Powered by TypePad

« Blumenthal, Treading Water | Main | Traditional Saturday Evening Post »

May 22, 2010

Comments

Jane says obamasucks

So it sounds like Rand Paul made an error in history not philosophy -

"In 1964, every major public accommodation that operated a nationwide business was in favor of being forced to admit minorities." National chains, he explained, feared desegregating in the South without the backing of the federal government because they feared boycotts, retribution and outright violence.

This is the part I didn't know about.

Thomas Collins

I hope all those running on a libertarian platform keep in mind the following thought from the article TM linked:

"[A]fter three-plus centuries of slavery and another century of institutionalized, state-sponsored racism (which included state toleration of private racist violence), the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn't just a series of uncoordinated private decisions by individuals exercising their freedom of association. It was part and parcel of an overall social system of racial oppression," Lindsey said."

If anything good comes from this, it would be the realization by individuals in the libertarian movement that many folks who otherwise would support libertarian candidates find unacceptable any notion that racial discrimination is permissible in places of public accommodation. Thank God it is an individual from The Cato Institute, whose libertarian cred is substantial, supporting this point.

Ignatz

I doubt there are many libertarians who object to the forcible desegregation of privately owned public accomodations per se.
I know I don't.
The problem is I believe that same force has led directly to the ADA and the crusade against smokers and salt and trans fats and the continuing takeover of the privately owned public square by the Feds.
Even worse it led directly to AA and racial quotas and in many ways IMO contributed to ending or slowing our country's evolution into a color blind society.
Seems to me government usually works best in society by righting a wrong in its sphere and if possible letting society work the private part out at its own speed even if it takes longer than we wish, because in the long run it is a voluntary evolution that lasts and reduces social frictions and resentments.
It can be plausibly, maybe even conclusively argued, that it was worth it in this case but it would be nice for at least some acknowledgement that the consequences were not all good and some of our current racial antagonisms might exist partly because of methods employed during the civil rights movement not in spite of them.

narciso

I lean more in this direction, why Rand didn't have anyone who focused his mind onto what the law has devolved to, is kind of surprising. But he is not a professional politician, even though he grew up in the house of one.

But it does strike me, though the double standard, I know yadda, yadda, We have someone in office, he really does consider the bill of rights, to be inpediments to what he needs to achieve as the' fundamental
transformation' of society, whose followers
use freedom of association as a tool of intimidation, witness the AIG and BoA executives case, also the myriad campaigns
to force Beck off the air, by Van Jones, Trumka, Stern, et al, or even the pressure
against Sarah's documentary, and the media
just says, 'nothing to see here'

Cecil Turner

Like most of the article, this begs the question:

But, in fact, it involved the equivalent of a white supremacist cartel, enforced not just by overt government regulation like segregation laws, but also by the implicit threat of private violence and harassment of anyone who challenged the racist status quo."
Paul repeatedly stressed his support for enforcing equality under the law (which would presumably apply to private violence and harassment as well). The suggestion that private behavior had to be further regulated (which by any measure is a significant expansion of federal power) is at best unproven.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with Paul (except I agree it's a dead issue . . . and he's an idiot for opining on it). But to suggest there's no academic argument is hard to feature.

Thomas Collins

Ignatz, I agree that the basic principle of nondiscrimination in public accommodation doesn't justify the increasing scope of the nanny state. Ironically, in the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is clearly stated that the Act wasn't requiring quotas. In addition, progs are quite willing to accuse anyone who opposes nanny state intrusions of bringing us back to the days of segregated lunch counters. In combatting this, I think it is important to be clear about the distinction between the basic principle and the unjustified expansion of that principle. I hope Rand Paul's failure to do this will be instructive for the future.

anduril

Oh, see them all backpedal!

anduril

Historian Simon Schama via Yves Smith: Schama: Are the Guillotines Being Sharpened?

anduril

Steyn at the top of his game:

Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”

Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.

This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

narciso

Meanwhile, we have this CYA commission, on the Gulf Spill, which would if it were real,
include people with technical expertise, to hash out the many issues, but then that is not
the point of the exercise.

rse

OT-

Have you seen the pictures from the glamour ball on the WH lawn for Calderon?

