterward and screwed the pooch and swapped the South the ability to continue depriving some people of their rights in exchange for a mediocre-at-best, one-term presidency.
Not sure I have really swayed anyone’s opinions, though. People don’t like to be told their closely-cherished beliefs are crap.
This kind of point of view pisses me off, and I’d really want to apply some correction if I ever encountered it.
I do wind up arguing with people a lot about why the Civil War was about slavery, and why it still is, and why people think to this day that not everyone has the same rights available to them just means maybe we didn’t fight it hard enough, or long enough, or we failed to fncking close the deal afterward and screwed the pooch and swapped the South the ability to continue depriving some people of their rights in exchange for a mediocre-at-best, one-term presidency.
Not sure I have really swayed anyone’s opinions, though. People don’t like to be told their closely-cherished beliefs are crap.
This kind of point of view pisses me off, and I’d really want to apply some correction if I ever encountered it.
I do wind up arguing with people a lot about why the Civil War was about slavery, and why it still is, and why people think to this day that not everyone has the same rights available to them just means maybe we didn’t fight it hard enough, or long enough, or we failed to fncking close the deal afterward and screwed the pooch and swapped the South the ability to continue depriving some people of their rights in exchange for a mediocre-at-best, one-term presidency.
Not sure I have really swayed anyone’s opinions, though. People don’t like to be told their closely-cherished beliefs are crap.
There’s a certain zero-sum flavor to what you’re saying, here. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
There’s a certain zero-sum flavor to what you’re saying, here. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
There’s a certain zero-sum flavor to what you’re saying, here. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
We have here a classic case of people looking at the same situation and seeing, or at least focusing on, two very different things.
McKinney (and others) look at a situation where a white lawyer has a black law partner, and argues cases in front of black, Hispanic, etc. judges. He sees enromous progress. And he is absolutely correct — the change is stunning. I, for one, can remember when it was a matter of great concern that we might elect a President who was Catholic (rather than Protestant). Kennedy had to make explicit statements promising that his religion would not undermine his doing his duty to the nation. Today, nobody would care — they probably wouldn’t even care much if a non-Christian, at least if he were a Jew, were running for President. (A Muslim would be a whole different story, however.)
Russell and Bobby look at a situation where a President who happens to be black gets his patriotism impugned at every turn, on no basis whatever. Where blacks get stopped by police at far higher rates than whites (in identical circumstances), get arrested far more often (for identical offenses, e.g. small amounts of soft drugs), and get more and longer prison sentences. They see how much prejudice remains. And they, too, are correct.
It might help if, as seems entirely possible here, both sides could agree that the other does have a point. There has been great progress; there is still a great deal yet to do. It won’t change much of the way we see the world. But it might help make the discussions less prone to irritated responses. (Including mine.)
We have here a classic case of people looking at the same situation and seeing, or at least focusing on, two very different things.
McKinney (and others) look at a situation where a white lawyer has a black law partner, and argues cases in front of black, Hispanic, etc. judges. He sees enromous progress. And he is absolutely correct — the change is stunning. I, for one, can remember when it was a matter of great concern that we might elect a President who was Catholic (rather than Protestant). Kennedy had to make explicit statements promising that his religion would not undermine his doing his duty to the nation. Today, nobody would care — they probably wouldn’t even care much if a non-Christian, at least if he were a Jew, were running for President. (A Muslim would be a whole different story, however.)
Russell and Bobby look at a situation where a President who happens to be black gets his patriotism impugned at every turn, on no basis whatever. Where blacks get stopped by police at far higher rates than whites (in identical circumstances), get arrested far more often (for identical offenses, e.g. small amounts of soft drugs), and get more and longer prison sentences. They see how much prejudice remains. And they, too, are correct.
It might help if, as seems entirely possible here, both sides could agree that the other does have a point. There has been great progress; there is still a great deal yet to do. It won’t change much of the way we see the world. But it might help make the discussions less prone to irritated responses. (Including mine.)
We have here a classic case of people looking at the same situation and seeing, or at least focusing on, two very different things.
McKinney (and others) look at a situation where a white lawyer has a black law partner, and argues cases in front of black, Hispanic, etc. judges. He sees enromous progress. And he is absolutely correct — the change is stunning. I, for one, can remember when it was a matter of great concern that we might elect a President who was Catholic (rather than Protestant). Kennedy had to make explicit statements promising that his religion would not undermine his doing his duty to the nation. Today, nobody would care — they probably wouldn’t even care much if a non-Christian, at least if he were a Jew, were running for President. (A Muslim would be a whole different story, however.)
Russell and Bobby look at a situation where a President who happens to be black gets his patriotism impugned at every turn, on no basis whatever. Where blacks get stopped by police at far higher rates than whites (in identical circumstances), get arrested far more often (for identical offenses, e.g. small amounts of soft drugs), and get more and longer prison sentences. They see how much prejudice remains. And they, too, are correct.
It might help if, as seems entirely possible here, both sides could agree that the other does have a point. There has been great progress; there is still a great deal yet to do. It won’t change much of the way we see the world. But it might help make the discussions less prone to irritated responses. (Including mine.)
My issue with subtexts is that discovering them invariably involves some amount of mind-reading.
This can be a true statement, but not always. However, we don’t have to debate what Tony meant when he raised Brett and put the question to me. We can ask Tony.
Tony, were you implying racism, to one degree or another, with my raising those statistics? If not, what was the basis of your inquiry?
My issue with subtexts is that discovering them invariably involves some amount of mind-reading.
This can be a true statement, but not always. However, we don’t have to debate what Tony meant when he raised Brett and put the question to me. We can ask Tony.
Tony, were you implying racism, to one degree or another, with my raising those statistics? If not, what was the basis of your inquiry?
My issue with subtexts is that discovering them invariably involves some amount of mind-reading.
This can be a true statement, but not always. However, we don’t have to debate what Tony meant when he raised Brett and put the question to me. We can ask Tony.
Tony, were you implying racism, to one degree or another, with my raising those statistics? If not, what was the basis of your inquiry?
There has been great progress…
On this there is no doubt, and I do not see much of anybody arguing otherwise. Coates and others (cough, cough) argue it is not nearly enough…which is not the same thing.
there is still a great deal yet to do.
Yup.
There has been great progress…
On this there is no doubt, and I do not see much of anybody arguing otherwise. Coates and others (cough, cough) argue it is not nearly enough…which is not the same thing.
there is still a great deal yet to do.
Yup.
There has been great progress…
On this there is no doubt, and I do not see much of anybody arguing otherwise. Coates and others (cough, cough) argue it is not nearly enough…which is not the same thing.
there is still a great deal yet to do.
Yup.
It’s possible that there is a problem, or a collection of problems, in spite of the fact that you, personally, don’t spend your days deliberately oppressing black people.
I’m not pointing any fingers at you. I’m saying that, all other things being equal, black people are treated differently that not-black people are, in this country. Because their skin is black.
Leaving me out of it, I think it is fair to say that some people, a lot less today than in times before, treat people different from them differently. What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term. I think that was true at one time to a large extent but that at the same time there were a lot of people who knew this was wrong and pushed back. By the early 60’s, this became a subject of national conversation and with the Civil Rights Movement, a sea change in the law. I think you, and many other Progressives equate outcomes today with attitudes fifty years ago and conclude those attitudes must still prevail. For me, that is too easy an answer to too complex a question with too much evidence I can see and everyone else can see that contradicts the thesis.
I’ve thought about this as much as you have. My schooling through the 10th grade was in integrated schools in Texas and Tennessee through 1970. Shelby County TN, to be exact, where we moved 2 months after MLK was assassinated there.
Looking back, the miracle was the lack of tension and conflict and the way in which the vast majority of us got along. And still get along. And now many of us live next door or down the street from each other. The bad old days are gone. They aren’t coming back, unproductive progressive hyperbole notwithstanding.
It’s possible that there is a problem, or a collection of problems, in spite of the fact that you, personally, don’t spend your days deliberately oppressing black people.
I’m not pointing any fingers at you. I’m saying that, all other things being equal, black people are treated differently that not-black people are, in this country. Because their skin is black.
Leaving me out of it, I think it is fair to say that some people, a lot less today than in times before, treat people different from them differently. What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term. I think that was true at one time to a large extent but that at the same time there were a lot of people who knew this was wrong and pushed back. By the early 60’s, this became a subject of national conversation and with the Civil Rights Movement, a sea change in the law. I think you, and many other Progressives equate outcomes today with attitudes fifty years ago and conclude those attitudes must still prevail. For me, that is too easy an answer to too complex a question with too much evidence I can see and everyone else can see that contradicts the thesis.
I’ve thought about this as much as you have. My schooling through the 10th grade was in integrated schools in Texas and Tennessee through 1970. Shelby County TN, to be exact, where we moved 2 months after MLK was assassinated there.
Looking back, the miracle was the lack of tension and conflict and the way in which the vast majority of us got along. And still get along. And now many of us live next door or down the street from each other. The bad old days are gone. They aren’t coming back, unproductive progressive hyperbole notwithstanding.
It’s possible that there is a problem, or a collection of problems, in spite of the fact that you, personally, don’t spend your days deliberately oppressing black people.
I’m not pointing any fingers at you. I’m saying that, all other things being equal, black people are treated differently that not-black people are, in this country. Because their skin is black.
Leaving me out of it, I think it is fair to say that some people, a lot less today than in times before, treat people different from them differently. What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term. I think that was true at one time to a large extent but that at the same time there were a lot of people who knew this was wrong and pushed back. By the early 60’s, this became a subject of national conversation and with the Civil Rights Movement, a sea change in the law. I think you, and many other Progressives equate outcomes today with attitudes fifty years ago and conclude those attitudes must still prevail. For me, that is too easy an answer to too complex a question with too much evidence I can see and everyone else can see that contradicts the thesis.
I’ve thought about this as much as you have. My schooling through the 10th grade was in integrated schools in Texas and Tennessee through 1970. Shelby County TN, to be exact, where we moved 2 months after MLK was assassinated there.
Looking back, the miracle was the lack of tension and conflict and the way in which the vast majority of us got along. And still get along. And now many of us live next door or down the street from each other. The bad old days are gone. They aren’t coming back, unproductive progressive hyperbole notwithstanding.
There’s a certain zero-sum flavor to what you’re saying, here. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
The funny thing is, I think we’d all be better off, society wide, if the unrealized potential of those in now-marginalized groups were to be more fully realized. It’s really not zero-sum at all. It’s actually worse. Whatever relative advantage whites may realize over others still leaves them worse off than they would be if those others were doing better and could contribute more to the general welfare.
The differential between, say, white and black outcomes gets smaller without whites becoming worse off. Both groups do better than they otherwise would, but black outcomes increase to a greater degree by virtue of having started from a worse position, not at the expense of whites – rather to their overall benefit.
There’s a certain zero-sum flavor to what you’re saying, here. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
The funny thing is, I think we’d all be better off, society wide, if the unrealized potential of those in now-marginalized groups were to be more fully realized. It’s really not zero-sum at all. It’s actually worse. Whatever relative advantage whites may realize over others still leaves them worse off than they would be if those others were doing better and could contribute more to the general welfare.
The differential between, say, white and black outcomes gets smaller without whites becoming worse off. Both groups do better than they otherwise would, but black outcomes increase to a greater degree by virtue of having started from a worse position, not at the expense of whites – rather to their overall benefit.
There’s a certain zero-sum flavor to what you’re saying, here. At least, that’s the way it reads to me.
The funny thing is, I think we’d all be better off, society wide, if the unrealized potential of those in now-marginalized groups were to be more fully realized. It’s really not zero-sum at all. It’s actually worse. Whatever relative advantage whites may realize over others still leaves them worse off than they would be if those others were doing better and could contribute more to the general welfare.
The differential between, say, white and black outcomes gets smaller without whites becoming worse off. Both groups do better than they otherwise would, but black outcomes increase to a greater degree by virtue of having started from a worse position, not at the expense of whites – rather to their overall benefit.
But shootings across the country? The pattern isn’t there.
What about shootings of unarmed individuals? What about shootings of individuals not attacking?
But, that aside, I think it’s reductive to limit the issue simply to shootings. It’s also about black people getting beat up, harassed, and arrested more often under similar circumstances relative to whites.
Patterns of differential police treatment along racial lines are well documented. I don’t expect that a movement as new and loosely organized as BLM is going to get everything right in any sort of unified way, but they aren’t, generally speaking, on about nothing.
If you’re prone to ignoring certain things, you might also be prone to ignoring that you ignore them, which makes it hard to talk about those things and whether or not you’re ignoring them.
But shootings across the country? The pattern isn’t there.
What about shootings of unarmed individuals? What about shootings of individuals not attacking?
But, that aside, I think it’s reductive to limit the issue simply to shootings. It’s also about black people getting beat up, harassed, and arrested more often under similar circumstances relative to whites.
Patterns of differential police treatment along racial lines are well documented. I don’t expect that a movement as new and loosely organized as BLM is going to get everything right in any sort of unified way, but they aren’t, generally speaking, on about nothing.
If you’re prone to ignoring certain things, you might also be prone to ignoring that you ignore them, which makes it hard to talk about those things and whether or not you’re ignoring them.
But shootings across the country? The pattern isn’t there.
What about shootings of unarmed individuals? What about shootings of individuals not attacking?
But, that aside, I think it’s reductive to limit the issue simply to shootings. It’s also about black people getting beat up, harassed, and arrested more often under similar circumstances relative to whites.
Patterns of differential police treatment along racial lines are well documented. I don’t expect that a movement as new and loosely organized as BLM is going to get everything right in any sort of unified way, but they aren’t, generally speaking, on about nothing.
If you’re prone to ignoring certain things, you might also be prone to ignoring that you ignore them, which makes it hard to talk about those things and whether or not you’re ignoring them.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
I find these two statements, from the same person, in the same thread, confusing.
Maybe it’s just me.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
I find these two statements, from the same person, in the same thread, confusing.
Maybe it’s just me.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
I find these two statements, from the same person, in the same thread, confusing.
Maybe it’s just me.
Did your parents set you down at some time in your youth and give you “the talk”? Mine didn’t.
For some reason, they didn’t have to.
Did your parents set you down at some time in your youth and give you “the talk”? Mine didn’t.
For some reason, they didn’t have to.
Did your parents set you down at some time in your youth and give you “the talk”? Mine didn’t.
