How is a tax-funded program any different from an investor funded program? A municipality is a corporation too. That's why they call the area "incorporated". Urban Law is where the entire idea of joint-stock companies came from. The corporate charter is directly descended from the city (corporate) charter. This idea that a municipality is somehow a different beast than a corporation is silly. It's just structured differently, there is the same amount of risk, the same ability for competition and the same viability for markets.
You can refuse city sewage and water services in lieu of a private service in most places. Your accusation that one would not be able to compete with a municipal service is equally silly. A municipal WiFi network is no different than a public water system, sanitation or emergency service, it's infrastructure. Most businesses around here use a private service for sanitation and many also use private services for drinking water. They do this because they want a higher quality of service or a different type of service than that provided by the municipality. There is still competition and a free market, but a basic level of service is guaranteed to all citizens (investors) of the municipality.
Your definition of capitalism is flawed. In capitalism there is the ability to own private property and utilize a free market to make use of that property. The actors in capitalism are diverse, from government organizations to corporations to individuals to unions. If the market is free then a chartered municipality must have the same rights as a corporation, which is that if they wish to invest in an infrastructure, they may do so. This legislation and your opinion are an intrusion upon the rights of a corporate municipality and how they decide to run their organization. To say that Verizon has a right not to compete with some groups like a municipality is an anathema to capitalism. The only situation in which your accusations of socialism or non-capitalism would stick is if there were no other competing networks allowed in the municipality or if the municipality claimed eminent domain over an existing infrastructure owned by a private entity (Verizon). Neither of these situations are the case here.
Their fates in this case are no longer left to the markets to decide because only certain actors (corporations) now have access to the market and therefore do not have to compete with other classes of actors (municipalities).
The people of the PA municipalities in question want a certain basic level of service to be universal in their corporate area, Verizon would be equally capable of competing against the municipality, they would just need to offer a higher level of service than the municipality in order to be competitive. I fail to see how the current situation is a gain for anyone but Verizon.
What government takeover are you referring to? I missed the part of the PA proposal where they were going to use eminent domain to take over Verizon's infrastructure. From the reading, this is a new market and the people wish to insure that a certain level of service is provided. Apparently, the people of this municipality feel that this is a more efficient means of providing a certain level of service as opposed to waiting till Verizon felt the market would bear it.
I see this legislation as anti-competitive. Verizon now has no viable competition. Mom & Pops aren't going to roll out a municipal wide network like this, they haven't the resources. They might have had a chance to bid on parts of the municipal contracts in various cities in PA, but now they won't. Given that much of municipal work goes to small businesses based in local communities, I fail to see how this is in any way helpful to Mom & Pop operations in PA. Do you have any idea what it's like to be a Mom & Pop who actually has the nerve to compete with Verizon? I've known a few and the results weren't pretty, kind of like a small child's bike in a head on collision with an SUV.
Your theoretical rambling is short-sighted and not based in the realities of the market. As for new and innovative services offered by the government, perhaps I can direct you to the New Deal or the Internet. Your anti-government stance is illogical and rooted in fallacies and mythology. Your assumptions that the government would dot all the i's and cross all the t's of these services, or that no other service would be allowed to compete is unfounded.
Please go back to econ theory 102, cause you seem to need more detail than they provided in 101. Your idea that private business is innovative at creating new infrastructure or universal infrastructure is laughable on it's face. There is no historical or even modern example of this, all of our utility infrastructures were public/private partnerships at best. Private business is only good at innovating on existing infrastructure. I'll stop here cause beating your dogma anymore would border on ideological cruelty.
Huh? Which blogs are you reading? Most posts are news analysis, which is always sourced, go check the background yourself. The value of a blogger is no different than the value of a reporter. One just does it for the love. A blogger is just equivalent to some one who writes open source software in their spare time. Many of the well-known bloggers have their own networks of people they use for info. They tend to have at least pro-am expertise if not actual professional expertise in their area. You might be right about the avg joe blog, but to lump all of them into the same category like this is like claiming equivalency between the Linux kernel and any random project on SourceForge. Someone already cited Juan Cole, he actually shows up on the various cable news shows - as an expert, getting to read his opinion on day to day issues, in his area of expertise (Middle East affairs) is much more in depth than even the reporting you get from say - the BBC.
Is their personal bias and opinion interjected? Of course, that's one of the freedoms that bloggers like about the format. If you still can't recognize the difference between someone's opinionated utterance and their reasoned analysis, you're probably in over your head with the local newspaper's editorial page. I honestly think what people like to describe as bias in the media is a lack of ability to discern what is verifiable and what is speculation. Oh, and if speculation is being bundled as verified information, you're being lied to - see Limbaugh (the original blogger) for examples.
Actually, the one thing about US mainstream media is that they only go on verified sources. This means that they take the word of governments as more credible than non-governmental organizations, even when the government is lying - see the build up to the Iraq war or torture by US forces for examples. The only dangers that the US media likes to report about are the ones posed by the weak and defenseless, no matter how remote that danger is compared to the 800 pound gorilla that doesn't get covered. Why do you think Americans are more worried about the "urban dressed" kid down the road than the corporate predators already squeezing them?
Bloggers - ahem, credible bloggers - have the ability to restore some balance to the system. I certainly appreciate the good ones.
All right, I'll take any snide comments made about the Palmetto State, but your stepping on some thin ice going after Charleston. The "Holy City" title is well deserved, there are over 14 denominations in Charleston that have had continuously meeting congregations since the early 18th century, some since the late 17th century. The moniker actually has to do with the number of steeples visible in the skyline which is also why you can't usually build anything over 5 stories in the city. Charleston is the home to the fourth oldest Jewish congregation (Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim) and second oldest Synagogue in America (oldest in continuous use) and the birthplace of Reform Judaism. We were quite fine with religious differences in a period where all you Europeans were slaughtering each other over them (the 30 years war killed 1/3rd of all Germans), the French Huguenots started worshiping there in 1687. Charleston also has the first building actually built for the purposes of a theatre in America (the 18th century Dock Street Theatre, not the 19th century one), some of the oldest museums and the oldest municipal College in America (University of Charleston). One of the oldest African American congregations in the country is still meeting in Charleston.
As someone who personally knows quite a few philanthropists in Charleston, your comments are unfounded. Perhaps you should visit some of the museums there that record and document the Native Americans that originally lived in the area. Charleston is very mindful of it's history, warts and all. Claiming that some sort of religious reasons would hamper scientific investigation might fly in the rest of South Carolina, but it's utter crap to try and make that claim about Charleston. So to reiterate, piss on the rest of that backassward state all you want, but you better get your information straight before leveling charges against the "Holy City".
Think of this development as a new, more efficient eternal vigilence. If the individual becomes powerful enough to threaten existing power structures through technology, I'm sure your questions will all be answered. Until then, what harm can be done increasing the power of the individual?
You're still not reading my entire post. The failure of previous generations hasn't been on the part of the black population, they did their part. It's been on the part of the white population. If you have a sick man, you take them to a doctor because that's the only person who has the capability to heal them. If black people had the resources and power to make those statistics the same, they would have done it already. You in effect are telling the patient to heal himself. Home remedies only work to a point, sometimes surgery is required.
They have already walked into the room and made the arguments you're proposing. Those arguments started back at the end of the 19th century. 100 years later we're still dealing with this. It is clearly not sufficient to do what you are proposing, if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Do you honestly think you've come up with some solution that hasn't been thought of in the past 100 years?
Clinton made an effort to find qualified applicants who were black because he understood that the best, most lasting way to ensure that the black population's concerns were given adequate attention was to make sure members of the community were in positions of power.
Nobody wants to pay for the past, the future is where they are going to be spending the rest of their lives and is worth an effort. You don't make those choices though. I didn't have crap to do with the Holocaust or the formation of the State of Israel, but I sure as hell have to put up with the Palestinian conflict. The past shapes the reality we have to deal with. The legacy of slavery is simply part of the reality we have to deal with. Putting your head in the sand over it isn't rational. It isn't helpful, it's part of the problem and not the solution.
As far as your unfairness concept, it's self contradicting. If each "*EACH* generation has to do the right thing in order to make the way for the next generation", then the previous couple failed. That, by your definition of *EACH* generation's responsibility, means that this responsibility has been unfairly passed on. This is a national problem involving 12% to 13% of the population nationally. This is every citizen's problem and responsibility. A violation of rights is your responsibility, no matter your personal connection or lack thereof.
After this many posts, you are still trying to attack my argument on the basis that reparations are a judgment in a civil suit. I have repeatedly explained this aspect as not the case. The fact of the matter is that if these problems were taken care of, it would be reparations. It would remedy the legacy of a past offense. This is a fact. The causal link is there. The only argument you've made is that these semantics are unacceptable to the white population who refuses to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to solve this.
If that was a viable solution, you'd never hear the words reparations, oppression, slavery or prejudice come out of a black man's mouth ever again. Your point that that is the solution here, to make a reasoned argument full of statistics, is not valid. That approach hasn't worked either.