LUN

They may think there are 57 states and not be able to pronounce "chlorine" but they know how to lead Robin Leach lifestyles on the taxpayer dime.

Do you think they just trashed all those monarch butterflies after the event as if they were flags in Denver?

anduril

BTW, those people who beheaded Pearl on video are the ones Clarice wants here in the US. Oh, yeah, she wants to tell the FBI or some other bureaucracy to weed out the "bad" ones, so she'll have someone to blame later.

narciso

Actually the situations seems more like the aftermath of 1893, with Coxeys army, the Canal scandal that gave anarchist and the Boulangist equal opportunity, a similar way
in Spain, that would culminate in the Spanish American War, that's imho

Danube of Thought

Minus 15 at Raz today.

Here's the WSJ on Blumenthal.

Danube of Thought

BTW, those people who beheaded Pearl on video are the ones Clarice wants here in the US.

Dumbest thing said on this site this calendar year.

narciso

Actually Aulaqi for one, according the Fox report was so obvious, that is remarkable how
he slipped through the process, from fraud on his documentation, to solicitation of prostitutes, including even an attempt at a
Mann Act offense, his proteges Hassan and
Shahzad were only slightly fragrant in their
impropriety

Porchlight

Re: Paul, I think we're missing the point. It isn't about the CRA or libertarianism or individual property rights at all. It is a preview of what the media will do to any and all Republican candidates in 2010 and beyond.

In Paul's case it was an unforced error in response to a question designed to get him to say something they could pounce on. But remember Palin, and remember they will savage any clear statement of principles regardless of how controversial it is. If clear statements are withheld, they will accuse the candidate of being cagey or being unable to articulate policy.

We need a media strategy that works and we need it now.

Threadkiller
"We need a media strategy that works and we need it now."

I liked Chris Christe's approach. Who knows what the MSM has planned for him now.

sbw

What irks me about reporter pressure to yes-or-no the Civil Rights act is that it turns the focus away from the ease of abuse when laws create special classes of people.

Fixing a problem ought not ripple through future decades making it impossible to run a business without a lawyer at one's elbow.

Back in the 1990s we were slapped with an EEOC claim by an incompetent employee we fired. Our excellent attorney complimented us on our evidence and documentation... and then said that even so we had a 75 percent chance of losing anyway.

Racial discrimination is unAmerican... just as unAmerican as abusing race to create unfair privilege.

Name me one mainstream pundit or reporter who has addressed that perspective.

Captain Hate

anduril, was the body of what you posted in your 9:55 comment your words or Steyn's? Either way it's very eloquent and it's unfortunate that you chose to follow it up with one of your strange attacks on Clarice.

Also regarding Schama and Volunteers, which I've read part of and is very good when he's not making snarky anti-Reagan attacks, on which he's been proven demonstrably wrong: I don't think he's correct on how he's applying the lessons of the French Revolution to the current situation in this country, based on that link.

narciso

So we ended up with Linda McMahon as the GOP Senate nominee, when will that hangover, come off

Porchlight
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."

Sure, the value of a free press was the first thing that came to mind when I watched Pearl's execution.

"Captured the imagination"? Isn't that the kind of phrase usually reserved for things like space travel, or the Olympics, or an exciting new scientific discovery? He is making it sound positive.

And anyway, there was nothing to imagine about it. It was all on video for the world to see, assuming that our "free" press was brave enough to show it.

There have been many sick-inducing moments since January 2009, but this one is especially vile. I don't think Obama cares one whit about Danny Pearl.

Captain Hate

I'm not sure it will, narc. I'm sure Vince McMahon's staff took into consideration all the steroid attacks that could be made against him before Linda tossed her hat in the ring. I believe Connecticut has always been the base of his operations so he should be pretty savvy on how things work there. Then again, any time he turns his attention away from wrestling (the XFL, a strange body-building league, and many horribly unwatchable movies) he usually gets his ass handed to him, although maybe the movies ultimately make money. He has steadfastly supported the troops; staging free matches on bases in the Middle East at least annually.

narciso

True, it showed nothing of the kind, in fact the reverse is more likely true, only BHL, who we had some fun with, his citing a clear
fraud sometime back, really dug into the back story behind Gilani, the man who Pearl sought
to interview, and Emerson, who puts most other
reporters to shame. It's easy to 'speak truth
to power' when your neck is not on the line, otherwise

Danube of Thought

Cap H, it was Steyn, verbatim. The whole thing is here.