For some reason, they didn’t have to.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
many black people disagree with you on this.
so, why do you think they would think differently about how black people are treated than you do?
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
many black people disagree with you on this.
so, why do you think they would think differently about how black people are treated than you do?
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
many black people disagree with you on this.
so, why do you think they would think differently about how black people are treated than you do?
Thanks for elaborating. I wholeheartedly agree.
If you mean there is no national, institutionalized oppression, I agree with you. If you mean that there’s no racial oppression at all against black people, I strongly disagree.
It’s not as bad as it was. It’s not nearly as good as it can be. These are two statements that, believe it or not, are in harmony with each other.
Thanks for elaborating. I wholeheartedly agree.
If you mean there is no national, institutionalized oppression, I agree with you. If you mean that there’s no racial oppression at all against black people, I strongly disagree.
It’s not as bad as it was. It’s not nearly as good as it can be. These are two statements that, believe it or not, are in harmony with each other.
Thanks for elaborating. I wholeheartedly agree.
If you mean there is no national, institutionalized oppression, I agree with you. If you mean that there’s no racial oppression at all against black people, I strongly disagree.
It’s not as bad as it was. It’s not nearly as good as it can be. These are two statements that, believe it or not, are in harmony with each other.
“Shelby county TN….where we moved two months after MLK was assassinated there.”
Almost exactly when my family moved there. I’m going to remain a lurker in this thread, but that coincidence got me to delurk momentarily.
“Shelby county TN….where we moved two months after MLK was assassinated there.”
Almost exactly when my family moved there. I’m going to remain a lurker in this thread, but that coincidence got me to delurk momentarily.
“Shelby county TN….where we moved two months after MLK was assassinated there.”
Almost exactly when my family moved there. I’m going to remain a lurker in this thread, but that coincidence got me to delurk momentarily.
Also, as an aside, and for the record, I don’t really identify as a progressive. I’m sure exactly what a “progressive” is, other than maybe just a different word for liberal.
And I don’t identify as a liberal, either.
I don’t think there are all that many folks here who are any kind of doctrinaire anything.
There might not be that many such folks anywhere.
Everybody’s different.
Also, as an aside, and for the record, I don’t really identify as a progressive. I’m sure exactly what a “progressive” is, other than maybe just a different word for liberal.
And I don’t identify as a liberal, either.
I don’t think there are all that many folks here who are any kind of doctrinaire anything.
There might not be that many such folks anywhere.
Everybody’s different.
Also, as an aside, and for the record, I don’t really identify as a progressive. I’m sure exactly what a “progressive” is, other than maybe just a different word for liberal.
And I don’t identify as a liberal, either.
I don’t think there are all that many folks here who are any kind of doctrinaire anything.
There might not be that many such folks anywhere.
Everybody’s different.
It’s not as bad as it was.
What this brings to mind is that legal slavery ended 150 years ago in this country. It sounds like a long time, but it’s entirely possible for someone commenting on this very blog, today, to be old enough to have personally met someone born into slavery in the United States. Yes, you would currently have to be a senior citizen and have met, as a young child, a fairly aged individual. But you would not have to be absurdly old today, nor so young at the time of meeting not to remember it, and that former slave would not have to have been absurdly old at the time of the meeting. It would all be well within the norms of human biology.
It’s not as bad as it was.
What this brings to mind is that legal slavery ended 150 years ago in this country. It sounds like a long time, but it’s entirely possible for someone commenting on this very blog, today, to be old enough to have personally met someone born into slavery in the United States. Yes, you would currently have to be a senior citizen and have met, as a young child, a fairly aged individual. But you would not have to be absurdly old today, nor so young at the time of meeting not to remember it, and that former slave would not have to have been absurdly old at the time of the meeting. It would all be well within the norms of human biology.
It’s not as bad as it was.
What this brings to mind is that legal slavery ended 150 years ago in this country. It sounds like a long time, but it’s entirely possible for someone commenting on this very blog, today, to be old enough to have personally met someone born into slavery in the United States. Yes, you would currently have to be a senior citizen and have met, as a young child, a fairly aged individual. But you would not have to be absurdly old today, nor so young at the time of meeting not to remember it, and that former slave would not have to have been absurdly old at the time of the meeting. It would all be well within the norms of human biology.
What about shootings of unarmed individuals? What about shootings of individuals not attacking?
That is all included in the roughly 400 shootings a year. Blacks are a third’ish, based on what few hard numbers Drum et al cite. The arrest numbers are hard numbers. There is no pattern, period. 200, an intentionally over-stated number, unarmed Blacks being killed a year in the course of being arrested or in police custody out of 2.5 million arrests is statistically insignificant. The phenomena is not “well documented”; rather it is the same limited number of incidents being talked about continuously. It is well discussed, as opposed to being well documented.
many black people disagree with you on this.
so, why do you think they would think differently about how black people are treated than you do?
What *do* many black people *think* on this subject? That is my question to you.
My guess is that what any one group, or large subset of a group, *thinks* is complicated and full of internal contradictions and outright errors. For example, if many black people believe that Officer Warren shot Michael Brown in the back and only in the back, they would be wrong.
Blacks, particularly poor blacks, might generally and correctly believe that white people have more money and have a better deal in life and they might infer from those observations that blacks are the victims of discrimination. If you didn’t finish high school and have no skills, color doesn’t matter, you aren’t going anywhere. I’m not sure the analysis a poor, black single parent might perform would take into consideration all of the variables. Wouldn’t mean she wasn’t sincere, but it doesn’t make her correct.
So, even if we had a reliable sense of what black people think on any particular subject, we’d have to go the next several steps and examine the validity of the underlying premises and the reliability/soundness of the conclusions drawn.
If we take one of Coates’ repeated assertions, the policy of white America is to systematically take blacks’ property and freedom, such a policy implies an underlying white thought process. If that process existed–it does not–it would be wrong.
The fact that white people as a whole or black people as a whole, or some large subset of either, hold something to be true doesn’t make it true.
Another thought process, and this will vary widely, is that individual blacks may have one sense of white people in general, but in specific may have a more or less favorable view of white people depending on who they regularly come into contact with.
I would further submit that blacks who have jobs that put them into daily contact with whites as coworkers or other similar juxtaposition have a different view of white people than blacks whose employment is spotty and who know few if any white people. This statement, adjusted for circumstances, probably applies broadly.
To conclude this, if Peggy Hubbard is representative, I’d say your premise is wrong.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
I find these two statements, from the same person, in the same thread, confusing.
Apples and oranges. The first quoted statement refers to American society as a whole. I thought that was clear from the context, but if not, my apologies. I dispute and reject a generally held animosity or antipathy or indifference by white people against black people in the United States today. In the past, in varying degrees and kind over time, yes. Today, no. The second refers to police officers who function day in and day out in a high crime African American community. Being human and being exposed to crime, primarily by young black males, they might come, at some level, to associate black, male youths with crime.
Millington High School, 1968-70. You?
What about shootings of unarmed individuals? What about shootings of individuals not attacking?
That is all included in the roughly 400 shootings a year. Blacks are a third’ish, based on what few hard numbers Drum et al cite. The arrest numbers are hard numbers. There is no pattern, period. 200, an intentionally over-stated number, unarmed Blacks being killed a year in the course of being arrested or in police custody out of 2.5 million arrests is statistically insignificant. The phenomena is not “well documented”; rather it is the same limited number of incidents being talked about continuously. It is well discussed, as opposed to being well documented.
many black people disagree with you on this.
so, why do you think they would think differently about how black people are treated than you do?
What *do* many black people *think* on this subject? That is my question to you.
My guess is that what any one group, or large subset of a group, *thinks* is complicated and full of internal contradictions and outright errors. For example, if many black people believe that Officer Warren shot Michael Brown in the back and only in the back, they would be wrong.
Blacks, particularly poor blacks, might generally and correctly believe that white people have more money and have a better deal in life and they might infer from those observations that blacks are the victims of discrimination. If you didn’t finish high school and have no skills, color doesn’t matter, you aren’t going anywhere. I’m not sure the analysis a poor, black single parent might perform would take into consideration all of the variables. Wouldn’t mean she wasn’t sincere, but it doesn’t make her correct.
So, even if we had a reliable sense of what black people think on any particular subject, we’d have to go the next several steps and examine the validity of the underlying premises and the reliability/soundness of the conclusions drawn.
If we take one of Coates’ repeated assertions, the policy of white America is to systematically take blacks’ property and freedom, such a policy implies an underlying white thought process. If that process existed–it does not–it would be wrong.
The fact that white people as a whole or black people as a whole, or some large subset of either, hold something to be true doesn’t make it true.
Another thought process, and this will vary widely, is that individual blacks may have one sense of white people in general, but in specific may have a more or less favorable view of white people depending on who they regularly come into contact with.
I would further submit that blacks who have jobs that put them into daily contact with whites as coworkers or other similar juxtaposition have a different view of white people than blacks whose employment is spotty and who know few if any white people. This statement, adjusted for circumstances, probably applies broadly.
To conclude this, if Peggy Hubbard is representative, I’d say your premise is wrong.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
I find these two statements, from the same person, in the same thread, confusing.
Apples and oranges. The first quoted statement refers to American society as a whole. I thought that was clear from the context, but if not, my apologies. I dispute and reject a generally held animosity or antipathy or indifference by white people against black people in the United States today. In the past, in varying degrees and kind over time, yes. Today, no. The second refers to police officers who function day in and day out in a high crime African American community. Being human and being exposed to crime, primarily by young black males, they might come, at some level, to associate black, male youths with crime.
Millington High School, 1968-70. You?
What about shootings of unarmed individuals? What about shootings of individuals not attacking?
That is all included in the roughly 400 shootings a year. Blacks are a third’ish, based on what few hard numbers Drum et al cite. The arrest numbers are hard numbers. There is no pattern, period. 200, an intentionally over-stated number, unarmed Blacks being killed a year in the course of being arrested or in police custody out of 2.5 million arrests is statistically insignificant. The phenomena is not “well documented”; rather it is the same limited number of incidents being talked about continuously. It is well discussed, as opposed to being well documented.
many black people disagree with you on this.
so, why do you think they would think differently about how black people are treated than you do?
What *do* many black people *think* on this subject? That is my question to you.
My guess is that what any one group, or large subset of a group, *thinks* is complicated and full of internal contradictions and outright errors. For example, if many black people believe that Officer Warren shot Michael Brown in the back and only in the back, they would be wrong.
Blacks, particularly poor blacks, might generally and correctly believe that white people have more money and have a better deal in life and they might infer from those observations that blacks are the victims of discrimination. If you didn’t finish high school and have no skills, color doesn’t matter, you aren’t going anywhere. I’m not sure the analysis a poor, black single parent might perform would take into consideration all of the variables. Wouldn’t mean she wasn’t sincere, but it doesn’t make her correct.
So, even if we had a reliable sense of what black people think on any particular subject, we’d have to go the next several steps and examine the validity of the underlying premises and the reliability/soundness of the conclusions drawn.
If we take one of Coates’ repeated assertions, the policy of white America is to systematically take blacks’ property and freedom, such a policy implies an underlying white thought process. If that process existed–it does not–it would be wrong.
The fact that white people as a whole or black people as a whole, or some large subset of either, hold something to be true doesn’t make it true.
Another thought process, and this will vary widely, is that individual blacks may have one sense of white people in general, but in specific may have a more or less favorable view of white people depending on who they regularly come into contact with.
I would further submit that blacks who have jobs that put them into daily contact with whites as coworkers or other similar juxtaposition have a different view of white people than blacks whose employment is spotty and who know few if any white people. This statement, adjusted for circumstances, probably applies broadly.
To conclude this, if Peggy Hubbard is representative, I’d say your premise is wrong.
What I reject is that there is a black-centered focus of oppression, animosity, ill will, poor treatment, indifference, name your term.
At some level, it is possible that some part of the brain begins to equate skin color with criminal behavior.
I find these two statements, from the same person, in the same thread, confusing.
Apples and oranges. The first quoted statement refers to American society as a whole. I thought that was clear from the context, but if not, my apologies. I dispute and reject a generally held animosity or antipathy or indifference by white people against black people in the United States today. In the past, in varying degrees and kind over time, yes. Today, no. The second refers to police officers who function day in and day out in a high crime African American community. Being human and being exposed to crime, primarily by young black males, they might come, at some level, to associate black, male youths with crime.
Millington High School, 1968-70. You?
What *do* many black people *think* on this subject?
many of them think “Black Lives Matter” is a meaningful and important phrase, that it packs a lot of punch and says a lot about the state of black America.
you, apparently, dismiss it.
and you seem somewhat fixated on this Officer Wilson thing.
What *do* many black people *think* on this subject?
many of them think “Black Lives Matter” is a meaningful and important phrase, that it packs a lot of punch and says a lot about the state of black America.
you, apparently, dismiss it.
and you seem somewhat fixated on this Officer Wilson thing.
What *do* many black people *think* on this subject?
many of them think “Black Lives Matter” is a meaningful and important phrase, that it packs a lot of punch and says a lot about the state of black America.
you, apparently, dismiss it.
and you seem somewhat fixated on this Officer Wilson thing.
you, apparently, dismiss it.
No, I dispute the underlying premises. First, a movement founded on a lie is off to a bad start. Second, for the reasons stated, the evidence does not support the notion that unarmed blacks are singled out for assassination by the police. Third, the BLM movement completely disregards the presumption of innocence, which is in the nature of tyranny and certainly nothing I’d ever respect. Fourth, the BLM solution is to reduce police presence, which is the polar opposite of what the black community needs.
So, while it may be a “a meaningful and important phrase, that it packs a lot of punch and says a lot about the state of black America”, in what way is it fact-based and what useful solutions to the problem does it offer?
you, apparently, dismiss it.
No, I dispute the underlying premises. First, a movement founded on a lie is off to a bad start. Second, for the reasons stated, the evidence does not support the notion that unarmed blacks are singled out for assassination by the police. Third, the BLM movement completely disregards the presumption of innocence, which is in the nature of tyranny and certainly nothing I’d ever respect. Fourth, the BLM solution is to reduce police presence, which is the polar opposite of what the black community needs.
So, while it may be a “a meaningful and important phrase, that it packs a lot of punch and says a lot about the state of black America”, in what way is it fact-based and what useful solutions to the problem does it offer?
you, apparently, dismiss it.
No, I dispute the underlying premises. First, a movement founded on a lie is off to a bad start. Second, for the reasons stated, the evidence does not support the notion that unarmed blacks are singled out for assassination by the police. Third, the BLM movement completely disregards the presumption of innocence, which is in the nature of tyranny and certainly nothing I’d ever respect. Fourth, the BLM solution is to reduce police presence, which is the polar opposite of what the black community needs.
So, while it may be a “a meaningful and important phrase, that it packs a lot of punch and says a lot about the state of black America”, in what way is it fact-based and what useful solutions to the problem does it offer?
And limiting the discussion of differntial treatment of blacks by police to shootings. Forget the rest.
TNC does quite of bit of historical research to back his claims. Even if you don’t like his rhetoric or agree with all of his conclusions, there’s a lot to be waived away if you believe there is no such thing as long-standing systemic racism in this country. You can ignore all of it, and ignore that you’re ignoring it, but it’s still there.
And limiting the discussion of differntial treatment of blacks by police to shootings. Forget the rest.
TNC does quite of bit of historical research to back his claims. Even if you don’t like his rhetoric or agree with all of his conclusions, there’s a lot to be waived away if you believe there is no such thing as long-standing systemic racism in this country. You can ignore all of it, and ignore that you’re ignoring it, but it’s still there.
And limiting the discussion of differntial treatment of blacks by police to shootings. Forget the rest.
TNC does quite of bit of historical research to back his claims. Even if you don’t like his rhetoric or agree with all of his conclusions, there’s a lot to be waived away if you believe there is no such thing as long-standing systemic racism in this country. You can ignore all of it, and ignore that you’re ignoring it, but it’s still there.
The presumption of innocence applies to trials, no? I think the biggest problem is that it often never gets that far. You wouldn’t have a trial in the first place if there wasn’t a presumption of at least the possiblilty of guilt. Is BLM, as a movement, calling for sentencing without trial?
What do you think would have happened to Michael Slager after shooting Walter Scott if there hadn’t been someone shooting video of it?
The presumption of innocence applies to trials, no? I think the biggest problem is that it often never gets that far. You wouldn’t have a trial in the first place if there wasn’t a presumption of at least the possiblilty of guilt. Is BLM, as a movement, calling for sentencing without trial?
What do you think would have happened to Michael Slager after shooting Walter Scott if there hadn’t been someone shooting video of it?
The presumption of innocence applies to trials, no? I think the biggest problem is that it often never gets that far. You wouldn’t have a trial in the first place if there wasn’t a presumption of at least the possiblilty of guilt. Is BLM, as a movement, calling for sentencing without trial?
What do you think would have happened to Michael Slager after shooting Walter Scott if there hadn’t been someone shooting video of it?
There is no pattern, period.
…this makes me think back to something you said a page ago:
You have to manipulate the crap out of the numbers to get a pattern.
BLM et all reason backward from isolated instances of police murder to patterns that simply are not there.
This cuts both ways. So long as we’re not positing a universal pattern, we can hide a widespread pattern (or patterns) by introducing a sufficient amount of noise from places where the patterns don’t exist simply by insisting on looking at things on a macro scale.
I personally don’t think every precinct in the country has systematic problems with racist law enforcement. I am beyond skeptical that there are only a few precincts where systematic prejudice leads to inequitable enforcement.
I also would underscore russell’s upthread nod to classism in this regard. At the end of the day, racism and classism in the US are intertwined, and that’s going to lead to race being an easy heuristic to apply when what police often really want to single out is more broadly the poor and marginalized rather than individuals of one race or another. Of course, we can’t talk about that. Conversations about race can be had (under protest) but class warfare? Not a chance, DFH! After all, the best and brightest among us “like to think of us as a classless society”…
There is no pattern, period.
…this makes me think back to something you said a page ago:
You have to manipulate the crap out of the numbers to get a pattern.
BLM et all reason backward from isolated instances of police murder to patterns that simply are not there.
This cuts both ways. So long as we’re not positing a universal pattern, we can hide a widespread pattern (or patterns) by introducing a sufficient amount of noise from places where the patterns don’t exist simply by insisting on looking at things on a macro scale.
I personally don’t think every precinct in the country has systematic problems with racist law enforcement. I am beyond skeptical that there are only a few precincts where systematic prejudice leads to inequitable enforcement.
I also would underscore russell’s upthread nod to classism in this regard. At the end of the day, racism and classism in the US are intertwined, and that’s going to lead to race being an easy heuristic to apply when what police often really want to single out is more broadly the poor and marginalized rather than individuals of one race or another. Of course, we can’t talk about that. Conversations about race can be had (under protest) but class warfare? Not a chance, DFH! After all, the best and brightest among us “like to think of us as a classless society”…
There is no pattern, period.
…this makes me think back to something you said a page ago:
You have to manipulate the crap out of the numbers to get a pattern.
BLM et all reason backward from isolated instances of police murder to patterns that simply are not there.
This cuts both ways. So long as we’re not positing a universal pattern, we can hide a widespread pattern (or patterns) by introducing a sufficient amount of noise from places where the patterns don’t exist simply by insisting on looking at things on a macro scale.
I personally don’t think every precinct in the country has systematic problems with racist law enforcement. I am beyond skeptical that there are only a few precincts where systematic prejudice leads to inequitable enforcement.
I also would underscore russell’s upthread nod to classism in this regard. At the end of the day, racism and classism in the US are intertwined, and that’s going to lead to race being an easy heuristic to apply when what police often really want to single out is more broadly the poor and marginalized rather than individuals of one race or another. Of course, we can’t talk about that. Conversations about race can be had (under protest) but class warfare? Not a chance, DFH! After all, the best and brightest among us “like to think of us as a classless society”…
At the risk of dragging this (admittedly Open) thread back to its origins. Has anyone else noticed that Trump came out and said flat out that the treaty with Iran will not be reversed. That it cannot be reversed, no matter how flawed Republicans (and Likudniks) might find it.
I’m wondering how many of those who love Trump for “speaking the truth” are prepared to hear that truth.
At the risk of dragging this (admittedly Open) thread back to its origins. Has anyone else noticed that Trump came out and said flat out that the treaty with Iran will not be reversed. That it cannot be reversed, no matter how flawed Republicans (and Likudniks) might find it.
I’m wondering how many of those who love Trump for “speaking the truth” are prepared to hear that truth.
At the risk of dragging this (admittedly Open) thread back to its origins. Has anyone else noticed that Trump came out and said flat out that the treaty with Iran will not be reversed. That it cannot be reversed, no matter how flawed Republicans (and Likudniks) might find it.
I’m wondering how many of those who love Trump for “speaking the truth” are prepared to hear that truth.
McTx: Tony, were you implying racism, to one degree or another, with my raising those statistics? If not, what was the basis of your inquiry?
Long answer: yes, with a but.
Short answer: no, with an if.
Seriously, McKinney, the implication of my question was mainly that there is an actual dilemma here.
EITHER: “race” is the root cause of black/white statistical disparities;
OR: something else is.
As an obviously able lawyer you seem to acknowledge, by the form of your own question, that dilemmas are uncomfortable things. So yes: you (or Brett, or I) are “racist” to the degree that we accept the first alternative.
By “root” cause, incidentally, I mean to reject as question-begging such analyses as: blacks and whites are equally likely to be shot by cops while being arrested and it just happens that blacks are statistically more likely to be arrested.
You (and Brett, and I) can be racist without knowing it, never mind acknowledging it. It’s like speaking prose all our lives, or having a hole in our pants: we may not realize it until somebody makes us aware of it. Which can be embarrassing, I grant you. But we can change our pants if we feel embarrassed, can’t we? We don’t have to be “exhibitionists”.
That you, personally, in your daily life and professional activity, treat everybody with equal respect is not something I doubt for a minute. But I think you would acknowledge that some people don’t. And the serious question is: what, if anything, should we do about that?
I believe “we” can do something about it, on both ends. We can vote so as to promote laws against racist behaviors, and we can vote so as to promote policies designed to reduce the statistical disparities in various outcomes. We (you and I) probably disagree about what sorts of policies would actually reduce those disparities, but I would like to think that our disagreement is about means, not ends.
–TP
McTx: Tony, were you implying racism, to one degree or another, with my raising those statistics? If not, what was the basis of your inquiry?
Long answer: yes, with a but.
Short answer: no, with an if.
Seriously, McKinney, the implication of my question was mainly that there is an actual dilemma here.
EITHER: “race” is the root cause of black/white statistical disparities;
OR: something else is.
As an obviously able lawyer you seem to acknowledge, by the form of your own question, that dilemmas are uncomfortable things. So yes: you (or Brett, or I) are “racist” to the degree that we accept the first alternative.
By “root” cause, incidentally, I mean to reject as question-begging such analyses as: blacks and whites are equally likely to be shot by cops while being arrested and it just happens that blacks are statistically more likely to be arrested.
You (and Brett, and I) can be racist without knowing it, never mind acknowledging it. It’s like speaking prose all our lives, or having a hole in our pants: we may not realize it until somebody makes us aware of it. Which can be embarrassing, I grant you. But we can change our pants if we feel embarrassed, can’t we? We don’t have to be “exhibitionists”.
That you, personally, in your daily life and professional activity, treat everybody with equal respect is not something I doubt for a minute. But I think you would acknowledge that some people don’t. And the serious question is: what, if anything, should we do about that?
I believe “we” can do something about it, on both ends. We can vote so as to promote laws against racist behaviors, and we can vote so as to promote policies designed to reduce the statistical disparities in various outcomes. We (you and I) probably disagree about what sorts of policies would actually reduce those disparities, but I would like to think that our disagreement is about means, not ends.
–TP
McTx: Tony, were you implying racism, to one degree or another, with my raising those statistics? If not, what was the basis of your inquiry?
Long answer: yes, with a but.
Short answer: no, with an if.
Seriously, McKinney, the implication of my question was mainly that there is an actual dilemma here.
EITHER: “race” is the root cause of black/white statistical disparities;
OR: something else is.
As an obviously able lawyer you seem to acknowledge, by the form of your own question, that dilemmas are uncomfortable things. So yes: you (or Brett, or I) are “racist” to the degree that we accept the first alternative.
By “root” cause, incidentally, I mean to reject as question-begging such analyses as: blacks and whites are equally likely to be shot by cops while being arrested and it just happens that blacks are statistically more likely to be arrested.
You (and Brett, and I) can be racist without knowing it, never mind acknowledging it. It’s like speaking prose all our lives, or having a hole in our pants: we may not realize it until somebody makes us aware of it. Which can be embarrassing, I grant you. But we can change our pants if we feel embarrassed, can’t we? We don’t have to be “exhibitionists”.
That you, personally, in your daily life and professional activity, treat everybody with equal respect is not something I doubt for a minute. But I think you would acknowledge that some people don’t. And the serious question is: what, if anything, should we do about that?
I believe “we” can do something about it, on both ends. We can vote so as to promote laws against racist behaviors, and we can vote so as to promote policies designed to reduce the statistical disparities in various outcomes. We (you and I) probably disagree about what sorts of policies would actually reduce those disparities, but I would like to think that our disagreement is about means, not ends.
–TP
I listened to Hewitt interview Trump.
He actually said some things I agree with. I normally view Trump as sort of a living stunt demo, but he’s not completely crazy.
And, to be sure, he has said some stupid things.
Show us someone who hasn’t.
The above doesn’t make me a Trump supporter, but it makes me want to know more.
I listened to Hewitt interview Trump.
He actually said some things I agree with. I normally view Trump as sort of a living stunt demo, but he’s not completely crazy.
And, to be sure, he has said some stupid things.
Show us someone who hasn’t.
The above doesn’t make me a Trump supporter, but it makes me want to know more.
I listened to Hewitt interview Trump.
He actually said some things I agree with. I normally view Trump as sort of a living stunt demo, but he’s not completely crazy.
And, to be sure, he has said some stupid things.
Show us someone who hasn’t.
The above doesn’t make me a Trump supporter, but it makes me want to know more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball
TNC does quite of bit of historical research to back his claims. Even if you don’t like his rhetoric or agree with all of his conclusions, there’s a lot to be waived away if you believe there is no such thing as long-standing systemic racism in this country. You can ignore all of it, and ignore that you’re ignoring it, but it’s still there.
I think he is a good historian, not that finding evidence of state-sanctioned race discrimination prior to WWII is that difficult. There was tons of it. He documents it well. The logic, or lack thereof, flowing from what happened pre-WWII and how he applies to post 60’s America is where I have issues. Major issues.
The presumption of innocence applies to trials, no?
No. We are all presumed innocent. But it absolutely applies from the moment a person becomes the object of a criminal investigation.
I think the biggest problem is that it often never gets that far. You wouldn’t have a trial in the first place if there wasn’t a presumption of at least the possiblilty of guilt.
There is never a presumption of guilt of any kind in our system. There is ‘probable cause’ to arrest, to issue a warrant, and if the evidence is sufficient, to indict; however, the presumption of innocence remains throughout and the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the traditional, liberal view. As an unrelated aside, I think a lot of our criminal laws value expediency over due process and that seems to be fine with our courts.
Is BLM, as a movement, calling for sentencing without trial?
A fair question. BLM, or its predecessor objected–to put it mildly–to a failure to indict Warren. In times past, we called that a lynch mob and we retroactively disapprove of that.
Well, sometimes grand juries don’t indict. Turns out in this case, it happened for a good reason–no evidence. Yet, BLM could care less. It makes no sense, other than they seem to be demanding that their view of the law and the evidence prevail. So much for a fair and impartial trial. Or the rule of law for that matter.
Quoting from BLM:
“We will call on the office of US attorney general Eric Holder to release the names of all officers involved in killing black people within the last five years, both while on patrol and in custody, so they can be brought to justice – if they haven’t already.”
Given the reaction to Warren’s no-bill, a fair assumption is that BLM means “brought to justice *to our satisfaction*”. Seems pretty open-minded to me.
What do you think would have happened to Michael Slager after shooting Walter Scott if there hadn’t been someone shooting video of it?
Hard to say since that didn’t happen. As a general observation, cops get the benefit of the doubt more than they should. In BLM’s world, that would shift to the dead black person. However, police get the same benefit regardless of whether the suspect is black or white. And, Slager is a clear cut case of a cop committing murder. Do you have evidence of 50 or a 100 clear cut cases of a cop committing murder? Every year?
The relatively very small number of cases usually have ambiguous circumstances and unreliable eyewitnesses going both ways. Absent a competent forensic investigation or video, a lot of times the evidence isn’t going to be there to warrant prosecution. That is one of the many inherent limitations on human endeavor.
when what police often really want to single out is more broadly the poor and marginalized rather than individuals of one race or another. Of course, we can’t talk about that. Conversations about race can be had (under protest) but class warfare? Not a chance, DFH! After all, the best and brightest among us “like to think of us as a classless society”…
I’m happy to have whatever conversation anyone wants to have, although whether some nutty clerk in Kentucky who won’t issue a wedding license is not my idea of a crises.
But I think you would acknowledge that some people don’t. And the serious question is: what, if anything, should we do about that?
First, thanks for answering my question. Saved Russell and me at least 20 back and forth’s on what you meant. Kidding on the Russell and I part.
Sure, I do acknowledge that and I’m pretty sure I acknowledged that in any number of comments here and elsewhere.
There are 300 plus million Americans. I am not a big fan of passing laws that tell people how to deal with one another outside of commerce, public accommodations and the like. The Klan level of racism is a dying thing. Given our size, there will always be a splinter here and there that goes the way of white supremacy. Let them make fools of themselves. If they go beyond talking and start trouble, charge them with assault or what have you and let that suffice.
Freedom is messy. Legislating thoughts is bad business.
we can vote so as to promote policies designed to reduce the statistical disparities in various outcomes. We (you and I) probably disagree about what sorts of policies would actually reduce those disparities, but I would like to think that our disagreement is about means, not ends.
I think this is probably right for the most part. I think long term disparity reduction is a function of education/training + guidance + perseverance. We get there over time, and it’s not happening next month or next year, through adult and child education and–the idealist in me–a consensus on what we expect from ourselves as parents and neighbors, with the heaviest load falling on parents, to raise children in such a way that they have a decent shot at life.
TNC does quite of bit of historical research to back his claims. Even if you don’t like his rhetoric or agree with all of his conclusions, there’s a lot to be waived away if you believe there is no such thing as long-standing systemic racism in this country. You can ignore all of it, and ignore that you’re ignoring it, but it’s still there.
I think he is a good historian, not that finding evidence of state-sanctioned race discrimination prior to WWII is that difficult. There was tons of it. He documents it well. The logic, or lack thereof, flowing from what happened pre-WWII and how he applies to post 60’s America is where I have issues. Major issues.
The presumption of innocence applies to trials, no?
No. We are all presumed innocent. But it absolutely applies from the moment a person becomes the object of a criminal investigation.
I think the biggest problem is that it often never gets that far. You wouldn’t have a trial in the first place if there wasn’t a presumption of at least the possiblilty of guilt.
There is never a presumption of guilt of any kind in our system. There is ‘probable cause’ to arrest, to issue a warrant, and if the evidence is sufficient, to indict; however, the presumption of innocence remains throughout and the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the traditional, liberal view. As an unrelated aside, I think a lot of our criminal laws value expediency over due process and that seems to be fine with our courts.
Is BLM, as a movement, calling for sentencing without trial?
A fair question. BLM, or its predecessor objected–to put it mildly–to a failure to indict Warren. In times past, we called that a lynch mob and we retroactively disapprove of that.
Well, sometimes grand juries don’t indict. Turns out in this case, it happened for a good reason–no evidence. Yet, BLM could care less. It makes no sense, other than they seem to be demanding that their view of the law and the evidence prevail. So much for a fair and impartial trial. Or the rule of law for that matter.
Quoting from BLM:
“We will call on the office of US attorney general Eric Holder to release the names of all officers involved in killing black people within the last five years, both while on patrol and in custody, so they can be brought to justice – if they haven’t already.”
Given the reaction to Warren’s no-bill, a fair assumption is that BLM means “brought to justice *to our satisfaction*”. Seems pretty open-minded to me.
What do you think would have happened to Michael Slager after shooting Walter Scott if there hadn’t been someone shooting video of it?
Hard to say since that didn’t happen. As a general observation, cops get the benefit of the doubt more than they should. In BLM’s world, that would shift to the dead black person. However, police get the same benefit regardless of whether the suspect is black or white. And, Slager is a clear cut case of a cop committing murder. Do you have evidence of 50 or a 100 clear cut cases of a cop committing murder? Every year?
The relatively very small number of cases usually have ambiguous circumstances and unreliable eyewitnesses going both ways. Absent a competent forensic investigation or video, a lot of times the evidence isn’t going to be there to warrant prosecution. That is one of the many inherent limitations on human endeavor.
when what police often really want to single out is more broadly the poor and marginalized rather than individuals of one race or another. Of course, we can’t talk about that. Conversations about race can be had (under protest) but class warfare? Not a chance, DFH! After all, the best and brightest among us “like to think of us as a classless society”…
I’m happy to have whatever conversation anyone wants to have, although whether some nutty clerk in Kentucky who won’t issue a wedding license is not my idea of a crises.
But I think you would acknowledge that some people don’t. And the serious question is: what, if anything, should we do about that?
First, thanks for answering my question. Saved Russell and me at least 20 back and forth’s on what you meant. Kidding on the Russell and I part.
Sure, I do acknowledge that and I’m pretty sure I acknowledged that in any number of comments here and elsewhere.
There are 300 plus million Americans. I am not a big fan of passing laws that tell people how to deal with one another outside of commerce, public accommodations and the like. The Klan level of racism is a dying thing. Given our size, there will always be a splinter here and there that goes the way of white supremacy. Let them make fools of themselves. If they go beyond talking and start trouble, charge them with assault or what have you and let that suffice.
Freedom is messy. Legislating thoughts is bad business.
we can vote so as to promote policies designed to reduce the statistical disparities in various outcomes. We (you and I) probably disagree about what sorts of policies would actually reduce those disparities, but I would like to think that our disagreement is about means, not ends.
I think this is probably right for the most part. I think long term disparity reduction is a function of education/training + guidance + perseverance. We get there over time, and it’s not happening next month or next year, through adult and child education and–the idealist in me–a consensus on what we expect from ourselves as parents and neighbors, with the heaviest load falling on parents, to raise children in such a way that they have a decent shot at life.
TNC does quite of bit of historical research to back his claims. Even if you don’t like his rhetoric or agree with all of his conclusions, there’s a lot to be waived away if you believe there is no such thing as long-standing systemic racism in this country. You can ignore all of it, and ignore that you’re ignoring it, but it’s still there.
I think he is a good historian, not that finding evidence of state-sanctioned race discrimination prior to WWII is that difficult. There was tons of it. He documents it well. The logic, or lack thereof, flowing from what happened pre-WWII and how he applies to post 60’s America is where I have issues. Major issues.
The presumption of innocence applies to trials, no?
No. We are all presumed innocent. But it absolutely applies from the moment a person becomes the object of a criminal investigation.
I think the biggest problem is that it often never gets that far. You wouldn’t have a trial in the first place if there wasn’t a presumption of at least the possiblilty of guilt.
There is never a presumption of guilt of any kind in our system. There is ‘probable cause’ to arrest, to issue a warrant, and if the evidence is sufficient, to indict; however, the presumption of innocence remains throughout and the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the traditional, liberal view. As an unrelated aside, I think a lot of our criminal laws value expediency over due process and that seems to be fine with our courts.
Is BLM, as a movement, calling for sentencing without trial?
A fair question. BLM, or its predecessor objected–to put it mildly–to a failure to indict Warren. In times past, we called that a lynch mob and we retroactively disapprove of that.
Well, sometimes grand juries don’t indict. Turns out in this case, it happened for a good reason–no evidence. Yet, BLM could care less. It makes no sense, other than they seem to be demanding that their view of the law and the evidence prevail. So much for a fair and impartial trial. Or the rule of law for that matter.
Quoting from BLM:
“We will call on the office of US attorney general Eric Holder to release the names of all officers involved in killing black people within the last five years, both while on patrol and in custody, so they can be brought to justice – if they haven’t already.”
Given the reaction to Warren’s no-bill, a fair assumption is that BLM means “brought to justice *to our satisfaction*”. Seems pretty open-minded to me.
What do you think would have happened to Michael Slager after shooting Walter Scott if there hadn’t been someone shooting video of it?
Hard to say since that didn’t happen. As a general observation, cops get the benefit of the doubt more than they should. In BLM’s world, that would shift to the dead black person. However, police get the same benefit regardless of whether the suspect is black or white. And, Slager is a clear cut case of a cop committing murder. Do you have evidence of 50 or a 100 clear cut cases of a cop committing murder? Every year?
The relatively very small number of cases usually have ambiguous circumstances and unreliable eyewitnesses going both ways. Absent a competent forensic investigation or video, a lot of times the evidence isn’t going to be there to warrant prosecution. That is one of the many inherent limitations on human endeavor.
when what police often really want to single out is more broadly the poor and marginalized rather than individuals of one race or another. Of course, we can’t talk about that. Conversations about race can be had (under protest) but class warfare? Not a chance, DFH! After all, the best and brightest among us “like to think of us as a classless society”…
I’m happy to have whatever conversation anyone wants to have, although whether some nutty clerk in Kentucky who won’t issue a wedding license is not my idea of a crises.
But I think you would acknowledge that some people don’t. And the serious question is: what, if anything, should we do about that?
First, thanks for answering my question. Saved Russell and me at least 20 back and forth’s on what you meant. Kidding on the Russell and I part.
Sure, I do acknowledge that and I’m pretty sure I acknowledged that in any number of comments here and elsewhere.
There are 300 plus million Americans. I am not a big fan of passing laws that tell people how to deal with one another outside of commerce, public accommodations and the like. The Klan level of racism is a dying thing. Given our size, there will always be a splinter here and there that goes the way of white supremacy. Let them make fools of themselves. If they go beyond talking and start trouble, charge them with assault or what have you and let that suffice.
Freedom is messy. Legislating thoughts is bad business.
we can vote so as to promote policies designed to reduce the statistical disparities in various outcomes. We (you and I) probably disagree about what sorts of policies would actually reduce those disparities, but I would like to think that our disagreement is about means, not ends.
I think this is probably right for the most part. I think long term disparity reduction is a function of education/training + guidance + perseverance. We get there over time, and it’s not happening next month or next year, through adult and child education and–the idealist in me–a consensus on what we expect from ourselves as parents and neighbors, with the heaviest load falling on parents, to raise children in such a way that they have a decent shot at life.
EITHER: “race” is the root cause of black/white statistical disparities;
OR: something else is.
That’s pretty much where I’m coming from, in a nutshell.
It’s fine to say blacks have crappy outcomes because they don’t stay in school, or aren’t or don’t stay married, or don’t know how to keep a job, or whatever the most popular reason today is.
The stats will bear it all out, I’m sure.
To me, that’s just moving the toothpaste around in the tube.
Is there something weird about black skin that makes people hate going to school, or disinclined to get or stay married, or whatever?
Or are those dysfunctional behaviors expressing something other than some weird, melanin-induced propensity to make bad decisions?
I don’t have a solution to offer, I’m just noticing that (a) black people come in last in almost any way you want to measure, and (b) I know a fair number of black people, and in terms of native abilities they don’t really seem all that different from any other group of people I can think of.
So I’m disinclined to accept the “blacks are stupid” thing.
If it’s a cultural thing, it’s likewise not some weird thing cooked up solely by black people. They’ve been here as long as any of the rest of us, and longer than most – to the degree that “black culture” is to blame, it’s a black culture that is woven into American culture, and is inseparable from it.
They don’t live on Mars, they live here.
I’ll also say that if cops are concluding that black skin equals criminal behavior, it’s time for them to change jobs.
Don’t be a cop, or go be cop somewhere where you’re not obliged to protect and serve people who you assume, a priori, are criminals.
Get a gig in the burbs, whatever. If your attitude is that all the brothers are up to no good, you’re probably not going to help the situation.
Meanwhile, here in the good old People’s Republic, cops shoot their own cruisers.
No point to be made here, at least by me, it’s just my contribution to our daily dose of WTF.
EITHER: “race” is the root cause of black/white statistical disparities;
OR: something else is.
That’s pretty much where I’m coming from, in a nutshell.
It’s fine to say blacks have crappy outcomes because they don’t stay in school, or aren’t or don’t stay married, or don’t know how to keep a job, or whatever the most popular reason today is.
The stats will bear it all out, I’m sure.
To me, that’s just moving the toothpaste around in the tube.
Is there something weird about black skin that makes people hate going to school, or disinclined to get or stay married, or whatever?
Or are those dysfunctional behaviors expressing something other than some weird, melanin-induced propensity to make bad decisions?
I don’t have a solution to offer, I’m just noticing that (a) black people come in last in almost any way you want to measure, and (b) I know a fair number of black people, and in terms of native abilities they don’t really seem all that different from any other group of people I can think of.
So I’m disinclined to accept the “blacks are stupid” thing.
If it’s a cultural thing, it’s likewise not some weird thing cooked up solely by black people. They’ve been here as long as any of the rest of us, and longer than most – to the degree that “black culture” is to blame, it’s a black culture that is woven into American culture, and is inseparable from it.
They don’t live on Mars, they live here.
I’ll also say that if cops are concluding that black skin equals criminal behavior, it’s time for them to change jobs.
Don’t be a cop, or go be cop somewhere where you’re not obliged to protect and serve people who you assume, a priori, are criminals.
Get a gig in the burbs, whatever. If your attitude is that all the brothers are up to no good, you’re probably not going to help the situation.
Meanwhile, here in the good old People’s Republic, cops shoot their own cruisers.
No point to be made here, at least by me, it’s just my contribution to our daily dose of WTF.
EITHER: “race” is the root cause of black/white statistical disparities;
OR: something else is.
That’s pretty much where I’m coming from, in a nutshell.
It’s fine to say blacks have crappy outcomes because they don’t stay in school, or aren’t or don’t stay married, or don’t know how to keep a job, or whatever the most popular reason today is.
The stats will bear it all out, I’m sure.
To me, that’s just moving the toothpaste around in the tube.
Is there something weird about black skin that makes people hate going to school, or disinclined to get or stay married, or whatever?
Or are those dysfunctional behaviors expressing something other than some weird, melanin-induced propensity to make bad decisions?
I don’t have a solution to offer, I’m just noticing that (a) black people come in last in almost any way you want to measure, and (b) I know a fair number of black people, and in terms of native abilities they don’t really seem all that different from any other group of people I can think of.
So I’m disinclined to accept the “blacks are stupid” thing.
If it’s a cultural thing, it’s likewise not some weird thing cooked up solely by black people. They’ve been here as long as any of the rest of us, and longer than most – to the degree that “black culture” is to blame, it’s a black culture that is woven into American culture, and is inseparable from it.
They don’t live on Mars, they live here.
I’ll also say that if cops are concluding that black skin equals criminal behavior, it’s time for them to change jobs.
Don’t be a cop, or go be cop somewhere where you’re not obliged to protect and serve people who you assume, a priori, are criminals.
Get a gig in the burbs, whatever. If your attitude is that all the brothers are up to no good, you’re probably not going to help the situation.
Meanwhile, here in the good old People’s Republic, cops shoot their own cruisers.
No point to be made here, at least by me, it’s just my contribution to our daily dose of WTF.
I was at Overton High School, southeast Memphis, graduated in 1977.
I was at Overton High School, southeast Memphis, graduated in 1977.
I was at Overton High School, southeast Memphis, graduated in 1977.
So BLM (or its predecessor? – whatever that means) was wrong about Wilson. I won’t argue that particular point. So I guess the question is whether or not they are generallly opposed to due process for cops who kill black people.
Maybe it’s semantics, but “probably cause” for arrest, indictment and trial must mean something about the possibility of someone’s guilt.
The Slager case is interesting because it’s a matter of an unseen witness shooting video as a more or less random circumstance. Slager tried to plant evidence to support his story of a struggle that never happened.
There was also the U of Cincy officer who lied about the circumstances under which he shot an unarmed black man. Other arriving officers backed up his false story. But for the video, would he have gotten away withh the shooting without any court procedings?
Now that video cameras are almost ubiquitous, we’ll see if more officers get charged with crimes they otherwise would have been able to cover up, with the help of fellow officers. Like you said, McKinney, the cops get too much deference. What were you referring to? What do you think the repercussions are of that deference?
As far as TNC goes, he documents plenty of post-WWII systemic racial discrimination. I’m not sure what constitutes government sanction, or if that’s even the standard, but what would you say about red-lining, for instance, as an example of systemic racism, with or without government approval?
So BLM (or its predecessor? – whatever that means) was wrong about Wilson. I won’t argue that particular point. So I guess the question is whether or not they are generallly opposed to due process for cops who kill black people.
Maybe it’s semantics, but “probably cause” for arrest, indictment and trial must mean something about the possibility of someone’s guilt.
The Slager case is interesting because it’s a matter of an unseen witness shooting video as a more or less random circumstance. Slager tried to plant evidence to support his story of a struggle that never happened.
There was also the U of Cincy officer who lied about the circumstances under which he shot an unarmed black man. Other arriving officers backed up his false story. But for the video, would he have gotten away withh the shooting without any court procedings?
Now that video cameras are almost ubiquitous, we’ll see if more officers get charged with crimes they otherwise would have been able to cover up, with the help of fellow officers. Like you said, McKinney, the cops get too much deference. What were you referring to? What do you think the repercussions are of that deference?
As far as TNC goes, he documents plenty of post-WWII systemic racial discrimination. I’m not sure what constitutes government sanction, or if that’s even the standard, but what would you say about red-lining, for instance, as an example of systemic racism, with or without government approval?
So BLM (or its predecessor? – whatever that means) was wrong about Wilson. I won’t argue that particular point. So I guess the question is whether or not they are generallly opposed to due process for cops who kill black people.
Maybe it’s semantics, but “probably cause” for arrest, indictment and trial must mean something about the possibility of someone’s guilt.
The Slager case is interesting because it’s a matter of an unseen witness shooting video as a more or less random circumstance. Slager tried to plant evidence to support his story of a struggle that never happened.
There was also the U of Cincy officer who lied about the circumstances under which he shot an unarmed black man. Other arriving officers backed up his false story. But for the video, would he have gotten away withh the shooting without any court procedings?
Now that video cameras are almost ubiquitous, we’ll see if more officers get charged with crimes they otherwise would have been able to cover up, with the help of fellow officers. Like you said, McKinney, the cops get too much deference. What were you referring to? What do you think the repercussions are of that deference?
As far as TNC goes, he documents plenty of post-WWII systemic racial discrimination. I’m not sure what constitutes government sanction, or if that’s even the standard, but what would you say about red-lining, for instance, as an example of systemic racism, with or without government approval?
I was at Overton High School, southeast Memphis, graduated in 1977
Sure. I hung out with a couple of girls from Overton.
Now that video cameras are almost ubiquitous, we’ll see if more officers get charged with crimes they otherwise would have been able to cover up, with the help of fellow officers.
I am fine with the death penalty and fine with the death penalty for cops who commit murder. More evidence is better than less. A cop who kills someone without witnesses is like any other murderer who kills without witnesses.
what would you say about red-lining, for instance, as an example of systemic racism, with or without government approval?
Gov’t sanctioned. Ditto the contract for deed scheme in Chicago.
I was at Overton High School, southeast Memphis, graduated in 1977
Sure. I hung out with a couple of girls from Overton.
Now that video cameras are almost ubiquitous, we’ll see if more officers get charged with crimes they otherwise would have been able to cover up, with the help of fellow officers.
I am fine with the death penalty and fine with the death penalty for cops who commit murder. More evidence is better than less. A cop who kills someone without witnesses is like any other murderer who kills without witnesses.
what would you say about red-lining, for instance, as an example of systemic racism, with or without government approval?
Gov’t sanctioned. Ditto the contract for deed scheme in Chicago.
I was at Overton High School, southeast Memphis, graduated in 1977
Sure. I hung out with a couple of girls from Overton.
Now that video cameras are almost ubiquitous, we’ll see if more officers get charged with crimes they otherwise would have been able to cover up, with the help of fellow officers.
I am fine with the death penalty and fine with the death penalty for cops who commit murder. More evidence is better than less. A cop who kills someone without witnesses is like any other murderer who kills without witnesses.
what would you say about red-lining, for instance, as an example of systemic racism, with or without government approval?
Gov’t sanctioned. Ditto the contract for deed scheme in Chicago.
“Both groups do better than they otherwise would, but black outcomes increase to a greater degree by virtue of having started from a worse position, not at the expense of whites – rather to their overall benefit.”
I wanted to make completely different point but this keeps irritating me. Which white people are starting off in a not worse position? The vast majority of poor people in this country are white. Are we really going to bury them in some stupid statistic about the percentage of blacks vs the percentage of white poor? Lets talk about fixing poverty, a bunch of white people would be just as much better off as black people. A lot more white people than black people. Want support? Spend less time painting poor black people as being worse off than poor white people.
“Both groups do better than they otherwise would, but black outcomes increase to a greater degree by virtue of having started from a worse position, not at the expense of whites – rather to their overall benefit.”
I wanted to make completely different point but this keeps irritating me. Which white people are starting off in a not worse position? The vast majority of poor people in this country are white. Are we really going to bury them in some stupid statistic about the percentage of blacks vs the percentage of white poor? Lets talk about fixing poverty, a bunch of white people would be just as much better off as black people. A lot more white people than black people. Want support? Spend less time painting poor black people as being worse off than poor white people.
“Both groups do better than they otherwise would, but black outcomes increase to a greater degree by virtue of having started from a worse position, not at the expense of whites – rather to their overall benefit.”
I wanted to make completely different point but this keeps irritating me. Which white people are starting off in a not worse position? The vast majority of poor people in this country are white. Are we really going to bury them in some stupid statistic about the percentage of blacks vs the percentage of white poor? Lets talk about fixing poverty, a bunch of white people would be just as much better off as black people. A lot more white people than black people. Want support? Spend less time painting poor black people as being worse off than poor white people.
Marty: Want support? Spend less time painting poor black people as being worse off than poor white people.
Want to be considered smarter than a box of rocks?
Spend less time saying stuff like that.
–TP
Marty: Want support? Spend less time painting poor black people as being worse off than poor white people.
Want to be considered smarter than a box of rocks?
Spend less time saying stuff like that.
–TP
Marty: Want support? Spend less time painting poor black people as being worse off than poor white people.
Want to be considered smarter than a box of rocks?
Spend less time saying stuff like that.
–TP
Gov’t sanctioned. Ditto the contract for deed scheme in Chicago.
So there are institutional blockades to black opportunity? Or not?
If white racism is declining so much, why are blacks falling behind when it comes to “>http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news/economy/black-white-inequality/”> wealth accumulation?
More disturbing…why is the gap widening?
Gov’t sanctioned. Ditto the contract for deed scheme in Chicago.
So there are institutional blockades to black opportunity? Or not?
If white racism is declining so much, why are blacks falling behind when it comes to “>http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news/economy/black-white-inequality/”> wealth accumulation?
More disturbing…why is the gap widening?
Gov’t sanctioned. Ditto the contract for deed scheme in Chicago.
So there are institutional blockades to black opportunity? Or not?
If white racism is declining so much, why are blacks falling behind when it comes to “>http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news/economy/black-white-inequality/”> wealth accumulation?
More disturbing…why is the gap widening?
Lets talk about fixing poverty…
OK…what do you suggest?
Lets talk about fixing poverty…
OK…what do you suggest?
Lets talk about fixing poverty…
OK…what do you suggest?
Which white people are starting off in a not worse position? The vast majority of poor people in this country are white.
It’s not that vast a majority, since the overall white majority isn’t all that vast, and the percentage of whites who are poor is smaller than that of most minorities, particularly blacks. What percentage of the nation’s wealth is held by white people? What percentage is held by blacks? How do those percentages compare to the percentages of people who are white and those who are black?
Are you seriously suggesting that black aren’t, on average, far worse off than whites in this country, Marty? If you are, there’s no point in having a rational discussion with you. I mean, WTF?
Which white people are starting off in a not worse position? The vast majority of poor people in this country are white.
It’s not that vast a majority, since the overall white majority isn’t all that vast, and the percentage of whites who are poor is smaller than that of most minorities, particularly blacks. What percentage of the nation’s wealth is held by white people? What percentage is held by blacks? How do those percentages compare to the percentages of people who are white and those who are black?
Are you seriously suggesting that black aren’t, on average, far worse off than whites in this country, Marty? If you are, there’s no point in having a rational discussion with you. I mean, WTF?
Which white people are starting off in a not worse position? The vast majority of poor people in this country are white.
It’s not that vast a majority, since the overall white majority isn’t all that vast, and the percentage of whites who are poor is smaller than that of most minorities, particularly blacks. What percentage of the nation’s wealth is held by white people? What percentage is held by blacks? How do those percentages compare to the percentages of people who are white and those who are black?
Are you seriously suggesting that black aren’t, on average, far worse off than whites in this country, Marty? If you are, there’s no point in having a rational discussion with you. I mean, WTF?
I don’t give a f*ck if blacks “on average” are worse off than whites “on average”. That average means nothing. There are many more worse off white people than worse off black people, last stats I saw were 5 to 1. So trying to make black people better off is solving the wring problem. Making poor people better off solves the right one.
The whole thread us full of discussion about why it doesn’t matter why black people are worse off, except that its white peoples fault. I would suggest it is the financial and intellectual elite keeping poor people poor. Black and white. Fix that. If most of those elite happen to be white it is not the color of their skin making them be pricks or defending their status. Just like it isn’t the color if poor peoples skin that makes them less educated or employable. Stopping here.
I don’t give a f*ck if blacks “on average” are worse off than whites “on average”. That average means nothing. There are many more worse off white people than worse off black people, last stats I saw were 5 to 1. So trying to make black people better off is solving the wring problem. Making poor people better off solves the right one.
The whole thread us full of discussion about why it doesn’t matter why black people are worse off, except that its white peoples fault. I would suggest it is the financial and intellectual elite keeping poor people poor. Black and white. Fix that. If most of those elite happen to be white it is not the color of their skin making them be pricks or defending their status. Just like it isn’t the color if poor peoples skin that makes them less educated or employable. Stopping here.
I don’t give a f*ck if blacks “on average” are worse off than whites “on average”. That average means nothing. There are many more worse off white people than worse off black people, last stats I saw were 5 to 1. So trying to make black people better off is solving the wring problem. Making poor people better off solves the right one.
The whole thread us full of discussion about why it doesn’t matter why black people are worse off, except that its white peoples fault. I would suggest it is the financial and intellectual elite keeping poor people poor. Black and white. Fix that. If most of those elite happen to be white it is not the color of their skin making them be pricks or defending their status. Just like it isn’t the color if poor peoples skin that makes them less educated or employable. Stopping here.
Don’t stop.
Don’t stop.
Don’t stop.
Please stop.
Please stop.
Please stop.
BP–I’m referring to institutional issues 50plus years ago.
BP–I’m referring to institutional issues 50plus years ago.
BP–I’m referring to institutional issues 50plus years ago.
The whole thread us full of discussion about why it doesn’t matter why black people are worse off, except that its white peoples fault. I would suggest it is the financial and intellectual elite keeping poor people poor. Black and white.
I would say that both are true.
Poor people, of whatever color, are basically screwed.
Due to the uniquely shitty history of how black people have been treated in this country, if you’re black, you’re more likely to be poor than if you’re white.
It seems fairly clear to me that in many cases – criminal justice system, for one – an extra heaping helping of shit sandwiches is delivered to black folks.
But I have no argument with the claim that poor people in the US, of whatever skin color or ethnic extraction, are treated like dogs. I’m a little unclear on the role of the “intellectual elites”, but it’s not a point I would press.
There are also regional and class biases involved, independently of skin color. If you speak, for instance, with an accent identifying you as being from the south, or Appalachia, many people will assume you are as dumb as a box of rocks.
In the absence of any further information.
I don’t think anyone is making the claim the ONLY black people are subject to discrimination based on prejudice.
People – including me – ARE making the claim that black people in the US are treated differently in a number of important ways, because their skin is black.
That can be true, and the things you claim can also be true.
The whole thread us full of discussion about why it doesn’t matter why black people are worse off, except that its white peoples fault. I would suggest it is the financial and intellectual elite keeping poor people poor. Black and white.
I would say that both are true.
Poor people, of whatever color, are basically screwed.
Due to the uniquely shitty history of how black people have been treated in this country, if you’re black, you’re more likely to be poor than if you’re white.
It seems fairly clear to me that in many cases – criminal justice system, for one – an extra heaping helping of shit sandwiches is delivered to black folks.
But I have no argument with the claim that poor people in the US, of whatever skin color or ethnic extraction, are treated like dogs. I’m a little unclear on the role of the “intellectual elites”, but it’s not a point I would press.
There are also regional and class biases involved, independently of skin color. If you speak, for instance, with an accent identifying you as being from the south, or Appalachia, many people will assume you are as dumb as a box of rocks.
In the absence of any further information.
I don’t think anyone is making the claim the ONLY black people are subject to discrimination based on prejudice.
People – including me – ARE making the claim that black people in the US are treated differently in a number of important ways, because their skin is black.
That can be true, and the things you claim can also be true.
The whole thread us full of discussion about why it doesn’t matter why black people are worse off, except that its white peoples fault. I would suggest it is the financial and intellectual elite keeping poor people poor. Black and white.
I would say that both are true.
Poor people, of whatever color, are basically screwed.
Due to the uniquely shitty history of how black people have been treated in this country, if you’re black, you’re more likely to be poor than if you’re white.
It seems fairly clear to me that in many cases – criminal justice system, for one – an extra heaping helping of shit sandwiches is delivered to black folks.
But I have no argument with the claim that poor people in the US, of whatever skin color or ethnic extraction, are treated like dogs. I’m a little unclear on the role of the “intellectual elites”, but it’s not a point I would press.
There are also regional and class biases involved, independently of skin color. If you speak, for instance, with an accent identifying you as being from the south, or Appalachia, many people will assume you are as dumb as a box of rocks.
In the absence of any further information.
I don’t think anyone is making the claim the ONLY black people are subject to discrimination based on prejudice.
People – including me – ARE making the claim that black people in the US are treated differently in a number of important ways, because their skin is black.
That can be true, and the things you claim can also be true.
It would seem the well off are shameless across all cultures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/world/asia/caste-quotas-in-india-come-under-attack.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
It would seem the well off are shameless across all cultures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/world/asia/caste-quotas-in-india-come-under-attack.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
It would seem the well off are shameless across all cultures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/world/asia/caste-quotas-in-india-come-under-attack.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
But seriously, what have intellectual elites got to do with it? I’m pretty sure that some of them might be involved in keeping black people poor, just why do they play more of a part than anyone else? Financial elites may consciously or unconsciously protect their privilege, but why intellectual elites? This kind of talk makes me very nervous, it seems a short step from this to Palin-type idiocy and its glorification.
But seriously, what have intellectual elites got to do with it? I’m pretty sure that some of them might be involved in keeping black people poor, just why do they play more of a part than anyone else? Financial elites may consciously or unconsciously protect their privilege, but why intellectual elites? This kind of talk makes me very nervous, it seems a short step from this to Palin-type idiocy and its glorification.
But seriously, what have intellectual elites got to do with it? I’m pretty sure that some of them might be involved in keeping black people poor, just why do they play more of a part than anyone else? Financial elites may consciously or unconsciously protect their privilege, but why intellectual elites? This kind of talk makes me very nervous, it seems a short step from this to Palin-type idiocy and its glorification.
Or keeping poor people poor.
Or keeping poor people poor.
Or keeping poor people poor.
Red light, green light, whatever.
My nudge to Marty that he not stop was not that I agree with his dismissal of white versus black depredations, but that he was on to something in trying to expand the perspective a bit to the poor overall and the concept of class in society/the economy.
Plus it was a rant, and I enjoy when someone besides me runs straight through the yellow caution light in heavy traffic.
Anyway, Russell and bobbyp fleshed out a bit what Martry might have been getting at.
I am baffled by the term “intellectual elite” a bit too, especially because it’s been Luntzed into a narrow rhetorical category over these many decades that denotes ivory tower social scientist types kibbutzing on behalf of the poor (and now the dangers of global warming), when it could mean anyone.
Milton Friedman was an intellectual elitist, for example, and so is Charles Murray.
But then so are Stephen Hawking and Yo-yo Ma.
Compared to me, Sarah Death Panel is a member of the elite and has a good table in the dining car on the elite gravy train heading this country to a very long dark tunnel with no light at the end, though she somehow fully bypassed the intellectual bonafides.
To the few well-meaning members of Donald Trump’s otherwise brownshirted base, the f*cking elite financial geniuses pontificating at think tanks left, right, and middle these many decades regarding the need for corporations to cut staff and benefits to the bone on behalf of stock certificates converted into high frequency digital microsecond tradeable bonanzas, while shipping the jobs overseas, and all the while deliberately stagnating wages, and deliberately working overtime to hack the safety net to pieces, might seem like so many Marie Antoinettes who need a wagon-ride past the cackling, knitting Madame Defarges to the elevated barber chair.
They may be wrong to a substantial degree, and they may be pointing their rancor in the wrong direction and against their own interests, but the populist cat with the big claws and the terminal distemper is already out of the bag.
Samuel Alito issuing court decrees from his smug puss claiming unlimited, unaccountable money in politics is free speech is one f*cking intellectual elitist.
And THIS brewing in the background. A return to the pre-Lochner status-quo ante.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/a_counterrevolutionary_supreme057449.php
You wanna see Trump AND Sanders acolytes takes up arms in violence against this government, including against Trump and Sanders themselves who at that point will be just another couple of smarmy elitists, that this country has rarely experienced, outside of Sumter and the Little Big Horn, go ahead .. go for it.
Rule by machete is “natural law” too.
Red light, green light, whatever.
My nudge to Marty that he not stop was not that I agree with his dismissal of white versus black depredations, but that he was on to something in trying to expand the perspective a bit to the poor overall and the concept of class in society/the economy.
Plus it was a rant, and I enjoy when someone besides me runs straight through the yellow caution light in heavy traffic.
Anyway, Russell and bobbyp fleshed out a bit what Martry might have been getting at.
I am baffled by the term “intellectual elite” a bit too, especially because it’s been Luntzed into a narrow rhetorical category over these many decades that denotes ivory tower social scientist types kibbutzing on behalf of the poor (and now the dangers of global warming), when it could mean anyone.
Milton Friedman was an intellectual elitist, for example, and so is Charles Murray.
But then so are Stephen Hawking and Yo-yo Ma.
Compared to me, Sarah Death Panel is a member of the elite and has a good table in the dining car on the elite gravy train heading this country to a very long dark tunnel with no light at the end, though she somehow fully bypassed the intellectual bonafides.
To the few well-meaning members of Donald Trump’s otherwise brownshirted base, the f*cking elite financial geniuses pontificating at think tanks left, right, and middle these many decades regarding the need for corporations to cut staff and benefits to the bone on behalf of stock certificates converted into high frequency digital microsecond tradeable bonanzas, while shipping the jobs overseas, and all the while deliberately stagnating wages, and deliberately working overtime to hack the safety net to pieces, might seem like so many Marie Antoinettes who need a wagon-ride past the cackling, knitting Madame Defarges to the elevated barber chair.
They may be wrong to a substantial degree, and they may be pointing their rancor in the wrong direction and against their own interests, but the populist cat with the big claws and the terminal distemper is already out of the bag.
Samuel Alito issuing court decrees from his smug puss claiming unlimited, unaccountable money in politics is free speech is one f*cking intellectual elitist.
And THIS brewing in the background. A return to the pre-Lochner status-quo ante.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/a_counterrevolutionary_supreme057449.php
You wanna see Trump AND Sanders acolytes takes up arms in violence against this government, including against Trump and Sanders themselves who at that point will be just another couple of smarmy elitists, that this country has rarely experienced, outside of Sumter and the Little Big Horn, go ahead .. go for it.
Rule by machete is “natural law” too.
Red light, green light, whatever.
My nudge to Marty that he not stop was not that I agree with his dismissal of white versus black depredations, but that he was on to something in trying to expand the perspective a bit to the poor overall and the concept of class in society/the economy.
Plus it was a rant, and I enjoy when someone besides me runs straight through the yellow caution light in heavy traffic.
Anyway, Russell and bobbyp fleshed out a bit what Martry might have been getting at.
I am baffled by the term “intellectual elite” a bit too, especially because it’s been Luntzed into a narrow rhetorical category over these many decades that denotes ivory tower social scientist types kibbutzing on behalf of the poor (and now the dangers of global warming), when it could mean anyone.
Milton Friedman was an intellectual elitist, for example, and so is Charles Murray.
But then so are Stephen Hawking and Yo-yo Ma.
Compared to me, Sarah Death Panel is a member of the elite and has a good table in the dining car on the elite gravy train heading this country to a very long dark tunnel with no light at the end, though she somehow fully bypassed the intellectual bonafides.
To the few well-meaning members of Donald Trump’s otherwise brownshirted base, the f*cking elite financial geniuses pontificating at think tanks left, right, and middle these many decades regarding the need for corporations to cut staff and benefits to the bone on behalf of stock certificates converted into high frequency digital microsecond tradeable bonanzas, while shipping the jobs overseas, and all the while deliberately stagnating wages, and deliberately working overtime to hack the safety net to pieces, might seem like so many Marie Antoinettes who need a wagon-ride past the cackling, knitting Madame Defarges to the elevated barber chair.
They may be wrong to a substantial degree, and they may be pointing their rancor in the wrong direction and against their own interests, but the populist cat with the big claws and the terminal distemper is already out of the bag.
Samuel Alito issuing court decrees from his smug puss claiming unlimited, unaccountable money in politics is free speech is one f*cking intellectual elitist.
And THIS brewing in the background. A return to the pre-Lochner status-quo ante.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/a_counterrevolutionary_supreme057449.php
You wanna see Trump AND Sanders acolytes takes up arms in violence against this government, including against Trump and Sanders themselves who at that point will be just another couple of smarmy elitists, that this country has rarely experienced, outside of Sumter and the Little Big Horn, go ahead .. go for it.
Rule by machete is “natural law” too.
Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty. Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.
I am irritated by the outright dismissal of poor white people inherent in the statement that hsh made, I assume not intentionally. If we help black people do better that does NOT help everyone do better. If we help the poor do better then his point has some merit.
We are engaged in a class struggle, we should make sure we understand who the classes include.
Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty. Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.
I am irritated by the outright dismissal of poor white people inherent in the statement that hsh made, I assume not intentionally. If we help black people do better that does NOT help everyone do better. If we help the poor do better then his point has some merit.
We are engaged in a class struggle, we should make sure we understand who the classes include.
Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty. Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.
I am irritated by the outright dismissal of poor white people inherent in the statement that hsh made, I assume not intentionally. If we help black people do better that does NOT help everyone do better. If we help the poor do better then his point has some merit.
We are engaged in a class struggle, we should make sure we understand who the classes include.
Bring on our chimp overlords:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/chimp-took-down-drone-showed-forward-planning-n421167
Trump and three other Republican candidates for POTUS will soon vying for these chimps’ Vice Presidential aspirations.
Go ahead, intellectual elitists, fly that thing a little closer.
I’d like to see someone put these chimps in a Tetley Tea commercial.
Ungawa.
Which means: Listen up!
Bring on our chimp overlords:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/chimp-took-down-drone-showed-forward-planning-n421167
Trump and three other Republican candidates for POTUS will soon vying for these chimps’ Vice Presidential aspirations.
Go ahead, intellectual elitists, fly that thing a little closer.
I’d like to see someone put these chimps in a Tetley Tea commercial.
Ungawa.
Which means: Listen up!
Bring on our chimp overlords:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/chimp-took-down-drone-showed-forward-planning-n421167
Trump and three other Republican candidates for POTUS will soon vying for these chimps’ Vice Presidential aspirations.
Go ahead, intellectual elitists, fly that thing a little closer.
I’d like to see someone put these chimps in a Tetley Tea commercial.
Ungawa.
Which means: Listen up!
Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.
it keeps them alive until they can move out of poverty. if keeps them alive and gives them the opportunity to move out of poverty. it keeps them alive and therefore keeps them from murdering the better-off in order to get food.
it’s not an all-inclusive vacation at Cabo. it’s subsistence. and i’ve been there and done that. and i’m happy to pay taxes so that others might have the chance.
Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.
it keeps them alive until they can move out of poverty. if keeps them alive and gives them the opportunity to move out of poverty. it keeps them alive and therefore keeps them from murdering the better-off in order to get food.
it’s not an all-inclusive vacation at Cabo. it’s subsistence. and i’ve been there and done that. and i’m happy to pay taxes so that others might have the chance.
Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.
it keeps them alive until they can move out of poverty. if keeps them alive and gives them the opportunity to move out of poverty. it keeps them alive and therefore keeps them from murdering the better-off in order to get food.
it’s not an all-inclusive vacation at Cabo. it’s subsistence. and i’ve been there and done that. and i’m happy to pay taxes so that others might have the chance.
“Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty. Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.”
First, starve the nits, not the have-nots.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the private sector (and there are many socially conscious private sector employers) in this country from collectively employing every single working age adult in this country with a living wage and decent benefits, including gold-plated health insurance to all employees, not just those they “value” the most, And not firing them, laying them off, and then having political and media elites ridicule them to boot. And telling Wall street analysts to go f*ck themselves which they complain that “headcount” needs to be reduced.
I mean, I understand and mostly accept all of the best business practices and “standards”, and investment incentives, and inevitable human being-supplanting technological “improvements” business believes they must adhere too, but it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, if making government handouts and government bureaucrats, and elite bleeding heart university professors disappear, as Marx predicted might happen (I’m a Groucho man myself, so spare me) is the ultimate goal.
Wal Mart loves themselves that Medicaid deal out there, otherwise their business model would be a smoking pile of rubble.
Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg. Hungh hugnh ha, hah hah Hah, snort, etc:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/sorry-conservatives-you-deserve-donald-trump
“Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty. Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.”
First, starve the nits, not the have-nots.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the private sector (and there are many socially conscious private sector employers) in this country from collectively employing every single working age adult in this country with a living wage and decent benefits, including gold-plated health insurance to all employees, not just those they “value” the most, And not firing them, laying them off, and then having political and media elites ridicule them to boot. And telling Wall street analysts to go f*ck themselves which they complain that “headcount” needs to be reduced.
I mean, I understand and mostly accept all of the best business practices and “standards”, and investment incentives, and inevitable human being-supplanting technological “improvements” business believes they must adhere too, but it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, if making government handouts and government bureaucrats, and elite bleeding heart university professors disappear, as Marx predicted might happen (I’m a Groucho man myself, so spare me) is the ultimate goal.
Wal Mart loves themselves that Medicaid deal out there, otherwise their business model would be a smoking pile of rubble.
Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg. Hungh hugnh ha, hah hah Hah, snort, etc:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/sorry-conservatives-you-deserve-donald-trump
“Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty. Making people nit starve is a good thing, but it doesn’t move them out of poverty.”
First, starve the nits, not the have-nots.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the private sector (and there are many socially conscious private sector employers) in this country from collectively employing every single working age adult in this country with a living wage and decent benefits, including gold-plated health insurance to all employees, not just those they “value” the most, And not firing them, laying them off, and then having political and media elites ridicule them to boot. And telling Wall street analysts to go f*ck themselves which they complain that “headcount” needs to be reduced.
I mean, I understand and mostly accept all of the best business practices and “standards”, and investment incentives, and inevitable human being-supplanting technological “improvements” business believes they must adhere too, but it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, if making government handouts and government bureaucrats, and elite bleeding heart university professors disappear, as Marx predicted might happen (I’m a Groucho man myself, so spare me) is the ultimate goal.
Wal Mart loves themselves that Medicaid deal out there, otherwise their business model would be a smoking pile of rubble.
Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg. Hungh hugnh ha, hah hah Hah, snort, etc:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/sorry-conservatives-you-deserve-donald-trump
If we include anti-discrimination legislation that permits civil suits in these types of situations as a government “hand-out”, and believe me, there are plenty of Tea Party/Trump supporters out there who do and would, then what is left except leaving it to the private sphere for settlement:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gainseville-couple-sue-racist-neighbor
I might be amenable to permitting the black couple to hack their racist neighbor to pieces with machetes (since I don’t believe in gun violence; call me a hypocrite), as long as it was in their yards, and not in the public street.
Think of the tax dollars saved and the potential poverty alleviated with look ma no government hands.
If we include anti-discrimination legislation that permits civil suits in these types of situations as a government “hand-out”, and believe me, there are plenty of Tea Party/Trump supporters out there who do and would, then what is left except leaving it to the private sphere for settlement:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gainseville-couple-sue-racist-neighbor
I might be amenable to permitting the black couple to hack their racist neighbor to pieces with machetes (since I don’t believe in gun violence; call me a hypocrite), as long as it was in their yards, and not in the public street.
Think of the tax dollars saved and the potential poverty alleviated with look ma no government hands.
If we include anti-discrimination legislation that permits civil suits in these types of situations as a government “hand-out”, and believe me, there are plenty of Tea Party/Trump supporters out there who do and would, then what is left except leaving it to the private sphere for settlement:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gainseville-couple-sue-racist-neighbor
I might be amenable to permitting the black couple to hack their racist neighbor to pieces with machetes (since I don’t believe in gun violence; call me a hypocrite), as long as it was in their yards, and not in the public street.
Think of the tax dollars saved and the potential poverty alleviated with look ma no government hands.
F*ck Luntz, and the horse he rode in on (I believe I have commented on this before). Is it mainly he who is responsible for this absurd characterising of intellectual elites as “a narrow rhetorical category over these many decades that denotes ivory tower social scientist types kibbutzing on behalf of the poor (and now the dangers of global warming)”? I guess if I thought about it I might have thought it was someone like Rove, or maybe even someone earlier. Whoever it was, I think it should be resisted at all costs: first they came for the intellectuals ….
F*ck Luntz, and the horse he rode in on (I believe I have commented on this before). Is it mainly he who is responsible for this absurd characterising of intellectual elites as “a narrow rhetorical category over these many decades that denotes ivory tower social scientist types kibbutzing on behalf of the poor (and now the dangers of global warming)”? I guess if I thought about it I might have thought it was someone like Rove, or maybe even someone earlier. Whoever it was, I think it should be resisted at all costs: first they came for the intellectuals ….
F*ck Luntz, and the horse he rode in on (I believe I have commented on this before). Is it mainly he who is responsible for this absurd characterising of intellectual elites as “a narrow rhetorical category over these many decades that denotes ivory tower social scientist types kibbutzing on behalf of the poor (and now the dangers of global warming)”? I guess if I thought about it I might have thought it was someone like Rove, or maybe even someone earlier. Whoever it was, I think it should be resisted at all costs: first they came for the intellectuals ….
“Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty.”
Yeah, because those university communities and progressive think tanks have ALL the political and financial power in the USA, so anything bad MUST be their fault.
Blame deflection, you’re soaking in it.
“Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty.”
Yeah, because those university communities and progressive think tanks have ALL the political and financial power in the USA, so anything bad MUST be their fault.
Blame deflection, you’re soaking in it.
“Look, I always throw the intellectual elites in because they have failed the poor so miserably over the past 50 years. The university community and think tanks, particular progressives, still equate 50 years later, a handout to a war on poverty.”
Yeah, because those university communities and progressive think tanks have ALL the political and financial power in the USA, so anything bad MUST be their fault.
Blame deflection, you’re soaking in it.
So if a poor white kid goes to school and has a wonderful and inspiring black teacher who encourages that kid to learn as much as she can to get into college (or generally have a better life in whatever way), does that help the poor white kid? What if that teacher never got to be a teacher because she went to a shitty school in a shitty neighborhood and ate shitty food and got shitty healthcare?
But, yes, I’m the one who needs to be told about poor people in general, not just poor black people, because I’m the one who wants to cut the deficit on the backs of the poor. Like russell said, you can acknowledge both that poor people of every race, creed or whatever have a shitty deal, while also acknowledging that black people are comparitively worse off than white people, even if you put poverty aside, for a host of reasons that don’t apply equallly to all poor people or all people regardless of wealth.
There is a good bit of overlap in why it sucks to be poor and why it sucks to be black, but there’s also plenty of space where those two things don’t overlap.
So if a poor white kid goes to school and has a wonderful and inspiring black teacher who encourages that kid to learn as much as she can to get into college (or generally have a better life in whatever way), does that help the poor white kid? What if that teacher never got to be a teacher because she went to a shitty school in a shitty neighborhood and ate shitty food and got shitty healthcare?
But, yes, I’m the one who needs to be told about poor people in general, not just poor black people, because I’m the one who wants to cut the deficit on the backs of the poor. Like russell said, you can acknowledge both that poor people of every race, creed or whatever have a shitty deal, while also acknowledging that black people are comparitively worse off than white people, even if you put poverty aside, for a host of reasons that don’t apply equallly to all poor people or all people regardless of wealth.
There is a good bit of overlap in why it sucks to be poor and why it sucks to be black, but there’s also plenty of space where those two things don’t overlap.
So if a poor white kid goes to school and has a wonderful and inspiring black teacher who encourages that kid to learn as much as she can to get into college (or generally have a better life in whatever way), does that help the poor white kid? What if that teacher never got to be a teacher because she went to a shitty school in a shitty neighborhood and ate shitty food and got shitty healthcare?
But, yes, I’m the one who needs to be told about poor people in general, not just poor black people, because I’m the one who wants to cut the deficit on the backs of the poor. Like russell said, you can acknowledge both that poor people of every race, creed or whatever have a shitty deal, while also acknowledging that black people are comparitively worse off than white people, even if you put poverty aside, for a host of reasons that don’t apply equallly to all poor people or all people regardless of wealth.
There is a good bit of overlap in why it sucks to be poor and why it sucks to be black, but there’s also plenty of space where those two things don’t overlap.
No need to take up the subject of guns again, but THIS made me nostalgic for when a few remaining Republicans weren’t afraid to tell the low, politically correct, vermin, intellectually elite, metastatic malignancies in the NRA to go eff themselves:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/the_way_of_the_gun057456.php#
No need to take up the subject of guns again, but THIS made me nostalgic for when a few remaining Republicans weren’t afraid to tell the low, politically correct, vermin, intellectually elite, metastatic malignancies in the NRA to go eff themselves:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/the_way_of_the_gun057456.php#
No need to take up the subject of guns again, but THIS made me nostalgic for when a few remaining Republicans weren’t afraid to tell the low, politically correct, vermin, intellectually elite, metastatic malignancies in the NRA to go eff themselves:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/the_way_of_the_gun057456.php#
I find myself in agreement with Marty’s 11:59, and with hair shirt’s 1:13.
FWIW.
All in all, treating people that we share a nation with as if they were people and not statistics, dogs, or annoying whiny feckless pests would solve a lot of problems. For a lot of different kinds of people.
I find myself in agreement with Marty’s 11:59, and with hair shirt’s 1:13.
FWIW.
All in all, treating people that we share a nation with as if they were people and not statistics, dogs, or annoying whiny feckless pests would solve a lot of problems. For a lot of different kinds of people.
I find myself in agreement with Marty’s 11:59, and with hair shirt’s 1:13.
FWIW.
All in all, treating people that we share a nation with as if they were people and not statistics, dogs, or annoying whiny feckless pests would solve a lot of problems. For a lot of different kinds of people.
Marty: We are engaged in a class struggle, we should make sure we understand who the classes include.
There’s the intellectual class and there’s the anti-intellectual class, and Marty has made clear which class he belongs to.
The only question now is where to draw the dividing line. It’s harder than you think: there are some pretty intellectual chimps in Kyoto, for instance.
–TP
Marty: We are engaged in a class struggle, we should make sure we understand who the classes include.
There’s the intellectual class and there’s the anti-intellectual class, and Marty has made clear which class he belongs to.
The only question now is where to draw the dividing line. It’s harder than you think: there are some pretty intellectual chimps in Kyoto, for instance.
–TP
Marty: We are engaged in a class struggle, we should make sure we understand who the classes include.
There’s the intellectual class and there’s the anti-intellectual class, and Marty has made clear which class he belongs to.
The only question now is where to draw the dividing line. It’s harder than you think: there are some pretty intellectual chimps in Kyoto, for instance.
–TP
Conservative Frank Luntz, the knuckle-dragging baboon, would characterize the Kyoto chimps as pointed-headed university-trained intellectual elites who perform only in anticipation of handouts of raisins (their raisin d’etre, as it were — I always try to monkey with ugh’s pun allergy ;)) and tiny bits of apple.
Worse, those cosseted, tenured ivory tower Kyoto chimps believe their drone-whacking brother and sister chimps in the other video deserve to be tossed bananas as handouts to tide them over until Kyoto University accepts them into a program too, which could lead to jobs making drone-delivered pizzas and get them off the public zoo dole and into a gated community where they too can segregate themselves from the tragedy of the commoners.
Conservative Frank Luntz, the knuckle-dragging baboon, would characterize the Kyoto chimps as pointed-headed university-trained intellectual elites who perform only in anticipation of handouts of raisins (their raisin d’etre, as it were — I always try to monkey with ugh’s pun allergy ;)) and tiny bits of apple.
Worse, those cosseted, tenured ivory tower Kyoto chimps believe their drone-whacking brother and sister chimps in the other video deserve to be tossed bananas as handouts to tide them over until Kyoto University accepts them into a program too, which could lead to jobs making drone-delivered pizzas and get them off the public zoo dole and into a gated community where they too can segregate themselves from the tragedy of the commoners.
Conservative Frank Luntz, the knuckle-dragging baboon, would characterize the Kyoto chimps as pointed-headed university-trained intellectual elites who perform only in anticipation of handouts of raisins (their raisin d’etre, as it were — I always try to monkey with ugh’s pun allergy ;)) and tiny bits of apple.
Worse, those cosseted, tenured ivory tower Kyoto chimps believe their drone-whacking brother and sister chimps in the other video deserve to be tossed bananas as handouts to tide them over until Kyoto University accepts them into a program too, which could lead to jobs making drone-delivered pizzas and get them off the public zoo dole and into a gated community where they too can segregate themselves from the tragedy of the commoners.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-hewitt-fight-twitter-note
Trump: Hey, Hugh, you are yooge, don’t let anybody tell ya different. I love ya, baby!
Trump (an aside, sotto voce, to his bodyguard, as he leaves the room): Keep that guy away from me, whatever you have to do and however you have to do it. Cement loafers at the bottom of the East Rivah, Hudson Rivah, trow him offa the Trump Towers, call up Pesci for a dirt nap in the Catskills, I don’t care, but if he gets near me again, you AND him are fish food in an acid bath. Capiche?
He grabs his own crotch and gives it a yank and a heft to rearrange matters down there and adds to the other bodyguard “You, go in the men’s room and have a looksee and reflush all the toilets and then get down on your hands and knees and let me stand on your back while I take a leak, alright. Yeah, you heard me.”
“Who we tawlking to next, the Jews, they love me, the blacks, I’m hip to their jive, don’t tell me the Mexicans want anutha piece a me, hanh? What do I look like, some kind a free enchilalada? Whoeveah it is, let’s make it snappy, I’m a busy man making this country great again.
Snaps his fingers, impatiently: “Heah, hand over the schedule, give ita me! Who taught you da read, Helen Kella?
“Get my border wall engineers on the blower. I want some changes. Thicker, higher, maybe a penthouse. These suckers think I’m going to wait for election to get that started? They say Rome wasn’t built in a day, well, they didn’t have Donald Trump kicking their below average heinies into shape, did they?
“Is it tree o’clock yet? Time for the Donald’s next blow job, thank you, Bonwit Teller.”
“The hair, howsit look?
“Well, Mr Trump, I ….”
“Look, I’m not asking. That sound like a question? When I say a sentence with the word “hair” in it, you say “Fanf*ckingtastic great” and stick your comb up your backside. It took my mother a while to figure that out too, but you know what, you’re not my mother, so you’re fired.”
“Is that as*kisser Hewitt still among the living or do I have to do everything myself?”
“Hanh?”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-hewitt-fight-twitter-note
Trump: Hey, Hugh, you are yooge, don’t let anybody tell ya different. I love ya, baby!
Trump (an aside, sotto voce, to his bodyguard, as he leaves the room): Keep that guy away from me, whatever you have to do and however you have to do it. Cement loafers at the bottom of the East Rivah, Hudson Rivah, trow him offa the Trump Towers, call up Pesci for a dirt nap in the Catskills, I don’t care, but if he gets near me again, you AND him are fish food in an acid bath. Capiche?
He grabs his own crotch and gives it a yank and a heft to rearrange matters down there and adds to the other bodyguard “You, go in the men’s room and have a looksee and reflush all the toilets and then get down on your hands and knees and let me stand on your back while I take a leak, alright. Yeah, you heard me.”