So you're entire point that these things would get fixed if the message was "updated" is wrong. The message has been covered in honey and still rejected. There is something else going on here and I believe it has more to do with your pre-programming and assumptions that any action of the black community.
Oh and the Huns did sack Rome over "cultural differences". Rome treated them like second class citizens and they did not have the same economic opportunities. Eventually, after Rome broke deal after deal due to cultural bias, they up and sacked the place to get their due. You are correct that the object of the sacking was to acquire wealth and power, but you are ignoring what brought that situation to the point of sacking a city. Cultural differences are a fact of life. Our legal system must reflect that and deal with those differences while maintaining
If you are not going to be open minded enough to listen to a whole argument then why should people even bother? This isn't important enough of a problem to the nation that you can't be bothered to hear an entire argument about it?
Can't you see the hypocrisy and continued insult to injury your position takes? You agree that there is a serious problem with the opportunities for the average black man and something should be done about it. You won't listen to it if anyone brings up the cause of these problems, even though you recognize the problems. You admit to being close-minded and un-empathetic to your fellow citizens and expect them to change? Don't you see that you are perpetuating the very injustice that they are angry over?
In addition, you seek to punish by saying the entire argument is nonsense until it is tailored for your ears. Who is the problem here? Is it black folks fault that you are close-minded and arrogant? Are you this close-minded and arrogant with Native Americans, if not then how is it not racist to hold blacks to a different standard? Why wouldn't you simply listen to the argument and try to explain that position to other white people? Clinton did make his choices because they were the best choices to fix the problems we still deal with because of slavery. All of these problems are "because of slavery" and the other problems surrounding segregation. Where else did they come from?
As for the NAACP, they demand they're rights because they are Americans and for no other reason. They also know that they are denied they're rights now because of the legacy of slavery. It's a matter of fact and you're asking them to deny that fact, or at least not mention it because it might hurt your feelings. Why is this burden on them? Aren't we the ones being hypocrites? I'd really like to see you try this BTW, the look on your face when you got "schooled" on the 100 years of rational arguments made by the NAACP. How this country has failed to live up to it's promises in the face of reason. They wouldn't agree with you, they'd say, "Been There, Done That".
If the problem is message, as you're so fond of pointing out, what are you adding by saying "don't bring up the root cause of the problem"? Are we only supposed to deal with the symptoms of the disease instead of the dealing with the actual source? How do you know you have the solution if you refuse to correctly identify the problem?
All you've managed to do is reinforce my original points. White America still holds Black America to a different standard while hypocritically proclaiming a love for the rule of law. Without equality under the law, this is rule *by* law, not rule *of* law. During this entire thread, you've admitted your own deficiencies while demanding that the rest of us cater to you instead of exploring how to correct your own deficiencies. That may not be racist, but it's sure as hell un-American, especially since we're talking about rights under the Constitution. The results of your attitude is feeding a cancer that has made this country ill long enough, it's where racism comes from. And it is racist to hold someone to a different standard due to their ethnic or cultural background. Why wouldn't you fight for what is right instead of perpetuating the attitudes that created this cancer in the first place?
Black folks aren't immigrants. If they are descended from slaves, they've been in this country longer than most white Americans, especially those in Iowa. Their situation is different from other immigrant populations. Are you actually claiming that black people need to assimilate? Being converted to Christianity, having their culture forcefully stripped, being forced into labor and ignorance and denied education or property wasn't a clean enough slate for you? Have you forgotten where half of the uniquely American cultural contributions have come from?
There was no such agreement, not with the blacks, not with the indians, not with the chineese, not with anybody. What the hell are you talking about? The Constitution is a guarantee of rights to every citizen of the US, regardless of ethnic, cultural or religious background. The agreement is with every black, indian and chinese descendent who is a citizen. Those rights were denied and the impact is still lasting. That lasting impact must be rectified in order for the guarantee of the Constitution to be valid. If you make this negotiable then the entire Constitution is negotiable without amendment or interpretation by the courts.
If these problems you're claiming to be concerned about were taken care of, it would be a reparation of the past. You are simply trying to deny the historical link here. I really don't understand why, it's a fact, deal with it. To oppose the solution and an end to this entire rift in our nation because you don't want to acknowledge the past's relevancy in the present is petty.
I'm not arguing from a point of relative oppression for black folks compared to Jews or any other historical issue. Those are all separate issues. The only reason we have to deal with this particular historical injustice is that it still impacts us. Just as we have the Anti-Defamation League to keep an lid on further injustice from the legacy of the Nazi's and the history of anti-Semitism in European culture, we must deal with the injustice created in the present which is a product of the injustice of the past.
You are still arguing against a misconception of my position. Remember that the Huns sacked Rome over the same kind of cultural bias. Do you want to simply ignore this over semantics and have it destroy our country or do you want to fulfill the ideals of the American Revolution and guarantees of the Constitution? I have talked about the future and what needs to happen today. I have given it weight by showing it's evolution and link to the past. If you don't like that facts appear biased against you, it's not my fault, nor is it the fault of the people you say you tune out when the subject comes up. As I noted in another post, it's unfair that our generation has to deal with this issue, it should have been solved already. There is nothing we can do to change that fact. We can only do what generations of Americans before have tried to do, the right thing. Fix the problem, don't deny it, don't waste your time trying to scrutinize it anymore. This entire issue has become like trying to argue evolution vs. creationism. There is a body of fact and logic on one side and irrationality on the other.
If you never want to feel like someone is unfairly blaming white people for the past, then take away their reasons for doing so. BTW, I also work on issues that affect Native Americans. I'm very aware of who got displaced for the land I now consider home. Osceola, leader of the Seminoles died in my hometown, as a prisoner in the same fort the first shot of the Civil War was fired from. I now live a couple of miles from one of the Seminole Reservations. Again, the impact of offenses of the past still affect these people as well and the argument over what to do is the same.
You are still missing the point and in denial about the reality of the current situation. You are approaching this as if someone is trying to lay blame on you for the offenses of the past and asking for payment as a judgment for that blame. That is not the case, as I have repeatedly stated in my replies, this is the duty of each citizen to ensure that a group that was treated as second class citizens are made whole. Why do you think this happened? Because of something inherent to black people? It's because of the 300 years of oppression. There is no other empirical explanation for the current situation.
Those coal miners were helped. The reforms of the first part of the 20th century directly targeted those groups of people. Union legislation was directly targeted to bring a second class group into first class status. You are in denial about what this country has done before about similar situations. These people didn't just work themselves out of their problems by themselves, this country helped out. We haven't made the same effort in this case. This isn't about paying blood-money to someone for a past offense, it's about erasing the on going impact of that offense. That has affected all black people, regardless of their ancestry. Your entire defense of historical irrelevancy is itself irrelevant
Somehow you managed to not read my post, I'm not black. I'm a lily white Southerner, the only thing I have to gain is the overall increase in peace and justice in my community. I'm looking at this from the other side. You also are making a straw man argument by claiming I only care about the problems of black people and not anyone else. I wasn't arguing any of those issues, just this one. Besides, the same plan has worked and will work for any other group of disadvantaged citizens in our own country. I'm just talking about an issue that this country seems to be in the most denial about.
Black folks aren't down in the mud with you or me currently. A large number of them are in a deeper pool of mud than us. Until they are in the same pool of mud that we're in, there is an unjust impact of the past on the present. If you'd actually listen to the arguments, what you're claiming to argue is what is happening. What you're denying is the cause of these problems. Your entire argument that black folks should argue the statistics and not bring up the cause is insulting. What do you think they've been doing since the Civil Rights Movement? The only reason this entire issue of the cause comes up is because this nation has opposed fixing this problem at the polls. The rational, reasoned statistical arguments, pointing all the problems out and how to fix them, has been made repeatedly. Not that it should have to be made, the census statistics point it out.
Where this thread started was about the GOP vs. Democratic accomplishments for black people. I pointed to an article that talked about how Clinton had the highest number of black appointments to the Federal bureaucracy. This was important, because it meant that people who wouldn't dismiss that logical, reasoned argument of the statistics and would actually do something about it. I haven't made any claim against you, I have only said that you have a duty as a citizen to help fix this situation so that we can all move on. If you never want to feel like someone is blaming you for offenses of the past again, then help erase the legacy. You're claim is that you're not going to do anything as long as someone says it's related to a past offense. That's nonsensical when the evidence clearly shows that the issues are linked. Your nitpick over semantics appears petty in the face of actual suffering that currently happens due to the impact of history.
The attack that this is somehow asking for something special is equally facetious. This is simply one issue. The fact that we haven't dealt with it perhaps explains why we haven't dealt with the other issues you've brought up. This one has a solution and the only party that hasn't jumped on board with getting th
What part of the Constitution entitles you or ANYONE to money because of heritage or ethnicity? The principle of equality under the law. Since blacks were oppressed as slaves and unable to hold property or any power. After the Civil War, they still had little to no power or property. Even when they became doctors and lawyers they were forbidden to take part in professional society through most of the country. Then there were the chain gangs and sharecropping. Both of these systems were in place in the 30's. There was still forced segregation through the 60's and racial tensions throughout the 70's. Remember COINTELPRO? How about the KKK?