Captain Hate

Thanks DoT

Janet

We need a media strategy that works and we need it now.

Amen Porchlight. Don't let the media set the talking points. Don't take the bait. If the MSM has questions for Rand Paul, then go ask Rand Paul. Every Republican should keep the focus on out of control spending, big government, illegal immigration, energy production, stifling regulation.

Did the MSM dig into Keith Ellison's beliefs and ideology? Hell, a huge Dem. mayor just said he wanted to shoot a reporter in the butt....let's talk about THAT!

narciso

No, they didn't,Janet, they attacked Michelle Bachman, who raised similar concerns about Obama, all of which have been born out I'm afraid, from 'gangster government' to Geithner's dithering over the abandonment of the dollar

Clarice

Thanks, Capt and DoT.

Ignatz

--Oh, see them all backpedal!--

I restated what I've said before.
I'm not convinced by the constitutional arguments that the feds have the power to regulate private associations and I'm greatly disturbed by the slippery slope it created.
At the same time I understand and struggle myself with balancing the good of preserving maximum liberty with the good of abolishing an evil such as segregation.
My position has always been that the social good of desegragation might have been better affected by not imposing the regulation of private associations and that it might have prevented the subsequent harmful government overreach that occurred while still allowing the societal evolution that was already occurring to complete its course.
This is one of those areas were two competing principles meet and neither choice is an unalloyed good.


--BTW, those people who beheaded Pearl on video are the ones Clarice wants here in the US.--

That would appear to be a lie and a borderline libelous one.

PD

Meanwhile, we have this CYA commission, on the Gulf Spill

Yes, the problem has been solved now. Because it's less important to put people to work on actually solving it than it is to have more talk about it.

President Talks A Lot at the height of his game. Knows how to do nothing. Excellent at appearing to be in motion doing something.

bgates

"Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is."

Now I understand those comparisons to FDR the press make all the time.

December 7, 1941: The kind of day that makes everybody sit up and say, "It's a good thing the Veterans' Administration provides disability benefits."

narciso

nad her comes Gerson with the kitchen knives, to stab in the back, more of a spork, but that's the intent anyways, in the LUN

Janet

...and Rand Paul is just a nominee. How bout Kevin Jennings that is making school policy? How about HIS beliefs and associations? NAMBLA? Did any "reporter" look into that?
The minute a MSM "reporter" starts advocating for leftist ideas (immediately usually) the Rep. should start questioning him/her. Let them go on the defense. They are not reporters, they are advocates...and should be treated as such.

narciso

and here (correction)

Janet

Narciso, I notice Gerson calls the Tea Party movement a sect.

hit and run

bgates:
Now I understand those comparisons to FDR the press make all the time.

And JFK:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall speak any speech, smile for any photo op, meet any family member to be used as a prop, stifle any attempts by reporters to ask questions, in order to imagine how valuable a free press is.

Clarice

Actually, bgates and hit, have the start of a very good article..famous sayings by American presidents if Obama had been in the WH then instead of them.

Western Observer

I am shocked, shocked to find racism and regressivism in the Tea Bagger movement!

But many are unsurprised to find racism is
the core of this white fright schism.

Too many white blood cells in the blood indicates an infection in the organism.

