Note to self: DO NOT HIT TIGERS WITH SLINGSHOTS
2008/01/02
2007/12/24
Ron Paul and White Nationalism?
Is Ron Paul a closet White Supremacist? According to Bill White, Chairman of the American National Socialist Workers Party he is, and has been for some time.
Comrades:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't
see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the
Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on
Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat
Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been
invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim
white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is
ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always
kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his
political position.
I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism
merely because they think it is not fashionable.
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
2007/12/20
Romney reinvents history; the Mitt/Martin Mishap
Reprinted from The Phoenix.com
EXCLUSIVE: Mitt Romney claims that his father marched with MLK, but the record says otherwise
In the most-watched speech of his political career, speaking on “Faith in America” at College Station, Texas, earlier this month, (SP Alert) Mitt Romney evoked the strongest of all symbolic claims to civil-rights credentials: “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.”
He has repeated the claim several times recently, most prominently to Tim Russert on Meet the Press . But, while the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so.
Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 — not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.
Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.
Broder, in that column, references a 1967 book he co-authored on the Republican Party, which included a chapter on George Romney. It includes a one-line statement that the senior Romney “has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.”
But that account is incorrect. King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society. (Border was not immediately available for comment.)
Berschback also believes that George Romney never appeared at a protest, march, or rally in Grosse Pointe. “We’re a small town,” she says. “Governors don’t come here very often, except for fundraisers.”
In fact, King’s only appearance in Grosse Pointe, according to Berschback, took place after Broder’s book was published.
That was for a March 14 speech he delivered at Grosse Pointe High School, just three weeks before King was assassinated. But there was no march, and George Romney was not there.
Security concerns would have made a march impossible, even had one been planned. King was personally driven directly to the high school by the sheriff, as described by accounts at the time.
This 1968 Grosse Pointe appearance is the one that Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom initially insisted, in email exchanges with the Phoenix, was the event in question. Fehrnstrom cited the Broder column and “the Romney family recollection.”
Of the many contemporaneous and historical records of the Grosse Pointe speech, none make any mention of George Romney’s attendance. It is unlikely, if not implausible, that his presence would have gone unnoticed: not only was he governor of the state, he had just, weeks before, dropped out of the race for President.
And, Mitt Romney would not have known about the event, let alone had a chance to “see” it. He was at that time in the middle of his two-year mission for the Mormon church in Le Havre, France. By his own description and others’, he was cut off from virtually all contact with his family; and at the time, King’s Grosse Pointe appearance was no more than local news.
The original mention, in Broder’s 1967 book, of a Romney-King Grosse Pointe march might have resulted from an accidental conflation of several different events.
In June 1963, King marched in Detroit, and delivered an early version of his “I Have a Dream” speech; Governor George Romney did not participate, according to news accounts of the time.
Later that month, a local organization of roughly 50 members, called the Grosse Pointe Human Rights Council, held a walk through their town in support of open housing.
King had already left the state, and Romney did not participate in the Grosse Pointe walk, according to records from the time.
George Romney would later lead a 10,000-person march through Detroit, but not with King.
Although Broder’s book contained the brief mention, there is nothing in the public record to suggest that George Romney himself ever claimed to have marched with King.
Had George Romney ever marched with Martin Luther King Jr., it almost certainly would have been documented. From the mid-’50s through 1962, Romney was one of the country’s most prominent business leaders — for him to travel South for a civil-rights march would have been remarkable. From January 1963 on, as governor of Michigan and a presumed Presidential candidate, Romney was one of the most visible political figures in the country.
***SP ALERT*** (I swear, you couldn't make this shit up... This is a candidate for the SP Hall of Fame)
A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched "together" in June, 1963 -- although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.
Was it all a dream?
EXCLUSIVE: Mitt Romney claims that his father marched with MLK, but the record says otherwise
In the most-watched speech of his political career, speaking on “Faith in America” at College Station, Texas, earlier this month, (SP Alert) Mitt Romney evoked the strongest of all symbolic claims to civil-rights credentials: “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.”
He has repeated the claim several times recently, most prominently to Tim Russert on Meet the Press . But, while the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so.
Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 — not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.
Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.
Broder, in that column, references a 1967 book he co-authored on the Republican Party, which included a chapter on George Romney. It includes a one-line statement that the senior Romney “has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.”
But that account is incorrect. King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society. (Border was not immediately available for comment.)
Berschback also believes that George Romney never appeared at a protest, march, or rally in Grosse Pointe. “We’re a small town,” she says. “Governors don’t come here very often, except for fundraisers.”
In fact, King’s only appearance in Grosse Pointe, according to Berschback, took place after Broder’s book was published.
That was for a March 14 speech he delivered at Grosse Pointe High School, just three weeks before King was assassinated. But there was no march, and George Romney was not there.