Every couple of years, someone burns down a church or sticks a cross in a black man's yard. The basic population statistics for this population group are below the percentages for white people and are not moving up nearly as quickly as they need to be to break the cycle of poverty.
This violates the principles and mechanics laid out in the Federalist Papers. There has been a second class citizenry for too long and we must correct it. This failure to deliver on the guarantees of the Constitution is a cancer that eats at the legitimacy and authority of the US Government.
You obviously failed to read my other posts if your attacking me on an idea of reparations as a lump payment to individuals. I've already stated that that is not a wise solution.
Black folks don't forget about the Native Americans. There is no substance to your argument there.
I don't remember taking out a loan. In fact, I don't remember ever even being rude to a black person. Despite being a southerner, none of my ancestors ever owned slaves, and in case you were wondering, it was only the vast MINORITY of southerners who did.
The Constitution is contract between us all. This isn't about punishing you for some specific action of yours, it's about your duty as a citizen to ensure that the Constitution's guarantees are not wrongfully denied to any other system, otherwise, why should any citizen trust that their guarantees will be upheld. Since the guarantees for all citizens, such as equality under the law and the ability to acquire wealth (and power), have never been provided to these people, there is a debt. The debt cannot be measured in monetary terms, it's a debt of the very fabric of the nation.
It's not just a matter of who owned slaves. Beyond the duty of all citizens, us white Southerners have benefited from the organized repression of black people. We had better schools for less money because we wouldn't fund black schools. We benefited from the cheap labor, we've used eminent domain unfairly to take land for our economic advantage.
If you are a white Southerner, then remember that these people are your people. What the hell would the South be without black folks around? If you care about the South, if you are at all proud of your Southern heritage, then you should be concerned about this. This part of our past was a cancer that held us all back, it still holds us back.
As long as a average black kid in this country doesn't have access to the same opportunities as the average white kid, the legacy of this injustice is still inflicting more injustice. That is what must be corrected now, that is what reparations are, making a second class citizenry whole. The same needs to be done for the Native Americans and this country must ensure that all citizens. The census statistics don't lie, as long as those numbers are so horribly lopsided between black and white populations, we still have a problem that it is our duty as citizens to correct.
The reason that I think, in the case of the black population, that we do need AA based on race is that there is a natural tendency in all cultures to degrade the culture of a disenfranchised group. There is a cultural bias that still permeates our markets and professional institutions. I don't think it will go away until those statistics are much closer too each other. White people ha
Dr. Weird : Gentlemen! Behold!... Corn! Steve : [pretending to be surprised] Okaaay... you know, this is pretty nice! Yeah, I am kinda hungry... Dr. Weird : Good! Then let the mating BEGIN! Mwahahahahah! [the corn punctures Steve and pins him to the wall]
No matter what the truth, no matter what you said before or how valid your position, the instant you say "300 years of oppression" we stop listening and thinking about your position. Who's we kemosabe? My ass is cracker-white, technically I'm a Southern WASP. Hell, a large chunk of my family is descended from slave-owning Confederates. Not to mention I grew up in the town that started the Civil War.
That 300 years of oppression is a fact. We used to dig up slave tags in our middle school playground; I passed by sharecropper cabins on a still working farm every day going to school. It's a little more visceral when you actually live with the legacy of this.
Black Southerners have always been my neighbors, my schoolmates and my friends. We've worked together to make our community better, we share a lot of cultural values, we eat the same food, listen to the same music and love the same land. I've gotten to see the damage of the current situation on both sides. The Civil Rights movement was almost as much a liberation for white folks as it was for black folks. Segregation was a drain on our society and our growth, it held us back. That being said, those "good-old boys" have always been my neighbors too. Make sure those guys have jobs, can provide for their family and their kids have decent schools and they really drop most of their paranoid resentment of black folks.
Those of us 'enlightened' Southerners, see this just like Jews view the Holocaust. We will not forget so the same mistake is never repeated. It's not just about the institution of slavery, it's the creation of second class citizens in this country. This is a civil rights issue, not a question of fortitude.
If you've been conditioned as you've claimed, your assumptions are predicated on lies. Black folks have "sucked it up" and "taken it like men" longer than your people have been in this country. It's insulting that you or any white man would have the arrogance and contempt to even act like these people are "just whining". Why don't you tell them they need to keep getting to the back of the bus till this blows over, it's just as insulting. Do you have any idea what it was like to get where we are today? It sure doesn't seem like it with the statements you make.
If you think your going to make a valid point on a historical basis, you've got your work cut out for you. A serf had more rights than a black man till the Civil Rights Act in this country. If you don't think so, then I don't think you know enough about the Feudal System and it's accompanying body of law. Also, the reparations to Jewish slaves for WWII shows that white men have most recently ended that discussion with "Can I write you a check?".
This is an entirely different case than most of the historical examples you've brought up which renders them irrelevant. In most of them, there was a foreign invader. In our case, both sides have been living in the same land together for the same amount of time. No one got here first. We have a Constitution that guarantees everyone equality under the law. Your position sounds to me like black folks are better assimilated as Americans than these white folks you're describing. It also sounds like racism is still much more rampant in predominately white parts of the country, almost more so than it's historical strongholds in the South.
This is the US. Our entire body politic is held to a different standard than any of the examples you've given. There's no relativism here. We're not talking about some historical tragedy that's over and done with, we're talking about one that is still an advantage to the oppressor and a disadvantage to the victim. We're talking about one where the oppressor and victim have agreed to treat each other equally. The oppressor has made the deal; the victim is simply demanding enforcement of the contract.
Your entire post can be summed up as some sort of demand that blacks ask nicely for they're Civil Rights and if the man thinks they've suffered enough, then he might
Clinton simply provided better funding for many of these programs and extended their reach. Clinton put 100,000 cops on the streets. This was a favorite of the black community. It was Clinton's input on the reformation of welfare that made it work. Reforms like this can easily be just as damaging. That's why he vetoed two earlier versions and probably would have vetoed the third.
As for your hypothetical tipping point, we haven't reached it, we've never gotten close. The myth of welfare as a crutch has been disproved time and again. There was a lack of other support needed to get people working. There is more than enough incentive in this country for people to work and try to achieve a self-reliant standard of living. There is no culture in this country that reinforces a poor work ethic. Any idea otherwise is an assumption based on ignorance as no evidence can be found to the contrary.
This is why the loss of jobs in this country is such a problem. Especially blue collar factory jobs. The cost savings through pure wage arbitration hide the local cost of supporting the displaced workforce. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Automation is a much healthier for sustainable, long-term, steady growth than off shoring or using illegal immigrants for cheap labor. You can't punish the adult without punishing the child. Your only alternative is to remove the child into state funded care. I don't know many Americans that think moving any kid living close to the poverty line should be removed from their mother and into a state funded program.
If you wonder why busing was necessary, then you aren't aware of just how bad schools for black kids were. The other problem is that the best way to integrate cultures and create a certain level of assimilation is to integrate schools. Integration of schools has led to a miraculous change in only two generations, in another generation the Civil Rights Movement may qualify as a legal revolution, per Berman's definition.
I say spend money on high achievers and the money necessary to bring the others up. It's still the best investment society can make, either in capital markets or in public funding.
Under Clinton, abortion reached a new low since Row v. Wade and per capita Federal spending was at it's lowest point since WWII. It was Clinton's dedication to providing opportunity for people to become self-reliant. Self-Reliance will destroy racism, engender respect and allow for higher rates of economic growth. Just as the public debt drains from the available pool of capital for economic growth, allowing a second class of citizens to fester as such drains on the human and intellectual capital needed to compete in the global marketplace.
Wealthier people have less children and the ones they do have are later in life. This is a global trend. The best way to reduce social problems is to ensure there is economic opportunity for all people. This means, instead of forcing the most disadvantaged among our society to compete with the largest part of the globe on their own, we should ensure they have the resources needed to compete through automation and innovation. Japan is a good example of this, they have negative population growth and are the foremost researchers of robotics and automation. A recent study showed that there was a link between per capita spending of public funds and cultural homogeny, it noted Mississippi's position as last in terms of per capita public spending.
Poor morality isn't the cause. Most black communities are organized around churches, they're just as god fearing and moral as any white community, they just have different priorities due to historical social injustice. Lack of opportunity is the cause. This tough love approach has no empirical backing. It also only seems to be popular with voting groups that are predominately white and more rural than urban. Whites who live in urban settings and minorities tend to look at the picture from the perspective I have presented. If communities have the resources to create oppo
The article I pointed to answer your first question. BTW, Hispanics voted for Kerry 2 to 1 over Bush, so whose Republican?
As for you point about AA, the lowering standards have been a result of the decrease in investment per capita, eroded by inflation. The socio-economic issues are a result of racist policies of the past. Just because the perpetuation of their effects aren't fueled by racism, doesn't mean that the injustice goes away. AA is just part of a solution. It's been effective, just ask Colin Powell.