But go ahead and rationalize your intolerance. It's in the blood.

bunkerbuster

``We need a media strategy that works and we need it now.''
Indeed. The right-wing noise machine is backfiring bigtime! Paul and the AZ birther Nazis lead the way. The idea of keeping a seething base stoked by 24/7 identity politics paranoia on Fox, WSJ editorial pages, Washington Times, talkradio and the wingnutosphere worked beautifully when the GOP owned a solid majority.
Now that Republicans are a shrinking party drawn from an increasingly narrow (and literally dying) demographic and that's increasingly intellectually isolated, the caterwauling does nothing but scare off independent voters. Palin, Paul and the Tea Partiers are God's gift to Democrats -- intellectually feeble loudmouths with no plans for achieving anything other than the destruction of government's effectiveness. So's the wingnutosphere -- a giant echo chamber where paranoid fantasy becomes a reality all it's own, then leaks out onto the mass media, soiling every Republican it touches.
All I can say is: Thanks guys!!!

boris

wow a veritable cleo bunk fustercluck

Western Observer

"But remember Palin, and remember they will savage any clear statement of principles regardless of how controversial it is."

And don't forget Bork. Oh wait, they accurately reported his disdain for civil rights.

narciso

Gerson is still?? clueless how the over
promises that he put into the President's speeches on Katrina, and on Middle East democracy, were exploited by the president's enemies, both here (like Van Jones) and Mubarak. The distinction is he worked for someone who sincerely believed that, whereas
MCDonough and Rhodes, well they have another
boss entirely

PD

I wonder if Obama's oil-spill panel will reach this bold conclusion: Engaging in the show of awarding safety commendations instead of *inspecting the rig*, particularly one known to have had problems in the past, is not a winning strategy.

Thomas Collins

Bunkerbuster, you have locked up the Best Unintentional Self-Parody Quote of the Year Award for you reference to the GOP's practicing "24/7 identity politics paranoia." Or perhaps I err in calling the parody "unintentional." You must be aware that the party of multiculturalism, quotas, Sharpton and Jackson has no peer when it comes to practicing 24/7 identity politics paranoia.

Thomas Collins

Clarice, I think your restraint in responding to anduril's comment shows what a classy woman you are.

bgates

Hit, I thought about using that one too, but I couldn't figure out how to make it banal enough. Nice work.

Too many white blood cells in the blood indicates an infection in the organism.

Hm. If "white" equates to "defender of organic health" in your mind, what is represented by "infection"?

anduril

narciso, glad to see your return. nathan just lacked a certain je ne sais quoi. I don't insist on Schama's ideas--just thought they were thought provoking.

Cap'n, the colon ":" was to indicate direct quotation. This is my regular practice when I omit quotation marks. However, I thank you for expressing the difficulty you experienced in distinguishing between Steyn's style and my own--I take that as a compliment. :-) As for strangeness, I think the open borders crowd has a lot to answer for.

desegragation [sic] might have been better affected [sic] by not imposing the regulation of private associations

It does not appear that the CRA purports to "regulat[e] private associations." Title II outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private." The reasoning would appear to me to be strong: businesses that engage interstate commerce derive significant benefits from the public purse--maintenance of means of public transport (road, rail, air), law enforcement protection, etc. The government has a legitimate interest in facilitating interstate commerce for all citizens as well as interstate movement. I don't doubt that discrimination also adversely affected black entry into business.

I don't think the purpose of the CRA was so much to effect a social good as to minimize the adverse affect of invidious discrimination. It is a question of guaranteeing equal rights as citizens and equal access to resources that benefit from public funding. This is not merely a "social good" but a political good under our Constitution, which would not have been effected without enactment of Title II of the CRA.

BTW, Ignatz, I trust you'll take my corrections of your English in the right spirit. Just the other day Clarice was sneering at the Obamas' low level of mastery of "standard English" (which struck me as a racist jibe). You don't want to be grouped in that category.

Also-Ran Paul

"Engaging in the show of awarding safety commendations instead of *inspecting the rig*, particularly one known to have had problems in the past,"

Indeed. This Eco-Disaster would have been less likely had there not been so much regulation. The government is just too involved in fixing this crude super-volcano.
BP's state-of-the-art advanced technology and gameplan for such an occurance, proves they don't need anyone standing over them like a watchdog.

peter

Anduril I was going to compliment you on your quotation from Steyn until I saw the stupid remark you followed it with. putz.