Security concerns would have made a march impossible, even had one been planned. King was personally driven directly to the high school by the sheriff, as described by accounts at the time.
This 1968 Grosse Pointe appearance is the one that Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom initially insisted, in email exchanges with the Phoenix, was the event in question. Fehrnstrom cited the Broder column and “the Romney family recollection.”
Of the many contemporaneous and historical records of the Grosse Pointe speech, none make any mention of George Romney’s attendance. It is unlikely, if not implausible, that his presence would have gone unnoticed: not only was he governor of the state, he had just, weeks before, dropped out of the race for President.
And, Mitt Romney would not have known about the event, let alone had a chance to “see” it. He was at that time in the middle of his two-year mission for the Mormon church in Le Havre, France. By his own description and others’, he was cut off from virtually all contact with his family; and at the time, King’s Grosse Pointe appearance was no more than local news.
The original mention, in Broder’s 1967 book, of a Romney-King Grosse Pointe march might have resulted from an accidental conflation of several different events.
In June 1963, King marched in Detroit, and delivered an early version of his “I Have a Dream” speech; Governor George Romney did not participate, according to news accounts of the time.
Later that month, a local organization of roughly 50 members, called the Grosse Pointe Human Rights Council, held a walk through their town in support of open housing.
King had already left the state, and Romney did not participate in the Grosse Pointe walk, according to records from the time.
George Romney would later lead a 10,000-person march through Detroit, but not with King.
Although Broder’s book contained the brief mention, there is nothing in the public record to suggest that George Romney himself ever claimed to have marched with King.
Had George Romney ever marched with Martin Luther King Jr., it almost certainly would have been documented. From the mid-’50s through 1962, Romney was one of the country’s most prominent business leaders — for him to travel South for a civil-rights march would have been remarkable. From January 1963 on, as governor of Michigan and a presumed Presidential candidate, Romney was one of the most visible political figures in the country.
***SP ALERT*** (I swear, you couldn't make this shit up... This is a candidate for the SP Hall of Fame)
UPDATE: ROMNEY CAMPAIGN SAYS “TOGETHER” MAY MEAN DIFFERENT CITIES, DIFFERENT DAYS
A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched "together" in June, 1963 -- although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.
(Hmmmm, so by that 'creative' logic I guess I could get away with saying that "Janet Jackson, Stephen Hawking, Redd Fox and I had breakfast together". )
Classic...
2007/12/14
A recent conversation about Dog Chapman and the "N" word
Elsewhere in the blogosphere I recently engaged in a brief debate about Dog Chapman and the use of the infamous "N" word. I decided to post the conversation here because I believe it is illustrative of the state of our nation's contemporary dialogue on race.
I am reposting this witout the consent of the other party, therefore I have changed his name to protect his identity...
MikeK
Looking at rap music today, black people also keep the word alive. Whites are almost scared to say the word, and if a white says it all the drama and apoligizing starts up. But, on the contrary, when a black person says it he or she is praised by their community and no one really gives a flip. Go listen to a popular rap song today and listen how many times "N WORD" ( which i am tired of that term also) (just say the real word) (nigger) is said. It is used countless times. What ever happened to equaltiy? I say we either all say it and get over it, or we ALL dont say it. im tired of the segregation.
***
CountChockula
C'mon now MikeK, that's a specious argument and you know it. Case & point: Hugo Chavez calls Bush "the Devil" and says all manner of things about America and Americans. Yet he still has the audacity to expect that we would all continue to buy gas from Citgo. When you hear that, you likely feel the same sense of revulsion and disdain that many African Americans feel when we hear a Dog Chapman or Micheal Richards insulting Blacks by dropping the N-bomb. If Hugo Chavez defended his statemens by saying 'Jay Leno and Jon Stewart say mean things about Bush too'.. and then suggested that until all Americans stopped commenting negatively about Bush, we should all just 'shut-up and keep shopping' his argument wouldn't hold a lot of water... And neither does yours...
The fact is, there's a difference between Jon Stewart and Hugo Chavez commenting on America, and similarly, there's a difference between Dog Chapman and Chris Rock commenting on African Americans
***
MikeK
Actually, CountChockula, I believe the phrase you're searching for is "case IN point", not "case AND point." You're using a specific case to expound on a point you're aspiring to make. Thus, "case IN point" is the correct usage.
I would agree with the argument you're attempting except for the following two points:1) You're comparing Hugo Chavez, a neoliberal anti-imperialist, to Dog Chapman, Michael Richards, Jon Stewart and Jay Leno...American citizens who have the inherent right to say whatever they want about their leaders, government or, in this specific case, people of a different race. They may find themselves burning in effigy, but nonetheless, they have every right as Americans to state their opinion. They, unlike Chavez, are not on the political stage, nor are they requesting you to purchase gas from a certain vendor. They're exercising their First Amendment right to freely express their opinions through speech - a right that isn't extended to Chavez. (See also: citizenship).