I don't want children to fall short of their potential in their first 18 years. If we funded education, after school programs and other social programs targeted at children, we would see a lot of these problems disappear within a generation, two at the most. Unfortunately, enthusiasm for proper funding of this stuff dropped off right after blacks decided they wanted access to the same facilities white people had, and the courts agreed. Damn activist judges.
Your entire point that no child-care is somehow an appropriate consequence for someone's actions are ludicrous and short-sighted. That child didn't commit any crime, why should the child be punished. Besides, if you don't pay for head-start now, you'll probably be paying for that child's incarceration when it can't compete in the marketplace due to it's disadvantaged circumstances and winds up getting busted for selling drugs. Then you can pay for that child's offspring's incarceration later. Either spend $15K a year now per kid (3x what we now spend on schools) or $30K a year to jail them.
Are you saying there is something wrong with state-sponsored day care? Are you actually arguing this is somehow a poor use of public funds? It's an investment, and one of the best ROI's. Isn't being a single mother enough of a consequence? Now you want to punish an innocent child too? This idea that social programs continue the cycle of poverty is absurd and has no basis in reality. It is the absence of these problems that continue the cycle. It's costing you more of your money and more of your resources, for some reason you can't seem to see this. Make sure every American child has a chance to compete in the marketplace or you'll be paying to take care of them for the rest of their life.
Until standard population statistics between blacks and whites (and everyone else) in America are more even, there is not equality. I'd personally prefer to see minorities lifted up rather than the GOP strategy of simple letting everyone sink to the bottom, but that's another discussion.
I wasn't claiming that we should have "reparations" for slavery. In fact, some sort of judicial settlement in a lump sum would probably not be a good thing, nor have a lasting effect that would truly create a level playing field. I understand your point; I think you've misconstrued mine. First of all, black Americans are trying to "own today". It's just a hell of a lot harder for the average black American to do so than it is for the average white American. The US Government statistics back this up. Quite frankly, any black American would be insulted by your insinuation. The entire problem has been that black people haven't had power. They haven't had the power to demand fair wages.
Your point about white people developing might makes right, isn't quite right. The single most unique contribution that Western Civilization has made to the world is it's legal system, which has stated that might doesn't make right among your own society. The West has grown it's ideas that might doesn't make right to a global scale. The current situation is a deviation from this ideal, and I would argue, a regression.
I also haven't claimed that white people are evil. It's simply a matter of fact that as long as black and white folks have been living in this country together, the white folks have had the advantage. Since we've decided to place both black and whites (and everyone else) on a level playing field, we need to insure that that level playing field exists. In fact, this argument applies just as much to Native Americans.
The disadvantage that black folks have experienced has been due to historical injustice. That justice will be corrected when the statistics I mentioned earlier are far more equal between white and black Americans. That's really all black people want, just the same access to opportunity that your average white person has access to in America. It's simply the realization of the principle of equality under the law. As long as life is, by default, disproportionately harder for black Americans than white Americans as a legacy of past injustices, the principle of equality for all citizens has not been achieved.
I'm simply calling a spade a spade by using the terms reparations or compensation in describing the solution here. It's going to cost money to make sure the principle of equality under the law is achieved and since the white people have more of the money, it's going to disproportionately come out of their pocket. Rather than seeing it as a judgment against an offence, you should look at it as an investment for peace and justice. After all, either we can deal with the fact that some portion of the population has a harder time succeeding and correct it, or we can continuously deal with the drag on all of society created by an underperforming group. I'm simply saying the underperformance is due to injustice and that should be corrected, which will cost money.
In conjunction with your post, there's also a long history of North African Muslims who conducted slave raids on the Irish and British, which played a part in attitudes over African slavery in America. Many African slaves were sold as criminals who been sentenced to slavery for crimes in their homeland. Of course, these were largely cover stories for the wholesale kidnap and enslavement of people.
I'll tell you what, go show my post to any group of black folks in any Southern town and see if they think it's racist. It seems to me that your ideas of racism and "generalizations" are far more hypothetical that coming from any actual experience. If you think you're doing some sort of service with an idea that you can make this world color blind, you're wrong. First of all, American black culture, especially in the South is as homogenous as Southern white culture. Am I including Jamaicans or Haitians or Africans in this critique? No. I'm talking about Southern black culture, although Jamaicans, Haitians and Africans have all suffered from the same stereotypes perpetuated by the injustice done to African-Americans. It's something I do know something about and it's pretty apparent that you don't.
In fact, you've pretty much reinforced my position. The majority of White Americans don't have a clue when it comes to how the other 40% of the country lives or what they think.
I do support all people, that's why I have no problem taking the time to point out how black Americans have gotten a raw deal. Until those injustices are corrected, you can't just talk about "_PEOPLE_", because they aren't all equal. Maybe you should worry about the gross injustices before nitpicking over semantics and nitpicking over semantics is what you're doing until the playing field has been leveled.
Specifically for blacks? This should be a good starter. You could start with the record number of black appointments to Federal positions. Clinton connected with black Americans in a way that gave them hope, he made them feel like the promises of the Civil Rights movement would come true if he had anything to do with it. I'd say that's concrete, to make a person who feels like a second class citizen realize the their guarantees under the Constitution will be upheld. It's lasting as well. Bill Clinton gave Black folks hope, I don't know if you can measure how much that was worth, and nobody can take it from them. Your qualifier of lasting is a bit difficult. Did a Republican Congress or Administration make a thing less lasting? Like Bush I's cuts to Head Start or his assault on Affirmative Action. The general idea behind Clinton's policies was to preserve the programs, such as Affirmative Action and anti-poverty programs like Head Start, while creating a rising tide that would lift all boats.
Mississippi is 40% black, 60% white. Only Washington DC has a higher concentration of black folks (61%, no wonder they can't get representation in Congress). Nationally, Blacks voted for Kerry 10 to 1, whereas Whites voted for Bush 2 to 1. Black populations tend to be social conservatives who vote based on economic and civil rights issues. While most black churches tend to focus on economic and social justice issues, white churches focus on social issues like abortion and gay rights.
If you'd like to see how well this works out for the Republicans, check out these jokers.
It's a lot easier to be worried about white church issues when you don't have to worry about putting food on the table. Mississippi has a poverty rate approaching 20% whereas the national average is nearly half that for all races but 23% nationally for blacks. Quite frankly, it's also the reason I think hypocrite whenever I hear white folks getting all uppity about "values" when black communities are still stuck with the same statistical difference on lifespan, education, home ownership and business ownership, infant mortality that they've always had with white people.
This country has never properly compensated it's black population for 300+ years of racism and slavery and the statistical numbers show it. The GOP will never increase it's vote among the black population until it quits playing lip service to these issues and actually does something about it. Bill Clinton was America's "First Black President" for a reason.
Hell, you couldn't pay Republicans enough to walk the neighborhoods I have to get the vote out. The most poignant satirical illustration of this I've seen was the faux South Park cartoon in Bowling for Columbine. White America seems to pretty much be oblivious when it comes to how other people live and running scared because of ignorance. Racism in this country isn't dead, it's just gotten a hell of a lot more subtle.
So who do we dress up as? Republicans seems like an obvious choice, but wouldn't it be more in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party if we blame some innocent third party like the Libertarians?
If we're going to smash e-voting machines dressed as Libertarians, what would a stereotypical Libertarian dress like? Maybe we should just look like the free market picked out our clothes in the morning.
If you missed the joke, you have no sense of humor.
After reading your last few posts, I'd be careful claiming others are "quite beyond hope". Your reasoning is weak and your research is sloppy. Like many of your fellow sufferers of cognitive dissonance, your idea's of causality are erroneous and your paranoia of anyone outside your cultural sphere is disturbing.
I can usually handle all that, but not without a sense of humor, please get one before coming back.
As the Daily Show pointed out, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda:
Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?
Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?
Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.
Yes-True. You pointed to a dissenting opinion, not the commission's report. The report backs up the facts that I've cited and the facts that Greg Palast has cited. Your numbers are completely off.
I noted that the law forcing the supervisor's to use the list was passed in 2002. Many supervisor's still used the list and people were disenfranchised. The USCCR has a couple of pages of people they interviewed on their reports. Maybe you should read the report instead of the dissenting opinion. Not to mention the fact that the documentary Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election has interviews of people who were wrongly matched and taken off the rolls.
Palast has become a bit more rabid since 2000. I would to, if I was reporting on the debacle that was Florida 2000 was my primary job. The crap that went down in Florida was unbelievable. At the very least officials violated their oaths of office, at the worst they violated the civil rights of citizens. Those are pretty serious offences, yet there are still people like you sitting around denying it ever happened. Quite frankly, it's starting to drive me a little nuts. I guess what they say about conservatives these days and cognitive dissonance is true.
Slashdot Mirror
How is a tax-funded program any different from an investor funded program? A municipality is a corporation too. That's why they call the area "incorporated". Urban Law is where the entire idea of joint-stock companies came from. The corporate charter is directly descended from the city (corporate) charter. This idea that a municipality is somehow a different beast than a corporation is silly. It's just structured differently, there is the same amount of risk, the same ability for competition and the same viability for markets.
You can refuse city sewage and water services in lieu of a private service in most places. Your accusation that one would not be able to compete with a municipal service is equally silly. A municipal WiFi network is no different than a public water system, sanitation or emergency service, it's infrastructure. Most businesses around here use a private service for sanitation and many also use private services for drinking water. They do this because they want a higher quality of service or a different type of service than that provided by the municipality. There is still competition and a free market, but a basic level of service is guaranteed to all citizens (investors) of the municipality.
Your definition of capitalism is flawed. In capitalism there is the ability to own private property and utilize a free market to make use of that property. The actors in capitalism are diverse, from government organizations to corporations to individuals to unions. If the market is free then a chartered municipality must have the same rights as a corporation, which is that if they wish to invest in an infrastructure, they may do so. This legislation and your opinion are an intrusion upon the rights of a corporate municipality and how they decide to run their organization. To say that Verizon has a right not to compete with some groups like a municipality is an anathema to capitalism. The only situation in which your accusations of socialism or non-capitalism would stick is if there were no other competing networks allowed in the municipality or if the municipality claimed eminent domain over an existing infrastructure owned by a private entity (Verizon). Neither of these situations are the case here.
Their fates in this case are no longer left to the markets to decide because only certain actors (corporations) now have access to the market and therefore do not have to compete with other classes of actors (municipalities).
The people of the PA municipalities in question want a certain basic level of service to be universal in their corporate area, Verizon would be equally capable of competing against the municipality, they would just need to offer a higher level of service than the municipality in order to be competitive. I fail to see how the current situation is a gain for anyone but Verizon.
What government takeover are you referring to? I missed the part of the PA proposal where they were going to use eminent domain to take over Verizon's infrastructure. From the reading, this is a new market and the people wish to insure that a certain level of service is provided. Apparently, the people of this municipality feel that this is a more efficient means of providing a certain level of service as opposed to waiting till Verizon felt the market would bear it.
I see this legislation as anti-competitive. Verizon now has no viable competition. Mom & Pops aren't going to roll out a municipal wide network like this, they haven't the resources. They might have had a chance to bid on parts of the municipal contracts in various cities in PA, but now they won't. Given that much of municipal work goes to small businesses based in local communities, I fail to see how this is in any way helpful to Mom & Pop operations in PA. Do you have any idea what it's like to be a Mom & Pop who actually has the nerve to compete with Verizon? I've known a few and the results weren't pretty, kind of like a small child's bike in a head on collision with an SUV.
Your theoretical rambling is short-sighted and not based in the realities of the market. As for new and innovative services offered by the government, perhaps I can direct you to the New Deal or the Internet. Your anti-government stance is illogical and rooted in fallacies and mythology. Your assumptions that the government would dot all the i's and cross all the t's of these services, or that no other service would be allowed to compete is unfounded.
Please go back to econ theory 102, cause you seem to need more detail than they provided in 101. Your idea that private business is innovative at creating new infrastructure or universal infrastructure is laughable on it's face. There is no historical or even modern example of this, all of our utility infrastructures were public/private partnerships at best. Private business is only good at innovating on existing infrastructure. I'll stop here cause beating your dogma anymore would border on ideological cruelty.
Huh? Which blogs are you reading? Most posts are news analysis, which is always sourced, go check the background yourself. The value of a blogger is no different than the value of a reporter. One just does it for the love. A blogger is just equivalent to some one who writes open source software in their spare time. Many of the well-known bloggers have their own networks of people they use for info. They tend to have at least pro-am expertise if not actual professional expertise in their area. You might be right about the avg joe blog, but to lump all of them into the same category like this is like claiming equivalency between the Linux kernel and any random project on SourceForge. Someone already cited Juan Cole, he actually shows up on the various cable news shows - as an expert, getting to read his opinion on day to day issues, in his area of expertise (Middle East affairs) is much more in depth than even the reporting you get from say - the BBC.
Is their personal bias and opinion interjected? Of course, that's one of the freedoms that bloggers like about the format. If you still can't recognize the difference between someone's opinionated utterance and their reasoned analysis, you're probably in over your head with the local newspaper's editorial page. I honestly think what people like to describe as bias in the media is a lack of ability to discern what is verifiable and what is speculation. Oh, and if speculation is being bundled as verified information, you're being lied to - see Limbaugh (the original blogger) for examples.
Actually, the one thing about US mainstream media is that they only go on verified sources. This means that they take the word of governments as more credible than non-governmental organizations, even when the government is lying - see the build up to the Iraq war or torture by US forces for examples. The only dangers that the US media likes to report about are the ones posed by the weak and defenseless, no matter how remote that danger is compared to the 800 pound gorilla that doesn't get covered. Why do you think Americans are more worried about the "urban dressed" kid down the road than the corporate predators already squeezing them?
Bloggers - ahem, credible bloggers - have the ability to restore some balance to the system. I certainly appreciate the good ones.
I've found a great solution to this problem! They call it Windows!
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible and wrong. -- H.L. Mencken
Thank-you for playing.
All right, I'll take any snide comments made about the Palmetto State, but your stepping on some thin ice going after Charleston. The "Holy City" title is well deserved, there are over 14 denominations in Charleston that have had continuously meeting congregations since the early 18th century, some since the late 17th century. The moniker actually has to do with the number of steeples visible in the skyline which is also why you can't usually build anything over 5 stories in the city. Charleston is the home to the fourth oldest Jewish congregation (Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim) and second oldest Synagogue in America (oldest in continuous use) and the birthplace of Reform Judaism. We were quite fine with religious differences in a period where all you Europeans were slaughtering each other over them (the 30 years war killed 1/3rd of all Germans), the French Huguenots started worshiping there in 1687. Charleston also has the first building actually built for the purposes of a theatre in America (the 18th century Dock Street Theatre, not the 19th century one), some of the oldest museums and the oldest municipal College in America (University of Charleston). One of the oldest African American congregations in the country is still meeting in Charleston.
As someone who personally knows quite a few philanthropists in Charleston, your comments are unfounded. Perhaps you should visit some of the museums there that record and document the Native Americans that originally lived in the area. Charleston is very mindful of it's history, warts and all. Claiming that some sort of religious reasons would hamper scientific investigation might fly in the rest of South Carolina, but it's utter crap to try and make that claim about Charleston. So to reiterate, piss on the rest of that backassward state all you want, but you better get your information straight before leveling charges against the "Holy City".
Think of this development as a new, more efficient eternal vigilence.
If the individual becomes powerful enough to threaten existing power structures through technology, I'm sure your questions will all be answered. Until then, what harm can be done increasing the power of the individual?
Yes, it's the same technology deployed in non-smoking sections of restaurants.
You're still not reading my entire post. The failure of previous generations hasn't been on the part of the black population, they did their part. It's been on the part of the white population. If you have a sick man, you take them to a doctor because that's the only person who has the capability to heal them. If black people had the resources and power to make those statistics the same, they would have done it already. You in effect are telling the patient to heal himself. Home remedies only work to a point, sometimes surgery is required.
They have already walked into the room and made the arguments you're proposing. Those arguments started back at the end of the 19th century. 100 years later we're still dealing with this. It is clearly not sufficient to do what you are proposing, if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Do you honestly think you've come up with some solution that hasn't been thought of in the past 100 years?
Clinton made an effort to find qualified applicants who were black because he understood that the best, most lasting way to ensure that the black population's concerns were given adequate attention was to make sure members of the community were in positions of power.
Nobody wants to pay for the past, the future is where they are going to be spending the rest of their lives and is worth an effort.
You don't make those choices though. I didn't have crap to do with the Holocaust or the formation of the State of Israel, but I sure as hell have to put up with the Palestinian conflict. The past shapes the reality we have to deal with. The legacy of slavery is simply part of the reality we have to deal with. Putting your head in the sand over it isn't rational. It isn't helpful, it's part of the problem and not the solution.
As far as your unfairness concept, it's self contradicting. If each "*EACH* generation has to do the right thing in order to make the way for the next generation", then the previous couple failed. That, by your definition of *EACH* generation's responsibility, means that this responsibility has been unfairly passed on. This is a national problem involving 12% to 13% of the population nationally. This is every citizen's problem and responsibility. A violation of rights is your responsibility, no matter your personal connection or lack thereof.
After this many posts, you are still trying to attack my argument on the basis that reparations are a judgment in a civil suit. I have repeatedly explained this aspect as not the case. The fact of the matter is that if these problems were taken care of, it would be reparations. It would remedy the legacy of a past offense. This is a fact. The causal link is there. The only argument you've made is that these semantics are unacceptable to the white population who refuses to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to solve this.
If that was a viable solution, you'd never hear the words reparations, oppression, slavery or prejudice come out of a black man's mouth ever again. Your point that that is the solution here, to make a reasoned argument full of statistics, is not valid. That approach hasn't worked either.
So you're entire point that these things would get fixed if the message was "updated" is wrong. The message has been covered in honey and still rejected. There is something else going on here and I believe it has more to do with your pre-programming and assumptions that any action of the black community.
Oh and the Huns did sack Rome over "cultural differences". Rome treated them like second class citizens and they did not have the same economic opportunities. Eventually, after Rome broke deal after deal due to cultural bias, they up and sacked the place to get their due. You are correct that the object of the sacking was to acquire wealth and power, but you are ignoring what brought that situation to the point of sacking a city. Cultural differences are a fact of life. Our legal system must reflect that and deal with those differences while maintaining
If you are not going to be open minded enough to listen to a whole argument then why should people even bother? This isn't important enough of a problem to the nation that you can't be bothered to hear an entire argument about it?
Can't you see the hypocrisy and continued insult to injury your position takes? You agree that there is a serious problem with the opportunities for the average black man and something should be done about it. You won't listen to it if anyone brings up the cause of these problems, even though you recognize the problems. You admit to being close-minded and un-empathetic to your fellow citizens and expect them to change? Don't you see that you are perpetuating the very injustice that they are angry over?
In addition, you seek to punish by saying the entire argument is nonsense until it is tailored for your ears. Who is the problem here? Is it black folks fault that you are close-minded and arrogant? Are you this close-minded and arrogant with Native Americans, if not then how is it not racist to hold blacks to a different standard? Why wouldn't you simply listen to the argument and try to explain that position to other white people? Clinton did make his choices because they were the best choices to fix the problems we still deal with because of slavery. All of these problems are "because of slavery" and the other problems surrounding segregation. Where else did they come from?
As for the NAACP, they demand they're rights because they are Americans and for no other reason. They also know that they are denied they're rights now because of the legacy of slavery. It's a matter of fact and you're asking them to deny that fact, or at least not mention it because it might hurt your feelings. Why is this burden on them? Aren't we the ones being hypocrites? I'd really like to see you try this BTW, the look on your face when you got "schooled" on the 100 years of rational arguments made by the NAACP. How this country has failed to live up to it's promises in the face of reason. They wouldn't agree with you, they'd say, "Been There, Done That".
If the problem is message, as you're so fond of pointing out, what are you adding by saying "don't bring up the root cause of the problem"? Are we only supposed to deal with the symptoms of the disease instead of the dealing with the actual source? How do you know you have the solution if you refuse to correctly identify the problem?
All you've managed to do is reinforce my original points. White America still holds Black America to a different standard while hypocritically proclaiming a love for the rule of law. Without equality under the law, this is rule *by* law, not rule *of* law. During this entire thread, you've admitted your own deficiencies while demanding that the rest of us cater to you instead of exploring how to correct your own deficiencies. That may not be racist, but it's sure as hell un-American, especially since we're talking about rights under the Constitution. The results of your attitude is feeding a cancer that has made this country ill long enough, it's where racism comes from. And it is racist to hold someone to a different standard due to their ethnic or cultural background. Why wouldn't you fight for what is right instead of perpetuating the attitudes that created this cancer in the first place?
Black folks aren't immigrants. If they are descended from slaves, they've been in this country longer than most white Americans, especially those in Iowa. Their situation is different from other immigrant populations. Are you actually claiming that black people need to assimilate? Being converted to Christianity, having their culture forcefully stripped, being forced into labor and ignorance and denied education or property wasn't a clean enough slate for you?
Have you forgotten where half of the uniquely American cultural contributions have come from?
There was no such agreement, not with the blacks, not with the indians, not with the chineese, not with anybody.
What the hell are you talking about? The Constitution is a guarantee of rights to every citizen of the US, regardless of ethnic, cultural or religious background. The agreement is with every black, indian and chinese descendent who is a citizen. Those rights were denied and the impact is still lasting. That lasting impact must be rectified in order for the guarantee of the Constitution to be valid. If you make this negotiable then the entire Constitution is negotiable without amendment or interpretation by the courts.
If these problems you're claiming to be concerned about were taken care of, it would be a reparation of the past. You are simply trying to deny the historical link here. I really don't understand why, it's a fact, deal with it. To oppose the solution and an end to this entire rift in our nation because you don't want to acknowledge the past's relevancy in the present is petty.
I'm not arguing from a point of relative oppression for black folks compared to Jews or any other historical issue. Those are all separate issues. The only reason we have to deal with this particular historical injustice is that it still impacts us. Just as we have the Anti-Defamation League to keep an lid on further injustice from the legacy of the Nazi's and the history of anti-Semitism in European culture, we must deal with the injustice created in the present which is a product of the injustice of the past.
You are still arguing against a misconception of my position. Remember that the Huns sacked Rome over the same kind of cultural bias. Do you want to simply ignore this over semantics and have it destroy our country or do you want to fulfill the ideals of the American Revolution and guarantees of the Constitution? I have talked about the future and what needs to happen today. I have given it weight by showing it's evolution and link to the past. If you don't like that facts appear biased against you, it's not my fault, nor is it the fault of the people you say you tune out when the subject comes up. As I noted in another post, it's unfair that our generation has to deal with this issue, it should have been solved already. There is nothing we can do to change that fact. We can only do what generations of Americans before have tried to do, the right thing. Fix the problem, don't deny it, don't waste your time trying to scrutinize it anymore. This entire issue has become like trying to argue evolution vs. creationism. There is a body of fact and logic on one side and irrationality on the other.
If you never want to feel like someone is unfairly blaming white people for the past, then take away their reasons for doing so. BTW, I also work on issues that affect Native Americans. I'm very aware of who got displaced for the land I now consider home. Osceola, leader of the Seminoles died in my hometown, as a prisoner in the same fort the first shot of the Civil War was fired from. I now live a couple of miles from one of the Seminole Reservations. Again, the impact of offenses of the past still affect these people as well and the argument over what to do is the same.
You are still missing the point and in denial about the reality of the current situation.
You are approaching this as if someone is trying to lay blame on you for the offenses of the past and asking for payment as a judgment for that blame. That is not the case, as I have repeatedly stated in my replies, this is the duty of each citizen to ensure that a group that was treated as second class citizens are made whole. Why do you think this happened? Because of something inherent to black people? It's because of the 300 years of oppression. There is no other empirical explanation for the current situation.
Those coal miners were helped. The reforms of the first part of the 20th century directly targeted those groups of people. Union legislation was directly targeted to bring a second class group into first class status. You are in denial about what this country has done before about similar situations. These people didn't just work themselves out of their problems by themselves, this country helped out. We haven't made the same effort in this case. This isn't about paying blood-money to someone for a past offense, it's about erasing the on going impact of that offense. That has affected all black people, regardless of their ancestry. Your entire defense of historical irrelevancy is itself irrelevant
Somehow you managed to not read my post, I'm not black. I'm a lily white Southerner, the only thing I have to gain is the overall increase in peace and justice in my community. I'm looking at this from the other side. You also are making a straw man argument by claiming I only care about the problems of black people and not anyone else. I wasn't arguing any of those issues, just this one. Besides, the same plan has worked and will work for any other group of disadvantaged citizens in our own country. I'm just talking about an issue that this country seems to be in the most denial about.
Black folks aren't down in the mud with you or me currently. A large number of them are in a deeper pool of mud than us. Until they are in the same pool of mud that we're in, there is an unjust impact of the past on the present. If you'd actually listen to the arguments, what you're claiming to argue is what is happening. What you're denying is the cause of these problems. Your entire argument that black folks should argue the statistics and not bring up the cause is insulting. What do you think they've been doing since the Civil Rights Movement? The only reason this entire issue of the cause comes up is because this nation has opposed fixing this problem at the polls. The rational, reasoned statistical arguments, pointing all the problems out and how to fix them, has been made repeatedly. Not that it should have to be made, the census statistics point it out.
Where this thread started was about the GOP vs. Democratic accomplishments for black people. I pointed to an article that talked about how Clinton had the highest number of black appointments to the Federal bureaucracy. This was important, because it meant that people who wouldn't dismiss that logical, reasoned argument of the statistics and would actually do something about it. I haven't made any claim against you, I have only said that you have a duty as a citizen to help fix this situation so that we can all move on. If you never want to feel like someone is blaming you for offenses of the past again, then help erase the legacy. You're claim is that you're not going to do anything as long as someone says it's related to a past offense. That's nonsensical when the evidence clearly shows that the issues are linked. Your nitpick over semantics appears petty in the face of actual suffering that currently happens due to the impact of history.
The attack that this is somehow asking for something special is equally facetious. This is simply one issue. The fact that we haven't dealt with it perhaps explains why we haven't dealt with the other issues you've brought up. This one has a solution and the only party that hasn't jumped on board with getting th
What part of the Constitution entitles you or ANYONE to money because of heritage or ethnicity?
The principle of equality under the law. Since blacks were oppressed as slaves and unable to hold property or any power. After the Civil War, they still had little to no power or property. Even when they became doctors and lawyers they were forbidden to take part in professional society through most of the country. Then there were the chain gangs and sharecropping. Both of these systems were in place in the 30's. There was still forced segregation through the 60's and racial tensions throughout the 70's. Remember COINTELPRO? How about the KKK?
Every couple of years, someone burns down a church or sticks a cross in a black man's yard. The basic population statistics for this population group are below the percentages for white people and are not moving up nearly as quickly as they need to be to break the cycle of poverty.
This violates the principles and mechanics laid out in the Federalist Papers. There has been a second class citizenry for too long and we must correct it. This failure to deliver on the guarantees of the Constitution is a cancer that eats at the legitimacy and authority of the US Government.
You obviously failed to read my other posts if your attacking me on an idea of reparations as a lump payment to individuals. I've already stated that that is not a wise solution.
Black folks don't forget about the Native Americans. There is no substance to your argument there.
I don't remember taking out a loan. In fact, I don't remember ever even being rude to a black person. Despite being a southerner, none of my ancestors ever owned slaves, and in case you were wondering, it was only the vast MINORITY of southerners who did.
The Constitution is contract between us all. This isn't about punishing you for some specific action of yours, it's about your duty as a citizen to ensure that the Constitution's guarantees are not wrongfully denied to any other system, otherwise, why should any citizen trust that their guarantees will be upheld. Since the guarantees for all citizens, such as equality under the law and the ability to acquire wealth (and power), have never been provided to these people, there is a debt. The debt cannot be measured in monetary terms, it's a debt of the very fabric of the nation.
It's not just a matter of who owned slaves. Beyond the duty of all citizens, us white Southerners have benefited from the organized repression of black people. We had better schools for less money because we wouldn't fund black schools. We benefited from the cheap labor, we've used eminent domain unfairly to take land for our economic advantage.
If you are a white Southerner, then remember that these people are your people. What the hell would the South be without black folks around? If you care about the South, if you are at all proud of your Southern heritage, then you should be concerned about this. This part of our past was a cancer that held us all back, it still holds us back.
As long as a average black kid in this country doesn't have access to the same opportunities as the average white kid, the legacy of this injustice is still inflicting more injustice. That is what must be corrected now, that is what reparations are, making a second class citizenry whole. The same needs to be done for the Native Americans and this country must ensure that all citizens. The census statistics don't lie, as long as those numbers are so horribly lopsided between black and white populations, we still have a problem that it is our duty as citizens to correct.
The reason that I think, in the case of the black population, that we do need AA based on race is that there is a natural tendency in all cultures to degrade the culture of a disenfranchised group. There is a cultural bias that still permeates our markets and professional institutions. I don't think it will go away until those statistics are much closer too each other. White people ha
Dr. Weird : Gentlemen! Behold!... Corn!
Steve : [pretending to be surprised] Okaaay... you know, this is pretty nice! Yeah, I am kinda hungry...
Dr. Weird : Good! Then let the mating BEGIN! Mwahahahahah!
[the corn punctures Steve and pins him to the wall]
Courtesy of IMDB
No matter what the truth, no matter what you said before or how valid your position, the instant you say "300 years of oppression" we stop listening and thinking about your position.
Who's we kemosabe? My ass is cracker-white, technically I'm a Southern WASP. Hell, a large chunk of my family is descended from slave-owning Confederates. Not to mention I grew up in the town that started the Civil War.
That 300 years of oppression is a fact. We used to dig up slave tags in our middle school playground; I passed by sharecropper cabins on a still working farm every day going to school. It's a little more visceral when you actually live with the legacy of this.
Black Southerners have always been my neighbors, my schoolmates and my friends. We've worked together to make our community better, we share a lot of cultural values, we eat the same food, listen to the same music and love the same land. I've gotten to see the damage of the current situation on both sides. The Civil Rights movement was almost as much a liberation for white folks as it was for black folks. Segregation was a drain on our society and our growth, it held us back. That being said, those "good-old boys" have always been my neighbors too. Make sure those guys have jobs, can provide for their family and their kids have decent schools and they really drop most of their paranoid resentment of black folks.
Those of us 'enlightened' Southerners, see this just like Jews view the Holocaust. We will not forget so the same mistake is never repeated. It's not just about the institution of slavery, it's the creation of second class citizens in this country. This is a civil rights issue, not a question of fortitude.
If you've been conditioned as you've claimed, your assumptions are predicated on lies. Black folks have "sucked it up" and "taken it like men" longer than your people have been in this country. It's insulting that you or any white man would have the arrogance and contempt to even act like these people are "just whining". Why don't you tell them they need to keep getting to the back of the bus till this blows over, it's just as insulting. Do you have any idea what it was like to get where we are today? It sure doesn't seem like it with the statements you make.
If you think your going to make a valid point on a historical basis, you've got your work cut out for you. A serf had more rights than a black man till the Civil Rights Act in this country. If you don't think so, then I don't think you know enough about the Feudal System and it's accompanying body of law. Also, the reparations to Jewish slaves for WWII shows that white men have most recently ended that discussion with "Can I write you a check?".
This is an entirely different case than most of the historical examples you've brought up which renders them irrelevant. In most of them, there was a foreign invader. In our case, both sides have been living in the same land together for the same amount of time. No one got here first. We have a Constitution that guarantees everyone equality under the law. Your position sounds to me like black folks are better assimilated as Americans than these white folks you're describing. It also sounds like racism is still much more rampant in predominately white parts of the country, almost more so than it's historical strongholds in the South.
This is the US. Our entire body politic is held to a different standard than any of the examples you've given. There's no relativism here. We're not talking about some historical tragedy that's over and done with, we're talking about one that is still an advantage to the oppressor and a disadvantage to the victim. We're talking about one where the oppressor and victim have agreed to treat each other equally. The oppressor has made the deal; the victim is simply demanding enforcement of the contract.
Your entire post can be summed up as some sort of demand that blacks ask nicely for they're Civil Rights and if the man thinks they've suffered enough, then he might
Clinton simply provided better funding for many of these programs and extended their reach. Clinton put 100,000 cops on the streets. This was a favorite of the black community. It was Clinton's input on the reformation of welfare that made it work. Reforms like this can easily be just as damaging. That's why he vetoed two earlier versions and probably would have vetoed the third.
As for your hypothetical tipping point, we haven't reached it, we've never gotten close. The myth of welfare as a crutch has been disproved time and again. There was a lack of other support needed to get people working. There is more than enough incentive in this country for people to work and try to achieve a self-reliant standard of living. There is no culture in this country that reinforces a poor work ethic. Any idea otherwise is an assumption based on ignorance as no evidence can be found to the contrary.
This is why the loss of jobs in this country is such a problem. Especially blue collar factory jobs. The cost savings through pure wage arbitration hide the local cost of supporting the displaced workforce. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Automation is a much healthier for sustainable, long-term, steady growth than off shoring or using illegal immigrants for cheap labor. You can't punish the adult without punishing the child. Your only alternative is to remove the child into state funded care. I don't know many Americans that think moving any kid living close to the poverty line should be removed from their mother and into a state funded program.
If you wonder why busing was necessary, then you aren't aware of just how bad schools for black kids were. The other problem is that the best way to integrate cultures and create a certain level of assimilation is to integrate schools. Integration of schools has led to a miraculous change in only two generations, in another generation the Civil Rights Movement may qualify as a legal revolution, per Berman's definition.
I say spend money on high achievers and the money necessary to bring the others up. It's still the best investment society can make, either in capital markets or in public funding.
Under Clinton, abortion reached a new low since Row v. Wade and per capita Federal spending was at it's lowest point since WWII. It was Clinton's dedication to providing opportunity for people to become self-reliant. Self-Reliance will destroy racism, engender respect and allow for higher rates of economic growth. Just as the public debt drains from the available pool of capital for economic growth, allowing a second class of citizens to fester as such drains on the human and intellectual capital needed to compete in the global marketplace.
Wealthier people have less children and the ones they do have are later in life. This is a global trend. The best way to reduce social problems is to ensure there is economic opportunity for all people. This means, instead of forcing the most disadvantaged among our society to compete with the largest part of the globe on their own, we should ensure they have the resources needed to compete through automation and innovation. Japan is a good example of this, they have negative population growth and are the foremost researchers of robotics and automation. A recent study showed that there was a link between per capita spending of public funds and cultural homogeny, it noted Mississippi's position as last in terms of per capita public spending.
Poor morality isn't the cause. Most black communities are organized around churches, they're just as god fearing and moral as any white community, they just have different priorities due to historical social injustice. Lack of opportunity is the cause. This tough love approach has no empirical backing. It also only seems to be popular with voting groups that are predominately white and more rural than urban. Whites who live in urban settings and minorities tend to look at the picture from the perspective I have presented. If communities have the resources to create oppo
The article I pointed to answer your first question. BTW, Hispanics voted for Kerry 2 to 1 over Bush, so whose Republican?