Thomas Collins

Oh, by the way, bunkerbuster, I note that in a previous thread you referred to Janet's thinking as "binary." Don't you know by now that referring to someone else's thinking as "binary" or "linear" is a sure sign that the name caller is most assuredly an intellectual loser? I say that in the context of my belief (which I suspect is not shared by many of my JOM friends here) that you are not an intellectual loser.

hit and run

The week after Obama's election,D's held a 55-37 lead over R's http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx>in party affiliation.

First week of May this year,R's lead D's 45-44.

Threadkiller
"Now that Republicans are a shrinking party drawn from an increasingly narrow (and literally dying) demographic and that's increasingly intellectually isolated, the caterwauling does nothing but scare off independent voters."

Except with Proposition 8:

">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html"> More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage,


hit and run

bgates:
Hit, I thought about using that one too, but I couldn't figure out how to make it banal enough. Nice work.

Thanks.

Of course,in Obama's case,we're dealing with a good,solid B+anal.

anduril

BTW, if anyone is disposed to quarrel my usage in referring to "the adverse affect of invidious discrimination," I would explain it in this way: "affect" in this context does not refer to the result of an action--in which case "effect" would be used--but to an ongoing influence. I will grant that that is debatable.

anduril

Anduril I was going to compliment you on your quotation from Steyn until I saw the stupid remark you followed it with. putz.

May I nevertheless compliment YOU on your obvious mastery of Yiddish?

Also-Ran Paul

"what is represented by "infection"?"

Uh, 'too many' white cells, pus-brain.

narciso

It is not a question of grammar, it is of content and philosophy, hence 'corpseman,
57 states, the bomb that fell on Hawaii.

The hive mind around Obama, make the Borg seem envious, no talking point is too absurd not to be repeated ad infinitum

matt

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have been enough right there. It wasn't. The 13th Amendment wasn't. The CRA was a necessary but flawed bill that corrected a great wrong.

It is the incrementalism of the Democratic Party that is the issue. Through litigation and regulatory pretzel manufacturing, they tend to twist the law to suit their ends. This is at the heart of the activist versus constructionist argument.

Put simply, does the law mean what it says, or what they want it to mean? The Dems usually choose the latter, as Obama, Holder, and Napolitano chose to remind us on illegal immigration the other day. Thug life writ large.

Thomas Collins

I hope the state controlled health care system to which we are lurching is better at heart surgery and brain surgery than passing out rubbers. See LUN.

Gilgamesh

"Put simply, does the law mean what it says, or what they want it to mean?"

Put simply; how many persons of color can be seen cavorting with Tea-Baggers?

In other words; do you want the law to mean that civil rights are for whites only?

bgates

I looked for a moment for other good material to B+analify, and found more evidence that the left are as active as they are nuts.

The first two Google hits for the phrase "great speeches" are links to historyplace.com and to americanrhetoric.com.

Historyplace has as many selections from Lincoln (1, the Gettysburg Address) as Al Gore (the renowned 2000 concession speech) and Richard Gephardt ("Life Imitates Farce" - brother, you have no idea).

The second site has rankings (apparently by the site owner, an academic from some school I've never heard of). Mixed in with some defensible choices are 2 Barbara Jordan speeches, the 1976 DNC Keynote (ranked #5 in the history of American oratory) and her famous Statement on the Articles of Impeachment (#13). And that's just the craziest part. There are lots of other bad choices.

I can't imagine anybody coming to those selections with an open mind, reading or listening to the speeches, and thinking they were grouped correctly. But people do.

Gilgamesh

"the left are as active as they are nuts."

They are crazee about civil rights and nuts for the Golden Rule.

anduril

Having gone back over the Yves Smith/Simon Schama link, above, I reiterate that it repays careful reading.

Schama is obviously parroting Dem talking points in some respects, as when he states:

Objectively, economic conditions might be improving, but perceptions are everything...

The claim that economic conditions are improving is, to me, highly debatable. Yves takes out after him on that score, although without specifically addressing those words:

his account in the Financial Times in some key respects understates the degree of dislocation suffered by many in advanced economies. Schama depicts the crisis-induced change as merely the end of rising expectations, but the shock is deeper than that.

