Last month’s execution of Stanley Tookie Williams is part of a grotesque revenge ritual that likely will deepen the cycle of violence it purports to diminish. Williams, a co-founder of the Crips street gang, had transformed himself into a passionate anti-gang activist during his near quarter century in prison. When he talked of personal redemption and racial pride, it had a… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (238)I think capital punishment is wrong and would vote to overturn it. I also think Tookie should have lived out his pathetic embarrassment of a life in that dungeon in anonymity for brutally murdering 4 innocent people (and he wasn’t even a man enough to admit that he did it - as the courts have proved over, and over, and over again). Some people just can’t get their heads around convictions, some people still believe OJ didn’t do it! Normal people find this hard to believe of course. But there are still cranks out there.
Tookie was a cheap street thug who founded one of the most notorios gangs in the nation. The amount of carnage that the Crips, Bloods, and every other gang that formed have devasted minority communities throughout this country. He’s is no saint. He is no martyr. He was just a cheap street gang thug with no conscience or honor.
But I digress - Capital Punishment has to go. We’re on the cards on that one, eh?
Posted by InThoseTimes on Jan 19, 2006 at 6:32 AM Tookie was a scumbag ... and the real shame is that he wasn’t dusted sooner. The other shame is that liberals actually believe Tookie saying “I didn’t do it” ... “I’m innocent”. The most popular words in prison are “I’m innocent”.
Here is another scumbag that said “I’m innocent”. He claimed he was innocent right before the state of Virginia toasted him. And….. he was full of crap, he lied. (read the article)
————-
Va. killer executed in 1992 was guilty, DNA shows
Published: 01.13.2006
New DNA tests in the case of a man executed in Virginia in 1992 show he was, in fact, guilty of the rape and murder of his sister-in-law.
The result was a blow for death-penalty opponents who saw in the case the potential for the nation’s first post-execution DNA exoneration.
Roger Coleman, a 33-year-old coal miner whose case landed him on the cover of Time magazine, went to his death in Virginia’s electric chair insisting he had been wrongly convicted.
“An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight,” Coleman said in a statement just moments before he was put to death. “When my innocence is proven,” he added, “I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as all other civilized countries have.”
But the DNA tests, ordered last week by outgoing Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, showed that Coleman’s semen was found in the body of Wanda McCoy, the 19-year-old sister of Coleman’s wife, Warner announced Thursday.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/111141
Posted by tina1 on Jan 19, 2006 at 6:43 AM During his campaign for Governor in 1998, Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-LIFE. Under 10-20-LIFE, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison.
The 1999 Florida Legislature passed sweeping legislation that provides for enhanced minimum mandatory prison terms for offenders who commit crimes with guns.
10-20-LIFE has helped to drive down Florida’s violent-gun crime rates by 30%. The state’s 2004, “Index Crime” rate is now the lowest in 34 years, and the violent crime rate is the lowest in a quarter century.
The results under 10-20-LIFE are impressive. In only six years, from 1998-2004, 10-20-LIFE has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 30 percent statewide (see Firearm Involved Violent Crimes).
During the 10-20-LIFE era, armed criminals robbed a total of 10,567 fewer people and killed a total 380 fewer than they would have if these crime numbers had remained at 1998 levels. These crime decreases occurred even as Florida’s population increased over 2.5 million (16.8 percent) between 1998 and 2004. Punishing criminals who use guns is making our state safer.
——-
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/
——-
It’s hard to argue with those facts…
Florida gun crime dropped 30% in 6 years…
You can thank JEB BUSH for that !!!!
Posted by tina1 on Jan 19, 2006 at 6:52 AM Tookie was responsible for HOW many deaths again? They only tagged four directly on him, but as the founder of one of the most vile, murderous street gangs in history his worthless hide was stained with the blood of thousands. Fuck him.
Posted by g-love on Jan 19, 2006 at 7:08 AM Right on “g-love” .... great comment.
Tookie was a scumbag ... and if you hear what the guards say about Tookie, he wasn’t the angel in prison that the hollywood moonbats portray.
And this whole leathel injection is a crock ... it’s too easy for these scumbags. This is what we should do in America for the death penalty. It would be based off that movie “The Running Man”
#1) All executions are on pay-per view (Saturday night).
#2) The pay-per view show would have (2) or (3) executions.
#3) There would be various methods of executions. Such as slowing dropping the scumbag in a tank full of alligators ... or put them in a pit full of rattlesnakes and cobras. And there would be other methods, but not leathel injection.
#4) The victims family would be given the chance to participate ... such as being the one to slowly lower the rope with the inmate attached in the tank of alligators ... things like that.
The majority of the money raised by pay-per view would go to the State to help offset the budget of corrections ... but a portion of the money would go to the victims family ...
LET THE GAMES BEGIN !!!
Posted by tina1 on Jan 19, 2006 at 7:24 AM The writer makes a number of assumptions.
First of all he makes Tookie out to be an asset we can’t do without, but that is not the major issue, so let’s cut to the core
Take a look at the assertion, “...capital punishment does not deter crime.”
If so, why not?If before he pulled the trigger a shooter had a gun put to his head and was told, “Pull that trigger and I pull this one.” We would have a true test of the deterrent factor.
More importantly perhaps, we should speak of it as “death sentence” to avoid assuming it is done as punishment only.
In my view the only justification for the death sentence (or for imprisonment) is to protect society from individuals who have been some sort of threat to others. (A large number currently locked away do not meet that criteria and should be released.)
If “Life in Prison” could be guaranteed we may finally be able to do away with it.
“Life” does present another set of problems, but we should be able to deal with them. If someone has killed before, what does he have to lose while serving a life sentence? Can he freely kill other inmates or prison personnel?
We could reserve a death sentence for such a case. We could confine such a person to solitary.
———————————<Why the above is a tough sell:
A Vermont judge sentenced a child rapist to TWO MONTHS and out on the streets again!
Just yesterday I heard a report that a person who knew his buddies were about to blow the Oklahoma Federal Building is being released earlier than his 12 year sentence.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 19, 2006 at 3:30 PM P.S.
The Oklahoma guy is being released into the Wittness Protection Program. Now “we” must protect HIM!
Go figure.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 19, 2006 at 3:32 PM I am not actually in favor of the death penalty, although this stance is not based in any way on any kind of “moral” ground. I find nothing immoral about putting down sick animals like Tookie. As someone adroitly stated, the needle is far too kind a death for a pig like him.
My issue with the death penalty is its “execution,” pun definitely intended. It is so biased towards the wealthy in its administration and is tilted heavily against the underprivileged, minority and low-income population in this country. There are actual accounts of poor defense teams literally sleeping on the job/in court, sloppy preparation, etc. Not to mention the fact that this sentence is pretty much the end of the line when delivered; at least if you’re vindicated and set free from a life sentence, you can still live.
Someone also pointed out the issue of why the death penalty doesn’t work, a statement I agree with. My take on it is that we hide it in a closet, like the Catholics do with exorcisms. How can something be an effective detterent when the general population doesn’t get to witness the cause-effect of capital crimes?
Think about it: virtually ALL executions happen in the dead of night or early morning, sequestered away in some closed-room of a prison with very few witnesses. It’s a very “secret” operation.
I’m with the “Running Man” concept, for several reasons. Not only should all executions be public, they should be televised and mandated that all the major networks carry the live coverage - no exceptions. They should show the crime scene photos, evidence and autopsy/forensics, along with a solemn reading of the person’s crimes and emphasize the fact that this individual is checking out on behalf of SOCIETY.
You will never eliminate murder or crime, people will still get drunk in bars and mix it up, for example. That is a “heat of the moment” thing that you will never completely eliminate. However, career criminals just might think twice if they believe they’ll actually pay the ultimate price for their crimes. And, perhaps most importantly, I very strongly feel that it’s way to easy for folks to “support” a punishment that realistically they don’t have to consider or face in any kind of meaningful way. For those who are strong proponents of the death penalty in particular, they should bear witness to what they say they support.
Posted by g-love on Jan 19, 2006 at 4:59 PM g-love,
I’ve been called for jury duty four times and can say the quality of the lawyer makes all the difference in the world. My experience has only been with civil cases, but it is apparent those who can afford the best (or slickest, wisest?) have a much better chance. Our system leaves much to be desired. It is more like a contest than an attempt at justice at times.
One lawyer was so poor at his job that the plaintif’s attorney kept objecting, “Objection, leading the witness, Your Honor.”
“Sustained.”
After several tries the judge said, “Why don’t you ask it like this…..?”
I have read that no matter what the judge, a lawyer, or anyone says, the jury has the right to do what they believe to be just.
An example: My former landlord served on a case where two guys had killed another over a drug deal. They went up on the guy’s front porch and when he opened the door he got a shotgun blast.
The shooter copped a plea and received 10 years. His buddy not only didn’t get a deal, the shooter testified that he was there at the time. In our state if you witness a capital crime and do not report it within 24 hours, you are equally guilty.
The judge told them the above and said they had no options other than guilty or innocent of murder. The non-shooter got 20 years. The jury could have disregarded the judge’s comment and been more just with an equal or lesser sentence for a reduced charge.
(Is there a lawyer out there who can say if this is so or not?)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38 PM All those who are submitting real hateful, ugly comments about this article - have any of you bothered to clear your biased, racial minds and attempted to look at this from a humanistic perspective? I doubt it very much!!
From my reading of the comments so far; you are all more focussed on “Tookie” and the crimes that he was supposed to have committed.
I work with gang members and their families; I go into their homes and assist them to focus on education and a better way of life; and I totally agree and support what this author has to say - Tookie would have been more beneficial kept alive - and execution does not lower the murder rate!!
The reaction to this article amuses me…....most commentators are still harbouring hate for Tookie - hey, he’s gone - put to death by the Governor….and yet many of you are still very angry out there!!
Those with such hate and venom in your hearts - you need to ask God for redemption - just like Tookie did!! When there is so much hate and venom expressed; you have a problem…....look deep in your hearts and consciences, and maybe you have demons in your own mind, body and soul….
This article is well written, and I congratulate the author.
All you hateful commentators, get over it!! Rather than make ghastly comments like this; look at this article in a positive manner, and start shaping a better future for those who need it.
I hope Governor Arnold is voted out of the next election - he needs to go back to Hollywood - that’s where he belongs.
Posted by Rosebud on Jan 20, 2006 at 2:47 AM Rosebud - “ask God for redemption?” Are you kidding me? I don’t think it’s expressing “hate and venom” to suggest that the kumbaya treatment Muwakkil suggests is a tad overboard. Rather, methinks it’s more calling it like it is.
Muwakkil - and apparently yourself - also seem only too eager to sidestep or minimize who this animal was. The reality is that we’re not discussing some low-level gangbanger. In theory I do agree with you, there are far-reaching social issues at play that generally lead people to gangs, because any reasonable, thinking person realizes that gang life doesn’t carry a long life expectency.
No, this guy was a co-founder of one of THE most violent, heinous criminal enterprises the world has ever seen. “Enterprise,” as in systematic, institutionalized crime. Before getting all high and mighty with the pathetic religious card, perhaps you would do well to consult the mothers of kids caught in the lead spray between gang members. I’ve witnessed drive-bys, and have zero sympathy for any individual associated with such a barbaric, horrible thing.
Posted by g-love on Jan 20, 2006 at 4:00 AM QUESTION:
Why isn’t Howard Dean “outraged” that in his home state of Vermont, Judge Cashman sentenced a convicted child rapist to only 60 DAYS?Howard Dean sure was screaming about locking up our own U.S. Soldiers that were accused of abusing terrorist prisoners in G’itmo and Abu Ghraib.
Why are liberals always so concerned with child rapists rights? What about this little girl that was raped and raped and raped?
This shows what is really important to the Dims & Libs. Dims & Libs don’t care about a child that has been raped over several years, they don’t care. Libs/Dims think 60 days in jail is fair.
But, let a US Soldier get caught kicking a “koran” and the Libs/Dims want him locked up for 10 years.
This proves what I’ve always said .... “LIBERALS LOVE CHILD MOLESTERS”
It also proves what Michael Savage has been saying ... “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
Where are those Hollywood “Save Tookie” Moonbats at?
Posted by tina1 on Jan 20, 2006 at 4:46 AM On May 2, 2005 Governor Jeb Bush signed the Jessica Lunsford Act into law with the father of the slain 9-year-old at his side. The legislation strengthens punishment and monitoring of child sex abusers and requires those who prey on children to be SENTENCED TO AT LEAST 25 YEARS IN PRISON, and to be tracked for life by electronic monitoring devices, if they are ever released.
“Violent, sexual crimes against our innocent children are perhaps the most heinous imaginable. The added protections from the Jessica Lunsford Act will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to protect children from sexual offenders and predators,” Governor Bush said. “This new law complements our already very strong laws and regulations we have implemented to address sexual predators and sexual offenders.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2005/lunsfordAct.html
If your a child molester ... don’t come to Florida, because if you do and we catch you ... your life will be a LIVING HELL !!! 25 years in a Florida Prison ... and Florida Prisons DON’T HAVE AIR CONDITIONING.
Your best option would be to move to Vermont ... because if you get caught there, they will give you only 60 days and you will be treated like a “hero”.
Posted by tina1 on Jan 20, 2006 at 5:09 AM As a violent crime victim and resident of a gang plagued neighborhood, I didn’t shed any tears over Tookie’s execution, even though I doubt he was guilty of the murders they convicted him for. What Williams was guilty of was being what America wanted him to be. America created Tookie Williams, a destructive life taking monster. As long as Williams and the crips were destroying Black lives America put up with his murdering. As long as Williams led the crips to dump tons of dope in Black communities he was alright with America. As long as Williams acted the stereotype gangsta Black convict role America was willing to pay corporate jailers to warehouse him. But when he made the mistake of realizing the error of his ways and found a vehicle to get the message out he had to be silenced, he no longer served America’s purpose. All these phony ass post by white Americans talking about how they hate Williams for his gangsta murdering ways are the benefactors of all his destruction, liberals and conservatives alike. Much as I hate the Tookie Williams of the world I hate people that won’t own up to the fact that these monsters manufactured by American racism are what creates white privledge, and you bastards love it.
Posted by theloneous on Jan 20, 2006 at 5:30 AM Hey g-love - I have spoken with parents whose kids have been caught up in gang warfare - I’ve done more than that - I’ve gone into their homes, and I refuse to call anyone an “animal” - we all have that animalistic instinct - I am not side stepping anything - I feel for all those men and women on death row.
This is a sorry country when hate pours out like it does in here; and it’s not about “pathetic religion” either - funnily enough, what amuses me is the fact that when anyone is down the first person they turn to is “God.”
I freak for the States - look around you all - the disasters that are happening there are a sign that things are not all good.
I still commend, and will continue to commend the writer - good for you Muwakkil - go man go!!
Rather than make nasty and ugly comments in here, put your energy to decent use and get out there among the gangs and do some good work!!
Posted by Rosebud on Jan 20, 2006 at 6:34 AM “Williams, a co-founder of the Crips street gang, had transformed himself into a passionate anti-gang activist during his near quarter century in prison.”
That’s the key here; Williams was more useful to society alive than dead. He was already reformed. Whether he was guilty or not of the particular crimes he was convicted for pales in relevance next to the good he was doing, and could continue to do, in steering people kids away from gangs.
Posted by piou on Jan 20, 2006 at 8:04 AM g-love - Interesting that you refer to Tookie as an ‘animal’, and yet scoff at ‘the religious card.’ Therefore, I’m guessing you are an agnostic or an atheist (or at any rate don’t believe in Jehovah), and probably believe in evolution, but still hold some absurdly humanist beliefs, apparently based not on reason but on emotion. Allow me to explain.
Quick etymology: Good -> God. Don’t believe in God, don’t believe in Good. Moral relativity. See why humanism is so full of sh!t?
I assume you most likely accept the evidence that homo sapiens evolved during the Pleistecene era, a most brutal epoch, and in turn had to become one of the most vicious animals on earth. The evidence that our first tools were weapons is strong (if not easily deduced). In fact, one of humanity’s most basic instincts is the urge to kill. Homicide is an old trait, little more than a knee-jerk response. That which illicts it more than anything else is territory.
Gangs thrive on territory. Since inner-city blacks are largely marginalized and poorly educated, gangs were really (from an objective observer’s point of view) a form of black empowerment. Indeed, Tookie came out of the Black Panther movement, if not directly then indirectly. When that was stopped by the State, many disgruntled ex-panthers expressed their frustration through other means. And they tried to get rich. Isn’t that what America is all about?
I am by no means ‘pro-murder.’ A decent society should take our instincts into consideration, but should sublimate them so that we all evolve in more positive directions. Scarier still is the right of the State to murder. It not only implicitly sanctions murder for the sake of vengeance (a very ‘religious card’ thing to do’), but it contradicts ideal popular rule, i.e. those on death row aren’t having their minority rights upheld.
Of course, if you believe that we’re really less of a democracy and more of a polyarchy, it is scarier still. A small percentage of rich people determine who lives or dies. Yikes.
Tookie was an animal. So are we. When that fact is embraced, it’s easier to sympathize. And if humans are somehow better than lower beasts (I don’t think so), then it is sympathy that bestows true humanity.
Posted by rocco on Jan 20, 2006 at 4:11 PM Running Man? Televised? You guys in a rush to outdo imperial Rome? Aren’t we declining at an appropriate speed?
Posted by rocco on Jan 20, 2006 at 4:25 PM “America created Tookie Williams, a destructive life taking monster.”
Interesting… so there’s no personal responsibility involved here? There are millions of people from the same disadvantaged and economic class - how is it that “America” picked Tookie above all these other fine folks?
Don’t get me wrong; if Rosebud or Rocco actually took the time to read my comments you’d see that in the end game we’re virtually on the same page, although perhaps we took different paths to get there. I actually DON’T support the death penalty - as I stated - because of its unfair and biased application. All I was saying, though, was that the reality is that this guy was a cold-blooded, calculating killer who was convicted of FOUR murders and has the blood on his hands of thousands due to his involvement with the crips. Capiche?
And please… spare me the evolution crap and the “‘don’t believe in God, don’t believe in Good” nonsense. What utter rubbish. So what you’re saying is that unless you’re brainwashed into some form of organized religion you have no belief in right/wrong or morality? That is insulting, even to those who have “faith.”
Yes, I referred to Tookie as an “animal,” but you can use another adjective if you prefer. How about “murderer?” “Enabler?” “Career criminal?” “Exploiter?” Do those work better?
This whole discussion has been amusing to me, because as I stated earlier I think most of us are actually on the same page. I agree: humans are no better/worse than “animals,” and I agree that our intellect and capacity for reason/intellect should evoke “sympathy that bestows true humanity.” All I was saying is I don’t think its necessarily “hateful” to not shed a tear for a person who was a manipulative, cold-blooded killer. Worse, he put into place a system that bred more like him, which is just utterly tragic.
Finally, as far as the “pathetic religion card,” not “everyone” turns to “God” when things go south. True, some do, others turn to themselves, family members, etc. But there is one select group who DOES tend to turn to “religion” on a predictable basis: prisonors and the incarcerated, who by the way are unilaterally “innocent” and “wrongly convicted.”
Coincidence? I think not…
Posted by g-love on Jan 20, 2006 at 4:32 PM g-love - I read everything, and did not contradict nor make redundant any point. I was merely pointing out inherent logical flaws. And, please, the word is “capisci”. Fa un paesano un piacere, eh?
Your arguments tend to vascillate between detachment and outrage, which I find interesting. If you are, as you write, wholly detached from this, you rightly will not shed a tear. But then you wouldn’t shed a tear for his victims either, nor care in any meaningful way for them. Weren’t the majority of his victims part of the ganglife? Or is Tookie out of sympathy with you due to the innocents? Are you gauging sympathy in proportion to the lives lived?
So, then to outrage: career criminal? I say innovative mammal, adapting to resources and options. Exploiter? Ethics and politics are inconsistent. Tragic? Tell that to Snoop. He did just fine. Gangs made him what he is. That’s American know-how & gumption.
And finally, as to my short-hand dismissal of the concept of ‘good’: I mean to call into question what it is that you base your standards of right and wrong. Do you have a point of objectivity (without a Supreme Being) from which to gauge these things? What is it? I - and many a modern-day philosopher - await with baited breath. My guess is your standards are fairly Judeo-Christian. Again, interesting stuff…
Posted by rocco on Jan 20, 2006 at 5:02 PM Like Rocco said.
You are all carrying on like bloodthirsty Romans. You especially Tiny Shrew. Listen to yourself, and yet you were all love and flowers the other day.
1) All executions are on pay-per view (Saturday night).
#2) The pay-per view show would have (2) or (3) executions.
#3) There would be various methods of executions. Such as slowing dropping the scumbag in a tank full of alligators ... or put them in a pit full of rattlesnakes and cobras. And there would be other methods, but not leathel injection.
#4) The victims family would be given the chance to participate ... such as being the one to slowly lower the rope with the inmate attached in the tank of alligators ... things like that.
You are a sick little Shrew, aren’t you?
Rabbit is against capital punishment, mainly because it is an easy way out for scum, but also because it is irreversible, as if half one’s life for a crime of which one is innocent is reversible.
It is a measure of the humanity of a society, how they treat both their criminals and the victims of same.
Capital Punishment should perhaps be reserved for “capital crimes”, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WAR CRIMES, like TORTURE AND ILLEGAL WMD’s in a war of conquest and genocide.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 20, 2006 at 5:27 PM Rocco, interesting questions!! A nice discussion, for sure. You queried about empathy for the victims vs. Tookie, especially taking into account the fact that a lot of his “victims” were likely gang-bangers themselves. Can you have empathy for people who make a conscious decision to enter into that lifestyle, knowing what the risks are?
Perhaps. But I’m more sympathetic to the innocent bystanders caught in the gunfire of Tookie and his minions. That’s who I really feel for.
A good question on ethics/morality… to me, one doesn’t need God/Allah/Elvis to understand on an inherent basis that things like murder, rape, theft etc are “wrong” or “bad.” That is why I took umbrage with the suggestion that without “God” one can’t embrace “good.” I base this on the fact that most people don’t need to be told that murder is bad, because most people intrinsically feel that if it was committed against them, it would be “bad.” Most people don’t want to die.
Now, some could construe this as “but you’re getting at the do onto others concept, a Judeo-Christian tenent.” I would humbly submit that while do onto others as you would have them do unto you is in fact one of the great “values” espoused by most religions, but I don’t believe one “needs” religion to understand this simple concept.
In the end, as a point of objectivity, I don’t really need a “Supreme Being” to tell me stuff I already know as a thinking, rational and emotional human being. Although a “burrito supreme” sounds really good right about now!
Posted by g-love on Jan 20, 2006 at 5:53 PM g-love:
Yes America created Tookie Williams and his ilk. America created the environment, mindset and perceived options. Williams decided to pursue options that, whether he knew it or not, advanced America’s domestic policies of exploitation, oppression and ethnic cleansing of America’s Black population. I’m one of those “millions of people from the same disadvantaged and economic class” as Williams and have incarcerated relatives and in-laws and I tell them and anybody else that believes the hype, including Snoop, that they’ve been played and are merely puppets helping to excute the beast agenda. If you want to feed a starving man you teach him how to fish, if you want control that starving man give him a fish and tell how high to jump for his next meal. Black gangbangers and thugs are constantly asking; how high? When Williams finally learned how to fish they shut him down. America “picked” Williams to do its dirty work and he chased the genie, like a lot of other Black people have done and are doing, then threw him away like a used pamper. Williams was ultimately responsible for his fate but the objectives America used him to achieve are as consistently inhumane as its manner of his disposal.
Posted by theloneous on Jan 20, 2006 at 6:10 PM “Williams was ultimately responsible for his fate”
Correct.
Posted by g-love on Jan 20, 2006 at 6:38 PM g-love - Thanks for answering. I do so love a good banter.
Your definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ do fall under the widely accepted tenants of humanism. I believe it was John Stuart Mill who posited that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. I think that applies to your above claim that ‘most people don’t want to die.’
I have always found this to be intellectually unsatisfying. It seems to admit moral relativity without following that line of thinking to what seems to me the logical conclusion - that is, there really are no ‘goods’ and ‘bads’.
It gets more complex when you throw in the X-factor of biological and social mutation. Are the ‘goods’ of the past not the ‘bads’ of today (female submission, caste systems, loyalty to crown)? And the ‘bads’ of the past (transgender acceptance, care for the diseased, freedom of choice and creative expression)?
From the evolutionary point of view, the ‘good’ would be that which furthers evolution, and the ‘bad’ that which hinders it. Murder would at this point in time be bad (whereas during the Pleistecene it was good). And perhaps compassion for all is a necessity for breaking out of our ‘Us/Them’ conceptions (which were also good a long time ago).
So, compassion is compassion, and any unequal divying of it leads to shades of ‘Them’. I don’t see that as evolution but stagnation, if not the recipe for annihilation in a nuclear age. I don’t mind for the sake of efficiency the consensus-taking for morality in a social system, but to get to the heart of the matter requires more than faith in one’s ability to ‘already know’, as you claim, what’s good or bad.
And that leads to the ol’ rabbit hole…...........^^............
Posted by rocco on Jan 20, 2006 at 6:39 PM However we may look at this; good or bad; religion or no religion; it comes down to morals and values - in summary, the death penalty does nothing - all it does is feed the eager appetite of those who want to see the black and poor go under.
By the way, this applies all over the world - not just the States!! Aborigines in Australia; Native Americans in America; Maori in New Zealand - wherever there are indigenous peoples; the same atrocities apply - I think it’s time the UN addressed this racial subject - it’s quite obvious, and statistics show that the black, coloured or whatever, are oppressed and abused.
I ask you all to go out there and get to know these so-called “gangbangers.” You will most likely be surprised like everybody else who interviewed Tookie - they expected a gruff, threatening voice; only to receive a soft, compassionate voice.
A stigma is placed on these people, and whether they commit a crime or not; they will continue to be pursued by the Police.
These people are human beings - HUMAN BEINGS - and my intellect sees them as such - not animals to be locked away in prison for most of their life - after reading about death row - it is barbaric and inhumane.
Posted by Rosebud on Jan 20, 2006 at 10:59 PM Hey Rosebud,
First of all, it doesn’t matter who commits a crime, they should be punished. (white, black, rich, poor)
In the last 5 years (2000 - present) 47 white males were sentenced to death in Florida, and 22 black males were sentenced to death. I think it would be hard to say that blacks are unfairly targeted for the death sentence in Florida when more that twice as many whites were given the death sentence (47 whites to 22 blacks).
And here are the stats for all inmates currently on death row in Florida.
Total WHITE males > 228
Total BLACK males > 129In the past 5 years (2000 - present) ......
> 4 Black males have been executed in FLA
Average time on death row for the 4 Black males was 21.75 years.And in the past 5 years (2000 - present) ......
> 9 White males have been executed in FLA
Average time on death row for the 9 White males was 11.16 years.** Black males on average had almost 22 years on death row for appeals **
** White males on average had 11 years on death row for appeals **The facts clearly show there is NO RACISIM towards blacks on death row in Florida. Actually, the facts show that white inmates are getting the short end of the stick. White inmates only get about 11 years to file appeals before being executed, while black inmates get double that time .... almost 22 years to file appeals.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/deathrowroster.asp
Posted by tina1 on Jan 21, 2006 at 1:58 AM 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow
3. “He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
4. “He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.
Shakyamuni Siddhartha Gotama
From the Dhammapada. Is this religion? Is it humanism? Is it just good sense?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 21, 2006 at 3:41 PM Tina,
Interesting score card. Looks like affirmative action has been on a roll.
I wonder if the same imbalance shows up in the victims of these criminals.
Many of my son’s friends are responsible people who happen to be black. However, I must admit my prejudice has increased since the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which I believed would make a level playing field not tilt the other way).
Could it possibly be because:
The burglar who broke into our house was black, armed when caught and only served 3 years of a 12 years sentence.
Or, maybe because the guy who repeatedly held up people at the ATM across the street from my office was black.
Maybe it’s because the one who shot a woman in the head in a botched car-jacking one block from my office was black.
Could it have been that the guy caught steeling from my landlord’s photo studio was black?
How about the black guy who was trying each of the car doors in our office parking lot who pointed his finger at me like a gun when I rapped on the window.
Whatever the conditions that caused those people to become like they are, the numbers overwhelm my good impressions from the few individuals I truly know and make me more suspicious than I want to be.
Your numbers reinforce my impressions.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 21, 2006 at 3:58 PM It is both ironic and hypocritical how conservatives go on about taking personal responsibility. They always are saying others must be held responsible for their words and actions, but when it comes to their own words and actions they deny any accountability. Rather, when caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they point at others and say “They do it, too.” What did Jesus say about removing the log in your own eye before criticizing the speck in another’s eye? To think they like to call themselves ‘Christian’.
A level of moral development frozen at pre-adolescence.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 21, 2006 at 4:06 PM luminous - Well, we can’t all be Buddhists, can we? Western Buddhists piss me off. I do like a good green tea, though.
whattheheck - It’s refreshing to have statistical data which reinforces your departure from logic, isn’t it? Surely you must know that those figures can lie - show you everything but tell you nothing.
What made you think that suddenly ending a state policy of second-class citizenry would magically solve the massive social problems of a subjugated people overnight? It’s only been fifty years - less than a lifetime. What made you think that children would get their fathers back, women would get their dignity back, children would get their history back, just because we let them vote and go to public schools?
It’s more than poverty. Surely you realize this. It’s people like you.
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 7:42 PM LB,
Hello again.
Not sure who this was refering to. Conservatives in general? Someone specific whose comments you disagree with?
If mine, I would ask what I am supposed to be denying? Second, I make no claim to being a Christian so don’t lay it on those guys.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:17 PM rocco - I suppose hoping we might all embrace a little good sense whatever tradition from which it springs might be a bit too much to ask for. Would you like me to quote a similar sentiment from Camus or do French Existentialists piss you off more than Buddhists? How about Malatesta? He’s Italian. Or is his Anarchism too off-putting for you? You must let me know, lest I inadvertently offend you, the constraints you unilaterally impose on who is credible or not, if reason is not your guide.
I too am fond of green tea, but I prefer expresso; strong, black and bitter.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:44 PM LB,
What is your objection to personal responsibility?
Seems like Jesus was kind of into that sort of thing. Not so?
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:44 PM rocco,
Sure, I know those numbers may not be accurate. Since I am not going to take any kind of action based on them, it matters little. Mostly my feelings come from my experiences which I listed.
I thought the 1964 Act would lay the ground work for no preferences, racial, sexual, religious as it states. At that time, I had just come back from my first trip to Alabama and my introduction to the “White Only” and “Colored Only” labeling on everything. It was totally disgusting and very surprising how the locals reacted when we told the ticket taker at the theater we would seat our “Colored” friend between us and we’d act as insulation from them.
What we got instead has been political pimping for votes based on reverse discrimination. College quotas, job preference, school lawsuits, Black History Month, Black TV channel, Black pages advertising, special consideration for government contracts and now, dual language in order to get the Hispanic votes and dollars — all of which only serve to further divide us all.
The only way I can see out of this is to get to know each other individually and by name. Within two houses of my house there now live a Mexican husband and wife, a Muslim family of four and a black family with three little kids. We’ve lived here for 38 years and it was back then an all white neighborhood. When each of these houses was sold to these families (over a period of about 8 or 10 years), there were no protests, no “block-busting,” no exodus, and no big deal made by anyone. I think without affirmative action things would be better all around.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 21, 2006 at 8:48 PM No, WTH;
Your post wasn’t up yet while I was composing mine. But to answer your question, I affirm what rocco said;
“It’s more than poverty. Surely you realize this. It’s people like you.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 21, 2006 at 9:13 PM WTH,
I have no problem with personal responsibility. It’s the hypocrisy of those who demand it of others and make excuses for their own behavior that I have the problem with.
Does the shoe fit? Why are you squirming around so, if not? If you are so tolerant of people who are different from you, why do you think respecting those very differences and compensating for real historical inequalities ‘only serve[s] to further divide us’?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 21, 2006 at 9:25 PM luminous beauty - Yeah, pretty much everything pisses me off, so don’t worry about offending me. And sorry to be pedantic, but it’s ‘eSpresso.’ Just trying to remain consistent. I hold myself to the same rigid and unforgiving standards of syntactic excellence (see above frustration with ‘tenet’).
whattheheck - I applaud your open-minded stance on property ownership, and seeing as you lived pre-civil rights movement, I am sure your perspective differs greatly from my own. Even Bill Cosby sounds racist to me these days. So I do try to remain open myself as to the pros and cons of affirmative action. It’s flawed, to be sure. Though I do think that some real federal effort is necessary to create a better reparations program to quell the inequities of the social nightmare that is black America.
I do stand by my “it’s people like you” statement, however. The inability to separate actions from a particular race - as evidenced by your listing of black criminals - is an example of the psychological barriers which necessitate affirmative action in the first place. After listing as you did, can you honestly tell me that you’d hire a black guy who didn’t act ‘white’ (whatever that means)? I think that the mentality of categorizing black culture as ‘other’ - when it is more authentically American than, say, me - is the problem writ large.
I heard a historian say recently that we’re still fighting the Civil War, and the North could very well lose. I think they already have.
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 9:49 PM AN historian. See what I mean, luminous? It’s my own personal hell.
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM whattheheck - One last thought: after re-reading your last post, I was struck by the fact that you considered a black TV channel and dual languages divisive. Biology loves diversity, and it would seem to me that a proper social system should follow. Is not the global populace multi-lingual and multi-ethnic? Why shouldn’t we allow for many different faces on TV, or different voices?
America to me is more of a thought than a place. Its greatest potential always lay in its open character. Benjamin Franklin once quipped that the Founders were setting an example for humanity to follow. He embraced Indian and African culture. As much as I love Europe, I was struck by its homogeneity. The Italians are the most xenophobic people on earth: they don’t even like each other.
Isn’t the American land just a giant petri dish for intermixing of ideas and genes? I think we would do well to remain open to it all. And for god sakes, learn to speak Spanish. It’s loco!
Posted by rocco on Jan 21, 2006 at 10:27 PM rocco, you have no idea how humiliated I am about not writing ‘espresso’. Looking forward to offending you in the future.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 21, 2006 at 11:12 PM LB,
“It’s more than poverty. Surely you realize this. It’s people like you.”
If your so wonderfully tolerant and understanding, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to be blaming me for the problems of the nation and the world? What was that part about a mote and a log again?
So, go hug a bigot. OK? :-)
Sure it’s more than poverty. I believe some of the good intentions of War on Poverty in the 70s backfired the way trying to do too much for your own kids can.
As for denial… I’ll deny that I’m squirming.
That’s probably because I accept no blame or guilt for what I had no part in bringing about. I am willing only to accept guilt or blame for my own actions and I have no Messiah complex to satisfy. I am not a social worker and kept pretty busy making a living to support my own family.
I’m just trying to understand what you are so hostile about. You, Wiley and several others on this site seem to have a massive chip on the shoulder.
——————————— ;—————
“If you are so tolerant of people who are different from you, why do you think respecting those very differences and compensating for real historical inequalities ‘only serve[s] to further divide us’?”“...federal effort is necessary to create a better reparations program to quell the inequities of the social nightmare that is black America.”
“ I think that the mentality of categorizing black culture as ‘other’ - when it is more authentically American than, say, me - is the problem writ large.”
“ I was struck by the fact that you considered a black TV channel and dual languages divisive.”
———————————& —————-A bunch of somewhat related ideas above.
History is full of inequities - too many to ever straighten out. Each nationality or race has their own to deal with. Everyone should start with a clean slate at birth and go from there. That seems to me to be an adequate goal for us. Life is not fair and yes, most of us in this country have it better than most of the rest of the world. Appreciate it,don’t lament it. Isn’t that why so many try to squeeze in?
Consider the statement, “ I think that the mentality of categorizing black culture as ‘other’...is the problem writ large.”
Affirmative action, black TV, etc. alternative language are factors which categorize people as “other.” “White TV channel” would do the same thing. It hearkens back to the “Whites Only’ and “Colored Only” of forty years ago. All of these things are divisive rather than uniting.
Do we really “need” to do special things for blacks and Hispanics? Other races seem to do very well without it. Asians, for example excel in school and business. The reality, IMO, is politicians and businesses go for the majority minorities. (Not an oxymoron.) The rest are left to their own devices.
A friend of mine lived in India during the 1950s. He told me they had eleven major languages at that time. English, due to 300 years of British colonialism was the majority language. The inability to communicate in the same language seems obviously divisive to me. Look how much trouble we are having using just one.
I am not a citizen of the world. I am an American and am not about to learn all the other languages. If I chose to live in another country I would expect to need to learn that native tongue as did my Swedish ancestors a hundred years ago. Language is a great uniter. I would also tend to adopt their traditions rather than expect them to defer to mine. (Although I’m sure we would maintain family traditions in the home.)
As for hiring someone of any other color, it would indeed depend on the person’s qualifications. The criminal list I submitted just influences my impressions due to the weighting of number of blacks verses whites. Two of the three armed robberies I witnessed were done by whites and the guns pretty much tipped me off they were up to no good.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 22, 2006 at 12:05 AM luminous - Happens to the best of us. Normally I don’t point out that kind of stuff, since I think it’s usually a cheap rhetorical device, and just poor etiquette. I have decided only to point out when people misspell Italian words, thus fortifying my own online goomba persona.
whattheheck - Hm. Well, you certainly have a strong sense of self, I’ll grant you that.
James Joyce wrote in Ulysses: “History is a nightmare from which I am constantly trying to awake.” I think this is appropriate to your ‘tabula rasa’ theory for human equality. Unlike most species, humans obtain artificial alpha status through the abstract concept of money; the overwhelming majority of animals are without history, and the cream rises to the top. Not so with us. George W. Bush is not the finest specimen we have to offer.
Of course life is not fair. If it were, deliberations such as these wouldn’t be necessary. We’re trying to make it more fair.
We’re admittedly discussing ideal courses of action which will most probably never be implemented; but in such an academic exercise, are you really going to cut out the past as a real variable in the conditions of the present? Are you taking the socioeconomic position of the inner-city student into consideration? The quality of that education in said inner-city? Doesn’t world history play a role in these factors? Wouldn’t a mature society try to rectify past mistakes?
You rightly point out that they’re coming here because life is good. That shows a strong survival instinct. Most immigrants - particularly from Latin America - didn’t come here wholly voluntarily. The history of US dominance in that region is pretty ugly. If you fled from persecution to Sweden, maybe learning English wouldn’t be high on your priority list (wouldn’t matter - all Swedes speak English…one of the perks of being world citizens). Somewhat relevant anecdote: my great-grandfather fled Italy AWOL from WWI, and refused to speak English till the day he died at 91).
Again, we as Americans have a great heritage of intellectual tolerance and innovation. It’s a pity to see us become so horribly…European. These days, the Europeans are more American than we are. Well, maybe not. I’ll never forgive those bastards for their crimes. See what a nightmare is history?
Posted by rocco on Jan 22, 2006 at 1:07 AM Addendum - regarding Asians, you can’t compare apples to oranges. Asia - specifically China, India, and Japan - had a rich educational history until its subjugation by Europe in the 19th century. Therefore it wasn’t as difficult to battle the pressures of domination by whitey, and is why they now thrive, both as immigrants and independent nations.
Africans and American Indians, however, were tribal societies, and were ripped away from their cultural base through indoctrination. If you wish to point to their tribal status as evidence of their genetic or social inferiority, I would direct you to the book ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ as a counterpoint.
Insomma: history matters. Unless you’re a quantum physicist. Or a goddamn Buddhist.
Posted by rocco on Jan 22, 2006 at 1:17 AM Aww, WTH ya big old bigoted goose,
C’mere, lemme give ya a big hug! Awwwwwwww! Awwwwwww! Poor feller! Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Feelin’ better now? Eh?
You know guy, you’re absolutely right. It’s not all your fault and it’s not all your personal responsibility to put right all the wrongs of the world.
It’s not about you at all.
It’s about us.
How inclusive can you make that word? Or is there some kind of limiting device on your imagination? Really?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 22, 2006 at 2:46 AM hey, how are you guys doing italics and bold? HTML? I suddenly feel handicapped.
Posted by rocco on Jan 22, 2006 at 2:55 AM html tags:
< i >italic< / i >
< b >bold< / b >
< blockquote >blockquote< / blockquote >
< a href=“url” > Link < / a >
with no spaces inside the parentheses.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 22, 2006 at 3:20 AM whattheheck,
Since the liberal media never likes to report “black on white” crime .... someone showed me this website.
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html
< a href=“url” > http://www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html< / a >< a href=“url” > www.newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html< / a >
Posted by tina1 on Jan 22, 2006 at 8:07 AM Also, every state should do what JEB BUSH did in Florida.
1) Jeb Bush proposed the toughest gun-crime law in the nation: 10-20-Life. Under 10-20-Life, a felon who used a gun to commit a crime like armed robbery would face at least 10 years in state prison. If he shot the gun, 10-20-Life increased the mandatory prison penalty to 20 years. If the armed robber shot someone, the Governor’s proposed 10-20-Life law increased the mandatory prison sentence to 25 years-to-life. In addition, the Governor’s proposal created a new mandatory 3-year prison term for any felon who even possessed a gun, regardless whether the felon used the gun during a crime.
The results under 10-20-Life are impressive. In only six years, from 1998-2004, 10-20-Life has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 30 percent statewide.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life/index.html
2) “Violent, sexual crimes against our innocent children are perhaps the most heinous imaginable. The added protections from the Jessica Lunsford Act will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to protect children from sexual offenders and predators,” Governor Bush said. “This new law complements our already very strong laws and regulations we have implemented to address sexual predators and sexual offenders. The creation of the SAFE unit will help to ensure our law enforcement agencies are working together efficiently to protect our children.”On May 2 Governor Bush signed the Jessica Lunsford Act into law with the father of the slain 9-year-old at his side. The legislation strengthens punishment and monitoring of child sex abusers and requires those who prey on children to be sentenced to at least 25 years in prison, and to be tracked for life by electronic monitoring devices, if they are ever released.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/news/lunsfordact.html
3) You can view all the inmates in Florida. It will show their picture, crime, sentence and approx. release date. You can also see who has been released and who is on probation.http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/
4) You can view all inmates that have been released.http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateReleases/
Posted by tina1 on Jan 22, 2006 at 8:36 AM Whatever the numbers are, let’s not get carried away with Florida, as if it was some kind of “model” state that the rest of us should envy. NOT!
Also, someone wrote: “James Joyce wrote in Ulysses: “History is a nightmare from which I am constantly trying to awake.” Love it! This is about the only thing I understand of Ulysses…
Posted by g-love on Jan 22, 2006 at 5:43 PM Tina,
I have been a member of the NRA for twenty + years and a firm believe in tough mandatory penalties for gun violations.
Florida and about 30 other states have gone to “Must Issue” carry permits — ours has made it next to impossible to get one. When my office neighborhood became a shooting gallery, I began carrying a pistol from my car to my office. (I often went in between 4 and 5 AM and in winter it was pretty dark and lonely.) When the governor changed it from a $25 misdemeanor to a felony to carry w/o a permit, I moved my work home.I think the Jessica Lunsford Act should be a Federal law. Vermont is a real puzzle to me.
Last week in The Week magazine I saw a state has just decided prisoners can sleep in shifts. I sent this idea to both my Congressman and State rep.15 or 20 years ago, but they thought it too degrading. Hey, our Navy has been “hot bunking” for decades — one bunk, three shifts. Not too degrading for some, I guess.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 22, 2006 at 7:42 PM Rocco,
“We’re admittedly discussing ideal courses of action which will most probably never be implemented; but in such an academic exercise, are you really going to cut out the past as a real variable in the conditions of the present?”
Now you tell me! I’ve been taking about real life.
If you want to dream, OK, I’d make the playing field level world wide. All kids get and education, at least two caring, loving family members (with very good genes) — the girls are pretty and the boys are fine athletes. Everyone is intelligent and considerate of others.
However, if we are talking the ideal, there is nothing left to discuss.
————————I have been expressing my opinions and what I think of as reality and probable based on my experiences and interpretations of them. Doesn’t mean they are the only way or the right way, just my way. (apologies to Old Blue Eyes)
Now, with that in mind:
You said, “If you fled from persecution to Sweden, maybe learning English wouldn’t be high on your priority list (wouldn’t matter - all Swedes speak English…one of the perks of being world citizens).”
Wrong! Now, yes. (At least the young people do. We are in touch with several of my wife’s relatives there.)
My ancestors came because there was no future there in the 1890s. They were farmers and if you didn’t own the land, there wasn’t much of a present either.
My grandfather and his three brothers couldn’t buy land here either, so they all worked in the mines knowing they could make it better for the next generation. I know more Swedish than my father or his nine siblings. Their father’s approach was, “Now we are Americans, so we’ll only talk American.”
The last of the 10 kids, my 98 year-old aunt, just died 2 weeks ago. None were wealthy, but all were better educated, self supporting, responsible citizens and made it better for my generation.
My father-in-law came from Sweden at age 19 all alone and speaking no English. His first job was cleaning the muck from the holds of ore boats on Lake Michigan. He learned English at night school and when he died, had become a competent machinist, owned his home and was an ardently patriotic American.Except for one three year period in a large corporation (I hated it.) and my military service, I was self employed all my life and worked rather long hours.
I’m not saying nothing should be done to help disadvantaged people, (Certainly we must not intentionally hinder them .) but I believe we should not try to give too much.
My advice to my kids is expect nothing (financially) from the government because they have nothing to give without first taking it from someone.
For people to be helped, they must first want to be helped and should make an effort on their own. There will always be someone who has it better than you, easier than you, better looking than you. You start from where you are and work with what you have.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 22, 2006 at 7:52 PM whattheheck - that was an interesting interpretation of what I had written, and an even more interesting dismissal of it. Followed by a personal anecdote. None of it dealt seriously with any of my points, nor did you counter any of them with logic. But that’s okay. I’ll follow.
This discussion board is an academic exercise. We aren’t determining public policy on this site. And everybody is talking about real life. Besides, my dreams are a lot more interesting than the Nazi suburban utopia you drew out (why not pretty boys and athletic girls? Like Greece?).
So in academic exercises, you draw up logical plans towards an ideal vanishing point, as it were. That’s what I meant. Though I think you knew that. The fantasy would be to leave out recent history as a point of consideration, which you had suggested, and to start everybody at zero. That in my estimation is a large departure from reality.
As for your geneological story: tally-ho. Now imagine that your grandfather and father-in-law were immigrants from Haiti. Unlike Sweden, Haiti’s poverty was due directly to US intervention. Thomas Jefferson began an embargo immediately after the slave revolt that ended white Haitian rule, under the logic that it could be a cancer that spread to American slaves. US policy impoverished Haiti immediately, and has continued a brutal policy in Haiti to the present day.
So your black Haitian grandfather and father-in-law may have had comparable experiences with land ownership and jobs (all immigrants are intially shunned socially), but their children came out as white as Shirley Temple, no? Slap a Midwest accent on them, and they’re as good as an Anglo. Blended real easily into the next generation.
In the 1890’s, a Haitian probably would go through Florida, an ex-Confederate state still smarting from Civil War, but victorious in the Reconstruction. So your grandpa and father-in-law would have had it pretty tough. I doubt that their Swedish counterparts were ever hanged for talking to white women (like their Swedish wives).
They would be wage slaves, and their children wage slaves, without the right to vote. They would be marginalized from schools and jobs. This tore apart the social structure (along with an already 200 year history of ripping families apart when selling slaves).
I could go on. But again, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Please contradict the fact that the history of Haiti, or American blacks, or Mexican Indian peasants, is not relevant to the US government’s actions. Or that historical wrongs should not be compensated. You may cite text.
I’m not saying nothing should be done to help disadvantaged people, (Certainly we must not intentionally hinder them .) but I believe we should not try to give too much.
George Carlin once wrote (paraphrasing): “Republicans say that if we can’t raise taxes for the rich, or they’ll lose all incentive to work. They also say if we don’t cut welfare, the poor won’t work because they’ve lost all incentive.”
Posted by rocco on Jan 22, 2006 at 8:54 PM Reminds me of something I heard once, attributed to Kropotkin, “If the rich weren’t greedy, they wouldn’t be rich.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 22, 2006 at 9:24 PM Rocco,
What I meant by not give to much, was in the same vein as not giving your kids too much or they won’t be able to go it alone.
So give them a job if you can, but if you give handouts without them doing any work, they just come back again and again with a sob story about needing just $19.63 to get the car fix so they can go to a job waiting for them in the next town. When you call them on it the reply? “That wasn’t me. You white guys think we all look alike.”
I’ll tell you what, if you are talking real life then, forget the academic exercise, “Give all your money to the poor and store up your treasures in heaven.” Better still take in a few Haitians at your house.
You and LB can solve all the problems of the world in theory, or continue to blame them on people like me (or “us” if you want to share the guilt). You’ll continue to feel very self-satisfied.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 22, 2006 at 11:00 PM Whence comes your vitirol, whattheheck?
I never blamed you for anything. I just double-checked. And you are engaging in a theoretical discussion as well, so I don’t understand your paradoxical disdain for theory.
Nor do I take any blame. I do think we have a responsibility for the actions of our government, if you take the concepts of democracy seriously. That includes past actions.
Did you believe that it was right for Germany to pay reparations? Or that Swiss banks that got rich off money that the Nazis stole from Jews owe that money to Holocaust survivors?
I think that example is pretty similar to the South - and the US in general (see Ford Motor Company’s policy of hiring blacks in the 20s) - making a lot of money off slavery and sharecropping. Or does the Holocaust also fall into the ‘Life’s not fair’ category? If so, I would question why you care passionately about any change. You can always shrug your shoulders and say ‘that’s the way it is’.
Store my treasures in heaven. Right. What are you talking about?
Last point about theory: theorizing is a big part of the scientific method. Science is a way of determining the most accurate, the most precise findings of a given subject. These theories must be practically applied as a test. Then you reassess, and see if the result matches the hypothesis. If not, you come up with a better theory, now a bit more battle-tested.
Don’t show such utter contempt for processes of rational thought, and their profound relationship with correct action. It marks one as emotional and flighty. Complex problems deserve serious analysis, not assumptions based on personal anecdotes. People assumed that the earth wasn’t moving based on similar ‘common sense’ attitudes. Some people still do.
Posted by rocco on Jan 22, 2006 at 11:47 PM What was the subject, again? Capital Punishment, was it?
Racial and Class inequities involved? That’s a given. Always been. Hasn’t ended because of MLK Day, f’r sure.Not a valid argument for these rugged individualist, market magic types. “Bootstraps! Personal Responsibility! Hrrrmph! Hrrrrmph! Life isn’t Fair! Society Doesn’t Owe You A Living! Hrrrrmph! Never Give An Inch! Kiss My White Ass! Hrrrrmph! Harrrrumph!” So predictable because it never changes. Hail the Imperturbable Planet—‘Conservative’.
My question is; if one truly believes in limited government, why, except in the deepest basement of Hell, would one wish to place the power of deciding life and death in the hands of the State?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 23, 2006 at 12:26 AM whattheheck,
Sounds like your state doesn’t get it. Tough gun laws are not suppose to punish law abiding citizens like you, they should punish criminals.
Florida’s laws only punish criminals/felons who use a gun for a robbery, not someone like you.
Hopefully the NRA is vocal in your state and talking with the lawmakers to make some changes.
Posted by tina1 on Jan 23, 2006 at 1:33 AM “Chicagoans: On Monday, January 23, at noon, Dave Eggers will present a reading and discussion of Surviving Justice at Quimby’s (1854 W. North Ave.). He will be joined by exoneree James Newsome, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering a convenience-store clerk and was eventually exonerated after spending 15 years in prison.” - www.McSeeneys.net
A bit of last minute notice but if you care about the death penalty they are some great people to support if you are in the area. Right in Bucktown. Eggers would be promoting one of his new works- “Surviving Justice: America’s Wrongfully Convicted and Exonerated”.
It’s held in 826 Chicago’s tutor center. Amazing place to check out nontheless.
Posted by InThoseTimes on Jan 23, 2006 at 1:51 AM I’m against capital punishment because it is impossible for the state to ensure that the felon they’re killing is the actual perpetrator of the crime. Yes, I’m aware of the advances in collection of forensic evidence. As far as I’m concerned, this is one decision that requires 100% accuracy. 99.9% is not good enough; when the state kills an innocent, the price becomes too high.
What do you do then, say “oops, sorry” to their families and pay them off with blood money?
Beyond that, if we’re going to make a show out of executions, we feed impulses and attitudes in the citizenry that are nothing less than bloodthirsty. Is that the kind of society we should evolve into? Are we not bloodthirsty enough now? Why degrade ourselves ever further?
Much of the frustration people feel in response to these questions relates to some of the points posted above. Ridiculously short sentences for violent criminals just provokes loss of respect for the justice system, as well as an appetite for retribution which can take on a tone of irrationality. I’ve heard it said from several law enforcment officers I’ve met that a first-time rapist can easily get a shorter sentence than a first-time drug dealer. What the hell kind of system permits such a thing??
Sentencing should be decided at least in large part upon the level of harm to people resulting from the crime. To give some bullshit light sentence to a killer or rapist or molestor of children is so unconscionable that it boggles the mind. The very practice of considering it in any way proper is a measure of the depravity of the debate. Our minds are becoming screwed up by the process of arguing, until argumentation or philosophizing becomes the point instead of preventing harmful people from victimizing others, or punishing them when they do.
Since I don’t believe the state can be correct 100% of the time, and since execution is too final a solution to allow less-than-perfect confidence to guide the decision, I say use incarceration better. Crimes that directly harm others should lead to sentences that really make the message clear, you do not have any justification for hurting people no matter what shitty circumstances you grew up in or whatever crap justification you think you have, no matter what sociohistorical victimization your ancestors had to suffer through. For modern society to give the benefit of the doubt on grounds like that is to pave the way for excusing virtually any crime. After all, who in the world’s ancestors never suffered any form of discrimination or victimization ever? Is there anyone? I sincerely doubt it. Am I owed a bend-over-backwards compensation because of the fact that my Irish ancestors got fucked over in NYC 150 years ago? Or the fact that my more-distant ancestors in the Chesapeake region were indentured, and often treated worse than slaves of that day? Or because I was raised by a single mom and we were broke most of the time? Of course not!
Crimes that are property-related, like theft or fraud, should possibly not include jail time. Who was impressed with the 5 month sentence given to Martha Stewart? What a joke, and an expensive one at that, considering the cost of keeping people in jail. Confiscation of some part of her assets and garnishment of a portion of earnings in a way that left a lasting impression might have been a better approach.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 23, 2006 at 5:19 AM Kuya - Re sentencing: the majority of people in jail are drug-related, and the majority of them are marijuana-related. Therefore the real criminals have to be juggled around a bit. So, decriminalize drug use - or at least marijuana - and watch the space appear.
And to respond to your position on punitive theory: there are 2 main schools of thought. One is punishment for the sake of punishment (the vengeance quotient) and the other is reform/rehabilitation. This last has been pretty much discarded. I can think of few exceptions - boot camp for violent teens, a diving school (which had a great success rate).
I don’t know that sentencing would depend at all upon defenses of victimization (I don’t really know the facts one way or another in today’s world). Though a good defense lawyer should try anything to keep their client out of America’s awful prison system, and definitely off death row.
Re ‘compensation towards the Irish’: the Irish as a people created a political class almost immediately upon. They were indeed second-class citizens, but not near the level of blacks. Indeed, all one has to do is read from the dissident literature from the time of the Irish draft riots in NYC during the Civil War. Irish-American sympathy for the South was near solid, and one realizes that they too considered blacks to be sub-human (the Irish were scared they’d lose their shitty jobs to even cheaper labor). And the Irish never needed an Constitutional amendment to enter American life.
Point being: the black subjugation was institutional policy with lasting effects. A functional democracy would attempt in a meaningful way to right past social wrongs it had committed to a segment of its own people. South Africa is attempting this currently.
Posted by rocco on Jan 23, 2006 at 6:05 AM Hello rocco,
It’s interesting that you would make reference to the drug war and the packing of America’s jails because of it. I had been writing more about that aspect for inclusion in the post above, but deleted that bit because the post was getting long already. I personally think that de-crim’ing cannabis is the only sane option, and I’d be quite willing to look at doing the same with other party chemicals/herbs/fungi.To incarcerate someone just because they want to get high presumes that your mind and body do not belong to you. Something in me wants to classify that attitude as being psychotic. To whom does this body belong, if not to the consciousness that resides within it? Now, if someone harms another while high, that’s another matter, but to prosecute the mere behavior itself is nonsense. The negative effects of prohibition outweigh its justification.
It is certainly also true that people of African descent have suffered a special status, compared to the array of groups who have endured harsh or inhumane treatment in America. No other group was legally defined as chattel, i.e. property without the qualities of personhood. However, I cannot see that as being used as a justification for any person, African-descended or not, to harm another. Africans and others are owed a fair shake in America (I would note tribal natives as also being a group with a debt of social justice still owing). Still, particularly when it comes to violent crime, but also in relation to fraud, theft, and other property-crimes, I still can’t see using historical victimization as a defense. It’s irrelevant. If I hurt you or steal from you, I should not be allowed to get away with it. That really seems axiomatic to me.
Posted by Kuya on Jan 23, 2006 at 9:47 AM Busy Rabbit, hops by, Rocco so you were kidding us with your I am God routine? If thou knowest not how to do HTML then you do not hold the keys to the world of the ITT web. You are not the messiah, “you are a naughty little boy!” instead. Other than that merry wacking of the trolls Lume, Rocco and Kuya too ya.
Rabbit shall be by soon. Don’t be frightened little Trolls he will just watch without wacking a bit. Sure that Lume and Rocco can wreak havoc upon any combinations of WTH, InHisMind and Tiny Shrew.
Cheers for now.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 23, 2006 at 10:59 AM BTW there is another hopper about and he is a Frog.
Wonder what he will make of our Trio of Trolls.
If any of you trolls prefer to be called morons instead let the rabbit know he is anxious to not offend your wee heads.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 23, 2006 at 11:02 AM Tina1, to say that there is no racism in the Florida justice system based on the figures you provide is a highly questionable.
You say that of the 357 people currently on death row 228 are white and 129 are black. Converted into a percentage that means 63% of the death row population are white and 36% are black.
The problem here is that only 14.6% of the total population of the state of Florida are black, while 78% are white.
Relative to the general population a larger percentage of blacks than whites are on death row in Florida. Unless you are one of these idiots who believe blacks are genetically inferior to whites you have to except that the justice system and society in general is unfairly weighted in some way against black people in Florida.
I got my figures from the federal government’s official census page.
Posted by Max Godwin on Jan 23, 2006 at 11:29 AM Rocco,
“Whence comes your vitriol, whattheheck?”
Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry and lumped everything into one rant. It is others at this site who are on a share-the-guilt trip. They always remind me of the old Saturday Night Live line,“Jane, you ignorant slut.” Not the best way for opening an exchange.
However, I was a bit frustrated with not having gotten my point across to you as indicated by your reply,
“whattheheck - that was an interesting interpretation of what I had written, and an even more interesting dismissal of it. Followed by a personal anecdote. None of it dealt seriously with any of my points, nor did you counter any of them with logic.”
My post was in response mostly to your earlier comments and questions as follows,
——————————-
“whattheheck - One last thought: after re-reading your last post, I was struck by the fact that you considered a black TV channel and dual languages divisive. Biology loves diversity, and it would seem to me that a proper social system should follow. Is not the global populace multi-lingual and multi-ethnic? Why shouldn’t we allow for many different faces on TV, or different voices?”
——————————-
IMO social systems survive on their unity, not their diversity. Of course we all have individual characteristics, but a common language is and has been a great unifying quality. When people speak in a language you can’t understand, it is too easy to slip into suspicion they are talking about you or plotting against you.My “anecdotes” were to point out a couple of things. By learning English as soon as possible, my relatives and ancestors were able to build a better life WITHOUT special considerations. They also realized THEY were the ones who had to do it — NOT their new country. They worked at blending in not only with language, but also their clothing and national customs.
As for, “Why shouldn’t we allow for many different faces on TV, or different voices?”
That is not what I said, not the same as a special channel named, “Black TV Channel.” Think of the reaction “White TV Channel” would bring. The same goes for “The Black Pages directory.”
People can’t have it both ways. If minorities want to be assimilated fine. But, forty years after The Civil Rights Act, many seem to be so absorbed in Black is Beautiful, Black Heritage, Black Power, that they are giving the signals that sound a lot like, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” but still think society should cater to them.
Many things have improved for racial minorities in my lifetime. It seems self evident that dread locks, taking African names, clothing styles and speaking a dialect unintelligible to many others is counter productive. Perhaps the worst aspect of setting themselves apart is when they criticize others as “Oreos” or “acting white”.
(continued)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 3:50 PM Kuya - I assumed you were carrying on WTH’s logic in an earlier post. Wasn’t talking about lighter sentencing for criminals based on race, but a reparations program, which would presumably cause a decline in violent crime. Economic status and education work pretty well in stopping crime.
To be honest, I don’t care deeply about property crime. But that would probably go down too.
Unfortunately, I think America is far too racist to ever consider such an option. And they don’t want us educated, either. We might actually all agree on this stuff, and stop going to church.
Rabbit: I am that I am.
Posted by rocco on Jan 23, 2006 at 3:52 PM (Yesterday too little time — today too much.)
Affirmative action has extended prejudice into another generation. Another anecdote (I will give only one.)
My dentist’s son had excellent grades, but could not get into the state med school due to the quota system. This was twenty years ago, but you can bet he hasn’t forgotten. Was whatever was gained worth it?The future is, I think, going to be even worse for, blacks in general.
Globalization has taken millions of jobs and continues to do so. Illegals are now taking the ones at the lower level, but as the high end ones disappear, jobs will go to those who are better educated (Look at the ages of many now at McDonald’s, your local Home Depot, etc.) This downward move and the Hispanics pushing from the other end will not be a pretty thing.
Anyone who could not make it during the past 20 years of prosperity will have a devil of a time ahead. I know too many people who once had good jobs and are now working w/o benefits at low pay.
I expect we will see more Tookies, not fewer.
You said I had a strong sense of self. (I have a plaque over my desk which reads, “If I don’t do it, it doesn’t get done.”
The people we remember as making this country had a much stronger sense than I do or we wouldn’t have it so good for so many. The cup is more than half full.
People are will to pay to be smuggled in the U.S. Willing to hide from the law. Willing to do these things (real handicaps) for a chance to make a better life for their families. While I favor legal immigration, I can understand why they do it. They are, in my experience, generally very hard working people and doing a good job.
Reparations? No! This situation is not the same as the Nazis confiscating the Jews’ property. Not the same as our putting Japanese in camps in WW2. (Both despicable!)
too long, the Civil War has been over long enough, The Civil Rights Act around long enough. Whiners like Jesse Jackson could take a page from Bill Cosby. As far as I can see Jackson has never held a real job. He has found a parade and jumped in front to champion the idea that, “You are owed something.” This attitude has held people back while others coming is recent times are advancing.“The last of the great human freedoms is our choice of attitude.” — Viktor Frankel, holocost survivor
It is time to GET OVER IT and get on with the only life you have to work with!
———————————& ——-
Sorry to be so wordy. BTW, I’m an artist, not a scientist — maybe that’s why I go more for “illlustrating” with stories than data or theories.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 3:56 PM As you had too little time yesterday, so I do today: I’m going to Miami Beach - la isla mas bonita en el estado para trabajar. See, it’s not so bad, is it?
Miami is a good example: the Cuban, and subsequent South American, immigration has made Miami one of the most interesting cities in America. The diverse atmosphere is unique, and gives Miami a unity. You want to be bilingual here.
Switzerland is another example. 4 languages in a country the size of 2 Rhode Islands and a Delaware. They’re oddly unified. Maybe it’s because they at least 2 to 3 languages from birth.
Your ancestors did have special consideration. They were white. If they had been black, your life would be different.
We do have a white TV channel. It’s called Every Channel On the Friggin’ Knob Except BET Channel.
If Nazi Germany was 60 years ago, and the Civil Rights Movement began 40 years ago, why is black subjugation less relevant than the Holocaust? We didn’t kill enough blacks? Not enough families were destroyed?
I think you are blaming people for not overcoming tremendous obstacles that you did not have. What’s that Milton quote? “They who have put out the people’s eyes, reproach them of their blindness.”
I do agree that it is time to get over it, as you say. Life’s too short, and everyone needs to outgrow their childhood mythologies. That’s what evolution, in the social realm, is all about.
For you as well. Get over the fact that your boyhood mythologies were lies, perpetrated upon you in order to make you submissive to the dominant hegemon. It’s easy to tell that to others…very difficult to look in the mirror and say the same.
Both an artist and a scientist should you be. Ambidexterity is the way to the Promised Land…Miami.
Posted by rocco on Jan 23, 2006 at 4:32 PM WTH,
What is your problem with personal responsibility?
It is most scurrilously disingenuous and evasive of you to frame the notion of personally taking responsibility for dealing with the injustices of the society in which one lives as ‘feeling guilty’ and ‘accepting blame’ for historical events, to which you then categorically refuse any connection or relevance. This, on its face, is a denial of personal responsibility.
To say that others must embrace the same cultural, or to be more precise, lack of, cultural values that is your heritage is the epitome of bigoted prejudice.
Yes, you are a bigot. You are in deep, deep denial. You are part of the problem. When will you realize it is time to become part of the solution? You’re an old man, WTH. There isn’t much time left for you.
An artist? Fooled me. A bullshit artist, yeah.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 23, 2006 at 5:41 PM Rocco,
“Your ancestors did have special consideration. They were white. If they had been black, your life would be different.”
That’s a given.
I’ll spare you the stories of what it was like for them, but it wasn’t easy for any first generation foreigners. The mine work was as bad as anything Ford could dish out. What difference if killed by hired thugs or State Militia?
———————————<“We do have a white TV channel. It’s called Every Channel On the Friggin’ Knob Except BET Channel.”
Come on,— take a look at how many blacks there are now on “Every Channel On the Friggin’ Knob.” Then see how many whites are on BET.
The name itself is obviously distriminating.
———————————
“If Nazi Germany was 60 years ago, and the Civil Rights Movement began 40 years ago, why is black subjugation less relevant than the Holocaust? We didn’t kill enough blacks? Not enough families were destroyed?”IMO black families have been destroyed by the same kind of government interference you want more of. It paid girls to have kids outside of marriage — the more you have the more you get each month. Helping to destroy the family as well as curtailing the education for the mothers way too soon.
Special benefits to a single group lowers their self image. Like we think they can’t hack it without an edge.
———————————<“Life’s too short, and everyone needs to outgrow their childhood mythologies.”
I have none. I had no prejudice against any race until after 1964. When I was in the service in the 50s, we got along just fine whatever color. I was in favor of the Civil Rights Movement. It got our minister fired and I left the church. I have written before about my intro to genuine full-bodied racism in Alabama in 1963.
My wife was a teacher’s aide at a predominantly black school in the early 70s. It was a real eye opener of the decline of the black family. One of her favorite little girls (when in first grade) was pregnant at age 12. End of a promising education and a better next generation.
We aren’t killing them any more around here — they are killing each other.
Note: I find it interesting that their “collateral damage” is better tolerated on this site than ours in Iraq. Anyone killed there is scored as our fault. Right LB?
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 6:02 PM Still haven’t left for Miami…what’s wrong with me?
Wait, so the government programs to help blacks actually destroyed their family base because it ‘paid girls to have kids out of marriage?’ So they weren’t destroyed before? Do you listen to much blues circa 1930’s? People were having children out of wedlock all over the place. The black males were often psychologically emasculated. There’s a lot of evidence for this. As you are an artist and not a scientist, I would turn you to fiction such as ‘Invisible Man’, ‘If He Hollers Let Him Go’, ‘Native Son’, and ‘A Raisin in the Sun’.
Why are they killing each other, WTH? Because the government gives them welfare? Am I missing a crucial logical step here? That’s what lowers their self-image? What about middle-class blacks who have similar complaints about white America’s exclusionary practices? Are they just whiny?
I would suggest that they are killing each other for territorial reasons. When crime is the best option, clever humans become criminals (like the Irish, and the Italians, and the Enron guys). They have chosen the American value of wealth over the human values of community and solidarity. It’s a function of education that is usually denied to the poor (or in the Enron guy’s case, they were taught precisely to be criminals).
You keep sarcastically referring to ‘your fault’. Isn’t our society our responsibility? I’ve written this a couple times, and you haven’t responded. What are you responsible for, as a citizen of a democracy? Aren’t you a co-governor as well as one of the governed? Aren’t the blacks both your co-governors, and your constituents? What else did the mean when they wrote “...of the people, by the people, for the people?”
To psychoanalyze: your childhood mythologies are related to the American myth of ‘rugged individualism’ and the ‘lazy black’ myth. Both are interrelated fallacies. I’ve already discussed at length the black myth, so I’ll turn to ‘rugged individualism.’
The Western migration was government-supported, subsidized and made possible by wholesale Indian slaughter. Most moved west after the Civil War (Southerners), and created white soviets, basically. Yeah it was hard, but not as hard as most of the rest of the world, at that time. America hit the lotto. Farm subsidies, military Keynesianism, a highway system, No real ‘rugged individualism.’ And we created for ourselves a nice aristocracy which used the fear of blacks as a way to keep poor whites towing the line.
God, I’m depressing myself. To the beach!
Posted by rocco on Jan 23, 2006 at 6:34 PM LB,
“To say that others must embrace the same cultural, or to be more precise, lack of, cultural values that is your heritage is the epitome of bigoted prejudice.”
When have I said others must, embrace the same values? Do as you damned well please. I couldn’t care less.
Actually, it is the other way around. You are calling me a bigot for not accepting YOUR values. What is it you think I am denying? Responsibility for something I have no control over?
I think I have stated my views pretty clearly. I think a lot of past policies have been wrong and I think most attempts to “right that wrong” have been mistakes.
If you don’t like that, it’s your problem and I’m not the one to fix it for you.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 6:38 PM One last point: have you been paying attention to the proliferation of white poverty? It’s not just the blacks…
Over sixty percent of welfare recipients are white, and it’s growing. We’re all becoming really poor, while the rich sip champagne. Have you seen property values in Florida, New York City, San Francisco recently?
You make two good points: globalization and immigration will wipe out American production but good. My fear is that whites will refuse to accept this until it’s too late for even them. Just ask Clarence Thomas what he thinks about our ensuing economic struggles.
Posted by rocco on Jan 23, 2006 at 6:49 PM Again with the ‘fault and blame’ WTH?
Then I must preface the following with this disclaimer: It is not my purpose to place fault or blame on any parties or persons referred to below. It is my sole intent to point at causal forces and the policies that have driven them.
Got it, WTH?It was the Nixon Administration that gutted the reforms of the Civil Rights Movement, leaving inner city and rural poor alike dependent on welfare, leaving only non-corrective programs that served as a subsidy for white businesses. It’s the neglect of successive Republican administrations in California, combined with property tax roll-backs that have led to the precipitous decline in the quality of our public schools. Nothing to do with ‘liberal’ programs that effectively disappeared in the ‘70s. Damn it! Head Start and WIC have never been fully funded. They should be extended to educational and developmental support for anyone and everyone in need.
If you want personal anecdotes, I saw how black neighborhoods in the East Bay that had been for decades ragged slums, blossomed with the ‘90s boom in employment. Run down houses were repaired. Yards that were cluttered trash magnets became green and pleasant. Residents became less fearful, isolated and cynical. Gang-bangers no longer prowled the streets, because the opportunity to get out of the life was more valuable than just hanging out and fighting over worthless turf.
Having a decent job paying a living wage is the best form of welfare. The best deterent of crime. Poor people are not lazy if only because being poor is very hard. Jobs are again hard to find. Figure it out.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 23, 2006 at 7:12 PM WTH says:
IMO social systems survive on their unity, not their diversity… a common language is and has been a great unifying quality. When people speak in a language you can’t understand, it is too easy to slip into suspicion they are talking about you or plotting against you. [if you’re paranoid—lb]
If minorities want to be assimilated fine… many seem to be so absorbed in Black is Beautiful, Black Heritage, Black Power, that they are giving the signals that sound a lot like, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” [what the hell does that mean, WTH?—lb]
It seems self evident that dread locks, taking African names, clothing styles and speaking a dialect unintelligible to many others is counter productive.
Whiners like Jesse Jackson could take a page from Bill [Oreo—lb] Cosby.
Then WTH says:
When have I said others must embrace the same values? Do as you damned well please. I couldn’t care less.
You couldn’t be any deeper in denial, WTH. Cleopatra had nothing on you.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 23, 2006 at 7:39 PM Tina,
You’re right. Our state doesn’t and won’t get it. Several attempts have been made to change things, but Chicago rules Illinois. Of course, we all know Chi Town doesn’t have any violent crime since they outlawed gun ownership many years ago. (uh-huh)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 9:58 PM LB,
“Again with the ‘fault and blame’ WTH?
Then I must preface the following with this disclaimer: It is not my purpose to place fault or blame on any parties or persons referred to below. It is my sole intent to point at causal forces and the policies that have driven them.Hmmm — So, the following is not placing blame.
“...your heritage is the epitome of bigoted prejudice.
Yes, you are a bigot. You are in deep, deep denial.You are part of the problem. (NOT BLAME?)
When will you realize it is time to become part of the solution? You’re an old man, WTH. There isn’t much time left for you.
An artist? Fooled me. A bullshit artist, yeah.
——————————— ;—————————-
“It seems self evident that dread locks, taking African names, clothing styles and speaking a dialect unintelligible to many others is counter productive.
Whiners like Jesse Jackson could take a page from Bill [Oreo—lb] Cosby.”So you see this as saying others must embrace my values? I see it as a sensible way for people to enter into the mainstream. You may have noticed that Jesse has adopted the general non-rebelious look a lot like Cosby. He does modify his language to suit the general audience also. I don’t like him, but he is no dummy when it comes to playing the media or the system.
——————————-“Jane, you ignorant slut.” [what the hell does that mean, WTH?—lb]
see: Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 9:50 AMIt is from a post to rocco which, if you read the first reference, was illustrating your approach to enlightenment of bigoted, old conservatives who no doubt voted for Nixon and every other person you are so generously “not blaming” in your diatribes.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but although I perceive the causal forces and policies different than you do, I haven’t resorted to calling you any lefty pejoratives. (yet)
• By the way, look up Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s assessment of the social programs after thirty years. He pretty much said the same things I have. Hardly known for being a radical conservative, he.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 10:11 PM Rocco & LB,
The only topics on which we can reach an agreement is that drugs should be legalized and our economy is being plundered. (Kuya too on these)
Other than that further discussion seems futile.
You think we should do something and I say it is useless. (I can’t even get a Congressman to read a letter much less influence his vote and I know I can’t afford to buy one.) Now you’ve shown me how perverted our country has always been I’m convinced any change will only be for the worse anyway.
However, this is one where obviously “I win” my point (if it matters). If three or four of us cannot come to a meeting of the minds, certainly two houses of Congress, the White House and Supreme Court never will.
Even if the four of us where running the country I would still win even though out voted. A bigoted, old conservative, like LB claims I am, would simply resort to force while you guys were still talking about reparations or clemency.
I think we’ve about done for this article about all it can take.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 23, 2006 at 10:24 PM That means there are too many elephants in the living room for him to ignore any more, and he’s out of here, LB has seen it before.
................................................................. ....DENIAL............................................................... ........
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 12:48 AM That was a pretty one.
Heh, Rocco. A hint which is much useful. Left click on VIEW on your menu top of page left. Then Left click on SOURCE.
Have a look at the relevant part of the page for any HTML you notice on the page, like the Denial above. You’ll see the language of Electrons displayed, and the familiar little In <> and out <> gates.
The source has the blueprint for the page basically, which the electrons use for choreographing their efforts in tune with our orders.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 1:23 AM WTH;
I do not intend those words as pejoratives in any sense. They are purely descriptive. They are perfectly appropriate. Put your ego aside for one moment and understanding will remain. Enlightenment is already a reality. You are merely wasting your own time avoiding it. How will your avoiding avail you when death comes?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 1:24 AM WTH. Please read some of the stuff which people give to you to read. You would enjoy being more informed Rabbit is sure of it. It cannot be fun having nothing to throw back at anyone but to project your own limitations.
Information is the key to being informed.
How you interpret that information is what differences of oppinion are really about. You are not arguing differences of opinion in the way rational people do. You spend all your time denying FACTS which contradict your opinions, rather than truthfully dacing the issues and relating them to yourself. Only by looking at the truth, can you actually form an opinion. If instead, your reality requires denial of FACTS, then you are deluded. Living in Denial.
Your opinions require that you deny America has and is continuing to commit war crimes on an international stage.
Your opinions require you to deny that there is a great deal of inequity and racism and social injustice built into American Society.
Your opinions require that you deny the obvious HUGE LIE which 911 is, for it is the seat of all your illusions. It is then when you were put under a spell. All of Americ was. Many have broken that spell, and they admit now they were under a spell.
WTH you need to break that spell. How can we all be telling you the same things, despite having many different and varied views? You need to look closely maybe, but there is no unifromity of opinions among us, while there is among you Morons, you know who I mean.
The things which you mistake as opinions, are the facts upon which we base our opinions, for all of us these are established things as far as possible. We do agree on them, from thence our opinions differ. You have exactly the same opinions as the other Morons, based on differing views of the facts even among yourselves, but your opinions are all driving what facts you accept and what you don’t. That is not healthy. It is a form of insanity. It is well understood within psychological circles. It is invariably a result a massive shock, trauma, a major and sustained paradigm shifting event, like 911. It was the most sophisticated Psy-op in worl history.
It was not a few sand Arabs who got lucky. This alleged fact makes no sense, it never did, but you believe you saw it happen with your own eyes. You did not. You saw some planes crashing and some buildings burning and falling down. You have been made to believe that something you never would have believed possible just happened in front of your eyes. In fact the truth was always that it was impossible for such a thing to happen. Wiley Witch must have gotten some idea of the incredible failure of a system which was designed precisely for such eventualities as this. Just like you always believed. You felt safe once, with the most massive military in the world, masses of security, hell man, the USA has always been one of the hardest countries to get into. I can tell you that Oz is strict by any standards. The USA was always very secure and I could not get into the USA. Criminal record means automatic no go for example.
YET your beliefs were shattered, and you were given a fairy story about why. From then on you have been caught between a rock and a hard place. Nobody would choose to go through such an event, they just happen to us and we cope, or we don’t. There are coping mechanisms, one of these is the mind’s ability to absorb new information in stages, cushioning the self from shocking revelations. Some of you have become locked between stages of acceptance. Hence, you appear to be undera spell.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 1:25 AM To admit that the Government itself somehow has become the enemy, is surely a huge paradigm shift for someone who has not had the benefit of watching the process of corruption with open eyes for decades.
The amazing thing though is that if once you accept this, then all your old beliefs about what is right and wrong, what is and isn’t, can be accomodated again.
Instead today you are trying to defend an illegal, injustified attack on one sovereign nation and you are ready to condone more of the same. You are arguing in justification for TORTURE and the use of weapons which you must be able to understand are bad, no matter who uses them. The weapons we are talking about are exactly the same sorts of things which you call Weapons of Mass and Indiscriminate Destruction.
WTH how in hell can you not see the incredible irony of the positions you are today defending? These are not conservative versus Liberal views sunshine.Our numbers include plenty of conservatives as well these days. It is an argument between many different but aware people with a deluded mass.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 1:26 AM WTH says a funny thing:
However, this is one where obviously “I win” my point (if it matters). If three or four of us cannot come to a meeting of the minds, certainly two houses of Congress, the White House and Supreme Court never will.
As it happens many more of us than three or four are able to come to agreements on things, dear boy, just because you are not one of them doesn’t negate the example.
There will always be a minority who can never agree with something. The main thing is that you are a minority and are being increasingly marginalised as time rolls on.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 6:02 AM whattheheck - I never said I thought there was hope. I only was writing what could be done to alleviate current problems.
I won’t defend luminous beauty’s stance because I don’t know its source - but I know my own. Current calculations predict that your grandchildren will die horribly. I’m about as hopeless a person as you’ll probably find.
And, like tina1, you have admitted what we were waiting for: conservatives will resort to force (or cheating in her case - see Alito thread). That’s pretty natural. I would agree that Republicans are the alphas, and alphas resort to force to maintain power. You don’t see bullmoose cajoling each other into submission, do you?
I’ve never strayed from my position as an evolutionist. I often take the position of a (d)emocrat for the sake of argument, since I assume you profess to believe in Constitutional values. So I argue from that position just to point out your inherent fascism.
Since you agreed that force would win out in the end, I congratulate you for embracing your fascist stance.
I never lose, not ever (Le Samourai).
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 8:55 AM Rabbit - thanks. Good advice.
To reciprocate: try the Socratic method of arguing. It’s less obnoxious, and you make people have to respond. And because you make them respond, less ego is involved. It’s win-win.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 9:14 AM Nah. Rabbit has tried all manner of argument with WTH and Scorpy and due to long experience with them am content just to wack them from time to time, point out their follies as the urge strikes and just genreally have a good time.
Now as you will and may have already noticed Rabbit has his bits to offer from time to time, and these are not unappreciated as a rule, but keeping the trolls and morons herded and in line is also a job and someone has to do it.
Eventually you’ll probably say to Rabbit that he is actually a lot more considerate of the morons than he should be. You’ll see. You hardly know WTH or Scorpy. Scorpy sometimes says things which will make your sides ache. Once Rabbit thought he might be Bush’s speach writer or something. He does original Bushisms. I mean he actually says sentences which are so contradictory and twisted they sound exactly as if they ahs come from the great man himself. Yet a google and checking of the Bushisms sites turns up no hits. They are Scorpisms, but indistinguishable from Bushisms.
Notice do we that I do use a lot more I and Me for Rocco’s peace of mind? but it is only pretending when Rabbit does it.
Are you a Leo Rocco?
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 11:10 AM Rocco, put simply, the Socratic Method of Argument is really the Rabbit’s normal form of debate. The problem inherant in the method is soon to be seen.
The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses or assumptions which shape one’s opinions, and to determine the consistency of these with their beliefs.
All very well if you have someone who will answer questions even when the answer doesn’t suit them, with such people, by a process of logical progression one can define facts, and apply them reptrospectively to their stated opinions for example, but the problem arises when we have a Moron who will baulk at the gate of realsiation that their ideas are under threat. They will backtrack on previously admitted things, twisting their own words and yours into any irrational bundle and then promptly changing the subject, or refusing to answer a direct question which has only a yes or no answer, with anything but another question usually about some hypothetical nonsense and how this might somehow distantly relate to some vague interpretation of whatever it was they first pointed out. Then you will get from WTH, “there is nothing more to be said, you are not listening and I am never changing my mind about anything.”
Or from Jay Jay, I am obviously to smart for everybody around here and am wasting my time trying to teach you anything.
Or from Tiny Shrew, “You’re my Biatch”
No Rocco. Trust the old Rabbit, he knows these trolls and he predicts the closest you’ll get to Socratic argument with these dingbats, is a desire to jam a pair of socks in each of their mouths. Symbolically speaking of course. Obviously an electric shock through their keyboard would be more effective from our point of view.
But you may Sock away all you wish to me, I am always ready to follow a logical and reasoned path. Rabbit has gone on raiding parties, and wacked whole gangs of Trolls, battled with morons and still managed to extract himslef intact, with honour and most recently with a POW.
Much of this is done via a sort of Sock it to ‘em Socratic Method. Maintain the objectivity in the midst of intentional blunt affrontery. People need to engage their emotions, this is not about our feelings, it is about truth, justice and the future of our planet.
I will say without any apologies that I, Rabbit have always been BLUNT and HONEST. I don’t and I won’t tip toe around anyone’s feelings. If I happen to offend someone by saying it is a f*cking evil, cowardly act of genocide to vaporise 3000 tonnes of Depleted Uranium over Iraq and anyone who supports the war on Iraq is among the scum of the earth and will be remembered as such in history, here and in the “records of eternity”. Stiff cheddar. I intend to offend people by saying it, but that isn’t really much compared to what the opposite view is arguing in favour of.
Imagine just the death of one innocent Iraqi child as a consequence of actions supported by these mangy dogs masquerading as humans, these moronic sheeple with their dittohead spiels, there empty headed little slogans and straight off the TV quotes.
The death of one child for their views is enough for Rabbit to want to beat them all with a big stick until they begged for mercy. It must suffice that he uses his intuition, comprehension and Rabbit magic to disturb them, make examples of them, so none may feel inclined to follow them, and to plant numerous seeds of ideas which will either help the light shine in when their time comes, or it will add to their misery when their time comes. The choice remains theirs.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 24, 2006 at 12:02 PM >My question is; if one truly believes in limited government,< >why, except in the deepest basement of Hell, would one< >wish to place the power of deciding life and death in the< >hands of the State?<
>Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 22, 2006 at 6:26 PM<
State, County, City ... Dont matter to me, besides you’re not losing sleep about conservatives being consistent. If you were concerned about consistency, you wouldn’t advocate the slaughter or the right to slaughter millions of baby’s yearly. You’re, in fact, concerned about the treatment and welfare of killers and terrorists without any regard for the suffering and deaths of their victims.
Liberals continue to tear-up about Tookie’s life being needlessly taken. I have a related concern in that Tookie’s body was wasted. Looking at the positive side, at least taxpayers didn’t have to continue paying for tookie’s shelter, feed, guard cost, healthcare ... On the negative side, for the first time in tookie’s life, he had an opportunity to make a positive contribution to society but didn’t. Rather than simply burying his muscle-bound ass for the maggots to food on, he could have had the liquids drained from his sorry ass, fed as fuel in an incinerator to provide steam for generation of electricity. His remains could have subsequently been used as fertilizer(sh*t) to grow life sustaining food for decent, productive members of society. So, i agree that chemicals were wasted on that oversized slime cockroach that has to most certainly burning in hell!
For a glimpse of pictures of tookie’s good works surf on over to www.Michaelsavage.Com. This, of course, is a small sampling of the works of the founder of the crips and his fellow gang members. Tookie, is finally reaping what he sowed!!! The world is a much better place now that he is buried six feet under!!! But “let your heart not be burdoned” many of his brother crips and bloods have and will continue providing him company and food - plus causes for liberals - for the maggots. “Scum to scum” as tookie’s bible reads!!!
Tookie took four lives
and wanted off the hook,
but ‘ahnold’ said “true lies”
so the deep six tookie took.My heart also goes out to all the weeping bleeding-heart
compasionate liberals sleeping in their secure, lovely homes in the suburbs. This,of course, as any liberal would tell you
would, would not have happened except for that dispicable, low life fascist bush!!!Right on the mark, if only jesus - or you - had passed on his
(your) loving liberal, compassionate wisdom to the six million
jews to their murderers. Hitler was simply misunderstood and, alas, if only you, neville, or carter (winner of the nobel piss award) were around to spread your liberal tolerance on the nazis!! Or if you all could have had the opportunity, in person, to pass your wisdom in practicing tolerance and turning the other cheek to the hundreds of civilians beheaded around the world by misunderstood terrorists like nick burg’s father did.Perhaps you can take a moment to surf on over to www.Michaelsavage.Com to view the dismembered bodies and heads of thirty or so poor souls who had the misfortune of not having you there to eloquently plea their case to your beloved murderers. Check out the latest dismembered bodies - and heads -
of three indonesian girls who are the latest in an endless
slaughter of christians infidels around the world! Whenever it
concerns the execution of u.S. Murderers or tortured muslim
serial murdering terrorists or sententencing of child rapists,
liberals are consistent in their lack of concern for victims
and their compassion and empathy for the terrorists of this
world.Peace brother,
compassionless conservative
Posted by hoopsnow on Jan 24, 2006 at 3:57 PM hoopsnow,
yes, you are. Happy and content in your suburban utopia. Except for all those semi-human cockroaches that haunt your dreams. Good luck with that.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 4:27 PM Rocco, LB, and 0f course, good ol’ Brer Rabbit:
Var så gud a talar Swenska, Rocco. Det inte snart.
Tookie var Ameikanska Bov!
——————————— ;—
OK, let’s see where we stand — I’m a facist, so I guess that makes the half dozen or so of you whiners at this site communists.
Oh, yeah, and then there’s St. Tookie — The Under Appreciated. Patron saint of the ardent affirmative actionists and the poster boy for anti-capital punishment cause.
Congratulations, you have to be in contention for the most self-satisfied, inbred group of political commentators on the web award.
Fortunately you are outnumbered by the authors at this leftist rag, so I guess you really present no immediate threat.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 24, 2006 at 4:47 PM Communism is not the opposite of fascism. Fascism is a form of government, and communism is a form of economics. One can be a fascist communist, like Stalin.
Fascism - or more precisely totalitarianism - means that a small group of people controls all aspects of human life in the society. Since that group is a small minority in the society, it needs to use coercion or force to instill fear in the many, in order to keep them in line. Which you tacitly advocated above.
Therefore, you’re a fascist. Is there a flaw in my syllogism?
Anyway, the opposite of fascism is anarchy, if you want to insult us correctly. I do however consider my above positions as democratic, which is fairly center-left.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 5:26 PM hoopsnow - Why are conservatives always such emotional train wrecks? How about a little stoicism?
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 5:33 PM OK, WTH:
I’ll be the first to compromise. You aren’t really a fascist. Merely a fascist dupe. You aren’t a full blown racist, just a racist apologist. That make you happy?
You are much like my own conservative family. “We’re not bigoted. We don’t hate coloreds. We don’t use the word ‘nigger’. No, we are so much more refined than that. It’s just a natural fact that coloreds are not truly human beings. They don’t have the capability to reason. They don’t possess souls. We don’t hate them, we pity them. We love them, as long as they know their place. It’s these uppity ones like MLK who are just creating problems for their kind, giving them false hopes of equality.”
You are giving credence to the old saw, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
My grandparents actually believed the children of miscegenetic marriage were ‘mules’, incapable of reproduction. But they weren’t bigoted, nooo.
I don’t mind being called a communist. There’s an old Union song with the refrain “You ain’t done nothin’, if you ain’t been called a Red.” You’d be perhaps more accurate to call me a communist-anarchist in the Kropotkin sense, but I’m not locked into the 19th century, just rooted in my radicalism, which continues to evolve. The ‘powers that be’ don’t have much influence over that.
Can you say “evolve” WTH?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 5:41 PM whattheheck - am genuinely interested in a translation. Language is a passion of mine.
To reciprocate: Mi dispiace che sei cosi’ arrabiato, ma questo solo e’ un posto per l’esspressione delle idee. E’ una grande parte del sistema democratico. E’ migliore discutere che combattere. Non e’ vero?
Trade ya.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 5:41 PM luminous - would you believe I misspelled ‘espressione’? Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it? That’s what I get for knocking Buddhism…
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 5:46 PM rocco,
Concerning your discussion with Rabbit about the Socratic Method.
It only works when the parties involved respect the rules of deductive and inductive reasoning. I think you will find that logic is dispensed with in the most cavalier manner by our beloved trolls. WTH is the exception in that he is sometimes reasonable. If you hold his feet to the fire long enough.
The tools left to work with are purely rhetorical in nature.
My favorite playbook for this kind of give and take comes from SchopenauerThis book by Harry Frankfurt is another useful resource.
Umberto Eco, L’Espresso
“Credo che chi pronuncia stronzate confidi anche nella debole memoria del suo uditorio”.Can you translate this for me? I’m feeling lazy this morning.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 6:17 PM ‘I believe that whoever espouses bullshit has faith in the poor memory of their audience.’ Good ol’ Eco.
Regarding rhetorical style: well, I was being kind of a prick to Rabbit, as is my wont from time to time, because I think he just likes his thoughts out in the ether, which doesn’t necessarily interest me, even if I agree with most everything he writes (which is why it doesn’t interest me).
Of course, Rabbit can, and obviously will, do whatever he wants, which I have no real problem with, but I’ll always be a prick. He knows the deal by now.
And yes, since WTH seems relatively reasonable, I’ve kept my arguments solely to him. I’m holding to my belief that tina1 is a robot, and this new guy hoopsnow is obviously too unstable to discuss with.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 6:30 PM rocco,
Buddhism can stand a few knocks. Break off all those millenia of formal and ritualized crustiness and let the Dharma shine. You’ll see.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 6:31 PM P.S. I really wish you hadn’t given me the Schopenhauer link. As if I haven’t been blowing off enough work this week, now I have to read this. Thanks a lot.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 6:34 PM I like formality. It’s WASPs in yellow robes that piss me off.
‘I’m no f@cking Buddhist, but this is Enlightenment.’ - Bjork
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 6:36 PM Don’t worry, The Schopenauer is quite clear and brief for a German Romantic Philosopher. Funny, too, if you like your wit very dry
I also like formality of language. Still, it’s just a finger pointing at the moon.
Taking the robe doesn’t bother me much. The discipline is going to wear down their WASPy illusions over time.
“And that’s a good thing.” Martha Stewart
Martha Stewart’s WASPiness would really piss me off if I cared enough.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 7:07 PM Always been a big Schopenauer fan. Good to see something I’ve not read of his.
I was referring to the structure of Buddhism, or any religion, so long as you actually grew up with it. For a German philosophy buff, I’m assuming you’re familiar with Spengler, and possibly his writing on worldviews as expression of cultural depth perceptions. I don’t like it when people try to jump ship…it’s false. Your friend Mr. Frankfurt might agree.
Besides, Buddhism means the end of the ride, which will comes as it does. Whereas being pissed off is always dynamic and stimulating. I live for tension and friction.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 7:15 PM ” Buddhism means the end of the ride”
Sorry to disagree, but the Goal (Nirodha) of Buddhism is all about finding sure footing on the Path (Marga). The Path keeps going. There is no end of useful work to do.
The Buddhist view (as I understand it) is that the distinction between means and ends as separate elements of causality (Karma) is an artifice. Pure mental illusion.
All that Shakyamuni said essentially is “If you want to diminish human suffering, then stop producing it.” Is this bad advise? Is it even religion as we in the Christian world define it?
Like sex, the fun part of tension and friction is in relieving it. I’m sure you realise it takes no effort to create.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 8:00 PM I wrote this humble little haiku that I hope is illustrative:
“Now,” the moment sings,
How the future rushes past,
How the past leads here.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 8:24 PM The Buddha. I like him verra much. But he no help wit curve ball.
To seriously address your points (while maintaining friction): nirvana refers, in my understanding, to the end of the illusion. That will comes as it does, says me. I’m in no rush to see it go.
In fact, in a timeless view, the end of suffering is at hand. So, nothing to do, nowhere to go. Buddhism was a negation of Hinduism, and ch’an or zen buddhism the negation of the negation. I think zen is more logical, but then you’re in some pretty loopy territory…
...which can also be achieved in the sciences. Being of a western mind, I feel this is a more honest vessel in which to travel. The Easterners give us great insights (and great advice), but creating your own path is: 1) more in line with evolutionary theory; 2) more fun.
I think it’s disingenuous not to incorporate Buddhism into a western mindset, which you’re doing anyway without being wholly conscious of it. Why Western Buddhism is, to me, an oxymoron, and cosmically, or at least Kierkegaardianly humorous, especially from the point of view of buddhism.
The relief of sexual tension is a depression (in the strict sense), and therefore leads to more tension. It’s what we live for. No tension, no life. I’m not ready to die. Nirvana is a kind of death. Call it willful ignorance…I call it buying more roller-coaster tickets. Ain’t that right, Mephistopheles?
To make a pretense of keeping this contextually relevant, death begets death. The death penalty is a poor solution. But I don’t think the advocates really want to solve anything. They like their tension too…
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 8:28 PM To Rocco,
I made a few corrections to my original. (It’s Germans that capitalize all nouns, not Swedes.)
I’m not fluent and have never taken a class. Also, there are no family members left who I can talk with anymore. We didn’t write, we spoke.
Var så gud a talar swenska, Rocco. Det är inte snart.
Please speak Swedish, Rocco. It is not difficult.
(Literally, Be so good as to speak Swedish, Rocco.)Tookie var amerikansk bov!
Tookie was an American gangster.——————————— ;—————-
“Communism is not the opposite of fascism. Fascism is a form of government, and communism is a form of economics. One can be a fascist communist, like Stalin.”OK, I sort of slipped into the economy due to my impression that, if not you, at least LB thinks we should provide whatever anyone needs financially. That smacks of communism to me.
What really comes across to me on this site is that extremes seem to be the only options.
• Anyone who does not agree polically must be a fascist.
• If you disagree economically, you must be a wealthy, heartless miser.
• If you don’t think welfare is the best solution, you must hate blacks. (I don’t see jobs as welfare.)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 24, 2006 at 9:24 PM Here’s the latest from LB,
“You are much like my own conservative family. “We’re not bigoted. We don’t hate coloreds. We don’t use the word ‘nigger’. No, we are so much more refined than that. It’s just a natural fact that coloreds are not truly human beings. They don’t have the capability to reason. They don’t possess souls. We don’t hate them, we pity them. We love them, as long as they know their place. It’s these uppity ones like MLK who are just creating problems for their kind, giving them false hopes of equality.”
This is news. I’m beginning to understand her somewhat. She is apparently the black sheep (no pun) of her family and tarring me with the same brush as those who have the above opinions.
I have never said,• “It’s just a natural fact that coloreds are not truly human beings.”
• “They don’t have the capability to reason.”
• “They don’t possess souls.”
or any of the rest of it — You sure read a lot into a very small sample, LB.LB, Did you just skip over anything I’ve ever said which didn’t fit the above? Such as my son’s black friends and my own friends when in the army? Hey, my cousin is married to a black man — not a problem with me.
My belief (I know this doesn’t fit with what you see as fact.) is that past policies meant to help have exacerbated the problems of family disintegration, loss of educational opportunities, and made black minorities out to be less able to cope with daily life than other minorities.
—————————-
My previous statement…
“Even if the four of us where running the country I would still win even though out voted. A bigoted, old conservative, like LB claims I am, would simply resort to force while you guys were still talking about reparations or clemency.”I didn’t mean I would force you. I was thinking of enforcing laws while you were still trying to “convince” the perpetrators to change their wayward behavior with bribes.
—————————
I have to admit I have benefited from reading the opinions on this site. I can now see why there is so much extreme criticism of the current administration. While I don’t agree with them on everything — the economic and tax policies, the health care/Social Security/Medicaid to name a few — I don’t see a conspiracy behind every mistake or stupid (in my opinion) policy and decision.What I do see ahead is apparently similar for Rocco.
CEOs are sucking our companies and economy dry. In the name of free enterprise and free trade they are exporting our jobs, cashing in the stock options, and destroying the middle class.
Since WW2 our manufacturing jobs have provided a good living for thousands of Americans (of all races and national heritages, male and female). Blacks who moved north to work in factories could provide for families, buy a home, look forward to a better life for the next generation. That is over.
Recently the U.S. GDP has been 70% consumer supported. As job quality falls, so will our national life style. It will be more difficult for most of us, but especially so for any without an education, a skill which is in demand, or a nest egg to fall back on.
Sad, but I believe this has been coming on for 15 to 20 years. I have written scores of letters to all levels of government, newspapers and magazines, the AFL/CIO — everyone I could think of. It was useless.
Globalization may be inevitable, but so is death. Most of us try to put it off as long as possible. We are hurrying over the economic abyss like lemmings.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 24, 2006 at 9:33 PM I’ve been a real junkie this week. Nothing like a work deadline to make me more interested in something else.
whattheheck - Mi dispiace che sei cosi’ arrabiato, ma questo solo e’ un posto per l’esspressione delle idee. E’ una grande parte del sistema democratico. E’ migliore discutere che combattere. Non e’ vero?
Sorry you’re so upset, but this is only a place for the expression of ideas. It’s a big part of the democratic system. It’s better to argue that to fight. Right?
I’m going ahead and pegging you as a libertarian after those last posts, which is probably why I’ve continued arguing with you, since I appreciate the libertarian stance. I agree that most posters have rigid ideologies and are knee-jerk and emotional, on both sides of the fence, and it bothers me as well. And while I never pegged you as a racist (I made the comment that Bill Cosby echoes many of your gripes), I think neither you or Cosby is looking at the big picture. He was indoctrinated by America as well. The first Liberians took African slaves!
A problem with libertarianism, as with the Articles of Confederation, is that there is no teeth to it. The unscrupulous will always try and take advantage of people, which ruins it for everyone (think of the assholes who gridlock). Therefore government programs should regulate certain things, like controlling the flow of water into and out of a lake.
Participatory democracy seems to me the only way to stave off the corporate takeover you described. And that means everyone. To do that, we have to educate the downtrodden and ourselves. Why do you think Republicans never give money to education, other than standardized tests? Imagine Aristotle giving multiple choice questions, never deviating from the script.
I too like fighting against the inevitable (see Faustian banter above w/ LB). A vastly unequal society can never be a functional democracy…so let’s try to equalize it. Libertarians are at a loss to tell me how that’s done without government involvement.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 9:59 PM And ‘conspiracy’ gets bandied about too much. What about systemic collusion? If the rich are maximizing profit by any means necessary, which is what passes for capitalism these days, and those in political power come out of that system, wouldn’t their goals naturally coincide, thus giving the appearance of collusion?
I don’t see why that’s hard to accept. But yes, they are also stupid (did you guys see that the Admin. were briefed about Katrina’s potential effects days before it? God, they’re incompetent).
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 10:07 PM Oh yes, rocco, the Buddha can help with your curveball. Like the directions to Carnegie Hall, “Practice, practice, practice.”
I am (almost) fully conscious of incorporating Buddhism in conjunction with a western mindset (although I am somewhat beyond that in my meditation practise, being able to express and communicate it is what I am working on). My Buddhist critique of the western mindset is that it is a framework against which we describe and attempt to explain reality whether scientifically or metaphysically. It is not reality itself. There is no way to actually ‘know’ reality through discursive reasoning. Just ‘facts’ ‘about’ reality. No matter how accurate and true they may be there is an illusory wall created by that mindset that separates ‘reality’ from ‘understanding reality’.
Buddhist philosophy is not about a better description of reality, but aimed at pointing the mind toward a calm, clear, unambiguous recognition that reality is simply what we are, regardless what we think about it. ‘Just keepin it real’ as the blackbird sings. It’s about training the mind to be calm in a crisis (life is always in crisis). It makes it easier to employ reason, it doesn’t supplant it.
It is theoria in support of praxis, which is the inverse of Greek Idealism. Are they in conflict or complementary? It is certain that the greatest of Buddhist philosophers, (Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu) knew the Greeks well.
To re-iterate simply it’s all about the practice of Dharma (making it work), not the discursive cognitive attempt to explain it.
Nirvana is often translated as the extinction of desire. It can be better understood as the end of clingingto desire. It really doesn’t mean becoming passionless, but managing the passion that is inevitable in living through the means of not grasping for it. Passion arises spontaneously in our lives. It really doesn’t need to be reinforced. An old Zen saying about Nirvana is “Eyes like ashes, belly on fire.” Passion with clarity. Real satori (realization) is more like a bolt of lightning than a bowl of tapioca.
Yes, Nirvana can be thought of as a kind of death. It is the death of the conditioned ego that sees itself as other and separate from the rest of reality. Following the extinction of this illusory self, the natural interconnected self continues in its ordinary discontinuous and interrelated fashion.
On another level, since the separate ego-self fundamentally has no real existence, there really isn’t anything there to die, is there?
Sexual relief as depression is a bit male-centric, or so I’ve been told.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 10:55 PM Sexual relief as depression is a bit male-centric, or so I’ve been told.
I meant in terms of emission…women also emit (well, some of ‘em anyway). If you want to get nitpicky, clitoral and vaginal orgasms are brought on by friction and tension. That’s my gynecological rift for the day.
Fun stuff! What I meant was that you’re not holding up a flower for me, or even making me an emoticon flower (like this: @};—-); nor are you “indirectly pointing” in order to bring about sartori. You are using rhetoric to sway me, thus reinforcing western assumptions. We’re battling it out.
I would therefore state that you have ‘pseudomorphed’ (Spengler jargon) Buddhism into a Western mind, as opposed to in conjunction with. Whereas I advocate pushing Western logic to its breaking point a la Lewis Carroll. I think quantum physics is the purest example of this that I know of.
Ironically I see greater contradiction in your chosen style, trying to sublimate your glorious Western ego; I’m trying to pump my up until it blows. You’re sitting still with a raging mind and body; I am trying to run as fast as I can in a straight line until I arrive, paradoxically, at the starting point. Evolving back to the source. Same goal, different methods. It’s all the same. We agree on that, yes?
I agree that pre-Socratic Greek thought often mirrors Eastern thought. But Aristotle did that puppy in. Asian culture is much more fluid, and holistic, and I both admire and envy that kind of mentality. They’re also taught from early on, however, that they are secondary to the whole. We compartmentalize, and dissect, and triangulate; and we are taught from early on how special we are. That’s not an easy thing to ‘Om’ away.
The Hindus actually have a (frowned-upon) method which mirrors my own: Ban Marg - the left-handed path. Coincidence I’m a southpaw?
“Eyes like ashes, belly on fire.” By the way, they ate a lot of hallucinogens. Something else I advocate.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 11:37 PM Gotta give it up for the Buddhists’ ‘compassion for all’ tidbit. Think they’re on to something.
Posted by rocco on Jan 24, 2006 at 11:45 PM WTH:
Didn’t mean to imply you are just like my family. But you make the same kind of arguments.
We had a colored maid. Everyone just loved her. She cleaned, she ironed, she baked (My Lord, she could bake!) all for half of what it would cost to hire a white woman. My Old Man helped her husband get a job as a garbage collector, which was the about the only half-decent job a black man could get in our town. This in California, a famously progressive state at the time. Their oldest daughter was in my High School class. Not only was she knock-out gorgeous but she was the first peer I ever met who was actually smarter than your humble self. I’ll allow your imagination can fill in the tragic dimensions of the ensuing innocent love affair and how it exposed me to core beliefs of my family I probably would never otherwise have suspected. So yes I am a ‘black sheep’. It gives me a particular and peculiar perspective. I can smell race discrimination, and, frankly, you smell.
I’m certain in this day and age you don’t share their inane medieval biologic beliefs, but you have bought into the ‘reverse discrimination’, ‘culturally deficient’, ‘welfare dependency’, ‘liberal white guilt’, ‘some of my best friends are black’, etc. mantras that are their restatements in their modern iteration. An explicit political theory centered on creating the blame for why the majority black community is still getting shafted after all these years since MLK on the failure of mythical ‘liberal’ policies and away from any kind of rational discussion about the consequences of historical, societal, systemic and institutional forces and particularly against any form of governmental remediation, God forbid.
There is nothing suprising in you being unconscious of the conditioning that makes you a willing dupe of what is to me a blatant racist manipulation of public discourse. If I hadn’t had the covers pulled on me so rudely, and left to grow up a nice squeaky-clean Republican, I would probably be right there with you, complaining how my retard brother-in-law was getting screwed by affirmative action.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 25, 2006 at 1:07 AM rocco,
It’s ‘satori’. I think ‘sartori’ is finding the perfect shirt or something. (emoticon goes here) (god, they disgust me)
I think logic (eastern or western, it is the same) has been used by Buddhists to push as close to a description of what is necessarily by definition, ‘not described’, as quantum physics has pushed mathematics to describe sub-atomic phenomena, which at present are not perfectly described, either.
Yes, most emphatically. The Goal the same for all sentient beings. Some kind of satisfaction. Theory is always just the starting point. Keep a beginners mind and the prize is already won.
I confess to much ‘pseudomorphing’ a la Spengler of Buddhism when I was much younger. Romanticism, Exoticism, Spiritual Materialism, seeking out teachers, visiting shrines; the whole routine. “Ah, but I was so much older then. I’m younger than that, now.”
Be not so sure there is no indirect pointing going on here, grasshopper.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 25, 2006 at 2:06 AM Neo-Platonist absolute dualism certainly did shoot down Pythagorean relativistic monism. It’s uncritical adoption by the church and state kept scientific progress at a standstill in Christian Europe for about a millenium. The introduction of Hindu mathematics (see Pythagoras again) is what gave European technologic dominance a kick start.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 25, 2006 at 2:37 AM That’s OK Rocco, Rabbit too is a prick. In fact he is the sharpest prick on the bush.
The water Carrier eh? Good, was worried for a Leo. They can get too hung up by independant Alpha’s. Rams. RamRabbit.
I know what you mean about agreeing being uninteresting, but stick around you might get a surprise or two.
Aquarians do need to work at keeping the mind open, often falling into the trap of inertia having once made the effort to seek out the answers.
Consider Rabbit as a sort of small magic creature who takes care of little house keeping matters for folks. Like for example you can thank the Rabbit for bringing HTML to this software challenged site, as a response to Jay being “superior” playing HTML games. Rabbit also herds the trolls and keeps tabs on them,, and who owns which troll. If you should adopt one one day, which I’m sure you are above doing, then you need to know if it is already taken, Rabbit can always tell you this.
Maybe we could organise a Troll swap meet some time ? (At Cyberoz though since it’s a bit too off topic even for us here).Lumens has summed up the situation with debating the dingbats. It would be nice to have some opposition with a bit of reason and intelligence combined. Mental honesty and all that. This is why WTH is of interest to you and this is understandable. WTH is Rabbit’s great hope for he is as Lume says sometimes capable of coherant reasoning.
Where Rabbit would differ in describing him, is that when his feet are finally to the fire, is when he baulks. He can progress promisingly, until he see’s the gate, then like a feisty fish which has seen the net, he is off with complete abandon, into la la land. You will not believ it till you see it. WTH withdraws into a state of denial which is more extreme than most. He will actually state that reality is unknoiwable and nothing can ever be knownm, and that just because one thing is true so can it’s opposite be….....
Wait till you see it. You’ll be quite impressed, if a little dismayed. He does have a good sense of humour and actually he and Rabbit have a lot in common, much as he hates to admit it.
The difference is only a daily dose of the special Koolaid eh WTH?
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 25, 2006 at 3:28 AM I haven’t read all yet, and am in a hurry.
I can see WTH has still never paid enough attention to know Lume is not a Sheila. Since the last post was so obvious I feel obliged to point it out. I can’t stand the suspense waiting for the penny to drop.
Now that it has WTH, how about you pay attention to the discussions you are involved in? This is six months or more old!
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 25, 2006 at 3:37 AM Silly rabbit.
He knows.
He thinks he’s being clever.
Let’s give him a jolly laugh.
Ho, Ho, Ho. Emoticons all around.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 25, 2006 at 4:43 AM luminous beauty - First off, you loved the emoticon rose. Admit it. Or throw away forever any trust I have in your beatific state of bliss.
Second: re ‘Satori’ - touche’. I really always thought it was sartori. My new bit of knowledge for the day.
Now to the good stuff.
I disagree about Buddhism vs. quantum physics. The logic espoused by great Buddhist thinkers was pre-science, hence intuitive. That is, while logic was utilized, the gaping blanks were filled with nonsense. The Dalai Lama himself once pointed out that he learned that the moon emitted its own light, until he looked through a telescope and saw shadows.
Nothing wrong there. But Western thought, as I understand it, values scepticism with a backdrop of provable hypotheses. We do most definitely fill our blanks with nonsense (Quarks? Are you kidding me?). But it comes from a different point of view which I believe is imbedded into most educated Westerners, and is hard to dislodge. Besides, trying to visualize the workings of quantum physics kills my mind more than meditation ever did. Complete shutdown. Ommmmm….
I like the Pythagorean example. But Pythagoras was an exception to the rule. Educated by Egyptians, one could argue that he falls in a categorical gray area. Hell, he believed in reincarnation. How Buddhist is that? Anyway, Aristotle led to Ptolemy and St. Augustine, and that created the Western outlook much more weightily than Pythagoras. Believe me, I wish it weren’t so.
I caution anyone who thinks: “I was stupid then. But NOW I’ve got it.” If I didn’t believe in structure so, I’d pull out the personal anecdote that Buddhism was my first philosophical love. But I’m above that.
In the end, why trap oneself? Why be a Buddhist? Why not question everything always? Why trust others ever? Never got this. They all give hypotheses that should be pushed until they break. And they all will, even Buddhism.
Indirectly pointing, eh? Please keep pointing. All I’m seeing is you. Let me see the big ball of light that the Buddha is blocking with his big fat ass…
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 5:31 AM Rabbit - so, you’re human after all. Congrats.
Not a big fan of astrology. It’s too vague. And, as someone once said, if astrology works because of the weight of the stars at that particular moment in time, how come the doctors who pull out the little babe aren’t factored into the equation?
As for whattheheck, I’ll let him answer for himself. Despite my remarks, I place no preconception on any troll, regular, or in-between. Except, of course, you.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 5:43 AM Re beginner’s mind: If you’ve not done so, I highly suggest reading Julian Barbour’s ‘End of Time.’ Cutting-edge quantum theory that time doesn’t exist (but the Buddhists already knew that, didn’t they?)
here’s a link to a short documentary (don’t fear the dutch…the doc is in english: http://noorderlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2380593/
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 6:00 AM “In the end, why trap oneself? Why be a Buddhist? Why not question everything always? Why trust others ever?”
1. oneself has already ensnared oneself in the trap of self. The better question I would think is how does one get out of this mess? Isn’t that the general question we are asking on this thread?
2. Why not? One doesn’t have to take formal vows and live the rest of one’s life in a cave eating lichens. You’ve really got to want to become a Buddhist. It requires commitment, self-discipline and the ability to endure excruciating boredom. No kidding!
3. What is it that Buddhists are forbidden to question? My teachers haven’t ever told me about that. Have I been deceived?
4. What % of all human interactions do you think are betrayals of trust? I’m willing to wager it’s a mity tiny number.We really don’t disagree about much. I think you might be an unintentional Buddhist just like WTH is an unintentional fascist bigot.
And yes the flower icon was cute. Really what bugs me are winky smiley-faces that are meant as a semiotic clue when someone is trying to be funny and failing miserably. I know, I should be more compassionate.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 25, 2006 at 7:13 AM luminous - Will answer your questions in numerological order, like a good westerner.
1. I ensnared myself in nothing. I was born into this mess, but I feel no reason to leave it. It’s a mess, but it’s my mess. This is also why I love having nightmares, which rarely happens, unfortunately. Such danger! Such fun! Without jailtime!
2. ‘Why not?’ is an acceptable response. This is the kind of scepticism I like to hear.
3. I won’t engage in sophistry by picking and choosing from Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism. But the notion of choosing a path created by others is disturbing for me. I think it inevitably creates sacred cows (especially Hinduism). Have your teachers asked you to question their teaching? If so, good teachers.
4. We completely disagree on this one. My observations of human activity have led me to believe that deception, intentional or otherwise, is a definite genetic human trait. Though I only read the synopsis, I’ll ask you to re-read ‘On Bullshit’.
(5). I agree that we agree on much. But it’s not unintentional that I have a Buddhist streak. They taught me a lot, and then I threw them away.
Once I agree with you, the thread is dead. No tension, no friction. But I don’t want it to die, not yet. I still have 8 hours until my presentation.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 7:38 AM sidenote: California Buddhists often take vows and eat lichens, then fly first-class to visit the Dalai Lama, or go on a Buddhist retreat in Big Sur. Just as I can criticize nutbag Christians, while liking and respecting the works of St. Teresa of Avila, I can criticize Richard Gere, while internally disciphering the eightfold path in my own chosen vernacular.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 7:54 AM The crime issue is a difficult one for the left because it arouses the passions and because the admittedly abnormal levels of sociopathic behavior in US society is impossible to defend or even explain at times. Furthermore, many American sociopaths arouse so much understandable contempt for their senseless crimes that liberals and the left tend to give up in frustration on the whole crime issue. It is very ungratifying to continue to cop the same old plea about poverty and a bad environment for people who repeatedly and remorselessly take human life as if it was nothing. I do not believe that rage at such individuals is either racist or in some way misplaced. One of the things that African-American blogger Earl Ofari Hutchenson pointed out is that more than half of all African-Americans support the death penalty the opposition to which is primarily the preserve of white liberals. One reason is that young Blacks are disproportionately targets of crime. Neither liberals nor white racists understand that most Black Americans hate crime and the fact that they are at a disproportionate risk of attack and want protection. Very few have much sympathy for chronic offenders! Syndicated Black Columnist Stanley Crouch pointed out that between 1877 and 1914, the height of the epoch of lynching in the deep South, about 5,000 black males were brutally lynched by white racists. He compares this with the 10,000 or so mostly Black Victims of LA gang violence between 1980 and the present and concludes that Black gangs killed twice as many of their own in only two-thirds the time! No wonder there is significant support for the death penalty in the Black Community. All this having been said I do believe that the ultimate solution to this problem is social. The death penalty is mostly for revenge. The deepening poverty and growing levels of international criminality and organized crime that is part of the globalization phenomenon aggravates the problem. The conservative Bush Administration for all its obsession with terrorism cares not a bit about crime in the streets. Viable and safe communities have nothing to do with making the rich even richer and globalizing wealth so Bush ignores the issue. Besides it is mostly the poor that suffer from crime. International crime actually helps the right-wing cause by demoralizing minorities and society in general. All Fear promotes conservative agenda. It is true that social betterment reduces crime. It is also true that our violent culture and politics set a bad example. That doesn’t mean that sociopathology should go unpunished. We need punishment and social uplift to form part of the same general solution to crime.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jan 25, 2006 at 8:07 AM cabdriverinchicago - good posts, bad edit. Make some paragraphs, will ya? It’s like reading an obituary.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 8:10 AM Rocco,
I dislike pegging or being pegged. Better to take issues one at a time.
I certainly agree with your comment, “Therefore government programs should regulate certain things, like controlling the flow of water into and out of a lake.”I would add other general categories such as: FDA (who knows where my Rx comes from?), SEC (even thought they are not truly doing much of a job), Air Traffic Controllers, and unless someone gets serious about health care, even a government plan may be better than none.
So, I doubt if I am a Libertarian.
I just think it is better for people to take care of their own affairs as much as they possibly can.
What seems to be wrong with government programs is the human tendency to overburden them.
(Warning: I feel another anecdote coming on.)
Since I paid for my family’s medical needs out of pocket, we only had major medical insurance coverage. In England, Canada, and Sweden, where we have friends or relatives — people create long waiting periods due to taking advantage of “free” care for minor things. Same here when someone else pays for it.
Government benefits should be for the needy only and only as long as needed. Another generalization: It would be better to make low interest loans than to just give. (Better for the recipient’s self image.)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 4:17 PM LB,
“I can smell race discrimination, and, frankly, you smell.”
Ah, yes, one again, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
I don’t know what you do for a living, but would not recommend sales.
——————————-“...you have bought into the ‘reverse discrimination’, ‘culturally deficient’, ‘welfare dependency’, ‘liberal white guilt’, ‘some of my best friends are black’, etc. mantras that are their restatements in their modern iteration.”
Reverse discrimination?
What would you call it if a person or group gets special consideration?
• It may be x number of the ___________ race.
• It may be adding 10 percentage points to an entrance exam. It may an exclusionary name like _________ TV network.
• If it is wrong for one class, color, gender or whatever, is it not wrong for all?
• Is it not reasonable to expect those excluded to be pissed?• Is that a good way to remove barriers?
As for the rest of your assumptions, you seem to be happier holding them than anything I can say will alter. Perhaps with your wealthy background you think it is easy for others to shell out to correct the ills of the world.
Maybe if you grew up hearing about your parents’ struggling financially both pre and during the depression you would feel differently.
In 1920, my Dad had to quit school to support a family of an invalid father (black lung and a stroke) and the remaining kids who had not yet married — three sisters a younger brother and his mother. Then came the depression and WW2.
They weren’t black, but they weren’t rich either.
My opinion still stands —Anyone who thinks someone else will fix your problems for you, is likely to wait a long time only to be sadly disappointed.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 4:46 PM quick response: Libertarians come in all forms. In short, they believe that government should stick to very little, and are usually for legalization of drugs, social equity, etc. But anti-welfare (that includes corporate welfare) and stuff like that.
So we’ve hammered it out to “Government benefits should be for the needy only and only as long as needed.” Agreed. Now…who decides who’s needy, and who decides how long it’s needed?
PS Low-interest loans sounds like indentured servitude to me. Why not public works? It helped many a man in the thirties, like my grandfather. No public works because people think that’s communism. Better to outsource these jobs to Halliburton.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 4:48 PM whattheheck - what if affirmative action was instead based on socioeconomics (as I’ve often thought it should be)? That is, schools must take a certain number of poor people into their university, as their high schools were most assuredly a hindrance to education (there’s not a powerful PTA lobby in the ghetto).
Wouldn’t that piss people off too, especially since a lot of these poor people just happen to be black and Latino.
Last word on the Black Entertainment Television. Black pride was a movement to get blacks not to feel ashamed to be black, as they had been indoctrinated to feel. It was a counterpunch. Why ‘black power’ became a mantra, and Black English a legitimately accepted dialect.
You obviously have Swedish pride. Would it offend you if there was a Swedish Channel?
“Ah, but Sweden is a country, not a race!” Very true. Unfortunately, Black Americans aren’t sure which African nation their ancestors were kidnapped from. Their color is their sense of identity. Be grateful that you can trace your family heritage…blacks didn’t exactly come here voluntarily.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 4:57 PM A final point: I think there is something inherently wrong with the phrases ‘reverse discrimination’ or ‘reverse racism.’ You’re either racist and discriminate, or you aren’t and don’t.
Those phrase seem to imply that racism naturally goes in one direction. As if to say, “Hey! They’re trying to reverse the normal flow of racism!”
And maybe they’d have a point. Aren’t the most racist people traditionally the race in power? Like Sunnis are racist against Kurds, like Chinese are racist against Tibetans, Japanese against Koreans, etc.
So if that’s true, then reverse racism - i.e. from the powerless to the powerful - would be impossible.
Either way, time to ditch these clearly imprecise terms.
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 5:35 PM I’ve personally had to deal with poverty, WTH. I don’t rely on stories handed down. I know what it is like. You wouldn’t fare very well if you lost your pathetic petit bourgeois advantages. In fact, you’d be totally screwed. People were pretty tough back in the Depression. If it happened today?
Some folks find Lawrence Welk to be offensive.
I’ve got stop using Firefox when I post here. Forgot to save another long post and lost it when I hit submit. Dang!
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 25, 2006 at 5:59 PM Rocco,
I am for legalization of drugs partly because I don’t want any level of government telling me what to do personally. People should have the right to do stupid things as long as it does not endanger or otherwise interfer with another’s life.
I would rather quit wasting money on the War on Drugs and use it to help those who wish to quit do so. The present approach is repeating the creation of wealth for criminals just like prohibition did. My drug is alcohol, but it was re-legalized before I was born and I generally use it in moderation.
Scotch is more reliable than people. I know just what to expect — a little tastes good, a little more feels relaxing — more still— feeling nothing — next day, feels like hell.
The law only needs to be involved when the excessive use of a substance becomes a problem for others— driving, piloting a plane, target shooting and so on. Then come down hard.
I resent seatbelt laws, bike helmets, warning labels, the loss of teeter-totters and slides — all the stuff “for our own good” and the banning of almost anything.
(OK, maybe I am a Libertarian. Whatever.)
“...who decides who’s needy, and who decides how long it’s needed?”
It could be based on a cost of living scale (adjusted to the area where the person lives) and diminish gradually as a person earns more. If it was adjusted properly, it would not necessarily be a disincentive for a person to work more hours or find better employment.
I think public works is a great idea. Everybody gained by the CCC and we still are today. I tried to interest George the First when the fall of the Soviet Union created the so-called “Peace Dividend” in doing for transportation what Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System did for autos. I have sent my sketches and explanation to each presidential candidate since then — no reponse except a form letter from my congressman telling how much they were pending aready on infrastructure. No imagination!
If we thought in terms of moving people and goods nationwide, we could interconnect the Interstate with interurban rail, cross country rail and airports. (Could let people take their cars along.)
This would create construction jobs coast to coast, and thousands of support jobs, and save energy, cut polution, reduce traffic deaths, provide a method of evacuating large numbers of people in natural on man-made disasters. (Think Katrina.)
Perhaps with an NSA listening program I can get through to somebody with the power to do something. :-) Naw, a rock through the East Room window is better.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 8:16 PM LB,
“You wouldn’t fare very well if you lost your pathetic petit bourgeois advantages. In fact, you’d be totally screwed.”
I guess you just proved my previous comment once again… “As for the rest of your assumptions, you seem to be happier holding them than anything I can say will alter.”
——————————People were pretty tough back in the Depression. If it happened today?
We may just get a chance to find out — a lot of people around here in the rust belt already are.
——————————-
Some folks find Lawrence Welk to be offensive.A lot of people are right.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 8:26 PM Rocco,
“Last word on the Black Entertainment Television. Black pride was a movement to get blacks not to feel ashamed to be black, as they had been indoctrinated to feel. It was a counterpunch. Why ‘black power’ became a mantra, and Black English a legitimately accepted dialect.”
I know, I remember all that, but that was forty years ago — time to move on.
My point a couple of days ago when I referred to the hair styles and lingo, is that if someone wants to get ahead it requires becoming a part of the mainstream. It may feel good to thumb your nose at that part of society, but don’t expect them to welcome you with open arms.
Now that I have retired I don’t wear a tie anymore. When I was calling on corporate execs, not wearing a tie would needlessly divert their attention from what I was selling. After the “Casual Friday” attire was introduced I made a call on one of my long-time clients. The CEO, who was wearing a sweater and slacks jokingly said, “Your out of uniform. We observe Casual Fridays here.” I told him my suit and tie were casual because, “The rest of the week I wear a tux.”
You obviously have Swedish pride. Would it offend you if there was a Swedish Channel?
I would get a chance to practice my Swedish, but it is not something I long for. I have recently started tracking my ancestry. While I am half Swedish my other half is a mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and German. My Dad’s half came to the U.S. about a hundred years ago and my mother’s side came before the Revolutionary War and were participants.
It is interesting to me, but I have always thought of my identity as just plain American.
“Be grateful that you can trace your family heritage…blacks didn’t exactly come here voluntarily.”
I am grateful (It’s almost enough to make me go back to prayer, but not quite.) You see, I didn’t get here by choice either. Just the luck of the draw.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 8:50 PM This is my last for a while, as I get to go to Naples!!! Florida. Eh. Stupid northerners always have to schedule these winter things in the most god awful towns. Maybe I can brush up on my shuffleboard.
Ahem. whattheheck - first post we agree more or less. I’d watch those ‘rock through the East Room’ comments, though. They know where you live.
BET Post: Luck of the draw indeed - hard-working independent stock you Scandanavians. Northern European culture. Which was a lot like British culture - at least, in comparison to 16th-17th century African culture. No one thought your family was sub-human.
You keep saying, “Yeah, yeah, 40 years ago get over it.” Leaving for a moment the fact that recent history plays a part in current events: Hurricane Carter was 30 years ago. Miami riots - 25. Rodney King and OJ - 15. There’s a lot of pent-up, deep-seated prejudice and hatred between blacks and whites. It’s a completely separate scenario. Blacks are oppressed, and whites have been the oppressors. That stuff dies hard.
So while they are trying to enter the mainstream media (name me 5 black leads on primetime TV! name me 5 black film heartthrobs!), they’re trying to empower themselves on their own in a parallel manner.
You should look into the CEO of BET. He’s a billionaire who has predominantly hired blacks to get them out of rough situations. They’ll now be wealthy enough to move to the ‘burbs, educate their kids at Connecticut public schools (which are better than most private schools), and enter our society. That’s bootstrap stuff, man!
Having said all this, BET programming sucks. It’s exploitative and plays to the lowest common denominator. In fact, that’s all of TV. Hey, maybe TV sucks period and we should ignore it altogether. Everybody, into discussion rooms! You never know who’s what in one of these…
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 9:58 PM Rocco,
Sorry, I can’t name 5 black leads on prime time TV. But… I can’t name 5 of any color.
Name me one thing worth watching on prime time TV. If they are trying to replicate it, I’m more dubious than ever that they will improve their lot any time soon.
Has the CEO of BET hired any poor whites? :-) Never mind.
Any time I’ve hesitated on BET all I hear is a lot of stupid comments and yelling — Hey, they’ve met their goal already!
Well, what do you know — I got to the end of your post and find we’ve agreed again.
I’ve been talking the network stuff here. About the only thing I watch is the History channel (very selectively — some of it is really weird stuff) and PBS. We like British comedies and Antiques Roadshow mostly. Oh, yeah, I do watch quite a bit of C-Span and C-Span2 Book Channel. Discovery Channel too. I guess I watch more than I thought. Mostly I read.
I’m especially interested in the UFO stuff whenever it comes on. I saw one in the early 70s and have found several other people with similar stories.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 11:02 PM Rocco,
Funny story:
My son used to work for Prince the rock musician in Minneapolis.
When we told my father-in-law who was in his eighties and very deaf he asked, “Who is this guy they call Prince? Doesn’t he have a last name?
When we said, “Nelson” he said, “Hmm, what’s with Swedes nowadays? Just like that Ann Margaret — never uses her last name. Are they afraid to let people know they are Swedish? Well they always used to say at the shop, ‘Get that damned dumb Swede over here.’ So I guess they were right.”
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2006 at 11:15 PM cabdriverinchicago
You say, “crime actually helps the right-wing cause by demoralizing minorities and society in general.”
Agreed, I said pretty much the same thing a couple days ago only I believe this whole street gang culture was created and is promoted by old uncle sam and that they silenced Tookie Williams because he was starting to diminish their contol over gangs with his new non-violence/anti drug writings.
What I don’t understand about practically every post on every blog is why everything is broken down into these simple minded dem/repub, conserv/leberal, facist/commie, arguments when in reality each perspective overlaps others that they claim to be nothing like, as if the world is in black and white with no shades of gray, much less the whole spectrum of colors. I’m sure this is the medias’ fault but by 2006 you’d think more people would have shaken off its effects by now.
Posted by theloneous on Jan 26, 2006 at 3:22 AM One of the problems with the increasingly consolidated corporate media today is the widespread and deliberate degradation of the national political discourse through right-wing talk radio like Rush Limbough and news shows like Fox as well as other sensationalist features and programing. They put complex issues across as simple black and white things with liberal vs conservative labels so as to either praise or stigmatize a view according to taste. George Orwell in a famous essay called Politics and the English Language shows this problem to be a very old one whereby buzzwords and code expressions substitute for true independant, reflective thought about topics that are complex and defy simplistic labeling for the purposes of public manipulation. The abuse of political language was for Orwell one of modernities greatest dangers and one of the greatest threats to democratic societies where nuanced and careful debate needed to replace mindless, kneejerk thinking so endemic to the mass media today. I am afraid the Orwell’s fears may be born out and that people will substitute loaded buzzwords for actual thought. This is part of the alienation of modern society and thought control. The only way to combat it is to widen the scope of the discourse and encourage more nuanced thinking where possible. We must challenge the Rush Limboughs and Sean Hannitys of the world!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jan 26, 2006 at 8:56 AM Rocco,
I can’t resist even knowing this is the one racial slur the site will filter. That only adds to the irony.
Google’s China connection and my proposed headline:
Methinks Chink-Link Stinks While Money Clinks, Clinks, Clinks.
IMO Google is a metaphor for our national economic policy.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 26, 2006 at 2:48 PM Whoa! They can’t handle a hyphen.
Cinese-American
Chink-American
Just ChinkI wonder how reliable the Google filters will be and what a client response to a slip may be.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 26, 2006 at 2:52 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Salim Muwakkil
- The ‘Post-Racial’ President
Barack Obama navigates a world where color still matters. - Government-Assisted Terrorists
- The Irony of Obama’s Boycott
America's first black president refused to attend a U.N. conference on racism. - African-Americans Back Burris
- Will Holder Hold Cops Accountable?
- Justice for Jon Burge’s Victims?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
