Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Neo-racism a Growing Trend

Neo-racism a Growing Trend

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

We would be blind not to see the early indications of a troubling trend that  may soon bring shame to America. We have seen that  Republican conservatives seek to bring pressure against the Democratic President, not by discussion of ideas, policies, and presidential actions, but rather by reminding the voting public of President Obama's  ethnicity.

Now we see within the extremist right wing of the "Tea Party" movement, blatant and ongoing racism.  Rand Paul, Libertarian and Republican,  would allow businesses to discriminate against groups of their choice. In effect, consider a crowd of young people, let’s say college students. The students approach a tavern, a bar, perhaps a restaurant, seeking admission. Rand Paul would advocate the bar owner's privilege to usher in the white students, saying to the blacks among the group, “I’m sorry!  Whites only!” Rand Paul is the Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky.

In a similar vein, Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express, wrote about the  mosque and Islamic cultural center proposed near the site of the 9/11 attacks. In his words, "The monument would consist of a mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god”. Williams, a frequent commenter at CNN news, apparently not only considers all Muslims terrorist, but feels no constraint in insulting Islam with the phrase, "monkey god." This is intolerable.

In Arizona, by virtue of law, an effort is being made to allow police officers  unconstitutional authority to  go beyond accepted limits in questioning those whom they suspect of being non-documented citizens. The politicians invoke the issue of crime and violence. But there are those that dispute those claims.

One of the more offensive trends we see coming from the extremist right relates to the treatment of Blacks in American society. For all of their lives, the lives of their parents, their grandparents, the blacks have been victims of unfair, unjust abuse; they are insulted, their parents insulted, their grandparents insulted.  Can we blame them for  faults that a small margin of the Negro population condone? 

I sometimes illustrate my remarks  with the story of a little black baby riding in the rear-facing seat of a shopping cart, at the market, in the checkout line. The innocent baby smiles at a white couple waiting behind her mother. The white man sneers, looking for his wife's approval. He extends his middle figure, he says, “Hurry up, N****!”

With some exceptions, blacks, in keeping with the inspired wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, have shown utter patience in response to their situation. If we, non-Negroes, like them, could ignore unfair behavior, with a firm belief in a fair and just God, we would be stronger for it. Would we be able to rise above insults to our parents, our grandparents, our children?

Many of the Tea Party movement and the new right are, like most of us, religious people. The Christian New Testament tells of a man, the “Son of God," who, with his good friends, walked the shores of Galilee, and preached to the crowds. We ask ourselves, what was this man whom we so revere saying to the assembled people? We have an answer! In all the New Testament, there are few quotations of what Jesus said in his preaching; but we do have the Beatitudes; among them, the Eighth Beatitude, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice' sake, for they will be satisfied.”  What could be more unjust than to discriminate against a person based on the circumstances of his birth? Did any Negro have a choice as to his race? It is truly a human trait to be appalled by injustice.

As to prejudice toward those who practice Islamic teaching; not all Muslims are terrorists. Many believe in peace and order. While the buildings at ground zero are a serious matter, a highly emotional matter, would a rational man, a thinking man, go the extra steps to insult the focal point of Islamic worship? This is not only morally wrong, but inflammatory — potentially leading to bloodshed.

Is this new racism merely a political ploy? Or does it reflect an attitude among frustrated Americans?  In either case, it is unhealthy, abhorrent, and should  be weeded out of the new culture.

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • KenH

    I don’t really think Rand Paul would sponsor any legislation to end long standing civil liberities.

    I think the point is this: it’s a sad state of affairs that we could not come together and accomplish as a civil society what the federal government had to do with the civil rights acts. It was our responsibility to do the right and morale thing and we failed, leaving the door open to President Johnson and federal intervention.

  • spinnikerca

    Rand Paul would NOT let private businesses discriminate, he was just talking about the perils of governmental interference in private business. He also said he’d have voted for the Civil Rights Act had he been a Senator at the time, because the government involvement through Jim Crow laws, etc. created such a pervasive segregation in the south there was no other way to address it without governmental intervention.

    Get your facts straight before calling people racist.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    We’re going down a slippery slope here, folks. First of all, I’m not defending Rand Paul but I really don’t see him as overtly racist. He’s a Libertarian purist. What he argues is government intrusion into business policies. On the surface he raises valid points when expressing HIS opinion from HIS point of view. I totally understand where he is coming from but disagree completely with the hard-line approach he took.

    It took 100 years after the Civil War for this country to craft a law affording equal rights to all regardless of race. Think about it for a minute — a century after the war. I’m with Rand Paul when it comes to government intrusion; however, I do expect government enforcement of a level playing field for all its constituents. That’s where Civil Rights come in. I expect our government to enforce the Civil Rights of the citizens.

    So, instead of pointing fingers, let’s get to the root of the problem. Whites aren’t the only racists. There are plenty of Blacks and Asians out there who are just as firm in their hatred. So, let’s air out our dirty laundry and find ways of bridging the divides. And the best way to allow it to happen is to stop imposing our brand of hate on our kids. Racism and hatred die when PARENTS perform their moral duties to their children and teach them that ALL God’s children are equal in God’s eyes.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Well said, Silas. However, as long as politicians, the media and others try as hard as they do to promote racism — by proclaiming it where it isn’t and by denying it where it is — it’s going to be very difficult for things to change for the better.

    I am not optimistic that there is or will ever be a solution; I hope I am wrong.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dr. Paul’s “pure” libertarianism carries with it many implications that can be shocking to those who never gave it that much thought before.

    People who have a generalized anger about government spending sometimes find it a rude awakening to realize that the only way to eliminate the deficit is to cut Social Security, Medicare, and the defense budget, and raise taxes. That’s not what they signed up for.

    As several of us have been discussing on another thread [Jet’s article about “translating” Tea Party code words], the racial interpretation of Paul’s philosophy may have been overblown. But there’s plenty more to be shocked by: food safety; pollution controls; workplace safety; the Americans with Disability Act; housing discrimination laws — would all be suspect under his gimlet eye.

    Libertarianism is pretty strong medicine. Not something for half-assed dilettantes to play around with. It’s good for this to beccome public knowledge. I’ll be happy to help. So will Rachel Maddow.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    See, handy, it all goes back to my “level playing field” mentality. Government doesn’t have to intrude in our lives, but it certainly has to set the ground rules of fair play and insure their respective enforcement. Pure Libertarians can’t grasp that we are no longer an agricultural country so widespread that we don’t require management. We’re populated. We’re crammed together in many areas. Those of us in the suburbs and cities understand that Libertarianism in its pure form cannot succeed. The problem is the back woods folks who don’t have the same worries as we think in starkly different terms. We haven’t discussed that aspect in the public debate. Just what drives a Progressive? What drives a Libertarian? We need to look at demographics and explain how people arrive at their respective points of view. It’s not always about religion or race.

  • MB

    We should allow businesses to discriminate. That way, I could punish inclusive and punish racist run businesses. As it stands now, I don’t know who I’m giving my money to.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    But you could if you shopped locally. I try my best to buy as much as I can from local businesses. I even avoid franchise operations as much as possible because the majority of the profits don’t stay in the community. If we were more discriminate in the way we conducted our business, we wouldn’t have to worry about businesses who discriminate.

    Government hasn’t been intrusive enough in the sense that it has been short on developing and enforcing regulations to provide a safe playground for us all. Libertarians could have their way to a point, so long as the government not allow businesses to get too big to fail. Progressives could have that universal health care if government had the guts to regulate the insurance industry. Conservatives would be able to keep taxes down because the insurers won’t be raping and pillaging the taxpayers wallet before it gets to the tax collector.

  • Cannonshop

    But you could if you shopped locally. I try my best to buy as much as I can from local businesses. I even avoid franchise operations as much as possible because the majority of the profits don’t stay in the community. If we were more discriminate in the way we conducted our business, we wouldn’t have to worry about businesses who discriminate.

    Agreed-however, by using local businesses, you’re denying the increasing centralization of power that is the core of modern “Progressive” ideals.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Awww.., Big Johnny. The open racism, at many many levels, will only grow stronger and stronger as your society and economy unravels. Enjoy!!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cool remark, Silas (#6). I find that Handy is being more reasonable of late, in the sense of being accommodating. Accommodating what? Everyday realities? #5 is very much on target, yet stops short of calling a spade a spade. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the spin one cares to put on it.

    Ruvy of course is right (except for the usual sarcasm). Bad times, just like old age, tend to bring the best or the worst in everyone. And thus far, what we have seen is the worst.

    There are ways of being sufficiently critical of the government’s encroachment into our lives without turning the clock fifty years back and loosing our heart and soul.

    There may be tactical political advantages to accrue from the present ugliness, such as a possible multi-party system Silas has been alluding to. Besides, it’s always better to be in touch with reality rather than to be denying it.

    Still, it is nothing to cheer about.

  • Arch Conservative

    Through abortion and social welfare programs that keep minorities down, the Democrats and liberals in this nation have done far more harm to minorities than Rand Paul or the GOP ever has.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re confusing the issue, Archie. Welfare has got nothing to do with Civil Rights – two different programs. Even Affirmative Action is not really part of the Civil Rights legislation (if I am not mistaken).

    So you can blame LBJ for the “Great Society” programs, but don’t blame him for championing the Civil Rights legislation.

    And leave abortion out of it. It’s a topic better fit for a Sunday sermon, whatever church you attend.

  • Mark

    There are ways of being sufficiently critical of the government’s encroachment into our lives without turning the clock fifty years back and loosing our heart and soul.

    …become a lobbyist

    …throw the occasional ‘day of rage’

    …explain to folks that they need management

    …vote the bastards out

    What are these ways of being ‘sufficiently critical’?

  • Doug Hunter

    Are the standards of blogcritics now this low? This article is a mix of outright lies, logical fallacies, and hypothetical bullshit and yet it somehow qualifies for a reasonable discussion?

    Let’s take it line by line for awhile.

    #1 Logical fallacy… you must be blind(if you don’t agree)

    #2 Outright lie… Republicans don’t discuss policies, etc., only the presidents ethnicity? Really? Source?

    #3 Questionable spin, nearing another outright lie… blatant racism at the teaparty? There are hordes of leftists who’d love to uncover some, in a movement of millions there are no doubt a few though. By that standard any organization could be called racist so the label SHOULD become meaningless. The KKK and neonazis are blatant, the teaparty is passive at best.

    #4, #5 The first legitimate, if onesided, point in the article. Advocating a freedom doesn’t automatically mean condoning the worst possible use of it, it means putting more onus back on the society to enforce the rules. Even if it were not technically illegal, hopefully the bar at issue would be highlighted in the news as racist and boycotted and picketed until it went out of business. Rand Paul would probably support that as well. On an interesting sidenote I’ve been rejected from an all black private club (damn it, it was the only place to buy booze after 2AM. My self worth is still intact)

    #6-#8 Non sequitor. Insulting someone’s imaginary figure, well perhaps their imaginary figure insulted us. The whole thing is a bit childish. I thought most of the left liked that kind of stuff though?

    #9 Outright lie (at this time)… Although what the constitution supposedly says is subject to change at any time, so the future could make this right. Also, undocumented ‘citizens’. Really, citizens?

    The rest is more of the same. If this is what passes for ‘debate’ anymore, it makes me wonder what I’m doing wasting my time here.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #14 –

    used as rhetorical device if you consider the rest of the sentence

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And BTW, Silas, check out this video concerning the corrupted usage of terms such as “libertarianism” in the US. Perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing these terms as loosely as you do.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Silas, et al –

    Racism and hatred die when PARENTS perform their moral duties to their children and teach them that ALL God’s children are equal in God’s eyes.

    Yes…and no. Any good parent knows that even the best parent’s influence only goes so far…and their influence is lessened even more by this Age of Information.

    Even more importantly, we should ask ourselves what a child thinks if his or her parents say ‘racism is bad’…yet the corner diner where his or her friends go only allows white folks. Yes, many kids would see this for what it is…but many kids would not – they would see this racism on some level as normal and acceptable.