She then goes on to offer some key observations:

Severe financial crises result in a permanent decline in the standard of living. For some citizens, that has come through contracts being reneged, in particular, pension cuts. Other people see their savings in tatters and have no realistic prospect for being able to fund their retirement. And for many of these individuals, the odds of finding continuing, reasonably paid work are low. Even before unemployment soared, people over 40 face poor job prospects. The idea that the middle aged cohort can earn back losses to their nest eggs is wishful thinking. And the young are not much better off. New graduates also face a hostile job market. Worse, students often went into debt to finance their education, believing the mantra that it was an investment.

And many of the societies suffering these financial shocks have already suffered a great deal of erosion of their underlying support structures. Even before the crisis, in the US and other advanced economies, social bonds have eroded in a remarkably short period of time, roughly a generation and a half. Job tenures are short; employees and employers have little loyalty to each other. Ties to communities are weak. Many families have two working parents, so career and parenting demands leave little time to participate in local organizations. Advanced technology frequently offers an easier leisure outlet than trying to coordinate schedules with time (or financially) stressed friends. But marriage and families are also not the haven they once were, given high divorce rates.

The point about community involvement is particularly important. De Tocqueville identified this as key to the American experiment, and of course the Leftist agenda is precisely to replace the myriad INDEPENDENT community organizations with government sponsored activist groups--the very reverse of what de Tocqueville found so praiseworthy and essential to the health of Democracy.

She close with a shot at the banksters and their government allies:

Yves here. Having weakened faith in government and made considerable progress towards creating a social Darwinist paradise of isolated individuals pitted against each other, the oligarchs may be about to harvest a whirlwind.

The question, of course, is what direction that whirlwind will head in. Right now the Tea Party groups are prominent. Will that continue if the economy goes for a second dip? Will the public respond by calling for more government action, or will they turn on the governing class even more forcefully than we have already seen? Right now, the results of the reaction have been extremely mixed--cf. for the most prominent example, Scott Brown.

Gilgamesh

"Birthers are CRAAAZZZEEEEE!!!!!"

-Lindsey Graham

Gilgamesh

"Right now the Tea Party groups are prominent. Will that continue if the economy goes for a second dip?'

I see a pitchfork manufacturing boom in the South that will lift the boat some.

anduril

Great news!

Starbucks Coffee remaining neutral in Arizona boycott by Seattle City Council
May 18, 11:40 AM · Katie Dionne - Glendale Lunch Examiner

According to a representative of the Starbucks Corporation in the Customer Relations Department, the coffee maker will remain neutral in regards to the boycott of Arizona that was voted on by the Seattle City Council yesterday.

Starbucks Corporation is based out of Seattle, but in a statement read by the representative, the company wishes to remain neutral and has no opinion on political matters, nor does it have any affiliation with a particular political party.

Threadkiller

"It is a national disgrace that as a nation we are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were before 9/11. Drilling is an important piece to making our nation more energy independent as every barrel of oil or gallon of gas we find or produce in America is one less we need to purchase from regimes who hate us."

-Lindsey Graham

MaryW

anduril

You are an ass. You do not engage in discussion you rant. It is your way or no way. But most importantly you are attempting to vilify one the most remarkable individual here.

Clarice educates by pointing to other sources of information and by helping some of us understand them. But most importantly she demonstrates a kindness that you seem to find intolerable. She actually likes people, even those who disagree with her. She does detest fools who argue only for the sake of argument and those who attempt to force everyone on this forum into agreeing with them.

Rick Ballard

TC,

How was interpretation of the CRA used to justify resegregation of blacks into the "separate but equal" districts occupied by the black caucus? Do you have a list of decisions which traces the devolution of "equal opportunity" to "mandated outcome"?

Threadkiller

Starbucks remains neutral when it comes to an actual inhumane government. Why should they say anything when there is nothing of comparison here?
">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304604204575181490891231672.html"> Starbucks Plans Major China Expansion

anduril

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" should have been enough right there. It wasn't. The 13th Amendment wasn't. The CRA was a necessary but flawed bill that corrected a great wrong.