Chapman and Chavez are absolutely nothing alike, have nothing in common, and wouldn't know each other if they met at a Citgo. 2) There absolutely is an obvious difference between Jon Stewart and Hugo Chavez commenting on America, as I've mentioned in the above paragraph. However, the differences are in no way comparable to the discrepancies between when Dog Chapman says "nigger" and when Chris Rock says it. My point earlier was that as Americans, regardless of race, the word should be used and reacted to uniformly. If Chris Rock can say "nigger" and have no one bat an eye, and if Jay-Z can use "nigger" as a lyric and have no one boycott his latest album, then Dog Chapman should also be able to exercise the same right and expect the same result. Samely, Nelly should be able to use the word "cracker" in a song just as Larry the Cable Guy would in a routine and have no fallout. And you know what? He can. And does.
So perhaps the fingers of disgust and blame should be pointed at black people using "nigger" in everyday conversation and in public forums, rather than at a white person using it in a private telephone call. Moreover, disgust should also stem from the fact that while so many black people vocally and demonstratively express their desire for equal rights, treatment and value, the white people they lobby to and protest against aren't "allowed" to use the same vocabulary. Just so I'm clear, who is it exactly that's prejudiced?
***
CountChockula
MikeK...(c'mon now) - Let's not play "Wheel of Semantics"I presented a case as a foundation from which a point was to be derived, 'not' the reverse. The 'point' is discerned by first examining the case. I was clear when I wrote it, but thank you anyway for your suggestion.
Now what is truly interesting to me is that your counter argument really illustrates my point. As an American, you draw a distinction between Americans who are critical of the Government and Foreigners. You even drew a further distinction based upon context (Political Stage vs Non-Political Stage).
[For the purposes of this discussion I'm dismissing your 'First Amendment' Argument. There is certainly a broader context of that discussion wherein we might consider if Freedom of Speech is a "right" granted us by law or a shared "principle" enshrined in law. From your comments I'd assume we'd have some room for debate, so let's save it for another day... (See also: Logic)]
We all have different tolerances for comments and actions undertaken by individuals within or without our social groups and associations. We make allowances for a Rush Limbaugh and a Jon Stewart because we are all Americans. Despite our disagreements and despite our criticisms, we have a shared history and a shared destiny. In times of trouble we have historically stood together as one people, and therefore all factions within our group have earned the pass we offer. We do NOT make those same allowances for persons from outside of our group. Beyond Hugo Chavez, when Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan or any foreign leader takes a public stage to offer criticisms of the US, we react to that negatively. And I think that is to be expected. Now consider that the Macrocosm...
If those aforementioned distinctions are applicable in the Macrocosm then examine for a moment their applicability in a microcosm. African Americans are a very distinct sub-group. We have a shared history that is not common to any other group in this Nation. In times of trouble we have historically stood together as one people. As a result of our collective experience, we've developed a unique perspective and have different tolerances for comments and actions undertaken by individuals within or without our social group.
When Whites and/or others make statements that are negative and disparaging of African Americans, we react differently than we would were these comments made by someone from withing the culture. And that is certainly not without precedent on the Macro or Micro scale. When Jesse Jackson made the comment about "Hymietown" the year was 1984, yet he is still imbrued by the statement. When Al Sharpton defended Tawana Brawley and made comments that were untoward about a group of White Police Officers the year was 1987 (20 years ago), but he is still marred by those statements. Whites reacted negatively to those comments from African Americans and the rifts have been slow to heal. It is therefore ironic to me that when Whites make racist comments about African Americans, we are expected to "move on" within 2 days of the incident.
One thing is abundantly clear, in our society people can say whatever they want. But that does not mean that they can do so without consequence. in the case of Dog Chapman, he was not selling gasoline, but he is marketing a product. He has a successful television show made profitable by it's advertising, which is made possible by his viewership. If Mr. Chapman wishes to refer to African Americans using the N-word, I can't stop him, but I won't support him. And if enough people who feel like me simply change the channel, then away go those advertising dollars. A&E acted to prevent that from happening by pulling the show, and that's alright with me...
When you suggest that its a travesty that his show was cancelled and criticize Black Rappers, that is analogous to the hypothetical argument I ascribed to H. Chavez about Jon Stewart; "If you guys can say it, then we should be able to also". And on the "Rapper" angle, you said:
"the fingers of disgust and blame should be pointed at black people using "nigger" in everyday conversation and in public forums, rather than at a white person using it in a private telephone call"
Now THAT was a brilliant piece of sophistry! I had to read that several times because I couldn't believe you concluded an otherwise well articulated argument with a silly postulate like that. Did you really mean to say the "Blame" should be pointed at Black People for Dog Chapman using the N-word? Was I asleep and dreaming in History class? Did Black rappers actually coin that term? Was there some period in American history when racism passed out of existence and was then revived by Jay-Z and Nelly?
But just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water, you "jumped the shark" again with this one:
"disgust should also stem from the fact that while so many black people vocally and demonstratively express their desire for equal rights, treatment and value, the white people they lobby to and protest against aren't "allowed" to use the same vocabulary. Just so I'm clear, who is it exactly that's prejudiced?"
WOW! That's beyond Sophistry, that's logical Jiu-Jitsu! Let me get this straight... Black People are racist because we won't let you call us 'Nigger'? And (as though that weren't special enough) that is so serious and grievous an issue that it should inspire fair minded people to feel "disgust"?
Suffice it to say that we'll just have to agree to disagree on THOSE points MikeK... :-)
A real tragedy of Race in America is the fact that it is such a polarizing subject that it causes us to reflexively retreat to our ideological battle positions and thereby prevents us from truly listening to each other and understanding each others concerns. We defend or attack with little regard for the material facts; any provocation at all is justification enough to resume our proxy war (OJ vs the Klan).
This not about whether Black people or White people are racist, it's not about Hugo and it's not about Jay-Z. This is about the fact the Dog Chapman said some horrible things and he s facing the consequences of having done so. He's in no danger, nobody is attacking him or his family, nobody has posted his home address on the Internet, there's no grand Black conspiracy to bring him down. It's really very simple, he offended a significant portion of his viewing demographic. The loss of that viewership translates into a loss of advertising dollars, and A&E acted to prevent that. That's not "PC gone wild", that's just basic economics...
***
I am reposting this witout the consent of the other party, therefore I have changed his name to protect his identity...
MikeK
Looking at rap music today, black people also keep the word alive. Whites are almost scared to say the word, and if a white says it all the drama and apoligizing starts up. But, on the contrary, when a black person says it he or she is praised by their community and no one really gives a flip. Go listen to a popular rap song today and listen how many times "N WORD" ( which i am tired of that term also) (just say the real word) (nigger) is said. It is used countless times. What ever happened to equaltiy? I say we either all say it and get over it, or we ALL dont say it. im tired of the segregation.
***
CountChockula
C'mon now MikeK, that's a specious argument and you know it. Case & point: Hugo Chavez calls Bush "the Devil" and says all manner of things about America and Americans. Yet he still has the audacity to expect that we would all continue to buy gas from Citgo. When you hear that, you likely feel the same sense of revulsion and disdain that many African Americans feel when we hear a Dog Chapman or Micheal Richards insulting Blacks by dropping the N-bomb. If Hugo Chavez defended his statemens by saying 'Jay Leno and Jon Stewart say mean things about Bush too'.. and then suggested that until all Americans stopped commenting negatively about Bush, we should all just 'shut-up and keep shopping' his argument wouldn't hold a lot of water... And neither does yours...
The fact is, there's a difference between Jon Stewart and Hugo Chavez commenting on America, and similarly, there's a difference between Dog Chapman and Chris Rock commenting on African Americans
***
MikeK
Actually, CountChockula, I believe the phrase you're searching for is "case IN point", not "case AND point." You're using a specific case to expound on a point you're aspiring to make. Thus, "case IN point" is the correct usage.
I would agree with the argument you're attempting except for the following two points:1) You're comparing Hugo Chavez, a neoliberal anti-imperialist, to Dog Chapman, Michael Richards, Jon Stewart and Jay Leno...American citizens who have the inherent right to say whatever they want about their leaders, government or, in this specific case, people of a different race. They may find themselves burning in effigy, but nonetheless, they have every right as Americans to state their opinion. They, unlike Chavez, are not on the political stage, nor are they requesting you to purchase gas from a certain vendor. They're exercising their First Amendment right to freely express their opinions through speech - a right that isn't extended to Chavez. (See also: citizenship).
Chapman and Chavez are absolutely nothing alike, have nothing in common, and wouldn't know each other if they met at a Citgo. 2) There absolutely is an obvious difference between Jon Stewart and Hugo Chavez commenting on America, as I've mentioned in the above paragraph. However, the differences are in no way comparable to the discrepancies between when Dog Chapman says "nigger" and when Chris Rock says it. My point earlier was that as Americans, regardless of race, the word should be used and reacted to uniformly. If Chris Rock can say "nigger" and have no one bat an eye, and if Jay-Z can use "nigger" as a lyric and have no one boycott his latest album, then Dog Chapman should also be able to exercise the same right and expect the same result. Samely, Nelly should be able to use the word "cracker" in a song just as Larry the Cable Guy would in a routine and have no fallout. And you know what? He can. And does.
So perhaps the fingers of disgust and blame should be pointed at black people using "nigger" in everyday conversation and in public forums, rather than at a white person using it in a private telephone call. Moreover, disgust should also stem from the fact that while so many black people vocally and demonstratively express their desire for equal rights, treatment and value, the white people they lobby to and protest against aren't "allowed" to use the same vocabulary. Just so I'm clear, who is it exactly that's prejudiced?
***
CountChockula
MikeK...(c'mon now) - Let's not play "Wheel of Semantics"I presented a case as a foundation from which a point was to be derived, 'not' the reverse. The 'point' is discerned by first examining the case. I was clear when I wrote it, but thank you anyway for your suggestion.
Now what is truly interesting to me is that your counter argument really illustrates my point. As an American, you draw a distinction between Americans who are critical of the Government and Foreigners. You even drew a further distinction based upon context (Political Stage vs Non-Political Stage).
[For the purposes of this discussion I'm dismissing your 'First Amendment' Argument. There is certainly a broader context of that discussion wherein we might consider if Freedom of Speech is a "right" granted us by law or a shared "principle" enshrined in law. From your comments I'd assume we'd have some room for debate, so let's save it for another day... (See also: Logic)]
We all have different tolerances for comments and actions undertaken by individuals within or without our social groups and associations. We make allowances for a Rush Limbaugh and a Jon Stewart because we are all Americans. Despite our disagreements and despite our criticisms, we have a shared history and a shared destiny. In times of trouble we have historically stood together as one people, and therefore all factions within our group have earned the pass we offer. We do NOT make those same allowances for persons from outside of our group. Beyond Hugo Chavez, when Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan or any foreign leader takes a public stage to offer criticisms of the US, we react to that negatively. And I think that is to be expected. Now consider that the Macrocosm...
If those aforementioned distinctions are applicable in the Macrocosm then examine for a moment their applicability in a microcosm. African Americans are a very distinct sub-group. We have a shared history that is not common to any other group in this Nation. In times of trouble we have historically stood together as one people. As a result of our collective experience, we've developed a unique perspective and have different tolerances for comments and actions undertaken by individuals within or without our social group.
When Whites and/or others make statements that are negative and disparaging of African Americans, we react differently than we would were these comments made by someone from withing the culture. And that is certainly not without precedent on the Macro or Micro scale. When Jesse Jackson made the comment about "Hymietown" the year was 1984, yet he is still imbrued by the statement. When Al Sharpton defended Tawana Brawley and made comments that were untoward about a group of White Police Officers the year was 1987 (20 years ago), but he is still marred by those statements. Whites reacted negatively to those comments from African Americans and the rifts have been slow to heal. It is therefore ironic to me that when Whites make racist comments about African Americans, we are expected to "move on" within 2 days of the incident.
One thing is abundantly clear, in our society people can say whatever they want. But that does not mean that they can do so without consequence. in the case of Dog Chapman, he was not selling gasoline, but he is marketing a product. He has a successful television show made profitable by it's advertising, which is made possible by his viewership. If Mr. Chapman wishes to refer to African Americans using the N-word, I can't stop him, but I won't support him. And if enough people who feel like me simply change the channel, then away go those advertising dollars. A&E acted to prevent that from happening by pulling the show, and that's alright with me...
When you suggest that its a travesty that his show was cancelled and criticize Black Rappers, that is analogous to the hypothetical argument I ascribed to H. Chavez about Jon Stewart; "If you guys can say it, then we should be able to also". And on the "Rapper" angle, you said:
"the fingers of disgust and blame should be pointed at black people using "nigger" in everyday conversation and in public forums, rather than at a white person using it in a private telephone call"
Now THAT was a brilliant piece of sophistry! I had to read that several times because I couldn't believe you concluded an otherwise well articulated argument with a silly postulate like that. Did you really mean to say the "Blame" should be pointed at Black People for Dog Chapman using the N-word? Was I asleep and dreaming in History class? Did Black rappers actually coin that term? Was there some period in American history when racism passed out of existence and was then revived by Jay-Z and Nelly?
But just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water, you "jumped the shark" again with this one:
"disgust should also stem from the fact that while so many black people vocally and demonstratively express their desire for equal rights, treatment and value, the white people they lobby to and protest against aren't "allowed" to use the same vocabulary. Just so I'm clear, who is it exactly that's prejudiced?"
WOW! That's beyond Sophistry, that's logical Jiu-Jitsu! Let me get this straight... Black People are racist because we won't let you call us 'Nigger'? And (as though that weren't special enough) that is so serious and grievous an issue that it should inspire fair minded people to feel "disgust"?
Suffice it to say that we'll just have to agree to disagree on THOSE points MikeK... :-)
A real tragedy of Race in America is the fact that it is such a polarizing subject that it causes us to reflexively retreat to our ideological battle positions and thereby prevents us from truly listening to each other and understanding each others concerns. We defend or attack with little regard for the material facts; any provocation at all is justification enough to resume our proxy war (OJ vs the Klan).
This not about whether Black people or White people are racist, it's not about Hugo and it's not about Jay-Z. This is about the fact the Dog Chapman said some horrible things and he s facing the consequences of having done so. He's in no danger, nobody is attacking him or his family, nobody has posted his home address on the Internet, there's no grand Black conspiracy to bring him down. It's really very simple, he offended a significant portion of his viewing demographic. The loss of that viewership translates into a loss of advertising dollars, and A&E acted to prevent that. That's not "PC gone wild", that's just basic economics...
***
Leave me a comment and let me know what you think...
2007/12/13
Revealed: scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
You just can't make this kind of stuff up... - The Count
Reposted from: The Independant (UK)
Revealed: scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
By Robert Verkaik
Published: 10 December 2007
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who provoked a public outcry by claiming black Africans were less intelligent than whites has a DNA profile with up to 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.
An analysis of the genome of James Watson showed that 16 per cent of his genes were likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent. By contrast, most people of European descent would have no more than 1 per cent.
"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics, whose company carried out the analysis. "It was very surprising to get this result for Jim."
The findings were made available after Dr Watson became only the second person to publish his fully sequenced genome online earlier this year. Dr Watson was forced to resign his post as head of a research laboratory in New York shortly after triggering an international furore by questioning the comparative intelligence of Africans. In an interview during his recent British book tour, the American scientist said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".
The Science Museum in London cancelled a lecture by him, while the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, branded his comments "racist propaganda".
Other scientists working in the field of molecular biology quickly distanced themselves from the comments, saying that it was not possible to draw such conclusions from the work that had been done on DNA.
The study of the DNA of Dr Watson – who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine – adds another twist to the controversy surrounding the American scientist's comments.
In addition to the 16 per cent of his genes which were identified as likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent, a further 9 per cent were likely to have come from an ancestor of Asian descent, the test indicated.
Reposted from: The Independant (UK)
Revealed: scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
By Robert Verkaik
Published: 10 December 2007
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who provoked a public outcry by claiming black Africans were less intelligent than whites has a DNA profile with up to 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.An analysis of the genome of James Watson showed that 16 per cent of his genes were likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent. By contrast, most people of European descent would have no more than 1 per cent.
"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics, whose company carried out the analysis. "It was very surprising to get this result for Jim."
The findings were made available after Dr Watson became only the second person to publish his fully sequenced genome online earlier this year. Dr Watson was forced to resign his post as head of a research laboratory in New York shortly after triggering an international furore by questioning the comparative intelligence of Africans. In an interview during his recent British book tour, the American scientist said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".
The Science Museum in London cancelled a lecture by him, while the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, branded his comments "racist propaganda".
Other scientists working in the field of molecular biology quickly distanced themselves from the comments, saying that it was not possible to draw such conclusions from the work that had been done on DNA.
The study of the DNA of Dr Watson – who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine – adds another twist to the controversy surrounding the American scientist's comments.
In addition to the 16 per cent of his genes which were identified as likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent, a further 9 per cent were likely to have come from an ancestor of Asian descent, the test indicated.
2007/10/16
Glenn Beck warns America about the imminent danger posed by "Lawfare"
Count Lawfare coming to devour our sovereignty...so I'm sitting on the couch playing with my dogs and the Glenn beck Show comes on. I'm not a big fan, but I do find his show entertaining so I 'tune in' just a bit so I can hear Glenn describe his new and compelling evidence about the impending collapse of the sky (which was symbolically referenced by Mahmood Ahmedinijad in a UN speech).
He piqued my interest with a newly coined term; "lawfare." He goes on to explain that "Lawfare" is being waged upon us by foreign nations who enter into treaties with us (LOST, SEA, Kyoto, etc). Then, once we've signed the treaties, those nations use the agreements to weaken our position in the world and to "attack our sovereignty without setting a single boot on the ground."
that's sounds SPOOKY... Except for the fact that it's bullshit
Actually, I don't know if this line of reason even qualifies as a an SP. It's too coarse to be considered sophistical.
If Mr. Beck is to be believed, we must swallow the Blue pill which contains the idea that our Sovereignty is at risk because we dialogue and make agreements with other nations. Moreover, you'd have to accept that the treaties we've entered thus far are not reasoned and thoughtful agreements reached by rational and intelligent men and woman; but rather they are ploys and traps set upon our nation unbeknownest to our leadership, who lack the proper political perspective. Conversely, that would mean that we could somehow enhance our position in the world by continuing to act unilaterally.
Note to the neo-cons, terror-pimps, and fear-mongers: Our tendencies toward a Xenophobic Nationalism are precisely how we squandered the sympathy and good will of the community of Nations after 9/11.
Glenn-Beck news current-events conservative politics
2007/10/12
Boot camp employees found not guilty in 14 year-old boy's death
This is an interesting article in that it contains 2 SP's necessary to facilitate acceptance of it's conclusion. The SP's are highlighted in red and are followed by my comments in italics...
PANAMA CITY, Florida (AP) --
Seven former boot camp guards and a nurse were acquitted Friday of manslaughter in the death of a 14-year-old boy who was hit and kicked by the drill instructors in a videotaped altercation.
The video of a limp Martin Lee Anderson being hit and kicked by the guards after he collapsed while exercising drew protests in the state capital and spelled the end of Florida's system of boot camps for juvenile offenders.
Anderson died at a hospital the day after the altercation.
The defendants, however, said they followed the rules at a get-tough facility where young offenders often feigned illness to avoid exercise. Their attorneys said that Anderson died not from rough treatment, but from a previously undiagnosed blood disorder.
Former guard Henry McFadden later said he was relieved that the case was over: "We were innocent all along. We knew this truth would come out," he told Court TV.
The boy's mother, Gina Jones, stormed out of the courtroom after the verdict was read. "I cannot see my son no more. Everybody see their family members. It's wrong," she said, distraught.
Her lawyer, Benjamin Crump, told reporters outside: "You kill a dog, you go to jail. You kill a little black boy and nothing happens."
Anderson's family had long sought a trial, claiming the state tried to cover up the case, and repeatedly sat through the painful video as it played during trial. Watch the boy fall to the ground »
The all-white jury took about 90 minutes to decide whether the guards were responsible for the death of Anderson, who was black. The guards, who are white, black and Asian, stood quietly as the judge read the verdicts.
The case in pictures
The defendants would have faced up to 30 years in prison had they been convicted of aggravated manslaughter of child. The jury could have convicted them of lesser charges, including child neglect and culpable negligence, but did not.
Aside from hitting Anderson, the guards dragged him around the military-style camp's exercise yard and forced him to inhale ammonia capsules in what they said was an attempt to revive him. The nurse stood by watching.
Defense attorneys argued that the guards properly handled what they thought was a juvenile offender faking illness to avoid exercising on his first day in the camp. He was brought there for violating probation for stealing his grandmother's car and trespassing at a school.
***SP ALERT***
The defense said Anderson's death was unavoidable because he had undiagnosed sickle cell trait, a usually harmless blood disorder that can hinder blood cells' ability to carry oxygen during physical stress.
Let me say at the onset, I have Sickle Cell trait, as does my Father, my Paternal Grandmother, and my Son. As a former soldier and personal trainer, I can say with some degree of certainty that people with Sickle Cell trait don't simply "die" when exposed to exercise.
However, if someone collapsed while exercising and was having difficulty breathing, forceably covering their mouth while holding ammonia tablets under their nostrils might well bring about their death.
To argue that 'Sickle Cell Trait', which is not at all uncommon in the African American community, is what caused his death is to say that suffocating him had no real effect... -That's the minnow on the line-
(If you simply "WANT" to believe that the guards are innocent, swallow the "blue pill" and keep on reading)
Prosecutors said the eight defendants neglected the boy by neglecting his medical needs after he collapsed while running laps. They said the defendants suffocated Anderson by covering his mouth and forcing him to inhale ammonia.
"You may not hear anything coming out of that video sound-wise, but that video is screaming to you in a loud, clear voice, it is telling you that these defendants killed Martin Lee Anderson," prosecutor Scott Harmon said in his closing argument.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
***SP ALERT #2***
An initial autopsy by the medical examiner for Bay County found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
Sickle Cell was a biological adaptation to Malaria. Blood Cells take on 'sickle' like shapes and they are thereby less able to carry Malaria through the bloodstream. Conversely, they also suffer a diminished ability to move oxygen through the blood.
Persons with Sickle Cell or Sickle Cell trait can exercise and train and function normally. It simply requires that those individuals build up their cardio capacity.
It is seemingly plausible to argue that young Martin Anderson's O2 capacity was to blame... after all, he died from a lack of oxygen right? and sickle cell trait affects your body's ability to carry oxygen through your blood right?
But to accept that conclusion means you must first accept another; that covering the mouth of someone struggling for breath while holding ammonia tablets under their nostrils is a harmless act.
His Sickle Cell trait WAS clearly responsible for his exhaustion and difficulty breathing. The hand that was subsequently placed over his mouth and the ammonia held under his nose were responsible for the fact that he Stopped breathing.
The death led to the resignation of Florida Department of Law Enforcement chief Guy Tunnell, who established the camp when he was Bay County sheriff.
Then-Gov. Jeb Bush appointed Mark Ober, state attorney for Hillsborough County, as special prosecutor in the case. Bush also scolded Tunnell for exchanging e-mails with current Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen, in which he criticized those who questioned the effectiveness of the boot camp concept. He also made light of the protesters in the state capital.
The Legislature agreed to pay Anderson's family $5 million earlier this year to settle civil claims. E-mail to a friend
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
current events
PANAMA CITY, Florida (AP) --
Seven former boot camp guards and a nurse were acquitted Friday of manslaughter in the death of a 14-year-old boy who was hit and kicked by the drill instructors in a videotaped altercation.
The video of a limp Martin Lee Anderson being hit and kicked by the guards after he collapsed while exercising drew protests in the state capital and spelled the end of Florida's system of boot camps for juvenile offenders.
Anderson died at a hospital the day after the altercation.
The defendants, however, said they followed the rules at a get-tough facility where young offenders often feigned illness to avoid exercise. Their attorneys said that Anderson died not from rough treatment, but from a previously undiagnosed blood disorder.
Former guard Henry McFadden later said he was relieved that the case was over: "We were innocent all along. We knew this truth would come out," he told Court TV.
The boy's mother, Gina Jones, stormed out of the courtroom after the verdict was read. "I cannot see my son no more. Everybody see their family members. It's wrong," she said, distraught.
Her lawyer, Benjamin Crump, told reporters outside: "You kill a dog, you go to jail. You kill a little black boy and nothing happens."
Anderson's family had long sought a trial, claiming the state tried to cover up the case, and repeatedly sat through the painful video as it played during trial. Watch the boy fall to the ground »
The all-white jury took about 90 minutes to decide whether the guards were responsible for the death of Anderson, who was black. The guards, who are white, black and Asian, stood quietly as the judge read the verdicts.
The case in pictures
The defendants would have faced up to 30 years in prison had they been convicted of aggravated manslaughter of child. The jury could have convicted them of lesser charges, including child neglect and culpable negligence, but did not.
Aside from hitting Anderson, the guards dragged him around the military-style camp's exercise yard and forced him to inhale ammonia capsules in what they said was an attempt to revive him. The nurse stood by watching.
Defense attorneys argued that the guards properly handled what they thought was a juvenile offender faking illness to avoid exercising on his first day in the camp. He was brought there for violating probation for stealing his grandmother's car and trespassing at a school.
***SP ALERT***
The defense said Anderson's death was unavoidable because he had undiagnosed sickle cell trait, a usually harmless blood disorder that can hinder blood cells' ability to carry oxygen during physical stress.
Let me say at the onset, I have Sickle Cell trait, as does my Father, my Paternal Grandmother, and my Son. As a former soldier and personal trainer, I can say with some degree of certainty that people with Sickle Cell trait don't simply "die" when exposed to exercise.
However, if someone collapsed while exercising and was having difficulty breathing, forceably covering their mouth while holding ammonia tablets under their nostrils might well bring about their death.
To argue that 'Sickle Cell Trait', which is not at all uncommon in the African American community, is what caused his death is to say that suffocating him had no real effect... -That's the minnow on the line-
(If you simply "WANT" to believe that the guards are innocent, swallow the "blue pill" and keep on reading)
Prosecutors said the eight defendants neglected the boy by neglecting his medical needs after he collapsed while running laps. They said the defendants suffocated Anderson by covering his mouth and forcing him to inhale ammonia.
"You may not hear anything coming out of that video sound-wise, but that video is screaming to you in a loud, clear voice, it is telling you that these defendants killed Martin Lee Anderson," prosecutor Scott Harmon said in his closing argument.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
***SP ALERT #2***
An initial autopsy by the medical examiner for Bay County found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
Sickle Cell was a biological adaptation to Malaria. Blood Cells take on 'sickle' like shapes and they are thereby less able to carry Malaria through the bloodstream. Conversely, they also suffer a diminished ability to move oxygen through the blood.
Persons with Sickle Cell or Sickle Cell trait can exercise and train and function normally. It simply requires that those individuals build up their cardio capacity.
It is seemingly plausible to argue that young Martin Anderson's O2 capacity was to blame... after all, he died from a lack of oxygen right? and sickle cell trait affects your body's ability to carry oxygen through your blood right?
But to accept that conclusion means you must first accept another; that covering the mouth of someone struggling for breath while holding ammonia tablets under their nostrils is a harmless act.
His Sickle Cell trait WAS clearly responsible for his exhaustion and difficulty breathing. The hand that was subsequently placed over his mouth and the ammonia held under his nose were responsible for the fact that he Stopped breathing.
The death led to the resignation of Florida Department of Law Enforcement chief Guy Tunnell, who established the camp when he was Bay County sheriff.
Then-Gov. Jeb Bush appointed Mark Ober, state attorney for Hillsborough County, as special prosecutor in the case. Bush also scolded Tunnell for exchanging e-mails with current Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen, in which he criticized those who questioned the effectiveness of the boot camp concept. He also made light of the protesters in the state capital.
The Legislature agreed to pay Anderson's family $5 million earlier this year to settle civil claims. E-mail to a friend
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
current events
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)