As for you point about AA, the lowering standards have been a result of the decrease in investment per capita, eroded by inflation. The socio-economic issues are a result of racist policies of the past. Just because the perpetuation of their effects aren't fueled by racism, doesn't mean that the injustice goes away. AA is just part of a solution. It's been effective, just ask Colin Powell.
I don't want children to fall short of their potential in their first 18 years. If we funded education, after school programs and other social programs targeted at children, we would see a lot of these problems disappear within a generation, two at the most. Unfortunately, enthusiasm for proper funding of this stuff dropped off right after blacks decided they wanted access to the same facilities white people had, and the courts agreed. Damn activist judges.
Your entire point that no child-care is somehow an appropriate consequence for someone's actions are ludicrous and short-sighted. That child didn't commit any crime, why should the child be punished. Besides, if you don't pay for head-start now, you'll probably be paying for that child's incarceration when it can't compete in the marketplace due to it's disadvantaged circumstances and winds up getting busted for selling drugs. Then you can pay for that child's offspring's incarceration later. Either spend $15K a year now per kid (3x what we now spend on schools) or $30K a year to jail them.
Are you saying there is something wrong with state-sponsored day care? Are you actually arguing this is somehow a poor use of public funds? It's an investment, and one of the best ROI's. Isn't being a single mother enough of a consequence? Now you want to punish an innocent child too? This idea that social programs continue the cycle of poverty is absurd and has no basis in reality. It is the absence of these problems that continue the cycle. It's costing you more of your money and more of your resources, for some reason you can't seem to see this. Make sure every American child has a chance to compete in the marketplace or you'll be paying to take care of them for the rest of their life.
Until standard population statistics between blacks and whites (and everyone else) in America are more even, there is not equality. I'd personally prefer to see minorities lifted up rather than the GOP strategy of simple letting everyone sink to the bottom, but that's another discussion.
Nothing like blaming the victim to make yourself feel better.
Please don't reply unless you have something rational to contribute.
I wasn't claiming that we should have "reparations" for slavery. In fact, some sort of judicial settlement in a lump sum would probably not be a good thing, nor have a lasting effect that would truly create a level playing field. I understand your point; I think you've misconstrued mine. First of all, black Americans are trying to "own today". It's just a hell of a lot harder for the average black American to do so than it is for the average white American. The US Government statistics back this up. Quite frankly, any black American would be insulted by your insinuation. The entire problem has been that black people haven't had power. They haven't had the power to demand fair wages.
Your point about white people developing might makes right, isn't quite right. The single most unique contribution that Western Civilization has made to the world is it's legal system, which has stated that might doesn't make right among your own society. The West has grown it's ideas that might doesn't make right to a global scale. The current situation is a deviation from this ideal, and I would argue, a regression.
I also haven't claimed that white people are evil. It's simply a matter of fact that as long as black and white folks have been living in this country together, the white folks have had the advantage. Since we've decided to place both black and whites (and everyone else) on a level playing field, we need to insure that that level playing field exists. In fact, this argument applies just as much to Native Americans.
The disadvantage that black folks have experienced has been due to historical injustice. That justice will be corrected when the statistics I mentioned earlier are far more equal between white and black Americans. That's really all black people want, just the same access to opportunity that your average white person has access to in America. It's simply the realization of the principle of equality under the law. As long as life is, by default, disproportionately harder for black Americans than white Americans as a legacy of past injustices, the principle of equality for all citizens has not been achieved.
I'm simply calling a spade a spade by using the terms reparations or compensation in describing the solution here. It's going to cost money to make sure the principle of equality under the law is achieved and since the white people have more of the money, it's going to disproportionately come out of their pocket. Rather than seeing it as a judgment against an offence, you should look at it as an investment for peace and justice. After all, either we can deal with the fact that some portion of the population has a harder time succeeding and correct it, or we can continuously deal with the drag on all of society created by an underperforming group. I'm simply saying the underperformance is due to injustice and that should be corrected, which will cost money.
In conjunction with your post, there's also a long history of North African Muslims who conducted slave raids on the Irish and British, which played a part in attitudes over African slavery in America. Many African slaves were sold as criminals who been sentenced to slavery for crimes in their homeland. Of course, these were largely cover stories for the wholesale kidnap and enslavement of people.
I'll tell you what, go show my post to any group of black folks in any Southern town and see if they think it's racist.
It seems to me that your ideas of racism and "generalizations" are far more hypothetical that coming from any actual experience. If you think you're doing some sort of service with an idea that you can make this world color blind, you're wrong. First of all, American black culture, especially in the South is as homogenous as Southern white culture. Am I including Jamaicans or Haitians or Africans in this critique? No. I'm talking about Southern black culture, although Jamaicans, Haitians and Africans have all suffered from the same stereotypes perpetuated by the injustice done to African-Americans. It's something I do know something about and it's pretty apparent that you don't.
In fact, you've pretty much reinforced my position. The majority of White Americans don't have a clue when it comes to how the other 40% of the country lives or what they think.
I do support all people, that's why I have no problem taking the time to point out how black Americans have gotten a raw deal. Until those injustices are corrected, you can't just talk about "_PEOPLE_", because they aren't all equal. Maybe you should worry about the gross injustices before nitpicking over semantics and nitpicking over semantics is what you're doing until the playing field has been leveled.
Specifically for blacks? This should be a good starter.
You could start with the record number of black appointments to Federal positions. Clinton connected with black Americans in a way that gave them hope, he made them feel like the promises of the Civil Rights movement would come true if he had anything to do with it. I'd say that's concrete, to make a person who feels like a second class citizen realize the their guarantees under the Constitution will be upheld. It's lasting as well. Bill Clinton gave Black folks hope, I don't know if you can measure how much that was worth, and nobody can take it from them.
Your qualifier of lasting is a bit difficult. Did a Republican Congress or Administration make a thing less lasting? Like Bush I's cuts to Head Start or his assault on Affirmative Action.
The general idea behind Clinton's policies was to preserve the programs, such as Affirmative Action and anti-poverty programs like Head Start, while creating a rising tide that would lift all boats.
Mississippi is 40% black, 60% white. Only Washington DC has a higher concentration of black folks (61%, no wonder they can't get representation in Congress). Nationally, Blacks voted for Kerry 10 to 1, whereas Whites voted for Bush 2 to 1. Black populations tend to be social conservatives who vote based on economic and civil rights issues. While most black churches tend to focus on economic and social justice issues, white churches focus on social issues like abortion and gay rights.
If you'd like to see how well this works out for the Republicans, check out these jokers.
It's a lot easier to be worried about white church issues when you don't have to worry about putting food on the table. Mississippi has a poverty rate approaching 20% whereas the national average is nearly half that for all races but 23% nationally for blacks. Quite frankly, it's also the reason I think hypocrite whenever I hear white folks getting all uppity about "values" when black communities are still stuck with the same statistical difference on lifespan, education, home ownership and business ownership, infant mortality that they've always had with white people.
This country has never properly compensated it's black population for 300+ years of racism and slavery and the statistical numbers show it. The GOP will never increase it's vote among the black population until it quits playing lip service to these issues and actually does something about it. Bill Clinton was America's "First Black President" for a reason.
Hell, you couldn't pay Republicans enough to walk the neighborhoods I have to get the vote out. The most poignant satirical illustration of this I've seen was the faux South Park cartoon in Bowling for Columbine. White America seems to pretty much be oblivious when it comes to how other people live and running scared because of ignorance. Racism in this country isn't dead, it's just gotten a hell of a lot more subtle.
So who do we dress up as? Republicans seems like an obvious choice, but wouldn't it be more in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party if we blame some innocent third party like the Libertarians?
If we're going to smash e-voting machines dressed as Libertarians, what would a stereotypical Libertarian dress like? Maybe we should just look like the free market picked out our clothes in the morning.
If you missed the joke, you have no sense of humor.
After reading your last few posts, I'd be careful claiming others are "quite beyond hope". Your reasoning is weak and your research is sloppy. Like many of your fellow sufferers of cognitive dissonance, your idea's of causality are erroneous and your paranoia of anyone outside your cultural sphere is disturbing.
I can usually handle all that, but not without a sense of humor, please get one before coming back.
Yes-True. You pointed to a dissenting opinion, not the commission's report. The report backs up the facts that I've cited and the facts that Greg Palast has cited. Your numbers are completely off.
I noted that the law forcing the supervisor's to use the list was passed in 2002. Many supervisor's still used the list and people were disenfranchised. The USCCR has a couple of pages of people they interviewed on their reports. Maybe you should read the report instead of the dissenting opinion. Not to mention the fact that the documentary Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election has interviews of people who were wrongly matched and taken off the rolls.
Palast has become a bit more rabid since 2000. I would to, if I was reporting on the debacle that was Florida 2000 was my primary job. The crap that went down in Florida was unbelievable. At the very least officials violated their oaths of office, at the worst they violated the civil rights of citizens. Those are pretty serious offences, yet there are still people like you sitting around denying it ever happened. Quite frankly, it's starting to drive me a little nuts. I guess what they say about conservatives these days and cognitive dissonance is true.