I agree, matt. Slavery was the great Original Sin of America, and it taints and distorts our public life to this day. Brink Lindsey from Cato Institute sums it up nicely:

...after three-plus centuries of slavery and another century of institutionalized, state-sponsored racism (which included state toleration of private racist violence), the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn't just a series of uncoordinated private decisions by individuals exercising their freedom of association. It was part and parcel of an overall social system of racial oppression,

After 4OO HUNDRED years we're still going to tell blacks we need to go slow on common decency--in the name of utterly bogus principle and arguments? It's a morally bankrupt position.

peter

Muslim terrorists entering US through southern border LUN
h/t Error Theory

Threadkiller

Starbucks link

Sorry.

anduril

anduril

You are an ass. You do not engage in discussion you rant.

LOL. Interesting way to start a "discussion."

Thomas Collins

Rick, I am going to look at the voting rights cases and try to get you the main cases (please forgive me if it takes a few days, as my responses sometimes tend to take). I think it is a different line of cases from the public accommodation cases. I will venture a guess, however, that gerrymandering is no worse now than it ever has been.

Gilgamesh

"You are an ass. You do not engage in discussion you rant."

Anduril is a model of patience and persistance. He makes honest attempts at dialogue which are routinely dismissed, out of hand by the local myopia crew. It is futile effort, but hope springs eternal.

Clarice, on the other hand.............is old and crotchety, two qualities she has managed to perfect.

Threadkiller
"the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn't just a series of uncoordinated private decisions by individuals exercising their freedom of association. It was part and parcel of an overall social system of racial oppression,"

The Obama's in the White House should be a good start on "blacks" not being excluded "from public accommodations". How did this "overall social system of racial oppression" pull that one off?

hit and run

They are . . . nuts for the Golden Rule.

Do unto others (Bush = Hitler!!! Highest form of patriotism!!!) as you would have them do (Obama = socialist!!! Sedition!!!) unto you.

Gilgamesh

"The Obama's in the White House should be a good start on "blacks" not being excluded "from public accommodations". How did this "overall social system of racial oppression" pull that one off?"

Even Tea-Baggers get dragged into progress.

It's like watching sausage being forced through a chine.

MarkO

It seems to be 1962 for some on this thread. I already did that, so I'll watch for a topic in this century.

anduril

Clarice, on the other hand.............is old and crotchety, two qualities she has managed to perfect.

Sorry, I disagree. I would say, manipulative. But of course there are so many here who are desperate for easy answers.

anduril

Threadkiller, please reread what I quoted. You should be ashamed of what you just wrote. Me:

Brink Lindsey from Cato Institute sums it up nicely:

...after three-plus centuries of slavery and another century of institutionalized, state-sponsored racism (which included state toleration of private racist violence), the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn't just a series of uncoordinated private decisions by individuals exercising their freedom of association. It was part and parcel of an overall social system of racial oppression.
Ignatz

--BTW, Ignatz, I trust you'll take my corrections of your English in the right spirit.--

I'm certain I'll take them in a better spirit than they were offered: the spirit of an infantile pedant who places "[sic]" by another person's hastily composed and non proof read typo in the case of 'desegragration', or the insufferably haughty spirit of your erroneous assumption that I meant "to cause" rather than "to have an influence on" when I used "affected". The phrase noting the already occurring societal evolution of desegregation might have helped you in your quest for lingual purity, you arrogant, know-it-all twit.
*********************
I do not subscribe to the SCOTUS definition of essentially every place of private business being a public accomodation subject to federal jursidiction. Nor do I believe it was the intent of the founders to expand the interstate commerce clause to that extent.

anduril

Anyone who thinks the Obamas are truly representative of black America hasn't been paying attention.

sbw

He makes honest attempts at dialogue which are routinely dismissed

That is an opinion unsubstantiated by the evidence. Of the 28 trolls on my Narcisolator, Anduril earned early position number 7, only two ahead of Cleo. You mistake erudition and persistence for "honest attempts" when they could indicate boredom or malice.

I have not seen that Anduril appreciates the goal of discussion is not to win but to learn and perhaps come to understanding.

MaryW

Gilgamesh

I guess the play ground taunt is true:

It does take one ass to know another.

You have just become another addition to I can't see you list.