    And for all those who think this doesn’t happen, I’ve seen this before. In Shaw, MS, in 1984 the doctor’s office still had separate entrances for ‘white’ and for ‘colored’. Sure, the signs were painted over a solid green…but paint doesn’t hide words chiseled an inch deep in marble so well. Nobody argued – he was the only doctor in town, after all.

    And then there was the ‘Key Club’ on the same street – in this 90% black town, no blacks dared go in there…except for the cook. The vast majority of my clientele (we ran a used clothing store) were black – but we didn’t dare say anything about the doctor’s office or the Key Club, for the owner of the property where we leased our store was a member of the latter.

    The power in the town was held by the whites (Google the Conservative Citizens Councils sometime), and the blacks had no recourse, no way out, no way to advance above their station. Sure, a few got out of town and went to college…but the vast majority stayed in this town where the main drag held two blatant examples of racism, one of which would make the national news today. Again, this was normal, as wrong as it was, twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

    The Republicans are bad enough, but the libertarians on BC are the ones who frustrate me no end because they do not see (or do see and ignore, or in some cases do see and happily accept) that the stand supported by Rand Paul enables the racists, just as a drunk is enabled by someone making alcohol readily available to him.

    That, people, is the crux of the matter. The white racists are flocking to the libertarian banner because the libertarians are enabling their racism i.e. “I disagree with your racism but I’ll defend to the death your right to run your company in a racist manner!” That, people is why white racists love the libertarians.

    The attitudes of the libertarians can be directly compared to the bartender who won’t stop serving the drunk more alcohol. The bartender might tell the drunk that alcoholism is bad, that it might destroy the drunk’s life and the lives of others…but he won’t stop serving alcohol to the drunk.

    So it goes with the libertarians who share Rand Paul’s view – they say they’re not racist (though this is somewhat debatable concerning Paul), but they’re enabling the racists. Their political view would enable situations precisely like the one I described in Shaw, Mississippi.

    Who’s worse? The avowed drunk who won’t stop drinking? Or the bartender who – even though he knows the eventual result of giving too much alcohol – won’t stop serving him no matter what?

    Who’s worse? The avowed racist who does what racists do? Or the Rand Paul libertarian who – even though he knows the eventual result of legalized racism by private companies – won’t support laws against racism by private companies no matter what?

    The racist situation I described in Shaw, Mississippi, was in 1984 – twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Those signs and the Key Club are gone now (I checked when I visited last year). Do we really want to go back to the days when these were normal and accepted?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Glenn,

    I think you would be more effective if you were to abandon the homily, preaching tone. You can do better than Ruvy, I’m certain of that.

    What I really find most distracting is the form of address – Silas et al.

    What sort of communication is this supposed to be? Who is supposed to be included and who not? So excuse me if I tend to disregard such addresses.

  • Clavos

    Again with the anecdotal evidence.

    The state of Mississippi ranks either at the actual bottom or in the bottom 10% of US states in almost every important measure. It is hardly representative of areas like Manhattan, Boston, Seattle, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Chicago or even Miami or East LA, let alone the rest of the country — thankfully.

  • Cannonshop

    Unfortunately, Glenn’s never been able to leave that place-even when he’s changed geographic locations-all of america is Mississippi to Glenn…(except maybe parts of Berkeley or D.C.).
    It’s very sad.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    He’d better not say that of Berkeley!

  • irene wagner

    Glenn, what you say about enablement is true, sadly; however, libertarians who continue to defend the right of a business owner to post a sign that says “We reserve the right to deny service to anybody” is ALSO enabling the little black baby in the shopping cart (story at the end of John Lake’s first page) to post a sign like that in HER convenience store when she grows up.

    She’d have the authority to throw the guy’s sorry butt out the door if she saw him abusing another customer like that.

  • doug m

    Who’s worse, misguided bleeding hearts who support racists by unknowingly doing business with them or those who want to know who the racists are so they don’t?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    what has a “bleeding heart,” Doug, got to do with supporting or not supporting racism? It’s a matter of human decency, ain’t it so?

    Can’t you make your point, whatever it is, without dragging politics into it?

  • doug m

    Because the bleeding hearts’ knee-jerk reaction to do what feels right blinds them from seeing the big picture. I’d rather see a racist put out of business. You apparently have no problem putting money in his pocket.

    Not sure how you keep politics out of discussing the actions of the US federal government. Sounds like you haven’t thought the issue through.

  • John Wilson

    If ‘libertarianism’ is justification for Rand Paul to empower racists, then ‘libertarianism’ must be abandoned.

  • http://www.newdeal20.org/ Bryce

    Whether or not the Tea Party is using racism as a political ploy, I think your second question is absolutely right on: “Or does it reflect an attitude among frustrated Americans?” The Tea Party is a group of very frustrated people–and they turn to the ideas of Rand Paul because they are comforting. But that’s really dangerous. Wallace Turbeville has a great piece on Paul Rand & the Tea Party

  • doug m

    Free speech empowers racists. Should that be abadoned as well?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Your #24 is a stand alone, Doug. If you want to couch it in terms of governmental action, then do so, but don’t fault me for taking it at face value. So yes, I took your comment outside of your intended though unexpressed political context simply because you allowed me to.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “The Tea Party is a group of very frustrated people–and they turn to the ideas of Rand Paul because they are comforting.”

    Good point, Bryce.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Here is a sign, allegedly posted in a restaurant, of which I approve mainly because it often reflects reality:

    We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I would like to add, this nation is in the grip of moral (not just economic) crisis. And people in this condition do strange things.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    ‘mainly because it often reflects reality,” meaning?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Re #35 — meaning that some restaurants seem to serve refuse.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Irene Wagner

    As in garbage-food to people, rather than food to garbage-people. You have to make that clear, also.

    So what would you think of the sign correctly worded, Dan (Miller)? In #23 I was trying to show that the same sign that could victimize a black in a bigot’s business, and empower a black if he posted it in his own business.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos and C-shop –

    What you’re both forgetting is that the example I provided involves HUMAN BEINGS. The same psychological factors come into play regardless of location…the effect would simply be exaggerated in ANY small town, whether in MS or in ID or in AZ or in AK or in FL or in anyplace else in America.

    Furthermore, both of you are forgetting that – as Irene pointed out – to legalize such racism would be to perpetuate and magnify it. If someone punched you in the face, you’d want to punch him back. If someone denied you entry because of your color, you’d want to repay those of that color in kind, too. Maybe not you two personally, but I hope that both of you are aware enough to know that this would certainly apply to most of the population.

    Rand Paul-stle Libertarian philosophy would work in small towns of homogenous populations…and that’s about it. In large and/or multicultural towns, it’s a recipe for tragedy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Gotcha!

    Interesting how you happen to read (any message) to validate your expectations.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Interesting point, Irene. But how would such a sign, properly worded, empower anybody?

    As a side question, do you consider such a sign (properly worded of course, not Dan’s version of it) objectionable?

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Doug Hunter: #3 Questionable spin, nearing another outright lie… blatant racism at the teaparty?

    Hold on there one minute. I never said that the Tea Party was racist in nature. I do understand the opposing points of view because I have taken the time to examine HOW they arrived at their points of view. Some in the TP are racist. The same can be said for any group. Racism isn’t only Caucasian vs, Negro. That’s where we have to begin.

    Doug Hunter: #6-#8 Non sequitor. Insulting someone’s imaginary figure, well perhaps their imaginary figure insulted us. The whole thing is a bit childish. I thought most of the left liked that kind of stuff though?

    To insure a level playing field is childish? Or does insuring the same perpetuate the imbalance in our society. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve taken the adult approach. We’ve got to stop relying on imaginary figures and start dealing with reality. I don’t see what’s wrong with encouraging a robust debate which includes listening to opposing points of view and determining why they are so. That’s one word we don’t seem to rely on these days – WHY?

    Cannonshop: Agreed-however, by using local businesses, you’re denying the increasing centralization of power that is the core of modern “Progressive” ideals.

    Progressive ideals in their “pure” form are destined to fail as well. You bet your bippy I want to see a decentralization of economic power. That’s something which built this country. People forget that the original Tea Party was, at its core, about decentralizing the Crown’s power. Today corporations have taken the throne but rule in a monarchical fashion. Personally, I am completely insulted by the movement’s adoption of “Tea Party” because they really have very little in common with those Patriots who shed their blood for the sake of this nation. And those Patriots are not imaginary figures.

    Glenn Contrarian: The racist situation I described in Shaw, Mississippi, was in 1984 – twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Those signs and the Key Club are gone now (I checked when I visited last year). Do we really want to go back to the days when these were normal and accepted?

    Racism still thrives only more covert in how it is practiced. That’s the problem. I’d rather know where a person is coming from than to be blind sided by a racist who manipulates the system under the guise of “patriotism” or doing “God’s work”.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog –

    is #39 meant for me? If so, I’m not sure I get your meaning. Please elaborate.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No, Glenn. I was referring to Dan Miller’s comment.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’d rather know where a person is coming from than to be blind sided by a racist who manipulates the system under the guise of “patriotism” or doing “God’s work”.

    With this statement I entirely agree. The Tea Party movement and Rand Paul have done this country far greater service than they may have intended.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Irene, re #37,

    As in garbage-food to people, rather than food to garbage-people. You have to make that clear, also.

    I guess I felt that to assume an inability to read might be deemed offensive by some.

    Honest — I was trying to be funny, not contentious.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Silas –

    Racism still thrives only more covert in how it is practiced. That’s the problem. I’d rather know where a person is coming from than to be blind sided by a racist who manipulates the system under the guise of “patriotism” or doing “God’s work”.

    “The devil you know.” This sounds nice in theory, but in practice, if private individuals are allowed to commit racism, then think of the pressure that racists would put on others in grade school, in high school, in the workplace…and in church. As you can see since Obama’s election, the racists have come out of the woodwork. Do you think it a mere coincidence that death threats against President-elect Obama was 400% higher than against Bush, even after all that Bush had done wrong? If we legalize racism by private individuals, these people would pressure others at school, work, and church…and those of us who prefer to live a quiet life would feel that pressure – and many would not be able to resist it.

    I know this because I’ve seen it before, Silas. This libertarian ‘ideal’ – like the stated goal of communism – is a sheer fantasy which might work in small communities (like the one found at the end of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged), but stands precisely zero chance of working in large multicultural societies.

    Sadly, this libertarian ‘ideal’ is also eagerly supported by white supremacists and other racists who look forward to the day when they can legally ban those of color from the workplace. You think you’ve seen racial hatred and violence before…

    …but now that those of color (particularly the blacks) have had a taste of equality (though they are still not treated equally), they would not go gently into that good night.

    Again, do we really want to go down that road?

  • Irene Wagner

    If I had reason to believe the sign was put there to suggest to blacks that they eat somewhere else, I’d find another place to eat, too. There are, of course, many reasons a business owner should retain the right to post such a sign; one of them was explained in #23–a white and a black business owner can, to some extent, protect their customers from the rudeness and belligerence of others.

  • Irene Wagner

    I KNOW you were trying to be funny Dan (Miller). Take this humble LOL and let it resound in thine quarters for the remainder of this fine primary day. :)
    P.S. i was trying to be funny, too. :P

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Indeed, I do agree with the last part of your statement. The sign works because of “the dummy variable.” Improper conduct need not be specified, by posting a laundry list.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Glenn is offering a pragmatic argument rather than a moral one: “don’t go down this road because . . .” I wonder how effective it is.

    I didn’t realize Silas was condoning the practice of posting such signs. My impression was, he was saying it’s to the good when people speak their true mind.

    Perhaps PC is a quality we’ve greatly overvalued if the trade-off is keeping under wraps what many people actually feel and think.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    At last! Someone has found a clever solution. It is a timely idea and might be useful in multiple contexts.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    No, I don’t think we want to go down that road, Glenn. And it all goes back once again to that ideal of a level playing field. I’ve stated quite clearly that Libertarian values as well as Progressive cannot work in their purest forms simply by virtue of the multi-cultural society we have.

    Let’s look at this oil crisis in the Gulf for a moment. I think the MSM would have skewered G.W. Bush within 72 hours as opposed to what’s happening now. Barack Obama got a free ticket and that’s not fair. The President, regardless of the party or ideology, must be treated equitably. The mess we are in today may be “a” result of failed Bush policies. That doesn’t give the President the proverbial get out of jail free card. The Obama Administration should have been more proactive and less reliant on polls and pundits. That’s what happens when you allow the likes of Larry Somers and Rahm Emmanuel to run the Oval Office show.

    I had high expectations for this President. I thought that his intellectual approach was refreshing. I was fooled. It’s the same old machine politics once again in the White House. Barack Obama is capable of much better than he has given. We need a leader to guide us through this horrific storm. And it seems to me the President has failed yet another test of his leadership.

  • Irene Wagner

    It is good when people speak their mind, Rog.

    To be honest, as awful as racism is, if I were a brown or black person, I’d rather be turned away at the door by a sign that said “Whites Only” than to sit down, place my order with a commitment to pay, and THEN start to pick up on incivility and crappy service. No law in the world can eliminate a hateful attitude from resentful racist waitstaff.

    The suggestion in #51 would be of only limited benefit here; the food would have to be ordered take-out. *deadpan*

    The same goes for blacks being banned from working at a place like that. Seriously, Glenn? You’d want to be a black employed in the midst of a hornet’s nest of white supremacists?

    The major achievement of the Civil Rights movement was a social one, not a legal one. Those whites who were capable of being shamed into rejecting segregation as “normal” WERE shamed. Respect between whites and blacks grew as those who had been segregated got to know one another.

    I would contend that the persistently shameless racists represent not a growing trend, but a dying breed. Passing laws isn’t going to reduce their numbers. Well, nobody’s DIRECTLY called me a racist yet. I suppose I’ll quit while I’m ahead.

  • Clavos

    @#51:

    Only in Miami.

    Nobody would dare to do that in the USA, it’s too politically incorrect.

    ¡Que viva la Republica de Miami!

  • Mark

    We need a leader to guide us through this horrific storm.

    That’s what Leninists says, too. imo, leaders (and the idea of leadership, itself, perhaps) are the problem.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    No, the true lack of leadership is the problem. If Barack Obama came out and angrily lambasted lobbyists imagine the press. If the President came out and said he won’t listen to polls and it’s time for some serious work to get done, he’d get more respect. This President is a capable, intelligent man. He has an insight into the human American condition which is far different from the last 42 predecessors. He kept saying he “was the change we need”. The problem is he should have defined the “change” as a couple of pennies as opposed to the roll of quarters we were expecting.

    By the way. Notice I said “42”. Bill Clinton had the same finger on the pulse of that condition by his personal circumstances. But along the way he, too, let us down by selling out.

  • Dan

    “I sometimes illustrate my remarks with the story of a little black baby riding in the rear-facing seat of a shopping cart, at the market, in the checkout line. The innocent baby smiles at a white couple waiting behind her mother. The white man sneers, looking for his wife’s approval. He extends his middle figure, he says, “Hurry up, N****!””—John Lake

    This must be Johns lamest digression, in the series of his feeble articles that I’ve read. At least he keeps them relatively short.

    Rand Pauls’ point wasn’t to inspire phony and bizzare fantasies of whites being wicked in checkout counters. Rather, he was alluding to a major fundamental right stripped away by the Civil Rights Act—from whites mainly.

    It’s nearly stupid to even try to explain the concept of freedom of association to fundamentalist diversity worshipers since the underlying premise is the right of personal property, and they don’t much care about that either.

    Ironically, being stripped of fundamental Constitutional rights is something that early white race realists warned would be a tragic result of a pluralistic society.

    But to exam that is of course, racist.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Dan(Miller):

    Where you went wrong was in explaining your joke.

    Which was a cracker, BTW. :-)

  • Irene Wagner

    Well Dan, the first blacks to touch North American soil (as slaves) weren’t exactly gate-crashers. Their descendants’ experience in and “claim” to America is as valid as that of any “early white race realist.”

    If Rand Paul’s a racist, I’m done with supporting him, but I don’t think he is a racist. I can agree with his position on property rights and not be a racist, and so can you.

  • Irene Wagner

    I speak in #58 to Plain Vanilla White Dan, not Parenthetical Dan.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    You’re right in that my argument is pragmatic…but I strongly feel it is moral as well. How moral would it be for children to walk down the street every day and see signs on the businesses that say, “No blacks” “No Jews” “No whites”?

    If racism by private companies is legalized, then it becomes tacitly condoned by law…by the people of the United States of America. And even though those children may have been told by their parents that racism is wrong in all its forms, they will still see the signs, and they will still grow up to see that racism is normal and accepted by society.

    Can the prevention of this eventuality be considered a moral argument, that I don’t want my grandkids to grow up thinking racism is normal and accepted by society?

    Pragmatic? Yes. Moral? Absolutely.

    Remember, Rog – I’ve seen this before. I’ve lived this before. I don’t want to see it again.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    I’d like for you to address my argument in #60, please.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    I just learned a few minutes ago that the nephew I helped raise is going to be a father. So, I’m asked, “how does it feel to know you’re gonna be a ‘grandfather’?” My reply? “Depressed.” As much as I want to be thrilled, I worry. What is this child going to face in 21 years? What challenges will there be? Will there even be a United States by then? I understand that this is all a part of life. If anything, the conception of this child makes me all the more motivated to find a way to make a difference before I depart this planet.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Re 57 — Doc: I shall assume, graciously, that no racist anti-Georgia red neck connotation was intended by use of the slur “cracker” and attribute it to your lack of familiarity with the English language. After all, “And what should they know of England who only England know?”

    Yeah, I shouldn’t have tried to explain it. Let sleeping dogs lie — as long as they bark the truth.

    Dan(Miller)

    I shall now go have a glass of milk and a Graham (not the Reverend Billy) Cracker and try to calm my nerves over all of the vicious ad hominem comments and stuff. I may need a bit of Valium, if Marvin will join me. Oh! I am so depressed !!!!!!!! Maybe it would be best simply to go recline in a corner and rust.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    That’s a false argument. While logically speaking there should be no difference in between ‘cracker’ and ‘ni**er’, in reality there’s all the difference in the world. If a black man calls you or me ‘cracker’, neither you nor I would likely feel much (if any) insult. Whereas if you or I call a black man ‘ni**er’, he’ll feel a great deal of insult (I did that once back in the day. Once. (with a tip of the hat to Johnny Dangerously)).

    But what I’ve pointed out is a true statement – and why is that? Again, logically speaking, there should be no difference. But sociologically speaking, it makes all the difference in the world, since every black adult who doesn’t clearly remember the days of Jim Crow almost certainly does know black people who did, who DO personally remember the days of legal segregation, of illegal miscegenation, of lynching. There are black people living today whose grandparents who had been slaves!

    No black person in America is far removed from those days. As a result, reminders of slavery and Jim Crow loom large in their minds…and “ni**er” is one of those reminders. With the possible exceptions of the Native Americans, Jews, and other ethnic groups who have known great persecution, we whites have no comparable experience…and even the Jews and Native Americans were never in America’s history wholly seen as a class of slaves to be bought and sold at the market.

    That, Dan, is why, as illogical as many may claim, the word “ni**er” used by whites IS far more insulting to blacks than the word “cracker” when used by blacks towards whites.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    And one more thing – ask Ruvy how he would feel if a young German would call him any of several derogatory names the Nazis used to have for Jews. The insult he would feel would of course be much greater than you or I would feel about ‘cracker’, for he has known fellow Jews who lived through the holocaust, just as most elderly adult blacks today lived during the days of segregation and Jim Crow. You and I cannot know the depth of the hurt felt by the Jews, and you and I cannot know the depth of the hurt felt by the blacks.

    So instead of taking issue with the word ‘cracker’, I recommend that you just count yourself lucky that you and yours never had to live through what they and theirs did…and refraining from speaking a few certain insulting words in one’s everyday language is really a small price to pay in order to show them your respect for the hardship they’ve endured.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doc: I shall assume, graciously, that no racist anti-Georgia red neck connotation was intended by use of the slur “cracker”…

    Assumptions. Another thing, along with explaining jokes, you should do sparingly!

    I’m quite familiar with the lingo…

  • Heloise

    I have to agree with Doug. These are anecdotes hobbled together to make a statement about racism or neo racism? I don’t get it. People prefer their own kind. That’s human nature and in our DNA. That one group keeps resources away from another group just because they are the dreaded “other” is also human nature.

    Thus we have to make laws to pull us apart from our DNA which scripts for “separation of race.”

    I have two reaction when I see prejudice not racism (i.e., the definition being withholding resources by the dominant group) I shrug because it’s your mind and you do with it as you please. If a person of color or religion happens by on your watch then do like the dude did “give ‘em the finger!” I think we are all giving someone the finger and it ain’t always about race.

  • Irene Wagner

    Thanks for the invitation, Glenn. I’d like to see what Heloise says about my #52, because I was making assumptions about what it would be like to be black, being served by people who were legally required to serve me but resented doing it.

    “No Blacks” and “No Jews” signs are, at the very least, in very bad taste. But you can’t pull the “No Blacks” sign off a bigot’s forehead, Glenn, unless he wants to change.

    In #23, and in #36 (we’ll just pretend that first line isn’t there…) I made a practical and moral argument for the right of black AND white business owners to post “We reserve the right to refuse service” signs in their businesses. The right to “set the tone” on one’s private property is one I don’t want to see taken away from whites or blacks or anyone else.

    And with this, I will have to say goodbye for tonight. Scads o’ work to do.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    There’s a big difference between “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” and “no blacks or Jews allowed”. It was the latter that I’ve been addressing in depth in #64 and #65. We’ve all seen the signs “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”…but the connotation’s always been that ‘anyone’ referred to those who were rude, drunk, improperly dressed or undressed, et cetera. Furthermore, regardless of the ‘anyone’ in the sign, any business owner who refuses service to someone because of color or ethnicity or disablement or religion is likely in violation of federal law and public shame by the media.

    On the other hand, what I’ve been addressing all along is the Rand Paul libertarian claim that the federal government has no right, much less a duty, to tell any private business who they can and cannot serve…and when asked by Rachel Maddow eight times in a row if he felt that a private business should be able to refuse service based on color (a diner refusing to serve a meal to a black person was her example), Rand Paul refused to answer. He never once answered the question.

    So do you support Rand Paul’s viewpoint? Or do you support the Civil Rights Act? Because despite Rand Paul’s claim that he supports the Civil Rights Act, his apparent support for private businesses to be able to discriminate based on race, color, creed, ethnicity, and disablement (he included that, too, in the same interview) is directly counter to everything the Civil Rights Act stands for. Such are a blatant violation of the spirit of the CRA.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The major achievement of the Civil Rights movement was a social one, not a legal one. Those whites who were capable of being shamed into rejecting segregation as “normal” WERE shamed.

    Great point, Irene, to which I would want to add: those who thought nothing of it before, realized they were wrong. Ideas, especially good ideas, eventually gain acceptance among reasonable, well-intentioned persons.

    And BTW, you’re absolutely correct about your other point: many Blacks would rather face open hostility in the North, when people are more outspoken, then in the South where the people’s true attitudes are expressed in more tacit, “acceptable” ways.

    And the same point applies across the board; many, for example, prefer NY to California for the very same reasons (not just blacks but whites too).

  • Dan

    “Well Dan, the first blacks to touch North American soil (as slaves) weren’t exactly gate-crashers. Their descendants’ experience in and “claim” to America is as valid as that of any “early white race realist.””—Irene Wagner

    Interesting perception, but beside the point, which is that the evolution of the decision to allow descendents of slaves full participation in a country established by white men exclusively for white people was collectively made by only white people.

    It was never a unanimous decision. Whites who did not think it wise sometimes argued that a free market. self determinent meritocracy with small government, individual rights of property, free speech, and liberty were unique to whites. They reasoned that Africans had never adopted the same principles of society, or even any type of civilization that most whites would consider desirable. Thus, they reasoned that blacks, through no fault of their own, would be able to contribute to such a society in any meaningful way or be able to maintain the societal concepts that most whites found desirable.

    Fast forward. There is a huge dependent black underclass that appears more hopeless than ever. Meritocracy has been abandoned for affirmative action. Diversity is said to be such a “strength” that the interest of white individuals must be shoved aside for even illegal aliens. In fact, excessive whiteness itself has been demonized. NASCAR, classical music, Tea party political movements all have been branded racist, and are coerced to take steps to attract more minorities.

    I’d say that the whites who were originally against becoming a multicultural society were correct in their assumptions, but like I said, it is now considered racist to examine the wisdom of the choice made.


    If Rand Paul’s a racist, I’m done with supporting him, but I don’t think he is a racist. I can agree with his position on property rights and not be a racist, and so can you.”—Irene Wagner

    If people were able to simply self declare themselves moral and respectable, witches would never have been burned at the stake and demonization zealots like the southern poverty law center would be out of business.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    many Blacks would rather face open hostility in the North, when people are more outspoken, then in the South where the people’s true attitudes are expressed in more tacit, “acceptable” ways.

    I think if you’d ask the blacks, Roger, you’d find that they’d rather not to have to face it at all – and if America legalizes racism by private companies, then racism becomes the NORM, rather than the exception to the rule that it is now.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “you’d find that they’d rather not to have to face it at all . . .”

    This wasn’t in question, Glenn. Besides, I happen to think Irene raised some valid points concerning “institutionalized,” tacit racism.

  • Guest

    And why not? All white males are blames for all the problems of the brown people. We are the scapegoats so why not practice racism? We are already blamed for the sins of our fathers, since we will be labeled racists, regardless of our actions, there’s no need not to be a racist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    If you think “institutionalized” tacit racism is a problem now, just wait until racism is legalized for private companies. When racism is legalized for private companies, then racism becomes LEGAL and SOCIALLY ACCEPTED.

    How do we know this? At one time, blacks and Asians were not accepted in most jobs in the military. At one time, women were not accepted in the military. At one time, blacks had different schools, different diners, different areas of the bus, different water fountains. At one time, it was illegal to for white to marry black.

    But in each case, the LAW was changed…and as time went on, the attitudes of society as a whole changed.

    So if we change the LAW to allow such racism, such segregation once more, history shows that the attitude of society will change as well…right back to where it was before the Civil Rights Act.

    Is that really what you want?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Glenn,

    Why do you suppose I’m in favor of legalizing any kind of discrimination.

    I was only talking about the value of people being able to speak their mind (especially if the alternative is to keep their thoughts and feelings hidden).

    That was the import of Silas’ point, I believe, and my response was geared accordingly.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan #71 –

    I don’t consider it an insult to tell someone they’re ignorant, for ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. I DO consider it an insult to tell someone they’re stupid, for obvious reasons.

    That said, your post #71 is one of the most ignorant comments made in intelligent language that I’ve yet seen on BC.

    I spent at least a half hour pulling together the stats to show you just how wrong your assumptions are…and then my browser died on me. And then I realized something – the burden of proof of accusations is on the ACCUSER…and YOU, sir, are the accuser.

    PROVE your accusations made in the ‘fast forward’ paragraph. Do your OWN research to back up what you THINK is true. You’ll find a few stats, I’m sure…and when you post them, I’ll demolish them one-by-one.

    And you know what? You’ll probably do one of two things: (1) you won’t try at all, or (2) you’ll cough up a few stats off mostly right-wing sites which won’t be the proof that you hope for.

    But you won’t change your mind. Why? Because your comment makes it apparent to me that, like so many conservatives, you’re too deep into the “white victimhood” blather preached by George Wallace back in the 1960’s.

    I look forward to you showing your ‘proof’.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    If I misunderstood you, then I do apologize. You know where my mind and heart lay, and that I bear malice towards none. Sometimes I’m wrong, sometimes I’m stupidly wrong, and sometimes I get angry when I shouldn’t – but you must also know that racism is a hot-button issue to me since I’ve seen and lived more sides of the issue than most whites have. My ‘racism button’ is too easily pushed, I know – but I stand against all injustice, and racism is one of the worst (since unchecked racism led to slavery and Jim Crow in America, and to genocide in other countries).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Apologies aren’t necessary, Glenn. I would have thought, though, that you also know where I stand on such matters.

    Offtimes, if not always, my remarks are geared in a context and directed at a particular respondent with an idea of winning him or her to my side. Expressing ideas in a vacuum is less important to me, and I find it less fruitful, than winning people over. Anyhow, that’s what I think true communication ought to be.

  • Dan

    Glen, I would be pretty surprised if you were to mount any sort of challenge to my reasoned, reasearched, and logical views. Much less “demolish” them. Typically, you would rely on scurilous attacks of my character, erect strawmen, and elicit support from allied commenters, eventually boasting of a victory without actually refuting anything.

    But I don’t typically stand for that. I’ll point out each and every departure from good faith argument that you make, and in the end you’ll be frustrated.

    We could begin by my pointing out that you have not been specific about what it is you think I should show evidence for. That in and of itself displays a lack of forthrightness. You said it was in the “fast forward paragragph”. What is it? Do you deny the existence of a “huge black underclass”? Do you dispute that the Tea party movement has been demeaned as racist? Affirmative action policies aren’t discriminatory?

    Also the “burden of proof” is actually on you Glen. First to clarify what it is you dispute, and second to refute it. You are the one who made the “accusation” of ignorance.

    Judging from your initial hostility, I doubt a meaningful exchange is possible.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “If people were able to simply self declare themselves moral and respectable . . .”

    How do you mean that, Dan? How is such a move possible? It would appear to contradict the very idea of morality which, IMO, depends on subscribing to common if not universal standards. And in absence of that – in absence, that is, of the prohibition to call your own shots – it degenerates into self-justification.

  • Dan

    I think you’re on to it roger. Irene said that she could support Rand Pauls view on freedom of association with respect to private property without being a racist. although I agree with her, other people do not. So simply declaring yourself doesn’t always work when dealing with witch hunters.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s what I’m having a problem with.

    What exactly do you mean by, “so simply declaring yourself doesn’t always work when dealing with witch hunters”?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Declaring some unknown straw man a ‘witch hunter’ and declaring the wonderful, courageous and amazing Southern Poverty Law Center ‘demonization zealots’ is a variation on witch hunting in itself.

    Of course those words came from one of the single most obnoxious writers ever to comment on this site, one who always takes the ugliest, most provocative stand possible and dares you to hate him for it. [I do, I do.]

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Capital remark, Handy, perhaps one of your best.

    I still fail to understand, however, what it is that Dan is doing. Who and what is “the strawman”?

    Either I’m extremely naive or Dan is extremely devious.

  • Irene Wagner

    Dan and Roger, thanks for giving Glenn someone to talk to about until I had time to respond. Glenn, I’m not Rand Paul (and you’re not Rachel Maddow!) but I WILL answer for myself. People shouldn’t be told who they can and can’t allow on their private property. If a bigot wants to keep blacks out of his restaurant, that’s his business. To avoid infection of the youth of your church with my rankly pagan Trinitarian notions, the hiring staff has every right to refuse employment to me as a youth worker.

    Would many restaurants in Atlanta today in 2010 risk the loss of a portion of their enlightened white clientele by putting up, if they could, a “Whites Only” sign? I doubt it. But if they’re fool enough to do such a thing, its not (in my opinion) the federal government’s business to stop them.

    Glenn, the only thing I’d challenge you to reconsider is the idea you have that it was the LAW that changed people’s attitudes toward race.

    Glenn, it wasn’t that. It was the psychological impact of witnessing the bravery of those who marched with, and in many cases suffered with Dr. Martin Luther King. The laws compelling segregation were changed because a critical number of hearts were moved and changed by that witness. Nobody’s heart is moved and changed by a law.

  • Irene Wagner

    …and that’s exactly why I am against forcing a bigot to serve food to a black person…

    …many a slip between salad and lip on the journey from kitchen to table…

  • Clavos

    Nobody’s heart is moved and changed by a law.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Nobody’s heart is moved and changed by law”

    And that’s a true statement, sure.

    BUT what does history show? History SHOWS, people, that when racism is legalized – which is precisely what you’re advocating, Irene – then racism becomes more and more accepted by the people as a whole. Just ask Ruvy – sure, there was a great deal of prejudice against Jews before Hitler was born…but did you know that the Nazi party did not comprise a majority of the German people (or the Reichstag) when Hitler was made chancellor? But once he took power, he began passing laws, gradually at first, that took rights away from the Jews.

    As the 1930’s wore on, the laws grew worse…and so did the anti-Semitic rhetoric. And by the time the ‘Final Solution’ was decided upon, whole neighborhoods that used to welcome their Jewish neighbors with open arms gleefully pointed the Jews out to the Gestapo. Read Hitler’s Willing Executioners and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich…and you’ll see how a people who once largely accepted an ethnic group became their willing executioners.

    Would we go that far? Probably not…but not one of you have the experience I do. I don’t think any of you have any experience with post-Civil-Rights-Act segregation – but I do. It’s ugly. Real ugly. Imagine small-town America where the ONLY doctor in town decided he’d treat only whites (real racists wouldn’t give a damn about the Hippocratic Oath). We in Shaw, MS, weren’t quite so bad – at our town’s only doctor’s office we only had separate entrances for whites and coloreds…twenty years AFTER the Civil Rights Act.

    And that is PRECISELY what you’re advocating a return to.

    This ugliness wouldn’t happen overnight – it never does. It didn’t happen overnight in Germany, either.

    But YOU, Irene – think of your young children or grandchildren as they walk down the street. When they see signs saying, “No whites served here”, what would your grandchildren think? Would they think it no big deal? Or on some level would they assign the blame to the non-white races as a whole for such racism? Maybe they wouldn’t…but many children would. Any psychologist worth his salt would tell you the same.

    And your comment: …and that’s exactly why I am against forcing a bigot to serve food to a black person…

    That evinces the depth of your ignorance of the matter. Why? Because the more people of different races/ethnicities/religions/beliefs are ‘forced’ to interact, the more they become real and human to each other as a whole! In our military, there’s FAR less racism than in the civilian world – and why? Because we have no choice – we MUST work with each other, for our very LIVES depend upon it. In the military, there’s FAR more interracial marriage than in the civilian world – because we’ve been exposed to those other peoples, those other cultures, those other religions.

    But YOUR way would result in lessening that exposure to other peoples and cultures…and, as has ALWAYS been the case throughout ALL of human history, the lower the amount of interaction between different people, different cultures, different races, the greater the amount of suspicion, of assumption, of outright racism between those peoples, cultures, and races. Why do you think the pre-WWII Japanese assumed that everyone not from Japan were lesser beings? Because as a whole they had had almost ZERO interaction with foreigners over thousands of years of history. Even now, Japan’s still one of the most racist countries in the world – but it’s changing slowly, surely…because they’re being FORCED to interact with those of other races, other cultures.

    Again, you haven’t seen and lived post-CRA segregation. I have, and it’s ugly. And stupid. And while that may not be what you are personally advocating, that’s precisely where it would lead. I’ve been there AND done that and I know what the hell I’m talking about. You haven’t, and you don’t.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Are you drinking this “Legalize racism by private companies” grape Kool-Aid, too? Of all the conservatives on this site, I’d have thought you would have a real problem with that.

  • http://takeirorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I would like to add the following to Irene’s last comment. While it may be true that hearts are moved and changed by law, it’s also the case that once an unpopular idea gets a wider acceptance, if only through airing it, it will no longer seem as objectionable as it may have been: after a while, it may simply get to be viewed as the most natural thing on the face of the earth.

    And I believe the Civil Rights legislation brought about that kind of effect. The fact that it is being criticized today by some is more of an indication of the general frustration with the government, with the economic and moral crisis many people are facing, with groping for answers and not finding any, with a sense of desperation, etcetera etcetera. And politicians, Rand Paul among them, are merely feeding fuel to the fire.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    While it may be true that hearts are moved and changed by law, it’s also the case that once an unpopular idea gets a wider acceptance, if only through airing it, it will no longer seem as objectionable as it may have been: after a while, it may simply get to be viewed as the most natural thing on the face of the earth.

    You summarized my point better than I could – and now, apply that same principle to legalized racism by private companies…and where that would (not ‘could’) eventually lead. As the years go by, racism would once more become the norm, rather than the exception.

  • Clavos

    I think what Irene meant and I agree with, is that the government can legislate all it wants to, but it can’t FORCE people’s inner feelings to change, even if outwardly they seem to comply with the law. I firmly believe this to be the case, based on personal experience with a variety of people, both in the workplace and in other settings.

    Bottom line? I don’t think the society as a whole has made nearly as much progress in race relations (in either direction) as Glenn and Roger apparently do, I still hear the N word bandied about by significant numbers of whites when blacks are not present.

    And Glenn, there is still strong racial prejudice in Mexico, dating back 500 years, to the days of the Conquista. For proof, you have merely to look at Mexico’s demographics; you will see that the racial majority (those with brown skins) holds very little economic power and only marginally more political power — to the point that the last presidential election, which came closest in Mexico’s post-revolution history to electing a brown man, is still believed by the campesinos to have been rigged by the European whites, who control nearly everything of value in Mexico.

  • Clavos

    Irene, if I’ve misinterpreted your words, please forgive me, it wasn’t deliberate.

  • http://takeirorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The first part of the sentence was meant to be a negation, Glenn. I didn’t correct it because the context made that clear.

  • http://takeirorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But the main point still stands, Glenn – which is to say what originally may strike us as controversial ideas have to be air and acquire a certain life, as it were. And then, voila, they strike us as having been “natural” all along.

  • http://takeirorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course, Clavos, that society at large hasn’t made that kind of progress. I wasn’t arguing that it has. Still, the Civil Rights legislation had the right kind of effect on a great many.

    It became more or less the norm. So why should I worry about the fact that there are still bigots around. There always have been and there always will be.

  • John Bryans Fontaine

    Part of the problem is the Orwellian DoubleThink Revisionist Right-wing assertion that the ultimate Racist, Adolf Hitler, was on the political Left.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Bottom line? I don’t think the society as a whole has made nearly as much progress in race relations (in either direction) as Glenn and Roger apparently do, I still hear the N word bandied about by significant numbers of whites when blacks are not present.

    Oh yeah? Then compare the interracial marriage rates across America now as compared to back in the 1960’s (MS is one of the only places where it hasn’t improved a great deal)…and ask yourself exactly how a black guy got into the White House if we haven’t made a whole lot of progress….

    Yes, Clavos, we’ve made a great deal of progress – but we do still have a long way to go. What we must NOT do, however, is take a giant step backwards by legalizing racism by private companies.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Don’t worry, Glenn, it ain’t about to happen. Can you imagine overturning all the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws in the workplace. And on what basis can one make a legitimate distinction between a workplace and a place of business?

    Rand Paul is merely pissing in the wind, trying to pander to his constituents. There is no way it’s going to fly.

  • John Wilson

    doug m, #29 seems confused:
    “Free speech empowers racists. Should that be abadoned(sic) as well?”

    Free Speech is in the Bill of Rights, Libertarianism is merely a political party, and thus easily abandoned.

  • Irene Wagner

    It’s fine Clavos. You expressed exactly what I meant to say in the first line of your #93. As for Glenn,

    #61Irene – I’d like for you to address my argument in #60, please.

    #89 I’ve been there AND done that and I know what the hell I’m talking about. You haven’t, and you don’t.

    I’m finding this conversation a bit dizzying. Think I’ll take a break.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The talk about the Civil Rights Law is all hypothetical/theoretical, isn’t it? No one actually thinks the law will revert to 1963. Ever. Even if Rand Paul were president and his dad were the Attorney General, or vice versa.

    And even as strict a libertarian as Rand Paul has no qualms about the undoing of Jim Crow laws [and customs] that were not about ‘private business’ at all, but about the systematic repression of voting rights and other aspects of citizenship.

    Jim Crow was perpetrated primarily by state and local government — with the avid assent of much of the populace. And federal intervention was absolutely called for.

  • pablo

    A similar theme running throughout many of the comments here is that Rand Paul’s position encourages racism, and as far as I can tell that seems to be the crux of the matter. In fact this seems to be the only argument purported, and I find that rather amusing.

    Freedom promotes racism
    Freedom promtes love
    Freedom promotes hate

    Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? Because freedom promotes freedom. The freedom to hate, the freedom to love, the freedom to do unto others as you would have done unto you, freedom to be selfish, bigoted, and sexist.

    Indeed the very word for this phenomenon is called discrimination. In point of fact most if not all of us engage in discrimination every day, in our interactions with other people and our environment.

    Example: Let us suppose that I had a step dad that used to beat me up, that had a big nose. Later in life I developed a pre-conceived prejudice against people with big noses. Do I have the right to discriminate in both my personal and my business life against those that have big schnozis?

    We all know the answer to that, of course I can, both personally and ecomonically. If some huge nosed guy showed up to rent my house for instance, I would refuse him outright! I could even say publically why I had not decided to rent to the schnoz.

    Dr. Rand Paul instead of promoting racism is actually posing a question to the body politic. I might add he is only doing that by being red baited by the MSM on this issue, because thats about the only issue that they can come up with, a red herring.

    You and me, all of us engage in discrimination against others perhaps even on a daily basis. We do it all the time, we dont like long hair and beard, or the opposite.

    Unfortunately people such as the author of this article who think of themselves as being progressive and humane, are usually the first to attract tyranny.

    This topic can also get into the realm of hate speech, which is now outlawed in numerous parts of the western world. Another ill thought out, knee jerk reaction on the left. It is ok if I hate intolerance, or oppression, or tyranny, or despotism isnt it? Or is it?

    Once you ban hate, you will invariably ban hate to that which should be hated. Think about it.

    Sometimes hate has a reason, more often than not however it is irrational and bigoted.

    I do find however the smarmy smearing suggestion that Dr. Paul is a racit or even promoting racsism in any meaningful way repugnant on its face, and I fucking hate that!!

  • Irene Wagner

    Glenn, I bear no hard feelings toward you, I know how high tempers can flare when the topic of race is being discussed. OH BOY! do I EVER, as the product of the union of a)a throroughly color-blind Irish immigrant and b)the only adult from his family to relocate from Louisville, KY. He remained close to his family, and visits were frequent, but when the topic turned to race…fireworks! One of my earliest memories (very early 60’s) is one between my mother, in a deep brogue, chewing out her mother-in-law (at her OWN breakfast table, brave lady) for using the N word in the presence of her small daughter (me.)

    I grew up close enough to the attitudes you decry, and with a rather unique perspective on when a conversation on race has become too heated to be fruitful any longer.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Pablo,

    You’re coming across as a through-and-through libertarian. May as well dance to Dave Nalle’s tune.

    Nobody is talking about abolishing hate. People will be people, and they’ll do what their heart desires – some good, some bad, some indifferent. And we shan’t, nor can we, stop them.

    The issue is public conduct, conduct in public places.

    So here is my point: I don’t want to give people like Rand Paul an option to think they can override accepted standards of human behavior in public in the name of whatever ideology – even if it is an ideology that champions freedom as though some absolute kind of right to behave rudely and uncivilly, without any regard to the human community.

  • pablo

    103 – handyguy

    “And even as strict a libertarian as Rand Paul has no qualms about the undoing of Jim Crow laws [and customs] that were not about ‘private business’ at all, but about the systematic repression of voting rights and other aspects of citizenship”

    Your source for that Handguy? That sentence that you wrote, barring an actual quote from Dr. Paul is bigoted on its face.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Fer Pete’s sake, Paul [couldn’t resist], my comment was not intended as anti-Rand Paul.

    The good ophthalmologist himself, in the famous Rachel Maddow interview, said he supported 9 of 10 [or IX of X] ‘titles’ of the Civil Rights Act, as well as the Voting Rights Act.

    These were the parts that outlawed Jim Crow laws, which were using state power to oppress black people.

    I think you, I, Irene, Roger, Glenn, and possibly even Dan can agree on that one.

    It’s quite obnoxious [and thick headed] to pick a fight where none was intended.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What’s there not to disagree about? He had stated that much.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    To see my more pointed comments about the Rand brand of libertarianism, I refer you way back to comment #5 in this thread. I have made it a point not to call Paul racist, but that doesn’t mean his views aren’t extreme and even shocking.

  • pablo

    103 handguy

    It was a simple question. What are your sources for saying Rand is for overturnning Jim Crow laws for such things as literacy tests etc?

    You prefer not to answer and pretend like you did not say what you did Hanguy, a typical ploy by you.

  • Irene Wagner

    Nice alliteration, handyguy at the beginning of #108. Also in that comment:
    It’s quite obnoxious [and thick headed] to pick a fight where none was intended.

    Dizzying. Dizzying. DIZZYING!!!!
    From Glenn Contrarian’s #69 (I’m quoting him, because he heard the interview between Rachel Madow and Rand Paul, and I didn’t.
    …and when asked by Rachel Maddow eight times in a row if he felt that a private business should be able to refuse service based on color (a diner refusing to serve a meal to a black person was her example), Rand Paul refused to answer.

  • Irene Wagner

    Ah! Maybe Clavos and Pablo will watch my back. Til the next liturgical milestone. xoxox

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    As I said, Pablo, Paul said it himself in the Maddow interview and in statements afterward. He was making the distinction between a proper use of federal power [overturning repressive local laws] and an improper use [forcing private citizens to serve all patrons].

    Do you long for the days of Jim Crow and literacy tests? Do you want to bring them back? If not, what exactly is your point? Do you agree with Rand Paul or not?

    [I disagree with him, but I don’t think I’ve misrepresented his views.]

    And how is any of what I wrote a “ploy”?

    And why am I bothering to try to engage you anyway? It always ends badly.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Confusion reigns. It needn’t.

    Wikipedia conveniently summarizes the 10 parts of the Civil Rights Act. Dr. Paul told Rachel Maddow that he agreed with 9 out of 10, and if he had been around at the time would have liked to revise that one. He was referring to Title II. Rachel’s question to try to pin him down to a yes/no answer was all about Title II and Woolworth’s lunch counters.

    [I think Dr. Paul was perhaps being a bit disingenuous, since I bet he also objects to a few other parts. But his point was that it was OK with him to do away with government discrimination like voting laws. Note that Jim Crow laws required store and restaurant owners not to provide integrated service. I would hope Dr. Paul and Irene would agree that such laws are heinous and should rightly be abolished, even if by federal fiat.]

    Title I
    Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

    Title II
    Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private.”

    Title III
    Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.

    Title IV
    Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

    Title V
    Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

    Title VI
    Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funding. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency can lose its federal funding.

    Title VII
    prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage

    Title VIII
    Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

    Title IX
    Made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who could not get a fair trial in state courts.

    Title X
    Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

  • pablo

    Handguy

    I listened to the Maddow/Paul interview as well and Paul did not in any way infer that he was in favor of voting literacy tests or anything like that, he was specifically referring to Title 2, so you are disengenous at best, and outright smearing at worst, implying that Paul endorsed voting tests pal. And you still have not sourced it, so you obviously made it up.

    Title 2 is not Title 1. Furthermore as I said in my first post he was making a point, one which is lost on knee jerkers, that is that a person has a right to discriminate against another person and in point of fact we all do it all the time. This does not mean that I endorse racism, or he for that matter.

    Instead of actually taking a look at what he is saying, he has been branded a racist by the MSM and by YOU in comment 103 by linking Title 1 to Title 2, as Rand said himself it was Title 2 he was referring to, so where the hell did you get Title 1 in there pal? SMEAR thats how.

  • pablo

    Again I will say that we all discriminate daily, and aside from gender, race, or religion all forms of discrimination are for all intents legal. I dont have to rent a house to you, for literally a thousand different discriminatory reasons.

    To equate questioning a law as he did to racism is a stretch only the MSM would do, and by your comment in 103 Handguy, without sourcing is also a smear. You cannot show me where Dr. Paul renounced Title 1 and you know it. Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bathwater Handguy. Nice try. :)

  • pablo

    114 Handguy

    “As I said, Pablo, Paul said it himself in the Maddow interview and in statements afterward”

    If he said it himself, where is the quotes man? I am specifically referring to voting rights that you brought up in comment 103.

    You said:

    “And even as strict a libertarian as Rand Paul has no qualms about the undoing of Jim Crow laws [and customs] that were not about ‘private business’ at all, but about the systematic repression of voting rights and other aspects of citizenship.”

    Again, your source with quotes pal?

    Like I said Handguy…………..you aint got none pal.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “To equate questioning a law as he did to racism is a stretch only the MSM would do”

    well, and a number of Internet commentors

  • pablo

    On another note about the just of the article. Lake is basically saying the Rand Paul is encouraging racism by his belief in the freedom for a person do discriminate (something that all of us do everyday).

    By that same token having free speech encourages racism because it allows people to express their ignorance. The author has no idea what freedom really is, and I am quite sure he will never admit to discriminating against others in his daily life for a variety of reasons.

    I HATE the Ku Klux Klan, I hate racism, sexism and racism as well. I also happen to love freedom, obviously the author doesn’t.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Pablo: Re-read my comment. It says “Title II” = roman numeral Title Two. If Dr. Paul said he supported “9 out of 10″ of the titles, and we agree he opposed Title II [2], then he must support Title I, the voting rights provision.

    I’m not smearing anybody.

    I answered your question, more than adequately for any rational person. Which you apparently are not. This will be the last comment in which I acknowledge your existence. Your comments are bizarre, hostile, and not worth my time, or anyone’s.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Has anyone wondered if this whole race relations thing is getting overblown? Every time we have serious issues in our society which need airing out somehow if it ain’t the queers, it’s the races. And when the races don’t work it’s the immigrants. And when all else fails, we’ll flame it on the feminists. Back in the embryonic days of Steinhem, “femi-nazi” was a common term. Where was the self-righteous indignation then? Steinhem is still a feminist but no one would dare say “femi-nazi”.

    Dear God, what if a Mexican Transsexual Lesbian Feminist were to ascend to power in Arizona?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Again I will say that we all discriminate daily, and aside from gender, race, or religion all forms of discrimination are for all intents legal . . .”

    The silliest argument I’ve ever heard. As relating to differences between the good and the bad, the ugly and beautiful?

    Of course, but it’s precisely the “aside from” clause – discriminating against a class of people, not against a specimen of the class – which counts.

    Way to go, Pablo. You’ve excelled in the art of sophistry. But just like others on this site, your ideology stands in the way of common sense and had taken the better of you.

    In defense of unlimited freedom – as cockeyed a concept as I’ve ever heard – and your wrath against the government (in which respect we more or less agree), you’re throwing all caution to the wind and join the rest of the ideologues.

    Even Nalle has sense enough (thus far) to stay out of this debate, and he is more of a libertarian than you are. But no, you decide to outdo him. I didn’t believe I’d see the day.

  • Clavos

    @#90:

    Perhaps in the Rust Belt and a few “progressive” pockets like the PNW, Glenn, but not, as you’ve so eloquently pointed out in the past, in the south and also not in most of the rural areas of the country, including most of the southwest.

    And there is substantial prejudice against Latinos (especially Mexicans) all over the country, particularly in areas where there are large numbers of them.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    True enough. But why would removing the 10th element of the Civil Rights Act help the matters?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    78 – Glenn,

    You aren’t Italian by any chance?

    :-)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I don’t think the society as a whole has made nearly as much progress in race relations… as people often think.

    I agree.

  • pablo

    Roger,

    I never said that I agreed with Rand, and quite frankly I dont. I was simply pointing out the obvious in an assemblage of ignorance.

    Anyone that would get on the bandwagon such as the author of this article, or handjob, with the MSM’s feeble attempt at quelling the restlesss cows has already shown their cards Rog.

    This is really the issue, obviously Rand is not a racist, at least not overtly, but those neo-lefties as I like to call them, will eagerly smear what they perceive as to be their political opponent as quickly and as meanly as their right wing bretheen.

    I do still maintain the obvious, that is that we all discriminate, indeed it is one of the unique forms of freedom, and if one were to really examine it, you would find that we discriminate much more than meets the eye.

    Handguy obviously was trying to link Rand Paul with condoning Jim Crow laws, and particularly with voting rights. Rand said no such thing on the Maddow show, I watched it live.

    My form of libertarianism if you want to call it that, does allow for stop lights, drunk driving laws, and equal justice under the law Rog.

    Handguy did a smear job, and I just happened to point it out, perhaps not as politely as I could have, but hey, it wasw Handy I was addressing!

  • pablo

    oh yeah! I almost forgot :)

    9/11 was in inside job!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Pablo, forgive me then for jumping to conclusion. It’s just that so many lately have been willing to abandon the notion of human decency for the sake of scoring a political point.

    I just find it unconscionable and I’m sure glad you’re not among their rank.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I said I wouldn’t say any more, but one more clarification: I was not saying that Rand Paul was in favor of Jim Crow laws. I was saying exactly the opposite. I said it rather clearly at that. You just weren’t reading what I was writing.

    And no one, Rand Paul included, is talking about changing the law back. It was a hypothetical/philosophical/theoretical argument only. So please treat it that way.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “It was a hypothetical/philosophical/theoretical argument only.”

    I agree. Rather odd thing for a politician to do.

  • Irene Wagner

    Handyguy – every day is a liturgical milestone, I’ve determined.

    Re: your #115: Note that Jim Crow laws required store and restaurant owners not to provide integrated service. I would hope Dr. Paul and Irene would agree that such laws are heinous and should rightly be abolished, even if by federal fiat.

    Handyguy, the few posts I’ve made on this thread have not been wordy. You didn’t have to sift through too much verbiage to find, in #86 People shouldn’t be told who they can and can’t allow on their private property.

    Why would you have expressed any doubt, after I’d made that comment, that I’d have an objection to the repeal of the Jim Crow laws?

    Sometimes I get the feeling, Handyguy, that you just plain flat-out hate me.

  • Irene Wagner

    Cindy — just watch how an Irishwoman can “out-EMO” an Italian any day of the week. ;)

  • Irene Wagner

    I forgot one of the negatives:

    “…mmm…why would you have expressed any doubt, after I’d made that comment, that I’d not have an objection to the repeal of the Jim Crow laws.”

    ….clarifying, by having two negatives make a positive:

    “Why would you have had any doubt, after I’d made that comment, that I’d approve of the repeal of the Jim Crow laws?”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Private property?

    Aren’t you fudging somewhat, Irene, when the property is licensed as a place of business?

    We’re not exactly talking here about someone’s home, do we?

    And you know I don’t hate you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos #124 –

    And you’d agree with legalizing overt racism by private companies?

    If you read my plethora of posts in this topic, I really think that you’re broad-minded enough that you’d agree that legalized racism by private companies is a very, very bad idea. As I told Irene, I’ve lived it. I’ve been there and done that, and it’s ugly. Real ugly.

    But as Roger pointed out, chances of such a lunatic law being passed is next to nil. As for myself, I just want to eliminate the “next to” portion of the previous sentence.

  • Irene Wagner

    And yet if your lack of hate were the kind that could carry me through the darkest storm, Roger, you wouldn’t be bringing up that distinction as if it were a difference.

  • Irene Wagner

    A little heavy on the EMO, sorry, ROger.
    Yes Glenn, you have told me. ANd it was ugly, real ugly.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wouldn’t have brought it up, Irene, if I thought it would disturb you.

  • Irene Wagner

    …laughing….don’t worry about it ROger.
    But it’s still irrelevant.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene and Cindy –

    My mother’s side hails from the Maddens of County Cork. My dad’s…I really don’t know. I never met him after I was two, and I know very little of his family. But I do know his ashes are fish food just outside Hong Kong harbor.

    Also, I hail from (here goes the spiel again – my apologies to those who’ve read it sixteen times) the very deepest of the Deep South, the MS Delta. Less than five miles from where my house is there is a small Baptist church and a cemetery that holds my ancestors from back before the War – the Civil War. As for myself, I’ll be the first in my direct line since then buried outside that cemetery.

    A mile or two on the other side of that cemetery was the house of U.S. Sen. James O. Eastland, who was twice president pro tempore. My grandmother used to sell moonshine for him, and he once offered to send me to the Naval Academy. I turned down his offer. He was also the most powerful racist in America for a generation.

    I went to a school that was all-white (in 70%+ black Indianola), and saw FAR more racism in that school than I did the next year when I attended a public school where out of 480 students, maybe 20 were white. That was the year ‘Roots’ came out. My family was racist, but not rabidly so – by local standards, we were even somewhat liberal…but we were still easily to the right of Nixon and Reagan. The all-white school, by the way, was one of the more lasting results of Sen. Eastland’s efforts to perpetuate a form of segregation. AFAIK, the school has had only ONE black student since the 1960’s (during the mid 80’s).

    I could go on for hours about my experiences, my journey out of racism (you can read about it in my article here (Cindy’s read it already)), but I can safely say I know more about racism, and from more angles, than most white folk. I know it so well I can almost smell it…and it stinks like death itself.

    If my comments and posts seem over-the-top, that’s certainly not my intention, for zealotry is not normally found in a sane, rational mind. My goal is to try to stop the madness – for that’s what racism is – and to help others heal, and perhaps know themselves a little better than they did before. And maybe, just maybe find a little forgiveness for the sins I committed in my past. I would that others would learn from my mistakes (and from all the grand sweep of human history) rather than having to learn from their own mistakes.

  • Clavos

    And you’d agree with legalizing overt racism by private companies?

    Care to cite where I said that, Glenn?

    I didn’t even address that issue, much less advocate for it.

    However, as a self employed independent contractor, I DO qualify my customers. Discreetly, of course.

  • Irene Wagner

    Glenn, let me just put this in a little crystal and we can take it up some other time.

    I say that the two most significant factors in changing attitudes in the U.S. vis a vis race were, in this order, (a) the spectacle of human beings being hosed down, and killed, for peacefully protesting the Jim Crow laws (b)the repeal of the Jim Crow laws: white business-owners who wanted an atmosphere where blacks and whites could knock down a few beers together, get to know one another, were able to have that, because it was no longer illegal to have that.

    I say that those who are still unwilling to associate with blacks will NOT be made more willing to do so by laws that compel them to do so; they will, in fact, be become more vociferously racist than if they’d just been left the hell alone.

    We disagree on the way racism should be eliminated, Glenn. I feel kind of worn out and misunderstood, but not angry anymore.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s an argument from consequences, and argument from consequences – a utilitarian argument – is consider irrelevant when moral issues are at stake (unless you’re a utilitarian).

    One could easily argue to precisely the opposite effect – namely, that the general acceptance of anti-discrimination laws would bring the dissenters into line, by shaming them. After all, humans are social beings.

    But even this is irrelevant to the issue at stake (for the very same reason), because the question before us is what is right and a decent thing to do.

    For all your religious training, Irene, you’re on a slippery slope on this one.

  • Irene Wagner

    The repeal of the Jim Crow laws alone might have brought about, in time, a more authentic integration than their repeal PLUS anti-discrimination has, to date, effected.

    Or it might not have.

    Those who hold to the first view are being branded as racists. That’s neither right nor decent, in my opinion, but I’ve learned (see my replies to Glenn) to consider the source.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s a typical conservative argument: let the free markets settle the issue as they surely will.

    I suppose one could argue with similar conviction that the South would eventually abandon slavery without the abolitionists or the Civil War. Or that the businesses would eventually encourage the formation of trade unions because it was good for the workers and the owners.

  • Irene Wagner

    So the charge of “racist” has been reduced to “typical conservative”?

    You’re making moral progress, Roger!

  • Irene Wagner

    …I hope you know I’m giving you back what you’re giving me, argumentatively speaking. You’ve not called me a racist here, Roger, and I appreciate that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I never called Rand Paul a racist. Don’t know the man to be able to make that kind of judgment. But it’s surely the case that some who support his, let’s just say, philosophical positions are bigots. And they’re using the form of words to express their bigotry.

    All of us should be making moral progress on an ongoing basis, including you, Irene.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Neither have I called Rand Paul a racist, but about you I have no doubt (that you’re not). You’re just confused.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    BTW, Irene, didn’t mean to be insulting, just told you what I think.

    Being confused is a fairly common human condition – the best thing about it, hopefully a temporary one – and I’ve been no stranger to it.

  • Clavos

    because the question before us is what is right and a decent thing to do.

    Which, in turn, begs the question of what is the “right and decent thing to do?”

  • Clavos

    Because, in all human endeavors, one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor…

  • Clavos

    As it always has been, and which gave rise to the idea that might makes right.

  • Mark

    “The whole Darwinian theory of the struggle for life is simply the transferance from society to organic nature of Hobbes’ theory of bellum omnium contra omnes, and of the bourgeois economic theory of competition, as well as the Malthusian theory of population. When once this feat has been accomplished…it is very easy to transfer these theories back again from natural history to the history of society, and all together too naive to maintain that thereby these assertions have been proven as eternal laws of society.” Engels

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re beating me to the punch, Mark, as to my critique of pragmatism (the forthcoming chapter), but I may use that quote.

    I still happen to think, Clavos, that although morality had originated from humble beginnings – with an eye to what’s practical – it had undergone a sort of transcendence (just like art and the aesthetic impulse have eventually evolved from craft and, again, practical concerns).

    But I admit it’s difficult to argue against moral relativism.

  • Irene Wagner

    No worries, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I realize I should have put it more tactfully. Too often, I speak before I think.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And in case you’re wondering about #157, the view expressed therein is a “secular account.” I’m not necessarily disagreeing with a biblical account, in that our sense of right and wrong has been writ large in the hearts of men (a non-sexist use, just sounds better to the ear). But taking the discussion to that level wouldn’t fly on BC, which is the reason I’m not availing myself of this mode of analysis.

    Which, BTW, also explains your reluctance with respect to “human authorities” to be legislating morality, because in the ultimate, theological sense, we humans shall never be able “to fix it.”

    So yes, I do understand where you’re coming from.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Irene, I did express my strong aversion to/dislike of two of the commenters on this thread, but neither of them was you. You seem rather sweet. I think your libertarianism is as rigid and tunnel-visioned as that of other libertarians, but hate? Come on now. [The arguments of those other two, initials D and P, were both offensively hostile and maddeningly illogical. And yeah, I can work up some hate for that combination.]

    I think we all understand that no one is advocating a return to Jim Crow. Title II of the Civil Rights Act is also here to stay. These philosophical/hypothetical discussions may or may not have their value.

    I suspect that Rand Paul, for one, would much rather discuss something else. Rachel Maddow did a good journalistic deed by shining a spotlight on the parts of libertarian thought that many [not just us liberal hippies] may find disturbing, over the top.

    Race was the most attention-getting part of this, but not nearly the whole picture: there’s food and drug safety laws; workplace safety regulations; pollution controls; and of course bank regulations and health care reform. Once you tell the government, Hands Off, there are consequences.

    Plenty to discuss.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I would add anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws in the workplace – one hurdle we’ve surely overcome.

    I would suggest renting an excellent film on the subject, dealing with the Minnesota coal mines – North Country.

  • Irene Wagner

    Handyguy doesn’t hate me. Handy doesn’t hate me! He even thinks I’m rather sweet! Today has been a frabjous day. Caloo. Calay. I’m not being sarcastic. Yes, Handy, there is plenty to discuss! Everybody, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, has to bend a little, because there’s so much important work to do. No demonization before collaboration! :)

    We’ll find, I’m sure we will, that there is less rigidity and more common ground than we’d imagined. For instance, the objections people have to regulations in the areas you mentioned, Handyguy, (pollution, food and drug safety) are not so much against regulation per se, but against regulation involving so many layers of bureaucrats and politicians, that the regulation has more to do with pay-offs than public welfare. The crafting of reasonable, effective, and “taint-free” regulation requires the talents of the best from every political persuasion, working together.

    Roger #160 If that’s where you think I’m coming from, then you don’t understand where I’m coming from, and I agree that it’s best to leave it at that for now. Blogcritic conversations about God, when the timing isn’t right, can have an off-putting patronizing quality. Thanks for the film recommendation, and have a good weekend! I’m off…

  • Dan

    So many comments to comment on. I’ll start back with Handy #84

    “…those words came from one of the single most obnoxious writers ever to comment on this site, one who always takes the ugliest, most provocative stand possible and dares you to hate him for it. [I do, I do.]—handyguy

    Even though your hatred is irrational, I do understand it. You are emotionally invested in an amazingly vulnerable doctrine of victimhood and oppression. So fragile that to question it is to give grounds for incivility and a shift away from the question to examine the motivation for the question.

    If I were just ‘obnoxiously ugly and provocative’ you could simply demonstrate the logical inconsistencies in a weak argument and re-enforce the doctrine. But that doesn’t happen. Instead, I sacrilegiously trample on your solemn convictions with factual, scientific, and empirical evidence. Only the truth makes people angry enough to hate over a simple exchange of ideas.

    Also, the SPLC is quite factually an organization dedicated to the goal of demonization. You might agree with them and think them “couragous”, but their function is to identify bad people and evil organizations.

    “…many a slip between salad and lip on the journey from kitchen to table…”—Irene Wagner

    That reminds me of rev. Jesse Jacksons’ admission of spitting into the food of white customers when he was a food service worker.

    “…the more people of different races/ethnicities/religions/beliefs are ‘forced’ to interact, the more they become real and human to each other as a whole!”—Glen Contrarian

    So, forcing people to do things eventually makes them think just like you. How much longer until it kicks in? What about after people have been forced to experience say, school bussing, had traumatic experiences, and think your kind of thinking is insane?

    “Part of the problem is the Orwellian DoubleThink Revisionist Right-wing assertion that the ultimate Racist, Adolf Hitler, was on the political Left.”—John Brians Fontain

    I certainly see the linkage. What problem is that part of?

  • Irene Wagner

    They’re going to take away my html license.

  • Irene Wagner

    That’s an interesting comment,Dan.

    Do you think there is a possibility that the level of cooperation and respect between blacks and whites in this country will improve? What do you think it would take to make this happen?

  • Dan

    I don’t think it is probable Irene, given the trajectory. There is an uncomfortable truth to face.

  • Irene Wagner

    …but eventually, a trajectory for a manned flight from earth to moon was found.
    Be creative, Dan. Do you think there would be any VALUE to making the attempt?

  • Irene Wagner

    I’m talking about on a small scale, of course. Nothing forced. Just a personal, voluntary launching out.

  • Dan

    Absolutely Irene. If it were possible for the US to return to the theoretical premise that it never really was, States could set social policy and let fifty flowers bloom.

    People forget that whatever discomfort segregation laws caused people, they could always, with inconvenience of course, move away to where there wasn’t segregation. Not that I’m saying segregation is a social solution. I’m just minimizing the impact segregation had.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I meant no harm, Irene. I took you for representing a theological view, one I myself share. If it was wrong, fine, but reducing you to it wasn’t my intention.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I happen to think you’re exaggerating the enmity between the races, Dan.

    Exposure to all kinds of people, in my experience, cures us of homophobia. In fact, it’s a damn potent antidote.

  • Irene Wagner

    You’re fine, Rog#172. Timing’s just not right.

  • Irene Wagner

    I meant #171, you’re fine. As for #172….there’s still enmity all right.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, forgive me then, but I don’t understand it. And I’m surely glad I was weaned.

  • Irene Wagner

    So Dan, am I understanding this right? You’re saying that, absolutely, there’d be benefit in improving inter-race relations, but that it would be difficult, given what has gone on in the past? I didn’t want to put words in your mouth.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Where is zing when you need him?

    If anyone [i.e. Dan] can provide examples of individuals and groups opposed by the Southern Poverty Law Center who are actually model citizens that you’d just love to have lunch with, please do share.

    Declaring bad people [people with an agenda of racial hatred and violence] to be bad people is not objectionable to me. If it is to you, perhaps some self examination is in order.

    “Mythology of victimhood” = bullshit verbiage that has nothing to do with anything I have written in this thread.

    If I thought ‘logical argument’ in any way an appropriate response to your invariably mean-spirited posts [about gays as well as blacks], I would employ it. You pretend to be logical, but you are an utterly inflexible ideologue who believes right wing dogma is self justifying. You have rarely or never shown any inclination to engage in straightforward, civil discussion.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    This indeed turns out to be an interesting discussion, people speaking their own mind.

    Hurray for free speech!

  • Irene Wagner

    eh! handyguy, take a NUMBA! :) @ ROger.

  • Irene Wagner

    Just kidding, handy, but…there’s a wide spectrum of folk between those who are SPLC-listed and…Dan, I’m suspecting… give the guy a chance to talk. He’s not going to turn anyone racist.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Nice spirit, Irene. I always liked that about you.

  • Irene Wagner

    You know ROger, this is the kind of conversation I’dve loved to have with some uncles of mine. I LOVED them! They were the funniest guys, but…it’s like this THING would come over them when you got on to the subject of race.

  • Irene Wagner

    It wasn’t because they were bad people, I don’t think.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You don’t have to worry about that with me.

  • Irene Wagner

    No worries,RN. Dan (the nonparenthetical) at the end of the day, intellectuals tend to hang out with intellectuals, liberals with liberals, Presbyterians with Presbyterians.

    The funny thing is, of all the people on this thread, if I had to match the person whose viewpoint most closely matched yours, it would be Heloise’s. She is mixed race.

  • Irene Wagner

    Well, before I infect the thread with more bad HTML tags…I’ll say goodbye.

  • Dan

    Well Irene, that’s a pretty quick conclusion to render on the basis of what is said on just this thread. But I’ll give you that I consider Heloise to be a independent and thoughtful person.

    handyguy, blah blah blah. I’ve already mentioned that you agree with the SPLC demonizations, do you have anything new? what do you mean “right wing dogma” being “self justifying”. Sounds nonsensical.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yep. Heloise is a basket case, I entirely agree.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sorry, Dan. Didn’t mean to contradict you. But come to think of it, she does share some of your views, especially as regards genetic determinism.

  • Dan

    That’s alright roger, I guess if you disagree entirely with me then my “independent” and “thoughtful” would be your “basket case”.

    But as I recall Heloise is also about re-incarnation, so an open mind toward genetic determinism by her would be less disreputable since reincarnated souls would probably tend to jump in and out of a variety of genetic patterns.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No offense, Dan. I just don’t believe in genetic determinism, any kind of determinism in fact.

    My bias.

  • Irene Wagner

    Who wants to talk about God? Everybody in the house is out.

  • Irene Wagner

    …and I’m bored.

  • Irene Wagner

    ..or determinism…or fractals.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    lol, hiya you :-)

  • Irene Wagner

    People who believe in determinism often have trouble understanding how a God “in control” of everything could be good.

    We can only understand our seconds and minutes and days as being laid out sequentially. I am thinking that in the eternal reality, God sees moments as they are and they are nothing LIKE being laid out sequentially.

  • Irene Wagner

    CINDY LOU HOO!

  • Irene Wagner

    This is so cool! Do you wanna talk about anythngi at all CIndy?

  • Irene Wagner

    I’m going upstairs to make some toast and get a timer and some mending, and then come back. I will multitask.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Sure Irene, let’s chat. My husband is making me soup as we both ate a late lunch and skipped dinner.

    What is the timer for?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    (perhaps god could use one of those! then he(?) would be able to follow the storyline a bit closer!)

  • Irene Wagner

    The timer was originally going to be for pacing hits on the refresh button. Do a few stitches. Write a few words. BING! Refresh.

  • Irene Wagner

    YEah, maybe that;’s what the planets and stars and stuff is for…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    (he probably gets distracted and a few billion light years go by and before you know it it’s dinnertime and he forgets all about the fact that the apes have now become human!)

  • Irene Wagner

    ..but then the original plan for the timer (temporally speaking, as in between comment 199 and 200) changed, as my daughter asked if I could rent a video and we watch it toghether.

    BUt I want to talk with you a bit CIndy. TIl it’s soup time for ya.

  • Irene Wagner

    Sometimes it looks like God has gotten distracted, yes.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I will sup my soup at the computer. I am souping alone. My sweetheart does not need salty soup–but loves it–and I don’t want to eat it in front of him so I eat it alone and I save him exactly three spoonsful.

  • Irene Wagner

    3 minutes 33 seconds….lol…

  • Irene Wagner

    That’s sweet, Cindy. IN a salacious sort of way.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    What is the video?

    (feel free to exit and not worry about me as I promised Roger I would definitely watch a video tonight…so I am ready to do that as soon as well…now…:-)

  • Irene Wagner

    Salty and salacious mean the same thing I THINK….lol…

  • Irene Wagner

    …the fickle child has, in between comment 207 and here, decided she wants to go to bed early. So no video. She graduates from H.S. tomorrow. So, big day for her.

  • Irene Wagner

    What kind of soup? I’ll set the T for another 5, then hang out with her before she goes to bed.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Lipton Chicken Noodle (extra noodles). What is the video?

  • Irene Wagner

    Roger recommended I watch a video too. I guess I could see if it is on netflix.

  • Irene Wagner

    We hadn’t picked one out yet. We could do North Country. That’s the one Roger recommended to me. About a landmark sexual harassment case.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Perhaps after the soup, I will just go curl up and watch ‘Pay it Forward’. yawn! William Buckley is sort of annoying (he is interviewing Norman Mailer in Roger’s video).

  • Irene Wagner

    Zing and you and Silas could watch it together!

  • Irene Wagner

    I remember that convo! LOL…33 seconds….

  • Irene Wagner

    Three is quite the mystical number. Well, Cindy, this was fun! Have a nice eve!

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Do you watch on the computer? or to you have a DVR or something?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Later :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Lo and behold, I couldn’t find this thread, so I posted on the usual one.

    Sorry!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I hope you still love me, Irene, because I sure do you!

  • Irene Wagner

    Do you love me enough to…

    …vote for Rand Paul next November?

  • Irene Wagner

    Thanks for the nice thoughts, Roger. God loves you. And I think you’re OK. :) Nite.

  • Clavos

    People who believe in determinism often have trouble understanding how a God “in control” of everything could be good.

    Or how he could allow horror to be inflicted on a good person…

    Which is one reason why I don’t believe in him/her/it

  • Irene Wagner

    I used to think that unless a person who had a heart at all could look at another person’s pain and convince himself that other people who ask God, even in deep unbelief, eventually receive strength for as long as it is needed, and then comfort in and after death, they themselves could not continue believing sincerely.

    After years of believing in God as an adult, I stopped believing in Him for a long time. Now, I am crazy about him. Maybe it is something I had to go through, because I don’t get angry at people who aren’t.

    Peace, Clavos, Cindy, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Same to you, Irene.

  • John Lake

    Clavos: You may be underestimating “God”. He is in control of everything by virtue of “Cause and effect”. An attribute of God is related to probability. Technically, a miracle is a violation of those laws of order, and inconsistent with “God”. If The Creator worked miracles daily, we would be at a loss; we would never know what to expect. Consider the confusion! If there is a potential for cancer, there will be cancer. Blame it on Adam and Eve, or just accept it. That’s the way it is.

    • Stephen

      Which god are you referring to? I once believed in Santa Claus but changed my mind once I realized I had one. I know, faith is required to understand a deity, but then so is faith required to understand how I can make the moon turn into Swiss Cheese. No offense to the Swiss. The more I learn about the world around me, the more I realize that I am alone for the most part. Only 2% of us are atheists, but we make up the fastest growing demographic related to theism that try’s at least to think critically.

  • Clavos

    Well, John, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I long ago concluded that “god” is nothing more than a construct of the human race, created to satisfy the racial psychological need to believe in the existence of a power greater than humanity and in an existence beyond death.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Are forms of “religious/spiritual experience” – on analogy with, say, eureka-type of experiences (associated with mathematical discoveries, for example) and, in general, inspirational states of mind – any less real even if God or mathematics objects/structures are human constructs?

    Are these types of experience hallucinatory for that very reason, and if not, what kind of reality are we to assign to these psychological states?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Maybe we are seeing evolution in action; “old school” humans are superstitious and fearful and given to believing in religion, whilst the “new school” aren’t afraid to think for themselves.

  • Clavos

    Are forms of “religious/spiritual experience” – on analogy with, say, eureka-type of experiences (associated with mathematical discoveries, for example) and, in general, inspirational states of mind – any less real even if God or mathematics objects/structures are human constructs?

    In the absence of evidence consistent with the scientific method (repeatability, etc.), IMO, yes.

    In my idealistic youth, I had numerous discussions with members of the clergy about this issue, and discovered that when the discussion got down to proof (as in scientific proof), inevitably the last answer from these clergy folk was “Well, my son, you have to take that on faith.”

    Lacking same, I didn’t and don’t.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Faith – the last refuge of the confidence trickster – trust me!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Consequently, such experiences should be viewed as delusional and treated by a shrink. Even if they make sense to the individual in terms of enabling him or her to make sense of life, deal with doubts and uncertainties, etcetera, etcetera.

    Of course, the brave new man, hypothesized by Chris Rose as a product of evolutionary development, has been liberated from all doubts and uncertainties, or whatever debilitating psychological states, because he or she have learned to think for themselves.

    And indeed, this is one possible account, and reason, to dismiss “old school” humans as delusional, because they’re still superstitious and fearful.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I’m not sure that evolution would do away with doubt or uncertainty, or that they are “debilitating psychological states”, but it is pretty obvious that some people will build convoluted castles made of sand to support their beliefs.

    Personally, I can’t bring myself to subscribe to such thinking because it just seems so implausible and essentially a corruption of the heart and mind to do so.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No problem there, Chris. I just happen to think that in many cases beliefs are on the order of human response to uncertainties and doubts, one possible way of dealing with all such.

  • zingzing

    also, humans are really fond of mind-altering drugs. and stories. and spectacle. and power. and taking money from people who are silly.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Well, there are always many possible ways of responding to anything, Roger, but just because something is possible doesn’t make it appropriate, right or true, as I hope you understand.

  • zingzing

    i’m taking a pee out my window in response to that. i am relieved, at the very least.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    And on that note, I’m off to bed, leaving you all in the capable hands of the good Dr Dreadful.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    lol zing… (imagines zing living on the 4th floor in in a brooklyn apartment bldg, wonders if his neighbors have learned to don rain hats whenever the walk by his window, just in case.)

    Roger,

    I just sent you a spectacular Prof Wolff, paper called ‘In Defense of Anarchism’.

    I will be watching you closely after you read that one. :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course, but all beliefs, I’m tempted to say, have this thing in common. So it does indeed take a brave new world for humans to be able to live great parts of their lives in a state of irresolution or suspension.

    Interestingly, the term “suspending one’s beliefs,” refers to a temporary, not a permanent state. And the reason we do it, we expect some kind of resolution as a result.” Just a turn of phrase, I suppose, but still significant for highlighting “the human condition.”

    Of course, it’s a circular argument if one thinks “the human condition” is pathological or pathetic.

  • zingzing

    5th floor, cindy. pee reaches terminal velocity at the 5th floor. that’s why i live here.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    OK, Cindy. BTW, I’m listening David Harvey’s “On Reading the Capital” videos – all thirteen of them. Great resource. BTW, check out Bob Lloyd’s thread on “Austerity . . .” It evolved out of there.

    And zing, did you have take that step, from the sublime to the ridiculous? Don’t the people in Brooklyn know any better? Or do they think that when you pee on them that it rains?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    …the capable hands of the good Dr Dreadful.

    Phnmph? Huh?? Wha…???

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I suppose zing had crossed the line and Chris was in too good a mood.

    That’s why you’ve been recruited.

  • zingzing

    never cross the lines, roger. ghostbusters taught us that.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Nope, Rog, just a shift change.

    …And is it raining?!?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In Brooklyn in must be. Depending of course how much beer zing had consumed.

  • Clavos

    Being pissed off is better than being pissed on…

  • Mark

    (#243 — That would be Robert rather than Richard.)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Ha! Right. And both from Amherst. Must be brothers, right? But I can find any info that confirms that.

  • Mark

    Amherst loves wolvves.

  • Mark

    (Cindy, I dunno about the sib thing.)

  • zingzing

    rich paul, that’s a rather silly statement. laughable, really. a poor, flimsy, transparent excuse (for the racist comments paul has made).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think Mark is correct, Cindy. I had the same question in fact and was going to look it up. Of course, Robert Wolff’s definitive work was The Poverty of Liberalism, one of my college texts.

    Two other factors to consider. Richard is an economist, doesn’t venture much into political philosophy or only incidentally. Second, the piece dates back to the seventies – so it would have to count among his early writings.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Roger,

    ??? Of course Mark is correct. It’s evident, he is. All one has to do is look at their names. I suggest I doubted him?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Do make it a point to give me a quick call in the evening, after 10PM, let’s say, if you can.

    I do have something to communicate.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Good…I always look forward to a chat with you. I just copied, into a text document, what is priced as a $115 book from Questia (before my trial membership is expired).

    ANTONIO GRAMSCI: Beyond Marxism and Postmodernism by Renate Holub

    I will be happy to share if you are interested.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    If I’m not home when you call, try later. My sister and brother-in-law are taking me to dinner and the movies, but I’ve told them I’ve got to stop at Borders.

    I’ll get me Das Kapital as I stated to Les, an indispensable companion to David Harvey’s lectures, and remedy my deficiency.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    But I can find any info that confirms that.

    OIC–I can’t confirm my suspicion they are brothers. Not, I can’t confirm they are two different people.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Das Kapital is online free, IIRC, unless you prefer a book book.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good to know, and I’ll access it. Still, in this case I don’t mind spending a few bucks.

    There’s something to be said for tactile experience. Besides, I want to get a text that matches Harvey’s references and pagination system.

  • Bill S.

    I wish it was possible to have a more open discussion on black social pathology, especially black crime. Four decades after the passing of the civil rights legislation whites have the right to expect better behavior from blacks. I think they responsible for their own problems. I stopped making excuses for them years ago.

  • PITT

    What the fuck are you talking about? You have absolutely no understanding of philosophy, religion or politics. [personal attack deleted by comments editor] People like you should be banned from talking, writing or posting. You are an embarrassment to your country. [personal attack deleted by comments editor]

  • John Lake

    No bull, PITT.

  • marcus kerley

    Here is the problem, AS I SEE IT(there is always a margin for error when I profess to know something). It is a bad omen when we depend on the government to enforce these laws. The real problem lies in the fact that we have to have these laws at all. What they do in affect is make racist more bitter, and take the responsibilty to ensure equality off of our society’s shoulders. The problem is ignorance. We aren’t educating our children, or rather we’re letting mass media educate the. I’m not sure which is worse. It is our individual responsibilty to ensure that our children and our children’s children don’t grow up in a society thats veiws everyone that isn’t as light skinned as myself, as a hustler, pimp or drug dealer. I have been guilty of these thoughts myself. I will admit when I’m wrong, and am also willing to educate myself and others.

  • John Lake

    Isn’t is odd that now, in March of 2012, there doesn’t seem to be much covert criticism of the President based on racial preconceptions.
    But at this time we are overwhelmed with conflicting ideas on sex and morality. On the one hand we support gay marriage, and freedom for all (which is significant when compared to the mores of other cultures, in other areas of the world), but on the other hand, our Congress, perhaps in an attempt to secure upcoming evangelical votes, is allowing religions and moral groups to dictate what measures and procedures insurance companies will cover dealing with reproductive rights.
    In the same manner, candidates run on simple stands such as how moral, principled and familial they are.
    In my view, overall, while the Arab world becomes more like us, we become more like them.
    At this rate in a few generations adulterers in America will be subject to stoning.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I bet you that If Jesus were around today and tried to pull that intervening-in-a-stoning stunt, the mob wouldn’t back off, they’d just rationalize how they were, in fact, without sin.

  • Igor

    #270-John Lake: is there no end to your hatred of Newt Gingrich, a National Hero?

    “… in a few generations adulterers in America will be subject to stoning.”

  • John Lake

    I didn’t have any specific individuals in mind. Newt is a profiteer, as is Mitt Romney.

  • Igor

    I was just joking. Ironically.

  • Mark D

    Middle “Finger”

  • John Lake

    so, Mark (#275), do you have the guts to elaborate on that?

  • Dork flab

    In all actuality your article debunks itself u say that we as if to imply all whites like a d then go on to talk about how all muslims are not the same oxymoron of u ask me especially since a lot of whites are part Jewish and there grandmothers talk to them about nazis killing their families and friends because they were Jewish

  • Dork flab

    This my fellow good man is a question of morality we have come to far to go back and to do so would be insanity