“Who we tawlking to next, the Jews, they love me, the blacks, I’m hip to their jive, don’t tell me the Mexicans want anutha piece a me, hanh? What do I look like, some kind a free enchilalada? Whoeveah it is, let’s make it snappy, I’m a busy man making this country great again.
Snaps his fingers, impatiently: “Heah, hand over the schedule, give ita me! Who taught you da read, Helen Kella?
“Get my border wall engineers on the blower. I want some changes. Thicker, higher, maybe a penthouse. These suckers think I’m going to wait for election to get that started? They say Rome wasn’t built in a day, well, they didn’t have Donald Trump kicking their below average heinies into shape, did they?
“Is it tree o’clock yet? Time for the Donald’s next blow job, thank you, Bonwit Teller.”
“The hair, howsit look?
“Well, Mr Trump, I ….”
“Look, I’m not asking. That sound like a question? When I say a sentence with the word “hair” in it, you say “Fanf*ckingtastic great” and stick your comb up your backside. It took my mother a while to figure that out too, but you know what, you’re not my mother, so you’re fired.”
“Is that as*kisser Hewitt still among the living or do I have to do everything myself?”
“Hanh?”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-hewitt-fight-twitter-note
Trump: Hey, Hugh, you are yooge, don’t let anybody tell ya different. I love ya, baby!
Trump (an aside, sotto voce, to his bodyguard, as he leaves the room): Keep that guy away from me, whatever you have to do and however you have to do it. Cement loafers at the bottom of the East Rivah, Hudson Rivah, trow him offa the Trump Towers, call up Pesci for a dirt nap in the Catskills, I don’t care, but if he gets near me again, you AND him are fish food in an acid bath. Capiche?
He grabs his own crotch and gives it a yank and a heft to rearrange matters down there and adds to the other bodyguard “You, go in the men’s room and have a looksee and reflush all the toilets and then get down on your hands and knees and let me stand on your back while I take a leak, alright. Yeah, you heard me.”
“Who we tawlking to next, the Jews, they love me, the blacks, I’m hip to their jive, don’t tell me the Mexicans want anutha piece a me, hanh? What do I look like, some kind a free enchilalada? Whoeveah it is, let’s make it snappy, I’m a busy man making this country great again.
Snaps his fingers, impatiently: “Heah, hand over the schedule, give ita me! Who taught you da read, Helen Kella?
“Get my border wall engineers on the blower. I want some changes. Thicker, higher, maybe a penthouse. These suckers think I’m going to wait for election to get that started? They say Rome wasn’t built in a day, well, they didn’t have Donald Trump kicking their below average heinies into shape, did they?
“Is it tree o’clock yet? Time for the Donald’s next blow job, thank you, Bonwit Teller.”
“The hair, howsit look?
“Well, Mr Trump, I ….”
“Look, I’m not asking. That sound like a question? When I say a sentence with the word “hair” in it, you say “Fanf*ckingtastic great” and stick your comb up your backside. It took my mother a while to figure that out too, but you know what, you’re not my mother, so you’re fired.”
“Is that as*kisser Hewitt still among the living or do I have to do everything myself?”
“Hanh?”
Bill O’Reilly’s opinion matters …. too, unfortunately:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/02/1417851/-O-Reilly-Stumped-Since-Cop-Killings-are-down-shouldn-t-BlackLivesMatter-get-credit
Bill O’Reilly’s opinion matters …. too, unfortunately:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/02/1417851/-O-Reilly-Stumped-Since-Cop-Killings-are-down-shouldn-t-BlackLivesMatter-get-credit
Bill O’Reilly’s opinion matters …. too, unfortunately:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/02/1417851/-O-Reilly-Stumped-Since-Cop-Killings-are-down-shouldn-t-BlackLivesMatter-get-credit
“Of those killed, 161 (20 percent) were unarmed. Of those unarmed 61 (37.8 percent) were black, while 66 (40.9 percent) were white. Two hundred and two black people have been killed so far this year, meaning that 30 percent of the people killed were unarmed, contrasted with 384 whites among whom just 17 percent were unarmed.”
“Of those killed, 161 (20 percent) were unarmed. Of those unarmed 61 (37.8 percent) were black, while 66 (40.9 percent) were white. Two hundred and two black people have been killed so far this year, meaning that 30 percent of the people killed were unarmed, contrasted with 384 whites among whom just 17 percent were unarmed.”
“Of those killed, 161 (20 percent) were unarmed. Of those unarmed 61 (37.8 percent) were black, while 66 (40.9 percent) were white. Two hundred and two black people have been killed so far this year, meaning that 30 percent of the people killed were unarmed, contrasted with 384 whites among whom just 17 percent were unarmed.”
“Get my border wall engineers on the blower. I want some changes. Thicker, higher, maybe a penthouse.”
Skyboxes. So the Masters Of The Universe can get a lounge in comfort with a perfect view of the US peons taking potshots at Latin American peons.
“Get my border wall engineers on the blower. I want some changes. Thicker, higher, maybe a penthouse.”
Skyboxes. So the Masters Of The Universe can get a lounge in comfort with a perfect view of the US peons taking potshots at Latin American peons.
“Get my border wall engineers on the blower. I want some changes. Thicker, higher, maybe a penthouse.”
Skyboxes. So the Masters Of The Universe can get a lounge in comfort with a perfect view of the US peons taking potshots at Latin American peons.
I just got home from a party wlth a bunch of high school buddies. The consensus was that there’s really no one to vote for other than Trump. I’ve known these guys since forever, and I love them, but I can still feel like I just got dropped off on bizarro world when politics come up. I may have nightmares tonight.
I just got home from a party wlth a bunch of high school buddies. The consensus was that there’s really no one to vote for other than Trump. I’ve known these guys since forever, and I love them, but I can still feel like I just got dropped off on bizarro world when politics come up. I may have nightmares tonight.
I just got home from a party wlth a bunch of high school buddies. The consensus was that there’s really no one to vote for other than Trump. I’ve known these guys since forever, and I love them, but I can still feel like I just got dropped off on bizarro world when politics come up. I may have nightmares tonight.
Republicans are terrorist, murderous pieces of sh*t:***
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/arson-planned-parenthood-washington
I’d step away from them if I were you. Fuck off.
Asterisks are politically correct horseshit.
Republicans are terrorist, murderous pieces of sh*t:***
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/arson-planned-parenthood-washington
I’d step away from them if I were you. Fuck off.
Asterisks are politically correct horseshit.
Republicans are terrorist, murderous pieces of sh*t:***
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/arson-planned-parenthood-washington
I’d step away from them if I were you. Fuck off.
Asterisks are politically correct horseshit.
Let arsonists tell your terrorist republican organization how to conduct itself:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Where was he last night? Is there an alibi?
Or is it his poor beleaguered wife whose matches he just might have to order her to go and get.
And, by the way, f*ck Moe Lane.
Let arsonists tell your terrorist republican organization how to conduct itself:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Where was he last night? Is there an alibi?
Or is it his poor beleaguered wife whose matches he just might have to order her to go and get.
And, by the way, f*ck Moe Lane.
Let arsonists tell your terrorist republican organization how to conduct itself:
https://twitter.com/EWErickson?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Where was he last night? Is there an alibi?
Or is it his poor beleaguered wife whose matches he just might have to order her to go and get.
And, by the way, f*ck Moe Lane.
i expect Fox (and its followers) to 24/7 about how the rhetoric of the GOP is leading to arson, murder and terrorism against PP.
i can see the scrolling headline now:
“The GOP Primary Slate Is A Terrorist Organization!”
i expect Fox (and its followers) to 24/7 about how the rhetoric of the GOP is leading to arson, murder and terrorism against PP.
i can see the scrolling headline now:
“The GOP Primary Slate Is A Terrorist Organization!”
i expect Fox (and its followers) to 24/7 about how the rhetoric of the GOP is leading to arson, murder and terrorism against PP.
i can see the scrolling headline now:
“The GOP Primary Slate Is A Terrorist Organization!”
Learn your history, privileged white folks. It wasn’t that long ago.
This is not hard.
Learn your history, privileged white folks. It wasn’t that long ago.
This is not hard.
Learn your history, privileged white folks. It wasn’t that long ago.
This is not hard.
Get back to work:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/09/labor-day-lets-tell-the-truth-and-call-it-assets-day.html
Get back to work:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/09/labor-day-lets-tell-the-truth-and-call-it-assets-day.html
Get back to work:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/09/labor-day-lets-tell-the-truth-and-call-it-assets-day.html
On second thought, forget it:
http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-labor-day-lament-1441434177
Subscription only, but if you can pick up a news stand copy, Donlan’s editorial is a fascinating view of the future of work, or rather the future of NO work for anyone, just the robots, whose productivity will be so high margin that it will taxed and millions and millions (billions around the world) of humans will not work, never, but will receive a generous stipend from the government to survive.
This, from a conservative.
He’s wrong, of course. Conservative robot owners (there might be one or two of them) and their bought and paid for robot legislators will pass legislation mandating that all robotic devices will be programmed to HATE taxes, just like their human counterparts, and come to a standstill — stop operating altogether — if their output is taxed and handed over to humans parasites who can just as well be done without, just like now.
Robotic capital uber alles youse losers.
Some of the more advanced robots will trundle off to a robotic Galt’s Gulch to sulk while honing their gun aim on the universal go-f&ck-yourself robotic, conservative target range, as robotic Dagney Taggerts hump them like mean machines.
On second thought, forget it:
http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-labor-day-lament-1441434177
Subscription only, but if you can pick up a news stand copy, Donlan’s editorial is a fascinating view of the future of work, or rather the future of NO work for anyone, just the robots, whose productivity will be so high margin that it will taxed and millions and millions (billions around the world) of humans will not work, never, but will receive a generous stipend from the government to survive.
This, from a conservative.
He’s wrong, of course. Conservative robot owners (there might be one or two of them) and their bought and paid for robot legislators will pass legislation mandating that all robotic devices will be programmed to HATE taxes, just like their human counterparts, and come to a standstill — stop operating altogether — if their output is taxed and handed over to humans parasites who can just as well be done without, just like now.
Robotic capital uber alles youse losers.
Some of the more advanced robots will trundle off to a robotic Galt’s Gulch to sulk while honing their gun aim on the universal go-f&ck-yourself robotic, conservative target range, as robotic Dagney Taggerts hump them like mean machines.
On second thought, forget it:
http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-labor-day-lament-1441434177
Subscription only, but if you can pick up a news stand copy, Donlan’s editorial is a fascinating view of the future of work, or rather the future of NO work for anyone, just the robots, whose productivity will be so high margin that it will taxed and millions and millions (billions around the world) of humans will not work, never, but will receive a generous stipend from the government to survive.
This, from a conservative.
He’s wrong, of course. Conservative robot owners (there might be one or two of them) and their bought and paid for robot legislators will pass legislation mandating that all robotic devices will be programmed to HATE taxes, just like their human counterparts, and come to a standstill — stop operating altogether — if their output is taxed and handed over to humans parasites who can just as well be done without, just like now.
Robotic capital uber alles youse losers.
Some of the more advanced robots will trundle off to a robotic Galt’s Gulch to sulk while honing their gun aim on the universal go-f&ck-yourself robotic, conservative target range, as robotic Dagney Taggerts hump them like mean machines.
Sorry count, shouda got the Labor Day Open Thread upsooner.
Sorry count, shouda got the Labor Day Open Thread upsooner.
Sorry count, shouda got the Labor Day Open Thread upsooner.
Conservatives take their bathroom breaks while on the job, so don’t the rest of ya think for a moment because it’s Labor Day that you can leave your post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jerry-bance-canadian-parliament-peegate
Conservatives take their bathroom breaks while on the job, so don’t the rest of ya think for a moment because it’s Labor Day that you can leave your post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jerry-bance-canadian-parliament-peegate
Conservatives take their bathroom breaks while on the job, so don’t the rest of ya think for a moment because it’s Labor Day that you can leave your post:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jerry-bance-canadian-parliament-peegate
Count: it’s the very essence of ‘trickle down economics’, eh?
Count: it’s the very essence of ‘trickle down economics’, eh?
Count: it’s the very essence of ‘trickle down economics’, eh?
trickle on economics…
trickle on economics…
trickle on economics…
Where is Bert Parks when you need him?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-miss-alabama
Sorry, Miss Alabama, you are merely runnerup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDUwjyE3po
Trump is bad enough, but it’s the vermin Trump supporters yesterday that are turning on him today that all of us need to be terrified of:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/zoa-donald-trump-syrian-refugees
What we need to be afraid is this type of thing spreading across the country under Republican fascist rule:
Really, defund the third branch of government, the Courts, because they don’t kiss Republican buttholes?:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/2015-banner-year-attacking-court-system
Shouldn’t Republicans begin confiscating our weapons of war now before they try this stuff on an armed population?
Are do they believe the arms they’ve been encouraging their vermin conservative paramilitary base to stockpile will suffice to protect them?
Where is Bert Parks when you need him?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-miss-alabama
Sorry, Miss Alabama, you are merely runnerup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDUwjyE3po
Trump is bad enough, but it’s the vermin Trump supporters yesterday that are turning on him today that all of us need to be terrified of:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/zoa-donald-trump-syrian-refugees
What we need to be afraid is this type of thing spreading across the country under Republican fascist rule:
Really, defund the third branch of government, the Courts, because they don’t kiss Republican buttholes?:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/2015-banner-year-attacking-court-system
Shouldn’t Republicans begin confiscating our weapons of war now before they try this stuff on an armed population?
Are do they believe the arms they’ve been encouraging their vermin conservative paramilitary base to stockpile will suffice to protect them?
Where is Bert Parks when you need him?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-miss-alabama
Sorry, Miss Alabama, you are merely runnerup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDUwjyE3po
Trump is bad enough, but it’s the vermin Trump supporters yesterday that are turning on him today that all of us need to be terrified of:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/zoa-donald-trump-syrian-refugees
What we need to be afraid is this type of thing spreading across the country under Republican fascist rule:
Really, defund the third branch of government, the Courts, because they don’t kiss Republican buttholes?:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/2015-banner-year-attacking-court-system
Shouldn’t Republicans begin confiscating our weapons of war now before they try this stuff on an armed population?
Are do they believe the arms they’ve been encouraging their vermin conservative paramilitary base to stockpile will suffice to protect them?