Gilgamesh

"You have just become another addition to I can't see you list."

I loves me some Trollblocker

Threadkiller

Gilgamesh,
Even liberals believe in the law.

Poll: Most in U.S. approve of Arizona immigration law.

Gilgamesh

"I have not seen that Anduril appreciates the goal of discussion is not to win but to learn and perhaps come to understanding."

An honest answer, albeit borne of myopia, the JOM pandemic.

Clarice

Old, crotchety and a bit sentimental.This is OT but someone sent me this UTube on North Platte, Nebraska and it brought tears to my eyes for the goodness of America and for what we seem to have already lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07DGeLvDw8I

anduril

your erroneous assumption that I meant "to cause" rather than "to have an influence on" when I used "affected".

I knew what you meant. I was pointing out that you didn't say what you meant. However, rather than dismissing your post on the basis of its poor spelling and grammar, I nevertheless struggled through to understand what you were trying to say and attempted to address your points in a substantive fashion and with a fair degree of depth. Call that "infantile" if you wish. I'm sorry you have so much trouble with constructive criticism. Your argument would have benefited from some proof reading, rather than requiring the reader to overcome your incorrect use of words. You'd be well advised, btw, not to try to keep up with me in this fashion: "lingual" is not the word you want and its use just makes you look silly. Say what you mean, simply and directly, and do some proofreading. I think I'm a decent writer, but I'm certainly not so arrogant as to think I can dispense with proofreading, not that I can dispense with efforts to improve.

Threadkiller

Andruil I read the part where you said:

"it taints and distorts our public life to this day."

and tried to reason that with the election of first Black president.

I cannot follow your reasoning, but I am trying to.

"Anyone who thinks the Obamas are truly representative of black America hasn't been paying attention."

This is true. Black America does not support gay marriage.

Rick Ballard

TC,

Don't trouble yourself unless you find it of interest. I enjoyed your tracing the arguments on CRA back to the Civil War amendments and was wondering if you had followed the case law which transformed "equality of opportunity" into quotas and mandates. I have a hazy recollection that the case law involved an abuse of statistics which flowed from the 'scientism' of assigning causation on the basis of relatively weak correlation (much like AGW, oddly enough) and I was wondering if you had bothered with a case law primer.

Gilgamesh

"brought tears to my eyes for the goodness of America and for what we seem to have already lost."

I am so sorry to have excluded 'sensitivity' from you list of life-learnings, Clarice.

anduril

Andruil I read the part where you said:

"it taints and distorts our public life to this day."

and tried to reason that with the election of first Black president.

Threadkiller, take your blinders off. The legacy of slavery has affected not only whites but--in some ways more importantly--blacks as well. Many blacks cannot see beyond their history and cannot see their white fellow citizens in any other light--even though that perception distorts the complexities of white America. One of the results--effects--of that is the refusal of black America in general to give the Republican party the fair chance it deserves from blacks. Does that not taint and distort American public life, and does that not continue to the present day, despite Obama's election?

Rand Paul is certainly not helping that situation, is he? Most blacks will see his statements as coded racist language, and Rand Paul as all too typical of white Americans--atypical only in his willingness to appear on MSNBC and say dumb things to be used against him.

anduril

I think I'm a decent writer, but I'm certainly not so arrogant as to think I can dispense with proofreading, not nor that I can dispense with efforts to improve.

Heh. See?

Harvey Wallbanger

"Of the 28 trolls on my Narcisolator, Anduril earned early position number 7"

What's this? You guys have an enemies list?

A ranking of trolls? You should make one for trollops.(local cheerleaders) It would make for interesting comparison

matt

gilgamesh, you are mistaken. Having attended several tea parties in Southern California as an observer, I have seen Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Indians. While they are in no way a majority, they are there.

It is the leftist press who are propagandizing the protests as right wing demagoguery. Perhaps you should get out of your cocoon and see a bit of America beyond the end of your nose and read something other than the NYT.

Ice Tea

"Rand Paul as all too typical of white Americans--atypical only in his willingness to appear on MSNBC and say dumb things to be used against him."

LMFAO, but the humor is wasted here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame