She is quite annoying.

You may not take the influence of Rosa Parks away from her. Yes, there were others before her. In fact, her lawyer represented another woman--before Parks--who also refused to give up her seat. That woman lost her case. Rosa Parks, however, won.

Listening to you so easily criticize a woman of influence makes me wonder how far our society has come. Are you against integration, too? Without Rosa Parks, that initiative would have been long delayed. How about women's suffrage? Without very vocal, very prominent women, we probably wouldn't have that either.

Think about the effect of your words.

No Rebecca, you don't get away with that. Not wanting to give Rosa Parks an unearned halo and dictatorial powers over other people's freedom of expression does not make me a racist or opponent of integration. Nor does it make me an opponent of women's suffrage.

Integration was coming, and Rosa Parks did no more to that end than any one of thousands of other unrecognized people.

Even if she had written and delivered the "I have a dream" speech and personally registered a million voters, however, I would still oppose giving her the power to CENSOR other people. That is just totally unacceptable.

Nor is it acceptable to set anyone up on a pedestal like she insists on. She is NOT in fact God, but a mere mortal human. As far as working hard and making an intellectual and moral contribution to society, I'd personally put considerably more prestige on Phyllis Schlafly. Yet neither she nor any admirer would for a second presume to set her up as a little plastic dashboard saint who could not be criticized.

In short, Ms. Parks is EQUAL BUT NOT SUPERIOR to any other person. This means that she is equally open to praise for doing something good in her youth, and equally open to criticism later when she gets stupid.

Dear Rebecca,

Wth all do respect, if you think Rosa Parks brought integration to American society, well, open your eyes and look around. She failed miserably. Major universities in this country now have "blacks only" dorms, summer programs open only to "people of color", and speech codes so stifling that any comment can be construed as "racist". I suggest you check out the American Civil Rights Institute (www.acri.org). And you might want to read the book Redneck Nation. The pendulum seems to have swung to segregation by choice. Is this a good thing?
Mark

Yeah, Mark is right. "Blacks Only" Dorms? That's terrible. "White Only" Country Clubs? Good. Rosa Parks, an woman who could've been beaten or killed even for what she did needs to "get over herself". She's no American icon Phyllis Schlafly is. She wasn't the catalyst that sparked the civil rights movement,intergration was coming anyway. Who needs her? Hey I have an idea, let's totally erase her from history, it wouldn't be the first time we ignore certain people because we don't like them (ahem, malcolm x). Afterall, she didn't do anything but "sit her black ass down". No big deal. Rosa Parks owes her "fame" to the white person who made the fuss instead of just "standing his white ass up".

Look white right wingers, you made your point but as you always do you take it too far. Blacks only dorms and black only summer programs ARE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF JIM CROW! The bottom line is that virtually no white people have eve suffered a significant negative impact as a result of their race but there was a time when ALL black people did, and a case can be made that ALL black people still feel the effect of past discrimination and MANY blacks feel the effects of not - as - serious but current discrimination. You want to know why there aren't more black conservatives like me? White conservatives like you, that's why! Stick to policy and give up the victimization and race baiting. That is what SMART conservatives like Jeb and George W. Bush are doing. The days of "conservatives" who do nothing but pander to old wounds and fears of loss of white privilege are over. 20 years from now this society is going to be so integrated that you are going to feel stupid for engaging in this type of whining, just as Ronald Reagan fans aren't exactly proud that he kicked off his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi with a speech on state's rights. I actually support state's rights, but not the kind that Reagan was pandering to when he gave that speech in front of the civil rights murderer sympathists.

"Look white right wingers, you made your point but as you always do you take it too far." There are some black conservatives who would disagree with you Louis. They might say that a lot of whining over alleged "white privilege" and residual effects of discrimination are over-rated. Some make the case that todays race based privileges for blacks and other minorities go "too far" and actually retard integration and impede minority progress.

One fact never mentioned in comparisons of Jim Crow and segregation to todays discriminatory Affirmative Action policies, is that the former was confined to a few Southern States. If you suffered from Jim Crow you could, with some discomfort and initiative, simply move away from it. Not so with Federally sanctioned discriminatory policy today.

""Blacks Only" Dorms? That's terrible. "White Only" Country Clubs? Good". No Paul, there are no Country Clubs where blacks are not permitted to join. It is rightfully called discriminatory and illegal when whites do it.

*shakes head and snickers*

MLK accepted money from communists!!!
Yet he gets a holiday!

Rosa Parks just sat down during a time when defying segregation often meant death or a least retribution.

Damn bitch! Who is she to think she is important.

I say we tak away MLK day and give Rosa Parks the bitch slap she's deserves. Uppity black bitch... who does she think she is? She should know her place!!

Apparantly, Rosa, deservedly or not, has already recieved the "bitch slap". The following from a "Shatter the Glass Ceiling" biogrophy:

"On August 30, 1994, the nation -- and especially Detroit -- was stunned to learn that the 81-year-old Parks had been assaulted in her home. Joseph Skipper, a young, unemployed African American, broke into Parks's home, hit her repeatedly, and stole $53 from her. The incident gained even further news coverage when Ramiah Mario Jefferson, the man who helped catch Skipper after the assault, was himself then arrested for allegedly driving the getaway car in an automatic bank teller machine heist months before."

Dan, if you believe that black people could escape discrimination just by moving from the South, you are just plain stupid. You didn't even read history. Don't you know that the worst race riots were in California and Boston? That Chicago was the most segregated city in America? That the state with the largest number and highest percentage of Klu Klux Klan members was Indiana? Geesh, what is the mattter with you folks. You go back and forth between saying that "the north was just as bad as the south" and saying "the real racism was in the south, blacks could do just fine by moving away" when it suits you. Complete moral and intellectual dishonesty.

How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE. If whites are so put upon by reverse discrimination, why are our elite universities and corporate boardrooms still virtually all white? Why do whites control all of the power and wealth in this country? Even these little programs which don't even amount to crumbs falling off the table that you complain about were created and maintained by liberal whites, not blacks. The irony is that white people like YOU are blaming blacks for your "oppression" when you should be blaming other white people. As much as you bash Jesse Jackson, it is Hillary Clinton who has the real power. It was the deans at these elite colleges who created these black only dorms. So go after them and leave us black folks alone. I don't know why so - called conservatives are so obsessed with race anyway, you have real issues like out of control government spending, fraud and corruption at every level of government, the loss of individual liberty to big business and big government (not only have conservatives given up the fight against big government, but why have antitrust laws stopped being enforced?), Muslim and Marxist extremists destablizing governments worldwide, religious freedom and expression being stamped out in the name of "secularism", and millions of children being murdered by abortion. And people like YOU would rather snivel over a few white people not being able to get into Harvard Law because of affirmative action. If you had any sense you'd be trying to increase the numbers of black and Hispanic conservatives among your ranks to fight these REAL PROBLEMS. It shows what you and your ilk REALLY regards as important. You would rather end some largely ineffective diversity programs than overthrow Roe V. Wade or kick the Marxists out of the U.N., and everyone knows it.

I guess I responded to this on a previous thread on the same topic. First, I don't believe Ms. Parks has a case because she is a public figure and therefore subject to an awful lot of ragging before she can sue. It also has to be malicious ragging.

However, I totally disagree with Barger's claim Ms. Parks gets too much attention. Major legal challenges always begin with test cases and the plaintiffs in those cases pay a significant price for having their names attached. Furthermore, social movements need symbols and Ms. Parks has been an excellent symbol for desegregation.

Vic, Paul,Louis, etc., have roasted the Kentucky Christmas turkey so well, I will just say 'amen' for further comment. Barger, your biases are indeed showing.

Diva, I'm not necessarily saying that Ms. Parks has gotten too much attention. It's fine to use her for a symbol and all that. That's all well and fine.

What I DO object to is her own self-righteous attitudes, particularly that she should presume to bring the heavy hand of government coercion down on any who dare breathe her name without permission. NO ONE gets to do that.

Louis, you've made a lot of assumptions about what I "believe" that aren't accurate. Note that I didn't say "black people could escape discrimination just by moving from the South". I said blacks could escape STATE SANCTIONED Jim Crow and segregation policies by moving. Not to say that it was easy, or right that they would have to do so. This doesn't make me "stupid" for pointing this out.

You ask "How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE." I would answer: about as many as there are minorities who gain from these privileges. It is more or less a zero sum game. Not to say all affirmative action programs are harmful. I tend to agree with the intent of color blind programs designed to uplift the poverty stricken, although not always with the way they are funded. I would contend that the race based college admissions thing is really a smoke screen. The most economically harmful (to white males) discrimination takes place in average middle class jobs. Here is where minorities and white women all get a leg up on beleagured white men.

You miss the mark again when you say "white people like YOU are blaming blacks for your "oppression" when you should be blaming other white people." I'm not really blaming anyone. I don't personally feel all that oppressed. I get screwed, I move on, find another way. I wouldn't blame ordinary blacks for taking advantage of opportunities presented to them. I have a really high regard for ordinary blacks who have somehow managed to schuck their racial identity despite a liberal propaganda bombardment that encourages entitlement and grievance, through historical revision and demonization of whites. Those few blacks, who live in my colorblind world are the ones I want to share the future with.

Truly listen to what I say, and you will find out what me and my "ilk" really regard as important.

Dan said:

You ask "How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE." I would answer: about as many as there are minorities who gain from these privileges. It is more or less a zero sum game.

The only way Dan's remark could be true is if no African-American were ever qualified for any position a white person wanted. In other words, Dan is saying that white people are automatically superior and more deserving. That is the very esssence of racism.

I have known too many stupid white people to be fooled by the racist propaganda of the Dans of the world, thank God, Nature, or whatever.

Dan is a bigot. (And, I bet he has a small penis, too.)

Umm, Where do I begin. I am a new comer to this website. I happened to stumble upon it while searching for Quotes for my website. I've read each of your postings and was taken away with them all. It was if i were listening to a real live debate. All of your points and views, well discussed and worded appropriately(well, most of you).
As a student, and I'm asking for assistance on an JFK paper. The assassination of JFK that is. I have to answer the following questions:
Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been the lone assassin?
Do you think there was a conspiracy?
I know what i think about the subject but i'm having trouble wording my feelings and opinions. I'm asking that one of you please respond to me somehow. So maybe the founders of the site can make a new posting on how you all feel about the JFK assassination.
If you want, can you provide information and facts to support your opinion.

Just playing. That makes it sound like i'm going to just copy and paste it all. I wouldn't do that you people. I'm seriously just a student loooking for some help with homework. If you have time to write back and forth on these posting then i know you have some extra time to help me.
Please do not take offense to any of this. I'd hate to be the bashing subject by people i don't even know. Thank you,
Desiree

Diva, I KNOW you're smarter than this nonsense:

The only way Dan's remark could be true is if no African-American were ever qualified for any position a white person wanted. In other words, Dan is saying that white people are automatically superior and more deserving.

Your statement here is simply flatly and obviously FALSE. Dan's statement would apply to the extent that any less qualified black person EVER leaped over a white guy for a job.

If this NEVER happened, then there would not exist any affirmative action. That is exactly the point of affirmative action: pushing less qualified minority group members into jobs.

Now, you can claim that this is "fair" because a black man hasn't had the same chances to get an education or qualifications or blah, blah, blah. You cannot, however, honestly claim that it doesn't push less qualified people of preferred ethnic groups to the top of the list.

And you can definitely lay off of calling Dan a bigot. That is totally unwarranted, and unspeakably rude. He has been utterly scrupulous in being rational and honest, with goodwill toward all in every comment he's ever left in our forum.

Calling Dan a bigot is not only hateful and unwarranted, but de-humanizing. It is just as bad- and arguably worse in this society at this time- than if a white guy were to address a black man as "nigger." It contains the same basic idea in both cases of someone being bad, a sub-human not worthy of consideration or acceptance.

This kind of promiscuous accusation of bigotry undermines your credibility, and generates unnecessary ill will all around.

I love you, but you need to be nice. Thanks.

Barger, you are being obtuse. Dan said hiring people of color is a zero sum game. That means that every black, brown, yellow or red person (or woman) who gets a position is taking it away from a white man. That is a ridiculous and racist thing to believe. Let's explore the implications with an example. Dr. Ben Carson is considered to be one of, if not the, best neurosurgeon in the country. If one buys into what Dan is selling, then Dr. Carson should not have been allowed to become a doctor. Instead, some white guy, you, perhaps (though I think he would prefer himself) should have Dr. Carson's position instead. Since Dr. Carson is African-American, he is somehow 'unqualifed.' This is the ugly path people like Dan would like to lead the country down. I hope they never get the chance again.

Furthermore, the point of affirmative action is not to promote less qualified people. It is to prevent the Dans of America from discriminating against qualified people who are not white men. Since, left to their devices, they definitely would, a way of establishing a fair playing ground is needed.

What Dan very clearly and logically said was that the number of whites who suffer from affirmative action would be equal to the number of minority group members who benefit from it. This is obviously true.

It is NOT an affirmative action hire to hire a more qualified black man over a less qualified white. You don't NEED affirmative action to explain that. If this Dr Carson is one of the best neurosurgeons in the country, then he surely doesn't require special consideration based on race.

You have absolutely NO basis for saying that Dan would object to qualified people of color becoming doctors. You're just making that up wholecloth, cause Dan has said absolutely NOTHING even VAGUELY resembling that.

If you simply outlawed discrimination based on race, then you would have no complaint from the vast majority of right wingers - though I would still have some issues about freedom of association, even for, say, owners of a FUBU shirt factory who might just not want whitey around. Not cool in my opinion, but not MY factory.

Affirmative action does not outlaw, but in fact MANDATES discrimination. It just mandates it in directions you might happen to like.

I doubt that this has really hurt white folks generally all that much- but at the same time I doubt that it has really helped black folks.

I am sure, however, that it has generated a great deal of needless hostility and resentment not conducive to racial reconciliation.

Thanks Al, but I would hope that by now regular reasonable readers of all colors would be familiar with MD's lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skills. I would only add that I hope they can apply this insight to their evaluation of MD's assumption about my um, genitalia dimension.

Utter fecal matter, Barger. He of the diminutive dongle said a zero sum game. That, by definition, means taking from A (whites and/or men) and giving to B (nonwhites and/or women). However, affirmative action is not a zero sum game. What it does is prevent A (the holders of nearly all power in a racist and sexist society) from completely shutting out competition by B. That bothers the Dans of the world because they would like to shut out that competition. Affirmative action makes things fair and that rankles people who don't want them to be that way.


Nor does your effort to evade the implications of the example work. If you and Dan had gotten your way, Dr. Carson would never have gotten the opportunity to go to med school, or perhaps even college, on the grounds that he was not qualified. Some mediocre white guy who is not nearly as capable would have been given those slots instead. Heck, a dunce like Dan probably thinks he can automatically perform brain surgery because he is a white man. Whiteness is simply a lack of melanin. Claims about it qualifying anyone for anything other than skin cancer are ludicrous.

Dan, southern Jim Crow ONLY refers to laws that mandated segregation. Now, expand your mind beyond what you have been taught in school and what has been portrayed in the media and ponder this. State mandated segregation IS NOT NECESSARILY discrimination IN THEORY. Or if it is, IN THEORY it should harm whites and blacks EQUALLY, and any harm should be offset by the equal gain in turn.

Consider dating for instance. That is a competition. Remove all racism BUT leave in the laws against interracial dating and whatever, and any harm caused you by not being able to date females of the other race is made up to you by not having to compete with males in order to date members of YOUR race.

Separate but equal was NOT the problem. The problem was an fundamentally racist society which made Jim Crow (and pretty much everything else) a tool of racism. Eliminating Jim Crow merely served to eliminate one of those tools. Many others remained and persist to this day. And yes, that does include the government.

That is why it was so SILLY for you to assert that state sanctioned discrimination against blacks only existed during the Jim Crow South. You should realize that my conservatism is an outgrowth of my college flirtation with black nationalism. I came to the conclusion that the most racist entity in America is the government. Hence, conservatism, which means less government and less ways the government can screw black people.

Instead of being so niggardly with opportunity over affirmative action (and being so dense that white people have always and still do benefit from similar programs AND from the underlying social structure ... I benefitted from affirmative action but it wasn't ANYTHING LIKE the affirmative action that Al Gore JUNIOR and George W. Bush had let me tell you!) you folks ought to be making the case to blacks that we need to limit the power of a government that discriminates against them. It is certainly more attractive than the other sides' strategy of adding universal healthcare and daycare to the same government that does SUCH A GOOD JOB for blacks (and especially black men) when it comes to housing, public schools, Social Security, farm policy (there were PLENTY of black family farms BEFORE the Department of Agriculture was created but VIRTUALLY NONE now), criminal justice, Great Society programs (you can have as many kids as you want not to mention free housing so long as you A) don't get married B) don't save or invest money and C) don't get an education), etc.

But since the so - called small government conservatives never make this case to black people in the interests of recruiting them, maybe what these folks REALLY WANT is to make the government that helps blacks smaller (assuming it exists ... if it does I can't tell) and the government that screws blacks BIGGER. If that is the case, then perhaps blacks should seek refuge in true liberalism (now called libertarianism). No government is better than one that harms you.

Diva, this is a fascinating statement you make: If you and Dan had gotten your way, Dr. Carson would never have gotten the opportunity to go to med school, or perhaps even college, on the grounds that he was not qualified.

No, Dan nor I say any such thing. Perhaps YOU think that a black man would not be able to make it on merit. That seems to be your implication.

Or perhaps YOU are SO caught up in race that you can't imagine it ever NOT being the dominant fact in any situation. If we don't have affirmative action discrimination built in to favor black folks, then you seem to assume that this would simply be license not to let any black folk in. Do you think that it is not possible to try to simply judge people based on their qualifications?

Louis, now you're singing my tune. As chairman of the Franklin County Indiana Libertarians, I'm glad to hear your small government ranting.

I would guess you'd likely be a fan of my hero Walter Williams. How familiar are you with his classic book The State Against Blacks?

I have been holding this information back because I wanted Tiny Testicles to say it himself. But, since Barger brought libertarianism up, I might as well say that Dan Precht, who appears to be posting to this thread, is apparently a failed Libertarian candidate from the Midwest. I believe this to be relevant because libertarianism and racism have so often become synonymous. I have libertarian friends who will object to that observation, but it is true.

Months ago, several bloggers discussed this topic. The state of archives being what it is, those entries have probably gone South. However, the topic could be reexamined. If I have time, I will initiate a group discussion by contacting libertarians of various stripes about the subject.

Louis, do you have a blog? You say interesting things that I would like to cite appropriately.

Al Barger:

I am familiar with Walter Williams in general, but haven't read his books. What gets me about Williams and Tom Sowell is that they seem to hate black people more than white people do. I know they REALLY don't, but that is the stance that they have adopted for some reason. Similar to their predecessor of sorts Booker T. Washington, they aren't going to win any converts like that and those that they do (who hang out at http://www.lewrockwell.com and similar) are not to their credit. Liberalism and statism are bad, but racism is bad too, and I have little use for someone as brilliant as Williams or Sowell who can't or won't make that case. Tony Brown is somewhat better in that regards ... I hate that his PBS show seems to have gone away.

On libertarian in general, I am primarily a social conservative, the opposite of the likes of you. However, government programs of the last 50 or so years have tended to undermine socially conservative principles. I would prefer a government that would reinforce those principles, something that libertarians would clearly hate as much or more than our current one. But no government (or rather an extremely limited one) is better than one that will do everything it can to separate me from my church and my family.
Mac Diva:

Not a blogger, as I do not have the time or the techno savvy. So I just harass bloggers in my spare time.

I don't see how you get the idea that Williams or Sowell "hate" black people at all. Where do you get that?

I see that my statement "seem to" and "I know that they REALLY don't" were obscured. Williams and Sowell spend a lot of time denouncing the flaws of blacks but dedicate none whatsoever to the flaws of mainstream culture. Like this whole anti - affirmative action bit. Not liking affirmative action is one thing, not liking Jesse Jackson is fine, but geesh, there are far more pressing problems with this society than that. So when they make their obligatory affirmative action - Jesse Jackson denigration in every column, it seems like a minstrel show. As if two white people not getting into MIT this year and Jesse Jackson making a little money are SUCH OFFENSES TO DECENT CIVILIZED SOCIETY or something. You'd think that as LIBERTARIANS they would have objected to Rudy Giuliani's stop - and - frisk policy or something, but nope.

Al:

I have spent so much time on this thread, I failed to give my opinion on your original column. Well consider this:

The very reason why Rosa Parks is so embraced IS that she did something of so little consequence. Blacks who play a major role in challenging racism and poverty and in the process seek power, influence, and wealth for themselves are HATED by the white mainstream, most of all conservatives. We have this joke in the black community that goes something like this: "Which black leaders are most popular with whites?" Answer: "The ones that are dead!" Well, Rosa Parks has been for all intents and purposes dead since making her stand. Also, blacks being forced to sit on the back of the bus and drink out of certain water fountains in faraway places like Mississippi and Alabama ... those are things of no consequence that would cause the average white person in Ohio or somewhere to say "Oh my GOODNESS, how could they treat THOSE PEOPLE SO BADLY", view themselves as some sort of racial liberal for wanting those injustices overthrown and lionizing the person who got the job done. Because, after all, it is ONLY riding public transportation (I own a car) in Alabama (I live in Ohio). Easy to be a racial progressive when it doesn't affect me.

But when it comes to THOSE TROUBLEMAKING BLACK LEADERS who advocated blacks MOVING INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, GOING TO MY SCHOOL, TAKING MY JOB, TAKING MY CHILD'S SPOT IN COLLEGE, OWNING THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROCRY STORE, BECOMING MY MAYOR, AND MARRYING MY DAUGHTER, then THAT'S when it affects ME. In OHIO. So THOSE BLACK LEADERS are the ones that I despise, the ones that want to CHANGE the way that I LIVE MY LIFE and force ME and MY KIDS to COMPETE with 30 million outsiders! My kid not getting into college because some rich white kid who lacked the grades is the child of an alum or knows someone on the Board of Regents, no big deal. But some BLACK KID getting in because of race preferences? OH THE HUMANITY! What EVIL BLACK LEADER DEMANDED THAT! What an OUTRAGE, THESE PEOPLE ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY, everything was FINE before THEY STARTED TAKING OVER? WHY CAN'T ALL BLACK LEADERS BE LIKE THAT NICE ROSA PARKS?!?! What? Me racist? Of course not! If I was a RACIST, I wouldn't be such A BIG ROSA PARKS FAN!

So sir, you are right about Rosa Parks being so loved and untouchable, but you are very wrong for the reason why. She is no different from any of the other black leaders that mainstream America knows and hates ... and the only reason why Parks is treated any different is that she never ran for Congress or sought an appointment from LBJ or Carter like all the rest did.

Louis, you've spotted the same problem I've noticed with black conservatives and members of the so-called multiracial movement -- they detest people of African descent and want to distance themselves from us. For example, a spokesperson for the multiracial movement had a strange reaction to the Essie Washington-Williams story. She said that the young black house maid made pregnant and left to starve by her employer should have been flattered by the attention because the man was white. Hello?

I have read enough of Walter Williams to know he is fairly typical of his ilk. He is a member of the neo-Confederate movement and has even embraced white supremacists. Furthermore, he wants the South to secede from the union so we can go back to the good ole days. This profile explains the man pretty well. Perhaps with older folks like Williams, the hatred of the African in themselves and anyone else comes from the brainwashing that was so common among the black bourgeoisie not so long ago.

And, you know, Louis, I don't believe people like Williams matter much for people of color. Clowns like him are created for the purpose of reassuring white bigots that racism is just fine, thank you. Barger recently cited Phyllis Schafly as a role model for women. Now, he cites a black neo-Confederate seccesionist as a role model for people of color. He really knows how to pick'em.

:*(

MD, I researched Dr. Benjamin Carson. There is a lot of information on him. Not surprisingly, I could find no hint that he ever benefited from any sort of affirmative action at all. His mother pushed him at an early age, he graduated with honors from a Detroit high school, received an academic scholorship to Yale, then returned to MU for medical school. It seems he got where he is on merit, the same way a white man must do. In fact the good Doctor has advanced a proposal for a "compassionate action" model for preferential admission to selective colleges and universities on the basis of socioeconomic status rather than race. While I'm not a robust advocate of screwing rich kids, this would have the effect of disproportionately helping minorities-- thus pleasing you and Louis, while retaining a colorblindness that would tend to satisfy fairer minded folks like Al and myself.

Unless I'm missing something, your invoking of the honorable and meritorious Dr. Carsons name in a discussion about affirmative action is about as relevant as your apparent obsessive fascination with my penis. A word of caution: as a woman of color, this pre-occupation with sex organs plays to an unfortunate and unflattering stereotype.

For a more relevant affirmative action model, I would suggest you research a Dr. Patrick Chavis.

Diva, I will thank you to not make cheap unwarranted racist stereotyped attacks against a distinguished professor and author such as Walter Williams. You pretty much just called him a self-hating Tom, a "clown."

In fact, Dr Williams is a distinguished professor of economics, with many outstanding books to his credit. He is in fact a proud black American who would no doubt regard it as UNproud, and shameful to constantly go around pleading for the government to come get you what you can't get for yourself.

This comment is particularly dumb: Clowns like him are created for the purpose of reassuring white bigots that racism is just fine

That's just wickedness and dishonesty to de-humanize and de-legitimize a distinguished gentleman, and one of the finest minds around of any race.

Where'd you get that from, anyway? It certainly has nothing to do with his work.

"Distinguished gentleman"? Walter Williams is a crackpot. And, you are a fool for citing him, Barger.

As usual, your laziness, reflected in your refusal to do research before you open your virtual mouth, is showing. You should have known better than to cite Williams.

The only penis I have ever expressed an interest in in the blogosphere, Dan's, is mainly non-existent. That gets me off the hook for any unseemly interest in genitalia.

(Winks at those in the know.)

Apparently, Rosa Parks was really fighting for Negros right to puruse BS litigation.

I find the whole controversy around Barbershop to be laughable. And folks who spent their time boycotting the movie really need to find something better to do. Somewhere a child needs a mentor. Better yet, a healthy meal!

Ms. Parks suing folks for using her name is a crying shame. Her PR folks really should have a foot embedded in their rears for encouraging that woman to do that. And if she came up with the idea herself, then it may be time for her to retire from public life because she is simply not making sound decisions.

On all the other stuff that this blog touched off..I will let y'all go at it. Good Times and Sanford and Son are about to come on. ;o)

The GuitarGirl is a naughty provocateur.

Diva, this is the just the kind of thing where you discredit yourself. You make hateful racial accusations against a distinguished professor and author, and call him and me names. Yet you cite no statement of his that is wrong, or any analysis of his that is faulty.

Do you think that your mere expressions of disdain with no other argument whatsoever should be taken to constitute anything other than pure ill-bred rudeness? Why?

As to supposed laziness, I'm pretty familiar with Dr. Williams work, but you seem to be pontificating with absolutely no knowledge of his writing at all.

Broadly, you know that he's some kind of black conservative, so you immediately trot out the evil racist Tom stereotypes. There- uppity independent negro knocked back into place, no need to consider his viewpoint or counter his arguments.

It is apparently simply not possible to disagree with you in any significant way on any issue that you can in any way twist into a racial thing without being labeled either a white supremicist or a Tom.

What do you think you accomplish by this? Do you think that you change people's minds to a more liberal disposition with your promiscuous pimping of the cheap racial invective?

And PLEASE quite throwing yourself at Dan. Your public obsession with his penis is (if I may say discreetly) inappropriate for this public forum.

I'd tell you to get a room, but I doubt that MRS Dan would appreciate that.

Au contraire. You never cite sources, Barger, because you are too arrogant to admit you don't know everything. I cited a summary of the sins of Walter Williams above. More of the same is readily available for anyone who does a simple Googling. The only folks who have anything positive to say about that narrow headed nonentity are neo-Confederates and other white supremacists.

As far as Dan's wee willie goes (not far at all), I make no apologies for insulting him. He insulted twelve million people. I am only insulting one.

I recommend you get a room at the Dew Drop Inn with Mrs. Dan, Barger. If such a person exists, she would appreciate a Johnson that makes it pass the entryway I'm sure.

Mac Diva (and Barger and Dan):

One thing that Rosa Parks did that I liked was create a charter school in Detroit. In doing so, she was one of the only members of the black political establishment to support charter schools. Meanwhile, failing public school systems in Atlanta, Detroit, and Washington D.C. have done all they can to undermine charter schools, going to the point of the mayor of city of Detroit turning down a $200 million donation from a private individual to build eight charter high schools there (he tried to get the guy to donate the money to the Detroit School Board instead, but of course the guy declined and now the money will probably just go to the guy's offspring).

A recent audit of Saint Louis Public Schools by a firm run by Rudy Crew, David Dinkins' choice to run New York Public Schools before he was run out by Rudy Giuliani, found out that 72% of Saint Louis' public school system employees weren't public school teachers or administrators and that most of their schools weren't operating anywhere near capacity. They recommended firing excess personnel and closing the half empty schools, and "civil rights leaders" are protesting, claiming that the Saint Louis school system's LONG STANDIING crisis has been caused by the state's Republican governor (and of course George W. Bush) refusing to "adequately fund" the school system forcing them to fire all of those unneeded (and virtually black) employees and shut down those schools. Or at least that was the angle that Al Sharpton presented in Jet Magazine.

Read this article about the D.C. public school system ... it is from CNN, not from Fox News or the Washington Times and is an example of why I support charter schools and vouchers. So Rosa Parks opening that charter school in Detroit is AT LEAST the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT THING that she has done for black folks.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/12/23/capital.schools.ap/index.html

This article below contains the results of Florida's first round of (virtually all black) "voucher kids". 58 kids got the first batch, 38 of them are still in private school, 36 of them have improved their performance.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/7552834.htm

Funny how these things don't make national news like information on Halliburton making a little money does.

What Dan very clearly and logically said was that the number of whites who suffer from affirmative action would be equal to the number of minority group members who benefit from it. This is obviously true.

No, it's not. AA aims to level the playing field by removing the skin color advantage whites enjoy.

The assumption that affirmative action takes something away from whites is telling. Look at it this way: I think AA takes away an unfair advantage, that of a preferred skin color. White people -- and I'm white, so I can speak to this -- don't "suffer" from AA. But we benefit from the color of our skin all the time.

Anecdotal example: I was tied neck and neck for my first job out of college with a black woman, also just out of college. We had essentially identical resumes and skills: liberal arts majors, language studies, good grades, etc. After I was hired for the position, where I was to sit in the reception area for the company, my boss told me I had the edge over the black woman because she and her boss thought their corporate clients wouldn't be as comfortable being greeted by a black woman as they would by a white woman.

That was a great introduction to the realities and subtleties of race, "fair" competition, and "qualifications only" consideration in America.

So I was apparently more qualified because I had white skin and for no other reason. The friggin' tie-breaker was SKIN COLOR. And I loved my bosses' b.s. laying of blame on their clients' racism rather than their own.

That's why we need AA. AA is not unfair to whites and whites do not suffer from its outcomes.

[I give only an anecdotal example, but if you think this type of racial preference doesn't happen all the time, you're sticking your heads in the sand.]

P.S. Rosa Parks has earned the right to *try* to protect her name and image [whether or not she will or should succeed is another legal matter]. I guess she was a more palatable role model when she didn't make any noise and knew her place.

That is exactly the point of affirmative action: pushing less qualified minority group members into jobs.

It is not redundant, Dew. I've tried humor and legal theory in an effort to reach Barger and Diminutive Dan. Perhaps you and bhw's straightforward comments will succeed where mine haven't.

"Anecdotal example: I was tied neck and neck for my first job out of college with a black woman, also just out of college. We had essentially identical resumes and skills: liberal arts majors, language studies, good grades, etc. After I was hired for the position, where I was to sit in the reception area for the company, my boss told me I had the edge over the black woman because she and her boss thought their corporate clients wouldn't be as comfortable being greeted by a black woman as they would by a white woman."

Yes bhw, I've heard the racist boss/reception area/might turn off clients, story before. The only new twist is that your racist boss was eager to tell a total stranger (you) about his potentially illegal, and damaging racist hiring practices. You know, it's not like there aren't some reasonable arguments for discrimination against white men, AKA affirmative action. You don't need to just make things up. Leave that for MD. BTW, did you accept the job?

MD, I guess your silence on the "tale of two Doctors" (comment #32) means your foot is in your mouth once again? Sorry. How was I to know your Doctors position on preferential academic admissions policy was similar to good ol' diminutive Dans' colorblind socioeconomic status plan? (comment #14) Great minds think alike I suppose. Will this make him an Uncle Tom?

bhw, Dithering Dan is a very sexually frustrated man, so don't be offended by his rudeness. Why, if one believed him, one would believe white people don't discuss racial discrimination among themselves as if there is nothing wrong with it. But, I know many of them do. Doing so is part of white privilege.

Ben Carson comes from a single-parent family that lived in poverty. His mother could barely read and write. He is exactly the kind of person anti-affirmative action advocates would consign to picking up trash while allowing Al Barger to perform brain surgery. Ben told me (yes, I know him) that it frightens him how close he came to not getting the opportunities that allowed him to become the great contributor to America and the world he is. But for affirmative action, including scholarships, no one would ever have heard of the best brain surgeon in America.

Louis, Doing something about the shameful state of urban schools is a common theme in Dr. Walter Williams' column. A life-long educator himself, he frequently brings to light examples of where charter schools have succeeded fantastically in areas of the Country that Public Schools have failed miserably. A proponent of school vouchers, he also sheds light on the hypocrisy of the liberal educational establishment that fights against them tooth and nail.

It seems the subject matter here as it
was originally posted has gotten left in
the dust.The original & well made point
here is that Ms.Parks is full of herself
and she's swinging a double edged sword.
Had Outkast put out a song lauding her,
IMHO,rather small contribution to the
Civil Rights movement,not a single word
would've been spoken.The same principles
Rosa claims to represent(the freedom of
expression,amongst others)she has chosen
to deny Outkast.Ms.Parks has gotten her
due several times over by this stage of
the game.There are millions & millions
of Americans out there who quietly have
chosen to live their lives in a state of
color blindness,acceptance & tolerance.
People who appreciate and enjoy diverse
cultural influence(s)and each other,
are intelligent enough to do so consciously,
yet humble enough not to seek out credit
for doing so.Ms.Parks could learn a lesson
from them.

Louis, Walter Williams, a quisling oft-cited by reactionary white folks, would like to eliminate everything provided by the government. In fact, he is in favor of the South seceding from the Union and forming the kind of government favored by neo-Confederates. In their ideal world, only property owning Christian white men would be allowed to vote. Why would an African-American support such views? Williams and his friend, J.J. Johnson, resigned from the race a couple years ago. They are actually crazy enough to believe that a bunch of racist white men -- the neo-Confederate movement -- have their best interest at heart. Here is a recent column, from, you guessed it, a far Right site, in which Williams pitches secession.

Oh, Gawd, another one of those 'that black bitch Rosa Parks still don't know her place' folks pipes up. And, some people tell me racism is over.

Interestingly, Barger is over on another thread arguing that David Koresh and Randy Weaver are heroic. That's amazing coming from someone trashing Rosa Parks. Put down the heroine and raise up the wackos. That's our Kenuckian.

Louis, Ms. Parks will get points in heaven for supporting charter schools. Getting a decent education will make a lot more difference to your success than what part of the bus you sat on to get there.

No Diva, I'm not "trashing" Rosa Parks. I acknowledge her original good contribution to the culture- while criticizing how she's not only let her acclaim go WAY to her head, but assumed a right of censorship that I find totally unacceptable.

Nor am I making Koresh or Weaver out to be HEROIC. Constitutional rights are not just for heroes. Religious freaks and anti-social types have the same right as anyone else not to be murdered by the government for no good reason. Again, please don't confuse being a VICTIM with being a HERO.

The only new twist is that your racist boss was eager to tell a total stranger (you) about his potentially illegal, and damaging racist hiring practices.

Actually, I wasn't a total stranger because it was my *old* boss, who told me about it as we were reminiscing about my one year on the job after I'd given notice.

You know, it's not like there aren't some reasonable arguments for discrimination against white men, AKA affirmative action.

AA doesn't discriminate against white men. Get over it.

You don't need to just make things up.

Yes, you've found me out. I'm a liar.

Now, what do your comments say about you? Hmmmmm.....

BTW, did you accept the job?

Of course. But I didn't know until after I'd given notice, as I mention above, that the deciding factor in my hiring had been my skin color and not my skills.

Oops. There I go again, telling stories.

"Yes, you've found me out. I'm a liar." And shameless backpedaler as well.

So, I guess this racist boss who wasn't stupid enough to tell you right away that you were hired for your whiteness, decided to wait a year until she was sure you could be trusted...that you were one of them... I thought MD's comment in post#44:

"Why, if one believed him, one would believe white people don't discuss racial discrimination among themselves as if there is nothing wrong with it. But, I know many of them do. Doing so is part of white privilege." ,

...was just more hopeless paranoid babble. But I guess she was right. You were just enjoying some of that "white privilege". Of course, you had given notice by then so what's a poor white girl to do? I know, you can support affirmative action policies. Screwing white men will absolve you of the guilt of that year of ill-gotten gain.

I know there is a semi-serious discussion going on here, but something has been bouncing around in the back of my brain and I just realized what it was. This earlier statement by MD:

"Why, if one believed him, one would believe white people don't discuss racial discrimination among themselves as if there is nothing wrong with it. But, I know many of them do. Doing so is part of white privilege."

Sounds like the unfunny, pseudo-insightful version of the old SNL skit in which Eddie Murphy passes as white to see what it is like. The one where the white people on the bus wait till the black passenger gets off before breaking out the music and drinks and the banker is just shoving money at Murphy.

How White People Behave, as brought to you by SNL and MD.

In fairness Chris, simple courtesy and politeness requires that we wait until the dark people leave the room before we conspire together on the best ways to continue keeping them down... Alright, then.

Now, I wouldn't say this if there were black folk around, but I have to say that Ted Kennedy is brilliant. I would never have thought of something so devious as making the Republicans the bad cops, setting the melanin people up to absolutely adore the Democrats and LOVE being held down on the pinko plantation. Genius.

Dan, you are one angry white man. I can see why. If you look around, the country and its power structures sure are run by a bunch of underqualified men and women of color [and us white girls, too], all the result of that anti-white-man crusade, AA. Why, I can't find a single white man in a powerful position ANYwhere.

I guess I need to lie and fabricate stories because there aren't any "real" stories of white girls like me getting the advantage by our skin color.

I think Rosa Parks is a heroine and she deserves to be. But there is considerable legend surrounding her that is not true. She WAS NOT some little woman carrying her bag of knitting who just decided one day she wasn't going to move. She was a political activist and part of an organization.

Well, the bottom line is Ms. Parks has earned her place in history and will not be forgotten. Years from now, after Al Barger is sent on to his torrid reward, no one will give him a passing thought. That seems fair to me. I think conservative white men are just plain jealous when people of color or women achieve more than they do. That is why Barger can applaud Randy Weaver and David Koresh while dissin' Ms. Parks. Never mind that those white men are first rate creeps, they deserve our attention, according to his ilk. And Ms. Parks, or Charles Drew or Andrew Young don't because they're the 'wrong' color and/or gender. That is so-o-o rational.

Well, I am female, mixed, and a hard worker.

I lost my job to a Bangladeshi who wasn't even an American citizen because my white boss who enjoyed throwing obscenities was scared I would usurp him.

How do I know this?

A few people at the company liked me and I got wind of what was going down two days before it happened. The lawyer of the company who happened to be a friend of mine showed me the email where my boss asked him to come up with a clause in my termination agreement that I would not "hack or intrude on the network". Mind you... I was not the first IT person they ever fired but I was the first that they wanted to put that clause in for.

Mind you, my boss screamed at me the week before because I showed him how to install terminal services to a workstation by mapping a drive and not having to walk into the server room with a floppy disk. For that, I got abuse.

Yeah, I can see how my female, non-whiteness helped.

I can give you a lot of antidote to corporate America from the eyes of someone who isn't white and isn't male. It's not so fair or hunky dory as people like to think. The thing is sometimes you just have to keep your mouth shut or lose your job.

It's easy to be on the other side and make judgments. I know for truth that if I were a man, I wouldn't have the same issues that I have because from a male that is expected. If I were also 100% white, and male I can't imagine what that must be like. I know that every little problem that I have personally had in the business world would have been a moot point.

Case in point:

I was the global project manger on a roll out we were doing. There was a problem with the software and the quality manager wanted me to authorize rolling out the client when anyway. Now this client would cause the computers to freeze and the only way to fix it was to do a rebuild. My Dutch administration was there when I showed him... (he ended up having to rebuild his machine as we tested it on him since I got sick of rebuilding mine). Urning a meeting with myself an Indian male and 5 white men, (remember, I am supposed to be the project head), I absolutely flat out said no, I would not approve the client for release.

I was told " Well I can see that you are very emotional about this issue so let me take it up with your boss". The Dutchman took my side "She is correct, I had it happen to me as well and I will not release it in Holland. Sorry... I already have too much work to do without rebuilding workstations."

And I remember the guy saying who wanted to take it over my head "Oh, in that case then when will we expect to have it ready?"

Do you have any idea how that feels? It feel really shitty. And this isn't the first company I have run into that mentality with.

Fairness is BULLSHIT.

Victoria, I added you to the blogroll at Mac-a-ro-nies yesterday. You also have a link there. I tried to email you but the server bounced the message back.

I don't want to give the impression that white people only discuss discrimination with other white people. Sometimes, they tell us about it. Since I'm the kind of person -- bright, articulate, not 'too' black or Indian looking -- some people try to make 'honorary white,' they sometimes tell me. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that just about any white person in the U.S. working in corporate or government workplaces is subjected to at least one anti-affirmative action tirade in a year. People are just not telling the truth when they deny it. Some folks don't like the perks of white privilege, but they know they will get in trouble if they disagree. That is the status quo and it must change.

Thank you for the link. =) I did the same in kind. =)

"some people try to make 'honorary white,"

I had to smile when I read that. Because I am mixed and peopel can't tell what I am (I guess the tattoos and the fact that I am not into "rap music" or "R&B" and I don't think "ebonics" is okay, that throws them way off)they do the same to me. Sometimes people think that I am latina. I'm a mongrel mutt and proud of it! I recently lost a friend of mine because she reveiled how much the hated MLK day and how much the thought Rush Limbaugh makes sense... She would often say to me before making statments about black people "I don't mean to offend you but..." and then say something really stupid.

Now, I'm mixed. If you ask me, I'll tell you "mixed" and I'll even get into a nasty fight about it ;), this doesn't mean that I get any less offended when someone says something stupid about black people or white people or whatever. I may have said this somewhere before but I have been in all white schools and in all black schools growing up. I have seen both sides of the fence so to speak. Racism is racisim... but becasue on occasion I can "pass" as they put it, I know that there is a distinct advantage to being a real, live, fully white person. There is still a problem and it needs to be addressed. The problem is that there are still socital,social, and institutional structures still in place that make true equality hard to achieve.

I have been on the receiving end of those sorts of conversations, and Spousal Unit, who's Irish, hears this sort of stuff all the time.

Victoria, I've blogrolled you at AF&O too. Cool blog you have.

Link on, sisters, link on.

I don't think you need to impugn the imortance of Rosa Parks in any way to question the appropriateness of her asserting the kind of control over the use of her name in a work of art - by black artists, by the way - as she has been allowed to do here.

In this case the disjunction is generational rather than racial - it is fascinating that she equates rap with disrepute.

Good insight, Eric.

I think that Outkast has the right to use her name in their songs, but I also think Parks has the right to challenge that use. Whether or not the courts agree with her challenge is, well, up to the courts. I don't think the first amendment is in any danger, here.

That said, I don't quite understand the author's diatribe against Parks. She "did so little" by having the balls to start the bus boycott, in a time when lynchings were still commonplace? She's "an ingrate" and "morally bankrupt" because she wants control over her name and image?

Why the outrage? It seems so ... overdone. Must be something to it ....

Natalie, you have a Christmas link at Mac-a-ro-nies.

One thing that strikes me in this conversation is that the conservative white males involved seem to think the people of color involved don't know white people. That is inaccurate.

I've been around mainly Anglos since elementary school. I was often the only nonwhite in the accelerated classes and even moreso after I got a scholarship to an elite private school in Philadelphia. College, grad school and law school mirrored those experiences. So has work, at newspapers and law firms. I've lived in New Hampshire, Iowa and Oregon -- each of which has minority populations of less than two percent. My longterm significant other and my ex-husband are white. (And, I have a killer crush on a certain blond blogger.)

I suspect the other people of color on the thread also know white people a lot better than most of them know us.

Thanks, MD!

Victoria, your last posting cracked me up; I call myself a Heinz-57 mutt when forced to label myself re: pigmentation. Most often, I call (and see) myself as being nothing more than human. I count myself as a member of no color-based group, but I am an enemy of (what I call) pigmentationism, whoever is dishing it out to others.

Re: Rosa Parks, I'm with Eric. She did great things and should be lauded for her accomplishments. I don't agree with her actions against OutKast or Barbershop, but she, like anyone, has the right to lodge a complaint. The complaints are appropriate if a court sides with her, which is unlikely (I hope).

In my extended family our generation has made drastic changes in our lineage. My dad is 100% Norwegian-American, my mother 50% Norwegian, 25% English, 25% German. We are about as Northern European WASP-American as you can get. But my first wife is a Western European mutt (more Norgy, German and English in there, but other stuff also), and Dawn is a wild blend of Eastern European-Jewish, and Western European-Appalachian, so my four kids are more Norgy than anything else, but a crazy Euro-blend after that.

My sister has Euro-mutts - of my four first cousins, two married Japanese women, and one an Iranian - they have seriously trans-cultural and trans-racial children. Only my two oldest have ANY Norwegian blood coming from the other parent: the Viking line is now the UN.

My longterm significant other, Jon, is of Norwegian extraction, Eric. I kid him about all the rats those ships bought to the Pacific Northwest-:).

MD, my father's father was from Norway and then became a sea captain on the West Coast and doubtless contributed his share of transplanted rats!

The wimpy British rats might have arrived here first, but in the U.S., the Norway rat rules!

Actually, they probably first came over with the Vikings to Greenland around 1000, so that beats the Redcoat Rat in chronology and testicularity

Happy New Year everyone. (with apologies for those who choose to recognize another type of calendar year and are offended by my insensitivity of course) I've been away for a few days, but I was curious about how this thread might've turned out. So in keeping with the logical progression of the thread, I would like to offer my NFL Wild Card Weekend football selections against the spread as a kind of New Years gift. Without going into detail, rest assured these picks are based on reliable and relevant statistical data and should "come in" for you around 55% of the time. 55% is "good" but the chance they don't come in is significant too so... don't bet the farm.
Baltimore Ravens +1,
Denver Broncos +3
the other 2 games don't have the same line variance of these two, making them less playable.

Also I'd like to address a comment from bhw: "Dan, you are one angry white man." Actually not. I've long ago transcended most negative emotions by adopting a Buddhist like spiritualness that emphasizes Karmic reward & retribution. The serenity is wonderful and I believe I've already been blessed with some Karmic rewards, so...life is good! From reading some posts in this thread, I would say that "anger" would be a more suitable diagnostic assesment of bhw and members of the BC rainbow coalition above. With the possible exception of MD, who has already been informally diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder on another blog by a trained and qualified Mental Health provider.

I would recommend my Karmic philosophy to them. One kind of selfish payoff they might enjoy is that the Karmic belief releases them from the resentment they have for all the bad white people who have transgressed against them, because they are assured that the wrongdoers will be appropriately punished.

One dingbat supporting another. The day Sam Vaknin, a philosophy student who runs a rip off web site where he pretends to be a doctor becomes "a trained and qualified Mental Health provider" I'll be the first to congratulate him. Ditto for Doofus Dan becoming a viable political candidate anywhere this side of Hades. (He got the ten percent of the vote available to anyone who signs up. A well-groomed dog has more potential.)

Eric - now I know where you got your name from. You don't happen to have red hair do you?

I can match your heritage. My wife is from Malaysia with Chinese, Indian, Portuguese, Spanish and Phillipino, from which I inherited 5 step-kids. I am half Irish and English (no wonder I'm so conflicted) so we are the ultimate blended family.

Pardon my ignorance but what does "testicularity" mean? Not even Roget's can help me on that one.

I think he's using it to mean like courage, bravado, or derring-do.

I would say that "anger" would be a more suitable diagnostic assesment of bhw

Do me a favor, Dan. Reread comment #40, my first on this thread, and show me where you see anger.

bhw, I have known enough 'Dans' to understand how his mind works. He arrived here expecting to impress people by saying things such as:

(1) There was no need for desegregation because black folks could have just moved North.

(2) Whenever a nonwhite or woman gets a position it is being taken from a white man because of the "zero sum game" of affirmative action.

(3) People of color should not identify with their history.

(4) Philosophy students are qualified to make medical diagnoses. (If they are white men, I gather, since according to Dan the rest of us aren't qualified to do anything).

Diva, you're just making up mean words to put in Dan's mouth that do not vaguely resemble anything that Dan actually says. You're getting well beyond anything that could be justified by saying that it is merely "opinion." No, when you make up really bad sounding things that he didn't say, you're just lying.

There is no factual basis at all for any of your four numbered statements on Dan's behalf. Sure, Dan would be an asshat if he were saying those things- but he's not. You're just making up lies. You know better than those things when you say them.

Also, saying that Dan does not REALLY wish you a happy New Year is just hateful and mean. It doesn't follow from ANYTHING AT ALL that Dan has said. Indeed, very little of anything Dan has ever written here has conveyed a hostile tone.

As to Dan's vote totals, note that he has run for the legislature as a candidate of the Libertarian Party. Ten percent is a pretty decent vote for a third party candidate anywhere in America- and even more so for a rural Midwestern district.

Further, you say: It is a conservative district, but not that conservative. You're pretending that you know something about the politics in rural Eastern Indiana. You most assuredly know nothing about the area, other than wildly clutching at stereotypes about rural midwesterners or some such.

Also, you insist on describing Dan as a conservative extremist, as if you don't understand or more likely simply refuse to recognize that Dan is libertarian rather than conservative. That he's a Libertarian Party candidate should give you a hint that he's a different kettle of fish from, say, Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson.

Besides which, what is the point of discussing Dan's electability? The question isn't whether Dan is electable, but whether his positions have MERIT in their own right. A staunch opponent of slavery would not have been electable in many areas at one point- but that does not at all imply that the abolitionists were wrong.

The comments about Dan's supposed electability seem to serve no other purpose than pure hateful personal insult. In fact however, I strongly suspect that Dan would be a MUCH more electable personality than Mac Diva unless it were absolutely a race driven election in an inner city black district. Other than that, Dan's a lot nicer and friendlier, and (if I may be blunt) a much more intellectually scrupulous individual.

Plus, what the hell would you do out, say, at a county fair kissing babies? You'd just end up ranting at all the little white babies that they're wicked racists who OWE YOU, and generally frightening decent people of all hues.

But hey, for someone who bitches about stereotypes, you've known a lot of "Dan"s. You obviously are not regarding him as an individual person with a personal viewpoint, but only as the bearer of your pre-ordained stereotypes.

A white guy who doesn't simply parrot all the supposed correct beliefs about racial political issues is automatically a WHITESUPREMICISTSLAVERBIGOTNEOCONFEDERATE- regardless of anything he might actually say or believe.

I've been on the wrong end of this with you. This kind of foolishness- making up hateful lies- is not a good way for you to start your New Year.

Perhaps you might consider a New Year's Resolution to be more honest in public debate.

Can't we start with a cleansing of the hyperbole and condescending tone first?

I wish I was making up Dan Precht's beliefs. All I've done is summarize them from his various comments. I am not exaggerating even an iota. And, it is not just the opinion of most of us on this thread. Thousands of people were given an opportunity to examine Dan's beliefs when he ran for office. They soundly rejected them in two-way race. The district is so conservative, Democrats can't compete there. The handful of people who voted for Dan were to the Right of the conservative Republican who won with 90 percent of the vote. We are talking about a region that used to be virtually run by the Ku Klux Klan and Dan isn't even acceptable there. (I may not be from the Midwest, but I listen and I read, so I know a thing or two about the history of various states and regions.)

Only an Al Barger would buy into what Dan is selling, which can be summarized as: 'I'm an effing fool, but I'm white and a man, so I ought to run the world -- or at least my district."

BTW, MD, I wasn't referring to you in my last comment, in case you were wondering.

...and after all this bickering and personal attacks, the credibility of Rosa Parks' actions are still in question. Can we just let her make a song called "Outkast"? Fitting title for what she seemed to once represent.

Diva, I want to be nice, but you're pushing it with such pure defiance of truth. Are you simply LYING or was it SCHIZOPHRENIC when you said, "I am not exaggerating even an iota"?

Dan has said nothing even vaguely like, for example, these words that you put into his mouth. (3) People of color should not identify with their history.

This is not even "exaggeration." It is pure fabrication on your part. You just flat MADE IT UP. Likewise for those other numbered points. He has said nothing even vaguely like the wicked, stupid stuff that you are attributing to him.

I find it nearly impossible to think that you really believe such yourself. It's just not there. If you really DO think that it is, then YOU have some kind of psychological issues to deal with, cause none of this wickedness is coming from Dan. Do you somehow think that you simply saying it makes something true, even though it has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in reality outside of your proclamations?

Also, I don't say this to be crappy, but you know jack squat about rural Indiana politics. You immediately start in on stuff about the Klan, which is a LONG dead issue. Their time of influence was primarily in the 1920s- long before any of us were born.

And you still can't seem to get your mind around the difference between being a conservative versus being absolutely a candidate of the Libertarian Party- which is a very different thing.

Now you might disagree with some of Dan's political analysis. That's all well and fine. You might even consider him a "fool." That's a pretty subjective judgement.

However, purely objectively, Dan has the virtue over you of honest dealing. He might or might not be insightful, but he doesn't just make up lies on people- and particularly mean, hateful ones at that. He doesn't purposely misrepresent what others say. He's a straight shooter.

You should try to be more like Dan.

Quest, I think we have dealt with Ms. Parks' legacy. Most of us believe she earned her status as a respected American patriot. Some Right Wingers, including Barger and Dan, are bothered by her uppityness and wish she would shut the Hell up. I believe most commenters realize that Ms. Parks being a public figure means she will most likely fail in her case against OutKast. One can respect her, but not believe her suit is a good idea. That is my position.

Barger, you are really acting up lately. I suspect you don't like the holiday season, or you would not be so prickly. The reason I will never agree with you about Dan Precht is that he is a reactionary wingnut. You tend to latch onto people like him, Randy Weaver and Walter Williams and get upset when folks point out they are extremists. The problem is not our analyses of their positions, which are correct, but that you are attracted to people way out on the Right Wing fringe in the first place. Debbie is a normal Right Winger in my opinion. You are something else.

The Wisdom of Dan Precht

Comment 7:

"One fact never mentioned in comparisons of Jim Crow and segregation to todays discriminatory Affirmative Action policies, is that the former was confined to a few Southern States. If you suffered from Jim Crow you could, with some discomfort and initiative, simply move away from it."

Comment 8:


"No Paul, there are no Country Clubs where blacks are not permitted to join."

Comment 10:

"Apparantly, Rosa, deservedly or not, has already recieved the "bitch slap". The following from a "Shatter the Glass Ceiling" biogrophy:"

"On August 30, 1994, the nation -- and especially Detroit -- was stunned to learn that the 81-year-old Parks had been assaulted in her home. Joseph Skipper, a young, unemployed African American, broke into Parks's home, hit her repeatedly, and stole $53 from her. The incident gained even further news coverage when Ramiah Mario Jefferson, the man who helped catch Skipper after the assault, was himself then arrested for allegedly driving the getaway car in an automatic bank teller machine heist months before."

(It is telling Dan celebrates an assault on a little old lady. Oops! Make that an uppity old colored woman.)



Comment 14:

"You ask "How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE." I would answer: about as many as there are minorities who gain from these privileges. It is more or less a zero sum game."

"I have a really high regard for ordinary blacks who have somehow managed to schuck their racial identity despite a liberal propaganda bombardment that encourages entitlement and grievance, through historical revision and demonization of whites."

Comment 32:

"For a more relevant affirmative action model, I would suggest you research a Dr. Patrick Chavis."

(Dan's response to the prominence of African-American neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson. Chavis, who switched from a successful gynecology practice to doing shoddy plastic surgery, lost his license, like hundreds of white physicians. There is no evidence he is representative of black doctors.)

Between MD and myself, there is only one "with deep contempt for people". And she's off her beam again.

For anyone not up on certain character reliability issues with regard to MD I'll address the comments that offend her, but only the ones not totally fabricated by her. Readers can scroll up to save space:

comment 7) This is true. There were also economically thriving segregated black communities during the time of Jim Crow laws. I don't see the problem saying this. Insensitivity perhaps?

comment 8) If Paul were talking about the game of golf and there were such a "Country Club" the place would be under a "Waco" style seige, right now.

comment 10) perhaps a bit of insensitivity. I posted in response to a spastic, sarcastic, rant by Victoria, (not that there is anything wrong with that style) in which she suggested, sarcastically, that Rosa be bitch slapped. By using this true to life event, I was suggesting to the hostile anti-white posters here at BC, that a bitch slap would more likely come from a fellow African American than from a white. Ironic I thought. No disrespect for Rosa Parks intended. I humbly bow to her dignity, prestige, and the couragous act that brought her to prominence.

comment 14) This is just a misunderstanding. MD apparently thinks that white racism is so bad that no African American anywhere stands a chance without affirmative action. She claims that the meritorious Dr. Ben Carson was the recipient of race based preferences. He wasn't. In fact, he advanced a proposal for a "compassionate affirmative action" model that was race neutral and based on socieo-economic status. It was published in the "Wall Street Journal" She also claims to know Dr. Carson personally. Maybe they'll have something to discuss...next time they meet.

The second part of comment 14) I'm expressing my admiration for non-whites who transcend their racial conciousness, as whites are expected to, and live with me as an equal. Kind of like Martin Luther King's vision. Anything wrong with that?

Comment 32) Dr Patrick Chavis IS a relevant model for raced based preferences in college admissions. He was a less qualified black applicant who was advanced ahead of Alan Bakke in the original landmark affirmative action case. His incompetence was Horrific. He of course, wasn't representative of black doctors.

Having dispensed with the above clarifications, I'll address you directly Mac Diva. As long as this is an open forum, I will say what I want, when I want, and to whom I want, and you will live with that. Your ugly disposition and labeling me a racist is, to me, like water off a ducks' back. It is a graceless way of admitting you've lost an argument. I'm not sure what you are up to by searching in to my background. You won't find anything. But I go on record now saying it feels akin to stalking. I would prefer you confine your reactions to my posts in this forum.

Good, Diva, now you are at least arguing on the basis of quoting things that Dan has actually said. That's a start. Thank you.

However, your interpretations are totally askew based on the things you're quoting. Nothing here indicates Dan showing "contempt" for people of color.

You threw several different things at the wall here, so let me just briefly address a couple.

Diva says that Dan says "People of color should not identify with their history." That involves careful twisting on the Diva's part to get this from, best I can tell, Dan's actual words offering specific respect to people of color who reject a liberal propaganda bombardment that encourages entitlement and grievance, through historical revision and demonization of whites.

Re-phrasing the point perhaps somewhat less diplomatically, Dan offers particular respect to black folks who go out and do something for themselves rather than sitting around making excuses and blaming whitey for their failures.

I would suggest (and I predict Dan would agree) that black folks would do better to emphasize the many positive achievements of their ancestors as an inspiration for their own aspirations rather than dwelling on their victimization and looking for every little thing that could conceivably be taken as an affront and an excuse.

As to Rosa Parks being "bitch slapped": Dan was quoting back someone else's phrase in the process of suggesting, as I would take it, that the violence Ms. Parks had to fear was not (contrary to your suggestion) Klansmen, but punk thugs in her own neighborhood. Perhaps that was poorly stated on his part, as it invited your careful misinterpretation, but was not in any way "celebrating" an attack on an old woman.

Finally, Dan said "You ask "How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE." I would answer: about as many as there are minorities who gain from these privileges. It is more or less a zero sum game."

From this, you managed to get (2) Whenever a nonwhite or woman gets a position it is being taken from a white man because of the "zero sum game" of affirmative action.

Come on, now. You're smarter than that. I know you did not just accidentally slip from Dan's claim about jobs gotten through affirmative action versus your version of Dan saying that ANY job a black man got was taken away from a white man.

In fact, Dan is right- and this really isn't even a matter of opinion, but fact. Affirmative action means giving some kind of racial preference to some group. Any extra job gotten that way was taken away from the non-preferred group.

All of which would be as opposed to simply having a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race- which hardly anyone would object to. I would object, as I have a quixotic belief in private property and freedom of association, but that's a whole nother discussion.

If just going by test scores would show up with, say, 5% minority enrollment at Harvard, but they have a 10% reserve for minority applicants, then 5% of the class is minority students taking those seats from more highly qualified whites, Jews or Asians. That's facts.

Now, you might reasonably argue that this would still be appropriate for x, y and z reasons, but that does not change the fact that affirmative action involves giving racial preferences. Giving racial preference is exactly the whole point of affirmative action. If someone is given a PREFERENCE based on race, then they are being given preference over someone. Who?

As for my part, I do not particularly object to being called an "extremist." As my hero Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Being supposedly "extreme" does not mean that I'm wrong.

Again, however, don't be lumping in Randy Weaver. I don't really know that much about his social views, nor do I care. I don't particularly support or not support anything you may think he believes in. He might be a mean, hateful SOB that I wouldn't want to be around. That's entirely possible.

All I'm saying is that he got screwed. He may be a jackass, but that does not justify conjuring up some petty entrapment as an excuse to go kill him or his family when they were minding their own business. That's true even though Weaver did not act in the smartest or most rational manner.

Dan and I both are trying to give you respect, as is evidenced by the time we both spending considering and responding to your specific arguments and viewpoints.

I criticize you with love, Diva. You would be happier and healthier if you'd try to respond to the loving intentions expressed in our careful attention rather than attacking some stock nightmare stereotypes from your own tunnel vision and insisting on attaching our names to them.

Finally, Dan- don't be too rough on the Diva. You've had to reject and deflect her repeated publicly expressed interest in your penis. Have some sensitivity to her understandable feelings of rejection.

Now class, let's all join hands and sing a chorus of "It's a Small Frickin' World After All."

At Blogcritics you know the debate is over when ...

1) someone labels, without proof, the opposition a racist
2) inquiring penis references are made
3) the "Stalker" card is played
4) you disagree with some folks and you happen to be male, white, intelligent and believed to be Republican (even if you aren't!)
5) someone dismisses your opinion based on your website stats
6) Ask Al Barger to name some favorite Sabbath tunes or label him a neo-confederate
7) take a stab at listing the top 100 rock guitarists
8) challenge the website color scheme during a holiday
9) attempt to comprehend the slang-ridden commentary in the Ja Rule vs 50 cent thread
10) to be continued ...

Happy New Year to Blogcritics optimists and pessimists!

I was willing to let the thread end earlier, but Dan felt compelled to come back and wish us a phony Happy New Year. That is sacrilege. I could not, in good faith, let it pass.

I do find myself looking at the Ja Rule and King Tone threads, TDavid. Just gazing at the remar